Alph Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Scrap metal is up and down at the minute. Like LTLF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeb93 Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 I'd personally keep sammon. I honestly think he could score a lot of goals this season. Im actually very optmistic this season all we need is a centre half then sorted! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AccountantRam Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 This might be a long shot , and i dont like making assumptions ,,, but are you an accountant Well, "allegedly". I know it's been covered to previously ( Ramblur springs to mind ) , but DCFC's accounts are quite complicated and people often make incorrect comments without understanding them. I'm a reader rather than a poster - but just thought I might help with this comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Scarlet Pimpernel Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Well, "allegedly". I know it's been covered to previously ( Ramblur springs to mind ) , but DCFC's accounts are quite complicated and people often make incorrect comments without understanding them. I'm a reader rather than a poster - but just thought I might help with this comment. Be very careful. We all started as readers now look at us poor miserable souls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheron85 Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Using Connor Sammon as an example; if we paid £1.2m for a three year contract that gets apportioned to the accounts at £400k per year. If we sold him after one year for £1m, then a profit of £200k would be recorded in that years accounts. ? Okay, but the final year would still have the £400k loss as well so overall you'd have made a loss on the sale right? ALSO how come it's not split out like say, material costs? If you make a solid product and buy the raw materials up front (ignoring credit here) then that goes straight into the loss collumn right? So why doesn't the up-front cost for a player? Not saying you're wrong it just seems odd... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Book value is a completely different thing to market value. Correct, that's why I referred to both separately (where I said "worth"). I think with this... Book value methodlogy is fine for applying a valuation to an asset for the purpose of preparing your end of year accounts, P&L etc but it has little basis in determining a transfer valuation. You contradict yourself with this... The Brayford scenario has nothing to do with depreciation in value it is risk mitigation. You run the risk of an asset who's value has increased leaving for zero because you lose ownership. I think you can only start to think this way when your near the final year of a contract. A player who signs a 4 year contract will not be worth any less on the market after 1 year or even after 2 years (assuming they are equally as good as when they were purchased). That I agree with, it doesn't affect it until you get into the last two years on contract. Which, is exactly the situation we are in with Brayford. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bucktwo Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 jesus ...i'll be glad when the football starts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
networker1884 Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Not gonna lie, I thought this thread was a load of codswallop until I saw how many news report there are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AccountantRam Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Okay, but the final year would still have the £400k loss as well so overall you'd have made a loss on the sale right? ALSO how come it's not split out like say, material costs? If you make a solid product and buy the raw materials up front (ignoring credit here) then that goes straight into the loss collumn right? So why doesn't the up-front cost for a player? Not saying you're wrong it just seems odd... OK, here goes ... Materials are classed as a current asset - ie. you buy it do something to it and sell it on in a short period of time. Players registrations last for a longer period of time - say three years - and as accounts are usually for just 1 year they are classed as a fixed asset, which are treated differently. Also, market value and book value are completeley different. If we bought Salmon for £1.2m then the physical cash is spent straight away, but in the books you'd write-off or depreciate the expense over the length of the contract so say £400k for 3 years. After 1 year the net value in the books would therefore be £800k, so if you sold him for £1m you'd make £200k "profit", and this would be realised straight away when the sale took place. Think back to the time when we got promoted to the Premiership last - Claude Davies cost c£3.5m for a 4 year contract - so you're looking at c£900k per year. Add onto that wages and other payroll charges etc and you're probably looking at close to a cost of c£2m a year - for just 1 player for 4 years ! It's easy then to see how clubs can make huge losses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smalley Ram Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Wouldn't the advent of bids or open market valuations being readily available that materially contradict the net book value of an asset lead to the requirement to revalue the asset and in this case that would be upwards. This would mean increasing the revaluation reserve and in itself taking a paper profit. God that is sooooo boring I really wish I hadn't bothered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Obviously players can go up in value.....whether sammon has gone up in value depends on what his original value was. I still think £800k max...........absolute max. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 Wouldn't the advent of bids or open market valuations being readily available that materially contradict the net book value of an asset lead to the requirement to revalue the asset and in this case that would be upwards. This would mean increasing the revaluation reserve and in itself taking a paper profit. God that is sooooo boring I really wish I hadn't bothered. Very much doubt it. You couldn't just revalue one player, you would have to do them all. You can't just pick and choose what you revalue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rezner Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 Is there any actual news about this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 Claude Davies cost c£3.5m for a 4 year contract - so you're looking at c£900k per year. Add onto that wages and other payroll charges etc and you're probably looking at close to a cost of c£2m a year - for just 1 player for 4 years ! It's easy then to see how clubs can make huge losses. "http://legacymedia.localworld.co.uk/275790/Article/images/18137362/4562215" alt="4562215"> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alph Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 Is there any actual news about this? No. I think a national news paper might have made something up... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smalley Ram Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 Very much doubt it. You couldn't just revalue one player, you would have to do them all. You can't just pick and choose what you revalue. It's not picking and choosing, the requirement is that if sufficient evidence is available that an asset on your balance sheet is carrying at an incorrect value it should be revalued. Not sure how this translates to intellectual assets, weird phrase for a footballer but used in this context to mean a skilled human contracted to the company. This was something that was a big issue a few years ago in respect of IT developers and fashion designers but i changed industry and never followed it up. It could be argued that the carrying value of an asset is the value to the business that owns it, meaning the players contract in this instance but then again if the resale value is demonstrably different then it should still be considered for revalue. The picking and choosing argument would mean that you would only be able to apply this to a class of assets but this was legislated away some years ago. Anyway far too boring Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Fran Van Rams Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 Just too add to the boredom, what happens to the player's book value when they sign a new contract??? All of a sudden, does their value become much higher? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 ......and given the huge effect this must have on the annual accounts, are we really losing money each year or are the losses these slightly fictitious losses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abu Derby Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 I can't see anyone shelling out for Sammon, too many other fish in the sea. He will put his heart and sole into playing for the mighty Rams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philmycock Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 I'd take £3m for Ward any day!! His hamstrings are his Achilles heel, so to speak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.