PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

halfcenturyup said:
:) Conspiracy theories. You sound like a lawyer who never wants to be wrong. Speculation isn't the same as conspiracy theorising.

Anyway, I think we are over-analysing something that doesn't warrant it. It's just accountant / auditor stuff.
Click to expand...
Yes. Albeit with the spectre of cunts with greasy fingers all over whatever process they can molest hanging over it.
Just a case of paying complete attention to every detail so nothing can ‘accidentally’ slip and become the new stare decisis.
 
Another 12 months I reckon…..

Next steps…
  1. Hogan resigns as part of Dipper restructure.
  2. Prem league board refresh.
  3. Commercial stabilisation of Prem league, broadcast, sponsors etc.
  4. Disclosure of cartel / prem league comms agreed or redacted.
  5. Ruling released.
 
halfcenturyup said:
:) Conspiracy theories. You sound like a lawyer who never wants to be wrong. Speculation isn't the same as conspiracy theorising.

Anyway, I think we are over-analysing something that doesn't warrant it. It's just accountant / auditor stuff.
Click to expand...
Well, speculation, conspiracy theories — call it what you will. But I think we can safely rule out that a verdict has already been delivered, and that the delay is about damage control.

Based on the disclosures and the audit report, the only defensible conclusion is not about the outcome of the case itself, but about how the risk is classified. The continued use of “reasonable expectation” in the going concern assessment, the absence of any provision or enhanced disclosure, and the lack of emphasis in the audit report — particularly in the first set of accounts after the hearing concluded — suggest that both the Board and the auditor consider a materially adverse outcome to be remote. That doesn’t mean the risk is zero, simply that it hasn’t been reclassified in a way that affects the financial statements.

Soft signal.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: nmc
Keith Moon said:
Well, speculation, conspiracy theories — call it what you will. But I think we can safely rule out that a verdict has already been delivered and that the delay is about damage control.

Based on the disclosures and the audit report, the only defensible conclusion is not about the outcome of the case itself, but about how the risk is classified. The continued use of “reasonable expectation” in the going concern assessment, the absence of any provision or enhanced disclosure, and the lack of emphasis in the audit report — particularly in the first set of accounts after the hearing concluded — suggest that both the Board and the auditor consider a materially adverse outcome to be remote. That doesn’t mean the risk is zero, simply that it hasn’t been reclassified in a way that affects the financial statements.

Soft signal.
Click to expand...

:) The Board and the auditors have always considered a significantly negative outcome to be remote otherwise the issue would have been handled differently in the last two years. So, imho, the only soft signal is that they haven't become significantly more negative.

Anyway, we have done this to death.

As for your first paragraph, the words "verdict", "delivered" and "delay" are doing a lot of heavy lifting. As you think there is a delay, what do you think is causing it?

And, I have to ask, are you using AI to write this stuff for you? :)
 
Keith Moon said:
Well, speculation, conspiracy theories — call it what you will. But I think we can safely rule out that a verdict has already been delivered and that the delay is about damage control.

Based on the disclosures and the audit report, the only defensible conclusion is not about the outcome of the case itself, but about how the risk is classified. The continued use of “reasonable expectation” in the going concern assessment, the absence of any provision or enhanced disclosure, and the lack of emphasis in the audit report — particularly in the first set of accounts after the hearing concluded — suggest that both the Board and the auditor consider a materially adverse outcome to be remote. That doesn’t mean the risk is zero, simply that it hasn’t been reclassified in a way that affects the financial statements.

Soft signal.
Click to expand...
If a verdict hasn't been delivered (probably true in and of itself) then who do you think is doing this "damage control"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top