RBSC

**Bricktop** · February 11, 2007, 08:17 AM

RE: JFF on the right rack

Why is it we can never get an AUDITED profit or loss figure? Anybody can say anything show us the audited numbers (tdown)

**Hortical** · February 11, 2007, 10:45 AM

RE: JFF on the right rack

I commendRudolph Speid on his openess to discuss the "changes" the JFF has made financially.

The JFF continues to be in deep debt, and one of these days theyneed to have their books audited to be transparent.

**Karl** · February 11, 2007, 11:54 AM

RE: JFF on the right rack

Hortikal (2/11/2007)I commendRudolph Speid on his oneness to discuss the "changes" the JFF has made financially.

The JFF continues to be in deep debt, and one of these days theyneed to have their books audited to be transparent.

Yup...the 1960s through to present the JFF has made great improvements...

...but, nowhere where we would like it to be.

Yup! Speid and this JFF must take some credit for being this open...we wish the organisation FORWARD to even greater openness.

The RBSC and The Massive has always been pushing for greater and greater progress, that must not let up for one minute.

Aside: Had a conversation with Tilla last night and the matter of 'ticket sales' and 'losses at the gate' came up...once more.

We still cannot understand why the JFF keeps from making an all out effort to pre-sell tickets through outside agencies....particularly in the light of the losses at the gate?

The question that is asked is; is it part of an 'underground policy' to continue the level of losses?

I seem to remember the JFF telling us that in one instance it lost in excess of $4,000,000 at the gates in 1 match!

If my memory is correct what percentage of the gates (intake) for that 1 match was that loss?

One would assume that such a loss would have the JFF trying as far as humanly possible to 'sell out the national stadium' through outlets, where the matter of on or about 100% inflows from tickets would be had? That would make both financial and *political sense...wouldn't it?

*transparency on/of sales of tickets and no pointingof fingers at JFF and or JFF personnel

...Yup...thequestion that is asked is; is it part of an 'underground policy' to continue the level of losses?

**Sickko** · February 12, 2007, 09:34 AM

RE: JFF on the right rack

I dont understand, the 2005 report that showe a profit of $17 million was audited, was it not.

If you read today's Observer you will see where it says, the 2006 could not be audited as it was not completd in time as they had to go back to as far as 2004 for some transactions that started then to be brought up tointernational reporting standards.

Or did you prefer they brought in the report as is oir withopuit putting it through the strictest test available?

**Karl** · February 12, 2007, 10:47 AM

RE: JFF on the right rack

Sickko (2/12/2007)I dont understand, the 2005 report that showe a profit of $17 million was audited, was it not.

If you read today's Observer you will see where it says, the 2006 could not be audited as it was not completd in time as they had to go back to as far as 2004 for some transactions that started then to be brought up tointernational reporting standards.

Or did you prefer they brought in the report as is oir withopuit putting it through the strictest test available?

The problemCFO Speid has is credibility.We all know that his organisation came into power in 2003. We all know that any transgressions the previous administration/previous CFO Reid engaged in thathad Speid inheriting accountsthat where not current should have been addressed bySpeid's administration during the 2003-to presentperiod. It is therefore disingenuous toappear before Congress expecting to be absolved for not presenting audited accounts.

This "...had to go back to as far as 2004 for some transactions that started then to be brought up tointernational reporting standards" does not wash. What was the JFF Finance Committee and CFO Spied doing during the last year?CFO Speid is saying to us that he did not have a handle on his portfolio...and, still does not not? Yup...the problem is credibility. Matters not that on matters of finance the credibility of past JFF Financial, Executive, Managing Committees and past JFF CFO was zilch. The CFO Speid was entrusted to manage this matter...and, his credibility has taken, as had the credibilityof those who went before him, a hammering.

CFO Spied's self-announced failure says it all...the current financial report and earlier claims of the JFF's profitability are not conclusive. How could they be, when CFO Speid claims he has not finished his compliation of accurate figures as he has not finished bringing the JFF's accounts up-to-date?

