Bangitintrnet wrote: September 19th, 2023, 11:10 am

Amberexile wrote: September 19th, 2023, 9:55 am I don't think people are saying that the directors shouldn't have spent the money, it is more we don't know why they did spend the money or what on because the directors didn't seem to realise that they were actually spending it in the first place.

Well, bearing in mind that cup runs and selling players are the strategy used for sustainability by the chairman of the EFL league 2 committee, then our trust knew exactly what they were spending the majority of the money on, as it was part of a strategy before covid hit...............

Covid obviously changed everything, we lost £700k of income, but still reached the playoffs.................

In the same year Carlisle nearly went out of the league following the same strategy. A year later, still following the same strategy they were promoted via the playoffs. Proving that sustainable football is possible, even with a £2 million pound debt hanging over them.

In our case we had a covid payment of nearly £400k made as a repayable loan over 4 years. If someone cocked up and repaid it over one year, it would have had a bigger impact on finances. If someone used it for something that it was deemed they should not have, say paying players bonuses or something, then the league may have requested the loan be repaid. We don't know any details, probably because it would lay the blame on Nigel Stephenson, and it was suggested on here that Nigel Stephenson was subject to bullying by the chairman Gavin Foxall. If that accusation was followed up and an inquiry started then information about what caused what financial issue, gets mixed up in the duty of care to protect the employee I would think?

Now who is it that suggested on this forum that Gavin Foxall had been accused of bullying? Who then wrote an email to the club asking for information, but specifically mentioning that he didn't want info on Nigel Stephenson?

Is it the same person who posted lies about a police investigation relating to Gavin Foxall, and when called out about it, now writes to try to start another investigation..................

And round and round we go........

Gavin Foxall is ill, we know that to be fact.

Kevin Ward left a volunteer role due to a conflict of interest, we know that to be fact.

So we know that they didn't run to the hills as suggested by the same person, simply because he wants to present them as guilty of spending money that they had built up, because it's not spending money on a football stadium that wasn't for sale...............

Amberexile wrote: September 19th, 2023, 1:01 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 19th, 2023, 11:10 am

Amberexile wrote: September 19th, 2023, 9:55 am I don't think people are saying that the directors shouldn't have spent the money, it is more we don't know why they did spend the money or what on because the directors didn't seem to realise that they were actually spending it in the first place.

Well, bearing in mind that cup runs and selling players are the strategy used for sustainability by the chairman of the EFL league 2 committee, then our trust knew exactly what they were spending the majority of the money on, as it was part of a strategy before covid hit...............

Covid obviously changed everything, we lost £700k of income, but still reached the playoffs.................

In the same year Carlisle nearly went out of the league following the same strategy. A year later, still following the same strategy they were promoted via the playoffs. Proving that sustainable football is possible, even with a £2 million pound debt hanging over them.

In our case we had a covid payment of nearly £400k made as a repayable loan over 4 years. If someone cocked up and repaid it over one year, it would have had a bigger impact on finances. If someone used it for something that it was deemed they should not have, say paying players bonuses or something, then the league may have requested the loan be repaid. We don't know any details, probably because it would lay the blame on Nigel Stephenson, and it was suggested on here that Nigel Stephenson was subject to bullying by the chairman Gavin Foxall. If that accusation was followed up and an inquiry started then information about what caused what financial issue, gets mixed up in the duty of care to protect the employee I would think?

Now who is it that suggested on this forum that Gavin Foxall had been accused of bullying? Who then wrote an email to the club asking for information, but specifically mentioning that he didn't want info on Nigel Stephenson?

Is it the same person who posted lies about a police investigation relating to Gavin Foxall, and when called out about it, now writes to try to start another investigation..................

And round and round we go........

Gavin Foxall is ill, we know that to be fact.

Kevin Ward left a volunteer role due to a conflict of interest, we know that to be fact.

