| KPMG have resigned as Company Auditors on 09:24 - Sep 21 with 7006 views | Pegojack |
Doesn't that usually suggest dodgey goings on which they feel they can't put their name to (allegedly)? [Post edited 21 Sep 2016 9:24]
|  | |  |
| KPMG have resigned as Company Auditors on 09:42 - Sep 21 with 6930 views | Nookiejack |
It seems quite a quick event following the takeover. |  | | |
| KPMG have resigned as Company Auditors on 09:48 - Sep 21 with 6906 views | monmouth |
| KPMG have resigned as Company Auditors on 09:42 - Sep 21 by Nookiejack |
It seems quite a quick event following the takeover. |
Could just be the Yanks prefer their own pet auditors in place. Goodwin did it at RBS in 1999/2000.
This is a private company though remember and the audited accounts are purely for the shareholders benefit. |  |
| |
| KPMG have resigned as Company Auditors on 09:58 - Sep 21 with 6863 views | union_jack |
| KPMG have resigned as Company Auditors on 09:48 - Sep 21 by monmouth |
Could just be the Yanks prefer their own pet auditors in place. Goodwin did it at RBS in 1999/2000.
This is a private company though remember and the audited accounts are purely for the shareholders benefit. |
Well if Goodwin did it there's nothing to worry about! |  |
| |
| KPMG have resigned as Company Auditors on 09:59 - Sep 21 with 6860 views | LeonisGod |
| KPMG have resigned as Company Auditors on 09:48 - Sep 21 by monmouth |
Could just be the Yanks prefer their own pet auditors in place. Goodwin did it at RBS in 1999/2000.
This is a private company though remember and the audited accounts are purely for the shareholders benefit. |
Yes, of course it could. That won't stop the speculation though! |  | | |
| KPMG have resigned as Company Auditors on 10:08 - Sep 21 with 6829 views | Lord_Bony |
Depends on the integrity of the auditors I suppose.
It's natural for any business to play down the profits and hide money rather than giving it to the tax man.
Some auditing firms will go along with it others won't. |  |
| |
| KPMG have resigned as Company Auditors on 10:28 - Sep 21 with 6754 views | Joe_bradshaw |
Almost certainly nothing to see here.
New owners, New auditors and probably new accountants. |  |
| |
| KPMG have resigned as Company Auditors on 10:37 - Sep 21 with 6726 views | Nookiejack |
What is the process with regards to the Trust being notified of why KPMG resigned?
Do KPMG have to write to the Board of Directors including the Supporters Director (with regards of the Football 'trading' company. The Trust doesn't have a director on the Board of the Holding company) explaining the circumstances of their resignation?
Is the Trust comfortable with the explanation given by KPMG? | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| KPMG have resigned as Company Auditors on 10:43 - Sep 21 with 6700 views | Nookiejack |
It will certainly be interesting if there were large differences between the Monthly Management Accounts that the Trust were receiving and the final statutory accounts position - when Huw Jenkins announced a significant loss.
For example if everything appeared on track each month but then a significant loss appears in the audited accounts.
May also have surprised the Americans. | | | |
| KPMG have resigned as Company Auditors on 10:43 - Sep 21 with 6700 views | monmouth |
| KPMG have resigned as Company Auditors on 10:37 - Sep 21 by Nookiejack |
What is the process with regards to the Trust being notified of why KPMG resigned?
Do KPMG have to write to the Board of Directors including the Supporters Director (with regards of the Football 'trading' company. The Trust doesn't have a director on the Board of the Holding company) explaining the circumstances of their resignation?
Is the Trust comfortable with the explanation given by KPMG? |
ratified at age isn't it? Where the trust (as shareholders in the HC) have a right of attendance and can ask anything they like and the outgoing auditors can speak if they have anything to say.
It's not an issue unless KPMG have an issue. Let's see who they appoint. Probably more big 4 shitheads who, in my experience are generally f***ing hopeless anyway. | |
| |
| KPMG have resigned as Company Auditors on 11:41 - Sep 21 with 6555 views | Darran |
SOTB is a bit slow over on nonce.com with this breaking news. |  |
| |
| KPMG have resigned as Company Auditors on 11:58 - Sep 21 with 6493 views | Joe_bradshaw |
| KPMG have resigned as Company Auditors on 10:37 - Sep 21 by Nookiejack |
What is the process with regards to the Trust being notified of why KPMG resigned?
