A Yeovil Persepctive

[Hamstring]

It's nice to see some people, in this cynical world we live in, that are still almost touchingly naive about some things

 

[sufcintheprem]

No freebies to away teams though. I would expect that they would have to report away figures exactly so that clubs know how many of their fans travelled, most likely for marketing purposes. It also seems incredibly petty to pretend there are 400 fewer away fans than there actually were. Anyone thought of a motive yet?

 

[sufcintheprem]

It's worrying, almost disturbingly so, to think that supporter cynicism towards the governing bodies of their clubs can extend to lies about attendance figures for a game that bears no significance on that club's season, and that such a rumour can be started by a friend's estimation of figures.

 

[Hamstring]

I agree. The financial and adinistration staff at boardroom director level at Southend United are all completely honourable people who have never lied to or misled the supporters in any way whatsoever about anything. A certain director has definitey not tried to put the frighteners on a supporter, either, by intimating they could be 'the George Reynolds of the South' and knocking on a supporter's door in the dead of night with some acquaintnces of his.

Shame on supporters for not believing that everything in rosy in the Roots Hall garden. We know our place. Just turn up, hand over our money and not say a word.

 

[sufcintheprem]

Whooaaah, the Sarcasometer's off the scale!

Please explain how this afore-mentioned director intends to further increase his Reynolds-esque regime by misquoting the number of away supporters at the ground. I really think you're completely missing my point!

 

[Smudger]

VAT dodging is usually the reason why attendance figures are "massaged." It's been going on for years, so the turnstiles are linked up in such a fashion to make it impossible now.

 

[Hamstring]

I'm not suggeting Sothend United do anything underhand in any way whatsoever.

Let's, however, take a hypothetical example.

Club X have low revenues and are in debt for an undisclosed amount. Luckily, though, a couple of games are coming up with there will be a large-ish away fan turnout.

At these hypothetical matches, the turnstile operators are volunteers so are not shown as paid employees. The hypothetical club therefore decide to declare the numbers of away fans - and takings - from turnstiles W and X only and don't declare turnstiles Y and Z.

Not only do they not pay tax on these takings, it is money that nobody except the hypothetical club knows exists so can be used for anything the hypothetical club wants.

I must stress that this is all hypothetical. In no way, of course, am I remotely suggesting that Southend United partake in such shenanigans. No, not at all ......

 

[sufcintheprem]

Is it still sarcasm? Let's have a go......

Sure, Southend are the root of all that is corrupt and bad in football. They, of course are so keen to make the extra buck and we will probably, nay, surely swipe off half to pay the directors a nice fat lump sum.

No-one would ever think to set up any kind of 'auditing' procedure in a business that turns over 7 figure sums across the year because Johnny taxman isn't fussed. What the hell, why not include the taxman in the conspiracy. I expect that Sarbanes and Oxley's landmark hearing pertaining to business controls will have had no effect whatsoever.

Also, luckily for Mr Director, Southend wouldn't be able to put in a counter system comparable to a year nine electronics project and even if it were in place, they could turn it off because no-one would be bothered that there was a switch marked 'counter on/off' sat in the director's box. Either way it would be hidden under the stack of prawn sandwiches.

God, that sarcasm was really draining. Has it made the point clearer yet?

 

[Hamstring]

Of course, every club uses a completely bulletproof auditing procedure that accounts for every single person and every single penny that comes through the doors. Completely failsafe for the taxman and VAT people. Definitely no way at all that any club could get round such accounting procedures.

Interesting that you put in your respone the phrase "pay the directors a nice fat lump sum." At no stage at all, irony or sarcasm or not, have I remotely intimated any director, even a hypothetical one, does that.

Still, if you wish to believe completely that there were just 700 Yeovil fans, 1,100 Hull fans or a crowd of just 9,600 turned up against Col U, and that any difference in what was quoted and the numbrs actually there were freebies of some sort, that's entirely your perogative.

 

[Napster]

Quote[/b] (sufcintheprem @ April 26 2004,10:51)] I expect that Sarbanes and Oxley's landmark hearing pertaining to business controls will have had no effect whatsoever.

I expect that as well- doesn't that only apply to US companies?!!

 

[Wessex Blue]

Quote[/b] (sufcintheprem @ April 26 2004,10:51)]Is it still sarcasm? Let's have a go......

Sure, Southend are the root of all that is corrupt and bad in football.  They, of course are so keen to make the extra buck and we will probably, nay, surely swipe off half to pay the directors a nice fat lump sum.

No-one would ever think to set up any kind of 'auditing' procedure in a business that turns over 7 figure sums across the year because Johnny taxman isn't fussed.  What the hell, why not include the taxman in the conspiracy.  I expect that Sarbanes and Oxley's landmark hearing pertaining to business controls will have had no effect whatsoever.

Also, luckily for Mr Director, Southend wouldn't be able to put in a counter system comparable to a year nine electronics project and even if it were in place, they could turn it off because no-one would be bothered that there was a switch marked 'counter on/off' sat in the director's box.  Either way it would be hidden under the stack of prawn sandwiches.

 

God, that sarcasm was really draining.  Has it made the point clearer yet?

