The generic Hearts thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eyrie

The auditors need to know to ensure that the correct disclosures are in the accounts, and it's an offence to mislead the auditors. If that information isn't provided to the auditor then they have to qualify their opinion.

Of course, the auditor is bound by professional confidentiality not to share that information.

---

For example, if the money is coming from a trust or a special purpose vehicle (SPV) they would at best verify the existence of the trust or SPV not who put the money in it. The amount would be verified by Hearts bank statement and deducting all other income from the total income. No need to know the actual individuals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FilipinoHibs

Given most if their social backgrounds - make, private school educated, attending Oxbridge & Edinburgh universuties , there will several rugby followers no doubt but very few football fans. On Monday morning they will be keen to talk about the rugby but the Scottish Cup. That was my experience of interacting with them.

---

Interesting that you believe a persons ability to enjoy the sport of football is determined by their apparent social status, education and career choice.

When you (rarely) attend Easter Road do you believe you are surrounded exclusively by state educated, working class men who have no interest in rugby?

Jeez, that'll be them world beaters again so it seems :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roo62

Is it not possible that in the 50 or so partners that there could be a handful of rugby and football supporting people? I bet there are thousands of well heeled at Murrayfield today who follow both sports avidly.

---

Don't have to be working class to like football :agree:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FilipinoHibs

Given most if their social backgrounds - make, private school educated, attending Oxbridge & Edinburgh universuties , there will several rugby followers no doubt but very few football fans. On Monday morning they will be keen to talk about the rugby but the Scottish Cup. That was my experience of interacting with them.

---

One of my best friends is a director of a hedge fund/wealth management company. He went to Cambridge University for his under, post and PHD.

He couldn't give a flying **** about rugby.

Just because you went to a good school, come from a well off back ground or have tons of money, does not mean you automatically love rugby overy football.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 21.05.2016

Jeez, that'll be them world beaters again so it seems :rolleyes:

---

good thing is, they haven't won any points from that :greengrin

A team of hearts fans got soaked on road close to Falkirk stadium, road was flooded funniest thing ever , I might have slowed down

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FilipinoHibs

For example, if the money is coming from a trust or a special purpose vehicle (SPV) they would at best verify the existence of the trust or SPV not who put the money in it. The amount would be verified by Hearts bank statement and deducting all other income from the total income. No need to know the actual individuals.

---

The auditors would also need to ensure that there were no future financial obligations relating to the donations and that would require assurances direct from the donors. The auditors will without doubt know the identity of the donors and will probably have had fairly detailed discussions with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NaturalOrder

A team of hearts fans got soaked on road close to Falkirk stadium, road was flooded funniest thing ever , I might have slowed down

---

You did the correct thing, slowing down in puddles isn't good!!!:greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FilipinoHibs

For example, if the money is coming from a trust or a special purpose vehicle (SPV) they would at best verify the existence of the trust or SPV not who put the money in it. The amount would be verified by Hearts bank statement and deducting all other income from the total income. No need to know the actual individuals.

---

Sorry I’m late to the party and not read the whole thread but am I right in saying there are members of staff at Baillie Gifford who are putting their own money into the Yams??? So anonymous benefactors?

However your bit about Trust and SPV.... now excuse my ignorance on this but does this mean it’s their own personal trust etc or the companies.

I can assure you that BG would not invest its clients money or trust money in that mob along the road.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Haymaker

One of my best friends is a director of a hedge fund/wealth management company. He went to Cambridge University for his under, post and PHD.

He couldn't give a flying **** about rugby.

Just because you went to a good school, come from a well off back ground or have tons of money, does not mean you automatically love rugby overy football.

---

But you are more likely to. Your friend is an exception. He may have gone to a state school and come from a working class background as I did. Most of the partners at BG are privately educated and don't come from working class backgrounds. The chances of there being a large group of working class partners at BG are small. Nevermind investment professionals will hand over millions with no control or say in how the money was being spent to a clearly management regime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aldo

Sorry I’m late to the party and not read the whole thread but am I right in saying there are members of staff at Baillie Gifford who are putting their own money into the Yams??? So anonymous benefactors?

However your bit about Trust and SPV.... now excuse my ignorance on this but does this mean it’s their own personal trust etc or the companies.

I can assure you that BG would not invest its clients money or trust money in that mob along the road.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

No - it’s just a rumour that is wheeled out on here with no real substance.

FilipinoHibs is incorrect anyway as the auditors would know the identity of these benefactors. For anti money laundering purposes they would need to identify the beneficial owners of any donated funds.

The whole debate around these benefactors is getting a bit tiresome IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tyler Durden

No - it’s just a rumour that is wheeled out on here with no real substance.