Do KPMG have to write to the Board of Directors including the Supporters Director (with regards of the Football 'trading' company. The Trust doesn't have a director on the Board of the Holding company) explaining the circumstances of their resignation?
Is the Trust comfortable with the explanation given by KPMG? |
I suspect KPMG were told to resign by the new owners who will be appointing their preferred auditors. In other words, their contract isn't being renewed. | |
| |
| KPMG have resigned as Company Auditors on 12:20 - Sep 21 with 6437 views | Highjack |
That Keith Harris bloke is involved in kpmg. He's the one who brokered this takeover. He's the one who tried to flog us to Britt Eklands brother years ago and his name has regularly popped up over the years. |  |
| |
| KPMG have resigned as Company Auditors on 12:35 - Sep 21 with 6387 views | londonlisa2001 |
| KPMG have resigned as Company Auditors on 10:37 - Sep 21 by Nookiejack |
What is the process with regards to the Trust being notified of why KPMG resigned?
Do KPMG have to write to the Board of Directors including the Supporters Director (with regards of the Football 'trading' company. The Trust doesn't have a director on the Board of the Holding company) explaining the circumstances of their resignation?
Is the Trust comfortable with the explanation given by KPMG? |
When an auditor resigns (which is pretty normal to be honest and usually means absolutely nothing) then they have to send a letter to every shareholder (not the board) if there are any circumstances that they want the shareholders to be aware of behind the resignation. So if there are (which I doubt) then the Trust would be informed as a shareholder.
I'm not be funny, but people looking for mysterious reasons for normal day to day business things by scouring companies house is a bit odd. I'm not saying you did by the way - I saw this mentioned yesterday on the guestbook.
Irrespective of the performance on the pitch, or woeful recruitment activity off the pitch, there is no indication that the new owners are 'doing dodgy stuff' and likewise there is no indication that at any point in the past decade or more that the outgoing owners did 'dodgy stuff'. It doesn't mean that it hasn't happened but there is nothing to suggest it has.
The witch hunt actually distracts from the important questions in my view. | | | |
| KPMG have resigned as Company Auditors on 12:37 - Sep 21 with 6373 views | londonlisa2001 |
| KPMG have resigned as Company Auditors on 12:20 - Sep 21 by Highjack |
That Keith Harris bloke is involved in kpmg. He's the one who brokered this takeover. He's the one who tried to flog us to Britt Eklands brother years ago and his name has regularly popped up over the years. |
He was the chairman of Seymour Pierce (who I think are now part of Cantor Fitzgerald). Nothing to do with KPMG? | | | |
| KPMG have resigned as Company Auditors on 12:48 - Sep 21 with 6324 views | vetchonian |
| KPMG have resigned as Company Auditors on 12:35 - Sep 21 by londonlisa2001 |
When an auditor resigns (which is pretty normal to be honest and usually means absolutely nothing) then they have to send a letter to every shareholder (not the board) if there are any circumstances that they want the shareholders to be aware of behind the resignation. So if there are (which I doubt) then the Trust would be informed as a shareholder.
I'm not be funny, but people looking for mysterious reasons for normal day to day business things by scouring companies house is a bit odd. I'm not saying you did by the way - I saw this mentioned yesterday on the guestbook.
Irrespective of the performance on the pitch, or woeful recruitment activity off the pitch, there is no indication that the new owners are 'doing dodgy stuff' and likewise there is no indication that at any point in the past decade or more that the outgoing owners did 'dodgy stuff'. It doesn't mean that it hasn't happened but there is nothing to suggest it has.
The witch hunt actually distracts from the important questions in my view. |
spot on Lisa
IT is more important to know how the Trust will be treated and involved going forwards and how the on field issues will be resolved
We are a club in transisiton so things like change in auditirs could be expected it happens in businesses when regimes and onwnership changes so as many have said it is not really significant whilst the relationship with the Trust and football matters are ! | |
| |
| KPMG have resigned as Company Auditors on 12:56 - Sep 21 with 6291 views | MattG |
| KPMG have resigned as Company Auditors on 12:35 - Sep 21 by londonlisa2001 |
When an auditor resigns (which is pretty normal to be honest and usually means absolutely nothing) then they have to send a letter to every shareholder (not the board) if there are any circumstances that they want the shareholders to be aware of behind the resignation. So if there are (which I doubt) then the Trust would be informed as a shareholder.
