By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Club statement - New directors appointed on 21:29 - Jun 9 by JPSDale
Im NOT a Bottomley fan, but its not fair or reasonable to blame these errors on him or Nick Grindrod. As you have been on Companies House and read who has signed what, I am guessing you know a little bit about the documents and the processes which these documents will have followed...
Wyatt Morris Golland also signed the accounts in their role as Auditor ( you did not mention this), for which they are paid a reasonable sum of money. WMG will then have submitted the documents to Companies House. DB, NG and any other official could have seen the correct document only for WMG errors to enable incorrect documents to be submitted, seemingly for the club officials to "carry the can" publicly for the mistake
WMG have been the paid auditors of the accounts for many years, only loosing the business for a couple of years when they lost the job due to a comparable firm quoting better terms. I agree, these are simple errors which need addressing, perhaps this issue will spur on a review of the appointment of paid Auditors with a view to a change as well as other changes being pushed along at the club
“Our supporters will be well aware that our previous accountancy firm was the one run by Paul Hazlehurst until he sadly passed away. He has left a legacy that will be hard to follow, but I am confident that Nick and his team are more than capable of taking on that task.
The direct quote is from Mr Bottomley.
Second, the role of the auditor is not to choose to file the accounts with Companies House.
As the Report of the Directors (Page 4) clearly states: "The Directors are responsible for preparing the Group Strategic Report, the Report of the Directors and the financial statements in accordance with applicable law and regulation."
In this example the Directors for the original set filed and Companies House accepted. They collectively decided to do so.
My point about Mr Bottomley is that his name is the one approving them and that is usually a minuted action at the Board that a nominated Director agrees to sign them. The 2019 and 2018 accounts were also signed by Mr Bottomley without mistakes in them.
In those circumstances you would reasonably conclude they had been reviewed.
Fast forward fifteen days later and post AGM/EGM
The Directors then choose to file a revised set. You would imagine they are only doing so because the first set filed are incorrect and they know that the Directors are the ones responsible for them.
Note, this second set is filed AFTER Mr Bottomley and Mr Rawlinson had been removed as Directors by shareholder vote.
The number of companies that refile a set of their accounts is very small in percentage terms and usually it is because of error.
The really good things here is that the new filing says "Amended" which means:
1. The Company has posted the amended accounts to Companies House on paper.
2. The amended accounts are for the same period as the original accounts that were submitted.
3. The word “Amended” is clearly displayed on the front of the accounts to avoid them being rejected as duplicates.
4. The accounts must clearly state that they:
- replace the original accounts - are now the statutory accounts - are prepared as they were at the date of the original accounts
5. The amended accounts must be signed by a Company Director.
We will know when the PDF is available which Company Director has authorised that refiling and we will be able to see what the changes are.
George Bernard Shaw had it right:
"He who can does; he who cannot, teaches."
https://www.visittheusa.co.uk/
Club statement - New directors appointed on 21:58 - Jun 9 by TVOS1907
There is now, although only the goals, I'm afraid.
Happy memories.
Was that also the game where David Flitcroft came running down the tunnel with their mascots head and then went onto "spear" the mascot in the warm up?
And was that game the debut of our oldest professional debutant?
George Bernard Shaw had it right:
"He who can does; he who cannot, teaches."
https://www.visittheusa.co.uk/
“Our supporters will be well aware that our previous accountancy firm was the one run by Paul Hazlehurst until he sadly passed away. He has left a legacy that will be hard to follow, but I am confident that Nick and his team are more than capable of taking on that task.
The direct quote is from Mr Bottomley.
Second, the role of the auditor is not to choose to file the accounts with Companies House.
As the Report of the Directors (Page 4) clearly states: "The Directors are responsible for preparing the Group Strategic Report, the Report of the Directors and the financial statements in accordance with applicable law and regulation."
In this example the Directors for the original set filed and Companies House accepted. They collectively decided to do so.
