McRamFan Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Thanks for that.I suppose what it means is that if your post is shown as "posted 8 minutes ago" (or less),you've got a chance.If it shows "9 mins",however,you might have 1 second or 60 seconds to complete the edit. If, on the rare occasion, I am writing a long post, I do it in word (other WPP available) first - mainly because my spelling is awful, due to the over reliance of spell checking software, and I can edit it if I wander off point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GboroRam Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Just quote your post and add a second post. There's no charge, as far as I'm aware. As long as you're not obviously spamming I'm sure we'll all understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 By the way thanks Ramblur for taking this thread so far off topic I can't remember anything that has been posted in it. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Very clever,curtains,I see you're starting to get the hang of it all. The equity position is quite interesting.As at 30/6/11 net assets stood at £21.001m,compared to the 'fair value' figure of £34.434m given on takeover.So despite capital injections of c £14.3m (subsequent loan capital is neutral) and the receipt of 2 substantial chute payments,the figure has fallen dramatically,and may well fall below £15m this year. In fairness I should point out that the takeover figure includes players' regs with a written down book value of £20.565m-out of this group we only received cash for Miller,Earnshaw,Jones,Fagan,Mears and Tito (from memory),so you could reduce the fair value of net assets accordingly (strip out the £20m and replace with the value of sales). Written down value of players' regs as at 30/6/11 was £2.636m.This is likely to feature Barker,Buxton,Bailey,Brayford,Martin,Bavies and anyone bought for 11/12 who crept into the 10/11 accounts (can't be that much though,because £2.4m is indicated in PBSE for 11/12).You could therefore argue that the value of players is understated for 10/11. As an aside,for anyone who studies the accounts of the whole group and can't understand why the loss in the consolidated accounts is less than that shown in the DCFC accounts,the reason is down to the write out of negative goodwill (which has the effect of increasing profit/reducing loss,as opposed to the write down of goodwill,which has the opposite effect). Thus,if you take the DCFC loss of £7.679m and deduct write down of £1.844m of negative goodwill,you arrive at the £5.835m loss shown in the GS Derby UK Ltd consolidated accounts. Apologies for resurrecting this thread,as I honestly thought I'd finished with it.Having read a thread re FFP on another forum,which featured the fact that youth development would be excluded from FFP calculations,it got me thinking about Academy implications in respect of my above post. As substantial sums will have been spent on the Academy during our owners' tenure,this would have had a drag on net assets because,whereas the Academy expenditure represents a drain on the asset of cash(and impacts negatively on the balance sheet),there's no counterbalance in the form of a reflection of the potential assets being created in our youth set up (such value would only become apparent in the accounts as and when any such players were sold). Therefore,to get a fairer impression of movements in net assets you'd have to assess the difference between the potential value of (unrecorded) assets now,as opposed to the value of such inherited assets.An impossible job,but I think most would acknowledge that the difference could be substantial and may well have a favourable future impact on the balance sheet. I suppose the best way of looking at Academy expenditure would be to classify it as the advance payment of 'transfer fees'.Of course it also means that there's no such thing as a 'free' Academy product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Ramblur do you think that if you put 2 and 2 together particularly as Green has gone and have no idea what the offer was to him we will be spending much at all closed season with the Rams finances as they are. For me we seem th have a massive back room team ie Simon Clough. Andy Garner. Micky Forsyth. Darren Wassall. Gary Crosby. Johnny Metgod. Martin Taylor. Etc Surely we need to trim that. Don't particularly see that as a massive back room team,curtains (Wassall is Academy,of course).I could think of other areas to trim back on.Clough stated a while back that he had a little money to spend,but that any bigger signings would have to be subsidised by outgoing transfers.Glick seemed to be saying little different in a RD interview around the same time. I noticed in the latest Q&A thread that we were "looking" to bring in 4 players,but of course this could depend on outgoings.Just words,until they become actions.I also notice Glick was supposed to have said that if Nigel identified a striker they would back him with money-but does this money have to come from a sale?.Seem to remember Glick has been saying this for nearly 2 years-again more words not yet converted into actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curb Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 I believe they mentioned the potential outgoings as Maguire, Addison, Croft etc. As we have seen before though, it depends on a, somebody coming in for the player, and b, the player's willingness to take a potential drop in wages for the sake of getting regular games. Not very encouraging tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
networker1884 Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 poor Daveo would have kittens if you brought that thread back onto the front page. ...and it's back on the front page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boycie Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 You ******* ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boycie Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 It's no good liking it sunny Jim, when Daveo see's it on front of t'forum, thee'll be banished, banished a tell thee! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 I've already got 2 kittens, pain in the arse, talking of pain in the arse... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boycie Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 I've already got 2 kittens, pain in the arse, talking of pain in the arse... go on Daveo! Do him! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mozza Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 i got a bollocking for bringing a long dead, dead thread back from the dead.. now this !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ladyram Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 Whatever you do Mo55y, don't diss Daveo's Cupasoups. That's all I'm saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mozza Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ebIGyysl1Fg/UIhYdAYvQMI/AAAAAAAABnc/UTRo1A4bkgc/s1600/****-hits-the-fan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 i got a bollocking for bringing a long dead, dead thread back from the dead.. now this !! They were talking about accounts in another thread, you just bumped a random thread about a dead fan, kinda different now behave or your likes will get a reset Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boycie Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 That was an admission their, did you see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.