I’m not an expert in the matter but I’ve worked for some financial institutions… and that’s a HUGE NO NO… The bank would no longer be in compliance with anti-money laundering laws, etc.
Well okay you have some complicated scheme like hollywood accounting shell company game, obfuscating where money really came from
Not like something as getting to bank with bag full of cash 
As discussed a few pages back, I do not think CIG has termed those amounts as 'liabilities' at all though. At least not since 2016, and probably even earlier. CIG profits are probably well and sure considered in full right, accounting and tax wise by CIG, the Calders and any relevant tax authority. And I suspect the Calders are getting their returns from "backer´s pledges" in one way or another. Assuming the funds tracker is accurate of course.I was thinking legally dubious on CIG's behalf
Although I guess if private investors were to lean on their debtors to act along those lines, as Navi suggests, they'd be just as bad
Well 30 fps is playable if it is consistent. Not very fine but usable.
Console peas... people talk. 30 is kinda terrible when twitch shooting.
As a former console peasant (still play Sea of Thieves on Xbox live and love my PS4 pro)...a fixed 30fps was fine when everyone else you played with online had exactly the same hardware limitation
Well PC peasant here, one with not enough money to buy whatever is currently hottest GPU CPU combo....
. I just don't think we have the proof.) When I asked my old family accountant to have a dig...the only thing he offered was to raise an eyebrow and say "You haven't put any money into this...have you? "Ay, but we're just guessing here though ultimately. I don't think declarations in one preliminary court case that SC is 'released' is enough basis to be sure of that.
(I can totally believe that CIG might try that gambit
But hell, I don't speak accountant-ese at all, so might not recognise the proof if put in front of me
Like, I look at the scant info we have, the UK accounts: (filed 14th Oct 2021). And to my amateur eye it looks like there are no significant liabilities listed. But then again, p14 also suggests no 'profit' either?:
While p.27 suggests pledges are treated as 'deferred revenue':
Frankly I'm already flailing in the dark. And it doesn't help that CIGUK LTD is just part of a larger opaque structure, sloshing money back and forth between the many CIG entities. And so is probably free to declare everything as profit, or revenue, or whatever it wants, if their cash has been injected in from a distinct US entity, or whatever?
It's hard to know really, as they seem hesitant to draw back the veil (p28)...
I'd imagine only an audited view of the full company as a whole would reveal how CIG are classifying all this backer wonga
/amateurccountancy
When I asked my old family accountant to have a dig...the only thing he did was raise an eyebrow and said "You haven't put any money into this...have you? "
Ay, but we're just guessing here though ultimately. I don't think declarations in one preliminary court case that SC is 'released' is enough basis to be sure of that.
(I can totally believe that CIG might try that gambit
But hell, I don't speak accountant-ese at all, so might not recognise the proof if put in front of me
Like, I look at the scant info we have, the UK accounts: (filed 14th Oct 2021). And to my amateur eye it looks like there are no significant liabilities listed. But then again, p14 also suggests no 'profit' either?:
While p.27 suggests pledges are treated as 'deferred revenue':
Frankly I'm already flailing in the dark. And it doesn't help that CIGUK LTD is just part of a larger opaque structure, sloshing money back and forth between the many CIG entities. And so is probably free to declare everything as profit, or revenue, or whatever it wants, if their cash has been injected in from a distinct US entity, or whatever?
It's hard to know really, as they seem hesitant to draw back the veil (p28)...
I'd imagine only an audited view of the full company as a whole would reveal how CIG are classifying all this backer wonga
/amateurccountancy
He had a hard enough effort to keep from weeping and wringing his hands every time he passed my bike garageImagine his face if you told him that you went in deep, then pulled out, and then went in again.
When I asked my old family accountant to have a dig...the only thing he offered was to raise an eyebrow and say "You haven't put any money into this...have you? "
When I asked my old family accountant to have a dig...the only thing he offered was to raise an eyebrow and say "You haven't put any money into this...have you? "
Ay, but we're just guessing here though ultimately. I don't think declarations in one preliminary court case that SC is 'released' is enough basis to be sure of that.
(I can totally believe that CIG might try that gambit
But hell, I don't speak accountant-ese at all, so might not recognise the proof if put in front of me
Like, I look at the scant info we have, the UK accounts: (filed 14th Oct 2021). And to my amateur eye it looks like there are no significant liabilities listed. But then again, p14 also suggests no 'profit' either?:
Heh:
Sooo close!
]