I'm not be funny, but people looking for mysterious reasons for normal day to day business things by scouring companies house is a bit odd. I'm not saying you did by the way - I saw this mentioned yesterday on the guestbook.
Irrespective of the performance on the pitch, or woeful recruitment activity off the pitch, there is no indication that the new owners are 'doing dodgy stuff' and likewise there is no indication that at any point in the past decade or more that the outgoing owners did 'dodgy stuff'. It doesn't mean that it hasn't happened but there is nothing to suggest it has.
The witch hunt actually distracts from the important questions in my view. |
Sorry, Lisa but, as someone who is not involved in the financial services sector, I found the initial post quite worrying.
Whilst, to those involved in that field, such things might be "pretty normal and usually means nothing" the idea of our auditors resigning so quickly after the takeover certainly set alarm bells ringing for me.
Based on the explanations provided (thanks to all), I agree that there's probably nothing to see here but I don't think asking the question should be classed as a witch hunt. |  | | |
| KPMG have resigned as Company Auditors on 13:24 - Sep 21 with 6192 views | londonlisa2001 |
| KPMG have resigned as Company Auditors on 12:56 - Sep 21 by MattG |
Sorry, Lisa but, as someone who is not involved in the financial services sector, I found the initial post quite worrying.
Whilst, to those involved in that field, such things might be "pretty normal and usually means nothing" the idea of our auditors resigning so quickly after the takeover certainly set alarm bells ringing for me.
Based on the explanations provided (thanks to all), I agree that there's probably nothing to see here but I don't think asking the question should be classed as a witch hunt. |
It's the very time (after a takeover) that you would expect a change. Also, given that the company's year end is July, then the auditors get changed before the audit of that year end (the accounts will have to be filed by end of April, so the audit will happen later this year I imagine, so the planning for that audit will happen now).
But my point is why everyone automatically assumes the worst? It makes no sense. If people think about it, new owners have just parted with somewhere between £70m to £80m to buy the club. Before doing that, they will have done very detailed due diligence to make sure that everything is in order. Far more diligence than an audit would require, lifting every stone to make sure that there is nothing that will bite them in the backside. And yet people are speculating about management accounts being wrong, or dodgy dealings.
It's always the same. We had several threads speculating that Borja was out for months, or his medical was done badly, or people would be sacked over it, and yet a couple of weeks after the club said that he had a muscle injury, he appears in our team, which is what you'd expect after a muscle injury.
I'm not necessarily saying about this thread in particular, but we are subjected to an unbelievable number of threads that assume EVERYTHING in the club is somehow dodgy. I have no idea why that is the case.
As was previously said, the actual issues it seems to me are on the playing side (notably recruitment and how we manage transition and the identification of suitable players) and with regard to the Trust's ongoing role and influence. | | | |
| KPMG have resigned as Company Auditors on 13:34 - Sep 21 with 6153 views | Smellyplumz |
| KPMG have resigned as Company Auditors on 13:24 - Sep 21 by londonlisa2001 |
It's the very time (after a takeover) that you would expect a change. Also, given that the company's year end is July, then the auditors get changed before the audit of that year end (the accounts will have to be filed by end of April, so the audit will happen later this year I imagine, so the planning for that audit will happen now).
But my point is why everyone automatically assumes the worst? It makes no sense. If people think about it, new owners have just parted with somewhere between £70m to £80m to buy the club. Before doing that, they will have done very detailed due diligence to make sure that everything is in order. Far more diligence than an audit would require, lifting every stone to make sure that there is nothing that will bite them in the backside. And yet people are speculating about management accounts being wrong, or dodgy dealings.
It's always the same. We had several threads speculating that Borja was out for months, or his medical was done badly, or people would be sacked over it, and yet a couple of weeks after the club said that he had a muscle injury, he appears in our team, which is what you'd expect after a muscle injury.
I'm not necessarily saying about this thread in particular, but we are subjected to an unbelievable number of threads that assume EVERYTHING in the club is somehow dodgy. I have no idea why that is the case.
