Trouble ahead?

[Ghost of Clough]

13 minutes ago, RamNut said:

Sorry, but the  valuation wasn't in 2007. Jones Lang Lasalle undertook the valuation on 23 may 2013 and on the basis of that valuation adjusted accordingly , the valuation in the accounts for the period ending june 2017  - including the development of the Yard is - @£59.3m

 

Because that is what it states. Show me where you get £40m. 

thats the nub of the issue -  how did a £59.3m asset become valued at £40m (a year later?) with a pricetag of £80m?

I can’t remember which set of accounts the £40m cost comes from, but 16/17 Sevco 5112 says “historical cost of £20.9m” and “values at £60.1m”. Therefore I think it’s justifiable to say a £20m increase in recent cost will add £20m to the value. 

[RamNut]

5 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

I can’t remember which set of accounts the £40m cost comes from, but 16/17 Sevco 5112 says “historical cost of £20.9m” and “values at £60.1m”. Therefore I think it’s justifiable to say a £20m increase in recent cost will add £20m to the value. 

There was no previous value of £40m in any historical accounts, the net value was £59.3m and rhat appeared to relate purely to Pride Park given the previous notes about historical cost etc.

these are the relevant pages from the latest accounts......maybe someone can explain it. my interpretation in as noted below:

The net value for 2017 is again stated to be £59.3m, (however it is now unclear whether this relates purely to Pride Park).

the gross value - prior to any depreciation over time - is 78.5 + 1.469 = £80m. If the tangible fixed assets are purely Pride Park then is this the maximum value and the justification for the price paid?

this is where i lose the plot.......

 there is reference to £19.2m of depreciation. This is how an £80m gross valuation heads south towards a net value of @ £60m?

 It is tempting to wonder if this also how a £59.3m asset becomes a £40.1m asset, but if so that seems to be double counting the depreciation?

and so £80m - £40m = profit on disposl of tangible assets of £39.94m

and the final twist.....increase in amounts owed = £60.88m - which is presumably why someone previously observed that no money seems to have actually been exchanged. 

It does look like a Get-out-of-gaol-free card.

[Comrade 86]

32 minutes ago, RamNut said:

There was no previous value of £40m in any historical accounts, the net value was £59.3m and rhat appeared to relate purely to Pride Park given the previous notes about historical cost etc.

these are the relevant pages from the latest accounts......maybe someone can explain it. my interpretation in as noted below:

The net value for 2017 is again stated to be £59.3m, (however it is now unclear whether this relates purely to Pride Park).

the gross value - prior to any depreciation over time - is 78.5 + 1.469 = £80m. If the tangible fixed assets are purely Pride Park then is this the maximum value and the justification for the price paid?

this is where i lose the plot.......

 there is reference to £19.2m of depreciation. This is how an £80m gross valuation heads south towards a net value of @ £60m?

 It is tempting to wonder if this also how a £59.3m asset becomes a £40.1m asset, but if so that seems to be double counting the depreciation?

and so £80m - £40m = profit on disposl of tangible assets of £39.94m

and the final twist.....increase in amounts owed = £60.88m - which is presumably why someone previously observed that no money seems to have actually been exchanged. 

It does look like a Get-out-of-gaol-free card.

Jesus, you're borderline obsessive with this shizzle. Go walk the dog, drink some tea, take a load off for a while maybe?

You have your opinion, other folks have theirs. Stop banging on about it for crissakes. You've repeated the same post 2 or 3 dozen times now so the whole world knows where you stand on the matter.

[Archied]

7 hours ago, RamNut said:

Sorry, but the  valuation wasn't in 2007. Jones Lang Lasalle undertook the valuation on 23 may 2013 and on the basis of that valuation adjusted accordingly , the valuation in the accounts for the period ending june 2017  - including the development of the Yard is - @£59.3m

 

Because that is what it states. Show me where you get £40m. 

thats the nub of the issue -  how did a £59.3m asset become valued at £40m (a year later?) with a pricetag of £80m?

Your Steve Gibson and I claim my ten pounds

[Ghost of Clough]

1 hour ago, RamNut said:

There was no previous value of £40m in any historical accounts, the net value was £59.3m and rhat appeared to relate purely to Pride Park given the previous notes about historical cost etc.

these are the relevant pages from the latest accounts......maybe someone can explain it. my interpretation in as noted below:

The net value for 2017 is again stated to be £59.3m, (however it is now unclear whether this relates purely to Pride Park).

the gross value - prior to any depreciation over time - is 78.5 + 1.469 = £80m. If the tangible fixed assets are purely Pride Park then is this the maximum value and the justification for the price paid?

this is where i lose the plot.......

 there is reference to £19.2m of depreciation. This is how an £80m gross valuation heads south towards a net value of @ £60m?

 It is tempting to wonder if this also how a £59.3m asset becomes a £40.1m asset, but if so that seems to be double counting the depreciation?

and so £80m - £40m = profit on disposl of tangible assets of £39.94m

and the final twist.....increase in amounts owed = £60.88m - which is presumably why someone previously observed that no money seems to have actually been exchanged. 

It does look like a Get-out-of-gaol-free card.

