|
Post by vjaska on Aug 5, 2010 22:57:08 GMT
Thats a bit over the top, no one will need 400 LF deckers at one time. Looking in the future is not know, thats the present. Thats my opinion on it and thats why I like Arriva, they get their moneys worth out of everything unlike First who scrap anything as they know they will be undercut by other ops and Stagecoach who replace stuff which can give more service. I can see where you're coming from vjaska, but I have to agree with everyone else. Stagecoach do have the luxury of having a "partnership" with ADL which no doubt gives them reduced rates too. However, the main difference between the two would be standards of vehicles. Arriva may work their vehicles, but their maintenance standards against Stagecoach, from my own experiences here in Romford, are far lower. First on the other hand are a nightmare!!! They either don't replace anything, or buy tonnes!! Either way, they're always crap ;D Arriva standards in the south of London are pretty good (baring TH). For a dodgy garage such as TH, it is remarkable to see the lovely S reg still going, part of me hopes that the T's are delayed a little longer just to the S reg out and about.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2010 10:36:20 GMT
Went to Harlow yesterday, getting the 500 from Epping Station. The bus which turned up was an Excel Coaches East Lancs European N169PUT, with 'On hire to Arriva' in the window. Must say, the European is an ugly beast, and not exactly the fastest thing on the road. Also saw a plain white European operating the 500, as well as ex-Arriva London Dart SLF S312JUA on the 500, which would have been nice to get a ride on..maybe next time. I was at Harlow bus station for quite a while, and had a look around the Arriva bus garage. It seems Arriva have hired about 2-3 Europeans, and about 3-4 ex-London Darts. Not sure what else they have though. Also, Excel Coaches had S310JUA on the 47, but this is an Excel route so wasn't on hire to Arriva. Earlier, owen76 was saying about older buses on the 510, with the usual Wright Eclipse Urban allocation largely disappeared. I can back this up, as I saw a couple Urbans on the 510, but it was mostly dirty old Crusaders and Crusader 2s. P.S. I stupidly left my wallet on board the 500, after finding it had gone I immediately thought I wouldn't get it back. But, later on I got a phone call from Blockbusters in Harlow (who traced my number through my blockbuster card) to say a lady gave my wallet into Harlow police station, with everything still inside. So, I would like to thank the kind lady, Blockbusters Harlow and the Harlow Police Station .The world isn't full of evil people like the media likes to make out!
|
|
|
Post by john on Aug 6, 2010 13:17:43 GMT
I can see where you're coming from vjaska, but I have to agree with everyone else. Stagecoach do have the luxury of having a "partnership" with ADL which no doubt gives them reduced rates too. However, the main difference between the two would be standards of vehicles. Arriva may work their vehicles, but their maintenance standards against Stagecoach, from my own experiences here in Romford, are far lower. First on the other hand are a nightmare!!! They either don't replace anything, or buy tonnes!! Either way, they're always crap ;D Arriva standards in the south of London are pretty good (baring TH). For a dodgy garage such as TH, it is remarkable to see the lovely S reg still going, part of me hopes that the T's are delayed a little longer just to the S reg out and about. If it wasn't for Stagecoach sending them out to the provinces, i suspect the first 99 Tridents would have lasted a lot longer. I rode the last few at U before the 205 arrived at BW and they were still in fantastic condition. None of them had been treated as well as 17001 obviously, but by comparison to the S-reg DLA's, i'd say they were in a league of their own ;D I think this may be where people are shooting themselves. To compare companies, you need similar vehicles. So for the X-reg DLA's from Arriva, you'd need to compare them against X-reg Tridents from Stagecoach/ELBG or X-reg PVL's from LC/LG. Gives you a far better comparison ;D As for Network Harlow, I honestly believe Arriva are implementing a tried and proven formula that was worked at Colchester. They had similar problems, had a poor fleet when Arriva "left" but has turned out to be quite a success currently!!
