Fucking hell man, admit your mistake.
Total Football Income: £227m
Total Football Income: £227m
G&H can't finance the trial against RBS
- Thread starter Insignificance
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
Is 128m our wages then? For the year ending July 11.
Yep.
Ah right, hopefully we've managed to get that down a bit since then.
Would think it's down substantially for the year ended July 2013, probably by at least £15m or so.
Is it right to assume that players, at cost, would be included in the balance sheet as assets, and the profit/loss on sale included in the P & L account?
Basic calculation for P&L item:
Proceeds........................................ x
Less accumulated depreciation ....(x)
Profit/Loss...................................... x
The figure shown on the balance sheet would be the asset less accumulated depreciation (net book value).
Proceeds........................................ x
Less accumulated depreciation ....(x)
Profit/Loss...................................... x
The figure shown on the balance sheet would be the asset less accumulated depreciation (net book value).
I assume amortisation of player registrations is the devaluing of players as their contracts run out.
Correct Gerry as in theory their value declines as the contract runs down, so player purchases are spread over the years of the contract.
Wages / turnover is 70% and these accounts dont include the Warrior, Chevrolet and Garuda deals, approx £25 mil which has kicked in now or the minimum £33mil hike in premier league tv money ( if we manage to retain our lofty 8th place in the league! ) that kicks in next year.
I appreciate that the value of a player in the balance sheet would be depreciated. The point I was trying to clarify was that, I would have thought, only the profit/loss on a player would appear in the P & L account. That is the profit/loss on the written down value of the player.
For example we sold Torres for 50m but that is not the figure that would appear in the accounts. The proper figure would be the profit based on his WDV. Or is that completely wrong?
Yes that clears it up nicely. Thanks
But the gist of it, if you want to listen to a fool who doesn't really know what he's on about... Is that the amortisation of the player is a bit like depreciation. If you pay 10m quid for a player and give him a 4 year deal then you write off 2.5m a year on the assumption that he's going to walk away at the end and leave you with jack shit. It works good on a tax basis. No one actually spends that amortisation money, it's already been spent on the transfer fee - but the fee wasn't all realised at once in the accounts.
Or something the complete opposite of that.
Or something the complete opposite of that.
I have no idea, best leave it to peter...
Right, Woland is mainly right (I remember that old thread btw, it was fucking mental). Amortisation is exactly like depreciation, except it applies to 'intangible' assets like player registrations or copyrights, rather than somehting physical like a car or machine.
The purpose of writing assets down is to try to match expenses to revenues in terms of which period they arise in. So if you think a £20k machine is going to have a useful business life of 4 years then you spread the cost over 4 years. This is better because the revenues it helps to generate will obv occur over those 4 years as well, and so for each reporting period you get a much better overall feeling for the underlying profitability of the company than you would by expensing the £20k all in year one.
So a £20m player signed on a 5 yr deal will therefore be written down over that period, with a £4m charge each year under 'amortisation' (this appears in the P&L). Without wanting to get too technical, the 'other side' of the entry (the credit) goes on balance sheet under accumulated depreciation and this gradually reduces the value of the asset stated on said balance sheet.
When a player is sold, 2 things need to be accounted for (the 'money' received, and the asset on the balance sheet still showing but actually sold). The 'money' is credited to the P&L and the NBV of the asset is cleared off the balance sheet and the difference shows up on the P&L as profit/loss on player sales.
Oh, and where Woland is wrong is that amortisation has fuck all to do with tax. It's not actually allowable for tax. Instead HMRC gives capital allowances on certain types of assets, but I'm fucked if I know what how they treat player registrations!!
The purpose of writing assets down is to try to match expenses to revenues in terms of which period they arise in. So if you think a £20k machine is going to have a useful business life of 4 years then you spread the cost over 4 years. This is better because the revenues it helps to generate will obv occur over those 4 years as well, and so for each reporting period you get a much better overall feeling for the underlying profitability of the company than you would by expensing the £20k all in year one.
