So the UK is not allowed to impose disclosure requirements beyond what is required by EU Directives. No one knows what the EU directive means as it uses expressions that (a) don't mean anything or (b) mean what you want them to mean. Of course you can spend a £m on lawyers and go to to the ECJ to make a decision. Anyone who thinks it's an accidental aberration voted Remain.
Welcome back, Dipps. How is that 2 year guarantee on your new washing machine working out? What? It's only 1 year? You mean the UK decided to ignore the EU directive? Well I never... anyway back to to the topic :-)
Always buy from John Lewis - extended guarantee.......
So the UK is not allowed to impose disclosure requirements beyond what is required by EU Directives. No one knows what the EU directive means as it uses expressions that (a) don't mean anything or (b) mean what you want them to mean. Of course you can spend a £m on lawyers and go to to the ECJ to make a decision. Anyone who thinks it's an accidental aberration voted Remain.
Welcome back, Dipps. How is that 2 year guarantee on your new washing machine working out? What? It's only 1 year? You mean the UK decided to ignore the EU directive? Well I never... anyway back to to the topic :-)
Always buy from John Lewis - extended guarantee.......
..and even if you didn't you'd still be covered by the Consumer Goods Act (though I'm sure i'll be told by the good citizens of the EU dreamworld that this is their doing)....
So the UK is not allowed to impose disclosure requirements beyond what is required by EU Directives. No one knows what the EU directive means as it uses expressions that (a) don't mean anything or (b) mean what you want them to mean. Of course you can spend a £m on lawyers and go to to the ECJ to make a decision. Anyone who thinks it's an accidental aberration voted Remain.
Welcome back, Dipps. How is that 2 year guarantee on your new washing machine working out? What? It's only 1 year? You mean the UK decided to ignore the EU directive? Well I never... anyway back to to the topic :-)
Always buy from John Lewis - extended guarantee.......
..and even if you didn't you'd still be covered by the Consumer Goods Act (though I'm sure i'll be told by the good citizens of the EU dreamworld that this is their doing)....
No, I think they might say that there is no such law of that name, but assume you refer to the 2015 Consumer Rights Act. Good luck with getting Apple to replace your Iphone, no ifs no buts, after 23 months, with that one.
Now, about Meire's salary. This all the fault of the EU too?
So the UK is not allowed to impose disclosure requirements beyond what is required by EU Directives. No one knows what the EU directive means as it uses expressions that (a) don't mean anything or (b) mean what you want them to mean. Of course you can spend a £m on lawyers and go to to the ECJ to make a decision. Anyone who thinks it's an accidental aberration voted Remain.
Welcome back, Dipps. How is that 2 year guarantee on your new washing machine working out? What? It's only 1 year? You mean the UK decided to ignore the EU directive? Well I never... anyway back to to the topic :-)
Always buy from John Lewis - extended guarantee.......
..and even if you didn't you'd still be covered by the Consumer Goods Act (though I'm sure i'll be told by the good citizens of the EU dreamworld that this is their doing)....
No, I think they might say that there is no such law of that name, but assume you refer to the 2015 Consumer Rights Act. Good luck with getting Apple to replace your Iphone, no ifs no buts, after 23 months, with that one.
Now, about Meire's salary. This all the fault of the EU too?
Unless you are @PragueAddick go straight to last paragraph.
Of course. EU allows non UK business owner to exercise blatant discrimination against UK nationals in favour of an un-qualified non UK national chosen on the basis of sharing a common nationality with the owner, so depriving better qualified UK workers of work opportunities.
Non EU footballers have to prove they have achieved a certain level of skill before they are allowed to take the job a UK domestic player by undercutting domestic wage levels. EU football dross, including football management dross, is inflicted on us without any control because of EU membership and i would be surprised if Meire is not quite a cheap option for Roland.
Guarantees cost money, they are not free, and the "EU" doesn't pay for it we do, in the form of higher prices and the EU deprives us of the option to take the risk and pay a lower price and choose to buy a guarantee or pay to have it fixed. Of course the EU knows best, there can be no better system which could possibly be devised and regulated by the UK's own parliament.
Anyway, about Meire's salary, it's obviously an embarrassment. Knowing it will simply allow the extent of her failure to be better measured in financial terms and highlight Roland's senility and stupidity given he's the one footing the bill unless/until we are in profit.
So the UK is not allowed to impose disclosure requirements beyond what is required by EU Directives. No one knows what the EU directive means as it uses expressions that (a) don't mean anything or (b) mean what you want them to mean. Of course you can spend a £m on lawyers and go to to the ECJ to make a decision. Anyone who thinks it's an accidental aberration voted Remain.
Welcome back, Dipps. How is that 2 year guarantee on your new washing machine working out? What? It's only 1 year? You mean the UK decided to ignore the EU directive? Well I never... anyway back to to the topic :-)
Always buy from John Lewis - extended guarantee.......
..and even if you didn't you'd still be covered by the Consumer Goods Act (though I'm sure i'll be told by the good citizens of the EU dreamworld that this is their doing)....
