By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Audited Accounts - Whose interpretation do you believe? on 12:24 - Mar 18 by monmouth
I can’t be bothered shakes to be honest. It’s historical now, and I’m not interested in an argument either way. Deferred income became income when our premier league place was confirmed. The cash was received early and duly spent, so it is all a timing issue. Current cash flow concerns me a lot, given the uncertainty of our income, and how we are managing within the constraints of the receipts we are guaranteed. If we are teeming and lading on premier league survival, then that makes the cash flow situation more precarious, but that timing difference for the initial tranche would be covered by parachute anyway for at least one year whilst we pare our costs, hopefully in a controlled manner.
Only the insiders will know how robust those projections are, but I hope the Trust is all over it.
The whole point I was attempting to make to Shaky in the initial thread before he went on his rant, was that the advance cash (and slightly more) was all covered by the sales we made within the two weeks after the balance sheet date. The reason this isn't reflected in his 'advance analytical technique' is because the balance sheet doesn't reflect assets held for sale at market value because of accounting rules and he hasn't adjusted for it. Because we were still in the PL, we then invested again in other players. If we hadn't been we wouldn't have done so (we would have signed different players, and also had more sales).
But as I've now said at least five times, cash flow management is incredibly important and needs to remain tightly controlled.
0
Audited Accounts - Whose interpretation do you believe? on 13:29 - Mar 18 with 1925 views
Audited Accounts - Whose interpretation do you believe? on 12:46 - Mar 18 by E20Jack
Nice strawman there Shakes. Telling someone something they believe when they have given no indication of that really won't win you any prizes.
Are you suggesting that the reasoning behind the Trust being unfairly prejudiced were difficult to work out and incredibly obscure then Fantasy Shakes?
I think it is coming clearer and clearer with every revelation who is clueless here. My toes are curling for you.
Well counsel couldn't work it out as of 20th October 2016:
"It is clear that the buyers and particularly the sellers colluded against the Supporters Trust in the way that we were excluded from all negotiations, and that our interests have been prejudiced against. Whether this would enable the Trust to launch a successful formal legal action for Unfair Prejudice, thereby compelling the Buyer to buy out the Trust shareholding, is not clear"
Audited Accounts - Whose interpretation do you believe? on 13:15 - Mar 18 by londonlisa2001
The whole point I was attempting to make to Shaky in the initial thread before he went on his rant, was that the advance cash (and slightly more) was all covered by the sales we made within the two weeks after the balance sheet date. The reason this isn't reflected in his 'advance analytical technique' is because the balance sheet doesn't reflect assets held for sale at market value because of accounting rules and he hasn't adjusted for it. Because we were still in the PL, we then invested again in other players. If we hadn't been we wouldn't have done so (we would have signed different players, and also had more sales).
But as I've now said at least five times, cash flow management is incredibly important and needs to remain tightly controlled.
You are mixing apples and oranges.
And you additionally appear to be unaware of the matching principle in accounting that requires costs to be matched to revenues.
Audited Accounts - Whose interpretation do you believe? on 13:29 - Mar 18 by Shaky
Well counsel couldn't work it out as of 20th October 2016:
"It is clear that the buyers and particularly the sellers colluded against the Supporters Trust in the way that we were excluded from all negotiations, and that our interests have been prejudiced against. Whether this would enable the Trust to launch a successful formal legal action for Unfair Prejudice, thereby compelling the Buyer to buy out the Trust shareholding, is not clear"
Audited Accounts - Whose interpretation do you believe? on 13:32 - Mar 18 by Shaky
You are mixing apples and oranges.
And you additionally appear to be unaware of the matching principle in accounting that requires costs to be matched to revenues.
It just gets worse and wose.
"the matching principle in accounting that requires costs to be matched to revenues."
The accruals concept you mean? Ah, good old SSAP 2. Those were the days.
Superseded of course more than a decade ago by FRS 18 which fundamentally dismissed the notion of 'matching' on the P&L in favour of a focus on balance sheet definitions of assets and liabilities instead. And that in turn now, of course, superseded by FRS 102 which is still all about the balance sheet, but with a few IFRS tweaks thrown in.
Is that what you were talking about Shakes? Pretty irrelevant even if you did know your ar*e from your elbow.
0
Audited Accounts - Whose interpretation do you believe? on 16:31 - Mar 18 with 1838 views
Audited Accounts - Whose interpretation do you believe? on 13:34 - Mar 18 by E20Jack
What an odd thing to quote.
It is still unclear whether it would be successful. That may as well have been written yesterday, nothing has changed on that front.
What exactly did you think that would show?
You should have read the context:
"We have now completed our initial discussions with our legal counsel. This is the same barrister we consulted with on the initial American interest in 2014 , and who is an experienced barrister with over 20 years’ experience in matters such as contractual disputes and possible Unfair Prejudice actions:"
In other words it was not clear to the barrister with 20 years' experinece in October 2016, whether there was a case for unfair prejusdice.
In contrast to the instance of a little gobshite such as yourself 18 months after that event claiming it is all so obvious. Along with any other lies that you can come up with.
