Today is a day I have been looking forward to for 6 months. Not because it is the end of season but because today is the day our club is due to file its annual accounts for the period to end of May 2008. Yes, that's the year's accounts to end of 2007/8 season which were due to be filed at the end of November 2008!
Our board took a decision to delay that filing for some strange reason and used a little known rule designed to help companies changing their accounting year, to take a 3 months delay. We changed our accounting period by a cynical 3 days from 31st May 2008 to 28th May 2008 which meant the accounts did not have to be filed until 28th February 2009.
For some unknown reason at 28th February 2009 we changed our accounting year again from ending 28th May 2008 to 25th May 2008! Still following this? It meant our revised date allowed us to file another 3 months late on 25th May 2009.
That's why I was looking forward to finding out what had happened with our club's finances during BG's failing business empire's rapid decline. Yes you've guessed it! We have now changed our accounting period a third time and the year ended May 2008 now finishes on 22nd May giving us yet another 3 months delay in filing to 22nd August 2009! That's 1 year and 9 months after the year to May 2008 finished and 9 months overdue.
BG does not want us to see what has happened to the club's finances! Why? There are three possibilities I can think of:-
1) We made a huge profit and BG does not want our creditors to get their hands on it!
2) BG put our club finances in his bank Landsbanki which has failed and is hoping we'll get something back from the Iceland government before the fans find out.
3) BG has taken a lot of money out West Ham to bolster up his failed empire and doesn't fancy being strung up by fans when it comes out.
4) We were technically insolvent at the end of May 2008. By deferring filing our accounts by 9 months it gives the club time to make a profit in the current financial year and get us out of having to go into administration.
Does anyone else have a suggestion why?
Billbansky
56 comments:
Before the insults start, I am NOT the author of this article. It is an interesting read, however.
Or how about the real reason? Is this chap serious about those 4 comments?
There was a story in the papers a few months back that the auditors wouldn't sign off the accounts therefore they couldn't be published.
Anonymous said:
You are such a wanker hammersfan! I will again, write to newsnow to get you kicked off! You talk complete nonsense!
Edited to remove the f word and the c word.
Like News Now are going to care about a foul mouthed buffoon like you! Write away you sad little fool. But please, when leaving comments on here, take into account that there are people who are offended by revolting obscenities. I will point out again that I am not the author of the article. Just check the syntax and language choices, you will see it is a different author. Hang on, that would involve you having a brain and being able to process! No chance! Grow up!
Sorry complete guess work unfounded, you should know the A/C could not be signed off due to sheff utd and knowing the outcome and how much monies to be paid to them depending on if they got automatic promotion or through the play offs or not at all, as the case turned out (only this sunday), so they only know the financial burden, we are obviously a sound financial business or BG's creditors would not be interested in us, why take on more debt to pay back a debt
Whilst you aren't the author of this piece, why would you forward it for debate when it is so ridiculous, surely you agree it is terrible and ridiculous, and not even close to the truth? Or aren't you so educated within the realms of finance?
I wrote the article 20:19 and it is true that we have delayed filing our annual accounts for 9months so far. Anyone can check this at Companies House by the following link which shows our accounts as now being due on 22/08/09 when they should be filed within 6 months of the year end date - http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/23dc5ffcb87a1b30ce1022eab55e97f4/compdetails This is most unusual and there are only the 4 possibilities that I can think of and they are all listed in the article.
When auditors refuse to sign off the accounts it is another way of saying the company is not solvent 20:24. The only way auditors will sign off accounts is if they put a statement into the accounts that in their opinion the company is insolvent and unable to meet all its liabilities. Bjorgolfur Gudmundsson is a bankrupt and our parent company Hansa, is under Icelandic courts protection from its creditors putting them into bankruptcy so if West Ham was declared by our auditors as being insolvent then we would go straight into administration. BG's fraudulent habits (he does have a criminal record for fraud btw) may actually have saved us from administration!
Billbanksy
To the critics, I neither endorse nor condemn the article. I do not have an explanation for the delay and am happy to carry opinions. The original article does invite alternative suggestions. Sadly, knee jerk abuse will not make the problem go away.