No, I think they might say that there is no such law of that name, but assume you refer to the 2015 Consumer Rights Act. Good luck with getting Apple to replace your Iphone, no ifs no buts, after 23 months, with that one.
Now, about Meire's salary. This all the fault of the EU too?
Thanks for pointing out my error but the fact that you knew what I was talking about suggests that your point is pedantic rather than substantive.
The reasons why I as a Board Member of the Trust think it is important to get to the bottom of this, and report our findings, is as follows.
A Trust is concerned with the long term health of its Football Club, including financial health. Good corporate governance is part of good financial health. You may say, it is not uncommon for English football clubs to be poor in both regards, to which I say, exactly, that is why there are Supporters Trusts, everywhere from Old Trafford to Bloomfield Raod, examining their clubs and pushing, collectively, for greater regulation to curb these bad practices.
In my opinion, our Trust can display on its Board an above average range of senior level business experience, including Nigel Kleinfeld, a very well qualified senior financial manager with a very rational, hard-nosed approach. It is he who has uncovered this issue. He has also been digging into the Staprix accounts, a difficult task because reporting standards in Belgium appear to be more lax than in the UK. Nevertheless he has uncovered interesting aspects of Staprix's business interests, which we are examining further.
Bear with me...Notwithstanding that @Airman Brown points to their statements indicating Meire is paid by CAFC, the statements do not explicitly deny that she may (e.g. also) be paid by Staprix.
Now, @Red_Pete in Dubai, you accept such a possibility but appear to be relaxed about it; you wrote 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.
However I disagree, fundamentally. If you take a senior manager of Unilever, say a British national who is sent to be CEO of their Czech unit, his overall management objectives (KPIs) are absolutely clear. he must act in the interests of Unilever's shareholders, and those shareholders expect Unilever to pursue its business in CZ exactly as they do anywhere else.
This analogy completely breaks down when applied to a 'network' of football clubs, and especially when the shareholder is one man. (Indeed that is why there are rules against multiple club ownership, albeit limited and badly enforced). If Meire is remunerated wholly or in part by Staprix, it is necessary to consider the business goals of Staprix, and ask whether they are in harmony or in conflict with those of CAFC, and then whether the latter are likely to enhance or damage the long-term health of CAFC. If they are in conflict, and Meire is paid even in part by Staprix, then clearly she acts in conflict with CAFC's best interests too.
We have been looking at the Staprix question since the beginning. It is damn difficult but we are building our knowledge bit by bit, and BTW still get help from Standard Socios (led by a chartered accountant) even though having escaped RD, such help is outside their remit. This particular issue is in my view a possible piece in the jigsaw, and that is why we want to get to the bottom of it. Incidentally two of the Board were at the SD- FSF Supporter Summit and took the opportunity to consult there with experts on whether this was an issue to be pursued and whether a Trust should do it. The answer was an unequivocal "yes" to both, and that is one reason why we agreed to move ahead and publish this statement.
I've not been on here much lately, too busy enjoying myself.
Now, that is what I call a good answer, as opposed to Airman's of simply embarassing her. Thanks Prague.
Prague - re the salary I am not disputing Nigel K's relevant expertise or authority, which is far greater than mine, but to claim he "uncovered this issue" is a bit off. I have been pursuing it since the 13/14 accounts were published with the help of people on here and others with insight and you'll find the documentary evidence of that in the Voice. Hence the question at the Q&A in April. The trust is the right route to pursue it, but it didn't start the chase.
Apologies mate, I had forgotten that. I mainly wanted to make the point that it is a legitimate Trust issue (and we have the expertise to pursue it) so it is not just your personal fixation, as @Covered End rather tiresomely implies.
Hey, for the record I think it's a bit rich for you to call me tiresome.
So the UK is not allowed to impose disclosure requirements beyond what is required by EU Directives. No one knows what the EU directive means as it uses expressions that (a) don't mean anything or (b) mean what you want them to mean. Of course you can spend a £m on lawyers and go to to the ECJ to make a decision. Anyone who thinks it's an accidental aberration voted Remain.
Prague - re the salary I am not disputing Nigel K's relevant expertise or authority, which is far greater than mine, but to claim he "uncovered this issue" is a bit off. I have been pursuing it since the 13/14 accounts were published with the help of people on here and others with insight and you'll find the documentary evidence of that in the Voice. Hence the question at the Q&A in April. The trust is the right route to pursue it, but it didn't start the chase.
Apologies mate, I had forgotten that. I mainly wanted to make the point that it is a legitimate Trust issue (and we have the expertise to pursue it) so it is not just your personal fixation, as @Covered End rather tiresomely implies.
Hey, for the record I think it's a bit rich for you to call me tiresome.
I do not think you are generally tiresome, but I thought it unfortunate that you chose to join those who too readily seek to portray Airman as acting out of personal animosity. After all, you take some pride in giving her a right grilling at Bromley, repeating the same questions in the hope of a coherent answer, as I understand. From my point of you, good on you. From Meire's POV, she probably thinks you and Airman are fellow vinegar pissers. I would also take issue with what the centre ground of the support base thinks about this, but just defining who the centre ground is, is a can of worms, so I'll let that go. But you cannot compare this activity with hassling Meire's family, no way.