CFO Speid has been given another 60 days to come forward with reports that can be accepted. We can only hope CFOSpeid will have 'finished' that asked of him and would then present 'true up-to-date figures'/audited statementsas of the end of the period under review.

Aside: BTW - What is the period under review? Actual date: 30th/31st(?) Month(?) in what Year(?)

**Sickko** · February 12, 2007, 11:17 AM

RE: JFF on the right rack

Karl was your brain shut off while you were typing? When is credibility ever a problem for a CFO????

Maybe you need to go back and re-read what you wrote then correct it.

BTW one of the mistakes<U>you tribalised people</U> make is to judge these people based on which camp they are in, Boxhill vs Burrell--think about this, Speid is the CFO for the Gleaner Company Limited, not just the news paper section but the entire portfolio, now the Gleaner company (not the publications) is one of the best run companies in the entire English speaking caribbean.

Given that Oliver F Clarke is one of the most astute businessman we know, why would he have kept Speid in that position so long if he was not good enouhg to ensure the finaicial viabilty of the compnay?

Theopther day when the Voice and the English section of the compnay had seriou smanagement problems it wa sSpeied who wa sdispatched to go deal with it ASAP and upon his return was able to give the Directors and good report having stopped the bleeding and fioxed the problem.

Now isnt this the kind of people we want hindling the JFF's purse strings?

Compare this with the people who were treasurers under Burrell- Peter Reid and engineer and Trevor French- I am not even sure what his professional qualifications are. But I do know he was not even able to put together a decent financial report.

**Karl** · February 12, 2007, 11:38 AM

RE: JFF on the right rack

Sickko (2/12/2007)Karl was your brain shut off while you were typing? When is credibility ever a problem for a CFO????

Maybe you need to go back and re-read what you wrote then correct it.

BTW one of the mistakes<U>you tribalised people</U> make is to judge these people based on which camp they are in, Boxhill vs Burrell--think about this, Speid is the CFO for the Gleaner Company Limited, not just the news paper section but the entire portfolio, now the Gleaner company (not the publications) is one of the best run companies in the entire English speaking caribbean.

Given that Oliver F Clarke is one of the most astute businessman we know, why would he have kept Speid in that position so long if he was not good enouhg to ensure the finaicial viabilty of the compnay?

Theopther day when the Voice and the English section of the compnay had seriou smanagement problems it wa sSpeied who wa sdispatched to go deal with it ASAP and upon his return was able to give the Directors and good report having stopped the bleeding and fioxed the problem.

Now isnt this the kind of people we want hindling the JFF's purse strings?

Compare this with the people who were treasurers under Burrell- Peter Reid and engineer and Trevor French- I am not even sure what his professional qualifications are. But I do know he was not even able to put together a decent financial report.

You get too emotional. That shuts your brain down.

You may have forgotten thatwe are discussing the finances of the JFF. No other entity.

I am speaking about what we should take from a declaration on the profitability of the JFF when put along side the CFO of the JFF claims that he was unable to finish putting together audited statements of that institution. In fact the statement of the CFO of the JFF makes it known thatthe set of financial statements presented to the JFF Congress are missing important information.

The question is; why then were those statements presented?

We can assume that CFO Speid knew they could not convey the 'true picture'!

Siccko: The man's job...as was the job of those who went before him, included presenting 'true and accurate statements'...audited statements to the JFF Congress. It cannot be denied that he had more than adequate time to himself prepare, or have at his instructions'true and accurate statements'prepared.

Are you trying todeny...claimCFO Speid lied on himself about the financial statements being incomplete? If no,CFO Speid in essence says he failed to prepare and present the statementto the JFF Congress...failed in that part of his duty. Failing in one's dutycalls into question one's credibility.

Speid may be the greatest CFO at the Gleaner Company...and, I am certainly not calling intoquestion his performance at the Gleaner. I go further and state that I have no reason to question his performance at the Gleaner. I do, however, based onJFF CFO Speid's ownexplanations,call into question his performance and thus credibility on the matter of presenting 'true and complete' and or audited JFF accounts to the just past JFF Congress.

