SPL's balance sheet is insolvent

[jonbryce 63]

1. No, you're out of date re any "12 months" requirements - there is no such maximum time limit.

2. In any event, the debt to Dundee Utd was accepted by the SPL 3 months ago and still not paid.

3. No, I didn't get any dates wrong.

theiconicman is correct here. The period you should consider is 12 months from the date of signing the balance sheet. See http://www.frc.org.uk/FRC-Documents/FRC/Going-Concern-and-Liquidity-Risk-Guidance-for-Dire.aspx

[boss 1,941]

theiconicman is correct here. The period you should consider is 12 months from the date of signing the balance sheet. See http://www.frc.org.uk/FRC-Documents/FRC/Going-Concern-and-Liquidity-Risk-Guidance-for-Dire.aspx

NO he's not - and your link proves it:

THE REVIEW PERIOD

2 Directors should consider all available information about the future when concluding

whether the company is a going concern at the date they approve the financial statements.

Their review should usually cover a period of at least twelve months from the date of

approval of annual and half‐yearly financial statements.

The requirement is AT LEAST 12 months, as me and BP9 have been saying. Theiconicman used 15 August 2012 as the cut-off date as that was exactly 12 months - that is simply not correct. If at the time of signing the Accounts the directors should reasonably have foreseen the company being unable to pay its debts in 13 months time, that has implications for the going concern basis, Accounts disclosures and indeed the audit report. Although these points are not (necessarily) relevant for the SPL it is without doubt the case that there is no maximum 12 month rule as theiconicman (and you) tried to assert.

[Blue Skies 31]

"Oh what a tangled web we weave,

When first we practise to deceive!"

..........It's all beginning to untangle now and I'm lovin' it! :thumbup:

[theiconicman 3,013]

NO he's not - and your link proves it:

THE REVIEW PERIOD

2 Directors should consider all available information about the future when concluding

whether the company is a going concern at the date they approve the financial statements.

Their review should usually cover a period of at least twelve months from the date of

approval of annual and half‐yearly financial statements.

The requirement is AT LEAST 12 months, as me and BP9 have been saying. Theiconicman used 15 August 2012 as the cut-off date as that was exactly 12 months - that is simply not correct. If at the time of signing the Accounts the directors should reasonably have foreseen the company being unable to pay its debts in 13 months time, that has implications for the going concern basis, Accounts disclosures and indeed the audit report. Although these points are not (necessarily) relevant for the SPL it is without doubt the case that there is no maximum 12 month rule as theiconicman (and you) tried to assert.

There is no EXACT 12 month rule but as far as I'm aware noone has invented a crystal ball that actually works. Your view that on 15th August 2011 (Craig Whyte had bought the club and had just put everyone on new deals) that they should have forseen that in 13 months time there would be a problem is laughable. Sorry Boss.

It's not that I'm not supportive of wanting to see the SPL fail but unless we back winning horses we're only going to be disappointed. There is no story to last year's SPL accounts.

THERE MIGHT BE ONE THIS YEAR given the Sky deal renegotiation and the fact we're no longer in it and clubs are going to be close to the edge. There should be some hefty disclosures in their accounts and I think a complaint to the FRRP on the basis it is in the public interest would follow if their weren't any.

[jonbryce 63]

NO he's not - and your link proves it:

THE REVIEW PERIOD

2 Directors should consider all available information about the future when concluding

whether the company is a going concern at the date they approve the financial statements.

Their review should usually cover a period of at least twelve months from the date of

approval of annual and half‐yearly financial statements.

The requirement is AT LEAST 12 months, as me and BP9 have been saying. Theiconicman used 15 August 2012 as the cut-off date as that was exactly 12 months - that is simply not correct. If at the time of signing the Accounts the directors should reasonably have foreseen the company being unable to pay its debts in 13 months time, that has implications for the going concern basis, Accounts disclosures and indeed the audit report. Although these points are not (necessarily) relevant for the SPL it is without doubt the case that there is no maximum 12 month rule as theiconicman (and you) tried to assert.

I'm struggling to think of situations where you can be pretty sure the company will still be around in 12 months time, but will be belly up in 13 months time. If the directors know now that there is a massive liability falling due in 13 months time and that they won't be able to pay it, then they have to take action now. They can't wait until the due date to do something about it. That means it isn't a going concern now, never mind in 13 months time.

The going concern test is that you look in your crystal ball and see if, during the next 12 months, you see anything that is likely to happen that might cause you not to be a going concern. If Alex Salmond was talking about possibly banning football in Scotland, that would be something you would consider. If the Sky contract had only 6 months to run, and Rupert Murdoch wasn't keen on renewing it, you look at that. In August last year, it looked extremely unlikely that Rangers would fail to finish the season, and indeed the did manage to finish the season. So in that respect, their call on potentially losing their biggest (or second biggest if you base it on stadium size) customer was right.