Billbanksy, are you really aware of how accounts and year ending reports work? If you answer yes to that question your complete summary and 4 points made is, at best, laughable.
Why 2119, explain. You know better so enlighten me and the other readers please. And post your accountancy qualifications whilst you are about it.
Hammersfan, in response to your response at 21.19, I am giving the author the opportunity to redeem himself before he makes himself look even more stupid. Sometimes you may wish to vet and research the articles if you want to be taken seriously as a blog.
And I am inviting you to establish your credentials and offer a counter explanation. It is cheap and easy to insult but more difficult to offer a genuine counter argument. The floor is yours!
i have no idea why they would do this. but it sounds like they know what they are doing.
i should think it is something to do with profits and waiting to see our final league position for europe.
just want to say though.. that i have alot of faith in our accountants and lawyers and feel they have done admirably ove rthe last few years. Especially in light of the tevez affair.. i think the out of court settlement was a win for us and it wouldnt surprise me if it was a completely nominal fee (or we would have seen mcabe prancing in front of the media celebrating).
i think, as a club, we are probably breaking just about even and hopefully with a few playing staff changes we can start making some much better financial gains.
theotheroverlandandsea
Now that is wonderful optimism. I hope you are right but I doubt it! We sadly admitted guilt when we agreed to the out of court settlement. My interpretation was a desperate need to crystallize the liability in the hope of finding a buyer. The failure of that buyer to come forward thus far is worrying. That fat pillock Bose on the BBC seems to think he has an exclusive and that a deal to sell the club could be in place tomorrow but he always strikes me as a pompous buffoon who wants to say "Mihir Bose for the BBC pontificating on something I know F all about." This time, I hope he is in the know.
I'm familiar with annual accounts filing as I am a director of a PLC but not an accountant 21:19. Why are you questioning me like you know something? I invited other suggestions so either put up or shut up.
Billbanksy
There are many loopholes that allow you to publish your accounts and reports late, but you have to do it within the boundaries of the law, ie if you have to delay for a reason it has to be established that you aren't doing it fraudulently, otherwise these loopholes would not exist. It is obvious that the first set of accounts could not be published or weren't published to allow for the Tevez settlement which would have had to be done and completed in a favourable way otherwise immediate publication of bad debt/liqidity would have had to been notified. WHUFC can manipulate their own provisions and projections for the purpose of take over negotiations, but once they have to publish their own accounts the cat in proverbially out of the bag. Therefore the delay in establishing their own, "precise, correct, and reasonable" accounts has been delayed for take over negotiation purposes within the loopholes of the law.
Leave your name del.
I apologies Billbanksy but if you were a director of a PLC you wouldn't come out with that drivel unless you wanted to create a pointless debate. I hope you are aware of your responsibilties as a director of a so called PLC, i doubt you are otherwise you would and ouwlnd't post such rubbish!
I can verify that he is.
You can!!! Shame he couldn't!!! Nice try, but not Del.
I know there are legal reasons for not filing accounts 21:39. West Ham have changed their end of year date from 31st May 2008 to 28th May 2008 for one 3 months delay. They then changed that date to 25th May 2008 for a second 3 month delay. Now they have changed to 22nd May 2008 for a third time. As they have changed accounting dates 3 times now then perhaps you wouldn't mind explaining to us all what other reason involves a change of date? I don't think the Tevez settlement had anything to do with a delay in filing accounts. It seemed a likely scenario at the time but you have to remember that our chairman has a criminal record for fraud.
I see they have picked this story up on KUMB Hammersfan! Funny that all their financial ITK's missed the fact that we have delayed filing accounts until this article!
Billbanksy
Billbanksy, this is a debate about why they did it and you have come out with 4 ridiculous reasons and I have told you one perfectly sound and probable reason. Why I would entertain you request for giving you insight into reasons why accounts can be submitted late on a football blog is beyond me. Maybe you can spend 5 minutes with your CFO of the PLC you are a director of to better understand finance before you further write such ridiculous articles. BTW - let me know which PLC you are a director of so I can stay clear with any future share investments please.
