Port Vale accounts given to OVF

[geosname]

Thanks Geo. So I wonder where it goes from here -and why they are different ?

 

David... 1 interesting question 1 not so interesting

Someone asked for the accounts to be published [various reasons given]

Smurf said he had sent them to a fan in an email

The fan stated they were not received

Smurf sent Rob a copy to publish

Rob published

The company accountant requested they be removed soonest

Thats a brief synopsis of how we got to this point...

I think the less interesting question of why the difference has many possible answers but on the assumption, which may be wrong, that smurf wouldnt publish something that would/could cause serious damage to himself or the company the chances are the differences have minimal importance.

The more important question of where it goes from here is difficult to answer because first you have to decide where here actually is... is here a well light room with no shadows in the corners or is it just a candle on the desk type here?

Are the answers hidden in plain sight?

Is it a distraction?

Is the information given of any use whatsoever?

Why publish the figures at all?

Are the figures of any use at all if they dont include all connected companies and monies?

Why did the accountant want them removed?

and on and on... as I said earlier publishing the accounts in this way raises more questions that it answers

 

I cant comment of the accounts themselves as I have not read or compared them but, although I have been known to be wrong on occasion, I dont think smurf is stupid enough to incriminate himself or the company with the accounts summary published.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

people in rolls not fit for purpose.

 

I dunno...the sausage ones are OK

[davidatpreston]

David... 1 interesting question 1 not so interesting

Someone asked for the accounts to be published [various reasons given]

Smurf said he had sent them to a fan in an email

The fan stated they were not received

Smurf sent Rob a copy to publish

Rob published

The company accountant requested they be removed soonest

Thats a brief synopsis of how we got to this point...

I think the less interesting question of why the difference has many possible answers but on the assumption, which may be wrong, that smurf wouldnt publish something that would/could cause serious damage to himself or the company the chances are the differences have minimal importance.

The more important question of where it goes from here is difficult to answer because first you have to decide where here actually is... is here a well light room with no shadows in the corners or is it just a candle on the desk type here?

Are the answers hidden in plain sight?

Is it a distraction?

Is the information given of any use whatsoever?

Why publish the figures at all?

Are the figures of any use at all if they dont include all connected companies and monies?

Why did the accountant want them removed?

and on and on... as I said earlier publishing the accounts in this way raises more questions that it answers

 

I cant comment of the accounts themselves as I have not read or compared them but, although I have been known to be wrong on occasion, I dont think smurf is stupid enough to incriminate himself or the company with the accounts summary published.

 

 

 

Thanks for the detailed information - I was aware that Smurf said he had sent them to Jacko and they appear to have got lost in another dimension (I tend to believe Jacko is 100 per cent honest) but I suppose it is just possible some software gobbled them up for dinner before they arrived at Chez Jackson.

So it appears the 'difference' is nothing to get excited about, but we are not much further forward. I suppose this will just go quiet now, but we should be grateful to those who pushed to try and get answers.

[Warren]

At Companies House the official accounts are posted. For Port Vale Football Club Limited the last accounts are made up to June 2016 and posted to Companies House by the filing deadline March 2017. The accounts are posted under the small companies rules and are exempt for audit. The accounts show net liabilities of £2.105m including in creditors payable within one year a directors loan to the only director, Norman Smurfwaite of £3.088m. The accounts contain a note which states that "the director considers it appropriate that the accounts are prepared on a going concern basis". This means the accounts assume the company will continue to trade and meet its obligations to creditors. It is further stated that "the company continues to receive the support of its director by way of him not withdrawing monies owed to him and the introduction of funds as and when necessary".

 

So the 2017 accounts are due at June 2017 but don't need to be filed until March 2018 and are unlikely to require an independent audit. It is a matter of good will to release these accounts in to the public domain before they are filed - if they have been prepared.

 

As an accountant what I take from this is that the club is inherently insolvent. It can only carry on trading because its only director, Norman Smurfwaite, is financially backing it in a personal capacity. That all said Norman Smurthwaite is the only director - I don't like companies that only have a single director personally. But what it does mean is he is accountable personally if the company fails. The receiver and liquidator would look at his conduct including the decision(s) to continue to file accounts on a going concern basis and to continue to trade. It is only his commitment, for good or bad, that prevents the club being insolvent. I want to just state the published facts without emotional comment.