Chris Hughton

Richard · **Posted:** 14 Jun 2012, 18:18

ianrobo wrote:

the transfer of the kit deal is the thing that sticks out. even if a small amount it means blues the football club sees none and it was transferred on NIL value to a company no one can find but apparently part of BIHL.

In other words, Blues are being asset stripped.

That blog is bloody good but the author seems reluctant to committ himself as seems to want a job on the Mail group. He should as a blog author give the truth of these accounts apparent to all.

Ian, if you are so concerned about illegality why don't you give HMRC a call?

ianrobo · **Joined:** 28 Sep 2010, 15:55 **Posts:** 5298

I am not a Blues fan, tell me Richard, are you ?

Are you not gravely concerned by these accounts, if not you should be.

If this was at Villa I would be calling for a boycott to force the club into administration, any money blues fans put in you have no idea where it is going

Dominator · **Joined:** 28 Sep 2010, 15:54 **Posts:** 2886

Fergus wrote:

Dominator wrote:

representingthemambo wrote:

We could do with some proper analysis of this from people who know what they are talking about (i.e. some of the earlier commenters on this thread but in more forensic detail). This is pretty much the only forum that has discussed this in anything like the proper detail that it needs to be, and that worries me.

Well to be fair this is pretty good, silly me!

http://www.oftenpartisan.co.uk/archives ... ounts.html

Far be it from me to intrude on private grief, but whilst that link is pretty good, I don't think the author quite understands the implications of some of the comments - and I'll be less cautious than Fergus. For example

Quote:

we identified that significant payments that might have been related to the group were not disclosed to us in a timely fashion

Related to the group means 'related parties' which is an accounting term to describe parties not fully independent of the entity whose accounts are being prepared. Transactions 'related to the group' need to be disclosed in the interests of transparency. It's pretty worrying that the auditor is using the term 'might' in respect of might be related to the group because it suggests that they have not satisfied themselves that they have a comprehensive list of potential related parties. The comment 'not disclosed to us in a timely fashion' is a bit like John Prescott and his gifts from a Texan billionaire - only revealed because they were caught.

Quote:

we were only able to obtain important audit evidence in respect of these payments on the basis that we accepted it “redacted” and that it was not available for discussion with the Board as a whole.

This appears to be prima facie evidence that some Board members are not revealing important relevant information to other directors. Shocking.

Quote:

These payments have now been agreed to be recorded in the accounts of the parent company.

Note 'have been agreed' indicating that this statutory obligation has only been fulfilled under pressure...

Quote:

effective of the 2011/12 season, the rights to the net income from the sponsorship of kit was transferred to a wholly owned subsidiary of the parent company named Birmingham (Hong Kong) Ltd.

Enron-esque. The author says that this company can not be found at Companies House. There is no reason why this may not be an overseas company...

Quote:

…it is appropriate that the net income generated from the sponsorship contract is recorded within the financial statements of BHK and that no income (either from the sponsorship or on a transfer of rights) is recorded with the financial statements of BCFC

If this is a case of moving income overseas relating to advertising that clearly takes place in the UK, HMRC would come down on them like a tonne of bricks. It appears that the directors are beginning to understand the implications of a audit report like the one here. Seeing what Fergus says about the Mail apology suggests that the full picture still has to emerge.

Well, Dom, I'm assuming you no longer hold an audit registration - I do!! So, I'll continue being cautious! Not that I am surprised by the content of your comments, though I should point out that the author of the linked piece did say he'd also checked the Hong Kong Company Registry. ianrobo commented early on that HMRC might well be interested, and I'm not surprised you agree.

I'm an ACA but I don't do external audits and don't have a practising certificate. As for the questions of legality, I don't think that anyone needs to worry about informing HMRC. However, being as the company which may now hold the kit sponsorship rights is a wholly owned subsidiary I wouldn't throw around terms like asset stripping.

ianrobo · **Joined:** 28 Sep 2010, 15:55 **Posts:** 5298

If you move assets from one company under a holding one to another based in Hong Kong, a company only set up for that purpose (if it even exists and that seems not clear) it is most certainly asset stripping.

In the auditors report they claim not to have all the documents and I wonder if one of these was evidence of this other company.