So a £20m player signed on a 5 yr deal will therefore be written down over that period, with a £4m charge each year under 'amortisation' (this appears in the P&L). Without wanting to get too technical, the 'other side' of the entry (the credit) goes on balance sheet under accumulated depreciation and this gradually reduces the value of the asset stated on said balance sheet.
When a player is sold, 2 things need to be accounted for (the 'money' received, and the asset on the balance sheet still showing but actually sold). The 'money' is credited to the P&L and the NBV of the asset is cleared off the balance sheet and the difference shows up on the P&L as profit/loss on player sales.
Oh, and where Woland is wrong is that amortisation has fuck all to do with tax. It's not actually allowable for tax. Instead HMRC gives capital allowances on certain types of assets, but I'm fucked if I know what how they treat player registrations!!
Exactly
Read that its actually down by 25 mill or thereabouts. Paints a more healty picture, although we're not finished with the squad rebuilding either.
I have no sympathy for GnH at all and never will, at the end they were playing financial chicken with our club which could well have seen us destroyed. As for the "lizards" the fact that Kenny and Commoli spunked away 80M is due to their inexperience in football nothing more, I dont think its fair to slate them for their investment so far... the utter bellend responsible for finding us Yank owners all those years ago when there were clearly oligarchs around with billions burning holes in the pockets... thats who i blame.
Statement from Liverpool FC
In October 2010, Liverpool Football Club and Athletic Grounds Limited ("Liverpool FC") was sold to the Fenway Sports Group.
As a consequence of that sale, Thomas Hicks and George Gillett (being the former owners of Liverpool FC) made a number of allegations and claims against Sir Martin Broughton, Christian Purslow and Ian Ayre (being the company directors responsible for the sale of Liverpool FC to the Fenway Sports Group). Those allegations and claims were denied by Messrs Broughton, Purslow and Ayre.
The allegations, claims and denials resulted in legal proceedings being commenced.
The parties have now agreed a settlement (the terms of which are confidential). All claims and allegations made against Messrs Broughton, Purslow and Ayre have been withdrawn by Messrs Hicks and Gillett and all legal proceedings between the parties concluded.
The parties will not be making any further statement to the press.
11th Jan 2013 - Latest News
- Print
As a consequence of that sale, Thomas Hicks and George Gillett (being the former owners of Liverpool FC) made a number of allegations and claims against Sir Martin Broughton, Christian Purslow and Ian Ayre (being the company directors responsible for the sale of Liverpool FC to the Fenway Sports Group). Those allegations and claims were denied by Messrs Broughton, Purslow and Ayre.
The allegations, claims and denials resulted in legal proceedings being commenced.
The parties have now agreed a settlement (the terms of which are confidential). All claims and allegations made against Messrs Broughton, Purslow and Ayre have been withdrawn by Messrs Hicks and Gillett and all legal proceedings between the parties concluded.
The parties will not be making any further statement to the press.
Well fuck a duck! that sounds like a payout to me, i would be very surprised if those mentioned could make a large payout so I wonder whats gone on. Weird.
Past history of course suggests that all it will take is the appearance of the next microphone in the proximity of Tom Hick's fat face to find out what happened, at least what happened in his twisted world.
If you need to talk....athensrauri can point you in the general direction of someone.
I doubt there's been a payout to H & G. Broughton, RBS et al were the ones who brought the suit seeking declaratory relief, that is, declarations that they had conducted themselves properly throughout the sale. RBS in particular, has been prosecuting this suit rather vigorously, having already spent more than 1 million in legal expenses.
Also, at one point, H & G's defence appeared to be so untenable, an application for summary judgment against them had been made. besides, H & G are hopelessly unprepared for the hearing commencing 22 April 2013, and having failed to meet the staggered payments into Court as security, have not even had access to the documents produced in discovery.
R
RedZeppelin III
Guest
so are we free to be sold soon ?
- Status
Similar threads
-
- Locked
