LUFC ACCOUNTS: UPDATE ON CONTACT WITH BAKER

Doc,

"You can go back to the accounts from when we came out of admin and corrolate the fact that the company had spent around £19m on legal fees and consultancy fees over a 2 season period."
_

Sorry, but you can't correlate that. The only legal fees disclosed are those to Taylor as related patry transactions, which were £475k and £129k.

The only consultancy fees I can remember detailed were pre-admin, £186k to Murrin.

Although, if you can show £19m in legal and consultancy fees, I'd love to see it.
_____

"If our assumptions were correct, then FSF were defrauding the rest of the creditors, because they took their debt back 100% and more, whereas the rest were getting 4p in the pound. illegal, but need proof"
_

It's not illegal, though. Though Football League have (to date) seen to that. (That doesn't mean it couldn't be done in a fraudulent manner).

Comment Deleted by Site Moderator

cozer- not sure what all the fuss is about,a few mistakes of a few thousand quid and it appears to be a pretty shoddy piece of accountancy with the spelling mistakes etc,which bits are you concerned about?maybe i missed something serious

Joe saigon: As I said its not something I pretend to know a lot about, let me try and get some answers, from someone that understands these things more than I do.

morning all

the team we have dealing with finance and accounts raised concerns with the board over and above those which are set out in our letter to BT, these concerns do hint at a possible cash flow problem at ER and there are those who would suggest this is now manifesting itself in our failure to offer competetive contracts to our best players or finance deals to sign incoming players.

the problem we have is we can only suggest we feel there is a problem as the accounts are very basic, lack and clear detail and satisfy only the minimum of requirements.

with this in mind we decided to approach BT to highlight the very obvious and often child like errors that really could and should have been picked up and corrected by BT; thats said the accounts were signed off by Shaun Harvey who is paid a lot of money to ensure they are correct before he signs them. these facts are proven and there for all to see so therefore we used them to raise questions in the hope that more detailed and better funded investigations might take place.

i hope that clears up the why at least?

Well said Billy.....the challenge is to get the FL or SFO to take up the baton.

You've hit the nail on the head regarding a cash-flow issue which raises the bigger issue....with the size of our revenues why is there a cash-flow issue in the first place?

it's difficult to say why Jonty, there is such a complicated infrastructure and relationship between the various companies (16 or 17) that have an interest in all things LUFC based as all but 5 are registered offshore. that said the issue of preferential shares, the loan by outro and the mortgaging of ST revenue over two years does not bode well or represent a company that is not struggling in some ways for cash?

we will keep watching and trying to decipher the code but its an almost impossible task for volunteers.

I know, just saying that is the big question and we both really know the answer, its just the trying to prove it.

So you got in touch with a professional company and told them that their work was "child like."

Did you actually expect a response from them if thats how you spoke to them?

2020 is right, clearly this was nothing more than a PR stunt

Matty, I think that phrase was just for this forum not the letter itself.

I would say though, were losses for pavillion really listed as 196mill????