Audited Accounts - Whose interpretation do you believe? on 16:30 - Mar 18 by londonlisa2001
"the matching principle in accounting that requires costs to be matched to revenues."
The accruals concept you mean? Ah, good old SSAP 2. Those were the days.
Superseded of course more than a decade ago by FRS 18 which fundamentally dismissed the notion of 'matching' on the P&L in favour of a focus on balance sheet definitions of assets and liabilities instead. And that in turn now, of course, superseded by FRS 102 which is still all about the balance sheet, but with a few IFRS tweaks thrown in.
Is that what you were talking about Shakes? Pretty irrelevant even if you did know your ar*e from your elbow.
No Lisa, I was talking about the P&L where £47m is never going to be 2 weeks revenue.
Audited Accounts - Whose interpretation do you believe? on 16:36 - Mar 18 by Shaky
No Lisa, I was talking about the P&L where £47m is never going to be 2 weeks revenue.
Where did I say it was?
If you mean:
"all covered by the sales we made within the two weeks after the balance sheet date. The reason this isn't reflected in his 'advance analytical technique' is because the balance sheet doesn't reflect assets held for sale at market value because of accounting rules and he hasn't adjusted for it. Because we were still in the PL, we then invested again in other players. If we hadn't been we wouldn't have done so (we would have signed different players, and also had more sales). "
you can quite clearly see I was talking about sales of players. I've copied the whole paragraph for you to be helpful.
We sold players for £47m within 2 weeks of the balance sheet date.
Off you trot.
0
Audited Accounts - Whose interpretation do you believe? on 17:29 - Mar 18 with 1781 views
Audited Accounts - Whose interpretation do you believe? on 17:11 - Mar 18 by Shaky
. . . and by the way I agree completely it is not important in the great scheme of things.
It's just another bollock you've dropped on a basic and fundamental matter.
Shakes ,i cant work out why youre arguing the toss about corporate accounting with an..ermm.. corporate accountant? Especially if you are a strategy advisor like you say you are. Why even bother?
As far as im aware, they are completely different worlds and skillsets
"Michu, Britton and Williams could have won 3-0 on their own. They wouldn't have required a keeper."
Audited Accounts - Whose interpretation do you believe? on 17:27 - Mar 18 by londonlisa2001
Where did I say it was?
If you mean:
"all covered by the sales we made within the two weeks after the balance sheet date. The reason this isn't reflected in his 'advance analytical technique' is because the balance sheet doesn't reflect assets held for sale at market value because of accounting rules and he hasn't adjusted for it. Because we were still in the PL, we then invested again in other players. If we hadn't been we wouldn't have done so (we would have signed different players, and also had more sales). "
you can quite clearly see I was talking about sales of players. I've copied the whole paragraph for you to be helpful.
We sold players for £47m within 2 weeks of the balance sheet date.
Off you trot.
Well in that case I must apologise for my inablily to read your mind and divine that by sales you meant player sales, as oppsed to the common synonym for revenue.
Audited Accounts - Whose interpretation do you believe? on 17:34 - Mar 18 by PozuelosSideys
Shakes ,i cant work out why youre arguing the toss about corporate accounting with an..ermm.. corporate accountant? Especially if you are a strategy advisor like you say you are. Why even bother?
As far as im aware, they are completely different worlds and skillsets
I am an expert in finance. As such I need to know a fair bit of accounting.
Audited Accounts - Whose interpretation do you believe? on 17:52 - Mar 18 by Shaky
Well in that case I must apologise for my inablily to read your mind and divine that by sales you meant player sales, as oppsed to the common synonym for revenue.
You don't think it's obvious from that paragraph I was talking about player sales?
Sales is also quite a common term for, you know, sales.
0
Audited Accounts - Whose interpretation do you believe? on 18:21 - Mar 18 with 1726 views
Audited Accounts - Whose interpretation do you believe? on 17:53 - Mar 18 by Shaky
I am an expert in finance. As such I need to know a fair bit of accounting.
However, the inverse is not true.
[Post edited 18 Mar 2018 17:54]
An expert in finance? Thats an awfully big subject matter to be an expert in. Are you a super human genius? If one person can be an expert in it all, why do businesses and consultancies have specialists?
"Michu, Britton and Williams could have won 3-0 on their own. They wouldn't have required a keeper."
Audited Accounts - Whose interpretation do you believe? on 18:21 - Mar 18 by PozuelosSideys
An expert in finance? Thats an awfully big subject matter to be an expert in. Are you a super human genius? If one person can be an expert in it all, why do businesses and consultancies have specialists?
I'm an expert in Science.
0
Audited Accounts - Whose interpretation do you believe? on 18:43 - Mar 18 with 1705 views
Audited Accounts - Whose interpretation do you believe? on 18:21 - Mar 18 by PozuelosSideys
An expert in finance? Thats an awfully big subject matter to be an expert in. Are you a super human genius? If one person can be an expert in it all, why do businesses and consultancies have specialists?
Audited Accounts - Whose interpretation do you believe? on 17:57 - Mar 18 by londonlisa2001
You don't think it's obvious from that paragraph I was talking about player sales?
Sales is also quite a common term for, you know, sales.
