The Everton Board Thread 2015/16 [ Not takeover related ]

[jceverton]

After reading the watched toffee article I thought this was the most interesting allegation

"Another director of the Propco companies, alongside Readman, was accountant Paul Coackley. Another trusted Philip Green lieutenant.

Bizarrely, Paul Coackley was later to supervise a ‘special audit’ at Everton FC. A financial review conducted by Philip Green’s Arcadia Group auditors Price Waterhouse Cooper (PWC). When Everton’s auditors were Deloitte, as they remain to this date.

According to a source inside PWC, Coackley uncovered a £3m shortfall. Mike Cheston, the club’s Head of Finance, an employee for almost fifteen years, was replaced by Martin Evans in December 2006.

Why would Philip Green want his auditors to conduct a special audit on a business he is not listed as having an interest in? And why would the majority shareholders of the club entertain such a request?"

I'd be interested to hear other people's views on this.

 

[hibbo'sclass]

After reading the watched toffee article I thought this was the most interesting allegation

"Another director of the Propco companies, alongside Readman, was accountant Paul Coackley. Another trusted Philip Green lieutenant.

Bizarrely, Paul Coackley was later to supervise a ‘special audit’ at Everton FC. A financial review conducted by Philip Green’s Arcadia Group auditors Price Waterhouse Cooper (PWC). When Everton’s auditors were Deloitte, as they remain to this date.

According to a source inside PWC, Coackley uncovered a £3m shortfall. Mike Cheston, the club’s Head of Finance, an employee for almost fifteen years, was replaced by Martin Evans in December 2006.

Why would Philip Green want his auditors to conduct a special audit on a business he is not listed as having an interest in? And why would the majority shareholders of the club entertain such a request?"

I'd be interested to hear other people's views on this.

Messrs Readman and Coakley did indeed sit on the Board of all Propco companies, but to say they sat alongside each other on the board would appear to be untrue.I've looked at the Companies House appointments for both and Paul Coakley resigned all Propco Company appointments on the 20/12/2001 and Mr Readman was appointed to them in 19/03/2007.
Is there any evidence that PG wanted a special audit - I've not seen any, have you?
The special audit is confusing. I can understand why if something appeared incorrect a team would be brought in from outside, and can understand that you may not want to use your own auditor. If you want it investigated and you use a "big 4" firm (Deloittes) for your audit, it is likely that you will use one of the other 3, Ernst &Young, KPMG or PWC.
It is admitted by BK himself that he turns to PG for advice, so if that happened why wouldn't PG recommend his own auditors.

I don't get the assertion that Paul Coakley found the 3m - was Coakley working for PWC or Philip Green and is there any evidence that he took part in this alleged "special audit"
A "source inside PWC" has either left or retired I would imagine, as breaching confidentiality would be suicide for his career, and there are only a limited number of people who could divulge this with certainty and accuracy. I have no opinion as to wether he has a source or not.
Just my opinion of course, and as I have always stated, I am in the camp of Philip Green neither having a stake in, nor being a shadow director of EFC, my reasoning being that it would require a conspiracy involving at least the officer's of the company past and present, if BK shares were owned by PG it is not tax efficient, it would involve deceiving the Premier League for in excess of 10 years and it relies on everyone involved in the conspiracy keeping quiet.
I believe the board to be non-business savvy, but I do not believe them to be conspirators, and do not think they would be capable of keeping such a conspiracy secret for such a long time.
I await being lambasted as a nay-sayer in due course.

 

[hibbo'sclass]

Sorry, one final point. If a 3 million shortfall were uncovered, was this:
A. Never reported in the accounts
B. Not reported to the shareholders
C. Never pursued to be recovered in any way

For what it's worth, my belief is that any or all of the 3 would leave the directors on breach of their legal responsibilities.

 

[Verbal Kint]

I will take a calculated guess in saying we won't be having an A.G.M anytime soon.