So we know that they didn't run to the hills as suggested by the same person, simply because he wants to present them as guilty of spending money that they had built up, because it's not spending money on a football stadium that wasn't for sale...............

The published accounts, which is all we have to go on without a simple statement from the Board, don't back up your theory.

whoareya wrote: September 19th, 2023, 12:49 pm If people wish to read the Trust briefing and update note that just been emailed, then you will see that the 75% threshold is infact a safety valve should members feel the Preferred bidder is not their preferred option.
There is also reference to the consequences of not achieving the 75% that are far more palatable than the presumed oblivion, to include the renegotiation of terms with the bidders (plural) and inviting new bids whilst the status quo is maintained.

rncfc wrote: September 19th, 2023, 11:57 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 19th, 2023, 11:49 am

rncfc wrote: September 19th, 2023, 11:17 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 19th, 2023, 11:10 am

Amberexile wrote: September 19th, 2023, 9:55 am I don't think people are saying that the directors shouldn't have spent the money, it is more we don't know why they did spend the money or what on because the directors didn't seem to realise that they were actually spending it in the first place.

Well, bearing in mind that cup runs and selling players are the strategy used for sustainability by the chairman of the EFL league 2 committee, then our trust knew exactly what they were spending the majority of the money on, as it was part of a strategy before covid hit...............

Covid obviously changed everything, we lost £700k of income, but still reached the playoffs.................

In the same year Carlisle nearly went out of the league following the same strategy. A year later, still following the same strategy they were promoted via the playoffs. Proving that sustainable football is possible, even with a £2 million pound debt hanging over them.

In our case we had a covid payment of nearly £400k made as a repayable loan over 4 years. If someone cocked up and repaid it over one year, it would have had a bigger impact on finances. If someone used it for something that it was deemed they should not have, say paying players bonuses or something, then the league may have requested the loan be repaid. We don't know any details, probably because it would lay the blame on Nigel Stephenson, and it was suggested on here that Nigel Stephenson was subject to bullying by the chairman Gavin Foxall. If that accusation was followed up and an inquiry started then information about what caused what financial issue, gets mixed up in the duty of care to protect the employee I would think?

Now who is it that suggested on this forum that Gavin Foxall had been accused of bullying? Who then wrote an email to the club asking for information, but specifically mentioning that he didn't want info on Nigel Stephenson?

Is it the same person who posted lies about a police investigation relating to Gavin Foxall, and when called out about it, now writes to try to start another investigation..................

And round and round we go........

Gavin Foxall is ill, we know that to be fact.

Kevin Ward left a volunteer role due to a conflict of interest, we know that to be fact.

So we know that they didn't run to the hills as suggested by the same person, simply because he wants to present them as guilty of spending money that they had built up, because it's not spending money on a football stadium that wasn't for sale...............

Who knows? Not me, not you (apparently). This is the point, is it not? Nobody has a clue what has been going on including, seemingly, the people in charge.

What is there to lose by telling trust members exactly what has happened? If there's nothing to hide, then let's hear it. It might rebuild some trust if we're going to be expected to carry on/recommence contributions "post takeover".

I have explained why I think it happened, I have explained who I think caused the problem, and why I think the club has a duty of care to protect an employee, when it seems highly likely he has suggested bullying has taken place. I agree I/we don't know, but it's not important to me to establish what went wrong in the past, or identify the individual responsible, to try to increase trust money in the future. As you know I believe relying on the trust subscription is not away of running the club in the future, because the age profile of the 1000 is far higher than the 3000 and it can only end in tears.

The question is why is Stan and Low and hard pushing it as some big issue, when the trust influence will all but disappear? The person in charge of the bidding process is well known, has a well earned reputation, and has absolutely nothing to do with any perceived issues...............

There are gaps in the version of events we've been told. You have been clever enough to come up with a possible theory as to how money may have been spent. Some others, including some of those trying to take over the club, have a different idea.

