You will see that I refered to "audit of some kind, even if self declared" Where you present accounts signed only by a director he/she/they have presumed to authorise the accounts and the term audit is valid. Look it up!

Better clarify that - gist is correct but a bit of additional info might be helpful.

Running at a loss does not, by itself, raise going concern issues. You cease to be a going concern if you become, or are likely to become, insolvent - unable to pay your debts as and when they fall due. If you have a strong balance sheet AND adequate cash resources (i.e. not "asset-rich cash-poor"icon_wink.gif they you can likely stand sizeable losses, even for several years. Painful, but not fatal.

Where you get into trouble is where you do not have a strong balance sheet and/or sufficient cash reserves or credit lines. In such cases, losses can tip you into technical - or real - insolvency. In such cases, if you have a strong parent company or a rich owner who commits - in writing - to provide financial support for at least the next twelve months, then you remain a going concern. If NOT, then things do not look so good.

Clubs like Bradford lack both a strong parent and a wealthy owner, so we have much less margin for error than some other clubs.

As an example, over on the Wire forum I have just been giving them some background on their OWN accounts. In their case, the RL club incurred losses of £212k, and with net liabilities of £2.75m is very much technically insolvent, big-time. Yet (and as you indicated) because of formal support from the parent company, it remains a going concern. and will do so long as the parent continues to support it. And the parent has a very strong balance sheet (as strong as Leeds, on paper at least) as it holds the stadium and seems to have made some huge capital profit at some stage in the past.

You mentioned Leeds. They have no need for any guarantees or anything. They have a very very strong balance sheet, arising out of mega realised profits in the past on the stadium sale/purchase/whatever they got up to. They are far far and away the strongest club financially in the competition, and no-one else even comes close.

Audited companies with more shareholders than that in years gone by, and been FD of a plc with nearly that many (again in times gone by). Its a pain having a big share register, trust me! And it will sure be a big job for the Bulls, and a costly one too.

Companies Act 2006 streamlined a lot of the processes for governance of private companies. I won't bore our readers any more by giving chapter and verse, but you can see all this using our friend Google. If you work for an accounting firm I expect you are anyway familiar with all this? But yes, a private company can dispense with holding an AGM but 10% can demand one anyway. All shareholders still have to receive final signed accounts, whether audited or not.

We got ours in the post last Thursday I think. That will be a costly exercise to send that to all shareholders.

How many shares are out there? just interested to know if we have 0.001% or 0.0001% of the club

@ 0.00001%

But you could conceivably have as little as 0.0005% - its 199,725.

Directors hold just over half, and Caisley bit over a quarter. No one individual has control, and only Caisley has enough shares to block a Special Resolution.

I have a full list of names of shareholders as of date of last annual return.