Sports Shield BWFC Ltd - LIQUIDATED

Ten Bobsworth wrote:I've been thinking that my work isn't finished, Sluffy. Have you been thinking?

Do you still think that there's some great mystery that's not been revealed about the financing of the club during Uncle Eddie's ownership?

Do you stll think that the 30-odd pages of copious notes and audited accounts BWFC produced every year might have been works of fabrication and fiction that's covered up some gigantic fraud?

Do you still think its impossible that the £100million Uncle Eddie invested in emerging markets in 2005 produced the £170million he lent to BWFC over the next ten years?

Your public awaits.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Thanks for replying to the earlier version of my questions. I changed them a tad later.

I think you are still muddying the waters a bit, Sluffy. And btw it does matter because Uncle Eddie is President of the club and it still owes him money and there are still outstanding charges registered in the name of Moonshift.

And I also think that recording history accurately is quite important even if you and Manning don't.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:I hope members will forgive me for not commenting previously on the SportsShield BWFC Ltd (dormant?) balance sheet.

Accepting that the ten bob invested in Burnden Leisure is too small to register, where is:
1.The loan from BluMarble
2.The loan to BWFC
3. The interest and charges both ways

How can it be dormant when it has bought shares and both borrowed and loaned money? Or have these transactions been recorded in some other name?

Sluffy wrote:

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Thanks for replying to the earlier version of my questions. I changed them a tad later.

I think you are still muddying the waters a bit, Sluffy. And btw it does matter because Uncle Eddie is President of the club and it still owes him money and there are still outstanding charges registered in the name of Moonshift.

And I also think that recording history accurately is quite important even if you and Manning don't.

As far as I was aware the debt still owed to Davies helps prevents potential asset stripping by any new owners and is only to be paid back based on the clubs performance - ie if we could ever afford to repay it by becoming successful again within a certain time frame.

Also history is written by the victors, or so they say - so I wouldn't always take it that any history book is a true and accurate reflection as to what actually happened at the time!

wanderlust wrote:

Ten Bobsworth wrote:I hope members will forgive me for not commenting previously on the SportsShield BWFC Ltd (dormant?) balance sheet.

Accepting that the ten bob invested in Burnden Leisure is too small to register, where is:
1.The loan from BluMarble
2.The loan to BWFC
3. The interest and charges both ways

How can it be dormant when it has bought shares and both borrowed and loaned money? Or have these transactions been recorded in some other name?

Because it's a balance sheet i.e. a snapshot of the value of the club at a particular point in time.
This balance sheet was obviously produced after the shares and other assets were disposed of  presumably to the liquidators - like a final bank statement after you've closed the account.

Now if you want the story of the ins and outs and what went on over e.g. the last year, you'll be needing a P & L and the previous financial statements to compare against.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

Ten Bobsworth wrote:I hope members will forgive me for not commenting previously on the SportsShield BWFC Ltd (dormant?) balance sheet.

Accepting that the ten bob invested in Burnden Leisure is too small to register, where is:
1.The loan from BluMarble
2.The loan to BWFC
3. The interest and charges both ways

How can it be dormant when it has bought shares and both borrowed and loaned money? Or have these transactions been recorded in some other name?

Because it's a balance sheet i.e. a snapshot of the value of the club at a particular point in time.
This balance sheet was obviously produced after the shares and other assets were disposed of  presumably to the liquidators - like a final bank statement after you've closed the account.

Now if you want the story of the ins and outs and what went on over e.g. the last year, you'll be needing a P & L and the previous financial statements to compare against.

Sorry old pal, but the balance sheet is, in this case, a statement of the position of the company at 31 December 2016. Btw I am now well into my fifth decade as a qualified chartered accountant

wanderlust wrote:

Ten Bobsworth wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

Ten Bobsworth wrote:I hope members will forgive me for not commenting previously on the SportsShield BWFC Ltd (dormant?) balance sheet.

Accepting that the ten bob invested in Burnden Leisure is too small to register, where is:
1.The loan from BluMarble
2.The loan to BWFC
3. The interest and charges both ways

How can it be dormant when it has bought shares and both borrowed and loaned money? Or have these transactions been recorded in some other name?

Because it's a balance sheet i.e. a snapshot of the value of the club at a particular point in time.
This balance sheet was obviously produced after the shares and other assets were disposed of  presumably to the liquidators - like a final bank statement after you've closed the account.

Now if you want the story of the ins and outs and what went on over e.g. the last year, you'll be needing a P & L and the previous financial statements to compare against.

Sorry old pal, but the balance sheet is, in this case, a statement of the position of the company at 31 December 2016. Btw I am now well into my fifth decade as a qualified chartered accountant

Apologies. In that case I'm stumped because Deano borrowed the money and bought club shares in February 2016 (approx) so the only thing I can think of is that by the end of the year the shares etc had been shifted into another entity - leaving a zero balance.
To check this we'd still need a P&L/CFF for the period as you know. Would that be now available at Companies' House? It would be a damned sight more useful to get an insight into what happened than the published Balance Sheet.

ChicoryCoffee wrote:Sorry I'm cyclical on this topic.  Not about Eds commitment, but about the numbers.