I’ll have a proper look for the c£40m figure when I’m fully awake. 

 

Sale of stadium = £81.1m

Profit = £39.94m

Loss in Tangible assets = £43.94m

[RamNut]

1 hour ago, 86 points said:

Jesus, you're borderline obsessive with this shizzle. Go walk the dog, drink some tea, take a load off for a while maybe?

You have your opinion, other folks have theirs. Stop banging on about it for crissakes. You've repeated the same post 2 or 3 dozen times now so the whole world knows where you stand on the matter.

Actually i have never posted that before. Shows how much attention you pay.

[Carnero]

@RamNut If you look at the accounts of "The Derby County Football Club Ltd" rather than "Sevco 5112" then all will make sense. I've told you this before but you don't listen... "The Derby County Football Club Ltd" is the football club that plays football, that we support and which has sold it's stadium.

"Sevco 5112" is simply the parent company of "The Derby County Football Club Ltd".

[cosmic]

2 hours ago, RamNut said:

It does look like a Get-out-of-gaol-free card.

Bloody hell, how old is your Monopoly board?

[ram59]

8 hours ago, RamNut said:

Sorry, but the  valuation wasn't in 2007. 

I beg to differ. There was a valuation shown on the accounts for the year ending 30th June 2008. This valuation was dated 11th  December 2007 and valued the stadium at £55m.

I said that there had been subsequent valuations, but the point I was trying to make was that the stadium was valued as high as £55m nearly 12 years ago, which supports the more recent £80m valuation. 

[Archied]

Bloody daft all this claiming we’ve over valued it , a fantastic stadium with a biggish football club that calls it home prepared to lease it long term , other commercial venture operating from it , planning permission to extend and improve , are we really saying that 80 mill is overvalued ? 

[RamNut]

30 minutes ago, Carnero said:

@RamNut If you look at the accounts of "The Derby County Football Club Ltd" rather than "Sevco 5112" then all will make sense. I've told you this before but you don't listen... "The Derby County Football Club Ltd" is the football club that plays football, that we support and which has sold it's stadium.

"Sevco 5112" is simply the parent company of "The Derby County Football Club Ltd".

Quite happy to listen . the accounts pages i posted are the Derby County accounts. 

[ThePrisoner]

44 minutes ago, cosmic said:

Bloody hell, how old is your Monopoly board?

Doth not passeth go.  Doth not collecteth £200

[Mucker1884]

59 minutes ago, cosmic said:

Bloody hell, how old is your Monopoly board?

 

12 minutes ago, ThePrisoner said:

Doth not passeth go.  Doth not collecteth £200

Thine patrons of thine Old Kent Road Hostelry have contracted scabies.  Thy must pay 3s/6d for a sack of oranges to aid their recuperation, and a three-bob-bitny-farthing for disinfectant.  Total to pay... erm... call it seven-and-sixpenny-thrups... for cash!

[Stroker Ace]

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.birminghammail.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/efl-issue-statement-aston-villa-16180889.amp

 

So Gibson got nowhere with his quest. His proposal for an independent review into us, Villa and the Wendies got voted down.

[ossieram]

It's legal, It's been done, Gibson is pissed off, the EFL are happy, lets move on.

[Andrew3000]

1 hour ago, ossieram said:

It's legal, It's been done, Gibson is pissed off, the EFL are happy, lets move on.

So we should be announcing the signing of Shinnie very soon.

[bigbadbob]

1 minute ago, Andrew3000 said:

So we should be announcing the signing of Shinnie very soon.

Haven't we got to wait until the transfer window opens?

[Animal is a Ram]

17 hours ago, RamNut said:

What a load of  owd cobblers.

the £60m valuation comes from the accounts . Therefore the rest of what you have put is rowlocks. I love the idea that the dug out improvements have made a difference. Proper made me laff that one.

Actually, it doesn't make the rest of it 'rowlocks' (sic).

Of course they will have made a difference. It's like saying tidying up a room in your house won't have made a bit of difference when selling. It'll be small, of course, but it will still have an impact. You can't just pick one thing though. But that wouldn't suit your point would it?

The fact remains that the stadium was, I say again, INDEPENDENTLY VALUED. You can't just make up a figure. Else he could have gone "£200m please, me. Sure thing, me. Pleasure doing business with me."

But again, that wouldn't fit with your point would it?

[RamNut]

13 minutes ago, Animal is a Ram said:

Actually, it doesn't make the rest of it 'rowlocks' (sic).

Of course they will have made a difference. It's like saying tidying up a room in your house won't have made a bit of difference when selling. It'll be small, of course, but it will still have an impact. You can't just pick one thing though. But that wouldn't suit your point would it?

The fact remains that the stadium was, I say again, INDEPENDENTLY VALUED. You can't just make up a figure. Else he could have gone "£200m please, me. Sure thing, me. Pleasure doing business with me."

But again, that wouldn't fit with your point would it?

What point is that?

i'm just asking someone to explain it.....with facts.....not made up stuff.

So far no one has. 

[Comrade 86]

6 hours ago, RamNut said:

Actually i have never posted that before. Shows how much attention you pay.

I was referring to your ongoing whining about the deal for the stadium but never mind, fill your boots old chap.