The club are only planning on presenting one of the two bids to the membership.

If you don't want conspiracies, rumours, and moaning, then just present both bids and play things with a straight bat. The vote could form two parts:

1) The voting of the concept of a takeover.
2) Which takeover.

Doing it this way is only going to cause more questions to be asked, which makes people think there is something to be gained by doing it that way. Be honest and transparent, it isn't much to ask.

Amberexile wrote: September 19th, 2023, 1:10 pm

rncfc wrote: September 19th, 2023, 11:57 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 19th, 2023, 11:49 am

rncfc wrote: September 19th, 2023, 11:17 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 19th, 2023, 11:10 am

Amberexile wrote: September 19th, 2023, 9:55 am I don't think people are saying that the directors shouldn't have spent the money, it is more we don't know why they did spend the money or what on because the directors didn't seem to realise that they were actually spending it in the first place.

Well, bearing in mind that cup runs and selling players are the strategy used for sustainability by the chairman of the EFL league 2 committee, then our trust knew exactly what they were spending the majority of the money on, as it was part of a strategy before covid hit...............

Covid obviously changed everything, we lost £700k of income, but still reached the playoffs.................

In the same year Carlisle nearly went out of the league following the same strategy. A year later, still following the same strategy they were promoted via the playoffs. Proving that sustainable football is possible, even with a £2 million pound debt hanging over them.

In our case we had a covid payment of nearly £400k made as a repayable loan over 4 years. If someone cocked up and repaid it over one year, it would have had a bigger impact on finances. If someone used it for something that it was deemed they should not have, say paying players bonuses or something, then the league may have requested the loan be repaid. We don't know any details, probably because it would lay the blame on Nigel Stephenson, and it was suggested on here that Nigel Stephenson was subject to bullying by the chairman Gavin Foxall. If that accusation was followed up and an inquiry started then information about what caused what financial issue, gets mixed up in the duty of care to protect the employee I would think?

Now who is it that suggested on this forum that Gavin Foxall had been accused of bullying? Who then wrote an email to the club asking for information, but specifically mentioning that he didn't want info on Nigel Stephenson?

Is it the same person who posted lies about a police investigation relating to Gavin Foxall, and when called out about it, now writes to try to start another investigation..................

And round and round we go........

Gavin Foxall is ill, we know that to be fact.

Kevin Ward left a volunteer role due to a conflict of interest, we know that to be fact.

So we know that they didn't run to the hills as suggested by the same person, simply because he wants to present them as guilty of spending money that they had built up, because it's not spending money on a football stadium that wasn't for sale...............

Who knows? Not me, not you (apparently). This is the point, is it not? Nobody has a clue what has been going on including, seemingly, the people in charge.

What is there to lose by telling trust members exactly what has happened? If there's nothing to hide, then let's hear it. It might rebuild some trust if we're going to be expected to carry on/recommence contributions "post takeover".

I have explained why I think it happened, I have explained who I think caused the problem, and why I think the club has a duty of care to protect an employee, when it seems highly likely he has suggested bullying has taken place. I agree I/we don't know, but it's not important to me to establish what went wrong in the past, or identify the individual responsible, to try to increase trust money in the future. As you know I believe relying on the trust subscription is not away of running the club in the future, because the age profile of the 1000 is far higher than the 3000 and it can only end in tears.

The question is why is Stan and Low and hard pushing it as some big issue, when the trust influence will all but disappear? The person in charge of the bidding process is well known, has a well earned reputation, and has absolutely nothing to do with any perceived issues...............

There are gaps in the version of events we've been told. You have been clever enough to come up with a possible theory as to how money may have been spent. Some others, including some of those trying to take over the club, have a different idea.

The club are only planning on presenting one of the two bids to the membership.

If you don't want conspiracies, rumours, and moaning, then just present both bids and play things with a straight bat. The vote could form two parts:

1) The voting of the concept of a takeover.
2) Which takeover.

