Go fuck yourselves FSG

[Anubis]

22 minutes ago, m0e said:

Can anyone please sum this up for me?

Scott_M is getting paid by FSG to put their propaganda out on this and the transfer thread, but they don’t know that he’s using the fortune they’re paying him to buy blag football gear off DH Gate instead of official merchandise. If they find out there could be trouble ahead for our naughty little scamp.

[KMD7]

18 minutes ago, s(k)aturation said:

 

Our Boston chaps will be very happy to finish fourth.

 

 

Fourth is the new Fourth.

[s(k)aturation]

16 minutes ago, KMD7 said:

Fourth is the new Fourth.

 

Oh joy, do we get to be the new Arsenal?

[Creator Supreme]

2 minutes ago, s(k)aturation said:

 

Oh joy, do we get to be the new Arsenal?

8th is the new 4th!

[Scott_M]

26 minutes ago, Anubis said:

Scott_M is getting paid by FSG to put their propaganda out on this and the transfer thread, but they don’t know that he’s using the fortune they’re paying him to buy blag football gear off DH Gate instead of official merchandise. If they find out there could be trouble ahead for our naughty little scamp.

Shit, I’ve been rumbled!

[Barrington Womble]

1 hour ago, aRdja said:

With all due real to FrenchEyeGlass that’s anecdotal, and the article you posted actually refutes that. Take EY for example, the FRC found 70% of their work are of satisfactory quality and require no improvements, (worth noting that only one audit was identified to require significant improvements, which equates to 7%,  source posted below). However that was deemed not quite good enough, and they were instructed to implement urgent improvements. If anything this should provide you with some comfort that their work gets reviewed regularly and very high standards are expected and applied.

 

https://www.accountancydaily.co/aqi-2020-frc-finds-third-audits-need-improvement

What's anecdotal? His job. Stop it,

[s(k)aturation]

3 minutes ago, Scott_M said:

Shit, I’ve been rumbled!

 

No wonder you could afford the bottles of Budweiser and I only had the pints of Carling.

 

 

[Jose Jones]

19 hours ago, Barrington Womble said:

With a wage bill of 326m and a turnover at 500m, it's pretty hard to understand how we're skint. The stadium extension costs about £10m a year iirc. What are the rest of the running costs from there? Maintain the stadium, run a training ground (I am not sure if that's been done on credit or not but it would seem surprising if it wasn't), run an office in town, run one in London - anything else? It's a pretty simple business model. We're doing something wrong somewhere. 

£130 million or so lost from COVID, plus another £120 million or so for the new Anny Road isn’t it?
Why is it so hard to understand how we’re skint?

 

[aRdja]

31 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

What's anecdotal? His job. Stop it,

I’ve used the source you provided to refute the conclusion that “all accounts are useless”. It’s a very broad and bold statement. On their own they’re probably not very useful to make investment decisions as you need to understand key drivers behind the numbers. Salary costs or matchday income on the other hand are quite straightforward, no? The testing for rem costs should be quite straightforward too, as they’re all automated now with ERP systems like Workday, SAP and Oracle. You just pick a couple of transactions, check they system postings against the payslips and the bank statements.

 

Maybe just give me an idea as to what do you think they’ve done and for what purpose. Do you think they’ve inflated the salary costs and paid themselves? Is that it?

[Barrington Womble]

7 minutes ago, Jose Jones said:

£130 million or so lost from COVID, plus another £120 million or so for the new Anny Road isn’t it?
Why is it so hard to understand how we’re skint?

 

So why were we skint before covid? We spent nothing after winning the European cup because we "had to pay the bills". In the 2 years we were supposedly skint pre-covid, we made 125m profit and 42m profit. 

 

The road end is 60m, but they're not paying that now, they're borrowing it (and so they should, borrowing is cheap at the moment). Even with revenues down because of covid in the latest accounts (including the end of the season being played in the financial year yet to be released), we still turned over 490m, with a wage bill of 326m.

 

It's a simple question, what's the rest going on? It's not a complex business model. We maintain a small office in town. An even smaller footprint in Bloomsbury. All of our non-playing wage bill including directors is included in the 326m.  We made enormous profits pre pandemic, yet we were skint then. 

 

Suck up the "we're skint" story if you like, I think it's fucking nonsense. 

 

 

[Barrington Womble]

10 minutes ago, aRdja said:

I’ve used the source you provided to refute the conclusion that “all accounts are useless”. It’s a very broad and bold statement. On their own they’re probably not very useful to make investment decisions as you need to understand key drivers behind the numbers. Salary costs or matchday income on the other hand are quite straightforward, no? The testing for rem costs should be quite straightforward too, as they’re all automated now with ERP systems like Workday, SAP and Oracle. You just pick a couple of transactions, check they system postings against the payslips and the bank statements.

 

Maybe just give me an idea as to what do you think they’ve done and for what purpose. Do you think they’ve inflated the salary costs and paid themselves? Is that it?

Those automated systems do not publish your accounts. You're thinking of accounting like a bank statement. The allocation of spend is human driven, computers don't do it. As I said before, I can't be bothered arguing about it. If accounts were worth the paper they're written on, companies like carrilion wouldn't have gone bust. 