[boss 1,941]

There is no EXACT 12 month rule but as far as I'm aware noone has invented a crystal ball that actually works. Your view that on 15th August 2011 (Craig Whyte had bought the club and had just put everyone on new deals) that they should have forseen that in 13 months time there would be a problem is laughable. Sorry Boss.

It's not that I'm not supportive of wanting to see the SPL fail but unless we back winning horses we're only going to be disappointed. There is no story to last year's SPL accounts.

THERE MIGHT BE ONE THIS YEAR given the Sky deal renegotiation and the fact we're no longer in it and clubs are going to be close to the edge. There should be some hefty disclosures in their accounts and I think a complaint to the FRRP on the basis it is in the public interest would follow if their weren't any.

Lol - read the thread. You're making up stuff that I didn't say in order to cover your tracks. But I'm glad that you now agree with me that there is no maximum 12 month rule despite your first contribution to this thread stating: "the company is still trading now 15th August 2012 ... Going concern is a test to remain trading for 12 months" - that wasn't correct then, and I'm glad you now agree with me. doh

[Edmiston Drive 3,846]

theiconicman is correct here. The period you should consider is 12 months from the date of signing the balance sheet. See http://www.frc.org.u...e-for-Dire.aspx

A financial MOT as of the date of signing you believe that everything looks ok , then when you have the MOT is it really worth anything.

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

Imagine the SPL went bust. The SFL could create a fourth tier and put all the SPL clubs in it. Of course they would have no tv deal though and the likes of spartans could be asked to fill positions leaving the future of some spl clubs up shit creek. Meanwhile, 2 successive promotions would mean we were competing in the highest tier of scottish football after 2 years as had been predicted by many

Another outlandish conspiracy theory ......

....... but I like it!

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

NO he's not - and your link proves it:

THE REVIEW PERIOD

2 Directors should consider all available information about the future when concluding

whether the company is a going concern at the date they approve the financial statements.

Their review should usually cover a period of at least twelve months from the date of

approval of annual and half‐yearly financial statements.

The requirement is AT LEAST 12 months, as me and BP9 have been saying. Theiconicman used 15 August 2012 as the cut-off date as that was exactly 12 months - that is simply not correct. If at the time of signing the Accounts the directors should reasonably have foreseen the company being unable to pay its debts in 13 months time, that has implications for the going concern basis, Accounts disclosures and indeed the audit report. Although these points are not (necessarily) relevant for the SPL it is without doubt the case that there is no maximum 12 month rule as theiconicman (and you) tried to assert.

LOL got to love all the internet football finance experts - especially on a wee thread that should have just given us all a laugh - some people take it all far to seriously - the SPL are under pressure - they caused a great deal of that pressure by mis-managing 'our' situation - a decent manager would have looked at the implications and got this sorted out as quickly and quietly as possible - but the SPL is badly managed and thus it has led them into a bit of a financial minefield - anyway I choose to have a wee giggle at it all. Keep that type of info flowing Boss!

[boss 1,941]

I'm struggling to think of situations where you can be pretty sure the company will still be around in 12 months time, but will be belly up in 13 months time. If the directors know now that there is a massive liability falling due in 13 months time and that they won't be able to pay it, then they have to take action now. They can't wait until the due date to do something about it. That means it isn't a going concern now, never mind in 13 months time.

The going concern test is that you look in your crystal ball and see if, during the next 12 months, you see anything that is likely to happen that might cause you not to be a going concern. If Alex Salmond was talking about possibly banning football in Scotland, that would be something you would consider. If the Sky contract had only 6 months to run, and Rupert Murdoch wasn't keen on renewing it, you look at that. In August last year, it looked extremely unlikely that Rangers would fail to finish the season, and indeed the did manage to finish the season. So in that respect, their call on potentially losing their biggest (or second biggest if you base it on stadium size) customer was right.

A train operator has 13 months of a 15 year contract remaining on its main franchise and has no realistic chance of winning the new 15 year contract due to a change in government policy.

A drug company has 14 months of exclusivity left for its main drug and has no significant replacements coming through.

A charity has 15 months of income available before its funding source dries up.

A company is solely dependent on its director/shareholder who has just been given 18 months to live.

..

..

Any of these scenarios give rise to issues which should be considered in deciding whether the going concern basis is appropriate. And indeed that is all I have said (that the Rangers situation should have been considered) - at no time have I stated an opinion on whether the going concern basis was appropriate despite you and theiconicman wishing that I had!

There is no maximum 12 month rule - even theiconicman has now accepted this. You should do likewise.

[boss 1,941]

LOL got to love all the internet football finance experts - especially on a wee thread that should have just given us all a laugh - some people take it all far to seriously - the SPL are under pressure - they caused a great deal of that pressure by mis-managing 'our' situation - a decent manager would have looked at the implications and got this sorted out as quickly and quietly as possible - but the SPL is badly managed and thus it has led them into a bit of a financial minefield - anyway I choose to have a wee giggle at it all. Keep that type of info flowing Boss!