Doing it this way is only going to cause more questions to be asked, which makes people think there is something to be gained by doing it that way. Be honest and transparent, it isn't much to ask.

Exactly, the first as an extraordinary motion needing 75% and the second as a general motion needing a simple majority.

lowandhard wrote: September 19th, 2023, 12:54 pm

Chris Davis wrote: September 19th, 2023, 12:17 pm I am not an accountant so I am not qualified to comment in detail. However, in the submitted Annual Accounts for 21/22 in the NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 30 JUNE 2022, it states the following:

" The Club has reported losses for the year totalling £1.231,493 giving rise to net current liabilities of £340,973 and net liabilities of £393,464".

Now to me this is entirely consistant with the information given that the 2021 figures were inflated. It would appear from the reported balance sheet that the three areas concerned were a big fall in 'debtors' (people who owed us money), a big fall in cash in the bank and a big increase in creditors (people we owed money to). Now Nick Igoe said that after investigation they had no explanation as to why these figures might have been inflated and, as I recollect, there was little point in pursuing the reasons why. He also stated, in so many words, that he did not see any evidence of criminal activity connected with the 2021 figures. I think what might have persuaded him to that view was there was no significant or unexpected differences in the money in the bank. It also seems to me that even allowing for these discrepancies, the overall result showed a deficit in line with the normal 'structural deficit' of £3-400K.

So, for me, there is unlikely to be any activity that would make the police or CPS to become involved in a theft or deception case.

I have also looked at the 'Action Fraud' website. There it gives a definition of fraud. That definition is "Fraud is when trickery is used to gain a dishonest advantage, which is often financial, over another person" So whilst 'inflation of figures' might be regarded as trickery, there are other elements that have to be met. Firstly, that an individual or individuals have gained an advantage. Well, I am not sure what advantage an individual persons at the Club might have gained by doing it or what other person it might have gained an advantage over by doing it. However and secondly, crucially, that advantage has to be dishonestly gained. Now, we know that Nick Igoe is neither a police officer nor a CPS lawyer, so might not be the very best judge of potential criminality but I am sure he is expert enough to spot grounds for suspicion and hence reporting to the police. It seems absolutely clear that he did not.

So, for me, there is no prospect that either the Police or CPS, would be interested in pursuing criminal action against anyone and Action Fraud will not proceed with any report because it is not possible to produce sufficient evidence of dishonest advantage over another person.

However, that stops no one reporting a potential Action Fraud claim, because it is for that body to decide if it needs to consider action.

I sincerely hope you’re right. I don’t want the club embroiled in a legal tangle because it’ll do nobody any good - except lawyers presumably. If some dishonesty did occur ( and I’ve never accused anyone of such behaviour ) then a good accountant and auditors should have found it - and apparently they have not done so.

What I and many others want is merely some much needed transparency. I note from the latest email that we will get an explanation of why the chosen bid is to be preferred. I do believe that sufficient time should be given for members to peruse and discuss it.

I deplore that we have been put in such a parlous state as to need this takeover but this is where we are at. Let’s make sure we make the right decisions, in my view we need as much time as possible to do so.

Taunton Iron Cider wrote: September 19th, 2023, 1:45 pm

If, as we are now told, the 2021 accounts were wrong then there can only be two reasons to account for this. Either the Auditors did not do their job correctly, in which case make a claim against their indemnity, or they were deliberately misled by being supplied with incorrect information. If the latter then Brendan may have a point, but I would have still expected a decent accountant to have identified these discrepancies particularly as we are not talking about insignificant numbers.

What I also find interesting is the desire of the Trust and Board seemingly wanting to gloss over and deflect attention away from these figures rather than provide a detailed explanation to us all that can be substantiated by data. That leads me to the conclusion that perhaps they know more than they are prepared to put into the public domain, the question then would be why?

