D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
tbh it's probably a red herring expecting them to have done something outside of procedure and the law.
I would still like to know what they have done and why, however...
Wasps deal will be externally scrutinised (22 Viewers)
- Thread starter SimonGilbert
- Start date
tbh it's probably a red herring expecting them to have done something outside of procedure and the law.
I would still like to know what they have done and why, however...
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I think what he's saying is that an independent enquiry was always going to happen as standard business practice and be signed off by independent auditors.
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
Don't think so Tony, there is no independent enquiry, merely an independent check wrapped up within the normal annual audit. There is no news here.
Hobo
Well-Known Member
I am all for transparency. But as we have found out there is nothing in the law books about dealing with hedge funds, franchises and trying to promote regeneration. What is legal and what is unscrupulous can often hold hands. Putting aside any loyalty passion to CCFC (hard I know).
the biggest flaws with the SISU argument is, they have shown a lack of respect for contracts, they can be unscrupulous, unclear future planning and intention, coupled to an ambiguous and contradictionary PR campaign (from individuals and between individuals at board level). Unfortunately when scrutinised they just look a sorry state of affairs who have badly managed their circumstances (all be it difficult inherited circumstances). But taking over businesses in distress was their expert field?...but then again JS claimed to be a real estate expert on the back of a degree. She probably would have done better watching Location, Location.
My biggest fear is that the bitterness is so deep it will run and run through the court rooms. SISU have a trickle income through management fees. They have us at a just cash flow positive. They won't have the guts to just pull the plug, but could just slowly suffocate us out of existence.
in defence of SISU I think they thought they could come in make quick money and get out. It all went wrong. They then just didn't have the money for the obvious exit and like a bad gambler have stayed at the table too long and got burnt.
Calista
Well-Known Member
The article says “The transactions in relation to the council’s sale of its interest in ACL will be scrutinised by the independent external auditor as part of the audit of our 2014/15 accounts"
I interpret it the same way as you - I don't think they've called for a special investigation. They just seem to be reminding everyone that they are always subject to rigorous audit procedures. Seems like a fair point to me.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
So... If you had a cynical view you may think that the CET have played up the story to quieten down the council dissenters...
Just putting it out there.
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
No, if you were cynical you'd say the Council asked the Telegraph to play up the story. My view is the Council just put it out there knowing the Telegraph would pad it out a bit, the same story could equally have the headline 'Council confirm no separate enquiry into the sale of ACL'.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
I don't think it's the job of this set of auditors to examine the rights and wrongs of the Wasps move, is it? Also of course, ACL I'd imagine isn't even in scope for the audit, so half the story is missing.
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
SimonGilbert
Telegraph Tea Boy
The council didn't put anything out there.
I approached them for a response after Jim Cunningham suggested there were questions to answer.
It's taken several days and many conversations to get these responses.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
It does seem that the response they have given could easily be viewed as spin. Depending on if you're looking at the glass as half empty or half full you could easily say they aren't actually doing anything over and above what would happen with any transaction which, to my mind at least, is a long way from having an independent inquiry into the council's role.
This seems more a box ticking exercise comparable with Appleton's 'investigation'.
SimonGilbert
Telegraph Tea Boy
It could be judged as spin or simple clarification. But the information is now there for people to make their own minds up.
I personally feel it was an appropriate response to the comments of an MP. Worth pointing out, however, the MP didn't call for an inquiry - merely clarification.
In fact, I'm not sure anyone high profile has called for a full scale inquiry have they?
Of course it could be viewed that Sisu's latest judicial review application is a request for an inquiry. Luckily we have the independent British legal system to decide on whether that is an appropriate response.
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
Do you think the response answers the questions?
SimonGilbert
Telegraph Tea Boy
Some of the procedural ones. None of the moral ones.
robbiethemole
Well-Known Member
Simon,Simon,Simon,.................no high profile person called for an enquiry???????? surely the award winning journalist, Les Reid, qualifies to be included in that category? #deludedtwat
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
No our great leader said "we have moved on" and that we will build our own stadium.