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 6, 2010 16:47:52 GMT
Arriva standards in the south of London are pretty good (baring TH). For a dodgy garage such as TH, it is remarkable to see the lovely S reg still going, part of me hopes that the T's are delayed a little longer just to the S reg out and about. If it wasn't for Stagecoach sending them out to the provinces, i suspect the first 99 Tridents would have lasted a lot longer. I rode the last few at U before the 205 arrived at BW and they were still in fantastic condition. None of them had been treated as well as 17001 obviously, but by comparison to the S-reg DLA's, i'd say they were in a league of their own ;D I think this may be where people are shooting themselves. To compare companies, you need similar vehicles. So for the X-reg DLA's from Arriva, you'd need to compare them against X-reg Tridents from Stagecoach/ELBG or X-reg PVL's from LC/LG. Gives you a far better comparison ;D As for Network Harlow, I honestly believe Arriva are implementing a tried and proven formula that was worked at Colchester. They had similar problems, had a poor fleet when Arriva "left" but has turned out to be quite a success currently!! Well if your comparing X reg buses among those three companies, Arriva have the edge as the DAF's are still in good nick and don't lack speed, plus DAF DB250's tend to be extremely reliable. ELBG haven't looked after the X reg at all, been on loads of dodgys ones whereas Go-Ahead X reg PVL's are 60/40, there are good ones but there are bad ones too. Generally, I'd say Arriva's are in better condition with Go-Ahead not far behind, they do a good job as well. Can't say the same for ELBG although Stagecoach did do alright with the X reg Tridents.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2010 17:26:12 GMT
I doubt this will make any difference to the 724, as its a Greenline service, so will not gain any TGM livery. Ware is now under the Arriva The Shires legals, so this probably wont have anything to do with the Network Harlow operations. The 724 operations probably wont be mixed between Ware and Harlow any longer, seeing as they will be under completley different observations. It is likely that the 724 operations will go completley under Harlow, or just go to another Arriva garage. TGM is Arriva ... so do not see why the current arrangements on the 724 have to change TGM & Arriva are two seperate listed companies with their own P&L and legal entity so the costs have to be kept seperate and accounted for seperate. It may be a wholly owned Arriva company but it is a totally seperate legal entity. If the 724 continues to be operated by Arriva & TGM then they will need to separate the costs & revenues. It could be also say TGM operate the 724 but subcontract some of it to Arriva
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2010 17:41:20 GMT
Arriva standards in the south of London are pretty good (baring TH). For a dodgy garage such as TH, it is remarkable to see the lovely S reg still going, part of me hopes that the T's are delayed a little longer just to the S reg out and about. If it wasn't for Stagecoach sending them out to the provinces, i suspect the first 99 Tridents would have lasted a lot longer. I rode the last few at U before the 205 arrived at BW and they were still in fantastic condition. None of them had been treated as well as 17001 obviously, but by comparison to the S-reg DLA's, i'd say they were in a league of their own ;D I think this may be where people are shooting themselves. To compare companies, you need similar vehicles. So for the X-reg DLA's from Arriva, you'd need to compare them against X-reg Tridents from Stagecoach/ELBG or X-reg PVL's from LC/LG. Gives you a far better comparison ;D As for Network Harlow, I honestly believe Arriva are implementing a tried and proven formula that was worked at Colchester. They had similar problems, had a poor fleet when Arriva "left" but has turned out to be quite a success currently!! I may have mentioned it in other threads/topics, that 20 of this early batch of ALX400 bodied Tridents were cascaded to Stagecoach in Hull (a.k.a. Cleveland Transit), and after having the centre doors removed and a LED display fitted, have continued to give sterling service there, especially on Brandsholme and Greatfield estates, both of which make Harold Hill seem like the better parts of Chigwell! ;D ;D ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2010 18:04:58 GMT
TGM is Arriva ... so do not see why the current arrangements on the 724 have to change TGM & Arriva are two seperate listed companies with their own P&L and legal entity so the costs have to be kept seperate and accounted for seperate. It may be a wholly owned Arriva company but it is a totally seperate legal entity. If the 724 continues to be operated by Arriva & TGM then they will need to separate the costs & revenues. It could be also say TGM operate the 724 but subcontract some of it to Arriva And your point being .... Soon both will become wholly owned subsidiaries of Deutsche Bahn. So how does T-GM and Arriva the Shires differ from each other in this respect. Both are wholly owned subsidiary companies of Arriva, both Limited companies of Arriva PLC. Both companies performance affects the profits of the company and the dividends the shareholders receive. Arriva London, Arriva the Shire, Arriva Southern Counties and T-GM are all just separate division of Arriva UK Bus ... they all report into the same director. There is nothing to stop T-GM being branded as Arriva tomorrow if the powers that be wished. If T-GM do take over the 724 ... would they need to sub it out ... they will have depots at both ends ... you can be more flexible with the timetable then ... but there are a number of ways revenue can be spilt between partner companies - sub contracting is probably the easiest, but division of costs and profit are also possible.