I agree that Airman isn't acting out of animosity.....those that he had conflict with are no longer around at The Valley other than RM, so who on earth would he be directing animosity towards........CAFC? No, that's laughable, we ALL know Rick is a diehard Addick, unfortunately there's a few around who somehow construed that Ricks anger and dissatisfaction with the current regime is clouded by other unfortunate past events.......he doesn't have anything against the club per say and never has......and anyone who thinks otherwise is way off the ball. There is a saying which has been used on several occasions, so forgive me for using it again. Charlton made a huge miscalculation when they parted company with Rick, in ways they (or anyone come to that), could ever have foreseen.
"It would be better to have Rick Everitt inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in."
With thanks to Len for his detailed postings, I don't think the related parties transaction rules are the issue here. Working on the assumption she was paid solely by Staprix, we had looked at these in previous years to see if the club could avoid disclosure in that way.
This year (re the 15/16 accounts) however, both Meire and Joyes have stated that she is paid by CAFC Ltd as chief executive. Taken at face value that is not a related party transaction for CAFC Limited, as I understand the concept, it is straightforward payment to key management by and within the same company of which she is a director.
Moreover Joyes confirms that her pay is included in key management pay, as disclosed in Baton's accounts, which consolidate CAFC Ltd and Holdings Ltd (which is irrelevant), and which invites us to draw the conclusion that her remuneration is significant, by virtue of the sums disclosed there.
Importantly, the club explicitly argues that chief executive pay is separate from a director's remuneration. This is therefore the point of company law at issue and I have found no one who believes that can be the case - and indeed that has never been CAFC's view before. Joyes himself disclosed Prothero's remuneration in 12/13 and 13/14, even though the latter was contracted via a separate company, although I accept Prothero was not chief executive but exec vice chairman.
Kavanagh and Waggott were paid as chief executive and their full pay was disclosed as director's remuneration in previous accounting years.
The club did not adopt FRS 102 until 15/16, so even if it were in some way relying on it here, that would not explain the omission of her pay in 13/14 and 14/15.
There may be other mechanisms available to keep Meire's pay out of the public domain - but that is not the club's public position. They say a chief executive's pay need not be disclosed because it is not directors' remuneration. And we say that is bollocks.
I would pass it all to the FRC for them to decide - as it it is their job to do so. Remember they got Al Capone on tax evasion.
Agreed there is a lot of conjecture here and interpretation has the Trust, Airman or anyone else raised this with the authorities after all their view will be the one that counts?
Now we've got the club's view in writing this will happen. I think the letter is a blunder on their part as it effectively narrows the issue to the point made in it.
Assuming what it says about Meire is truthful, which I do, it's fairly clear cut IMO - can a chief executive's pay lawfully be characterised as not "in connection with the management of the affairs of the company"?
Good luck with that.
the other benefit of passing this to the FRRP is that they should divert KM from football matters which is always a good thing.
Prague - re the salary I am not disputing Nigel K's relevant expertise or authority, which is far greater than mine, but to claim he "uncovered this issue" is a bit off. I have been pursuing it since the 13/14 accounts were published with the help of people on here and others with insight and you'll find the documentary evidence of that in the Voice. Hence the question at the Q&A in April. The trust is the right route to pursue it, but it didn't start the chase.
Apologies mate, I had forgotten that. I mainly wanted to make the point that it is a legitimate Trust issue (and we have the expertise to pursue it) so it is not just your personal fixation, as @Covered End rather tiresomely implies.
Hey, for the record I think it's a bit rich for you to call me tiresome.
I do not think you are generally tiresome, but I thought it unfortunate that you chose to join those who too readily seek to portray Airman as acting out of personal animosity. After all, you take some pride in giving her a right grilling at Bromley, repeating the same questions in the hope of a coherent answer, as I understand. From my point of you, good on you. From Meire's POV, she probably thinks you and Airman are fellow vinegar pissers. I would also take issue with what the centre ground of the support base thinks about this, but just defining who the centre ground is, is a can of worms, so I'll let that go. But you cannot compare this activity with hassling Meire's family, no way.
Just for clarity, I wasn't comparing the act of "hassling" of Meire's father, with the act of attempting to discover Meire's salary. I was trying to get over the point that you need the support of the majority.
I'm unsure as to whether the "Meire's father" incident had majority support and I was questioning whether attempting to discover Meire's salary would have majority support.
Basically, I've always maintained that you shouldn't complain about everything, but only that which is justified, because otherwise you may appear like "the boy that cried wolf" and you may start to lose your support.
Prague - re the salary I am not disputing Nigel K's relevant expertise or authority, which is far greater than mine, but to claim he "uncovered this issue" is a bit off. I have been pursuing it since the 13/14 accounts were published with the help of people on here and others with insight and you'll find the documentary evidence of that in the Voice. Hence the question at the Q&A in April. The trust is the right route to pursue it, but it didn't start the chase.
Apologies mate, I had forgotten that. I mainly wanted to make the point that it is a legitimate Trust issue (and we have the expertise to pursue it) so it is not just your personal fixation, as @Covered End rather tiresomely implies.