I believe this was before she moved us to Northampton, and a year before the council spoke to Wasps?
I am passionate about the City and the Ricoh I wanted both to be one, but if one doesn't want to buy it until it is sold to another what can we do about it?
I am pissed off with he thought of CCFC leaving this City, but our owners have just pissed everyone off so much that it has now come to a crunch bite the bullet stay at the Ricoh indefinitely or start building the new stadium, ether way tell us now get us onside or just keep chipping away at the supporters until there are only a handful that will actually care.
The Gentleman
Well-Known Member
Thing is 'certain' people had made their minds up and they will not alter that irrespective of what comes out. Look at the JR, 'certain' people said CCC were at fault and then rejoiced at talk of a smoking gun screaming "see we told you so", sadly for them no smoking gun appeared. Yet despite a top judge saying not, they still think CCC and not Sisu/Otium are at fault.
Now take this latest story, people already are calling it spin saying it's crap before anything has even been done.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Can only be a good thing, can't it. If evidence shows anything underhand then it can be dealt with, it they are shown to have played by the book, then we can all get on with it.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Hopefully this will clear a few things up
The CCC statement refers to the scrutiny that the auditors of CCC will put the deal under during the course of the annual audit. This is not special attention or a specific examination of the deal but part of the work that any auditor would have do for the 2015 financial statements (the principle applies each & every year). The level of work they do will depend on the risk they identify when planning the audit and following reviews of that risk during and at end of the audit, the public interest, how material it is etc. They will only refer to it in their audit report if there are matters that need reporting, if there are no references by the auditor that should be taken that the accounts form a true and fair view and that there have been no material breaches of law, regulation or procedure that the auditor wishes to bring to anyone's attention. Because CCC themselves have highlighted the deal then I suspect the auditors can not ignore the deal in any way because of the public interest.
The financial statements may disclose details of the deal and the ACL loan and the auditors are required to form an opinion as to whether those disclosures are adequate, comply with the law or accounting standards and accurate. If they do not think they are they will need to disclose the proper details in their audit report
An audit is undertaken by an independent firm of auditors and is a legal requirement. The auditors have to be able to document and prove that they are indeed independent. I would suspect that the current auditors to maintain independence have been kept well away from the deal and professional advice sought from other firms of accountants. If there is a threat to independence (including conflict of interest or undertaking non audit work for the client) then the auditor must assess document and implement procedures that deal with that threat - including the possibility of resigning the appointment.
An auditor has a statutory right to examine what ever information (financial or otherwise) they see fit in order to perform their duties. If they have not received all the information and explanations then they must state that on the audit report. An auditor can request information from third parties to gain confirmation of balances from a bank for example
An audit does not stop at the year end but must assess events/transactions subsequent to that up until it is signed off by the auditors. It will also include in depth knowledge of the entity and the events of the period in question, the history and subsequent events
Auditors do not just examine the figures in the financial statements. They must examine what lies behind the figures but also the law, regulations, procedures etc that support those figures. So they will need to see evidence that a particular transaction has been properly approved and complies with the laws and regulations that affect CCC for instance. They will not be concerned particularly with public press utterances of a council leader other than it might provide back ground information, they would be much more concerned with minutes of meetings of the council and steering groups however
The audit of a local authority is a specialised area and will be conducted by audit staff & partners that have specialist knowledge.
An audit will not and does not examine every transaction. It will examine areas where there is a high risk to the audit opinion in depth but a lesser level of examination for low risk areas. The auditor can examine any area or transaction they choose - that is an auditors right enshrined in law
The auditor will use the published accounts of ACL to assess such things as the value of the investment etc. They might ask for clarification of certain items. In complex issues they might engage the services of specialist lawyers etc in order to reach their opinion. In this case no they will not be auditing the records of ACL, that has already been done by another firm. The opinion of an auditor will carry a great amount of weight in court and enable the judge to rely on the financial statements at face value unless there is very good and strong evidence to the contrary.
