letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
Maybe it is an improvement, from where they thought it would be.
Maybe it is an improvement, from where they thought it would be.I think what is worrying is that CET set the highlights on the situation improving (slightly) however this clearly isn't the case as liabilities are increasing by some significant margins
Why are we so bad?Thats the point though - why should a football club or any sports club think that basic financial principles do not apply or be allowed to operate in that way. There is for any club bar a select few in the Premier just as much chance of a bad year. You really shouldn't operate a multi million pound business, any business, on a maybe
Thats the point though - why should a football club or any sports club think that basic financial principles do not apply or be allowed to operate in that way. There is for any club bar a select few in the Premier just as much chance of a bad year. You really shouldn't operate a multi million pound business, any business, on a maybe
maybe or more convenient fact reporting...Maybe it is an improvement, from where they thought it would be.
Why are we so bad?
I do not think as a club we are worse than anyone else. Owners that's a different question.
Ok...so bottom line does this make it more or less likely that the owners sell up?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
technically you are correctIndeed. The logical implication of skybluesam's post is that you would never do business with football clubs as they're basically run at a loss and might fall over at any minute.
changes nothing
technically you are correct
Brighton / Bournemouth are 2 examples of clubs who gambled and it paid off
if they hadnt got into the premier league, we would have 2 more failed businesses
historically football clubs have been run at a loss, albeit with much smaller numbers, and the owner - usually a local businessman has underwritten that loss
Nothing has changed, except that local businessman is now a billionaire (or in our case a bunch of clueless buffoons)
No it won’t. Revenue is recnized when it is earned, not when the cash is received.Depends when that is paid. If it’s end of the season (30th June) it will be in the next set. If it’s not long after the final they’ll be included in the figures above.
So the £500K input, would that have been January ?
If so when we allegedly knocked back offers on Stevenson ,Lameries and Haynes .
Was that good stuff?
Edit, the first published accounts are from 1981. They're written in a far less formal and clearer (this is a football club) way. Not like the clinical business accounts produced these days. In 1980 and 1981 including transfer income the club was profitable, despite a half million write down on Jimmy Hill's investment in the American Soccer League.
If it wasn't to Directors it wouldn't be in that section would it? Pretty much every line of expenditure will be a mixture of paid and accrued, so I'm just assuming they have expressly made that point as they are embarrassed about the amount.
So I think its agreed the cost is mainly for Fisher, do you think he's worth it?
In the case of performance and similar add ons they can only be reflected as "earned" when the targets are achieved. So earned and received tend to be close togetherNo it won’t. Revenue is recnized when it is earned, not when the cash is received.
The accounting rules and presentation requirements have changed an awful lot since 1981 fp. There was more leeway in presentation back then
We can't see the player wages split though so we can't compare the figure that counts,Would be interesting to compare wage bills with the rest of the league, I would doubt very much we were anywhere near the 4th lowest wage bills in the league.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Because you said 'some' might be Anderson, I think he was there for around 4 months of that year, and you intimated that Deering wouldn't have much if any. Wouldn't you agree the Directors have been a failure, are they worth £175k, especially if Fisher was part time?I haven't agreed that so why do you think I have?
Would be interesting to compare wage bills with the rest of the league, I would doubt very much we were anywhere near the 4th lowest wage bills in the league.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Club quickly jumps on this!
Surely the bloke who the media use for football finance would notice that?
Sacking/Recruiting 2/3 managers isn't cheap. Even though Mowbray walked without taking a penny.
Venus and Fisher are listed as the Directors of Otium, Venus for most but not all of the year, that amounts to £75k. Another £100k for Sky Blue Sports and Leisure, the Directors listed as Fisher and Deering. No mention of Anderson at all in the Directors list, not sure why.Wasn't Venus a director for part of that?
I'd say 175p is overpayment for all of them!
Surely he is correct until and unless that debt is written off. You can't just ignore it because it has not been paid.
Surely the bloke who the media use for football finance would notice that?
Surely he is correct until and unless that debt is written off. You can't just ignore it because it has not been paid.
It is still a debt though isn't it, do you think a fairy godmother is going to pay it off?You can when he uses the words "paid out" and "payments".
It is still a debt though isn't it, do you think a fairy godmother is going to pay it off?
Venus and Fisher are listed as the Directors of Otium, Venus for most but not all of the year, that amounts to £75k. Another £100k for Sky Blue Sports and Leisure, the Directors listed as Fisher and Deering. No mention of Anderson at all in the Directors list, not sure why.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?