ann: material variances , page-2

This is some accounting magic.

The number to worry about is the revenue loss. Whose incompetence led to the incorrect recognition of revenue that shouldn't have been included? My bet is one of the accountants has glossed this over and it has been picked up after the fact. Are there other problems around the revenue?

I'm betting the revaluation reversal was an attempt to 'sweeten things' so the accountants can save face. The whole 'doesn't need to be recongnised in the 6 month accounts' is rubbish - you can bet your bottom dollar they'll disclose the impairment in the full year accounts, they've just delayed it 6 months.

All in all, when you start seeing accounting irregularities, it's time to question the real story. I acknowledge we're not talking huge bucks, but none the less, it shouldn't happen