OJ · February 12, 2007, 12:15 PM

RE: JFF on the right rack

if the 2005 was audited why go back to 2004? I dont understand either.. and what else were they working on and how hard is that to do. They have no excuse for bieng late albeit I dont really care about that part.

**Sickko** · February 12, 2007, 01:13 PM

RE: JFF on the right rack

Karl I dont have time to go thru you epistle but Speid was ratified unanamously by the delegates with the second highest number of votes yesterday, 90 for, none against and two abstentions. And remember these include people like Horace Reid and others who are pro-Burrell.

The only other mtion with a higher count was the Secretary's report which was passed with a 94 votes count.

How do you separate the man form the job? If he is good enough to run the finances for a multinational compnay with Billions in assetts why isnt he good enough to run the JFF which is smaller and less fluid?

Try to thinbk Karl please....and stop being tribal.

BTW where did he lie????remeind me I was there yesterday and that was never mentioned. Unless you know some thing us mere mortals dont know.

**Karl** · February 12, 2007, 01:24 PM

RE: JFF on the right rack

No Siccko! (N)

Not being tribal. Not saying Speid is not competent to do the job of JFF treasurer, in fact, I endose his holding of that job.

The contact I have had with him also says to me he is a nice person. ...but, he fell down on that job of preparing and presenting the financial reports.

I expect him to 'straighten things out'. I would suggest that if he is willing to serve, whoever becomes the next president of JFF retains him....matters not if he is voted in or not. (...and, before you open mouth, just remember there are ways to have someone function as de facto treasurer...without actually being vote into office as treasurer).

Truth be told there some members of Boxhill's staff who have been improvement on any others who have held simialr post since the Dr. Ron Gorden era. Along with Speid...Janice Rose-Brown and Garth Williams immediately come to mind.

...but, we must hold them to high standards. At the workplace as in life, it is a constant expectation of being competent in all we do. Yup...we mess up now and again...but,our feet must be held to the fire. Where do you ever look for less than the very best?

Why do you think Burrell and now Boxhill is being raked over the coals for underperformance?

...and, you respond - We want better! (tup)

(Clap) (Clap)

**Sickko** · February 12, 2007, 01:25 PM

RE: JFF on the right rack

The explanation which was accepted by CPA and accounts people there is simply that because some of the transactions that they are still dealing with, started in 2003/2004 and had to be converted to international reporting standards.

Now I have no clue what that means but I have an idea...as I asked Karl, would he prefer if the JFF did not bother with the reporting standards and just do what Trevor Ffrench had done in 1999 and presented a two page document which would shame even a High school accounts student?

Is this what we want????

Karl is no better than the man who said even the dog inna him yard a PNP as Karl will never see any good in what Boxhill is doing and wont accepty that the JFF has made significant strides in the last 18 months. And this makes him worst than the ignorant man on the streets.

**Karl** · February 12, 2007, 01:34 PM

RE: JFF on the right rack

Sickko (2/12/2007)

...would he prefer if the JFF did not bother with the reporting standards and just do what Trevor Ffrench had done in 1999 and presented a two page document which would shame even a High school accounts student?

A resounding NO! (N)

I have told you what I expected and what there is no compromise on - "true financial statements"..."audited accounts"!(tup)

How have you come to jump off on guessing about any other than what I said? :w00t:

Cho siccko, man - Read!

Let me pray that you do start to READ! (Pray)

OJ · February 12, 2007, 01:50 PM

RE: JFF on the right rack

yow a balla line that!

**Bricktop** · February 13, 2007, 02:37 PM

RE: JFF on the right rack

Karl (2/12/2007)I have told you what I expected and what there is no compromise on - "true financial statements"..."audited accounts"!(tup)

I don't see what's so difficult to understand about that. Just because they have reported better than someone prior does not dismiss their own deficiencies. Some people love talk bout agenda while dem a carry out dem own

RBSC

Announcement

JFF on the right rack

JFF on the right rack

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment