Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Meire's missing salary - a matter of lawfulness

‪http://www.castrust.org/2017/07/615846‬/

Good work by the Trust, following up Mrs Airman's question to Meire at the Q&A in April.

Why doesn't Joyes give HIS view in his letter?
«13456

Comments

  • Addickted said:

    Is this the East Kent version?

    Fixed it.
  • ‪http://www.castrust.org/2017/07/615846‬/

    Good work by the Trust, following up Mrs Airman's question to Meire at the Q&A in April.

    Why doesn't Joyes give HIS view in his letter?

    because, I am led to believe, he also thinks the place is a basket case?
  • Whatever she earns it's too much. However if Boris Johnson can get a job then any cretin can get one. Shows its who you know and she seems to know uncle Roly fairly well.
  • Was their reply not even on headed paper?

    He spells her name wrong in the first paragraph.

    Amateur in every way. Perhaps she doesn't get paid.
  • edited July 7

    Was their reply not even on headed paper?

    He spells her name wrong in the first paragraph.

    Amateur in every way. Perhaps she doesn't get paid.

    It's on the OS in that form with the latest Fans' Forum minutes.
  • She's stealing a living, no wonder she's touchy!
  • Sponsored links:


  • I think he's shot himself right in the foot with that response. How any reasonable person can conclude that services as a Chief Executive don't meet the definition of 'qualifying services' is beyond me.

    There are a number of options for pursuing this - has anybody raised with Companies House or the Insolvency Service?
  • Okay, my 2p worth. Companies Act 2006

    First, S227 (1) For the purposes of this Part a director's “service contract”, in relation to a company, means a contract under which—
    (a)a director of the company undertakes personally to perform services (as director or otherwise) for the company, or for a subsidiary of the company
    ...(my emphasis).

    Second, Section 412 Information about directors' benefits: remuneration

    (1)The Secretary of State may make provision by regulations requiring information to be given in notes to a company's annual accounts about directors' remuneration.
    Then in subsection 2 (d) benefits receivable, and contributions for the purpose of providing benefits, in respect of past services of a person as director or in any other capacity while director; (Again, my emphasis).

    That latter bit indicates that there should be a Statutory Instrument somewhere underpinning the Act but I've yet to find it.

    Anyway, assuming it exists, AND there's not a supplementary piece of legislation regarding unquoted/small companies having an exemption, I fail to see how her pay as a CEO, which must be (or should be) set out in her director's service contract should not also be disclosed in the accounts as "director's remuneration" on the basis that being CEO is "any other capacity".

    That said, it is a somewhat trivial matter.
  • The key here is that it has all been signed off by the auditors as true & fair. So there is obviously a valid reason why the disclosure is what it is. Auditors would not allow a non-legal disclosure without drawing attention to it in their report.
  • The key here is that it has all been signed off by the auditors as true & fair. So there is obviously a valid reason why the disclosure is what it is. Auditors would not allow a non-legal disclosure without drawing attention to it in their report.

    You have more faith than me in the overall competency of auditors. Charlton's described themselves, quaintly, as "a niche firm". Which is cute.
  • edited July 7
    I qualified as a chartered accountant back in 1981 so I have more than 35 years experience of both audit & statutory account preparation. David Joyce is also a chartered accountant & would be putting his professional career at risk if he knowingly prepared accounts that were not in compliance with all the relevant professional standards & disclosure requirements. The auditors will also have gone through every note to the accounts in detail before signing them off. All auditors are subject to the same level of professional standards, regardless of size.

    The actual reason for the non-disclosure of KM's remuneration will probably be due to specifics contained in her employment contract, as well as certain service & management agreements between Charlton & its Belgian holding company. These will be confidential so it may be difficult to ever get a full answer to the question posed.
  • @Red_Pete in Dubai

    If you are suggesting that she might in fact be an employee of Staprix rather than CAFC, why should that be properly regarded as confidential, as opposed to simply something that they would prefer to keep quiet about?

    I don''t know if that is the reason, and it is only my guess, however if it were true, it would be important for those who are concerned about the governance of CAFC to find this out and consider the possible implications.
  • Let's say her is salary is made public.
    Then what?
  • Prague, that may well be the case. If she is an employee of Staprix then she could still be being paid by Charlton in the U.K. for tax reasons but her salary not included in the books of the club as it would just be charged back to Staprix. There could then be a non-disclosable management fee charged by Staprix which would be included in the staff costs figure. This is fairly standard practice for many multi-national groups of companies where head office staff work in management roles in overseas subsidiaries.

    There are a lot of different scenarios that would achieve the goal of not disclosing her salary in Charlton's accounts.
  • Sponsored links:


  • edited July 7

    Prague, that may well be the case. If she is an employee of Staprix then she could still be being paid by Charlton in the U.K. for tax reasons but her salary not included in the books of the club as it would just be charged back to Staprix. There could then be a non-disclosable management fee charged by Staprix which would be included in the staff costs figure. This is fairly standard practice for many multi-national groups of companies where head office staff work in management roles in overseas subsidiaries.

    There are a lot of different scenarios that would achieve the goal of not disclosing her salary in Charlton's accounts.

    But that is not the club's explanation. Meire and Joyes have both said, the latter in writing, that she is paid by CAFC Ltd.

    Joyes: "Katrien Meire does receive remuneration from Charlton Athletic Football Company Limited in her capacity as Chief Executive of the company. This remuneration is included in the staff costs note (note 6 of the 30 June 2016 accounts – Charlton Athletic Football Company Limited and Baton 2010 Limited). This remuneration is also included in the Key Management Compensation disclosure of note 6 in the Baton 2010 Limited accounts."
  • Redskin said:

    Let's say her is salary is made public.
    Then what?

    This ?
  • edited July 7
    Could it be that they budget for her salary and she charges CAFC through a limited company. Thus they appear in the accounts as a staff cost but she pays tax and NI through her company? That's what happens where I work. We employ consultants. That arrangement could be in breach of IR35 regulations.
  • _MrDick said:

    Could it be that they budget for her salary and she charges CAFC through a limited company. Thus they appear in the accounts as a staff cost but she pays tax and NI through her company? That's what happens where I work. We employ consultants. That arrangement could be in breach of IR35 regulations.

    Prothero was paid through a limited company. His pay was disclosed as directors' remuneration.
  • edited July 7

    Redskin said:

    Let's say her is salary is made public.
    Then what?

    This ?
    Why bother to publish the accounts at all then? Why should they have to keep accounts? I mean, if Roland doesn't want to, why should he have to?
    Yes - but I believe Redskin and CE's point (unless I'm mistaken) is implying a 'what's the point' or as they say in the vernacular a 'who gives a f*ck' observation.

    What's the agenda here, Rick? I'm sure there is a reasonable and lawful explanation but what if they have failed to disclose that which they should have disclosed - does that mean Two Sheds will be sent to prison and be made bankrupt, thereby allowing the insolvency practitioner to sell off the debt-ridden CAFC for a quid?

    Or have I missed the purpose of the challenge? (genuine question - I may well have missed it).
Sign In or Register to comment.