Hey, for the record I think it's a bit rich for you to call me tiresome.
I do not think you are generally tiresome, but I thought it unfortunate that you chose to join those who too readily seek to portray Airman as acting out of personal animosity. After all, you take some pride in giving her a right grilling at Bromley, repeating the same questions in the hope of a coherent answer, as I understand. From my point of you, good on you. From Meire's POV, she probably thinks you and Airman are fellow vinegar pissers. I would also take issue with what the centre ground of the support base thinks about this, but just defining who the centre ground is, is a can of worms, so I'll let that go. But you cannot compare this activity with hassling Meire's family, no way.
Just for clarity, I wasn't comparing the act of "hassling" of Meire's father, with the act of attempting to discover Meire's salary. I was trying to get over the point that you need the support of the majority.
I'm unsure as to whether the "Meire's father" incident had majority support and I was questioning whether attempting to discover Meire's salary would have majority support.
Basically, I've always maintained that you shouldn't complain about everything, but only that which is justified, because otherwise you may appear like "the boy that cried wolf" and you may start to lose your support.
I hope that makes it clearer.
It really doesn't matter whether it has "majority support" because it doesn't affect anyone else and as it's the law it cannot sensibly be said to be intrusive or unfair to pursue it.
Prague - re the salary I am not disputing Nigel K's relevant expertise or authority, which is far greater than mine, but to claim he "uncovered this issue" is a bit off. I have been pursuing it since the 13/14 accounts were published with the help of people on here and others with insight and you'll find the documentary evidence of that in the Voice. Hence the question at the Q&A in April. The trust is the right route to pursue it, but it didn't start the chase.
Apologies mate, I had forgotten that. I mainly wanted to make the point that it is a legitimate Trust issue (and we have the expertise to pursue it) so it is not just your personal fixation, as @Covered End rather tiresomely implies.
Hey, for the record I think it's a bit rich for you to call me tiresome.
I do not think you are generally tiresome, but I thought it unfortunate that you chose to join those who too readily seek to portray Airman as acting out of personal animosity. After all, you take some pride in giving her a right grilling at Bromley, repeating the same questions in the hope of a coherent answer, as I understand. From my point of you, good on you. From Meire's POV, she probably thinks you and Airman are fellow vinegar pissers. I would also take issue with what the centre ground of the support base thinks about this, but just defining who the centre ground is, is a can of worms, so I'll let that go. But you cannot compare this activity with hassling Meire's family, no way.
Just for clarity, I wasn't comparing the act of "hassling" of Meire's father, with the act of attempting to discover Meire's salary. I was trying to get over the point that you need the support of the majority.
I'm unsure as to whether the "Meire's father" incident had majority support and I was questioning whether attempting to discover Meire's salary would have majority support.
Basically, I've always maintained that you shouldn't complain about everything, but only that which is justified, because otherwise you may appear like "the boy that cried wolf" and you may start to lose your support.
I hope that makes it clearer.
It really doesn't matter whether it has "majority support" because it doesn't affect anyone else and as it's the law it cannot sensibly be said to be intrusive or unfair to pursue it.
So we now know for a fact that by not disclosing Miere's salary, the club are breaking the law?
Can I please just clarify a point of information without this turning into another Brexit thread?
FRS102 is NOT an EU Directive. In fact, it has nothing to do with the EU. It is what's known in accounting circles as UK GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Practice), and is a set of accounting standards set out by the Financial Reporting Council (FRC), which is an independent regulator for UK and Ireland (and, again, nothing to do with the EU).
I fully appreciate that 99.999% of you don't care. But it was really getting my goat to see yet more misinformation being spread about the EU.
I've long believed that Katrien Meire is not an employee of Charlton, but as Duchatalet's pet, is actually a Staprix employee. As far as I'm concerned, the fact that the club have made deliberate efforts to obfuscate and conceal her remuneration is sufficient grounds to attempt to expose the nature of her employment and the actual amount she is paid. I don't buy David Joyes weak attempt to hide behind the auditors for one minute.
Following Charlton's relegation as a result of Meire's catastrophic stewardship, people at the club lost their jobs and I don't suppose any of the staff have seen a pay rise either. All the more important that Meire's lavish salary is revealed. Why should ordinary club employees have to bear the consequences of her failures while she continues to be rewarded far in excess of anything her achievements deserve.
Prague - re the salary I am not disputing Nigel K's relevant expertise or authority, which is far greater than mine, but to claim he "uncovered this issue" is a bit off. I have been pursuing it since the 13/14 accounts were published with the help of people on here and others with insight and you'll find the documentary evidence of that in the Voice. Hence the question at the Q&A in April. The trust is the right route to pursue it, but it didn't start the chase.
Apologies mate, I had forgotten that. I mainly wanted to make the point that it is a legitimate Trust issue (and we have the expertise to pursue it) so it is not just your personal fixation, as @Covered End rather tiresomely implies.
Hey, for the record I think it's a bit rich for you to call me tiresome.
