PROFIT OR LOSS?/REVEALED.........WELL SORT OF!

deadbox · Post by **deadbox** » 15 Aug 2007, 18:11

"Postcomm has agreed that no balance sheet and cash flow statement should be submitted in 2006-07, but instead unaudited information on the changes in the Regulatory Asset Base are presented in Part 2 of the Regulatory Financial Statements.
Financial statements
This document contains only audited financial information and should be read in conjunction with the unaudited financial information presented and published in Part 2 of the Regulatory Financial Statements."

YET AGAIN POSTCON ALLOWS AL A FREE HAND IN DISGUISING THE TRUE ACCOUNTS

UNAUDITED ACCOUNTS = ROYAL MAILS BEST GUESS = WHATEVER ROYAL MAIL WANTS THEM TO SAY

JUST LIKE THEIR BEST GUESS ABOUT MAIL VOLUMES.....

SO WHAT EXACTLY IS FILLING MY POSTBAG IF IT'S NOT MAIL ?????

Spedley · Post by **Spedley** » 15 Aug 2007, 18:34

Here are last years real results ftp://ftp.royalmail.com/Downloads/publi ... 7_7_06.pdf
The 05/06 results in this years doccument have been re-jigged to fit this years regulations.

i.e. according to the newly released 06/07 doccument Operational Volumes were 20,523 this year and 20,901 last year whereas last years doccument says 22,293 (million)
That is nearly a 9% discrepency which I can't find a reason for ? If they are talking about a 4.3% profit margin then 9% is significant.

I'm not an accountant but I have had a good education and I'm not saying I understand it all but I think that in order to sort out any real figures you would have to cross reference at least 10 documents, and not just the short versions.
I can't say there is any 'fiddling' but it seems obvious to me there is a great deal of scope for it.

DGP1 · Post by **DGP1** » 15 Aug 2007, 18:58

What springs to mind is 'Lies, damned lies and statistics'

Plus did you read about 6300 fulltime position hours 4% reduction

kinmad4it · Post by **kinmad4it** » 15 Aug 2007, 19:25

Doesn't this make those two retards look stupid whichever way you look at it.
Major losses and they're supposed to be making the business a success.
Huge bonuses when they obviously haven't earned them.

I'm sure these doctored figures are only to back up Royal Fails calls for their modernisation plans.
I can hear them. "If we get rid of 40'000 wages each week we can make a profit" While not bothering to wonder who'll do all the work those 40'000 used to do.

If Royal Mule was a football team. These two cabbages would have been sacked faster than the Carlisle manager was.

dogfood · Post by **dogfood** » 15 Aug 2007, 19:30

So these 2 w*nkers lose a shed load of money and are rewarded with a shed load of money in bonuses. I will be asking my MP to question how this is allowed to happen.

As we say in our office if we on the bottom rung did the job as poorly as those at the top we would have been shipped long ago.

blackadder · Post by **blackadder** » 15 Aug 2007, 20:41

hey dogfood, if u were that crap as a postie as :lfo and :cfo are as running this place, you be a dom in no time

IWW Fellow Worker · Post by **IWW Fellow Worker** » 15 Aug 2007, 21:58

Oh no! Yet another letter from that pair of clowns!

Dear mate,

Lets cut through the treacle and give it to you straight because after all, we're all pals here. The thing is, we're in deep poo and because we've made such a plums of things, we're twelve big ones in the red. This is why we've got to force through the changes. You might have heard all about the millions we've spend on bonuses for the lazy parasites 'managing' the job and thse television sets which look as if they're straight from the set of '1984', but the truth is, we don't want you to dwell on those things. Let's all get on with the job in hand and make this company the success it was before me and Adam appeared on the scene.

Kind regards,

Yer old pal,

Allan.

(Which is the Welsh word for 'Exit!)

Post by **piranha** » 16 Aug 2007, 10:33

amazing how we can go from making hundreds of millions of profit one year
to a loss the next with the best quality results ever......! We've been doing our
jobs very well over the past year so I wonder who is to blame for these losses....
the competition and downstream access or the 2 idiots? Hmmm it's a tough 1!!!

IWW Fellow Worker · Post by **IWW Fellow Worker** » 16 Aug 2007, 11:21

piranha wrote:amazing how we can go from making hundreds of millions of profit one year
to a loss the next with the best quality results ever......! We've been doing our
jobs very well over the past year so I wonder who is to blame for these losses....
the competition and downstream access or the 2 idiots? Hmmm it's a tough 1!!!

I don't believe those figures. A couple of years ago Allan Satan was telling the world we had turned the corner and were on the up. That was after going from a business making one and a half million a day to losing over one million a day. The reason I don't believe them is neither of those idiots have been called to answer a Commons Select Committee for the complete balls up they've both made of the job since they were appointed. After all, isn't that Chum eating dipstick the highest paid civil servant in the country?

fedup postie · Post by **fedup postie** » 16 Aug 2007, 17:05

I find it hard to believe too. Surly, they should be called to answer the question how this is possible. But having said that, more lies would probably come out of their mouths anyay!

BELIAL · Post by **BELIAL** » 16 Aug 2007, 17:42

These figures are the Regulatory Financial Statement, NOT the accounts. They are not compliant with accounting standards for Statutory Financial Statements [the accounts] and do 'not necessarily represent a true and fair view of the financial performance or financial position of a company as shown in financial statements prepared in accordance with the Companies Act 1985.'
There are TWO sets of figures , one set complies with the legal requirements of the Companies Act the other does not. Guess which one has been released.

Post by **dvbuk55** » 16 Aug 2007, 18:24

BELIAL wrote:These figures are the Regulatory Financial Statement, NOT the accounts. They are not compliant with accounting standards for Statutory Financial Statements [the accounts] and do 'not necessarily represent a true and fair view of the financial performance or financial position of a company as shown in financial statements prepared in accordance with the Companies Act 1985.'
There are TWO sets of figures , one set complies with the legal requirements of the Companies Act the other does not. Guess which one has been released.

Oh I don't know - let me guess ........................ ermmmmmmmmmm - the second one? If I'm wrong be on the town hall steps mid day Saturday!

johno47 · Post by **johno47** » 16 Aug 2007, 19:34

For me the figures would have been more believable had they been published in May, it doesnt matter what they say now its always going to seem like a whitewash, these two :lfo :cfo are completely incompetant and should be removed from their overpaid jobs immediately...UNITY IS STRENGTH.

fedup postie · Post by **fedup postie** » 16 Aug 2007, 19:53

here here

madsorter · Post by **madsorter** » 16 Aug 2007, 23:31

How the f**k can these two buffoons negotiate DSA contracts that cost the business a 45 f***ing MILLION QUID LOSS and STILL KEEP THEIR JOBS!!!, I AM f***ing SPEECHLESS!

ROYALMAILCHAT

PROFIT OR LOSS?/REVEALED.........WELL SORT OF!

PAGE 9 says it all...