[Scott_M]

Well, construction is obviously the same as football, so that’s the end of that debate. 
 

Obviously every company in the world just does accounts for shit and giggles. 

[Scott_M]

35 minutes ago, Jose Jones said:

£130 million or so lost from COVID, plus another £120 million or so for the new Anny Road isn’t it?
Why is it so hard to understand how we’re skint?

 

And the profits we made on the back of the CL win, probably covered the previous 10 years of losses. 

 

It really is that simple.

[Horus]

2 hours ago, Rotpeter said:

Over here the SEC has teeth, hence arthur andersens no longer exist for example.   Perhaps the UK is more laissez faire.

We don't have any money to buy French players.

[aRdja]

24 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

Those automated systems do not publish your accounts. You're thinking of accounting like a bank statement. The allocation of spend is human driven, computers don't do it. As I said before, I can't be bothered arguing about it. If accounts were worth the paper they're written on, companies like carrilion wouldn't have gone bust. 

They kind of do Barry. The payroll system is generally integrated with the general ledger, and the P&L statement is really just a summary of the ledger for costs and revenue. The entries are quite straightforward too, and easily testable. 
 

Wrt the highlighted bit, I don’t think it’s wise to draw such a conclusion. A death from malpractice doesn’t mean western medicine is automatically useless for example.

[Barrington Womble]

7 minutes ago, aRdja said:

They kind of do Barry. The payroll system is generally integrated with the general ledger, and the P&L statement is really just a summary of the ledger for costs and revenue. The entries are quite straightforward too, and easily testable. 
 

Wrt the highlighted bit, I don’t think it’s wise to draw such a conclusion. A death from malpractice doesn’t mean western medicine is automatically useless for example.

Ok, the accounts are great and we're skint. Yawn.

[aRdja]

32 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

So why were we skint before covid? We spent nothing after winning the European cup because we "had to pay the bills". In the 2 years we were supposedly skint pre-covid, we made 125m profit and 42m profit. 

 

The road end is 60m, but they're not paying that now, they're borrowing it (and so they should, borrowing is cheap at the moment). Even with revenues down because of covid in the latest accounts (including the end of the season being played in the financial year yet to be released), we still turned over 490m, with a wage bill of 326m.

 

It's a simple question, what's the rest going on? It's not a complex business model. We maintain a small office in town. An even smaller footprint in Bloomsbury. All of our non-playing wage bill including directors is included in the 326m.  We made enormous profits pre pandemic, yet we were skint then. 

 

Suck up the "we're skint" story if you like, I think it's fucking nonsense. 

 

 

Have you taken into account depreciation & amortisation? I’d say that’d be quite material. 

[Barrington Womble]

Just now, aRdja said:

Have you taken into account depreciation & amortisation? I’d say that’d be quite material. 

We're skint. I agree. I only hope they keep us from bankruptcy. And I'll worship them if they can just find a way to buy a player worth tens of millions for a 5m release clause. It could make all the difference keeping us afloat. 

[Scott_M]

4 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

Ok, the accounts are great and we're skint. Yawn.

 

[Scott_M]

Watch out @aRdja, despite initiating contact, Barry Wrong will be calling you a bellend next, saying you gargle John Henry’s balls and that your stalking him. 
 

Because that’s what generally happens when the many, many flaws in his arguments are pointed out. 
 

Don’t worry, he’ll go quiet for a bit and then pick another poster to pick on. 

[aRdja]

Just now, Barrington Womble said:

We're skint. I agree. I only hope they keep us from bankruptcy. And I'll worship them if they can just find a way to buy a player worth tens of millions for a 5m release clause. It could make all the difference keeping us afloat. 

Sorry Barry where has this come from? It’s been a robust but respectful discussion I honestly thought. I’d regret it if I had come across any other way. 

[SlugTrail]

3 hours ago, Scott_M said:

If audited accounts are only right 70% of the time, that means they are only wrong 30% of the time.
 

So there is more than double the chance they are right than wrong.

 

So wouldn’t it make sense to go with the overwhelming majority than the minority? 
 

There is a 30% our accounts are wrong but a 70% our accounts are right? 
 

Or is that too simple and those with no inside knowledge of accounting, audit and football finances know better?

Well the big six make up 30% of the league so maybe that's is the 30% that are wrong. Its a conspiracy I tells ya.

[Scott_M]

Just now, SlugTrail said:

Well the big six make up 30% of the league so maybe that's is the 30% that are wrong. Its a conspiracy I tells ya.

Funny you should say that, I was thinking similar while I post that. 

[SlugTrail]

From my experience of audits, yes you can push things in a certain direction to show what you want, but you can't just make shit up. 

 

Our previous 2 years account showed we made about 140m profit, we then made a 46m loss and from the sounds of it we made a loss of about 120m for last season. 

 

I get as frustrated as the next person about not signing players but to think the club are just holding back money to syphon out of the club through an accounting process is ridiculous. Audits might not be 100% correct but it they were doing this it would be obvious in the detailed account that would be submitted to the auditor. 

 

No Auditor is going to risk their reputation to look the other way on something like this, as they could go to jail themselves if it came to light.

[Red_or_Dead]

Fucking hell this thread is turning out like the arguing in the pub after the AGM of the accountants union.