Carnero Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 6 minutes ago, ramblur said: Don't think anyone ever suggested we were 'cooking the books' ? What about those experts who seemed convinced we'd break FFP rules last season, the season before, the season before that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 13 minutes ago, Saul Pimpson said: What about those experts who seemed convinced we'd break FFP rules last season, the season before, the season before that... Turned out they have absolutely no idea what they are on about. I am sure they all held their hands up and admitted their mistake though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 5 minutes ago, Saul Pimpson said: What about those experts who seemed convinced we'd break FFP rules last season, the season before, the season before that... Don't know if that's a dig at me,but I suggested a year before the event that we'd need hefty exceptional income in 15/16,and so it turned out,with a £12m loan cancellation.The year before I suggested we were struggling,possibly to the tune of £2m+ on the basis of normal, underlying income and expenditure,and again loan related exceptional income of £3m came to the rescue.The previous year,I don't remember saying anything.For the current season,I believe the sale of Hendrick has pulled us through,and for next season (given that there don't appear to be any more loans to cancel),I suspect we may need to sell again,unless we take advantage of any undershoots in 15/16 and 16/17 (and even that may not be enough). I recognise (but think it very unlikely) that we may lop millions and millions off the wage bill,just as I also realise that a good deal of the hefty £7m rise in admin expenses in 15/16 may be non recurring,with obvious (positive) implications for 16/17 and 17/18. I,for one,have never suggested the possibility of 'cooking the books'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rynny Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 3 minutes ago, ramblur said: Don't know if that's a dig at me,but I suggested a year before the event that we'd need hefty exceptional income in 15/16,and so it turned out,with a £12m loan cancellation.The year before I suggested we were struggling,possibly to the tune of £2m+ on the basis of normal, underlying income and expenditure,and again loan related exceptional income of £3m came to the rescue.The previous year,I don't remember saying anything.For the current season,I believe the sale of Hendrick has pulled us through,and for next season (given that there don't appear to be any more loans to cancel),I suspect we may need to sell again,unless we take advantage of any undershoots in 15/16 and 16/17 (and even that may not be enough). I recognise (but think it very unlikely) that we may lop millions and millions off the wage bill,just as I also realise that a good deal of the hefty £7m rise in admin expenses in 15/16 may be non recurring,with obvious (positive) implications for 16/17 and 17/18. I,for one,have never suggested the possibility of 'cooking the books'. I think it was a dig at the forest fans who have said we are going to be in a transfer embargo each season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 20 minutes ago, rynny said: I think it was a dig at the forest fans who have said we are going to be in a transfer embargo each season. I suppose an 'expert' gump is,by definition, an authority on stupidity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnero Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 43 minutes ago, ramblur said: Don't know if that's a dig at me,but I suggested a year before the event that we'd need hefty exceptional income in 15/16,and so it turned out,with a £12m loan cancellation.The year before I suggested we were struggling,possibly to the tune of £2m+ on the basis of normal, underlying income and expenditure,and again loan related exceptional income of £3m came to the rescue.The previous year,I don't remember saying anything.For the current season,I believe the sale of Hendrick has pulled us through,and for next season (given that there don't appear to be any more loans to cancel),I suspect we may need to sell again,unless we take advantage of any undershoots in 15/16 and 16/17 (and even that may not be enough). I recognise (but think it very unlikely) that we may lop millions and millions off the wage bill,just as I also realise that a good deal of the hefty £7m rise in admin expenses in 15/16 may be non recurring,with obvious (positive) implications for 16/17 and 17/18. I,for one,have never suggested the possibility of 'cooking the books'. No it wasn't a dig at you! I replied to you as you had referenced "something @Diag Ram had said" which, as I said, I believe will be the new reporting requirements under FRS 102! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 5 hours ago, ramblur said: Contracts are still being amortised on an equal yearly basis,it's just that instead of the fee,it's now the fee less a residual value that's been allocated.There's only a 'hit' in the final year if the contract isn't extended,or the player is sold for less than the RV. It also seems that the RV is reviewed periodically. Having thought about it,not so sure about "on an equal yearly basis" now,seeing as the RV is reviewed (and therefore subject to possible change).As I've absolutely no intention of wading through FRS102,I'll have to leave it at that.In other words none of us will be able to estimate amortisation charges,but we know that they will be less(on an individual case basis) than would have applied prior to 15/16 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 4 hours ago, ramblur said: Surely not that much more difficult for someone of your calibre,rev? Bit premature there.It's certainly that much more difficult for me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 Luckily,the club's accounts give a brief description of the nuts and bolts of it, and it seems that if the RV is reduced,an impairment will be introduced (with the amortisation continuing on a straight line,equal instalments basis). Seeing as all of that will be Double Dutch to most (including me),I'll try and give an example of what I think might happen:- Player signed for £5m on a 4 year contract,and allocated a RV of £1m. Amortisation will be applied to (£5m-£1m) =£4m on a straight line basis over contract =£1m/year. After a period,it's decided that the RV should be £750k,and an impairment of £250k is introduced.At the end of year 3 you have £3m of amortisation +£250k impairment. What happens thereafter depends on what happens to the player in the final year. If someone like @Diag Ram tells me this is wrong,I'll tuck into a very large glass of wine and revel in the ecstasy of knowing I'll never again talk about amortisation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.