As was previously said, the actual issues it seems to me are on the playing side (notably recruitment and how we manage transition and the identification of suitable players) and with regard to the Trust's ongoing role and influence. |
In our defence I think people are still feeling very sore after the sale of the club which did stink of being under hand, we are just a bit touchy innit. |  |
|
""Although I cannot promise or predict the future, I can guarantee one thing - the current board of directors will always fight, as we have done over the last 12 years, to work together as one with the Supporters Trust to make 100% sure that Swansea City football club remains the number one priority in all our thoughts and in every decision we make." | | Poll: | Huw Jenkins |
| |
| KPMG have resigned as Company Auditors on 13:38 - Sep 21 with 6140 views | tomdickharry |
| KPMG have resigned as Company Auditors on 13:24 - Sep 21 by londonlisa2001 |
It's the very time (after a takeover) that you would expect a change. Also, given that the company's year end is July, then the auditors get changed before the audit of that year end (the accounts will have to be filed by end of April, so the audit will happen later this year I imagine, so the planning for that audit will happen now).
But my point is why everyone automatically assumes the worst? It makes no sense. If people think about it, new owners have just parted with somewhere between £70m to £80m to buy the club. Before doing that, they will have done very detailed due diligence to make sure that everything is in order. Far more diligence than an audit would require, lifting every stone to make sure that there is nothing that will bite them in the backside. And yet people are speculating about management accounts being wrong, or dodgy dealings.
It's always the same. We had several threads speculating that Borja was out for months, or his medical was done badly, or people would be sacked over it, and yet a couple of weeks after the club said that he had a muscle injury, he appears in our team, which is what you'd expect after a muscle injury.
I'm not necessarily saying about this thread in particular, but we are subjected to an unbelievable number of threads that assume EVERYTHING in the club is somehow dodgy. I have no idea why that is the case.
As was previously said, the actual issues it seems to me are on the playing side (notably recruitment and how we manage transition and the identification of suitable players) and with regard to the Trust's ongoing role and influence. |
Yet another great post Lisa,the last paragraph says its all. | | | |
| KPMG have resigned as Company Auditors on 13:41 - Sep 21 with 6129 views | londonlisa2001 |
| KPMG have resigned as Company Auditors on 13:34 - Sep 21 by Smellyplumz |
In our defence I think people are still feeling very sore after the sale of the club which did stink of being under hand, we are just a bit touchy innit. |
Don't disagree with that at all and I've said before how angry it made / makes me.
But we've had this sort of speculation for years - how many times have we had endless threads about players having stupid release clauses in their contracts for pennies, which have never turned out to be true (I don't mean proper ones like Joey for £15m or Brendan for £5m).
Maybe all clubs are the same - I don't know, because I never look at their websites, but we do seem to have a particular delight in the thought that everything is up sh*t creek.
It's probably a general Swansea thing - you know:
'lovely weather we're having',
'yes, but it'll be raining again next week'.
Perhaps we're all just genetically a right miserable bunch of moaners :-) | | | |
| KPMG have resigned as Company Auditors on 13:56 - Sep 21 with 6044 views | Nookiejack |
It was the significant loss that we made that got me jittery. Followed by auditors resigning.
The significant loss seemed unexpected. Also seemed to be a reason for limiting our options for player recruitment.
Hence my comment about were the monthly management accounts - from the perspective of were they reporting the month on month build up of significant losses to the sub finance committee of the Trust - which then seems reasonable. Or did the loss all come out of the blue in last month of the year?
Your explanation about the change in auditors does seem very reasonable but assume we should still wait and see if they did have any actual issues. | | | |
| KPMG have resigned as Company Auditors on 14:18 - Sep 21 with 5988 views | Nookiejack |
| KPMG have resigned as Company Auditors on 13:24 - Sep 21 by londonlisa2001 |
It's the very time (after a takeover) that you would expect a change. Also, given that the company's year end is July, then the auditors get changed before the audit of that year end (the accounts will have to be filed by end of April, so the audit will happen later this year I imagine, so the planning for that audit will happen now).
But my point is why everyone automatically assumes the worst? It makes no sense. If people think about it, new owners have just parted with somewhere between £70m to £80m to buy the club. Before doing that, they will have done very detailed due diligence to make sure that everything is in order. Far more diligence than an audit would require, lifting every stone to make sure that there is nothing that will bite them in the backside. And yet people are speculating about management accounts being wrong, or dodgy dealings.
It's always the same. We had several threads speculating that Borja was out for months, or his medical was done badly, or people would be sacked over it, and yet a couple of weeks after the club said that he had a muscle injury, he appears in our team, which is what you'd expect after a muscle injury.
I'm not necessarily saying about this thread in particular, but we are subjected to an unbelievable number of threads that assume EVERYTHING in the club is somehow dodgy. I have no idea why that is the case.
