[spireitenag]

freelander2, on 18 February 2017 - 08:50 AM, said:

If that was the case:

CFC Football Development School Ltd - Estimated total deficiency = £70K

Therefore FBT International Football Academy Ltd, which was incorporated on 21/01/16 has managed to trade at a £230K loss in 12 months?

Is that what we're saying?


EDIT - The estimate total deficiency of CFCFDS has got to be greater than £70K. The value of the balance sheet at 30/06/15 was -£78K and I think it's fair to assume, it continued to be loss making.

It's not difficult to trade at a loss when you don't actually pay any of your creditors and don't pass all incoming monies through your accounts.

[moondog]

The one thing that stands out for me is given the statement, the accountants cannot be culpable for the mess as they can only produce accounts from the documentation provided,

It was both Directors that woukd have agreed to the following in each year of the ventures accounts

"The directors anticipate that the company will generate profits and be in a positive financial position in the future"

[Guest_freelander2_*]

moondog, on 18 February 2017 - 11:47 AM, said:

The one thing that stands out for me is given the statement, the accountants cannot be culpable for the mess as they can only produce accounts from the documentation provided

Spot on.

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

Can the business and accountancy bods on here explain this to me?

My interpretation is that those overseeing the books are somehow distancing themselves, possibly because they smell something extremely whiffy but it's beyond their remit to detail it.

About right?

[Mrhappy]

MDCCCLXVI, on 19 February 2017 - 12:31 PM, said:

Can the business and accountancy bods on here explain this to me?

My interpretation is that those overseeing the books are somehow distancing themselves, possibly because they smell something extremely whiffy but it's beyond their remit to detail it.

About right?

That's my understanding of it!

[DIFH]

spireitenag, on 18 February 2017 - 11:42 AM, said:

It's not difficult to trade at a loss when you don't actually pay any of your creditors and don't pass all incoming monies through your accounts.

But you do have to account where all the cash has gone to the insolvency service in the end. The insolvency practioner will want his fee and where pray tell me will that come from.

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

Dave In Footie Heaven, on 19 February 2017 - 01:08 PM, said:

The insolvency practioner will want his fee and where pray tell me will that come from.

That's actually a very good point, Dave.

Will Sutcliffe and Turner pay?

'FBT'?

Or will it be another bill that somehow finds it's way to the Club...

[shaun1866]

MDCCCLXVI, on 19 February 2017 - 02:16 PM, said:

That's actually a very good point, Dave.

Will Sutcliffe and Turner pay?

'FBT'?

Or will it be another bill that somehow finds it's way to the Club...

Depends who called them in

[Wooden Spoon]

What a shame, what a tragedy that our club has been treated like this.

[isleaiw1]

MDCCCLXVI, on 19 February 2017 - 12:31 PM, said:

Can the business and accountancy bods on here explain this to me?

My interpretation is that those overseeing the books are somehow distancing themselves, possibly because they smell something extremely whiffy but it's beyond their remit to detail it.

About right?

That is a standard wording used when an audit has not been carried out (because the business is below the threshold for requiring one). Its a cover all so you cant sue the accountants for getting it wrong when they can only rely on information provided by management and havent checked the true and fair view of what has been provided. Bog standard and applied to thousands of sets of accounts produced for small companies all over the country.

Now the business is in administration / liquidation it is up to Booth and Co to get in all the assets it can and pay out a fair settlement to each creditor (ie all get the same proportion of their debt repaid - if any - once preferential creditors like the tax man and anyone with security over an asset) have been paid. It wont fall to the directors to repay unless they are found to be guilty of trading when insolvent - but that is extremely rare.

The parents who provide proof of debt will rank equally with other creditors unless the new parent decides to repay them as a gesture of goodwill outside of the remit of the liquidation.

[Guest_freelander2_*]

dim view, on 18 February 2017 - 10:12 AM, said:

How does Hegarty score on the patented Freelander Shadiness Calculator?

I've wondered for sometime what the relationship is with their board and ours.

Sir Dave Richards?

Freemasons?

Lotto Sportswear?

[Mrhappy]

Well Hegarty seems to share the CFC ethos of not replying to e mails.