My point about Mr Bottomley is that his name is the one approving them and that is usually a minuted action at the Board that a nominated Director agrees to sign them. The 2019 and 2018 accounts were also signed by Mr Bottomley without mistakes in them.
In those circumstances you would reasonably conclude they had been reviewed.
Fast forward fifteen days later and post AGM/EGM
The Directors then choose to file a revised set. You would imagine they are only doing so because the first set filed are incorrect and they know that the Directors are the ones responsible for them.
Note, this second set is filed AFTER Mr Bottomley and Mr Rawlinson had been removed as Directors by shareholder vote.
The number of companies that refile a set of their accounts is very small in percentage terms and usually it is because of error.
The really good things here is that the new filing says "Amended" which means:
1. The Company has posted the amended accounts to Companies House on paper.
2. The amended accounts are for the same period as the original accounts that were submitted.
3. The word “Amended” is clearly displayed on the front of the accounts to avoid them being rejected as duplicates.
4. The accounts must clearly state that they:
- replace the original accounts - are now the statutory accounts - are prepared as they were at the date of the original accounts
5. The amended accounts must be signed by a Company Director.
We will know when the PDF is available which Company Director has authorised that refiling and we will be able to see what the changes are.
I would add that,.as signatory to those accounts, he was challenged about the validity of a statement that attributed profitability to prudent contract management, which really was post balance sheet and, quite frankly, a statement of idiocy that took a third repeat of the challenge to be accepted by the signatory.
Club statement - New directors appointed on 22:03 - Jun 9 by RAFCBLUE
Happy memories.
Was that also the game where David Flitcroft came running down the tunnel with their mascots head and then went onto "spear" the mascot in the warm up?
And was that game the debut of our oldest professional debutant?
Yes to Flitcroft, no to Ford.
Jack Warner is our oldest debutant, when he appeared against Crewe on 23rd August 1952, in what was the 14,947th day of his life!
Ford was 14,695 days old at Cheltenham, so he was 252 days younger than Warner.
When I was your age, I used to enjoy the odd game of tennis. Or was it golf?
0
Club statement - New directors appointed on 22:36 - Jun 9 with 4576 views
Club statement - New directors appointed on 22:26 - Jun 9 by TVOS1907
Yes to Flitcroft, no to Ford.
Jack Warner is our oldest debutant, when he appeared against Crewe on 23rd August 1952, in what was the 14,947th day of his life!
Ford was 14,695 days old at Cheltenham, so he was 252 days younger than Warner.
Didn't Jack Warner play Dixon in Dixon of Dock Green?
Hmm maybe not ..Wiki: John "Jack" Warner (21 September 1911 — 1980) was a Welsh footballer who played as a wing half.
In his early days, he played for Swansea Town, and he went on to make 135 Football League appearances for the Welsh club before moving to Manchester United for 1938-39. He made over 100 league appearances for the Old Trafford club, and then transferred to Oldham Athletic.[1]
Warner moved to Rochdale for the 1951-52 season, making 21 league appearances for the club.[2] He then became manager of Rochdale for the 1952-53 season.[3]
He also made two appearances for Wales, along with one wartime cap.
0
Club statement - New directors appointed on 22:45 - Jun 9 with 4549 views
Club statement - New directors appointed on 22:36 - Jun 9 by 49thseason
Didn't Jack Warner play Dixon in Dixon of Dock Green?
Hmm maybe not ..Wiki: John "Jack" Warner (21 September 1911 — 1980) was a Welsh footballer who played as a wing half.
In his early days, he played for Swansea Town, and he went on to make 135 Football League appearances for the Welsh club before moving to Manchester United for 1938-39. He made over 100 league appearances for the Old Trafford club, and then transferred to Oldham Athletic.[1]
Warner moved to Rochdale for the 1951-52 season, making 21 league appearances for the club.[2] He then became manager of Rochdale for the 1952-53 season.[3]
He also made two appearances for Wales, along with one wartime cap.
That's him
When I was your age, I used to enjoy the odd game of tennis. Or was it golf?