 

[The Esk]

d be interested to hear other people's views on this

Hi mate. I found the allegations astounding to be honest. There is absolutely no way whatsoever that the allegations could occur without references to either the special audit or the allegations of missing funds being made in the accounts and comments by the Directors and auditors.

 

[hibbo'sclass]

I will take a calculated guess in saying we won't be having an A.G.M anytime soon.

Check out the articles of association,article 10 et seq. mate.
An AGM has to be held every calender year.

 

[hibbo'sclass]

Hi mate. I found the allegations astounding to be honest. There is absolutely no way whatsoever that the allegations could occur without references to either the special audit or the allegations of missing funds being made in the accounts and comments by the Directors and auditors.

@the esk FYI, I've just checked the 2006 and 2007 accounts where I would expect disclosure of the alleged shortfall to be if it were discovered in 2006 and found no mention of it whatsoever.

 

[Mikey_Fitzgerald]

Check out the articles of association,article 10 et seq. mate.
An AGM has to be held every calender year.

Well they got away with not having one for longer than that didn't they?

 

[hibbo'sclass]

Well they got away with not having one for longer than that didn't they?

Not a shareholder, but I believe that article 10 or it's equivalent was taken out at some point but re-instated last year.
Was only replying to the guy's post tbh.
Articles changed 17 Sept 2008 removing requirement for AGM, changed back 29 May 2014 so it is required. As I said, not a shareholder so don't know if any were held in the interim. In order to change the articles need a Special resolution so 75%+ need to be in favour, so BK,RE and JW having 70% roughly must have had support from other shareholders to do this.

 

[jceverton]

Hi mate. I found the allegations astounding to be honest. There is absolutely no way whatsoever that the allegations could occur without references to either the special audit or the allegations of missing funds being made in the accounts and comments by the Directors and auditors.

Thought the same, seems amazing allegation to make public and also allegedly naming the person involved. You would think that would attract some legal action if false, due to its serious nature?

 

[The Esk]

Thought the same, seems amazing allegation to make public and also allegedly naming the person involved. You would think that would attract some legal action if false, due to its serious nature?

I would prefer to leave that to the persons involved to be honest mate!

 

[SerenityNigh]

Just my opinion of course, and as I have always stated, I am in the camp of Philip Green neither having a stake in, nor being a shadow director of EFC, my reasoning being that it would require a conspiracy involving at least the officer's of the company past and present, if BK shares were owned by PG it is not tax efficient, it would involve deceiving the Premier League for in excess of 10 years and it relies on everyone involved in the conspiracy keeping quiet.

Nobody here believes in conspiracies, mate. Safe to say all here will agree with your conclusions.

 

[jceverton]

I would prefer to leave that to the persons involved to be honest mate!

Fair enough, I've read it a few times and it still shocks me!

 

[SerenityNigh]

Sorry, one final point. If a 3 million shortfall were uncovered, was this:
A. Never reported in the accounts
B. Not reported to the shareholders
C. Never pursued to be recovered in any way

For what it's worth, my belief is that any or all of the 3 would leave the directors on breach of their legal responsibilities.

If true, could this not be reflected on restated figures? Every audit I've seen restates prior years' figures, although I'm not sure what the requirements are for making an audit note on large variances.

 

[hibbo'sclass]

If true, could this not be reflected on restated figures? Every audit I've seen restates prior years' figures, although I'm not sure what the requirements are for making an audit note on large variances.

Good point mate, you've got me on that one.
I am going off the public record at Companies House so unsure if the accounts are restated.
My instinct is that if the alleged special audit did indeed take place and a shortfall found, it would be noted or communicated to the minority shareholders. (I would say at this point that it's 15 years since I've been involved in an audit.)
Personally, even if not noted, I think it would have made it's way into the public domain via a disaffected shareholder especially if no action were taken against the alleged miscreant.
Unfortunately, the above is opinion based so may be absolute rubbish!

Just a thought, but if there were a shortfall, would the auditors be able to put it in other operating expenses -don't think so, I think it would either be classed as an extraordinary or exceptional item and shown on the face of the accounts. Calling all auditors!!!