Weststander
Well-known member
Forest's chairman / major investor before Fawaz died on a running machine.
Oh, I get their hilarity now.
Forest's chairman / major investor before Fawaz died on a running machine.
Derby fans in the (Bricklayers Arms) pub were on good form, very knowledgeable and pessimistic about their chances. Derby fans (mostly younger) in Bishop's Park were mostly spoiling for a fight and seemingly singing about a Forest fan (?) who died on a running machine (hard to be sure due to the accent and slurred lyrics). Fulham fans waited until after the match to behave like dicks in front of the Derby fans. All very amusing for a neutral.
Always an interesting read.
Is that really wrong if that's the way the want to do it long term? It just postpones the point at which the cost is going to hit them. Seems ok to me.
On the contrary - hate Boro and Villa, although Boro far more. So I hope Boro beat Villa and then lose by a hatful in the final.
That would be Nigel Doughty, pretty poor form and embarrassing. All clubs have their idiots of course but still, I don't like that one.
We're 1 from 4 aren't we - bang on expectations.
I think both Brentford and Sheffield Utd have poor records (no wins from 8 attempts or something) and Fulham's own record isn't all that I believe,
Fair enough - which accounting rules say you can't do it?Because I'm a saddo accounts geek I read the whole article (very good btw El Pres).
It's not ok because the accounting rules specifically state that it's not ok. It's cheating.
I understand the second part, I just didn't know that it wasn't ok to reflect as asset like that, because it can be a true fair reflection of the value of an asset - if you buy a player for £5m, and with 1 year left on the contract you sell them for £5m, you didn't really need to write their purchase price off as a cost, do you. But if that's against the rules, fair enough, I didn't know.Their deviation from mandatory standards on amortisation of costs isn't OK. It's against company law.
It's not just a football/FFP issue. For anyone trading with or lending to a limited company, they have to know that the financial position (balance sheet) is true and fair in accordance with accounting standards/The Companies Act. Auditors then have to sign off to confirm that. The directors are not permitted to ignore company law and reinvent the rules as they see fit, to lie about the financial position and result to that date.
If, as above, it's against company law, then fair enough, they can't do it, it's cheating. However, if companies are allowed to amortise assets in that way, the fact that it helps comply with FFP isn't on it's own an issue.If in the short term it allows them to comply with FFP, avoid a transfer embargo and achieve promotion to the PL then it's not okay though surely?
I've a bit of a soft spot for Derby honestly. My brother was there for Uni so I spent a fair bit of time in the town. Plus their fans were generally nice enough when we went up there, the Solly and Conor incidents aside.
Footballing wise though I'd have liked to see them progress because of Gary Rowett to further rub it in the noses of Birmingham which, in contrast to Derby, is actually a shit-hole filled with ********.
It's in the article.Fair enough - which accounting rules say you can't do it?
Don't businesses have some leeway in how they depreciate their assets?
So given that they've broken the law (according to posts above) will they get pulled up on it?
It's in the article.
Yeah Trig, stop being so lazy. [emoji16]It's in the article.
Yep, not sure why everyone wants a trip to villa again. Not much fun had there other than trying to find the one kiosk that served alcohol.
That's not nice but not unique to one club.
Both sets of fans were pretty loud at times (very unusual for Fulham) although both could do with a few more chants (and fewer clackers). Derby did sing about Fulham being a shithole and wanting to go home, which I though was pretty funny.
Yeah, Fulham would be a lot more appealing, surely?!?
For me - Fulham > Derby > Villa > Boro
Cheers. I'm looking forward to doing something (and I won't do a hatchet job) when Palace announce their results, but Parish refuses to publish them, even though the. It's a genuine shame as (guilty secret revealed) I thought he did the right thing in pursuing Pulis for the retainer a few years ago, and Palace are a well run club these days, although he doesn't help himself at times by setting up service companies and calling them things such as Smoke and Mirrors Limited.
It also means that I can't finish the club valuation article for 2017 and have to use Palace's value from 2016, which is less than half of the 2017 value if my estimates are correct.
View attachment 96926
http://priceoffootball.com/premier-league-club-values-2017/