essex canary

The interviewers do a good job. It is just the interviewee with a compulsive need for 'like' and 'you know'.

Was the careers adviser who recommended being a Teacher right? Probably more reliable for arranging the Summer holidays. Then again probably less than 10 per cent earnings relative to the current career and how do the Mental Health stresses compare?

I guess the cloak caused a little too much obstruction.

Surrey girl whose dad supports Arsenal yet she supports Liverpool. A great background for dividing the support at a Community Club into the 'products' of season tickets and away memberships.

They could shunt their Bundesliga matches on Sky Football.

A craft ale delivery for the Lion and Castle.

In reality it is good seeing as the 12 million pays the salary of both players for several years. The hype about ridiculous transfer fees that in reality were never going to happen creates the reaction. Probably the same with Omo and Sara.

All very good questions.

The Note you are referring to is probably the one below. The last sentence states that promotion bonuses have been charged in the promotion year. The previous 2 sentences are (in a not very user friendly way) explaining a suppression of declared wages for the year of £7.6 million (6.7 plus 4.1 minus 3.2) as having been charged back to previous years as onerous contract adjustments in relation to the likes of Naismith etc. Effectively then the exact inverse of how you had interpreted it. Hope that is informative.

An interesting watch. 5 key points: 1. A power vacuum associated with their Saudi owner who wants an investing partner and to retain significant influence. 2. No mention of a Director of Football (or his partner). 3. Inexperienced young signings though probably of the pace and power variety. 4. Apparently the biggest chaos facing a newly promoted Club since Steve Bruce quit Hull 7 seasons ago for them to subsequently finish 18th. 5. They are unlikely to spend much money so may have scoop to improve with parachute payments largely intact.

No problem with banter. Life would be boring if we can"t disagree but just to point out that trolling is a criminal offence.

Perhaps he can equally identify an Internet troll when he encounters them?

I am 100% confident in Shef's ability to elucidate his argument even if it doesn't agree with mine. Thst doesn't mean to say that everyone else has the same ability. I am also 100% in agreement with Shef's response.

My opinion would be that improvements or deterioration in facilties enjoyed or otherwise by fans ought to be taken into account in the Annual Review of season ticket prices rather than simply flat rate adjustments or nil change as has been the practice for the last 12 years or so.

It would be interesting to see perhaps @shefcanary 's view on that one. The event that gives rise to the liability is substantially the promotion so I would have thought charging in that year has to be the prevailing interpretation but a second opinion would be welcome.

What time zone are you currently in?

Seems a logical assessment to me and exactly how I would hope they do see it. If so though some of their actions and communications at times could certainly have been improved.

Norwich 2022, WBA 2021, Cardiff 2019. Years ago? These inflations primarily impact teams who are largely assured of remaining in the Premier League. Middlesbrough is a slightly more distant example but do you think they would spend more than Brentford in a season back in the PL? Perhaps I would go 50:50 on that one.

Just as well they don't use Derby County's valuation system given the Stu's hype of transfer fees and the subsequent losses they would need to record for the likes of Cantwell and Aarons.

Yes. I believe you are right aside from Derby County who apparently do revalue their players each year. When Derby County revalued their stadium on the same principles everybody seemed to be opposed to it. If Derby County, or anyone else for that matter, wants a different accounting policy that is their prerogative albeit that perhaps if we want standard fair play rules within football it is not practicable. Which method is preferable is a matter of debate. Since player revaluation would to a certain extent be at the Club's discretion, Derby's approach definitely creates opportunity for fair play infringement in a way that perhaps the standard approach does not. The latter being based on transfer fees actually paid allocated over contracted seasons whilst risking being unrepresentative in the way that you indicate is not subject to manipulation.

If that is the case the auditors ought to be sacked because that would be an abuse of accounting conventions and requirements. Under Income and Expenditure accounts (as opposed to Receipts and Payments Accounts) charges and incomes must be applied to the accounting period in which the liability or benefit arises as distinct from paid or received.

Fair points but other Clubs would all have similar circumstances.

Because whatever limited trading market the Canaries Trust provides cannot be considered a substitute for the Club resolving the issue as if a significant proportion wished to exit there would be insufficient buyers. The value of the Club endlessly paying a legal firm to update a share register for around 250 swaps a year largely based on people who invested £100 twenty years ago passing on to their relations who may or may not be interested in NCFC must be open to question. For those who have 250 times as much and are then benefitting the Club in terms of administration it is then pay NCFC a fee for the share transfer and loose the benefit you had previously and clearly more difficulty in selling given the volume involved. End it is the best solution and end it fairly.

What definition of 'profit' is to be applied given the economic principles of inflation, interest rates, asset appreciation etc?

Paragraph 1 is correct. The squad value could be higher when the likes of Aarons are added then again other Clubs will also have such players or indeed those they have bought whose value has either appreciated further or impaired further relative to the amortisation schedule. Re Paragraph 2 if Leeds had a PL retention bonus in 2022 it effectively means ours was the highest wage bill.