Dominator · **Joined:** 28 Sep 2010, 15:54 **Posts:** 2886

ianrobo wrote:

If you move assets from one company under a holding one to another based in Hong Kong, a company only set up for that purpose (if it even exists and that seems not clear) it is most certainly asset stripping.

In the auditors report they claim not to have all the documents and I wonder if one of these was evidence of this other company.

A lot of speculation Ian... You don't know where the other company is based, whether the company was set up for a single purpose and there is no reason for you to question its existence. Other than that, perfect. :roll:

What we do know (namely that this other company is a wholly owned subsidiary) and that an attempt has been made by some officers of BCFC to transfer some rights at no cost might indicate other things that may cause concern does not represent 'asset stripping'.

ianrobo · **Joined:** 28 Sep 2010, 15:55 **Posts:** 5298

The Blues themselves said the company was based in hong Kong, name gives it away

Birmingham (Hong Kong) ltd

but no one can find it.

Never mind the avoidance of tax liabilities that may arise.

Richard · **Posted:** 15 Jun 2012, 06:10

ianrobo wrote:

I am not a Blues fan, tell me Richard, are you ?

Are you not gravely concerned by these accounts, if not you should be.

If this was at Villa I would be calling for a boycott to force the club into administration, any money blues fans put in you have no idea where it is going

Ian, you are the one who has suggested criminality and SFO/HNRC involvement, not me. I can't see that who you support has any relevance.

LiKW · **Joined:** 30 Sep 2010, 19:43 **Posts:** 2304

ianrobo wrote:

The Blues themselves said the company was based in hong Kong, name gives it away

Birmingham (Hong Kong) ltd

but no one can find it.

Ian - just because it has the name Birmingham (Hong Kong) Ltd doesn't mean it was incorporated in either the UK or Hong Kong.

Richard · **Posted:** 15 Jun 2012, 11:26

LiKW wrote:

ianrobo wrote:

The Blues themselves said the company was based in hong Kong, name gives it away

Birmingham (Hong Kong) ltd

but no one can find it.

Ian - just because it has the name Birmingham (Hong Kong) Ltd doesn't mean it was incorporated in either the UK or Hong Kong.

Indeed and the fact it can't be found in the HK Register suggests it was incorporated elsewhere. It could still trade in HK, of course.

ianrobo · **Joined:** 28 Sep 2010, 15:55 **Posts:** 5298

LiKW wrote:

ianrobo wrote:

The Blues themselves said the company was based in hong Kong, name gives it away

Birmingham (Hong Kong) ltd

but no one can find it.

Ian - just because it has the name Birmingham (Hong Kong) Ltd doesn't mean it was incorporated in either the UK or Hong Kong.

the auditors said it was ...

come on LIKW you went through all this with Pompey, does transferring kit rights over to unknown companies sound legit ?

LiKW · **Joined:** 30 Sep 2010, 19:43 **Posts:** 2304

Ian, the auditors said it was operating in Hong Kong, not that it was incorporated in Hong Kong. It could be incorporated at any useful tax haven. At Pompey, we've had plenty of experiences of BVI companies. Its not that it doesn't look suspicious (far too many parallels with Pompey for my liking) but that you shouldn't assume that its unincorporated (that's just not how these things operate).

As for Pompey, Monday sees a creditors meeting with two bids in for the club. The first is our old friends Portpin (secured creditors) and the second is from the Pompey Supporters Trust who have raised a considerable amount of money. In other words both bids have skin in the game.

wonderingwhy · **Joined:** 27 Jan 2011, 12:42 **Posts:** 1254

Well, Blues have Clark, which seems ok, not that I know too much about him, apart from what the beeb tells us.
As a Villa fan, as long as blues finish below villa, that's fine by me - but actually, I would welcome back the days of the top flight having a big midlands representation, from east and west. Derby days are the best.

representingthemambo · **Posted:** 27 Jun 2012, 11:33

wonderingwhy wrote:

Well, Blues have Clark, which seems ok, not that I know too much about him, apart from what the beeb tells us.
As a Villa fan, as long as blues finish below villa, that's fine by me - but actually, I would welcome back the days of the top flight having a big midlands representation, from east and west. Derby days are the best.

Proof if it were needed of the scale of Villa's fall from grace in recent years. The fans of a club that have won the European Cup now have as their main reference point beating a club who have never done anything.