FilipinoHibs is incorrect anyway as the auditors would know the identity of these benefactors. For anti money laundering purposes they would need to identify the beneficial owners of any donated funds.

The whole debate around these benefactors is getting a bit tiresome IMO.

---

Cheers for that TD.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aldo

Sorry I’m late to the party and not read the whole thread but am I right in saying there are members of staff at Baillie Gifford who are putting their own money into the Yams??? So anonymous benefactors?

However your bit about Trust and SPV.... now excuse my ignorance on this but does this mean it’s their own personal trust etc or the companies.

I can assure you that BG would not invest its clients money or trust money in that mob along the road.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

I was describing how it is possible to hide the source of the donations. So Budge could be using these structures to stop her disclosing,as she is a director, that she is the source.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FilipinoHibs

I was describing how it is possible to hide the source of the donations. So Budge could be using these structures to stop her disclosing,as she is a director, that she is the source.

---

Cheers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tyler Durden

No - it’s just a rumour that is wheeled out on here with no real substance.

FilipinoHibs is incorrect anyway as the auditors would know the identity of these benefactors. For anti money laundering purposes they would need to identify the beneficial owners of any donated funds.

The whole debate around these benefactors is getting a bit tiresome IMO.

---

The fact that the donations have gone through a bank account (Hearts) would mean that they have been cleared from a money laundering perspective. The bank would have carried that out. The auditors would not be required to do that only check the bank has done so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FilipinoHibs

The fact that the donations have gone through a bank account (Hearts) would mean that they have been cleared from a money laundering perspective. The bank would have carried that out. The auditors would not be required to do that only check the bank has done so.

---

That's just not true. The auditors would be duty bound to carry out their own money laundering procedures rather than simply accepting that it was ok because it was paid through the bank. They would also have to be satisfied that the money wasn't regarded as a loan by the donors and wasn't settlement for the hidden sale of one of the club's assets. They will know who the donors are and will have had direct contact with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FilipinoHibs

The fact that the donations have gone through a bank account (Hearts) would mean that they have been cleared from a money laundering perspective. The bank would have carried that out. The auditors would not be required to do that only check the bank has done so.

---

Well that’s just nonsense, did you not pay attention when completing your annual AML training?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CapitalGreen

Well that’s just nonsense, did you not pay attention when completing your annual AML training?

---

No it is not. I have been involved in several audits of funds and companies and if funds are passed through a bank compliant with anti-laundering legislation, it is not necessary for the auditors to check the source of funds that pass through the bank only that the bank is compliant. AML training does not go into this level of detail for funds that go through banks As an Investment manager you have to check the source of the funds coming into your investment vehicles Very different to running a company.Do you write Swinney's speeches? He uses "nonsense" to dismiss arguments and then does not counter with anything concrete.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FilipinoHibs

No it is not. I have been involved in several audits of funds and companies and if funds are passed through a bank compliant with anti-laundering legislation, it is not necessary for the auditors to check the source of funds that pass through the bank only that the bank is compliant. AML training does not go into this level of detail for funds that go through banks As an Investment manager you have to check the source of the funds coming into your investment vehicles Very different to running a company.Do you write Swinney's speeches? He uses "nonsense" to dismiss arguments and then does not counter with anything concrete.

---

You're absolutely wrong about the money laundering aspect but there doesn't seem to be much point in pursuing that subject.

So, as auditor, how would you establish that the money paid into the bank (from an unknown source by your criteria) wasn't a loan rather than a donation? Or the sale of an asset? Or an interest in future income?

Bear in mind that a change in ownership is scheduled in the very near future so this is a high risk area of the audit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by linlithgowhibbie

You did the correct thing, slowing down in puddles isn't good!!!:greengrin

---

...especially when they are drinking from it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FilipinoHibs

No it is not. I have been involved in several audits of funds and companies and if funds are passed through a bank compliant with anti-laundering legislation, it is not necessary for the auditors to check the source of funds that pass through the bank only that the bank is compliant. AML training does not go into this level of detail for funds that go through banks As an Investment manager you have to check the source of the funds coming into your investment vehicles Very different to running a company.Do you write Swinney's speeches? He uses "nonsense" to dismiss arguments and then does not counter with anything concrete.

---

Speaking as an RI, I'm with Caversham on the responsibilities of the auditor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eyrie

Speaking as an RI, I'm with Caversham on the responsibilities of the auditor.

---

Auditors use a risk based assessment to decide if something is signed off or not. Unless the auditors believed the donations were the result of illegal operations it would be sufficient to look at Hearts bank AML procedures without diving any deeper plus a generic verbal description from Hearts. The auditors would only need to know the source of the funds if they were suspicious. For example, if money was received in from the donators but a smaller amount was paid back out to them at a later stage - money washing.