An inquiry as suggested by Mr Reid is not a legal requirement. It has no power, unless appointed by a court, to require evidence from CCC AEHC Wasps or ACL. It will be expensive lengthy and if it can not access records pretty pointless. The cost will be borne by who ever appoints the head of the inquiry. Whoever conducts such an inquiry in to CCC actions will (a) have to be agreed between the parties (b) have specialist knowledge of local authorities (c) be restricted to defined terms of reference (d) will not have unrestricted access to records unless directed by a court (d) will not be able to look in to the records of ACL, Wasps or AEHC unless those parties agree to it (highly unlikely).
CCC have been clever with their statement yes but quite correct - the transaction will be examined by an independent body but it is not a specific examination of that transaction, it is part of the annual audit function. CCC have no legal need to do more. Morally some people might demand more as Mr Reid is indeed doing but I suspect having put this statement out CCC will ride out this storm until it dies away. Other than Press quotes of a council leader the evidence of skulduggery at CCC is what exactly?
The CCC statement refers to the scrutiny that the auditors of CCC will put the deal under during the course of the annual audit. This is not special attention or a specific examination of the deal but part of the work that any auditor would have do for the 2015 financial statements (the principle applies each & every year). The level of work they do will depend on the risk they identify when planning the audit and following reviews of that risk during and at end of the audit, the public interest, how material it is etc. They will only refer to it in their audit report if there are matters that need reporting, if there are no references by the auditor that should be taken that the accounts form a true and fair view and that there have been no material breaches of law, regulation or procedure that the auditor wishes to bring to anyone's attention. Because CCC themselves have highlighted the deal then I suspect the auditors can not ignore the deal in any way because of the public interest.
The financial statements may disclose details of the deal and the ACL loan and the auditors are required to form an opinion as to whether those disclosures are adequate, comply with the law or accounting standards and accurate. If they do not think they are they will need to disclose the proper details in their audit report
An audit is undertaken by an independent firm of auditors and is a legal requirement. The auditors have to be able to document and prove that they are indeed independent. I would suspect that the current auditors to maintain independence have been kept well away from the deal and professional advice sought from other firms of accountants. If there is a threat to independence (including conflict of interest or undertaking non audit work for the client) then the auditor must assess document and implement procedures that deal with that threat - including the possibility of resigning the appointment.
An auditor has a statutory right to examine what ever information (financial or otherwise) they see fit in order to perform their duties. If they have not received all the information and explanations then they must state that on the audit report. An auditor can request information from third parties to gain confirmation of balances from a bank for example
An audit does not stop at the year end but must assess events/transactions subsequent to that up until it is signed off by the auditors. It will also include in depth knowledge of the entity and the events of the period in question, the history and subsequent events
Auditors do not just examine the figures in the financial statements. They must examine what lies behind the figures but also the law, regulations, procedures etc that support those figures. So they will need to see evidence that a particular transaction has been properly approved and complies with the laws and regulations that affect CCC for instance. They will not be concerned particularly with public press utterances of a council leader other than it might provide back ground information, they would be much more concerned with minutes of meetings of the council and steering groups however
The audit of a local authority is a specialised area and will be conducted by audit staff & partners that have specialist knowledge.
An audit will not and does not examine every transaction. It will examine areas where there is a high risk to the audit opinion in depth but a lesser level of examination for low risk areas. The auditor can examine any area or transaction they choose - that is an auditors right enshrined in law
The auditor will use the published accounts of ACL to assess such things as the value of the investment etc. They might ask for clarification of certain items. In complex issues they might engage the services of specialist lawyers etc in order to reach their opinion. In this case no they will not be auditing the records of ACL, that has already been done by another firm. The opinion of an auditor will carry a great amount of weight in court and enable the judge to rely on the financial statements at face value unless there is very good and strong evidence to the contrary.
An inquiry as suggested by Mr Reid is not a legal requirement. It has no power, unless appointed by a court, to require evidence from CCC AEHC Wasps or ACL. It will be expensive lengthy and if it can not access records pretty pointless. The cost will be borne by who ever appoints the head of the inquiry. Whoever conducts such an inquiry in to CCC actions will (a) have to be agreed between the parties (b) have specialist knowledge of local authorities (c) be restricted to defined terms of reference (d) will not have unrestricted access to records unless directed by a court (d) will not be able to look in to the records of ACL, Wasps or AEHC unless those parties agree to it (highly unlikely).