“Our supporters will be well aware that our previous accountancy firm was the one run by Paul Hazlehurst until he sadly passed away. He has left a legacy that will be hard to follow, but I am confident that Nick and his team are more than capable of taking on that task.
The direct quote is from Mr Bottomley.
Second, the role of the auditor is not to choose to file the accounts with Companies House.
As the Report of the Directors (Page 4) clearly states: "The Directors are responsible for preparing the Group Strategic Report, the Report of the Directors and the financial statements in accordance with applicable law and regulation."
In this example the Directors for the original set filed and Companies House accepted. They collectively decided to do so.
My point about Mr Bottomley is that his name is the one approving them and that is usually a minuted action at the Board that a nominated Director agrees to sign them. The 2019 and 2018 accounts were also signed by Mr Bottomley without mistakes in them.
In those circumstances you would reasonably conclude they had been reviewed.
Fast forward fifteen days later and post AGM/EGM
The Directors then choose to file a revised set. You would imagine they are only doing so because the first set filed are incorrect and they know that the Directors are the ones responsible for them.
Note, this second set is filed AFTER Mr Bottomley and Mr Rawlinson had been removed as Directors by shareholder vote.
The number of companies that refile a set of their accounts is very small in percentage terms and usually it is because of error.
The really good things here is that the new filing says "Amended" which means:
1. The Company has posted the amended accounts to Companies House on paper.
2. The amended accounts are for the same period as the original accounts that were submitted.
3. The word “Amended” is clearly displayed on the front of the accounts to avoid them being rejected as duplicates.
4. The accounts must clearly state that they:
- replace the original accounts - are now the statutory accounts - are prepared as they were at the date of the original accounts
5. The amended accounts must be signed by a Company Director.
We will know when the PDF is available which Company Director has authorised that refiling and we will be able to see what the changes are.
Just had a quick look at the amended accounts v the original accounts. Looks like the only change is to correct an error in note 2 where the cash balance was omitted from the 2018 balances in the originals, and was picked up by the companies house review.
Pretty poor show from the accountants to be honest, this should have been picked up in review by them.
In addition the accounts are now signed by the CEO/Director.
Other than formatting changes I cannot see any further amends.
1
Club statement - New directors appointed on 15:35 - Jun 10 with 3797 views
“Our supporters will be well aware that our previous accountancy firm was the one run by Paul Hazlehurst until he sadly passed away. He has left a legacy that will be hard to follow, but I am confident that Nick and his team are more than capable of taking on that task.
The direct quote is from Mr Bottomley.
Second, the role of the auditor is not to choose to file the accounts with Companies House.
As the Report of the Directors (Page 4) clearly states: "The Directors are responsible for preparing the Group Strategic Report, the Report of the Directors and the financial statements in accordance with applicable law and regulation."
In this example the Directors for the original set filed and Companies House accepted. They collectively decided to do so.
My point about Mr Bottomley is that his name is the one approving them and that is usually a minuted action at the Board that a nominated Director agrees to sign them. The 2019 and 2018 accounts were also signed by Mr Bottomley without mistakes in them.
In those circumstances you would reasonably conclude they had been reviewed.
Fast forward fifteen days later and post AGM/EGM
The Directors then choose to file a revised set. You would imagine they are only doing so because the first set filed are incorrect and they know that the Directors are the ones responsible for them.
Note, this second set is filed AFTER Mr Bottomley and Mr Rawlinson had been removed as Directors by shareholder vote.
The number of companies that refile a set of their accounts is very small in percentage terms and usually it is because of error.
The really good things here is that the new filing says "Amended" which means:
1. The Company has posted the amended accounts to Companies House on paper.
2. The amended accounts are for the same period as the original accounts that were submitted.
3. The word “Amended” is clearly displayed on the front of the accounts to avoid them being rejected as duplicates.
4. The accounts must clearly state that they:
- replace the original accounts - are now the statutory accounts - are prepared as they were at the date of the original accounts
5. The amended accounts must be signed by a Company Director.
We will know when the PDF is available which Company Director has authorised that refiling and we will be able to see what the changes are.
