As I've mentioned on here before (although a Financial Dunce!) it's my understanding that it's quite a big red flag when auditors look at your books and decide that they aren't willing to put their name/reputation to them so they walk away...
I'm not sure of the correct analogy, but a Simpsons reference usually works, so it does feel that our current auditors are very much in the Lionel Hutz/Dr Nick Riviera bracket...
If they were not a 5th tier non-entity and if both Deloitte and BDO had not decided to move on from us in the past few years…
Seems to me it changes the burden of proof. Instead of a dispute between our finance dept (not that we have one) and the PL commission, we are effectively saying “this is what our audited accounts say, if you have a problem then it needs to be adjudicated by specialists and if they find in your favour we will just blame our auditors”. That gives me a little hope that we’re not totally screwed.
As for the change in accounting policy it is an argument about legal form (these loans are ‘working capital’) vs ‘true and fair (the club cash flow statement shows the increase in debt in these periods is predominantly due to stadium costs). It is messy but true and fair over rides are only meant to be used in exceptional circumstances. How to judge that is subjective.
It is a dispute that should be going to the Financial Reporting Council or the regulatory authority of the club’s auditors. Only if they rule the change in policy is incorrect should a PL commission be invoked IMO. Accounting policy debates should not judged in that forum by a group of unqualified amateurs (typically only one of three commissioners is an accountant and they are not usually a technical expert).
This makes me a grumpy accountant!
It's over isn't it.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/apr/12/everton-paid-30m-interest-lender-rights-media-funding-links-with-tax-exile-documents-suggest
Responses