CCC have been clever with their statement yes but quite correct - the transaction will be examined by an independent body but it is not a specific examination of that transaction, it is part of the annual audit function. CCC have no legal need to do more. Morally some people might demand more as Mr Reid is indeed doing but I suspect having put this statement out CCC will ride out this storm until it dies away. Other than Press quotes of a council leader the evidence of skulduggery at CCC is what exactly?
Last edited:
Calista
Well-Known Member
I doubt it. As Simon says, an audit will address procedural things, but not the "moral" question of whether CCC ought to have sold to Wasps given all the circumstances. There will always be plenty of room for disagreement on that.
tisza
Well-Known Member
all this talk of morality is getting ridiculous. if we're resorting to moral arguments then it must be assumed that people are struggling to find legal & financial weaknesses in the decision making process.
The moral argument has its own flaws in that what are the council's responsibilities. are they supposed to look after the 7500 people who go to football matches or the 290000 who don't which seems to be the thrust of the council's argument. is it morally right that SISU wanted to financially distress the ACL for their own benefit? is it morally right that both sides don't disclose full details on all their actions regarding the football club, the new stadium, the old stadium etc.
the morality argument is as flawed as all the others and takes us down a route which will never see fans agreeing on.
The moral argument has its own flaws in that what are the council's responsibilities. are they supposed to look after the 7500 people who go to football matches or the 290000 who don't which seems to be the thrust of the council's argument. is it morally right that SISU wanted to financially distress the ACL for their own benefit? is it morally right that both sides don't disclose full details on all their actions regarding the football club, the new stadium, the old stadium etc.
the morality argument is as flawed as all the others and takes us down a route which will never see fans agreeing on.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Are you sure I read in the observer the other day that there was words to the effect of 'mounting calls for independent a public enquiry. That Jim had joined the campaign.
This campaign was growing. The silent informed majority backed it, growing pressure etc etc
I just personally keep missing the pressure and mounting calls?
Astute
Well-Known Member
'mounting calls for independent a public enquiry'
It is true. It has risen from three people to four.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
To be honest there's no need for a "moral audit", is there? As most people apart from the Telegraph, Italia, Dongo, Noggin, MMM and a few others think it wasn't the right thing to do.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
The 7500 is a little bit of a red herring, not the same 7500 every week (except 3.5k ST's) plus there are 150k+ people registered as customers on the ccfc database (is that right Ashdown?)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
tisza
Well-Known Member
really. maybe most on here but i haven't seen any other evidence that the majority of people in Coventry care one way or the other.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
duffer
Well-Known Member
Exactly that. It's a start, but this doesn't look anything like a serious attempt to get to the bottom of what's gone on here. At various points when it suited the council, ACL was either profitable or unprofitable. Then it was either for sale, or not for sale. There's also a pretty serious allegation that the council, or officers within the council may have tried to influence or bully the local newspaper into suppressing the story on the original bailout.
Regardless of opinions on SISU, and how crap they are, there's a lot of stuff here that merits a proper and thorough investigation. Just because there were unanimious votes behind closed doors does not mean that the decisions taken were correct, or based on true information.
When SISU took the club into administration, and it turned out that all of the assets had been mysteriously shifted between the various CCFC companies I was absolutely behind an investigation then. In fact I wrote to the Serious Fraud Office to suggest that a criminal investigation might be merited. I never received any reply, fwiw, and as far as I know no investigation ever happened, or if it did no malfeasance was ever found.
Now, that there's the possiblity that the Council have been up to no good, or at best have been poorly advised, I feel entirely justified in asking for the same kind of thing. The independent audit here, presumably by an accountancy firm paid by the council, carries the same kind of weight that Appleton's (paid by SISU) 'investigation' into CCFC's liquidation does. Basically I'd imagine both parties will do the minimum required of them by law to satisfy their clients - that's not enough for me.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. We know what SISU are like, and how far they can be trusted. The council though must be held to a higher standard. Simply getting one over on SISU does not give them a free pass on their conduct. I honestly can't understand why everyone wouldn't support a thorough and truly independent investigation.
