Annual Report

[GMF 736]

2 hours ago, essex canary said:

What other industry puts flesh and blood on the Balance Sheet?

 

You’re the accountant, it’s your crowd who determines the accounting standards, you tell me? 

[Big Vince 318]

1 hour ago, PurpleCanary said:

Alf Kirchen to Arsenal in 1935...

£6,000 fee. I bet that paid for the move to Carrow Road in the same year. Then Reeves paid for the River End stand 45 years later.

[essex canary 491]

1 hour ago, GMF said:

You’re the accountant, it’s your crowd who determines the accounting standards, you tell me? 

It doesn't mean I have to support the standards.

I guess King Charles and Sir David Attenborough would be quite happy to capitalise plant and animal life. Who am I to disagree?

The fact is that 95% of our Balance Sheet Intangible Asset Squad Value is made up of signings between 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2022. That doesn't make logical sense to me.

Sargent could be worth £50 million after the World Cup in which case I suspect we should all be celebrating.

Bear in mind though that the Balance Sheet valuation is based simply on what has been spent. How did that work out for 'arry when he was at Portsmouth? To be fair not bad for him but not good for Portsmouth. Hence why I think there is a case for ignoring player valuations. Probably also why the outgoing auditors referred to the risk of unrealistic estimates by club management. Then again accountants could be over- prudent.

Perhaps the view of someone who is neither an accountant or football professional would be valuable?

 

 

[shefcanary 2,385]

11 minutes ago, essex canary said:

It doesn't mean I have to support the standards.

I guess King Charles and Sir David Attenborough would be quite happy to capitalise plant and animal life. Who am I to disagree?

The fact is that 95% of our Balance Sheet Intangible Asset Squad Value is made up of signings between 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2022. That doesn't make logical sense to me.

Sargent could be worth £50 million after the World Cup in which case I suspect we should all be celebrating.

Bear in mind though that the Balance Sheet valuation is based simply on what has been spent. How did that work out for 'arry when he was at Portsmouth? To be fair not bad for him but not good for Portsmouth. Hence why I think there is a case for ignoring player valuations. Probably also why the outgoing auditors referred to the risk of unrealistic estimates by club management. Then again accountants could be over- prudent.

Perhaps the view of someone who is neither an accountant or football professional would be valuable?

 

 

There is a basic accounting treatment of amortising the transfer fee over the length of a contract down to a realisable value expected at the end of the contract I.e. zero.

However there are a couple of accounting treatments that could have an impact, namely onerous contract provisions (where a player has effectively been shut out of the first team squad) and fair value impairment provisions (where a player may have suffered a catastrophic loss of form and / or suffered a major injury which may not heal within the contract period). 

The directors make a statement that in their view the carrying value of all assets has been reviewed and they believe they represent fair value. 

Further evidence is gained by the fact last season there was a relatively small profit made on the disposal of players (£51K), suggesting the carrying value of players was relatively accurate.

On the basis of all the evidence from above, the Directors and thus the auditors consider the carrying called of the playing squad at £50m is appropriate, irrespective of the timing of the signing of players.  

You can argue that impairments against the carrying value of Rashica & Tzolis is appropriate, but the fact they are generating loan fees probably provides an argument to counter this. 

My view, well £50m for a squad of 34 players doesn't seem out of the ordinary, so is fair.

You can always argue against that view.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

4 hours ago, essex canary said:

What other industry puts flesh and blood on the Balance Sheet?

Maybe £50 million is a reasonable and/or under valuation of either what they can deliver for our team and/or be sold onto others but there is a lot of conjecture involved. 

With Maddison's sale the 2016 player valuation probably turned out fairly well despite not getting much for Naismith's amortisation and impairment and there don't appear to be comparable loans on that years Balance Sheet.

In general unless we have unearthed the next Stanley Matthews, we won't do as well as Nutty's brush.

 

Butchers probably do. Even if those assets are frozen...

[chicken 2,604]

2 hours ago, GMF said:

You’re the accountant, it’s your crowd who determines the accounting standards, you tell me? 

I'm going to have a stab in the dark and say record labels as well as management companies for the likes of actors.

Pretty sure they can take out insurance against their assets like football clubs have been known to do. Could be wrong though. Like I say, stab in the dark. 

[shefcanary 2,385]

11 hours ago, chicken said:

I'm going to have a stab in the dark and say record labels as well as management companies for the likes of actors.

Pretty sure they can take out insurance against their assets like football clubs have been known to do. Could be wrong though. Like I say, stab in the dark. 

Indeed, I forgot that, yes there will also be an insurance value too. I'm sure that will be above the carrying value.