I do not think you are generally tiresome, but I thought it unfortunate that you chose to join those who too readily seek to portray Airman as acting out of personal animosity. After all, you take some pride in giving her a right grilling at Bromley, repeating the same questions in the hope of a coherent answer, as I understand. From my point of you, good on you. From Meire's POV, she probably thinks you and Airman are fellow vinegar pissers. I would also take issue with what the centre ground of the support base thinks about this, but just defining who the centre ground is, is a can of worms, so I'll let that go. But you cannot compare this activity with hassling Meire's family, no way.
Just for clarity, I wasn't comparing the act of "hassling" of Meire's father, with the act of attempting to discover Meire's salary. I was trying to get over the point that you need the support of the majority.
I'm unsure as to whether the "Meire's father" incident had majority support and I was questioning whether attempting to discover Meire's salary would have majority support.
Basically, I've always maintained that you shouldn't complain about everything, but only that which is justified, because otherwise you may appear like "the boy that cried wolf" and you may start to lose your support.
I hope that makes it clearer.
It really doesn't matter whether it has "majority support" because it doesn't affect anyone else and as it's the law it cannot sensibly be said to be intrusive or unfair to pursue it.
So we now know for a fact that by not disclosing Miere's salary, the club are breaking the law?
Her name's Meire. It's a matter of law either way.
Prague - re the salary I am not disputing Nigel K's relevant expertise or authority, which is far greater than mine, but to claim he "uncovered this issue" is a bit off. I have been pursuing it since the 13/14 accounts were published with the help of people on here and others with insight and you'll find the documentary evidence of that in the Voice. Hence the question at the Q&A in April. The trust is the right route to pursue it, but it didn't start the chase.
Apologies mate, I had forgotten that. I mainly wanted to make the point that it is a legitimate Trust issue (and we have the expertise to pursue it) so it is not just your personal fixation, as @Covered End rather tiresomely implies.
Hey, for the record I think it's a bit rich for you to call me tiresome.
I do not think you are generally tiresome, but I thought it unfortunate that you chose to join those who too readily seek to portray Airman as acting out of personal animosity. After all, you take some pride in giving her a right grilling at Bromley, repeating the same questions in the hope of a coherent answer, as I understand. From my point of you, good on you. From Meire's POV, she probably thinks you and Airman are fellow vinegar pissers. I would also take issue with what the centre ground of the support base thinks about this, but just defining who the centre ground is, is a can of worms, so I'll let that go. But you cannot compare this activity with hassling Meire's family, no way.
Just for clarity, I wasn't comparing the act of "hassling" of Meire's father, with the act of attempting to discover Meire's salary. I was trying to get over the point that you need the support of the majority.
I'm unsure as to whether the "Meire's father" incident had majority support and I was questioning whether attempting to discover Meire's salary would have majority support.
Basically, I've always maintained that you shouldn't complain about everything, but only that which is justified, because otherwise you may appear like "the boy that cried wolf" and you may start to lose your support.
I hope that makes it clearer.
It really doesn't matter whether it has "majority support" because it doesn't affect anyone else and as it's the law it cannot sensibly be said to be intrusive or unfair to pursue it.
So we now know for a fact that by not disclosing Miere's salary, the club are breaking the law?
Her name's Meire. It's a matter of law either way.
Prague - re the salary I am not disputing Nigel K's relevant expertise or authority, which is far greater than mine, but to claim he "uncovered this issue" is a bit off. I have been pursuing it since the 13/14 accounts were published with the help of people on here and others with insight and you'll find the documentary evidence of that in the Voice. Hence the question at the Q&A in April. The trust is the right route to pursue it, but it didn't start the chase.
Apologies mate, I had forgotten that. I mainly wanted to make the point that it is a legitimate Trust issue (and we have the expertise to pursue it) so it is not just your personal fixation, as @Covered End rather tiresomely implies.
Hey, for the record I think it's a bit rich for you to call me tiresome.
I do not think you are generally tiresome, but I thought it unfortunate that you chose to join those who too readily seek to portray Airman as acting out of personal animosity. After all, you take some pride in giving her a right grilling at Bromley, repeating the same questions in the hope of a coherent answer, as I understand. From my point of you, good on you. From Meire's POV, she probably thinks you and Airman are fellow vinegar pissers. I would also take issue with what the centre ground of the support base thinks about this, but just defining who the centre ground is, is a can of worms, so I'll let that go. But you cannot compare this activity with hassling Meire's family, no way.
Just for clarity, I wasn't comparing the act of "hassling" of Meire's father, with the act of attempting to discover Meire's salary. I was trying to get over the point that you need the support of the majority.
I'm unsure as to whether the "Meire's father" incident had majority support and I was questioning whether attempting to discover Meire's salary would have majority support.
Basically, I've always maintained that you shouldn't complain about everything, but only that which is justified, because otherwise you may appear like "the boy that cried wolf" and you may start to lose your support.
I hope that makes it clearer.
It really doesn't matter whether it has "majority support" because it doesn't affect anyone else and as it's the law it cannot sensibly be said to be intrusive or unfair to pursue it.