|
|
|
Post by john on Aug 7, 2010 12:05:25 GMT
TGM & Arriva are two seperate listed companies with their own P&L and legal entity so the costs have to be kept seperate and accounted for seperate. It may be a wholly owned Arriva company but it is a totally seperate legal entity. If the 724 continues to be operated by Arriva & TGM then they will need to separate the costs & revenues. It could be also say TGM operate the 724 but subcontract some of it to Arriva And your point being .... Soon both will become wholly owned subsidiaries of Deutsche Bahn. So how does T-GM and Arriva the Shires differ from each other in this respect. Both are wholly owned subsidiary companies of Arriva, both Limited companies of Arriva PLC. Both companies performance affects the profits of the company and the dividends the shareholders receive. Arriva London, Arriva the Shire, Arriva Southern Counties and T-GM are all just separate division of Arriva UK Bus ... they all report into the same director. There is nothing to stop T-GM being branded as Arriva tomorrow if the powers that be wished. If T-GM do take over the 724 ... would they need to sub it out ... they will have depots at both ends ... you can be more flexible with the timetable then ... but there are a number of ways revenue can be spilt between partner companies - sub contracting is probably the easiest, but division of costs and profit are also possible. Group accounting isn't as difficult as bob makes it out to be actually. Depending on how much of TGM Arriva actually owns depends on how they treat the costs and profits. In fact, what bob said is rubbish as, although both will have their own sets of accounts, the final published report will have them all on one set. If the ownership of TGM is between 51%-99%, then they'll take this amount of profit from TGM to the Arriva Group accounts. If it is 100% owned by Arriva, then the fact they have seperate trading addresses etc is only for operational identities. The accounting side of things will be much, much easier with the accounts of TGM simply being absorbed into those of Arriva.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2010 16:26:14 GMT
And your point being .... Soon both will become wholly owned subsidiaries of Deutsche Bahn. So how does T-GM and Arriva the Shires differ from each other in this respect. Both are wholly owned subsidiary companies of Arriva, both Limited companies of Arriva PLC. Both companies performance affects the profits of the company and the dividends the shareholders receive. Arriva London, Arriva the Shire, Arriva Southern Counties and T-GM are all just separate division of Arriva UK Bus ... they all report into the same director. There is nothing to stop T-GM being branded as Arriva tomorrow if the powers that be wished. If T-GM do take over the 724 ... would they need to sub it out ... they will have depots at both ends ... you can be more flexible with the timetable then ... but there are a number of ways revenue can be spilt between partner companies - sub contracting is probably the easiest, but division of costs and profit are also possible. Group accounting isn't as difficult as bob makes it out to be actually. Depending on how much of TGM Arriva actually owns depends on how they treat the costs and profits. In fact, what bob said is rubbish as, although both will have their own sets of accounts, the final published report will have them all on one set. If the ownership of TGM is between 51%-99%, then they'll take this amount of profit from TGM to the Arriva Group accounts. If it is 100% owned by Arriva, then the fact they have seperate trading addresses etc is only for operational identities. The accounting side of things will be much, much easier with the accounts of TGM simply being absorbed into those of Arriva. You are confused between business units & companies. Under company law TGM have a seperate company number & are a seperate legal entity. They have to have their own directors and their set of accounts you canot just absorb the TGM accounts into Arriva that would in fact be illegal
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2010 17:05:19 GMT
Group accounting isn't as difficult as bob makes it out to be actually. Depending on how much of TGM Arriva actually owns depends on how they treat the costs and profits. In fact, what bob said is rubbish as, although both will have their own sets of accounts, the final published report will have them all on one set. If the ownership of TGM is between 51%-99%, then they'll take this amount of profit from TGM to the Arriva Group accounts. If it is 100% owned by Arriva, then the fact they have seperate trading addresses etc is only for operational identities. The accounting side of things will be much, much easier with the accounts of TGM simply being absorbed into those of Arriva. You are confused between business units & companies. Under company law TGM have a seperate company number & are a seperate legal entity. They have to have their own directors and their set of accounts you canot just absorb the TGM accounts into Arriva that would in fact be illegal All limited companies have their own separate company numbers. Here