Cycling UK Forum

I've been banging on about this for some time now, so some of you will already know that we've had the same auditors for about twentyfive years.

The appearance of a loan from Club to Trust of £388,000 in the 2008 accounts hasn't been properly explained - although keen detectives will see the same amount recorded in other years, but not as a loan

So it would appear that the Auditors haven't insisted on a proper explanation of this rather magnificent sum to those who own the Club - the members. And, judging by the responses I've had, the Directors are not too clued up either.

So, is it time for Councillors to appoint new auditors? The reason I ask is that the decision will be made at Council this Saturday.....

I must correct you Simon. The issue of the auditors will be discussed at the council meeting this weekend, but the decision on the appointment of auditors is a matter for the AGM.

Members should bear in mind that they have the power to insist on a change of auditors at the AGM, if Council doesn't recommend it. I would suggest that such a move would be a very good idea, particularly in light of the accounting issues that are being uncovered.

correction noted and almost enjoyed..........

Regulator wrote:I must correct you Simon. The issue of the auditors will be discussed at the council meeting this weekend, but the decision on the appointment of auditors is a matter for the AGM.

Members should bear in mind that they have the power to insist on a change of auditors at the AGM, if Council doesn't recommend it. I would suggest that such a move would be a very good idea, particularly in light of the accounting issues that are being uncovered.

Greg, Simon has proposed a chage of Auditors at the last 3 AGM's that I can rememeber and was out voted each time! Maybe a councillor should propose it this time?

There seems to be a lot of insinuation of wrong doing in regards to the accounts, if anyone has proof that the accounts are being mismanaged then that is something that sholud be reported to the Police/Companies House/Charity Commission.

On the other hand if it is a matter of an individual not liking the way things have/are being done then can we preface any statement to that effect with the words "in my opinion".

Jimmy - if you can explain why this loan popped up in the 2008 accounts, I'm all ears

Simon L6 wrote:Jimmy - if you can explain why this loan popped up in the 2008 accounts, I'm all ears

I can't Simon, but then I don't think there is anything underhand about the loan, please prove me wrong, what I was trying to say was if you seriously believe that there is something underhad about the loan and that the auditors have not done their job properly then there agencies who need to know!

Jimmy The Hand wrote:There seems to be a lot of insinuation of wrong doing in regards to the accounts, if anyone has proof that the accounts are being mismanaged then that is something that sholud be reported to the Police/Companies House/Charity Commission.

On the other hand if it is a matter of an individual not liking the way things have/are being done then can we preface any statement to that effect with the words "in my opinion".

I don't think anyone has insinuated wrong-doing in the accounts. What I have said in Council, and publicly, is that the accounts are not transparent or particularly user friendly (I refuse to use the word 'granularity' - a really silly piece of jargon). And I am not the only Councillor (current and former) who has said this.

Frankly, the auditors should be giving strong advice on transparency - but I can't recall ever being given a copy of the auditors' comments (as opposed to the auditors' report), something which should happen.

All we get told is that the auditors are "happy with the system". If that is the case, then I for one am not happy with the auditors. I expect more from my auditors than simply seeing that the final totals add up.

Jimmy The Hand wrote:There seems to be a lot of insinuation of wrong doing in regards to the accounts, if anyone has proof that the accounts are being mismanaged then that is something that sholud be reported to the Police/Companies House/Charity Commission.

On the other hand if it is a matter of an individual not liking the way things have/are being done then can we preface any statement to that effect with the words "in my opinion".

It is often the case in many areas of life that people have suspicions that something might be happening and try to have the matter investigated. Sometimes they are being unnecessarily concerned (as when the crash in the back garden late at night turns out to be a cat) sometimes they are found to have been correct. A refusal ever to have any sort of investigation without evidence (or even worse, without "proof") would render the police and all the various watchdogs, regulators, and professional bodies redundant because it would be the duty of the general public to supply the evidence in the first place.

Have you any proof that those urging a change - especially SimonL6 - are acting in bad faith? (And whether you have alleged it or not, that must be the implication.) Neither side in this argument seems to have the evidence, the proof or whatever, and that is the whole reason why AFAIK it is considered best practice to change auditors more frequently than has been the practice within the CTC.

The very fact that this subject has been aired and is fostering such a debate is, in my opinion, reason enough to warrant at the very least a satisfactory explanation if not a full investigation. This is a membership organisation which exists to attend to the needs of the members. The purpose of the CTC is not to provide jobs or status or power to any small number of persons, although of course at time those who hold public office at times lose sight of what should be their true raison d'etre.

If the accounts are not transparent to members (even if they may be legally complete) then surely there is something amiss. If the accountants have been the same for 25 years then there is the potential to suspect that a measure of complacency may have crept in. It is imperative that such a suspicion be addressed. It may well be that the current auditors are the most correct of professionals (I'm sure they are) but members who have no specialist accounting knowledge appear to have asked questions over several years and not received answers.

I submit that if members have questions that are not answered, then the members of CTC staff and office holders are not carrying out their functions as required and action may be needed

Is there a £388,000 hole in the accounts or not?

I think the key issue here is that the transfer of funds from Club to Trust has been treated as a casual matter. But I'd still like to know what the money was spent on.

My late father taught me to always vote, and if in doubt vote against the incumbent. In this case I think it would be wise to apply the same principle to the auditors, not because of any allegations but purely on the same precautionary principle.
Now to continue my homework....

I work for a major charity. We change our auditors every several years. Common practise in the sector.

My understanding is that the current arts and mems of the club allow for an issue to be put to a vote of the entire membership if enough people request such a poll at the AGM.

Greg, Simon can you point me in the direction of the current applicable arts and mems please so I can check my understanding for myself.

Simon L6 wrote:I think the key issue here is that the transfer of funds from Club to Trust has been treated as a casual matter. But I'd still like to know what the money was spent on.

I too believe the payment of funds from Club to Trust is treated in a casual manner. In my opinion this is because those in power consider the two organisations to be one and the same already. This would explain why they don't consider that detail is needed in the accounts.

Jimmy The Hand wrote:

Regulator wrote:I must correct you Simon. The issue of the auditors will be discussed at the council meeting this weekend, but the decision on the appointment of auditors is a matter for the AGM.

Members should bear in mind that they have the power to insist on a change of auditors at the AGM, if Council doesn't recommend it. I would suggest that such a move would be a very good idea, particularly in light of the accounting issues that are being uncovered.

Greg, Simon has proposed a chage of Auditors at the last 3 AGM's that I can rememeber and was out voted each time! Maybe a councillor should propose it this time?

Surely Simon was a Councillor at at least one of those AGM's?