RAFCBLUE, my comments are not an opinion, they are a fact. Its clear that you have reviewed the accounts documents and seen D Bottomley as the club signature on pages 3 and 5, but then decided not to scroll down further to page 8 where Wyatt Morris Golland sign off the documents in their role as Statutory Auditors, a role for which they are paid to check the details, ensure they are accurate to facilitate the correct and accurate documents on the Companies House Website you have used to access the information.
I understand those that feel that DB should no longer be in employment, but thats a matter for those elected Directors as his line management. But blaming him and others, in this case newly elected Director NG, for the potential errors of a paid service provider is not helping a fractious situation. I have no opinion on NG other than what I read, life long fan, season ticket holder and an accountant prepared to give his time and experience to the club. The problem is that if people keep up these inappropriate public criticism of someone's professional competency we will have a situation where nobody worth their salt would contemplate going on the Board due to wider impacts on their business / personal life.
I repeat my earlier point, the correct documents would have been agreed and signed off in a meeting between WMG and the Club Officials, the reason to suggest this is that the Statutory Auditors have to make sure things balance, and the cash balance was wrong, so WMG would not have agreed to sign them off due to basic errors, but they did agree. The most likely issue is a simple admin error at WMG or possibly NG where the wrong documents / working papers were uploaded rather than the final and agreed documents that balanced.
Up The Dale - Stronger Together
1
Club statement - New directors appointed on 17:18 - Jun 10 with 3599 views
Club statement - New directors appointed on 15:35 - Jun 10 by JPSDale
RAFCBLUE, my comments are not an opinion, they are a fact. Its clear that you have reviewed the accounts documents and seen D Bottomley as the club signature on pages 3 and 5, but then decided not to scroll down further to page 8 where Wyatt Morris Golland sign off the documents in their role as Statutory Auditors, a role for which they are paid to check the details, ensure they are accurate to facilitate the correct and accurate documents on the Companies House Website you have used to access the information.
I understand those that feel that DB should no longer be in employment, but thats a matter for those elected Directors as his line management. But blaming him and others, in this case newly elected Director NG, for the potential errors of a paid service provider is not helping a fractious situation. I have no opinion on NG other than what I read, life long fan, season ticket holder and an accountant prepared to give his time and experience to the club. The problem is that if people keep up these inappropriate public criticism of someone's professional competency we will have a situation where nobody worth their salt would contemplate going on the Board due to wider impacts on their business / personal life.
I repeat my earlier point, the correct documents would have been agreed and signed off in a meeting between WMG and the Club Officials, the reason to suggest this is that the Statutory Auditors have to make sure things balance, and the cash balance was wrong, so WMG would not have agreed to sign them off due to basic errors, but they did agree. The most likely issue is a simple admin error at WMG or possibly NG where the wrong documents / working papers were uploaded rather than the final and agreed documents that balanced.
Up The Dale - Stronger Together
That's an interesting argument. I have never known the auditors be responsible for what is actually filed at CH, and they only sign off the auditors report, not the whole set of accounts.
It is the company "directors who are responsible for the preparation of the financial statements and for being satisfied that they give a true and fair view, and for such internal controls as the directors determine necessary to enable the preparation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error."
Further:
"3.3 Approving and signing accounts The company’s board of directors must approve the accounts before they send them to the company’s members: a director must sign the balance sheet on behalf of the board and print their name - any exemption statements must appear above the director’s signature a director or the company secretary must sign the directors’ report on behalf of the board and print their name - any statement about “being prepared under the small companies’ regime” must appear above the signature if the company has to attach an auditor’s report to the accounts, the report must include the auditor’s signature and their name must be printed where the auditor is a firm, the auditor’s report must state the name of the auditor and the name of the person who signed it as senior statutory auditor on behalf of the firm"
So, we do not know who is responsible for the cash balance error in the initial submitted accounts, but we have established overall responsibility lies with the directors for their filing. Given there is an inappropriate post-balance sheet event (as admitted at the AGM) claim in relation to non-renewal of contracts being responsible for profitability in 2019/20, we also know that attention to detail is not a strong point when signing this set of accounts off.
