No accounts (again)

[itstimupnorth]

Yet again Scally is subjecting the club to more fines for late filing of accounts. Not a huge sum of money admittedly, but totally unnecessary if a modicum of organisation and professionalism were applied to the management of the club, for which, let us not forget, Mr Scally pays himself a handsome salary.

If there were more accountability perhaps the person responsible would be penalised by their employer or the shareholders, but as those are one and the same it seems unlikely.

If I were to make a guess it would be that a decision has not been made (or possibly applied) as to how the Centreplate settlement will be reflected in these accounts, as the accounts are for the year to 31st May 2017, but of course the settlement was known in the current financial year, but before the accounts are due to be filed.

Just for the record, the company that PS used for the overall management of his interests in GFC (as he only owns about 75% of the Club) - GFC Holdings Ltd. - has not filed accounts since the 2014/15 financial year and is now the subject of an active proposal to strike off. The two companies accounts that were consolidated in that company were Gillingham Football Club Ltd. and Priestfield Developments Ltd. As the latter company was dissolved in January last year the only assets in GFC Holdings is his 75% holding in Gillingham Football Club Ltd.

We can probably expect some activity soon as in the event of compulsory strike off the assets of the company are passed to the crown, but should that happen I wouldn't expect any significant investment in the club by its new owners.

It ain't rocket science. Get your f*****g act together.

 

[brb]

I like the new straight talking itstimupnorth

Scally sort it

 

[alwaysright]

Tim - I would have given you a ' like ' for your post - but - what is there to like with such news ? It is indicative of the poor standards of professionalism that must exist ( behind the scenes ).
..... Did you forget that another reason for the delay in the submission of the accounts is to do with the money that we may have to end up giving to the US ?

As I have frequently stated - I am grateful that Scally 'saved' the Club by persuading creditors to take 16 pence for each £1 they were owed ! -- but -- I have yet to see any evidence of investment of his money ( not that of its' fans or sponsors or transfer fees etc )...... and, as you have pointed out, Scally is paying himself handsomely each year - for lurching us from one nonsense to another - from one tribunal or court case to the next- it can't all be 'bad luck' - some (all) of the bad decisions must be down to him !............ and before anyone comes back at me with 'Lovell' ( and other 'good' things ), I don't think that I'm necessarily talking out-of-turn by focusing my attention to the array of negativity that Scally has attracted to the Club.
I know our ' limitations ' - I am pragmatic. All I ask is that my team give 100% ( win, draw or Chelsea ), but I can do without the drama ( and risks to our financial security ), that Scally too often brings..........................
......... ok - you can have a 'like.'

 

[alwaysright]

If I felt particularly unkind, I might put on my crystal ball head ! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-43289004

did the fun ever start ?

 

[itstimupnorth]

..... Did you forget that another reason for the delay in the submission of the accounts is to do with the money that we may have to end up giving to the US ?

After some thought (as I'm not an accountant), I think not. Anderson was shown as a creditor in the accounts and so whether or not we have to repay any money we owe to him will impact on cash flow, but not profit/loss or the balance sheet.

If we do have to make a repayment of the loan that will obviously impact on the availability of funds for other purposes, but again it doesn't affect the P/L.

As I have commented before, I think that the US Government has a long way to go before they can start demanding repayment off GFC. First Anderson has to be found guilty, and then, and probably more importantly, they will have to prove that the money that he lent to the club was indeed assets resulting from his fraudulent activities. Furthermore, if the club has repaid the loan that Anderson made, there will be nothing for the US to come after GFC for.

Except...

