Everton refute claim that club auditor is resigning

Apparently there were some gaps in the bank accounts but they found a dusty piggy labeled "Arteta money" with just a few buttons and paper clips inside.

"Everton auditor considers walking away, raising questions over club's financing"

Like others, I would really appreciate Paul the Esk's take on this…

Not really a story yet, in my opinion.

The Guardian article is scary until you realise: 1 - it's the Guardian, and 2 - it links its bleak statement saying Bramley-Moore Dock "costs have been escalating" to an article from 2017!

File in the bin.

Simon Goodley was awarded Business, Financial and Economic Journalist of the Year a few years ago.

What Newspaper would it need to be published in for the report to be taken more seriously?

There is literally no newspaper I would take seriously these days. The Guardian, like all of them, is all about clickbait and cheap journalism. And I think the second part of my first comment illustrates the second part of this comment.

Why would any audit firm worth their salt give a statement out that they were not prepared to continue auditing said organisation.

He suggests that, if there is any truth to this, it could be that BDO might have come across some evidence that they believe casts doubt on Farhad Moshiri's ownership of the club through Blue Heaven Holdings, an Isle of Man company of which Farhad Moshiri is the beneficial owner of record.

Further speculation that they may have finally established where Farhad Moshiri has been getting the money he has been pumping into Everton? A link to Usmanov, perhaps?

All complete speculation, of course, and it's all being strongly denied, of course.

For an auditor to refuse to sign off accounts is a pretty big deal.

I've not yet seen any other outlet pick up on the story, other than the sites who make a living regurgitating and recycling bullshit.

This may not be bullshit, but we'll see soon enough.

The hope is that it gets buried by events, and the sooner this utterly hopeless Board and ownership disappear the better.

I don't think they have. On the contrary, BDO have refused to confirm anything. Quite right too.

But it would seem that somebody claiming to be involved with BDO have talked to The Guardian, if they are not completely making it up. (Why would they?) That seems incredibly unprofessional if true, but par for the course with Everton!

Tepid musings about rotating the auditors seems a bit wishy washy when what is really needed is a joint declaration saying "THIS IS BOLLOCKS" by both club and auditors.

On top of Mosh assuring fans the club wasn't for sale then stories abounding everywhere that the opposite is true I'm leaning toward the Guardian being right.

The club will be wound up 3 days before we move into BMD at 11.36 am.

Only at Everton.

I think it's no surprise the stadium was going to cost north of £300M and, as is inevitable with any project, there would be an assumption it would cost more? That surely must have been factored into the planning?

I'm probably naive but, looking at the work done so far, I can't for one minute think that the spades will be laid down. Too much investment to date and not just from Everton. Too many future prospects for the city.

But now I've just thought about that White Elephant that was the aftermath of the Garden Festival site on Otterspool Promenade. I know there has now been a lot of development and restoration in recent years, but that laid dormant and in neglect for years after the pomp and ceremony in the mid-80s.

Let's not go there. We're marching to Bramley-Moore Dock!

Regardless of that, I have no doubt that, as Danny says, the stadium will be completed.

Spot on I think.

Unless there are more articles to emerge, see If the club changes their auditor. Given their reported response, that doesn't seem to be their plan, other than the hint at the end.

Given issues of client confidentiality, BDO might be unlikely to comment. But it is potentially damaging.

In the meantime… wait and see.

1. Auditor rotation is required by law. Max period is 5 years so rotating after 2 would be unusual.

2. Auditor resignation is a serious matter. It would usually be associated with concerns over the ethical standards of the company being audited – eg, association with crime or fraud, failure to deliver all info auditor needs. Resigning auditor has to deliver a statement on why they are resigning and this is available to owners and creditors and succeeding auditor. To avoid this, companies sometimes fire or rotate their auditor.

3. Auditors sometimes resign to get themselves out of high-risk situations, ie, if they feel the risk of being sued themselves later in the day (eg, after a company they have given a clean audit report on goes bust). They shouldn't do this professionally but…

4. If there are concerns about the finances of a company and the auditor is concerned about a going concern, they can qualify the accounts – another big step.

Lots of conjecture and guesswork just now. All we can do is watch this space.

They all have their angles, you read them all and try to find a modicum of truth somewhere. Sad really.

Unless you believe the saying "the only bad publicity is no publicity", this is not what we need on top of being close to Russian investment and spending limits, whether something lurks below the surface or not.

I don't believe for one minute anyone from the auditors have leaked anything. Their reputation and sue ability would make them very careful about this.

To me, this has soundbytes of a RS mischief maker who has put Moshiri's association with Usmanov and our FFP issues together to make 2+2 = 5.

No organisation is squeaky clean but I believe the club and the auditors have done the right thing by keeping this low key.

I am also led to believe The Guardian themselves admit they have found no proof in their own investigations.

Where there is a disagreement between the internal finance team and the external auditors over the correct treatment of an item of income or expenditure.

For example, does a specific line of large expense qualify for 'pandemic relief' under Premier League rules?

I get shouted at because of my increasing irritation with the BBC. Especially the Breakfast show that tells me how bad the world is and how stupid I am. Maybe I am stupid, but I don't need telling it all the time. I get told that enough at home and can work that out for myself.

The modern media outlets have become much more about pushing agendas rather than reporting the news and facts.

Dramatising and fear-mongering trumps actual facts every day it now seems.

And I'm not downplaying any problems with have in society before someone kicks off on me. Those who know me understand.

Making up stuff about me that you view negatively, so as to denigrate my opinion by positioning it as the view of the type of person you've imagined me to be. Utterly pathetic.

Your second & third points have no relevance to my post whatsoever. So, at least you're consistent.

That, out of the way, I have always been sceptical of Moshiri's handling of finances and the complete and utter fiascos in the hitherto transfer business for the club. Usually accompanied by, "How the fuck did this fella become so rich, and presumably recognised globally as a leading accountant, when he has blown a fortune quicker than Joe the Fatboy in the Tuck Shop?"

Derek – how did the accountant become so rich? By laundering Russian money and inside trading, I would imagine, but that's speculation worthy of the rags mentioned above.

My understanding was that the term was in common usage back in the day due to the reputation they had for the paper being littered with spelling mistakes. Indeed, one of the things I remember from the aforementioned annual was a fake obituary announcement for their late "prof-readre" who would be "sadly mossed".