[moondog]

isleaiw1, on 21 February 2017 - 11:53 AM, said:

That is a standard wording used when an audit has not been carried out (because the business is below the threshold for requiring one). Its a cover all so you cant sue the accountants for getting it wrong when they can only rely on information provided by management and havent checked the true and fair view of what has been provided. Bog standard and applied to thousands of sets of accounts produced for small companies all over the country. Now the business is in administration / liquidation it is up to Booth and Co to get in all the assets it can and pay out a fair settlement to each creditor (ie all get the same proportion of their debt repaid - if any - once preferential creditors like the tax man and anyone with security over an asset) have been paid. It wont fall to the directors to repay unless they are found to be guilty of trading when insolvent - but that is extremely rare. The parents who provide proof of debt will rank equally with other creditors unless the new parent decides to repay them as a gesture of goodwill outside of the remit of the liquidation.

You say it's standard wording but miss the point that it wasn't included in the first years accounts. One can deduce that only when the accountants got to know the client better they thought it wise to add it in. Sensible as AC publicly (on facebook) sought to suggest one of the firms accountants (who he named) could be culpable for the position the business found itself in.

[Guest_freelander2_*]

moondog, on 14 February 2017 - 04:19 PM, said:

Yes Mike Hegarty from FBT is supposed to be writing to them asking them to confirm back how much they are owed with a view to arranging payment.

What's the latest on this?

Something has just dawned on me, given that FBT are nothing to do with CFC Football Development School Ltd, why are they offering to pay up the parents and scholars who are owed money? Where is the money coming from to fund these refunds?

Do you think Mike Hegarty is aware of the allegations which have been made by the former members of staff?

[Guest_freelander2_*]

moondog, on 21 February 2017 - 12:30 PM, said:

You say it's standard wording but miss the point that it wasn't included in the first years accounts. One can deduce that only when the accountants got to know the client better they thought it wise to add it in. Sensible as AC publicly (on facebook) sought to suggest one of the firms accountants (who he named) could be culpable for the position the business found itself in.

Who introduced the accountants to CFC, CFC Community Trust & CFC Football Development School?

[moondog]

freelander2, on 21 February 2017 - 12:36 PM, said:

What's the latest on this? Something has just dawned on me, given that FBT are nothing to do with CFC Football Development School Ltd, why are they offering to pay up the parents and scholars who are owed money? Where is the money coming from to fund these refunds? Do you think Mike Hegarty is aware of the allegations which have been made by the former members of staff?

AC was to speak with Hegarty yesterday.<BR><BR>1. AC says because CFC wil refuse to co-operate with them in future if they don't.<BR>2. FBT, up to them to get it off the director(s) who created the problem <BR>3. Not sure, AC passed on his email address so former members of staff may have been in touch directly. <BR><BR>

freelander2, on 21 February 2017 - 12:44 PM, said:

Who introduced the accountants to CFC, CFC Community Trust &amp; CFC Football Development School?

<BR> <BR>I'm not sure or can't remember, do you know who ?

[Guest_freelander2_*]

moondog, on 21 February 2017 - 12:53 PM, said:

I'm not sure or can't remember, do you know who ?

It might be worth asking AC.

http://mobile.cheste...rd-1345916.aspx

This post has been edited by freelander2: 21 February 2017 - 01:36 PM

[isleaiw1]

moondog, on 21 February 2017 - 12:30 PM, said:

You say it's standard wording but miss the point that it wasn't included in the first years accounts. One can deduce that only when the accountants got to know the client better they thought it wise to add it in. Sensible as AC publicly (on facebook) sought to suggest one of the firms accountants (who he named) could be culpable for the position the business found itself in.

Did they do an audit the year before? If not then they were remiss to not include. Nothing to do with knowing client - first rule is to manage your own risk and if you cant offer an opinion on true and fair view then make sure people know that. There were changes in the audit exemption threshold around about that time but cant see them affecting this company.

[isleaiw1]

freelander2, on 21 February 2017 - 01:32 PM, said:

It might be worth asking AC.

http://mobile.cheste...rd-1345916.aspx

Aged 28 and he has over 12 years experience... so he started from school then. Wonder if he has any qualifications and any experience of dealing with challenging clients....

[60s 70s Spireite]

isleaiw1, on 21 February 2017 - 01:54 PM, said:

Aged 28 and he has over 12 years experience... so he started from school then. Wonder if he has any qualifications and any experience of dealing with challenging clients....

ACA qualified.
https://www.linkedin...aining-76a77621

Clearly Lindricks didn't last long at CFC 2001 Limited- as Shorts do all the management accounts now.