21:43 exactly what rubbish are you talking about? I gave 4 scenarios and each of them is a reasonable assumption from what I know. You on the other hand I suspect, are merely being defensive about the club we all love. Doesn't make you right though. Please say what is specifically wrong with my article instead of making unfounded comments as to my credibility as a company director.
Billbanksy
Billbanks, I am not defending the club I so much love I am giving you knowledge that you don't understand. Do you really wish me to go point by point and make you look silly as a director of a PLC. Please please think first before answering this as your 4 comments are bordering on stupidity.
Sorry 22:03 but you have not given any reason that makes sense for three separate changes of accounting date of 3 days each time. Just explain what set of legal circumstances it is that requires these unusual date changing circumstances please because I don't think there are any.
Billbanksy
There are many a reason a company can change its accountancy period, delay in reporting from registered accountancy firms, certain P&L negotitions that would enhance or degrade liquidity, third party asset valuations etc etc. They could use a million different loopholes but they have to adhere to the law, ie cant say they are going to publish a profit late and then there be a massive deficit.
22:09 Please make me look silly then? As no-one knows me it makes absolutely no difference. There is only one reason for date changes to our accounting year end date - we asked for it to be changed thereby meaning our directors are stretching the rules because they are hiding something.
I do not believe there are any legally acceptable reasons such as - we are the subject of a legal action or we are involved in a take over (unless contracts have been exchanged and according to the BBC tonight an agreement hasn't been made.)
Billbanksy
Well I'm sorry but you are the one talking nonsense 22:22! None of those reasons involve 3 separate date changes to our year end dates now do they!
Billbanksy
Billbanksy, it doesnt matter what reason you given, you can change the dates whether they are right or wrong as long as you arent defrauding someone within the financial realms of the company, these are what you call loopholes. Do you wish a quick 101 in accoutancy? Beggars belief a company director knows so little about things like this.
Sorry 21:08 I missed responding to your points. For a start my argument is that the accountants wouldn't sign off our accounts as at 31 May 2008, due to the unsettled Sheffield United action which we had lost remember. The auditors would have insisted that our club should allow for having to pay to SU all their £47m claim. West Ham only had a £40m balance sheet worth as at 31 May 2007 - the last filed accounts and now 2 years ago!
If our balance sheet worth was unchanged that made us technically insolvent by £7m. At that time we had spent £40m on transfers and were paying big wages to Ljungberg, Parker, Neill, Upson, Bellamy, Dyer and so on. Had we lost say £20m we would have been technically insolvent by £27m as at 31 May 2008 even though we had not sorted out the SU affair so had paid nothing. It was just paper figures but our accountants would have had to declare us insolvent and that would have put us into administration as our owners could not guarantee our future.
In the event we paid off Ljungberg and sold loads of players in two windows to raise over £25m in this financial year. We settled with SU for what is rumoured as £5m a year for 5 years so we may now be back to being solvent and saleable for somewhere around £80m. That's why the banks are interested in West Ham.
Billbanksy
He sounds very much like the idiot from the org who was moved out of Shanghai to me - trying on a windup.
Nice try, keep guessing though.
LOL I agree! Especially following the hasty denial!
22:51 You are talking absolute nonsense. I invited other suggestions as to why we have on three separate occasions delayed our accounts by a total of 9 months! That is almost unique in accounting history for a PLC yet you make it sound as though it happens all the time!
My belief is that it is an attempt to cynically gain 9 months delay in filing our accounts so just say why that is nonsense then Mr wise guy? And if it is a cynical attempt to gain time then surely it defrauds "someone within the financial realms of the company"?
Billbanksy
Actually since Enron in the US it is quite common for auditors to refuse to sign off accounts. The most recent case was broadband provider Tiscali in the UK a few weeks ago. The main reason auditors will not sign off accounts is to do with the servicing of debts in this credit crunch era.It is very likely that West Ham PLC are still renegotiating its debts with its lenders after the failure of the Icelandic banks.
Thanks 00:26 but Tiscali did not change their accounting dates by just 3 days on 3 separate occasions to cynically delay their financial reports for 9 months did they? Let's be real here folks.