Cheers. It's exasperating at times A wee bit of info about the SPL's insolvent balance sheet turns into a technical argument about going concern that is boring the pants of the majority. I wish folk would accept the OP for what it was (and not interject with erroneous technical nonsense).

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

Cheers. It's exasperating at times A wee bit of info about the SPL's insolvent balance sheet turns into a technical argument about going concern that is boring the pants of the majority. I wish folk would accept the OP for what it was (and not interject with erroneous technical nonsense).

But we are all Grant Thornton

[boss 1,941]

But we are all Grant Thornton

Ah, they mucked up with signing dates on Rangers accounts some years ago - 6, 8, 10 years, I can't quite remember, but I'll still have a copy of my letter of indignation filed away.

[Govan Front 78 43]

Soooo, when will we find out what state the SPL's official finances are & what notes are included on their 2012 accounts? Confused by most of this tbh, however i'd reckon it would be somewhat more than £196k in the shitter...

"Now gentlemen, I have the pleasure of introducing you to Mr Stampy..."

[Peasie 103]

Soooo, when will we find out what state the SPL's official finances are & what notes are included on their 2012 accounts?

The earliest they have filed their accounts was 10th September (after the year ended in 31st May). The latest they have filed them was the 1st March the following year.

This years should be filed before 28th February 2013. So any time between the middle of September this year and February next year. The SPL Ltd are not in danger unless there is no tv deal and they still have to stump up the £2M to SFL. All they will do is reduce the amount distributed to SPL clubs by the amount the tv deal was reduced by.

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

Ah, they mucked up with signing dates on Rangers accounts some years ago - 6, 8, 10 years, I can't quite remember, but I'll still have a copy of my letter of indignation filed away.

:lol:

[jonbryce 63]

A train operator has 13 months of a 15 year contract remaining on its main franchise and has no realistic chance of winning the new 15 year contract due to a change in government policy.

A drug company has 14 months of exclusivity left for its main drug and has no significant replacements coming through.

A charity has 15 months of income available before its funding source dries up.

A company is solely dependent on its director/shareholder who has just been given 18 months to live.

..

..

Any of these scenarios give rise to issues which should be considered in deciding whether the going concern basis is appropriate. And indeed that is all I have said (that the Rangers situation should have been considered) - at no time have I stated an opinion on whether the going concern basis was appropriate despite you and theiconicman wishing that I had!

There is no maximum 12 month rule - even theiconicman has now accepted this. You should do likewise.

With the first three, yes I agree you should look at them. But provided the facts are disclosed in the accounts, I don't see any problem in signing the audit report.

In the fourth case, there is a very real risk that within the next 12 months he isn't going to be in a fit state to work, so that would be a problem.

[Gillete 1,338]

Does anyone have a list of what debt each SPL club has ?

Would be nice to know

[SaneBear 46]

the festival's on here in Edinburgh . . . perhaps they can put on a show . . . or get some of the bagpipe playing, shortbread eating Scotland fans to do some busking . . . ?

[boss 1,941]

With the first three, yes I agree you should look at them. But provided the facts are disclosed in the accounts, I don't see any problem in signing the audit report.

In the fourth case, there is a very real risk that within the next 12 months he isn't going to be in a fit state to work, so that would be a problem.

Good, so you now agree that there is no maximum 12 month rule. You, me, BP9 and theiconicman all in agreement at last. I'm knackered.

[theiconicman 3,013]

Boss

That would be last year's account if they were signed off on 15th August 2011 and by the virtue the company is still trading now 15th August 2012 it would seem to be valid. Going concern is a test to remain trading for 12 months.

Or did you get your dates wrong and they have just been published?

In any event, it will be interesting to read the notes of their accounts this year, with the Sky deal etc.

My post. I'll accede I over generalised the rule for non accountants here yet within the example of the SPL as it stood last year, entirely satisfactory test for them.

However the point I made was their was nothing actually wrong with their accounts despite you attempting to prove otherwise.

And my point again, this year's accounts will be the interesting ones, not last years.

[boss 1,941]

My post. I'll accede

Agreed, you were wrong and no wiggling about like a wiggle from Wiggleton can change that.

despite you attempting to prove otherwise.

Haha, I attempted nothing of the sort and no amount of wiggling from you changes that.

Wiggle, wiggle.

[Dutchy 1,200]

Maybe Charles Green can offer them a loan, at 50% interest, just to be fair as they're obviously a bunch of crooked incompetenats.

My spelling is bad at the best of times, but I'm a bit pissed right now, so fuck them c*nts

[theiconicman 3,013]

In the words of Duncan, I'm oot.