Taunton Iron Cider wrote: September 19th, 2023, 1:45 pm

lowandhard wrote: September 19th, 2023, 12:54 pm

Chris Davis wrote: September 19th, 2023, 12:17 pm I am not an accountant so I am not qualified to comment in detail. However, in the submitted Annual Accounts for 21/22 in the NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 30 JUNE 2022, it states the following:

" The Club has reported losses for the year totalling £1.231,493 giving rise to net current liabilities of £340,973 and net liabilities of £393,464".

Now to me this is entirely consistant with the information given that the 2021 figures were inflated. It would appear from the reported balance sheet that the three areas concerned were a big fall in 'debtors' (people who owed us money), a big fall in cash in the bank and a big increase in creditors (people we owed money to). Now Nick Igoe said that after investigation they had no explanation as to why these figures might have been inflated and, as I recollect, there was little point in pursuing the reasons why. He also stated, in so many words, that he did not see any evidence of criminal activity connected with the 2021 figures. I think what might have persuaded him to that view was there was no significant or unexpected differences in the money in the bank. It also seems to me that even allowing for these discrepancies, the overall result showed a deficit in line with the normal 'structural deficit' of £3-400K.

So, for me, there is unlikely to be any activity that would make the police or CPS to become involved in a theft or deception case.

I have also looked at the 'Action Fraud' website. There it gives a definition of fraud. That definition is "Fraud is when trickery is used to gain a dishonest advantage, which is often financial, over another person" So whilst 'inflation of figures' might be regarded as trickery, there are other elements that have to be met. Firstly, that an individual or individuals have gained an advantage. Well, I am not sure what advantage an individual persons at the Club might have gained by doing it or what other person it might have gained an advantage over by doing it. However and secondly, crucially, that advantage has to be dishonestly gained. Now, we know that Nick Igoe is neither a police officer nor a CPS lawyer, so might not be the very best judge of potential criminality but I am sure he is expert enough to spot grounds for suspicion and hence reporting to the police. It seems absolutely clear that he did not.

So, for me, there is no prospect that either the Police or CPS, would be interested in pursuing criminal action against anyone and Action Fraud will not proceed with any report because it is not possible to produce sufficient evidence of dishonest advantage over another person.

However, that stops no one reporting a potential Action Fraud claim, because it is for that body to decide if it needs to consider action.

I sincerely hope you’re right. I don’t want the club embroiled in a legal tangle because it’ll do nobody any good - except lawyers presumably. If some dishonesty did occur ( and I’ve never accused anyone of such behaviour ) then a good accountant and auditors should have found it - and apparently they have not done so.

What I and many others want is merely some much needed transparency. I note from the latest email that we will get an explanation of why the chosen bid is to be preferred. I do believe that sufficient time should be given for members to peruse and discuss it.

I deplore that we have been put in such a parlous state as to need this takeover but this is where we are at. Let’s make sure we make the right decisions, in my view we need as much time as possible to do so.

If, as we are now told, the 2021 accounts were wrong then there can only be two reasons to account for this. Either the Auditors did not do their job correctly, in which case make a claim against their indemnity, or they were deliberately misled by being supplied with incorrect information. If the latter then Brendan may have a point, but I would have still expected a decent accountant to have identified these discrepancies particularly as we are not talking about insignificant numbers.

What I also find interesting is the desire of the Trust and Board seemingly wanting to gloss over and deflect attention away from these figures rather than provide a detailed explanation to us all that can be substantiated by data. That leads me to the conclusion that perhaps they know more than they are prepared to put into the public domain, the question then would be why?

exile1960 wrote: September 19th, 2023, 1:00 pm I see on the clubs latest email regarding the proposed takeover that the board will resign on block on completion of take over hope this puts to bed more rumors spread by normal suspects of them only presenting a preferred bidder to allow them to carry on their privileges on the board

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 19th, 2023, 2:20 pm

Taunton Iron Cider wrote: September 19th, 2023, 1:45 pm

lowandhard wrote: September 19th, 2023, 12:54 pm

Chris Davis wrote: September 19th, 2023, 12:17 pm I am not an accountant so I am not qualified to comment in detail. However, in the submitted Annual Accounts for 21/22 in the NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 30 JUNE 2022, it states the following:

" The Club has reported losses for the year totalling £1.231,493 giving rise to net current liabilities of £340,973 and net liabilities of £393,464".