No, I assumed when you said sales you meant sales as opposed to player sales.
I guess I am also still bemused by your insisitance on for some reason focusing solely on the player sales bringing in roughtly £50m at the start of the season.
As opposed to also including the purchases in the amount of roughly £60 million (including agents fees) that would have taken the balance sheet hole in cash and cash equivalents from around £70 million at the end of the last financial year to around £80 million currently.
To which the inevitable cash losses for the year to date should be added.
I dunno, it's almost as if your constant repetition of that cash inflow from player sales in those first few weeks is somehow grossly misleading.
Audited Accounts - Whose interpretation do you believe? on 20:00 - Mar 18 by Shaky
No, I assumed when you said sales you meant sales as opposed to player sales.
I guess I am also still bemused by your insisitance on for some reason focusing solely on the player sales bringing in roughtly £50m at the start of the season.
As opposed to also including the purchases in the amount of roughly £60 million (including agents fees) that would have taken the balance sheet hole in cash and cash equivalents from around £70 million at the end of the last financial year to around £80 million currently.
To which the inevitable cash losses for the year to date should be added.
I dunno, it's almost as if your constant repetition of that cash inflow from player sales in those first few weeks is somehow grossly misleading.
You assumed when I was talking about player sales I wasn't?
Nah, you were trying to be clever again and failing again.
And I'm focusing on player sales because we are talking about that balance sheet, which contained players that I am reclassifying as available for sale at the balance sheet date (classified at the time in the published balance sheet as intangible assets and without any revaluation - I am making the adjustment from intangible assets to current assets because it gives a better view and I know the value as it is given in the financial statements as post balance sheet information).
I haven't included any players we have bought subsequently as we hadn't bought them nor indeed committed to buying them at the balance sheet date, In other words, we could have chosen to not buy them and spent sweet FA.
In a similar vein I'm not reclassifying any of the players that remain with us, nor attempting to revalue them as it hasn't yet happened.
[Post edited 18 Mar 2018 20:35]
0
Audited Accounts - Whose interpretation do you believe? on 21:03 - Mar 18 with 1594 views
Audited Accounts - Whose interpretation do you believe? on 20:33 - Mar 18 by londonlisa2001
You assumed when I was talking about player sales I wasn't?
Nah, you were trying to be clever again and failing again.
And I'm focusing on player sales because we are talking about that balance sheet, which contained players that I am reclassifying as available for sale at the balance sheet date (classified at the time in the published balance sheet as intangible assets and without any revaluation - I am making the adjustment from intangible assets to current assets because it gives a better view and I know the value as it is given in the financial statements as post balance sheet information).
I haven't included any players we have bought subsequently as we hadn't bought them nor indeed committed to buying them at the balance sheet date, In other words, we could have chosen to not buy them and spent sweet FA.
In a similar vein I'm not reclassifying any of the players that remain with us, nor attempting to revalue them as it hasn't yet happened.
[Post edited 18 Mar 2018 20:35]
What a load of bollocks.
Who cares what could have, would have should have been at the end of the last financial year.
Subsequent events are now history.
What matters is what is the position today, and that is as I outlined above.
Audited Accounts - Whose interpretation do you believe? on 21:03 - Mar 18 by Shaky
What a load of bollocks.
Who cares what could have, would have should have been at the end of the last financial year.
Subsequent events are now history.
What matters is what is the position today, and that is as I outlined above.
No it's not. And the whole point of the discussion was analysing the financial statements,
You were the one that created the thread. And based a whole lot of "we're doomed' nonsense around it.
Out of interest, how do you arrive at the £60m on players since the balance sheet date. What numbers are you using for the players we have bought? I don't mean the source. I mean the numbers.
0
Audited Accounts - Whose interpretation do you believe? on 21:26 - Mar 18 with 1556 views
Audited Accounts - Whose interpretation do you believe? on 16:31 - Mar 18 by Shaky
You should have read the context:
"We have now completed our initial discussions with our legal counsel. This is the same barrister we consulted with on the initial American interest in 2014 , and who is an experienced barrister with over 20 years’ experience in matters such as contractual disputes and possible Unfair Prejudice actions:"
In other words it was not clear to the barrister with 20 years' experinece in October 2016, whether there was a case for unfair prejusdice.
In contrast to the instance of a little gobshite such as yourself 18 months after that event claiming it is all so obvious. Along with any other lies that you can come up with.
Now fcuk you evil little prick.
What on earth are you wibbling on about you massive aching simpleton?
They said they have now completed their initial discussions with their council that works closely with such subjects as UP. After these discussions it is not clear whether they would have a successful UP case.
So again, nothing has changed. It is still unclear whether we have s successful UP case. I am guessing you put your hand up to do the donkey work rather than how you like to portray it as - which is coming up with the whole notion and angle of UP (the most obvious go to case when shareholders have been...you know...unfairly prejudiced).
For the fifth time, are you telling us you believe that The Trust being unfairly prejudiced is a particularly obscure and difficult to work out scenario?
I just want to know how much is self created delusion and how much is sheer incompetency. It could be a rather unhealthy dollop of both of course, which is more than likely at this stage.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
