2009 Accounts

JEFF · 02-08-2010, 12:00

The 2009 accounts are now available from Companies House.

The original 2008 accounts showed a loss for 2007-2008 of £238469. These accounts have now been restated and show a loss of £459469.

The 2009 accounts show a loss for 2008-2009 of £284557.

Overall for the two seasons the total loss is £744026. A lot of this would probably be accounted for by the assessment of tax by revenue and customs. But, as Ilyas says, the more important accounts are for the year 2009-2010 which will show us whether things have improved since EW "left".

If anybody wants a copy of the accounts PM me and I will try to send you a copy.

VALAIRIAN · 02-08-2010, 13:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by JEFF

The 2009 accounts are now available from Companies House.

The original 2008 accounts showed a loss for 2007-2008 of £238469. These accounts have now been restated and show a loss of £459469.

The 2009 accounts show a loss for 2008-2009 of £284557.

Overall for the two seasons the total loss is £744026. A lot of this would probably be accounted for by the assessment of tax by revenue and customs. But, as Ilyas says, the more important accounts are for the year 2009-2010 which will show us whether things have improved since EW "left".

If anybody wants a copy of the accounts PM me and I will try to send you a copy.

Sorry to be thick Jeff, but you understand this better than I, when you say re-stated, does that mean we amended the accounts and stuck in a load more debt??? If so why? And where did it come from???

JEFF · 02-08-2010, 13:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by VALAIRIAN

Sorry to be thick Jeff, but you understand this better than I, when you say re-stated, does that mean we amended the accounts and stuck in a load more debt??? If so why? And where did it come from???

I would imagine that this is where the problems have been. The accountants have probably re-done the 2008 accounts properly and so have to restate the opening balances for the 2009 accounts. Don't think that "we have stuck in a load more debt", just that it wasn't properly accounted for in the original accounts. As far as I know the 2008 accounts were rushed through. Accountants can only prepare accounts with the information that they are given. It they are not given the whole, proper information then the accounts will not give a true picture. As Ilyas says the important accounts are the ones for the year 2009-2010.

VALAIRIAN · 02-08-2010, 14:22

Cheers Jeff, understand a little more now...

lancsdave · 02-08-2010, 15:17

So as I understand it, if you bought something that was worth for example -£2 value in 2008 then later found it's real value at the time was -£4 then you basically paid twice it's real value ?

JEFF · 02-08-2010, 15:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by lancsdave

So as I understand it, if you bought something that was worth for example -£2 value in 2008 then later found it's real value at the time was -£4 then you basically paid twice it's real value ?

Cannot understand what you are saying lancsdave but I will try to explain again how I see it.

Accounts have to be restated when there has been a "material error" in the published figures. For example if something has been included in the 2008 accounts which should not have been, or something has been omitted from the 2008 accounts. Maybe invoices have been issued in May 2008 which should have been issued in June 2008 and therefore have been included in the wrong year's accounts. Maybe amounts owing in May 2008 have not been registered until June 2008 and therefore have been included in the wrong year's accounts.

lancsdave · 02-08-2010, 15:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by JEFF

Cannot understand what you are saying lancsdave but I will try to explain again how I see it.

Accounts have to be restated when there has been a "material error" in the published figures. For example if something has been included in the 2008 accounts which should not have been, or something has been omitted from the 2008 accounts. Maybe invoices have been issued in May 2008 which should have been issued in June 2008 and therefore have been included in the wrong year's accounts. Maybe amounts owing in May 2008 have not been registered until June 2008 and therefore have been included in the wrong year's accounts.

I'll rephrase my previous post when my brains less frazzled

jaysay · 02-08-2010, 17:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by JEFF

Cannot understand what you are saying lancsdave but I will try to explain again how I see it.

Accounts have to be restated when there has been a "material error" in the published figures. For example if something has been included in the 2008 accounts which should not have been, or something has been omitted from the 2008 accounts. Maybe invoices have been issued in May 2008 which should have been issued in June 2008 and therefore have been included in the wrong year's accounts. Maybe amounts owing in May 2008 have not been registered until June 2008 and therefore have been included in the wrong year's accounts.

If I understand what your saying JEFF it appears there was some creative accounting, and if so are those responsible not liable for prosecution under the companies act, or is it just a matter of genuine mistakes

AccyMad · 02-08-2010, 19:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaysay

If I understand what your saying JEFF it appears there was some creative accounting, and if so are those responsible not liable for prosecution under the companies act, or is it just a matter of genuine mistakes

Good question Jaysay, but I think, from reading Ilyas' posts we will probably not know the answer until the next set of accounts are sorted - I guess we will just have to be patient for a little longer