Let's put it this way. If my company was asked to quote for doing business with West Ham United, our accounts department would not give them credit terms. They are a PLC but would have to prepay before we did any work for them, that is how serious this is.
The fact that they have changed the accounting date from the end of the month to the 22nd of the month in 3 stages shows it is a desperate and cynical attempt to avoid going public. No-one has shown any other reason than the 4 I gave in the article and for me the most likely is the fourth - we were technically insolvent.
Billbanksy
Hammersfan and BillBanksy - two (or, more than likely just the one) utterly deluded individuals with an over-inflated self-image and sense of importance. The drivel spouted on here is a prime example of what happens when you withdraw yourself from actual social interaction. If they weren't giving all genuine West Ham supports such a bad name and image they would be laughable. As it stands though, it's merely cringe worthy.
Turn of the PC and do something more interesting instead.
Anonymous 1353, why not take your own advice? Don't visit the site if you don't like it. I suspect the language used makes it difficult for you to read all the way through anyway. If you had any ability as a reader, you would see that Billbansky has a completely different writing style to my own. But then, you need a brain to see that!
Very interesting a book keeping lesson from someone that has no qualification to give the lesson, I think I'll wait and see what happens, The season only ended on Sunday and the scaremongering has started, They have to file the accounts sometime and then we'll know, That must be the best way rather than guessing
But that's what we fans have to do when the facts are hidden, speculate.
Well aren't you the negative one 16:20. Just back from school no doubt. If you read the article and not just the headline you will see that I have offered 4 possibilities for not filing accounts for at least 9 months overdue. As you're the one that wants to criticise others efforts why don't you make an alternative suggestion then? You'd be the first critic to do so!
Billbanksy
You have no proof anything has been hidden
(only paranoia) why do you think you should be told anything about the clubs accounts and as they don't need to tell you anything then they are not hiding anything are they. To put it another way it's not your business so you need not be told anything
You tell me to read the article and be rude to me I said if you read my post I'll wait and see
Willywanksy GET A LIFE you know nothing you inbred like the previous poster said they don't have to tell you anything and do you think people are interested in the club if it's so insolvent and you should know west ham won't have made a fortune from last season!!!!!
It's half term you peanut
16:35 & 16:54 you are so wrong. You see every PLC company has to file their accounts by law within 6 months of the end of their financial year you silly boys! Anything else you want to make fools of yourselves over?
Billbanksy
So why have the law not got involved then clever boy
your the fool
NO PROOF
GUESS WORK
NO QUALIFICATION
IF IT'S THE LAW THEN THEY BROKEN THE LAW AND I KNOW DAMN WELL IF THEY'VE BROKEN THE LAW EVERY RAG IN THE WORLD WOULD BE ALL OVER THEM EH SHERLOCK
This is quite simple - The accounts have already been delayed twice, now they've been delayed for a third time. Thats most unusual.
There must be a reason for it. Either the accounts can't be published for some good reason, or there is a desire not to publish them so as to conceal something.
That seems to me to be a good starting point for discussion that has been ruined by halfwittery.
The whole point is that contrivances have been used to get round the law. It remains a fact that all PLC companies must produce audited accounts for public inspection. The author is right to call you idiots for not knowing that! Do you think we would know about the bank's debts if that wasn't the case?
Bill, I think 99% of the readers have read the article and considered its contents. The mindless 1% have this knee jerk instinct to yell abuse at anybody who suggests anything might not be absolutely perfect at Upton Park!
well i posted earlier by saying i would wait and see, and got called a school boy
Sorry 18:05 but your earlier post at 16:38 does not actually make any sense so I ignored it. But you were the rude one and if you can't take it, don't dish it out then. You know it's quite simple really. You just cannot accept any criticism of the club you support. Well I support them too and I have enough life experience to know that companies that do not file their accounts by contrived rule bending have something to hide. That's the whole gist of the matter and unless you have an alternative scenario to put to this forum don't show yourself to be so childish!
Billbanksy
you really are a twat
No 1942, that inadequate response identifies the "twat".
Post a Comment