is a selection of Arriva ones. All active ones have accounts filed at companies house, and have there own appointed directors T-GM is a 100% owned subsidiary of Arriva PLC just ike those listed below. Their accounts are absorbed into Arriva's ... see their last accounts ... so not sure where you are getting your info from bob? There is actually a very good article on T-GM in this weeks on-line route-one magazine. In it it says they are becoming Arriva contract operating division, relying less on bus work ... so seems strange if they do take over Harlow ... as this goes against the general gist of the article ARRIVA LONDON LIMITED 04165863 ARRIVA LONDON NORTH EAST LIMITED 00287010 ARRIVA LONDON NORTH LIMITED 02328559 ARRIVA LONDON SOUTH LIMITED 02328467 ARRIVA MANCHESTER LIMITED 02405347 ARRIVA KENT THAMESIDE LIMITED 02005266 ARRIVA KENT & SUSSEX LIMITED 00114841 ARRIVA LIVERPOOL LIMITED 02208238
|
|
|
Post by john on Aug 7, 2010 23:09:06 GMT
You are confused between business units & companies. Under company law TGM have a seperate company number & are a seperate legal entity. They have to have their own directors and their set of accounts you canot just absorb the TGM accounts into Arriva that would in fact be illegal All limited companies have their own separate company numbers. Here is a selection of Arriva ones. All active ones have accounts filed at companies house, and have there own appointed directors T-GM is a 100% owned subsidiary of Arriva PLC just ike those listed below. Their accounts are absorbed into Arriva's ... see their last accounts ... so not sure where you are getting your info from bob? There is actually a very good article on T-GM in this weeks on-line route-one magazine. In it it says they are becoming Arriva contract operating division, relying less on bus work ... so seems strange if they do take over Harlow ... as this goes against the general gist of the article ARRIVA LONDON LIMITED 04165863 ARRIVA LONDON NORTH EAST LIMITED 00287010 ARRIVA LONDON NORTH LIMITED 02328559 ARRIVA LONDON SOUTH LIMITED 02328467 ARRIVA MANCHESTER LIMITED 02405347 ARRIVA KENT THAMESIDE LIMITED 02005266 ARRIVA KENT & SUSSEX LIMITED 00114841 ARRIVA LIVERPOOL LIMITED 02208238 Thanks for the back up there DLA180 Bob, although the company has to be registered seperately, if one company owns it outright, then their finances are the responsibility of the holding company. Depending on the % of their stake depends on how much they're responsible for as described above. In the case of Deutsche Bahn, both companies will be under their control. I'm not sure on how much of Arriva DB will gain (I've forgotten if i'm honest : but they will be responsible for both companies as they will own TGM as a subsidary of Arriva. That is how the ACCA tell companies to report their finances for GROUPS of companies so therefore is not illegal in any shape or form. As for the tax implications, well, that's something else
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2010 8:26:56 GMT
All limited companies have their own separate company numbers. Here is a selection of Arriva ones. All active ones have accounts filed at companies house, and have there own appointed directors T-GM is a 100% owned subsidiary of Arriva PLC just ike those listed below. Their accounts are absorbed into Arriva's ... see their last accounts ... so not sure where you are getting your info from bob? There is actually a very good article on T-GM in this weeks on-line route-one magazine. In it it says they are becoming Arriva contract operating division, relying less on bus work ... so seems strange if they do take over Harlow ... as this goes against the general gist of the article ARRIVA LONDON LIMITED 04165863 ARRIVA LONDON NORTH EAST LIMITED 00287010 ARRIVA LONDON NORTH LIMITED 02328559 ARRIVA LONDON SOUTH LIMITED 02328467 ARRIVA MANCHESTER LIMITED 02405347 ARRIVA KENT THAMESIDE LIMITED 02005266 ARRIVA KENT & SUSSEX LIMITED 00114841 ARRIVA LIVERPOOL LIMITED 02208238 Thanks for the back up there DLA180 Bob, although the company has to be registered seperately, if one company owns it outright, then their finances are the responsibility of the holding company. Depending on the % of their stake depends on how much they're responsible for as described above. In the case of Deutsche Bahn, both companies will be under their control. I'm not sure on how much of Arriva DB will gain (I've forgotten if i'm honest : but they will be responsible for both companies as they will own TGM as a subsidary of Arriva. That is how the ACCA tell companies to report their finances for GROUPS of companies so therefore is not illegal in any shape or form. As for the tax implications, well, that's something else Incorrect. Each company is a totaly seperate legal entity. Each will have to produce its own accounts and make its own tax returns. For all itents and purposes they are totally sperate from Arriva other then in most cases Arriva own a 100% of the shares. Arriva have no direct control over subsiderry companies other then that which any shareholder has ie they can attend the companies AGM and vote on it. Arriva have no resonsibilties for their subsiderry companies that is the responsibility of that companies board. It would be quite possible for say Arriva to go into liquidation but its subsiderry compies could continue to trade although they would then be assets that the liqidator would attempt to sell
