Paul Waine wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 3:02 pmNo, of course not. These are West Brom's accounts and Azets are West Brom's auditors.
Yes, we still wait to learn who BFC's new auditors are. The one thing we know is that Azets resigned last year.
Chester Perry wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 3:49 pmare we really certain that Azets resigned and were not just thanked for their services and replaced, the clubs own statement said they decided on a change of auditor in November? that btw is a timeline that I question given that I understand that an appointment of new auditors was made in early November and due process would be required before that appointment was confirmed.
https://www.burnleyfootballclub.com/con ... nt-embargo
In our continued efforts to improve and move forward Burnley Football Club we made the decision to change our auditors in November and the transition has taken longer than we anticipated.
there are people who engage on this message board who could find out for absolutely certain - all they have to do is exercise the shareholders rights under the 2006 Companies Act and ask the club (in a direct response to the March 12th statement)
- Did Azets resign or did the club decide to replace them?
- Who are the new auditors of the club and when where they appointed?
It is even possible for shareholders to ask to look at the board meeting minutes/notes where these decisions were taken
I would be very interested for shareholders to engage in such action, you would like to think that the Clarets Trust has done so already (though I have little expectation on that front), given it's chair sits on the fan advisory board and this topic is supposedly high on the advisory boards agenda at it's next meeting with the club which, i understand, is coming up very soon.
aggi wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 4:14 pmI'm rusty on the technicalities but I think if they were re-appointed (which they may well have been if it wasn't until November that the change happened and I thought I'd seen a suggestion somewhere that they had been doing some work this year) then they would have to resign even if the change was driven by the directors choosing to replace them.
Chester Perry wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 4:52 pmThanks as always for your specific specialist insights
The quirks of industry practice and terminology aside, there is still a significant difference between being obliged to resign and choosing to resign, the way Paul expressed it, it came across to the layman (and I know Paul was an accountant for the best part of 2 decades at least, so he may have slipped into trade reserved terminology) as the latter which the club statement appears in direct contention with.
Paul Waine wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 10:19 pmHi CP, my use of "resigned" was intending simply to be "good mannered."
We know from the Directors' Report in the 2020/21 BFCHL accounts: "Auditor: The auditor, Azets Audit Services, is deemed to be reappointed under section 487(2) of the Companies Act 2006."
I've now checked the technical advice to auditors provided by the ICAEW. If Azets had resigned because there were "matters" they required to report they would have to file a statement at Companies House to advise both shareholders and creditors of these matters. Obviously, Azets haven't done this. Thus we can conclude that the club decided to appoint new auditors and Azets had no matters to report when they were replaced.
dsr wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 11:13 pmIt's a very odd time to appoint new auditors. It certainly wouldn't be as a matter of general policy, because the replacement was 11 months after the prvious accounts had been signed off and the replacement auditors would be appointed then - if it was a routine matter. Something has happened in the meantime to make BFC unhappy with Azets. (I doubt it would be the other way round, because it would surely be deeply unprofessional to resign from auditing so late in the day, unless there was a fundamental difference of opinion as to whether - say - a £150m loan from the owners was likely to be repaid.