So we now know for a fact that by not disclosing Miere's salary, the club are breaking the law?
Her name's Meire. It's a matter of law either way.
So you don't know.
So far I haven't found an accountant who hasn't laughed at David Joyes' explanation, if that helps.
Again: assuming what his letter says about Meire is truthful, which I do, and that is the explanation for the treatment in the accounts, as he suggests, the only issue is can a chief executive's pay lawfully be characterised as not "in connection with the management of the affairs of the company"?
There could be another explanation, but this is what club has effectively said.
Can I please just clarify a point of information without this turning into another Brexit thread?
FRS102 is NOT an EU Directive. In fact, it has nothing to do with the EU. It is what's known in accounting circles as UK GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Practice), and is a set of accounting standards set out by the Financial Reporting Council (FRC), which is an independent regulator for UK and Ireland (and, again, nothing to do with the EU).
I fully appreciate that 99.999% of you don't care. But it was really getting my goat to see yet more misinformation being spread about the EU.
If we are getting into absolute semantics then your statement is correct.
However you doubtless also know that the rationale for the major changes from previous practice to UK GAAP by integrating FRS 102 is in order to comply with the EU Accounting Directive.
So no it is not an EU Directive but since the reason for its existence is to comply with one so it may as well be for practical purposes.
I was trying to give a potted explanation on a football forum as to possible reasons why directors remuneration had not been disclosed. One possible reason being the first year of a new concept called FRS 102 that arose because of the EU Accounting Directive.
I frankly thought going into all the UK GAAP bollocks would add no clarity or value and simply clog the thread up.
Sorry to upset you though by spreading 'misinformation about the EU!
I probably won't bother trying to explain these matters in future as I'm obviously crap at it.
Prague - re the salary I am not disputing Nigel K's relevant expertise or authority, which is far greater than mine, but to claim he "uncovered this issue" is a bit off. I have been pursuing it since the 13/14 accounts were published with the help of people on here and others with insight and you'll find the documentary evidence of that in the Voice. Hence the question at the Q&A in April. The trust is the right route to pursue it, but it didn't start the chase.
Apologies mate, I had forgotten that. I mainly wanted to make the point that it is a legitimate Trust issue (and we have the expertise to pursue it) so it is not just your personal fixation, as @Covered End rather tiresomely implies.
Hey, for the record I think it's a bit rich for you to call me tiresome.
I do not think you are generally tiresome, but I thought it unfortunate that you chose to join those who too readily seek to portray Airman as acting out of personal animosity. After all, you take some pride in giving her a right grilling at Bromley, repeating the same questions in the hope of a coherent answer, as I understand. From my point of you, good on you. From Meire's POV, she probably thinks you and Airman are fellow vinegar pissers. I would also take issue with what the centre ground of the support base thinks about this, but just defining who the centre ground is, is a can of worms, so I'll let that go. But you cannot compare this activity with hassling Meire's family, no way.
Just for clarity, I wasn't comparing the act of "hassling" of Meire's father, with the act of attempting to discover Meire's salary. I was trying to get over the point that you need the support of the majority.
I'm unsure as to whether the "Meire's father" incident had majority support and I was questioning whether attempting to discover Meire's salary would have majority support.
Basically, I've always maintained that you shouldn't complain about everything, but only that which is justified, because otherwise you may appear like "the boy that cried wolf" and you may start to lose your support.
I hope that makes it clearer.
It really doesn't matter whether it has "majority support" because it doesn't affect anyone else and as it's the law it cannot sensibly be said to be intrusive or unfair to pursue it.
So we now know for a fact that by not disclosing Miere's salary, the club are breaking the law?
Her name's Meire. It's a matter of law either way.
So you don't know.
So far I haven't found an accountant who hasn't laughed at David Joyes' explanation, if that helps.
Again: assuming what his letter says about Meire is truthful, which I do, and that is the explanation for the treatment in the accounts, as he suggests, the only issue is can a chief executive's pay lawfully be characterised as not "in connection with the management of the affairs of the company"?
There could be another explanation, but this is what club has effectively said.
Don't know, then. That doesn't mean to say to say the club hasn't broken the law, it may well have done, but as yet we don't know.
Can I please just clarify a point of information without this turning into another Brexit thread?
FRS102 is NOT an EU Directive. In fact, it has nothing to do with the EU. It is what's known in accounting circles as UK GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Practice), and is a set of accounting standards set out by the Financial Reporting Council (FRC), which is an independent regulator for UK and Ireland (and, again, nothing to do with the EU).
I fully appreciate that 99.999% of you don't care. But it was really getting my goat to see yet more misinformation being spread about the EU.
If we are getting into absolute semantics then your statement is correct.
However you doubtless also know that the rationale for the major changes from previous practice to UK GAAP by integrating FRS 102 is in order to comply with the EU Accounting Directive.
So no it is not an EU Directive but since the reason for its existence is to comply with one so it may as well be for practical purposes.
I was trying to give a potted explanation on a football forum as to possible reasons why directors remuneration had not been disclosed. One possible reason being the first year of a new concept called FRS 102 that arose because of the EU Accounting Directive.
