Profit & Sustainability Rules Change

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 think what Al was referring to was your maths, it should be £2.865 not £1.865.
 
AlGard said:
A little financial stuff for you. Please ask if you don't understand!
https://footballeconomyv2.blogspot.com/2018/07/kieran-maguire-of-price-of-football.html
Click to expand...
From the report:

He notes, 'The club presently have good control over wages, paying out just £52.42 in wages for every £100 of income, which is lower than the Premier League average.'

'AFCB’s owner, Maxim Demin, remains a mystery. He’s certainly put his hand in his pocket and loaned the club about £35 million. Demin’s ownership is via a company called A.F.C.B Enterprises in the British Virgin Islands. The club’s other shareholder, US based Peak6 Football Holdings are owed a further £19 million. Both these loans are interest free, unlike those of the battery powered device salesmen at West Ham, who have charged the club over £14 million in interest since they took over the club.

Have they not been listening to Al the expert?
 
Don't start him, you know there's absolutely no concept of what a friendly loan is, nor what debt is as opposed to an amortised expenditure
 
Last edited:
RobTrent said:
From the report:

He notes, 'The club presently have good control over wages, paying out just £52.42 in wages for every £100 of income, which is lower than the Premier League average.'

'AFCB’s owner, Maxim Demin, remains a mystery. He’s certainly put his hand in his pocket and loaned the club about £35 million. Demin’s ownership is via a company called A.F.C.B Enterprises in the British Virgin Islands. The club’s other shareholder, US based Peak6 Football Holdings are owed a further £19 million. Both these loans are interest free, unlike those of the battery powered device salesmen at West Ham, who have charged the club over £14 million in interest since they took over the club.

Have they not been listening to Al the expert?
Click to expand...


Do you think we owe at least £54M Rob?

That would be a start if you can admit that.
But you probably can't get that far.
 
AlGard said:
Do you think we owe at least £54M Rob?

That would be a start if you can admit that.
But you probably can't get that far.
Click to expand...

It's not a sliding scale, you can't insert a chock, then try to crank the debt wider to prove an already disproven narrative. The accounts already described the directors loans perfectly, the clubs finances are in a healthy state
 
It is indeed an interesting read. The most telling part is when he concludes FFP as a complete waste of space and merely a discriminatory weapon against smaller clubs.
 
punkrockcherry said:
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".
Click to expand...
"So Eddie's parking ticket outside the takeaway cannot be claimed as a business expense".
Why would anybody earning over 2 million a year be driving to the take away. I would be using the house maid for things like that. especially if she is too lazy to get the dinner ready on time.
 
redharry said:
It is indeed an interesting read. The most telling part is when he concludes FFP as a complete waste of space and merely a discriminatory weapon against smaller clubs.
Click to expand...

That we all agree on.

I wonder if Wolves complied with FFP last season?
 
AlGard said:
Do you think we owe at least £54M Rob?

That would be a start if you can admit that.
But you probably can't get that far.
Click to expand...
I don't pretend, like you, to know what we owe Al. I merely pointed out two paragraphs, from an article YOU gave, which seem quite contradictory to your expert opinion.
 
AlGard said:
That we all agree on.

I wonder if Wolves complied with FFP last season?
Click to expand...

I'm certain that just like Derby they use separate companies to pay players a portion of their wages. It wees in the face on rules on shared ownership but gets around FFP rules, so thinking that Derby without parachute payments have been so competitive for so long the Champs you know there's money coming from somewhere
 
RobTrent said:
I don't pretend, like you, to know what we owe Al. I merely pointed out two paragraphs, from an article YOU gave, which seem quite contradictory to your expert opinion.
Click to expand...

The article quotes the accounts for the date 16/17. The very next morning we spent £30M...Are we getting closer now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;