The Long Awaited Accounts....

[four fornicholl]

Purely in laymans terms, what if Tone pulled the plug?

[PeterWithe]

Big trouble in little China.

[Sexual Ealing]

Surely (and I write in total blind ignorance) the readjustment in tangible assets is explained by the figure Lerner thought he'd get for the club if he sold it Vs the amount Dr X actually paid?

No, don't think so. The tangible assets have to be material (i.e. bricks and mortar).
My guess is that it is either a shift in accounting practice (so a question would be: have other clubs been forced to re-value their tangible assets?) or Dr Tony (i.e. his advisors) has deemed it useful to reduce the overall value of the club's assets. Don't know why he would want to do it other than to be able to show a growth in asset value in the future.

But if the bricks & mortar assets were valued at £X, but then Xia ended up buying them for £Y, which was £Z less than £X, then those things would have to be revalued, no?

As I said, I have no idea but it seems to follow some sort of logic.

You're basically right.

YESSSSSSSSSSSS! I'm going to buy a green viser and some of those elbow shirt clips. I've instructed my agent to get me a move to Guernsey. I appreciate your interest, Risso, and good luck for the rest of the season.

[SoccerHQ]

All I'm thinking from looking at that financial car crash is good job we got taken over quickly.

Lerner really was driving us to the wall...incredible to think given the position of strength we had around 2009/10.

[PeterWithe]

All I'm thinking from looking at that financial car crash is good job we got taken over quickly.

Lerner really was driving us to the wall...incredible to think given the position of strength we had around 2009/10.

This isn't really my bag but didn't we lose money hand over fist throughout the Lerner years? I seem to remember a lot of our financial boffins, soon to include Sexual Ealing, expressing concern about the figures and being told not to worry their pretty little heads about it.

[brian green]

Sexy do you mean you are going to get a vizeer (as in grand) or a visor as in eye shade?  Either would boost your image.

[Risso]

Sorry, that's not right.  If you sign a player on a free, then the value on the balance sheet is £nil.  Same with kids that come through the academy.  Whatever you get in insurance has nothing to do with their value in the accounts.

So what would be asset on the balance sheet to offset the player's liabilities, ie. contract, signing-on fee, etc

Nothing.  Signing on fees are a P&L expense.

Not so.

Per the 2015 accounts 'the costs associated with the acquisition of players' registrations are capitalised as an intangible fixed asset at the date of acquisition'.  Whilst it's not explicit I think it's safe to say this would include all incremental costs associated with the acquisition of player registrations, including signing on fees.

Indeed so.  That's the actual cost of the player that gets capitalised.  The note about players' signing on fees and loyalty fees gives a bit of a clue as how they're accounted for, if you're struggling, i.e. "Signing on fees payable to players.....are recognised in operating expenses as incurred." 

[Ad@m]

All I'm thinking from looking at that financial car crash is good job we got taken over quickly.

Lerner really was driving us to the wall...incredible to think given the position of strength we had around 2009/10.

Assuming the theory of Dr Tone's acquisition being the triggering event for the impairment, the slight technical irony is that had Randy not sold us the accounts would probably have looked a lot better!

[Sexual Ealing]

Sexy do you mean you are going to get a vizeer (as in grand) or a visor as in eye shade?  Either would boost your image.

My apologies, Mr Green. I meant a visor. I'm new to all this.

Also, don't think I'm not on to you. Calling me sexy now that I'm a big shot. Join the queue, Brian!

[adrenachrome]

Comrade Sexual, have you considered the acquisition of a glorious cape or, dare I suggest it, a poncho to celebrate you new status?

Save

[PeterWithesShin]

[brian green]

When you move to Ely dear boy, you will be Sexual Ely.  I do hope you come, the Fens do so need men in green visors.

[brian green]

I like the way this thread is going.

[Ad@m]

Sorry, that's not right.  If you sign a player on a free, then the value on the balance sheet is £nil.  Same with kids that come through the academy.  Whatever you get in insurance has nothing to do with their value in the accounts.

So what would be asset on the balance sheet to offset the player's liabilities, ie. contract, signing-on fee, etc

Nothing.  Signing on fees are a P&L expense.

Not so.

Per the 2015 accounts 'the costs associated with the acquisition of players' registrations are capitalised as an intangible fixed asset at the date of acquisition'.  Whilst it's not explicit I think it's safe to say this would include all incremental costs associated with the acquisition of player registrations, including signing on fees.

Indeed so.  That's the actual cost of the player that gets capitalised.  The note about players' signing on fees and loyalty fees gives a bit of a clue as how they're accounted for, if you're struggling, i.e. "Signing on fees payable to players.....are recognised in operating expenses as incurred." 

Deary me, with comments like that it's no wonder you make friends so well around here.

The bit you conveniently missed out of that section relates to loyalty fees and what happens when players are sold midway through a contract.  If you read the whole note it's pretty clear signing on fees aren't always "incurred" at the start of the contract.

[Richard E]

I like the way this thread is going.

Two accountants fighting. It's even more fascinating than the Newcastle pre-match thread.