Profit & Sustainability Rules Change

red_house said:
Which of course falls in line with the clubs policy of telling us naff all about most things..stadium, training ground et al

If the club had its own way the fine would be 'undisclosed'.
Click to expand...

Or it could be that we've got off lightly. I think we raised provision of 7.615 m but the settlement is 4.75 m so 1.865 less than expected. Part of the reduction is likely that the negotiations are kept confidential so that other clubs cannot quote it as a precedent.

So good news!
 
Topmodtony said:
Or it could be that we've got off lightly. I think we raised provision of 7.615 m but the settlement is 4.75 m so 1.865 less than expected. Part of the reduction is likely that the negotiations are kept confidential so that other clubs cannot quote it as a precedent.

So good news!
Click to expand...


It's answers like this that make me laugh when people say they understand the accounts.
D- for maths.
 
RobTrent said:
Only a true financial expert properly understands the accounts I guess. Lucky that Als list of financial qualifications puts him in such a position :)
Click to expand...

My nephew, who works for JP Morgan, understands the accounts 100%.
It's what to does to make a living, a very good living.

(Don't worry, come the revolution, he's first up against my wall) :grinning:

Having now spent a while talking to him he says that, without being able to ask the club a few supplementary questions, there's little to see here when it comes to skeletons in cupboards or mismanagement.

The offshore stuff is interesting, but nothing unusual.
 
I've just read some books, fiction and non-fiction about the world of Shipping Finance..about contracts, ports, containers, piracy, government blind-eye stuff etc...makes football finance look like 10 yr olds playing Monopoly with their great-grandad!!
All industries have some element of financial twisting..it's the norm!
 
BillMcgarrycherry said:
I've just read some books, fiction and non-fiction about the world of Shipping Finance..about contracts, ports, containers, piracy, government blind-eye stuff etc...makes football finance look like 10 yr olds playing Monopoly with their great-grandad!!
All industries have some element of financial twisting..it's the norm!
Click to expand...

You want to read about financial skullduggery?

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Smartest-Guys-Room-Amazing-Scandalous/dp/0141011459


One of the best books I've read all year.
 
AlGard said:
It's answers like this that make me laugh when people say they understand the accounts.
D- for maths.
Click to expand...
Nope it's quite simple. You think you owe some money so make a provision of x in a financial year. That's a loss of x in the financial year.
You have not actually spent any cash.
Later on the person you owe the money to asks for the cash but you have a chat and they decide you only have to pay them a smaller amount which we will call y.
So in the year you pay them you are up in cash terms by x-y

What's difficult for accountants is whether you have now made a windfall profit. and it's important because the banks have managed to get some huge tax losses which they may never need to realise.

If you have an opinion on IAS 37 I'd be interested
 
Topmodtony said:
Nope it's quite simple. You think you owe some money so make a provision of x in a financial year. That's a loss of x in the financial year.
You have not actually spent any cash.
Later on the person you owe the money to asks for the cash but you have a chat and they decide you only have to pay them a smaller amount which we will call y.
So in the year you pay them you are up in cash terms by x-y

What's difficult for accountants is whether you have now made a windfall profit. and it's important because the banks have managed to get some huge tax losses which they may never need to realise.

If you have an opinion on IAS 37 I'd be interested
Click to expand...


Breaking news, IAS 37 is trending on Google in the Dorset area.
 
Topmodtony said:
Nope it's quite simple. You think you owe some money so make a provision of x in a financial year. That's a loss of x in the financial year.
You have not actually spent any cash.
Later on the person you owe the money to asks for the cash but you have a chat and they decide you only have to pay them a smaller amount which we will call y.
So in the year you pay them you are up in cash terms by x-y

What's difficult for accountants is whether you have now made a windfall profit. and it's important because the banks have managed to get some huge tax losses which they may never need to realise.

If you have an opinion on IAS 37 I'd be interested
Click to expand...

What the Flying F##k is that all about... Banks or Boscombe FC.
Seems like we have 11,000 accountants these days chucking their figures in! Like a Giant Spreadsheet laid out in Kings Park and hundreds of fans playing Hopscotch on it!


Give me Al Gard any day! Right or Wrong!
 
Topmodtony said:
Nope it's quite simple. You think you owe some money so make a provision of x in a financial year. That's a loss of x in the financial year.
You have not actually spent any cash.
Later on the person you owe the money to asks for the cash but you have a chat and they decide you only have to pay them a smaller amount which we will call y.
So in the year you pay them you are up in cash terms by x-y

What's difficult for accountants is whether you have now made a windfall profit. and it's important because the banks have managed to get some huge tax losses which they may never need to realise.

If you have an opinion on IAS 37 I'd be interested
Click to expand...


I'm not sure I would classify this as "windfall profit" - but any tax charge could depend on whether it was claimed as a deduction for tax purposes in the accounts.

Penalties are not normally allowable for tax purposes - unless it was claimed as being incurred "wholly and exclusively for the purposes of trade" - this is the general rule for all business expenses being claimed- unless you are an MP (see - floating duck islands, etc)

So Eddie's parking ticket outside the takeaway cannot be claimed as a business expense.

However, it could be argued that this penalty WAS incurred for the purposes of trade - monies were spent with the intent of gaining promotion, strengthening the squad, etc.

If it were claimed as a tax deduction, then there will be an adjustment in the next set of accounts - and AFCB will be expected to pay tax on the balance "refunded".
 
I don't know for sure, but given that much of the expense (that the fine was levied for) was incurred due to 'regulatory requirements' (as in camera position, stadium improvements etc.) then might that muddy the waters further, as meeting regulatory requirements normally attracts a tax break. Might be a little too creative there, veering into law rather than accounting
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;