Clark is a reasonable appointment I suppose. Considering some of the other dreadful candidates being thrown around (Keane, Curbishley) we have dodged a bullet. There is no chance of a repeat of last years heroics though unless someone hands Carson Yeung a big wad of money.

I was angry at the sale of Jordon Mutch as I thought a transfer fee of £1 million was evidence of a fire sale. The Guardian is saying £3 million this morning though. To me that isn't a terrible piece of business.......

wonderingwhy · **Joined:** 27 Jan 2011, 12:42 **Posts:** 1254

This is a thread about Blues - hence my comment, as a Villa fan.

I can assure you that, like most Villa fans, while we want to be sure to beat Blues in fine fashion each and every time, and of course finish above them every time too, our main point of reference is the top end of the table and silverware, not Small Heath.

representingthemambo · **Posted:** 27 Jun 2012, 17:06

wonderingwhy wrote:

This is a thread about Blues - hence my comment, as a Villa fan.

I can assure you that, like most Villa fans, while we want to be sure to beat Blues in fine fashion each and every time, and of course finish above them every time too, our main point of reference is the top end of the table and silverware, not Small Heath.

No need to be defensive. Even as a Blues fan it saddens me that the Villa are no longer able to compete with the big boys. I think the state of West Midlands football in general is hugely disappointing. I would be far happier with Villa being successful than many teams in the Premier League (The Cockneys, Liverpool, Manchester Red and Blue, etc.)

This may be a slight generalisation but most Blues blogs and fan sites are primarily concerned with what is happening at Blues, whereas a signifcant amount of discussion at Villa sites and blogs appears to be gloating and scahedenfreude at Blues' expense. Well if that's what keeps you happy then fair enough, but it does highlight a rather sad narrowing of horizons at a club that at one time could justifiably describe itself as being amongst the world's elite.

Dominator · **Joined:** 28 Sep 2010, 15:54 **Posts:** 2886

representingthemambo wrote:

This may be a slight generalisation but most Blues blogs and fan sites are primarily concerned with what is happening at Blues, whereas a signifcant amount of discussion at Villa sites and blogs appears to be gloating and scahedenfreude at Blues' expense.

It's a generalisation, but it's also the complete opposite of reality.

representingthemambo · **Posted:** 27 Jun 2012, 17:27

Dominator wrote:

representingthemambo wrote:

This may be a slight generalisation but most Blues blogs and fan sites are primarily concerned with what is happening at Blues, whereas a signifcant amount of discussion at Villa sites and blogs appears to be gloating and scahedenfreude at Blues' expense.

It's a generalisation, but it's also the complete opposite of reality.

Like I said, defensive.......

wonderingwhy · **Joined:** 27 Jan 2011, 12:42 **Posts:** 1254

Well, I only look at the vital villa football blog/ site, and that's been mainly about Villa in the two or three years i've been looking at it, and was so last season too, despite the manager/ Blues issue. I really don't know about other sites.

I do think that midlands football generally - perhaps because of our collective lack of success in recent times - has become a little insular. I'm quite happy for Villa fans to sing anti Blues songs when playing them, but it winds me up when we have other/ bigger fish to fry, and Blues are nowhere to be seen.

Don't get me wrong - I always have loved derby days and local rivalry.

But the whole midlands football scene needs a kick where it hurts - or some other means ( ie, money) to reinvigorate it on the national stage.

ianrobo · **Joined:** 28 Sep 2010, 15:55 **Posts:** 5298

Blues blogs and forums certainly discuss villa and I do the same on mine.

Blues have a very good appointment, but whilst away they sold Mutch for a song then rejected 6M for a keeper who started what two Blues games ?

madness ....

Pannu is putting himself up as a defender of the club from nasty Carson but seems few belive him and ST sales are well down and supposed to below 4K ....

Clark is only on a one year contract bet he has plenty of opt outs and embargo still in place and squad very thin ....

Blues fans should be very worried

Richard · **Posted:** 17 Oct 2012, 19:37

Story about BCFC in Private Eye today. Apparently the auditors have resigned and the Hong Kong Stock Exchange have censured Yeung and others.

ianrobo · **Joined:** 28 Sep 2010, 15:55 **Posts:** 5298

thats all true ...

in effect the club is in limbo

Re~Stirred Forum

Chris Hughton

Who is online