BBC Radio Scotland Interview with Sandy Easdale

[forlanssister 3,110]

Well there are rules when it comes to getting accounts audited no?

 

Indeed there are just ask the shareholders of Enron, Lehman Brothers, Polly Peck yadda yadda yadda et al each and everyone got a clean bill of health from its' auditors.

[simplythebest 0]

I've already explained why the credibility or lack of it is irrelevant so desist with the trolling.

 

There is as a result of the actions of Charles Green a contingent liability in the accounts which is preventing the club from carrying out the running of the business in the normal manner which part of that is causing you difficulty in comprehending?

I struggle to comprehend it because only you seem to bring it up, the media would be all over it if Whyte was to blame for this.

 

What Green did got Whyte out of the club for good, did that not make it worthwhile? And no i'm not trolling.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

would have been far better if green hadn't ever jumped into bed with him in the first place.

 

then we would have no contingent liability.

 

let's hope he got rid of him legally.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

meanwhile tomorrows papers will have....

 

Season ticket sales down 10k compared to comparable last year.

 

Fans rage at Mr Easdale.

 

Wallace angered at potential probe.

[Mountain Bear 0]

Quick business school type test for any budding entrepreneurs out there:

 

Your customers have been telling you loudly and clearly for some time that they are not happy with the way they are being treated.

 

Do you:

 

A) Go out of your way to proactively engage them and address their concerns head on, even if it's difficult

 

B) Hire a PR consultant and the very next day blame your customers for not buying enough from you.

 

This guy makes Gerald Ratner look like the Sage of Omaha.

 

Until now my concerns have been mainly around issues of trust and transparency. I had assumed that whether I liked it or not, my Club was being run by some smart operators from the shadows. Not any more, because they have chosen this idiot as their puppet.

 

Either this is some bizarre Machiavellian plot to deliberately engineer another insolvency event and re-engineer the business, thus stripping out the costs which the original Admin process should have done, or they are beyond stupid.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[the gunslinger 3,366]

I seem to recall youth development and scouting being top of the fans concerns not PR. The was from their own ready to listen claptrap.

[forlanssister 3,110]

I struggle to comprehend it because only you seem to bring it up, the media would be all over it if Whyte was to blame for this.

 

I'm typing this slowly please read it in the same manner in the hope it may penetrate.

 

THERE IS A CONTINGENT LIABILITY BECAUSE CRAIG WHYTE SENT A LETTER BEFORE CLAIM AS A RESULT OF THE ACTIONS OF CHARLES GREEN, NO AUDITOR IN HIS RIGHT MIND CAN IGNORE THAT WHETHER HIS CLAIM IS WITHOUT FOUNDATION OR NOT.

 

There are accountants aplenty on here who can explain the ramifications ask one.

 

What Green did got Whyte out of the club for good, did that not make it worthwhile? And no i'm not trolling.

 

If that were the case there would be no contingent liability would there?

[BrahimHemdani 1]

 

THERE IS A CONTINGENT LIABILITY BECAUSE CRAIG WHYTE SENT A LETTER BEFORE CLAIM AS A RESULT OF THE ACTIONS OF CHARLES GREEN, NO AUDITOR IN HIS RIGHT MIND CAN IGNORE THAT WHETHER HIS CLAIM IS WITHOUT FOUNDATION OR NOT.

 

 

I am not sure that you are correct about the contingent liability.

 

Emphasis of matter - Uncertain outcome of potential litigation

 

In arriving at our review conclusion, which is not qualified, we have considered the adequacy of the disclosures made in note 15 to the condensed set of financial statements concerning the uncertain outcome of the potential litigation following the receipt of two letters before claim from legal advisors to Craig Whyte and Aidan Earley. The Company commissioned an independent investigation ('the Investigation') to investigate the first letter before claim, which was concluded on 17 May 2013. On 30 May 2013 following the receipt of a second letter before claim, the Company announced that the Investigation had been concluded. The Company is satisfied that a thorough investigation was conducted despite the inherent limitations of a private enquiry, and considers that the claims have no legal merit. The Company has also engaged Allen & Ovary to defend against these potential claims, and the Company has had no communications with Messrs Whyte and Earley or their legal advisors since 30 May 2013. The ultimate outcome of this matter cannot currently be determined, and accordingly no adjustments have been made to the financial statements as a result of this matter.

 

If there was a contingent liability would there not be an adjustment in the accounts?

 

There is a difference between a contingent liability and the assets being encumbered (if that is the correct expression) by the potential claim.

 

Also one would assume that there must be some kind of time limit on this kind of thing in accounting terms if not from a legal perspective. The accountants might argue that unless the letter(s) is withdrawn or somehow countered legally then they will have to continue adding such notes to the accounts; but the longer the absence of any further communication persists, the less likliehood of any court action one might assume.

[andy steel 0]

In hindsight, you have to admit he's got a sense of humour. Using the expression 'steady as she goes' to describe a club in fragile financial health and which is apparently a stroppy, non-renewing fan away from administration is unintentional irony worthy of great Richard Milhous Nixon himself.

 

Plus, we can now call him a moron as much as we like, and when he takes us to court we just play this interview. Case dismissed!

[forlanssister 3,110]

I am not sure that you are correct about the contingent liability.

 

Emphasis of matter - Uncertain outcome of potential litigation

 

In arriving at our review conclusion, which is not qualified, we have considered the adequacy of the disclosures made in note 15 to the condensed set of financial statements concerning the uncertain outcome of the potential litigation following the receipt of two letters before claim from legal advisors to Craig Whyte and Aidan Earley. The Company commissioned an independent investigation ('the Investigation') to investigate the first letter before claim, which was concluded on 17 May 2013. On 30 May 2013 following the receipt of a second letter before claim, the Company announced that the Investigation had been concluded. The Company is satisfied that a thorough investigation was conducted despite the inherent limitations of a private enquiry, and considers that the claims have no legal merit. The Company has also engaged Allen & Ovary to defend against these potential claims, and the Company has had no communications with Messrs Whyte and Earley or their legal advisors since 30 May 2013. The ultimate outcome of this matter cannot currently be determined, and accordingly no adjustments have been made to the financial statements as a result of this matter.

 

If there was a contingent liability would there not be an adjustment in the accounts?

 

There is a difference between a contingent liability and the assets being encumbered (if that is the correct expression) by the potential claim.

 

Also one would assume that there must be some kind of time limit on this kind of thing in accounting terms if not from a legal perspective. The accountants might argue that unless the letter(s) is withdrawn or somehow countered legally then they will have to continue adding such notes to the accounts; but the longer the absence of any further communication persists, the less likliehood of any court action one might assume.

 

However it's dressed the result is the same, it'll be an extremely brave employee of a financial institutional that will sign off a loan/credit facility with that hanging over the club as Easdale and Laxey both demanding and receiving security over assets demonstrate.

 

The legal niceties in this have years in which to play out, Whyte has to do very little as yet but the club cannot function normally in the business sense with this hanging over it Whyte knows this hence the Letter Before Claim being the cheapest option for him to hinder the club functioning.

 

Whyte wants a pay off to go away it's that simple.

 

I do not believe his claim has merit but from his point of view it has nuisance value.

 

The ultimate outcome of this matter cannot currently be determined

 

We'll continue to see that as long as the matter is unresolved.