Skip to main content

ECB Accounts Inaccurate

This post is a sideonview exclusive which reveals an error in the ECB's accounts for the year to 31 January 2021.

The issue was netting off grant payments against costs rather than disclosing separately and was originally covered in this blog, here. I also raised the point with the Financial Reporting Council who have reviewed the treatment by the ECB of grant income received.  The text of the review is here and is reproduced below.

Grant income

"We asked the company to quantify the funds received from HMRC for the furlough of staff and to explain why the payroll costs were offset by the related income, which is not permitted by FRS 102 or the Companies Act 2006.

The company confirmed that the funds received of £1.7m for the furlough of staff had been incorrectly offset against administrative expenses. However, it concluded that the effect of this error and the amount to be disclosed was not material. The company provided us with an analysis to support their view.

We also requested the company clarify its accounting for other grant income, for which the company provided a satisfactory response."

As can be seen the ECB has admitted to understating both 2021 income and expenses by £1.7m.  However, it has convinced the Financial Reporting Council that the error was not material i.e. the misstatement could not reasonably be expected to influence the decisions of the primary users of the ECB's financial statements.

Materiality is a very subjective concept but I can see the point that disclosing wages and salary costs of £43m rather than the correct £44.7m might be seen as immaterial and it should be stressed that the net income for the period was not incorrect as the £1.7m error on expenses was matched by a £1.7m understatement of income.

However, as I've said before this error shows the ECB's accounting is not at the level required of an important organisation.  It has either just missed a fairly basic point (the treatment of grants got a lot of coverage in 2021 as so many companies were in receipt of coronavirus payments) or it knew its accounts were wrong and simply went ahead with its preferred disclosure, neither explanation is acceptable.     

Comments

  1. IPL Match Prediction Tips7 January 2023 at 05:06

    Our cricket in shape predictions are most effective handpicked suit predictions from round the sector. Frequently our cricket fit records is a hundred% correct cricket suit prediction that's a hit very quickly.
    CBTF

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

County Championship Salary Cap

This is post about salaries in county cricket. The first class counties are subject to a cap and a collar on amounts paid in wages to cricketers.  They must pay above a collar, currently £0.75m, and below a cap, currently £2m. There is an agreement for both the collar and the cap to increase over the next funding round to 2024. In 2024 the collar will be £1.5m and the cap £2.5m What is less clear is what payments count towards the cap and collar.  I assume employers' national insurance (a 13% tax on wages) isn't included.  Similarly I assume payments to coaching staff don't count towards the cap as if they did, Somerset, Lancashire and Yorkshire would all be over the current £2m cap.  I've gone through the accounts of the first class counties to see what, if any, disclosure, they include on players' wages.  What gets disclosed varies enormously, quite a lot for some counties, nothing for others.  Additionally there is a possibility the information include
5 comments
Read more

Mo Bobat and County Cricket

Cricinfo has this  interview with ECB "Performance Director" Mo Bobat.  Bobat makes an interesting claim about county cricket, "Take something like county batting average. We know that a county batting average does not significantly predict an international batting average, so a lot of the conventional things that are looked at as being indicators of success - they don't really stand true in a predictive sense."  And later in the article there is a graph, showing county averages plotted against test averages for 13 English test batsmen.  This is reproduced below. better than random? raw data suggests no meaningful link between championship and test averages 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Test County Championship Sam Curran England players' batting averages
17 comments
Read more

English County Cricket Finance: 2018 Bentley Forbes Rankings

I have gone through the most recent financial statements for the English first class counties,  made an estimate of the financial strength of each and given them a Bentley Forbes Consulting ( TM ) financial sustainability ranking.  The overall table looks like this. County      Profit Assets Ranking Position Essex   4   4   4   1 Surrey   1   7   4   1 Nottinghamshire   5   5   5   3 Somerset   2   8   5   3 Derbyshire   8   3   5   5 Leicestshire    6   6  6   6 Sussex  15   1  8   7 Middlesex  14   2  8   7 Kent     9   9  9   9 Worcestshire    3  15  9 10 Gloucestshire   7  12  9.5 11 Northamptonshire   11  13  12 12 Glamorgan   16  10  13 13 Durham     12  14  13 13 Yorkshire    10  17  13 15 Warwickshire   17  11  14 16 Lancashire   13  16  14 17        The approach is to rank the counties for profitability and balance sheet strength and combine the two measures in a sustainability ranking. The balance sheet strength is itself a combination of thre
2 comments
Read more