I've seen accountancy described as an art v a science - as long as it is within the bounds of legality.  There are many examples of recording and accounting to achieve a particular objective, be that stating a specific profit or loss or setting asset values.  We cannot necessarily rely on auditors to get it right all the time as some recent examples in the US have shown us with fines of the big four, and changes to accounting rules e.g. SAB101.  I am sure it's the same in the U.K.   Im no expert I just read the papers.....  we also have some great examples of "creative"  accounting / bending the rules to achieve an objective with BHS.
I normally don't comment on here, I just enjoy the banter you have, but felt I wanted to contribute as ten bob aka Chris seemed very intent on driving his agenda here.  I've already seen this on the BEN comments page and seemingly being unsuccessful there has migrated onto here so far unchallenged.  

I've no intention of getting into an argument with anyone but wanted to highlight that it is never that simple.....

rammywhite wrote:You know- I'm really fed up with this. I too am a chartered accountant  who can claim to be in his fifth decade of qualification and I too have audited hundreds of companies and  signed off hundreds of sets of Accounts.
We went through all this facile speculation and ignorant assertion a couple of years ago and we went through it time after time after time. People who know nothing about accounting/auditing/financial reporting were wildly speculating on the basis of no knowledge whatsoever,  about what was going on, how Eddie was a crook making millions on the sly, speculating wildly about how much  money he had, where he got it from, who was in bed with him. How the Accounts were manipulated to give one picture when the reality according to the doom- mongers and fantasists was entirely different.
You don't fool people like Deloitte nor will you fool the new auditors Cowgill Holloway. They're not the mafia to be paid off with a few free season tickets.
It's curious how they, on the premises for months looking at the clubs finances got it wrong but self-appointed cognoscenti somehow knew better than the auditors did about what was really happening.
Eddie was brilliant for BWFC- a genuine fan who put his very substantial money where his mouth was and bought us the best years we have had for decades..
I had determined not to get involved with all the nonsense going on in this thread because that's what most of it is- nonsense.
I don't know who ten bob is, but I'm in the same profession as him and its about time some of you listened to what he's saying.
I said the same thing a couple of years ago when all the financial troubles came to a head and its now rearing its ugly head again. . There's no fraud, nobody making millions on the sly- none of the fancy tricks that you imagine happening are happening.
.
I've said my piece and that's all you'll hear from me about all of this because its virtually entirely assertion and speculation based on fantasy.
I'm an accountant-and I deal in facts and reality

rammywhite wrote:You know- I'm really fed up with this. I too am a chartered accountant  who can claim to be in his fifth decade of qualification and I too have audited hundreds of companies and  signed off hundreds of sets of Accounts.
We went through all this facile speculation and ignorant assertion a couple of years ago and we went through it time after time after time. People who know nothing about accounting/auditing/financial reporting were wildly speculating on the basis of no knowledge whatsoever,  about what was going on, how Eddie was a crook making millions on the sly, speculating wildly about how much  money he had, where he got it from, who was in bed with him. How the Accounts were manipulated to give one picture when the reality according to the doom- mongers and fantasists was entirely different.
You don't fool people like Deloitte nor will you fool the new auditors Cowgill Holloway. They're not the mafia to be paid off with a few free season tickets.
It's curious how they, on the premises for months looking at the clubs finances got it wrong but self-appointed cognoscenti somehow knew better than the auditors did about what was really happening.
Eddie was brilliant for BWFC- a genuine fan who put his very substantial money where his mouth was and bought us the best years we have had for decades..
I had determined not to get involved with all the nonsense going on in this thread because that's what most of it is- nonsense.
I don't know who ten bob is, but I'm in the same profession as him and its about time some of you listened to what he's saying.
I said the same thing a couple of years ago when all the financial troubles came to a head and its now rearing its ugly head again. . There's no fraud, nobody making millions on the sly- none of the fancy tricks that you imagine happening are happening.
.
I've said my piece and that's all you'll hear from me about all of this because its virtually entirely assertion and speculation based on fantasy.
I'm an accountant-and I deal in facts and reality

ChicoryCoffee wrote:I honestly wish I was smart enough and qualified enough to fully understand the accounts.  I have been through them every year for the past 6 years - I'm not a lifer like many on here and only came to BWFC recently, but have an interest in this side of it too. 

To explain my suspicion.  It is based simply on 3 facts :

1) Eds holding company funding BWFC is based offshore and therefore we have zero visibility of the money trail
2) Ed is resident on the Isle of Man - so he may like a bit of tax shelter - who wouldn't in his shoes ?
3) How losses roll into debts and interest on debt rolls into even larger debts over time (ie Eds repayments and interest) but investment continues...

The last one I am sure I can be educated on, from an accountancy perspective, and it may just be a big heart on Eds part....

The first 1 makes me suspicious as we do not know :

1) The other potential investors within that trust (is it Fildraw Private Trust Bermuda ? offshores are known to be secretive)
2) Their interests and/or other companies they "invest" or draw profit from
3) The size of any of the proceeds from 2) that could be offset by losses @ BWFC that are in turn losses on the Trusts investment in BWFC

It may all be completely innocent, but typically offshoring is there to optimise tax, and you don't pay tax on a loss (ie BWFC P&L).  I admit that 3) may not make sense mathematically a loss cancelling a profit, but there are clever ways of drawing down money such as those demonstrated by Green & Chapell with BHS.  Sell & lease back is also a wheeze that Green and his wife seem to like too

Ill lookup the BN post ten bob - appreciate it if you have a link as I imagine BN isnt the simplest site to search..

Many thanks for the welcome Sluffy.  I don't want to argue with people, I think there are some people on here who are really, really good at that, and I enjoy their banter.....  But I am happy to have a grown up discussion and be educated