Club statement - New directors appointed on 17:18 - Jun 10 by judd
That's an interesting argument. I have never known the auditors be responsible for what is actually filed at CH, and they only sign off the auditors report, not the whole set of accounts.
It is the company "directors who are responsible for the preparation of the financial statements and for being satisfied that they give a true and fair view, and for such internal controls as the directors determine necessary to enable the preparation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error."
Further:
"3.3 Approving and signing accounts The company’s board of directors must approve the accounts before they send them to the company’s members: a director must sign the balance sheet on behalf of the board and print their name - any exemption statements must appear above the director’s signature a director or the company secretary must sign the directors’ report on behalf of the board and print their name - any statement about “being prepared under the small companies’ regime” must appear above the signature if the company has to attach an auditor’s report to the accounts, the report must include the auditor’s signature and their name must be printed where the auditor is a firm, the auditor’s report must state the name of the auditor and the name of the person who signed it as senior statutory auditor on behalf of the firm"
So, we do not know who is responsible for the cash balance error in the initial submitted accounts, but we have established overall responsibility lies with the directors for their filing. Given there is an inappropriate post-balance sheet event (as admitted at the AGM) claim in relation to non-renewal of contracts being responsible for profitability in 2019/20, we also know that attention to detail is not a strong point when signing this set of accounts off.
You make a good point about attention to detail judd.
I suspect the reason that shareholders were aghast at seeing amended accounts is mainly due to the fact that the set that was sent to them as part of the documents for the AGM by the club on 19th May, although unsigned, were actually correct!
In parallel, the club manage to separately and simultaneously file a different set - with a different number of pages and mistakes - at Companies House.
As you say, Directors are responsible for for the filing of accurate accounts, no one else.
George Bernard Shaw had it right:
"He who can does; he who cannot, teaches."
https://www.visittheusa.co.uk/
Club statement - New directors appointed on 15:35 - Jun 10 by JPSDale
RAFCBLUE, my comments are not an opinion, they are a fact. Its clear that you have reviewed the accounts documents and seen D Bottomley as the club signature on pages 3 and 5, but then decided not to scroll down further to page 8 where Wyatt Morris Golland sign off the documents in their role as Statutory Auditors, a role for which they are paid to check the details, ensure they are accurate to facilitate the correct and accurate documents on the Companies House Website you have used to access the information.
I understand those that feel that DB should no longer be in employment, but thats a matter for those elected Directors as his line management. But blaming him and others, in this case newly elected Director NG, for the potential errors of a paid service provider is not helping a fractious situation. I have no opinion on NG other than what I read, life long fan, season ticket holder and an accountant prepared to give his time and experience to the club. The problem is that if people keep up these inappropriate public criticism of someone's professional competency we will have a situation where nobody worth their salt would contemplate going on the Board due to wider impacts on their business / personal life.
I repeat my earlier point, the correct documents would have been agreed and signed off in a meeting between WMG and the Club Officials, the reason to suggest this is that the Statutory Auditors have to make sure things balance, and the cash balance was wrong, so WMG would not have agreed to sign them off due to basic errors, but they did agree. The most likely issue is a simple admin error at WMG or possibly NG where the wrong documents / working papers were uploaded rather than the final and agreed documents that balanced.
Up The Dale - Stronger Together
I'd was with you up to the point that they actually sent a correct but unsigned set to shareholders and then sent a completely different set to Companies House!
If you're a Director of any Company you can't divorce leadership responsibility when mistakes are made, however unfortunately.
George Bernard Shaw had it right:
"He who can does; he who cannot, teaches."
https://www.visittheusa.co.uk/
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
