DFCSS rears its ugly head again

[BCram]

Are you only able to deal with one sentence at a time, without actually answering the actual point. An auditor who fails to notice false accounting, worth 4k? should I wait here for the response to DFCSS spending over 7k on accoutancy fees, and hiding the fact in their accounts? You agree that it is reasonable for a non-entity like DFCSS to spend tens of thousands of pounds on accountancy fees, which is the whole point of this current examination of DFCSS

Where are you seeing false accounting worth £4K . Genuinely puzzled. The fees charged by accountancy firms depend on the amount of work undertaken. I think that the decision that was taken to reduce the work required by the accountants was a sensible one. I just do not detect any evidence of hiding figures or attempts to mislead the members. Of course it was not reasonable to carry on with the full audit and compliance work once the income was reduced with the loss of DeeTV revenue that's why the board made the decision to use an alternative method of independent scrutiny.

This decision may not have been taken as soon as you or I might have wished but that delay was not motivated by greed or corruption. I think it is to the boards credit that they made sure that the accounts were beyond reproach because of the full audit approach, and you are wrong in your criticisms of both the board and the firm of accountants.

[Taintedice]

Fair enough, you choose to ignore what's under your nose in black and white and obfuscate like the other dfcss apologists on here. Not even their recent London Bridge scam against the club can open your eyes. Hopefully the 38k in the dfcss bank account will eventually find its way to the rightful recipients.

[Deeranged]

Does anyone know if the poster on here who's named himself after our rivals' ground is, or knows, a recently retired finance director at Dens?

[jdfc]

Does anyone know if the poster on here who's named himself after our rivals' ground is, or knows, a recently retired finance director at Dens?

Don’t know who he is, but he comes across as intelligent and seems to know his stuff, the four posters seem to know what your all talking about, but seem to be holding back

[BCram]

Don’t know who he is, but he comes across as intelligent and seems to know his stuff, the four posters seem to know what your all talking about, but seem to be holding back

I agree with you jdfc, that's why i am interested in Taintedice's views. They don't seem to me to be a logical interpretation of the accounts and motivations for the people that I have met who have been involved with DFCSS and it's a puzzle for me. Deeranged takes a different approach when posting about DFCSS and he was a member of the board of DFCSS whereas I am just an observer.

at the end of the day trying to get FPS and DFCSS working together seems to me to be a desireable outcome but it obviously isn't something that Taintedice supports.

[shaded]

Tainted just a wee heads up thats a pretty big allegation re false accounting,if you can prove it then fair enough,if you cant and someone takes umbrage then you could be on thin ice,iv let it go as you never mentioned the accountancy firm,being honest with you it doesna bother me if someone does a spoofer-esque legal move on me as i hand that stuff to footymad legal beaks,just be careful what you type if you havnt got any proof of misdoing

[Taintedice]

Does anyone know if the poster on here who's named himself after our rivals' ground is, or knows, a recently retired finance director at Dens?

You're not a member of DFCSS and you don't go to games so why are you so bothered about anything

[Taintedice]

Tainted just a wee heads up thats a pretty big allegation re false accounting,if you can prove it then fair enough,if you cant and someone takes umbrage then you could be on thin ice,iv let it go as you never mentioned the accountancy firm,being honest with you it doesna bother me if someone does a spoofer-esque legal move on me as i hand that stuff to footymad legal beaks,just be careful what you type if you havnt got any proof of misdoing

Anyone can make allegations, and when there is something amiss which is clear as day, there in black and white, I doubt anyone will challenge it although would be great if they did. There is no mention of who prepares the accounts anywhere in the minutes or the accounts themselves so not like I'm accusing anyone. I do find it strange that an auditor wouldn't pick this up, though. Anyway, I've made my last post on the financial accounts, maybe I'll ask the FCA to investigate. I'm certainly not accusing DFCSS of anything as they are 'laymen' who don't know what's put down in front of them, however, 50k on accountancy fees since 2010, that is absolutely absurd for an organisation supposedly dedicated to the local community. There are now only 130 people who can look at these accounts, not worth £2.5k to prepare them imo.

[Taintedice]

I agree with you jdfc, that's why i am interested in Taintedice's views. They don't seem to me to be a logical interpretation of the accounts and motivations for the people that I have met who have been involved with DFCSS and it's a puzzle for me. Deeranged takes a different approach when posting about DFCSS and he was a member of the board of DFCSS whereas I am just an observer.

at the end of the day trying to get FPS and DFCSS working together seems to me to be a desireable outcome but it obviously isn't something that Taintedice supports.

Two of the current DFCSS board are people who openly opposed the FPS investment and their attitude hasn't changed since, one reason why FPS will never work with DFCSS. One of them was basically screaming at fans at the Gardyne telling them all they were making a huge mistake and later had to be forcibly removed from the club board as he wouldn't give up the blazer. I don't doubt there are decent people involved with the society but I can only think their voices are drowned out by the other two, given the damaging A-shares episode. The finance stuff started as a joke but obviously escalated when I couldn't figure out why DFCSS documented accountancy fees under member costs, maybe I'll find out one day. From your point of view what does DFCSS stand for these days? They aren't involved in good causes, they seem to have no presence in the community, going by the minutes. Why are they holding onto £38k? My fear is that money will be spent on accountants (50% of turnover in 2018) and lawyers (battling/frustrating FPS), what would you like to see it spent on?

[BCram]

Two of the current DFCSS board are people who openly opposed the FPS investment and their attitude hasn't changed since. One of them was basically screaming at fans at the Gardyne telling them all they were making a huge mistake and had to be forcibly removed from the club board as he wouldn't give up the blazer. I don't doubt there are decent people involved with the society but I can only think their voices are drowned out by the other two, given the damaging A-shares episode. The finance stuff started as a joke but obviously escalated when I couldn't figure out why DFCSS documented accountancy fees under member costs, maybe I'll find out one day. From your point of view what does DFCSS stand for these days? They aren't involved in good causes, they seem to have no presence in the community, going by the minutes. Why are they holding onto £38k? My fear is that money will be spent on accountants (50% of turnover in 2018) and lawyers (battling/frustrating FPS), what would you like to see it spent on?

I'd like to see it spent on DFC. I'm not privy to the full workings of DFCSS but it is very common for the firm that does the audit to carry out the accountancy work needed to take an accurate book keeping record and turn it into the format that is required by law. There is also the benefit of having a professional accountancy firm using their expertise and reputation to endorse the figures. I thought you had made a joke, you used a smiley emoji at the end of your original post so I didn't worry, but the comment was taken seriously and we are where we are.

To be honest I don't remember any incident at the meeting where the FPS investment was accepted. It would be surprising if there had been a complete lack of passion at the meeting. The vote was clear cut and I don't believe that there is any credible and substantial desire by DFCSS to see the return of a fan based ownership. It seems a shame that there is not a positive relationship between FPS and DFCSS at board level.

The ownership of the A shares is a fact of life and it seems to me that the restraints can be worked round with goodwill.

You obviously know more about the personal opinions of two of the board members, the fact remains that the board consulted with their membership, an action which they were not duty bound to take. It generated a fair bit of comment and the majority of it seemed to me to be in favour of retaining the A shares while making clear that the new stadium plans would be supported. I don't think there were many who wanted the A shares to be given to FPS, or sold to FPS.