Illegal Share Price Manipulation?

[Grigo Yossarian]

Not 100% sure I agree wrt the not quantifiable risk. If a company knows they have risk that has a very good chance of happening but know it will not be cheap but don’t understand the upper exposure then it is ok to not disclose?

I’m with you Bazoo.

I would expect an estimate to be made based upon all available information at that time. It can be changed as new & better information comes.

 

[whitbybear45]

We don't know whether they have carried out a "robust assessment of principle risks and how they are being managed to mitigated" or not. My guess is that they have which is why they have gone with the separate entity nonsense.

The real issue is one of disclosure and, given that the financial consequences are unquantifiable for the time being, this is probably a judgement call.

I will admit that I don't know the stock exchange rules. However, I suspect that they are not in breach of them as yet because there have been no actual compensation claims and no actual litigation against them.

Has the Auditors report mentioned anything about Contingent Liabilities etc? I never read the Report as anything to do with them is distasteful to me and I would much prefer reading something more wholesome.

 

[Grigo Yossarian]

It depends.

Do they know how many claimants they are going to have?

Do they have a QC opinion on their chances of prevailing in court?

Do they know the range of awards they are likely to face should they lose in court?

What will be the likely cost of legal fees?

What out of court settlement are claimants likely to accept?

Will it be material to the financial statements?

Can you help me understand how that would correlate to the massive provisioning & re-provisioning of the big banks on the PPI scandal HB ?

Most of them made provisions that turned out to be low, but they still estimated them. And made further ones in future years as new evidence arose ?

 

[Hillheadbear]

Has the Auditors report mentioned anything about Contingent Liabilities etc? I never read the Report as anything to do with them is distasteful to me and I would much prefer reading something more wholesome.

I just had a fast look at their 2018 annual report in response to your question.

Pages 9 & 10 covers Principal Risks and Uncertainties. There is no mention of litigation as a result of child abuse in these pages.

I don't see any significant provisions for possible litigation.

Materiality was set at 600,000 pounds. Will probably go up to 1 million for 2019.

 

[Hillheadbear]

Can you help me understand how that would correlate to the massive provisioning & re-provisioning of the big banks on the PPI scandal HB ?

Most of them made provisions that turned out to be low, but they still estimated them. And made further ones in future years as new evidence arose ?

The latest annual report we have is 2018 so almost a year old. I looked at it very quickly and didn't see litigation listed as a risk or any significant provisions for litigation. That situation may change in the next report subsequent to the recent convictions. It will be interesting to see.

Please note that I am not saying that Celtic do not have a case to answer and that they will not face litigation. The points I was making were with regard to any requirement to disclose such liability to the stock market and whether they are in breach of stock market rules.

 

[whitbybear45]

I just had a fast look at their 2018 annual report in response to your question.

Pages 9 & 10 covers Principal Risks and Uncertainties. There is no mention of litigation as a result of child abuse in these pages.

I don't see any significant provisions for possible litigation.

Materiality was set at 600,000 pounds. Will probably go up to 1 million for 2019.

Thank you now go and have an eyebath. It will be telling when we see the amount in their Accounts.

 

[Grigo Yossarian]

The latest annual report we have is 2018 so almost a year old. I looked at it very quickly and didn't see litigation listed as a risk or any significant provisions for litigation. That situation may change in the next report subsequent to the recent convictions. It will be interesting to see.

Please note that I am not saying that Celtic do not have a case to answer and that they will not face litigation. The points I was making were with regard to any requirement to disclose such liability to the stock market and whether they are in breach of stock market rules.

Thanks.

I understand that mate. I just can’t help thinking that any adjustment / contingent liability would be material in these circumstances if deemed necessary.

 

[o7o]

They’ve backed themselves into a corner with this. Either they’ve lied about the investigation which should open them up to even more abuse/pressure or they’ve hidden it from the LSE and are going to get a fine. I think fines are normally percentage of turnover in these cases and not set amounts. Could be a fair whack if it’s true.
As mentioned before it goes to show that sending emails to anyone associated with their abuse and with any link to the club is having an effect and, if anything, should be ramped up even more while the spotlight is firmly on that rancid club

Would only take 2 minutes to conclude an investigation.
We all knew and did nothing!

 

[Bazoo]

Do they know how many claimants they are going to have? - Does it matter if 200 or 2000

Do they have a QC opinion on their chances of prevailing in court? - I accept that, but in this case it must be slim.

Do they know the range of awards they are likely to face should they lose in court? - they must know from previous cases.

What will be the likely cost of legal fees? - they can find that out with a phone call.

What out of court settlement are claimants likely to accept? - unknown, definitely some will go to court.

Will it be material to the financial statements? - the numbers of victims are definitely unknown but possibly higher than you think based on the number of kids photos. Will there be financial penalties from footballing authorities, it must happen so it should be material.



I just find it difficult to accept that anything of this magnitude can be ignored from a financial aspect. Literally it could wipe them out and they have a get out clause from the financial authorities because nobody got busy with a pencil and a calculator.

 

[Henry Hill]

Surely though if the official line is ‘separate entity’ then it wouldn’t need to be disclosed as it’s not considered as relating to them and therefore no risk

 

[Timardim]

Wonder how long the press will take to investigate......maybe Panorama....no doubt the pundits will be clambering over each other to protect their favourites clubs name

 

[Grigo Yossarian]

Do they know how many claimants they are going to have? - Does it matter if 200 or 2000

Do they have a QC opinion on their chances of prevailing in court? - I accept that, but in this case it must be slim.

Do they know the range of awards they are likely to face should they lose in court? - they must know from previous cases.

What will be the likely cost of legal fees? - they can find that out with a phone call.

What out of court settlement are claimants likely to accept? - unknown, definitely some will go to court.

Will it be material to the financial statements? - the numbers of victims are definitely unknown but possibly higher than you think based on the number of kids photos. Will there be financial penalties from footballing authorities, it must happen so it should be material.



I just find it difficult to accept that anything of this magnitude can be ignored from a financial aspect. Literally it could wipe them out and they have a get out clause from the financial authorities because nobody got busy with a pencil and a calculator.

The one issue that could potentially scupper materiality is if they used the Man City sliding scale mate.
Personally I think it’s a disgrace & will be rejected & people would rather go to court.
But it’s a possible precedent that, knowing them, they may try to suggest that any payout wouldn’t be material.

 

[clubdeckcharlie]

The one issue that could potentially scupper materiality is if they used the Man City sliding scale mate.
Personally I think it’s a disgrace & will be rejected & people would rather go to court.
But it’s a possible precedent that, knowing them, they may try to suggest that any payout wouldn’t be material.

I think that civil proceedings will commence, however, I don't ever see them washing their dirty linen in public and they will settle.

 

[Grigo Yossarian]

I think that civil proceedings will commence, however, I don't ever see them washing their dirty linen in public and they will settle.

I agree with you but I must say Charlie true justice & closure for these people would be much more served by the truth being openly made available publicly.

The tims will want to avoid that I fear, as you suggest.