MCL Posted October 8, 2010 Share Posted October 8, 2010 I think you would need to send them to Philadelphia for someone to be able to understand them. I can still recollect all the high profile Livi fans saying they wouldn't trust any new owners, everything they said would be taken with a pinch of salt and any figures would be gone over with a fine tooth comb. So far, silence is golden... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian Posted October 9, 2010 Share Posted October 9, 2010 Yes, I said I stopped doing work in the December before Flynn left the following June and I had started court proceedings before he sold the club so I would hardly say he kept me happy. I warned the Italians when they took over that there was a court case looming and it would only stop if they paid me. They decided to drag their feet and argue that they weren't responsible for the debt. If they had paid me at that time they would probably have got the money back in season tickets and hospitality over the season. The "Trust" have stated aims about the club that they failed to live up to and, in fact, worked against the club. You never warned the Italians. You spooke with scottish lady at the club. She never worked with the Italians, only against, and don't passed the message. Firs time that they was involved with you was reading the daily record... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MCL Posted October 9, 2010 Share Posted October 9, 2010 You never warned the Italians. You spooke with scottish lady at the club. She never worked with the Italians, only against, and don't passed the message. Firs time that they was involved with you was reading the daily record... A lot of people on here think you are Angelo Massone but I've had my doubts and that posting proves it to me that you are someone at the wind-up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Darwin Esq Posted October 9, 2010 Share Posted October 9, 2010 He's-a not a Messiah. He's a very naughty-a boy! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MCL Posted October 9, 2010 Share Posted October 9, 2010 He's-a not a Messiah. He's a very naughty-a boy! And now the real Brian reveals himself 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdinburghLivi Posted October 9, 2010 Share Posted October 9, 2010 As I expected they are abbreviated accounts which have sparse detail to say the least but it's perfectly clear they've been retrospectively amended to remove debt that must have been written off subsequently. The 2008 comparatives show £1.5m of debt and add a year of horrible loss making to that. Probably nearer £2m of debt would be about right. It would be normal to write off debt that was subsequently written off from the published accounts even if they are for a period that ended before the write off. Someone better placed to give opinion over the accounts than a man with an agenda like MCL. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdinburghLivi Posted October 9, 2010 Share Posted October 9, 2010 It would be more misleading to imply in the most recently published accounts that a significant amount of debt that was due at year end and the liability to repay was either met or it is still due when it isn't. The same applies in the other direction. If you sell something on the last day of the year for £10,000 but the customer goes bust before they ever pay it a few weeks later you would write off the debt. To leave it there gives a false impression of the effective value of the company even if it was accurate on the actual day. They DO give a true reflection of the ultimate assets and liabilities existing at that date. More. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AND180Y Posted October 9, 2010 Share Posted October 9, 2010 He also said. Reasonably sure though I've not had any involvement in the accounts of a company that has been in administration and continued to exist. It's entirely logical though and it's quite clearly what Livingston have done (and it's signed off by a CA). Perhaps when the 04 accounts were published the CVA hadn't been finalised? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdinburghLivi Posted October 9, 2010 Share Posted October 9, 2010 Still reasonable to say he's better placed than MCL to give opinion, that hasn't changed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Darwin Esq Posted October 9, 2010 Share Posted October 9, 2010 And now the real Brian reveals himself If-a you want-a a horse's head in-a de bed then keep it-a going! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AND180Y Posted October 9, 2010 Share Posted October 9, 2010 Still reasonable to say he's better placed than MCL to give opinion, that hasn't changed. How/Why is he better placed? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdinburghLivi Posted October 9, 2010 Share Posted October 9, 2010 How/Why is he better placed? Because he clearly has knowledge in Accounting and also isn't looking to read the accounts in a negative way to slag off the Trust. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AND180Y Posted October 9, 2010 Share Posted October 9, 2010 (edited) Because he clearly has knowledge in Accounting and also isn't looking to read the accounts in a negative way to slag off the Trust. I think there are two discussions going on, one about the accounts the other about the part that the trust may or may not have had in the downfall of Massone. So as a clever guy studying business, what is your take on the accounts? Edited October 9, 2010 by AND180Y 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdinburghLivi Posted October 9, 2010 Share Posted October 9, 2010 I think there are two discussions going on, one about the accounts the other about the part that the trust may or may not have had in the downfall of Massone. So as a clever guy studying business, what is your take on the accounts? The two are now intertwined in MCL's mind. The perceived small level of debt just before Massone thankfully exited the club can now lead to even more Trust slagging. Given I've only started my course 3 weeks ago and none of my lectures or readings have had a lot to do with financial accounting, I'd have to call upon my Higher Accounting to give an opinion. As you can probably understand that is at a completely different level to the accounts submitted here so I'd rather not give my take. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoss Posted October 9, 2010 Share Posted October 9, 2010 Right, I'll have another go. The SFL has already proven that different rules exist for different clubs. Go on then, tell me when. Livingston paid a £750K bond to guarantee it but still got punted down to Div 3 thanks to some shady dealings between interested parties. No they didn't, just how hard is it to get the basic facts right after all this time? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Darwin Esq Posted October 9, 2010 Share Posted October 9, 2010 If you say so. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MCL Posted October 9, 2010 Share Posted October 9, 2010 Because he clearly has knowledge in Accounting and also isn't looking to read the accounts in a negative way to slag off the Trust. I couldn't find those quotes by SD in this thread ? Anyway, because his posts fit your argument means he clearly has knowledge to read the accounts the way you want him to but I've been running my own business for 13 years and that excludes me from my view of them? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mybitchunderprotest Posted October 9, 2010 Share Posted October 9, 2010 I couldn't find those quotes by SD in this thread ? Anyway, because his posts fit your argument means he clearly has knowledge to read the accounts the way you want him to but I've been running my own business for 13 years and that excludes me from my view of them? Those quotes come from the Dundee in admin thread on 1st division forum 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdinburghLivi Posted October 9, 2010 Share Posted October 9, 2010 (edited) I couldn't find those quotes by SD in this thread ? Anyway, because his posts fit your argument means he clearly has knowledge to read the accounts the way you want him to but I've been running my own business for 13 years and that excludes me from my view of them? They are in the Dundee thread. No because others look to him for insight on accounts, that's why I thought his view was relevant in this case. As I also said, he is neutral which adds additional credence to his opinion. Nothing should exclude you from your opinion though, haven't said that, I just don't take your posts which show your bias, very seriously. Edited October 9, 2010 by EdinburghLivi 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MCL Posted October 9, 2010 Share Posted October 9, 2010 They are in the Dundee thread. No because others look to him for insight on accounts, that's why I thought his view was relevant in this case. As I also said, he is neutral which adds additional credence to his opinion. Nothing should exclude you from your opinion though, haven't said that, I just don't take your posts which show your bias, very seriously. Fair enough. Have you got enough sand there ?? One question is asked before you sign and submit the accounts - Is this a fair and true reflection of the company accounts? In my view, the accounts don't show a true reflection of the company on that date. Even if they go into admin a month later as Livi did, you can't backdate and write off bad debt that hasn't happened yet. That should be shown in the next year's accounts. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.