The disagreement must go in both directions, by definition. Or are you suggesting the accountants insisted on including the valuations, despite dissent from the club, then included a note implying it was an unusual thing to do? Strikes me as unlikely.







Indeed. Biggest red herring since Sherlock Holmes' 'Case of the Giant Crimson Kipper'.

As i understand it its nothing to do with accountants, the simple case here as youve hinted at with the red herring comment is that the auditors have said they wouldnt have shown it on accounts like we have.

Then why show them as such. Hull's total Fixed Assets show a value of £1,296,451 with an Intangible Asset value of £942,500 which the auditors qualify by saying [i'internally generated intangible assets should NOT be capitalised in the balance sheet[/i'. This clearly overstates the true value of the Total Fixed Assets.



Capitalising employees as assets on a balance sheet may not be against the law, but it is certainly not in accordance with the companies act of 1985.

Indeed its not.

Is it? Which section of the Act?



Is any action to be taken against Hull FC by the Registrar of Companies or by BERR?



Have the auditors resigned in protest at their advice being ignored, or will they be seeking re-appointment at the next AGM?



Leaving aside all these questions, I thought this thread was supposed to be about Rovers' accounts? Hull's accounts can be discussed on their forum.

According to you own appointed auditors, yes it is. In fact they further qualify it by saying in their opinion '[ithe intangible fixed assets should be removed, reducing the the fixed assets and reducing the capital and reserves by £942,500[/i'.

I don't think we disagree about what the auditors said Gordon. I was just asking what, if anything, is going to happen as a result?

Nothing.



Its just a clear case of creative accountancy.

Except in this case it wasn't the accountants who were being creative eh?

Indeed.



It does though enable Hull to return a positive final Balance Sheet

There is a fair amount of irony when someone with the screen name of Gordon Gekko cries foul about creative accountancy.

TBF, being £3.2m in debt with a further £450k loss to come, you can see why they'd want to change the subject to an accounting policy that FC have adopted for at least 6 years that impacts neither debt nor profitability.