|
|
|
Post by john on Aug 8, 2010 15:55:00 GMT
Incorrect. Each company is a totaly seperate legal entity. Each will have to produce its own accounts and make its own tax returns. For all itents and purposes they are totally sperate from Arriva other then in most cases Arriva own a 100% of the shares. Arriva have no direct control over subsiderry companies other then that which any shareholder has ie they can attend the companies AGM and vote on it. Arriva have no resonsibilties for their subsiderry companies that is the responsibility of that companies board. It would be quite possible for say Arriva to go into liquidation but its subsiderry compies could continue to trade although they would then be assets that the liqidator would attempt to sell In no way did I question the legal standing of the company in itself. What I am saying is that the money that TGM earn is technically Arriva's too. In Arriva's Income Statement it will include the profit made from the TGM operations. In fact, on the Arriva plc website it says, and I quote; |"Recent acquisitions include small operations in Staffordshire and Darlington, and bus, coach and airport related transport operator Tellings Golden Miller."TGM would come under the Arriva Balance Sheet as Goodwill. So although it is an asset on Arriva's part, it is still owned wholly and exclusively by Arriva. As for Tax, let me give some facts, all quoted from the ACCA F6 Paper Study text, FA09 (FA = Financial Act); "Associated Companies - For Corp Tax purposes, two companies are 'associated' with each other if either: - one of the companies is under the 'control' of the other; or - they are both under the 'control' of the same person or persons (which can be a company, an individual or a partnership). 'Control' broadly means ownership of more than 50% of the company's issued ordinary share capital. For tax purposes 'control' means: - ownership of over 50% of issued share capital, or - holding over 50% of the voting rights, or - entitlement to over 50% of the company's income, if all the income were to be distributed, or - entitlement to over 50% of the company's assets, if the company were to wind up." Arriva will therefore work out the Corporation Tax for BOTH Arriva AND TGM when filling their tax returns. The upper tax limit threshold of £1.5 million and lower tax threshold of £300,000 will be divided by the number of associated companies within the group. So, based on that UK LEGISLATION that you so often quote, Arriva to a tax return based on the number of companies that THEY own, not each separately. Arriva will merely pay more tax at the higher rate, hence why the limits are altered based on the number of companies owned. Anything else you would like to argue??
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2010 16:05:31 GMT
Incorrect. Each company is a totaly seperate legal entity. Each will have to produce its own accounts and make its own tax returns. For all itents and purposes they are totally sperate from Arriva other then in most cases Arriva own a 100% of the shares. Arriva have no direct control over subsiderry companies other then that which any shareholder has ie they can attend the companies AGM and vote on it. Arriva have no resonsibilties for their subsiderry companies that is the responsibility of that companies board. It would be quite possible for say Arriva to go into liquidation but its subsiderry compies could continue to trade although they would then be assets that the liqidator would attempt to sell In no way did I question the legal standing of the company in itself. What I am saying is that the money that TGM earn is technically Arriva's too. In Arriva's Income Statement it will include the profit made from the TGM operations. In fact, on the Arriva plc website it says, and I quote; |"Recent acquisitions include small operations in Staffordshire and Darlington, and bus, coach and airport related transport operator Tellings Golden Miller."TGM would come under the Arriva Balance Sheet as Goodwill. So although it is an asset on Arriva's part, it is still owned wholly and exclusively by Arriva. As for Tax, let me give some facts, all quoted from the ACCA F6 Paper Study text, FA09 (FA = Financial Act); "Associated Companies - For Corp Tax purposes, two companies are 'associated' with each other if either: - one of the companies is under the 'control' of the other; or - they are both under the 'control' of the same person or persons (which can be a company, an individual or a partnership). 'Control' broadly means ownership of more than 50% of the company's issued ordinary share capital. For tax purposes 'control' means: - ownership of over 50% of issued share capital, or - holding over 50% of the voting rights, or - entitlement to over 50% of the company's income, if all the income were to be distributed, or - entitlement to over 50% of the company's assets, if the company were to wind up." Arriva will therefore work out the Corporation Tax for BOTH Arriva AND TGM when filling their tax returns. The upper tax limit threshold of £1.5 million and lower tax threshold of £300,000 will be divided by the number of associated companies within the group. So, based on that UK LEGISLATION that you so often quote, Arriva to a tax return based on the number of companies that THEY own, not each separately. Arriva will merely pay more tax at the higher rate, hence why the limits are altered based on the number of companies owned. Anything else you would like to argue?? Incorrect. Each company has to file its own tax return they cannot be bulked together. Whether each company actually prepares its own accounts or users a third party is another issue