The below sums up the approach. I won't bore people any further.

https://www.icaew.com/regulation/pra...ering-guidance

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Haymaker

Don't have to be working class to like football :agree:

---

Alright posh lad😁

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FilipinoHibs

Auditors use a risk based assessment to decide if something is signed off or not. Unless the auditors believed the donations were the result of illegal operations it would be sufficient to look at Hearts bank AML procedures without diving any deeper plus a generic verbal description from Hearts. The auditors would only need to know the source of the funds if they were suspicious. For example, if money was received in from the donators but a smaller amount was paid back out to them at a later stage - money washing.

The below sums up the approach. I won't bore people any further.

https://www.icaew.com/regulation/pra...ering-guidance

---

Aye, auditors always just take their clients' word for things right enough, that's why audits don't cost much.

Anyway, this isn't the thread for this discussion and the deceased pony has been flogged enough so I'm out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caversham Green

You're absolutely wrong about the money laundering aspect but there doesn't seem to be much point in pursuing that subject.

So, as auditor, how would you establish that the money paid into the bank (from an unknown source by your criteria) wasn't a loan rather than a donation? Or the sale of an asset? Or an interest in future income?

Bear in mind that a change in ownership is scheduled in the very near future so this is a high risk area of the audit.

---

Yeah, but the change of ownership is from Budge to FoH and there’s been a couple of FoH directors on the Hearts board for the last couple of years . Also their auditors , Johnston Carmichael, who greased their path through the Vlad years will continue to audit.

Besides I can’t see there being an issue with anonymous donation from Edinburgh Council, it’s clean money. :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

Yeah, but the change of ownership is from Budge to FoH and there’s been a couple of FoH directors on the Hearts board for the last couple of years . Also their auditors , Johnston Carmichael, who greased their path through the Vlad years will continue to audit.

Besides I can’t see there being an issue with anonymous donation from Edinburgh Council, it’s clean money. :greengrin

---

Those FOH directors are Hearts fans and we know how gullible they are. The auditors have to protect them from themselves.

I don't want to turn this thread into a lecture on the duties of auditors (as thrilling as that might be for some) but Johnston Carmichael's audit reports in the two years prior to administration were entirely accurate and ethical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caversham Green

Those FOH directors are Hearts fans and we know how gullible they are. The auditors have to protect them from themselves.

I don't want to turn this thread into a lecture on the duties of auditors (as thrilling as that might be for some) but Johnston Carmichael's audit reports in the two years prior to administration were entirely accurate and ethical.

---

I know someone who works for JC. As die-hard a Duncan as you'll ever meet and involved in other enterprises which benefit them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caversham Green

Those FOH directors are Hearts fans and we know how gullible they are. The auditors have to protect them from themselves.

I don't want to turn this thread into a lecture on the duties of auditors (as thrilling as that might be for some) but Johnston Carmichael's audit reports in the two years prior to administration were entirely accurate and ethical.

---

Actually, those two audits before admin are good examples of auditors not doing their job. Romanov wrote off/converted to equity £40 million of loans to Hearts This should have set off the alarm bells for the auditors. It would not have taken much digging to see the loans had come from UBIG an investment company set up by Romanov. UBIG borrowed the money to give to Hearts from UKIO Bankas. UBIG/Romanov should have made good the loan back to Ukio Bankas or got UKIO Bankas to write off the loans to UBIG neither of course happened. But the auditors should have checked. Yet some people are expecting above the board donations made into Hearts bank account which would have gone through the bank's AML procedures to be checked again by the auditors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FilipinoHibs

Actually, those two audits before admin are good examples of auditors not doing their job. Romanov wrote off/converted to equity £40 million of loans to Hearts This should have set off the alarm bells for the auditors. It would not have taken much digging to see the loans had come from UBIG an investment company set up by Romanov. UBIG borrowed the money to give to Hearts from UKIO Bankas. UBIG/Romanov should have made good the loan back to Ukio Bankas or got UKIO Bankas to write off the loans to UBIG neither of course happened. But the auditors should have checked. Yet some people are expecting above the board donations made into Hearts bank account which would have gone through the bank's AML procedures to be checked again by the auditors.

---

Wrong again.

In both the cases I mentioned the auditors expressed doubts about the ability of the club to continue as a going concern and outlined the reasons for their doubts. It would have been negligent of them to do any more or any less.

If we must continue this debate (I'd really rather not) you should address my point about the auditors verifying that the money received was neither a loan nor a sale of assets before we go any further.