Now to me this is entirely consistant with the information given that the 2021 figures were inflated. It would appear from the reported balance sheet that the three areas concerned were a big fall in 'debtors' (people who owed us money), a big fall in cash in the bank and a big increase in creditors (people we owed money to). Now Nick Igoe said that after investigation they had no explanation as to why these figures might have been inflated and, as I recollect, there was little point in pursuing the reasons why. He also stated, in so many words, that he did not see any evidence of criminal activity connected with the 2021 figures. I think what might have persuaded him to that view was there was no significant or unexpected differences in the money in the bank. It also seems to me that even allowing for these discrepancies, the overall result showed a deficit in line with the normal 'structural deficit' of £3-400K.

So, for me, there is unlikely to be any activity that would make the police or CPS to become involved in a theft or deception case.

I have also looked at the 'Action Fraud' website. There it gives a definition of fraud. That definition is "Fraud is when trickery is used to gain a dishonest advantage, which is often financial, over another person" So whilst 'inflation of figures' might be regarded as trickery, there are other elements that have to be met. Firstly, that an individual or individuals have gained an advantage. Well, I am not sure what advantage an individual persons at the Club might have gained by doing it or what other person it might have gained an advantage over by doing it. However and secondly, crucially, that advantage has to be dishonestly gained. Now, we know that Nick Igoe is neither a police officer nor a CPS lawyer, so might not be the very best judge of potential criminality but I am sure he is expert enough to spot grounds for suspicion and hence reporting to the police. It seems absolutely clear that he did not.

So, for me, there is no prospect that either the Police or CPS, would be interested in pursuing criminal action against anyone and Action Fraud will not proceed with any report because it is not possible to produce sufficient evidence of dishonest advantage over another person.

However, that stops no one reporting a potential Action Fraud claim, because it is for that body to decide if it needs to consider action.

I sincerely hope you’re right. I don’t want the club embroiled in a legal tangle because it’ll do nobody any good - except lawyers presumably. If some dishonesty did occur ( and I’ve never accused anyone of such behaviour ) then a good accountant and auditors should have found it - and apparently they have not done so.

What I and many others want is merely some much needed transparency. I note from the latest email that we will get an explanation of why the chosen bid is to be preferred. I do believe that sufficient time should be given for members to peruse and discuss it.

I deplore that we have been put in such a parlous state as to need this takeover but this is where we are at. Let’s make sure we make the right decisions, in my view we need as much time as possible to do so.

If, as we are now told, the 2021 accounts were wrong then there can only be two reasons to account for this. Either the Auditors did not do their job correctly, in which case make a claim against their indemnity, or they were deliberately misled by being supplied with incorrect information. If the latter then Brendan may have a point, but I would have still expected a decent accountant to have identified these discrepancies particularly as we are not talking about insignificant numbers.

What I also find interesting is the desire of the Trust and Board seemingly wanting to gloss over and deflect attention away from these figures rather than provide a detailed explanation to us all that can be substantiated by data. That leads me to the conclusion that perhaps they know more than they are prepared to put into the public domain, the question then would be why?

I don't see how the club can claim against the indemnity of the auditors, if indeed it was a club employee that cocked up, and passed over the cockup. As mentioned previously it could have been something as simple as paying back a covid loan before it needed too, or using the Covid loan for something like players bonuses, that possibly contradicted the terms of the loan, and it had to be paid back. Perhaps it was something more complex.