|
|
|
Post by john on Aug 8, 2010 16:19:45 GMT
In no way did I question the legal standing of the company in itself. What I am saying is that the money that TGM earn is technically Arriva's too. In Arriva's Income Statement it will include the profit made from the TGM operations. In fact, on the Arriva plc website it says, and I quote; |"Recent acquisitions include small operations in Staffordshire and Darlington, and bus, coach and airport related transport operator Tellings Golden Miller."TGM would come under the Arriva Balance Sheet as Goodwill. So although it is an asset on Arriva's part, it is still owned wholly and exclusively by Arriva. As for Tax, let me give some facts, all quoted from the ACCA F6 Paper Study text, FA09 (FA = Financial Act); "Associated Companies - For Corp Tax purposes, two companies are 'associated' with each other if either: - one of the companies is under the 'control' of the other; or - they are both under the 'control' of the same person or persons (which can be a company, an individual or a partnership). 'Control' broadly means ownership of more than 50% of the company's issued ordinary share capital. For tax purposes 'control' means: - ownership of over 50% of issued share capital, or - holding over 50% of the voting rights, or - entitlement to over 50% of the company's income, if all the income were to be distributed, or - entitlement to over 50% of the company's assets, if the company were to wind up." Arriva will therefore work out the Corporation Tax for BOTH Arriva AND TGM when filling their tax returns. The upper tax limit threshold of £1.5 million and lower tax threshold of £300,000 will be divided by the number of associated companies within the group. So, based on that UK LEGISLATION that you so often quote, Arriva to a tax return based on the number of companies that THEY own, not each separately. Arriva will merely pay more tax at the higher rate, hence why the limits are altered based on the number of companies owned. Anything else you would like to argue?? Incorrect. Each company has to file its own tax return they cannot be bulked together. Whether each company actually prepares its own accounts or users a third party is another issue Firstly, you're saying that the above is wrong and you, the all might powerful bob, are right? Well, that was from the Governments Budget of 2008, applicable for the Financial Year 2009/10 (April 09 - April 10) Secondly, no they don't. If a number of companies form a group, as defined above, then the holding company does the return for the group. The limits are altered to take into account this fact. This is again based on the Financial Statements provided by Arriva. This is taken from the Independent Auditors Report from the front page; " Opinion on financial statementsIn our opinion the group financial statements:
give a true and fair view of the state of the group’s affairs as at 31 December 2009 and of its profit and cash flows for the year then ended; have been properly prepared in accordance with IFRSs as adopted by the European Union; and have been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Companies Act 2006 and Article 4 of the lAS Regulation. Opinion on other matter prescribed by the Companies Act 2006 In our opinion the information given in the Directors’ report for the financial year for which the group financial statements are prepared is consistent with the group financial statements.
Matters on which we are required to report by exception We have nothing to report in respect of the following:
Under the Companies Act 2006 we are required to report to you if, in our opinion:
certain disclosures of directors’ remuneration specified by law are not made; or we have not received all the information and explanations we require for our audit; or a corporate governance statement has not been prepared by the parent company. Under the Listing Rules we are required to review:
the directors’ statement, in relation to going concern; and the part of the Corporate governance statement relating to the company’s compliance with the nine provisions of the June 2008 Combined Code specified for our review."A takeover is at it says on the tin, the companies, although registered separately, will be solely controlled by the holding company. The only time this changes is in regards to the Income Statement if a company is less than 100% owned. I personally suggest you do a degree in Accounting, it helps me very well
|
|