A further remote possibility is that Anderson might agitate to get his money back out of Three Directors Ltd. which loaned the club £1.8m to buy the ground back off Priestfield Developments (PS). Three Directors is jointly owned by Mssrs Quarrington, Anderson and Scally, and I would guess 1/3 each (the latest Confirmation Statement filed at Companies House states for each of them that they own more than 25% but less than 50% of the shares in the company). I don't know when that loan is due for repayment, but if it were drawn up properly would have a clause allowing for it to be recalled at short notice. However, on the basis no shareholder has an outright majority shareholding, if one were to agitate for repayment of the loan from the club I would hope they would be outvoted. So the demand for repayment of that loan is a possibility, but, as I said, remote.

And if that money is still owing to Anderson after a guilty verdict, that might be a target for the US. But there's a flood of water to flow under countless bridges before that starts to become a realistic possibility.

However none of this has any immediate impact on the P/L of the club. Long term financing and cash flow planning, maybe, but that's it.

But it should certainly be a consideration for anyone thinking of taking the club off Scally's hands. Chew on that one.

 

[brb]

After some thought (as I'm not an accountant), I think not. Anderson was shown as a creditor in the accounts and so whether or not we have to repay any money we owe to him will impact on cash flow, but not profit/loss or the balance sheet.

If we do have to make a repayment of the loan that will obviously impact on the availability of funds for other purposes, but again it doesn't affect the P/L.

As I have commented before, I think that the US Government has a long way to go before they can start demanding repayment off GFC. First Anderson has to be found guilty, and then, and probably more importantly, they will have to prove that the money that he lent to the club was indeed assets resulting from his fraudulent activities. Furthermore, if the club has repaid the loan that Anderson made, there will be nothing for the US to come after GFC for.

Except...

A further remote possibility is that Anderson might agitate to get his money back out of Three Directors Ltd. which loaned the club £1.8m to buy the ground back off Priestfield Developments (PS). Three Directors is jointly owned by Mssrs Quarrington, Anderson and Scally, and I would guess 1/3 each (the latest Confirmation Statement filed at Companies House states for each of them that they own more than 25% but less than 50% of the shares in the company). I don't know when that loan is due for repayment, but if it were drawn up properly would have a clause allowing for it to be recalled at short notice. However, on the basis no shareholder has an outright majority shareholding, if one were to agitate for repayment of the loan from the club I would hope they would be outvoted. So the demand for repayment of that loan is a possibility, but, as I said, remote.

And if that money is still owing to Anderson after a guilty verdict, that might be a target for the US. But there's a flood of water to flow under countless bridges before that starts to become a realistic possibility.

However none of this has any immediate impact on the P/L of the club. Long term financing and cash flow planning, maybe, but that's it.

But it should certainly be a consideration for anyone thinking of taking the club off Scally's hands. Chew on that one.

Interesting read. Just playing on the worst case scenario of such sagas , and no suggestion any one is guilty of anything, nor giving any serious consideration to the idea that the US would come after such a saga if such investigations (if any) were ever founded, the bigger concern for me which has not been mentioned is and just talking in general...

If someone has gained money from any said fraudulent activity and that money was then invested in a legitimate business, does that not constitute money laundering?

Even if a business is not regulated, if there was any concerns that money was derived from unlawful conduct, that in itself is a crime.

I would expect any business where a director is even suspected of such charges to be getting the best lawyer possible to protect your arse.

The US do not take kindly to money laundering and their arm reaches out far and wide and will fine you massively - being in the UK is no protection.

Also worth noting banks are obliged to do checks on businesses, if they are aware of any suspicions, regardless of whether any crime has been committed they can freeze your assetts, regardless of how small that contribution.

As i say only speaking in general.

 

[itstimupnorth]

Even if a business is not regulated, if there was any concerns that money was derived from unlawful conduct, that in itself is a crime.

I think that is the key part and that proof of concern would be very difficult to establish, especially as I believe that Anderson was a successful businessman and would have had significant assets before his alleged involvement in the matter for which he is being prosecuted in the USA.

I think that any charge of money laundering against GFC is an extremely remote possibility indeed, and I think that PS's energies will be better used on more immediate issues, but there is always the possibility that over-complacency will come back and bite you on the bum.