I frankly thought going into all the UK GAAP bollocks would add no clarity or value and simply clog the thread up.
Sorry to upset you though by spreading 'misinformation about the EU!
I probably won't bother trying to explain these matters in future as I'm obviously crap at it.
Sorry, but that's still not right. FRS 102 was not introduced as a result of the Directive, although I accept that some changes have been made to some sections as a result of the Directive (mainly the changes to the small companies regime).
However, I feel that we are getting away from the point of this thread, which is the club's apparent suggestion that services as a Chief Executive are not in connection with the management of the affairs of the company. Airman - you can add my name to the list of accountants laughing about that one!
Prague - re the salary I am not disputing Nigel K's relevant expertise or authority, which is far greater than mine, but to claim he "uncovered this issue" is a bit off. I have been pursuing it since the 13/14 accounts were published with the help of people on here and others with insight and you'll find the documentary evidence of that in the Voice. Hence the question at the Q&A in April. The trust is the right route to pursue it, but it didn't start the chase.
Apologies mate, I had forgotten that. I mainly wanted to make the point that it is a legitimate Trust issue (and we have the expertise to pursue it) so it is not just your personal fixation, as @Covered End rather tiresomely implies.
Hey, for the record I think it's a bit rich for you to call me tiresome.
I do not think you are generally tiresome, but I thought it unfortunate that you chose to join those who too readily seek to portray Airman as acting out of personal animosity. After all, you take some pride in giving her a right grilling at Bromley, repeating the same questions in the hope of a coherent answer, as I understand. From my point of you, good on you. From Meire's POV, she probably thinks you and Airman are fellow vinegar pissers. I would also take issue with what the centre ground of the support base thinks about this, but just defining who the centre ground is, is a can of worms, so I'll let that go. But you cannot compare this activity with hassling Meire's family, no way.
Just for clarity, I wasn't comparing the act of "hassling" of Meire's father, with the act of attempting to discover Meire's salary. I was trying to get over the point that you need the support of the majority.
I'm unsure as to whether the "Meire's father" incident had majority support and I was questioning whether attempting to discover Meire's salary would have majority support.
Basically, I've always maintained that you shouldn't complain about everything, but only that which is justified, because otherwise you may appear like "the boy that cried wolf" and you may start to lose your support.
I hope that makes it clearer.
It really doesn't matter whether it has "majority support" because it doesn't affect anyone else and as it's the law it cannot sensibly be said to be intrusive or unfair to pursue it.
So we now know for a fact that by not disclosing Miere's salary, the club are breaking the law?
Her name's Meire. It's a matter of law either way.
So you don't know.
So far I haven't found an accountant who hasn't laughed at David Joyes' explanation, if that helps.
Again: assuming what his letter says about Meire is truthful, which I do, and that is the explanation for the treatment in the accounts, as he suggests, the only issue is can a chief executive's pay lawfully be characterised as not "in connection with the management of the affairs of the company"?
There could be another explanation, but this is what club has effectively said.
Don't know, then. That doesn't mean to say to say the club hasn't broken the law, it may well have done, but as yet we don't know.
I agree - but three of the four things you highlight turn on the club's veracity. The fourth hinges on whether the chief executive is involved in managing the affairs of the company.
Acting lawfully but lying to fans might not be a much better outcome for them.
Can I please just clarify a point of information without this turning into another Brexit thread?
FRS102 is NOT an EU Directive. In fact, it has nothing to do with the EU. It is what's known in accounting circles as UK GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Practice), and is a set of accounting standards set out by the Financial Reporting Council (FRC), which is an independent regulator for UK and Ireland (and, again, nothing to do with the EU).
I fully appreciate that 99.999% of you don't care. But it was really getting my goat to see yet more misinformation being spread about the EU.
If we are getting into absolute semantics then your statement is correct.
However you doubtless also know that the rationale for the major changes from previous practice to UK GAAP by integrating FRS 102 is in order to comply with the EU Accounting Directive.
So no it is not an EU Directive but since the reason for its existence is to comply with one so it may as well be for practical purposes.
I was trying to give a potted explanation on a football forum as to possible reasons why directors remuneration had not been disclosed. One possible reason being the first year of a new concept called FRS 102 that arose because of the EU Accounting Directive.
I frankly thought going into all the UK GAAP bollocks would add no clarity or value and simply clog the thread up.
Sorry to upset you though by spreading 'misinformation about the EU!
I probably won't bother trying to explain these matters in future as I'm obviously crap at it.
Sorry, but that's still not right. FRS 102 was not introduced as a result of the Directive, although I accept that some changes have been made to some sections as a result of the Directive (mainly the changes to the small companies regime).
However, I feel that we are getting away from the point of this thread, which is the club's apparent suggestion that services as a Chief Executive are not in connection with the management of the affairs of the company. Airman - you can add my name to the list of accountants laughing about that one!
We agree on that.
All I've tried to do is look for a possible reason (s) given that Mr Joyes has a credible accounting background apparently and the further fact that his accounts were also subjected to external audit.
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.
Why bring Boris Johnson into this debate, what a strange thing to do?