Sarbanes Oxley is US legislation and therefore wouldn't be applicable in the UK. The UK has it's own Corporate Governance legislation.

It makes sense to me to exclude freebies tickets from attendance figures. I'd imagine that the Inland Revenue would check attendance figures back to the companies accounts and any discrepancies between what was declared and the official attendance would be investigated.

Who in their right mind would want to pay tax on money they haven't earned?

Also the Inland Revenue aren't exactly mugs are they. I can imagine that in the past many clubs avoided tax as per Hamstrings hypothetical scenario. Personally I don't believe that it applies as a viable scenario to any degree anymore. The IR would have no qualms about bankrupting anyone / any institution in order to reclaim unpaid tax. Hardly worth the risk for the relatively small benefits that would be gained from doing it.
But then again that's just my opinion.

Christ that took some time to type. I'm suffering as a result of snakebite Sunday at walkabout. At £1.50 a pint it'd be rude not to!

 

[Napster]

I would have thought VAT was done by Customs. And as Customs is only down the road from Roots Hall the club would be mad to carry out such a foolhardy scheme. Or am I barking up the wrong tree?

 

[sufcintheprem]

I wish there was a smiley for resting your head on your keyboard and banging your desk with your hand. This sarcasm's hurting my head. Please, please stop being sarcastic and actually say what you mean instead of incinuating what you mean through a series of lies intended to be witty to the point that the lie can't be accepted as a lie and your meaning must be the sentence without the negative term.

FACT: The club hires external auditors who are paid to ensure the accounts are fair. If they let something as blatant as that go and got caught out, there company may as well shut up shop because their name would be dirt.

FACT: My last post was sarcastic. Each point I made was jokingly building on your conspiracy theory by adding more and more ridiculous points. You didn't say the directors take money, no, but where would you say the money does go? Any club registered account would not be able to recieve a sum of around 8000 for a matchday without being noticed. Are you suggesting it was laundered? Perhaps the fifty-fifty draw would be an opportunity for channelling money htrough but wouldn't someone be concerned if the club made 32 times as much from their fifty percent?

FACT: Sarbanes and Oxley will be here soon if your company has not already been involved. It's a proper pain in the a55 but every single procedure has to be documented. They've got counters on the toilet roll now. It was an American landmark hearing but imagine how many companies in the UK deal with the US and imagine the growing pressure on teh UK government to introduce something similar.

ANYWAY..... Is it not possible that they didn't sit on the front row and your frined miscounted?

 

[Wessex Blue]

Quote[/b] (Napster @ April 26 2004,11:26)]I would have thought VAT was done by Customs. And as Customs is only down the road from Roots Hall the club would be mad to carry out such a foolhardy scheme. Or am I barking up the wrong tree?

I think they would be mad to contemplate it. That's why I don't personally believe they'd do it. I'm sure that the taxman takes a special interest in cash businesses where people pay on a gate; purely because there is more risk of creative accounting being applied.

 

[Smudger]

YES. But you're all missing the point here!!!!

WHEN is a DOOR not a DOOR???

OH COME ON! IT'S OBVIOUS!!!

 

[McScriven]

Quote[/b] (Napster @ April 26 2004,11:26)]I would have thought VAT was done by Customs. And as Customs is only down the road from Roots Hall the club would be mad to carry out such a foolhardy scheme. Or am I barking up the wrong tree?

Yes VAT is carried out by C&E and the National Return Centre is indeed based down Victoria Avenue.

 

[Hamstring]

You really think I wasn't aware of your own sarcasm? It's nice how almost touchingly naive some people are

I'm definitely not suggesting anything. As you well know. But - to take a purely hypothetical situation - if a fan of a hypothetical club had reason to believe that something about the hypothetical club was apparently amiss and had been consistently so, would it not be sound for a hypothetical fan to air the hypothetical issue on a hypothetical club fans web-site? Especially when it can be clearly seen with the hypothetical fan's own eyes that it is different to what had been announced.

All hypothetically speaking, of course.

 

[Wessex Blue]

Quote[/b] (sufcintheprem @ April 26 2004,11:27)]FACT:  Sarbanes and Oxley will be here soon if your company has not already been involved.  It's a proper pain in the a55 but every single procedure has to be documented.  They've got counters on the toilet roll now.  It was an American landmark hearing but imagine how many companies in the UK deal with the US and imagine the growing pressure on teh UK government to introduce something similar.

Historically, Auditing requirements in US companies has never been as stringent as it is in the UK. In the wake of Enron, Worldcom and Global Crossing the US Govt was obliged to enact legislation that ensured that Auditing was independent and audit records were retained, whistleblowers were protected and responsibility for compliance with Corp Governance laws was laid firmly at the feet of the company management.

Expect legislation in the UK is the wake of the latest Shell scandal where they mistated their oil reserves by the piffling figure of 3.9 Billion barrels.

 

[Smudger]

Yes, my wife does have grey pants on today and they do indeed have the word "Monday" printed on the front.

 

[Napster]

Quote[/b] (Smudger @ April 26 2004,11:41)]Yes, my wife does have grey pants on today and they do indeed have the word "Monday" printed on the front.

you're married? is that why you missed the Northampton game?