As was previously said, the actual issues it seems to me are on the playing side (notably recruitment and how we manage transition and the identification of suitable players) and with regard to the Trust's ongoing role and influence. |
I would think a key issue is that it appears the Trust now does not have any pre-emption rights. Following the change to the Holding Company's Articles.
Hence if we do go into a downward spiral - the Yanks (described as the majority shareholder in the new articles) can sell to whoever they like. The Trust though has to give first right of refusal of their shares to the Yanks - which doesn't quite appear to be symmetrical.
There could be a scenario (in a downward spiral) where Trust builds up significant funds if the Yanks sell off all the players and bank the TV rights and parachute money to recoup their outlay - by paying themselves a dividend. The Trust you would assume would receive 21% of the overall dividend.
The Yanks get their money back - the Trust has significant funds - however Yanks can sell their stake to whoever they want. (Including ex shareholders). | | | |
| KPMG have resigned as Company Auditors on 15:06 - Sep 21 with 5879 views | londonlisa2001 |
| KPMG have resigned as Company Auditors on 13:56 - Sep 21 by Nookiejack |
It was the significant loss that we made that got me jittery. Followed by auditors resigning.
The significant loss seemed unexpected. Also seemed to be a reason for limiting our options for player recruitment.
Hence my comment about were the monthly management accounts - from the perspective of were they reporting the month on month build up of significant losses to the sub finance committee of the Trust - which then seems reasonable. Or did the loss all come out of the blue in last month of the year?
Your explanation about the change in auditors does seem very reasonable but assume we should still wait and see if they did have any actual issues. |
Firstly, other than Huw mentioning a loss no one knows what it is.
Secondly, I wouldn't expect a loss to build up gradually as I doubt that we are loss making on a monthly basis (I would certainly hope not). A loss would be far more likely to be caused by new contracts / sales of players at a loss over carrying value / signing fees etc, which would not build up gradually but would happen largely during transfer windows when we also gave new contracts to a number of players. It'll be a small number of that sort of cost that would give rise to a loss - that's certainly not the sort of thing that couldn't be very easily audited. | | | |
| KPMG have resigned as Company Auditors on 15:16 - Sep 21 with 5853 views | londonlisa2001 |
| KPMG have resigned as Company Auditors on 14:18 - Sep 21 by Nookiejack |
I would think a key issue is that it appears the Trust now does not have any pre-emption rights. Following the change to the Holding Company's Articles.
Hence if we do go into a downward spiral - the Yanks (described as the majority shareholder in the new articles) can sell to whoever they like. The Trust though has to give first right of refusal of their shares to the Yanks - which doesn't quite appear to be symmetrical.
There could be a scenario (in a downward spiral) where Trust builds up significant funds if the Yanks sell off all the players and bank the TV rights and parachute money to recoup their outlay - by paying themselves a dividend. The Trust you would assume would receive 21% of the overall dividend.
The Yanks get their money back - the Trust has significant funds - however Yanks can sell their stake to whoever they want. (Including ex shareholders). |
They do - the new articles includes pre emption rights (both first and second pre emption). It's a bit moot though as the Trust are unlikely to be able to take them up, and it also depends on whether there has been any assignment of voting rights to the Americans from other shareholders - if so, then they can just use a special resolution to get round the pre emption. But there are pre emption rights for all shareholders including the Trust.
On the second point - again, that not strictly true, and in fact, having just read the relevant section of the Articles, the position over first refusal is actually quite interesting.
There is no first refusal right when the Americans sell - you are quite correct. But there is when any other shareholders sell. And it refers to the shareholders' agreement with respect to that. So if, say, Martin Morgan sells, then it says that right of first refusal has to be given according to the existing shareholder agreement. The reason I say that is interesting is because the 'other shareholders' between them have enough shares to stop the Americans reaching 75%. So the devil will be in the detail - we won't know exactly what that means until the Trust decide to make public their discussions. But theoretically, there COULD be a situation where MM or HJ sell shares and the Trust could be given the right to buy before the Americans can (depending on whether they are a full party to the shareholders' agreement or not).
If, by the way, there is a downward spiral and the Americans want out, it would be pretty likely that the Trust could buy shares if they wish (if they had as you suggest built up significant funds) as a club in a downward spiral would be unlikely to have a bunch of Chinese investors fighting over it. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