I believe he's using it as an analogy to show competence isn't a requirement for finding gainful employment when connections will do.
So you embarrass her. What does that actually achieve ? It's pretty clear he'll sell if and when he wants & I see little merit in this. It's possibly even counter productive, because some fans will view it as being vindictive.
A bit like her behaviour over the player of the year, then? Damn right she should be called to account because she has personally done more damage to the club than any chief exec we have ever had.
Carry on then. But as I say, you may just be building support for Meire.
That I find very hard to believe. It may increase the ostrich-like behaviour of her apologists but I can't see anyone else seeing this as casting her in a good light.
Comments
Now, about Meire's salary. This all the fault of the EU too?
Of course. EU allows non UK business owner to exercise blatant discrimination against UK nationals in favour of an un-qualified non UK national chosen on the basis of sharing a common nationality with the owner, so depriving better qualified UK workers of work opportunities.
Non EU footballers have to prove they have achieved a certain level of skill before they are allowed to take the job a UK domestic player by undercutting domestic wage levels. EU football dross, including football management dross, is inflicted on us without any control because of EU membership and i would be surprised if Meire is not quite a cheap option for Roland.
Guarantees cost money, they are not free, and the "EU" doesn't pay for it we do, in the form of higher prices and the EU deprives us of the option to take the risk and pay a lower price and choose to buy a guarantee or pay to have it fixed. Of course the EU knows best, there can be no better system which could possibly be devised and regulated by the UK's own parliament.
Anyway, about Meire's salary, it's obviously an embarrassment. Knowing it will simply allow the extent of her failure to be better measured in financial terms and highlight Roland's senility and stupidity given he's the one footing the bill unless/until we are in profit.
Now, that is what I call a good answer, as opposed to Airman's of simply embarassing her. Thanks Prague.
No, that's laughable, we ALL know Rick is a diehard Addick, unfortunately there's a few around who somehow construed that Ricks anger and dissatisfaction with the current regime is clouded by other unfortunate past events.......he doesn't have anything against the club per say and never has......and anyone who thinks otherwise is way off the ball.
There is a saying which has been used on several occasions, so forgive me for using it again. Charlton made a huge miscalculation when they parted company with Rick, in ways they (or anyone come to that), could ever have foreseen.
"It would be better to have Rick Everitt inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in."
The reason why KM's wage is not disclosed in our accounts is because her pay is performance related and there is no requirement for a 'nil return'.
Simples.
I'm unsure as to whether the "Meire's father" incident had majority support and I was questioning whether attempting to discover Meire's salary would have majority support.
Basically, I've always maintained that you shouldn't complain about everything, but only that which is justified, because otherwise you may appear like "the boy that cried wolf" and you may start to lose your support.
I hope that makes it clearer.
FRS102 is NOT an EU Directive. In fact, it has nothing to do with the EU. It is what's known in accounting circles as UK GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Practice), and is a set of accounting standards set out by the Financial Reporting Council (FRC), which is an independent regulator for UK and Ireland (and, again, nothing to do with the EU).
I fully appreciate that 99.999% of you don't care. But it was really getting my goat to see yet more misinformation being spread about the EU.
Following Charlton's relegation as a result of Meire's catastrophic stewardship, people at the club lost their jobs and I don't suppose any of the staff have seen a pay rise either. All the more important that Meire's lavish salary is revealed. Why should ordinary club employees have to bear the consequences of her failures while she continues to be rewarded far in excess of anything her achievements deserve.
Again: assuming what his letter says about Meire is truthful, which I do, and that is the explanation for the treatment in the accounts, as he suggests, the only issue is can a chief executive's pay lawfully be characterised as not "in connection with the management of the affairs of the company"?
There could be another explanation, but this is what club has effectively said.
However you doubtless also know that the rationale for the major changes from previous practice to UK GAAP by integrating FRS 102 is in order to comply with the EU Accounting Directive.
http://economia.icaew.com/features/may-2015/applying-the-eu-accounting-directive
and
https://www.icaew.com/en/technical/financial-reporting/other-reporting-issues/companies-act/major-changes-to-ca-2006-implementing-the-new-eu-accounting-directive
So no it is not an EU Directive but since the reason for its existence is to comply with one so it may as well be for practical purposes.
I was trying to give a potted explanation on a football forum as to possible reasons why directors remuneration had not been disclosed. One possible reason being the first year of a new concept called FRS 102 that arose because of the EU Accounting Directive.
I frankly thought going into all the UK GAAP bollocks would add no clarity or value and simply clog the thread up.
Sorry to upset you though by spreading 'misinformation about the EU!
I probably won't bother trying to explain these matters in future as I'm obviously crap at it.
However, I feel that we are getting away from the point of this thread, which is the club's apparent suggestion that services as a Chief Executive are not in connection with the management of the affairs of the company. Airman - you can add my name to the list of accountants laughing about that one!
Acting lawfully but lying to fans might not be a much better outcome for them.
All I've tried to do is look for a possible reason (s) given that Mr Joyes has a credible accounting background apparently and the further fact that his accounts were also subjected to external audit.