Last edited:
rupert_bear
Well-Known Member
Wasps deal will be externally scrutinised !! And what difference will that make ??
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Couple of other bits of info
The CCC year end is 31/03/2015. The last accounts were signed dated 25 September. So do not expect anything this side of the 07/07/15 court case in terms of the annual audit.
Copies of the 2014 accounts are at the following link and give an indication as to the scope of what kind of thing is reported
http://www.coventry.gov.uk/downloads/file/13513/draft_statement_of_accounts_2013-2014 (be warned it is 96 pages long!)
The CCC year end is 31/03/2015. The last accounts were signed dated 25 September. So do not expect anything this side of the 07/07/15 court case in terms of the annual audit.
Copies of the 2014 accounts are at the following link and give an indication as to the scope of what kind of thing is reported
http://www.coventry.gov.uk/downloads/file/13513/draft_statement_of_accounts_2013-2014 (be warned it is 96 pages long!)
tisza
Well-Known Member
my concerns over any independent investigation are:
1. who is actually going to appoint it?
2. what powers it would have?
3. who will pay for it?
4. is it really any different from the current jr or the next one SISU want?
5. what is the timeframe?
6. does it provide the owners with an excuse to sit still for another 12-18 months whilst more important issues like a new stadium & football matters fester?
7. ultimately the legal issues etc. have been dealt with twice by the jr is an independent investigation going to do anymore than say both sides could have tried a bit harder to get along?
8. what would its remit be as neither side wants all their dirty linen washed in public?
maybe I'm wrong but i haven't seen much clamour from the owners for such an investigation. indeed Fisher has said they've moved on and are working in a new direction.
an investigation would be nice in as far as it would put more information out there but ultimately that is all it could probably do.
1. who is actually going to appoint it?
2. what powers it would have?
3. who will pay for it?
4. is it really any different from the current jr or the next one SISU want?
5. what is the timeframe?
6. does it provide the owners with an excuse to sit still for another 12-18 months whilst more important issues like a new stadium & football matters fester?
7. ultimately the legal issues etc. have been dealt with twice by the jr is an independent investigation going to do anymore than say both sides could have tried a bit harder to get along?
8. what would its remit be as neither side wants all their dirty linen washed in public?
maybe I'm wrong but i haven't seen much clamour from the owners for such an investigation. indeed Fisher has said they've moved on and are working in a new direction.
an investigation would be nice in as far as it would put more information out there but ultimately that is all it could probably do.
Terry Gibson's perm
Well-Known Member
Wow there are some people at the council who are going to retire with fantastic pension pots the ceo had more than twice my whole pot put in last year alone!
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Be careful to distinguish between employees and elected members. The elected members are not part of the councils pension scheme
duffer
Well-Known Member
Apologies for not coming back on this point by point, but an enquiry into the council's actions would have nothing to do with the owners of the club, in much the same way that an investigation of the club by (say) the SFO or FL would have nothing to do with the council. The second JR regarding the deal to Wasps may not even happen, and even if it does isn't obliged to touch on issues regarding the council's relationship with the local press, or the truthfulness of the council leaders and other members statements to the public, or the seemingly endless need for secrecy in the way that the council does it's business with regard to ACL.
To be clear in itself an investigation won't give an excuse for further delays on the new stadium - SISU have got enough of those prepared already in any case. So, we shouldn't accept that as a reason to not have a proper look at what's gone on here. Indeed, as you say Fisher has already stated that the club is moving on regardless.
However it would restore some confidence that we can trust the council to work in an open and honest manner; and that it did not risk taxpayers' money simply to achieve a victory over a third-party (however much disliked).
Your point about another possible JR confounding the issues here is well made, and I'd accept that we might need to wait until that's played out before we get to the bottom of this. What I don't want though, is for it all to be forgotten.