Fact wise, we do know both Nigel Stephenson and Gavin Foxall left the club due to ill health. I have no idea if it was a cockup of either, but assuming both are still too ill to work, having the finger pointing at them will do them no favours, from a recovery point of view, or a future employment point of view. So the trust board have a duty of care for ALL employees and volunteers of the club, and to clarify what happened, perhaps go's against that duty of care......

Ultimately NCAFC were on course to go over budget anyway, due to a planned overspend in order to be competitive. The fact that the plan to replenish with further cup money, that didn't materialise over the period, was probably more significant overall. So who do you point the finger at for that, it won't be the auditors will it?

Taunton Iron Cider wrote: September 19th, 2023, 5:32 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 19th, 2023, 2:20 pm

Taunton Iron Cider wrote: September 19th, 2023, 1:45 pm

lowandhard wrote: September 19th, 2023, 12:54 pm

Chris Davis wrote: September 19th, 2023, 12:17 pm I am not an accountant so I am not qualified to comment in detail. However, in the submitted Annual Accounts for 21/22 in the NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 30 JUNE 2022, it states the following:

" The Club has reported losses for the year totalling £1.231,493 giving rise to net current liabilities of £340,973 and net liabilities of £393,464".

Now to me this is entirely consistant with the information given that the 2021 figures were inflated. It would appear from the reported balance sheet that the three areas concerned were a big fall in 'debtors' (people who owed us money), a big fall in cash in the bank and a big increase in creditors (people we owed money to). Now Nick Igoe said that after investigation they had no explanation as to why these figures might have been inflated and, as I recollect, there was little point in pursuing the reasons why. He also stated, in so many words, that he did not see any evidence of criminal activity connected with the 2021 figures. I think what might have persuaded him to that view was there was no significant or unexpected differences in the money in the bank. It also seems to me that even allowing for these discrepancies, the overall result showed a deficit in line with the normal 'structural deficit' of £3-400K.

So, for me, there is unlikely to be any activity that would make the police or CPS to become involved in a theft or deception case.

I have also looked at the 'Action Fraud' website. There it gives a definition of fraud. That definition is "Fraud is when trickery is used to gain a dishonest advantage, which is often financial, over another person" So whilst 'inflation of figures' might be regarded as trickery, there are other elements that have to be met. Firstly, that an individual or individuals have gained an advantage. Well, I am not sure what advantage an individual persons at the Club might have gained by doing it or what other person it might have gained an advantage over by doing it. However and secondly, crucially, that advantage has to be dishonestly gained. Now, we know that Nick Igoe is neither a police officer nor a CPS lawyer, so might not be the very best judge of potential criminality but I am sure he is expert enough to spot grounds for suspicion and hence reporting to the police. It seems absolutely clear that he did not.

So, for me, there is no prospect that either the Police or CPS, would be interested in pursuing criminal action against anyone and Action Fraud will not proceed with any report because it is not possible to produce sufficient evidence of dishonest advantage over another person.

However, that stops no one reporting a potential Action Fraud claim, because it is for that body to decide if it needs to consider action.

I sincerely hope you’re right. I don’t want the club embroiled in a legal tangle because it’ll do nobody any good - except lawyers presumably. If some dishonesty did occur ( and I’ve never accused anyone of such behaviour ) then a good accountant and auditors should have found it - and apparently they have not done so.

What I and many others want is merely some much needed transparency. I note from the latest email that we will get an explanation of why the chosen bid is to be preferred. I do believe that sufficient time should be given for members to peruse and discuss it.

I deplore that we have been put in such a parlous state as to need this takeover but this is where we are at. Let’s make sure we make the right decisions, in my view we need as much time as possible to do so.

If, as we are now told, the 2021 accounts were wrong then there can only be two reasons to account for this. Either the Auditors did not do their job correctly, in which case make a claim against their indemnity, or they were deliberately misled by being supplied with incorrect information. If the latter then Brendan may have a point, but I would have still expected a decent accountant to have identified these discrepancies particularly as we are not talking about insignificant numbers.

What I also find interesting is the desire of the Trust and Board seemingly wanting to gloss over and deflect attention away from these figures rather than provide a detailed explanation to us all that can be substantiated by data. That leads me to the conclusion that perhaps they know more than they are prepared to put into the public domain, the question then would be why?

I don't see how the club can claim against the indemnity of the auditors, if indeed it was a club employee that cocked up, and passed over the cockup. As mentioned previously it could have been something as simple as paying back a covid loan before it needed too, or using the Covid loan for something like players bonuses, that possibly contradicted the terms of the loan, and it had to be paid back. Perhaps it was something more complex.

Fact wise, we do know both Nigel Stephenson and Gavin Foxall left the club due to ill health. I have no idea if it was a cockup of either, but assuming both are still too ill to work, having the finger pointing at them will do them no favours, from a recovery point of view, or a future employment point of view. So the trust board have a duty of care for ALL employees and volunteers of the club, and to clarify what happened, perhaps go's against that duty of care......

Ultimately NCAFC were on course to go over budget anyway, due to a planned overspend in order to be competitive. The fact that the plan to replenish with further cup money, that didn't materialise over the period, was probably more significant overall. So who do you point the finger at for that, it won't be the auditors will it?

The Trust also have a duty of care to their members, and consequently any competent accountant could, and should in this instance, produce a Source and Application of Funds Statement. I agree that mistakes happen, but for a £3m t/o business to have a series of them amounting to £1.3m would amount to incompetence of massive proportions. It is that element I'm struggling with.
And yes, if the Auditors were complicit in signing off misleading information that served to conceal that the Club was financially heading for the rocks, then I believe they have a degree of liability. A claim that no doubt could potentially open up a Pandora's Box of issues, something that the Board may not want. I notice that the Audit fee came down from £11,000 in 2021 to £6,000 in 2022, why was that do you think? Conscience money perhaps?

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 19th, 2023, 12:19 pm

Stan A. Einstein wrote: September 19th, 2023, 12:12 pm Look I'll say it because nobody else will.

After the first meeting I said to Sean Johnson the following.

You are refusing to say that Nigel Stephensonis responsible for this mess. Mr Johnson did not disagree.

Let me be clear I don't know whether Mr Stephenson was responsible. But here's the thing.

The directors of Newport County signed off on those figures. They stated that they had put due dilligence in examining the figures. Mr Foxhall was in addition to being chairman finance director. His job was to supervise Mr Stephenson. It was the duty of every director to check.

If you're in charge, you are responsible. And the directors of Newport County were in charge. This nod, nod, wink, wink, that it is all Nigel Stephenson's fault is bollox.

That does a 180 degree change in course between the second and last paragraphs. But never mind as a non trust member you're not the captain, so it matters not one jot.........

Bonson&Hunt wrote: September 20th, 2023, 9:35 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 19th, 2023, 12:19 pm

Stan A. Einstein wrote: September 19th, 2023, 12:12 pm Look I'll say it because nobody else will.

After the first meeting I said to Sean Johnson the following.

You are refusing to say that Nigel Stephensonis responsible for this mess. Mr Johnson did not disagree.

Let me be clear I don't know whether Mr Stephenson was responsible. But here's the thing.

The directors of Newport County signed off on those figures. They stated that they had put due dilligence in examining the figures. Mr Foxhall was in addition to being chairman finance director. His job was to supervise Mr Stephenson. It was the duty of every director to check.

If you're in charge, you are responsible. And the directors of Newport County were in charge. This nod, nod, wink, wink, that it is all Nigel Stephenson's fault is bollox.

That does a 180 degree change in course between the second and last paragraphs. But never mind as a non trust member you're not the captain, so it matters not one jot.........

So Chris is trying to be helpful & all you do is try & discredit him. I'm not having that.