Weststander
Well-known member
For me - Fulham > Derby > Villa > Boro
Agree with that. Boro a clear bottom, following their lack of any class.
For me - Fulham > Derby > Villa > Boro
I have noticed the odd Palace related dig Fair play. I suppose all the time the fine for late accounts is peanuts clubs/people will take advantage. I reckon our wage bill will be up and around £85m this season. Thanks for creating this content in simple terms for non accountants like me to read and understand.
Fair enough - which accounting rules say you can't do it?
Don't businesses have some leeway in how they depreciate their assets?
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.
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.
So given that they've broken the law (according to posts above) will they get pulled up on it?
I'm sad and according the the number of posts I seem to have made on NSC, I have no life. But I'm not sad enough to read that article.Yeah Trig, stop being so lazy. [emoji16]
Which is worse, losing in the semi-final or losing in the final?If you hate Boro more than Villa, why do you want them to turn them over and make the final ?
Fulham are decent and certainly better than Boro, but flaky. I definitely don't want Boro having the chance of fluking their way up to the PL in a one-off at Wembley. I'd be mightily pissed off if that happened.
Nope, I stick to my original post. I hope Villa finish the job and dry hump them tonight. Then I won't mind too much who goes up.
Which is worse, losing in the semi-final or losing in the final?
Ok, it turns out my life is not interesting enough to keep me from the article after all.It's in the article.
The residual value of an intangible asset with finite useful life is assumed to be zero unless:
(IASB, 2012)
1. A commitment, by a third party, of purchasing the asset after its useful life
exist; or
2. An active market exists and residual value can be determined and the market
will still exist after the useful life of the asset.
Active Market:
Even though an active market exist, it is impossible to know the actual value of the
player as it involves too many features, such as: reputation, form, age, abilities and the
financial status of the selling/buying club. However, with today’s technology, including
statistical data of almost everything a player does on the pitch (such as: passing stats,
goals and areas covered) we think it might be possible to use it to create some kind of
valuation mode
Forest's chairman / major investor before Fawaz died on a running machine.
I hope that's not a tease.If someone has written to the Financial Reporting Council they might
You must have been a joy when Mr Krab was sulking.Surprised how many Derby fans appeared to be in tears last night. They were easily the worst team in the play offs, certainly nowhere near the standard of Villa, much less Fulham, so they can't have gone into it with huge expectations. I'm not into sobbing at football matches myself and find it a bit cringeworthy watching other grown adults do it
Surprised how many Derby fans appeared to be in tears last night. They were easily the worst team in the play offs, certainly nowhere near the standard of Villa, much less Fulham, so they can't have gone into it with huge expectations. I'm not into sobbing at football matches myself and find it a bit cringeworthy watching other grown adults do it, but last night really did take the biscuit. If a team finished like we did two seasons ago, with a heroic last ditch failure to reach the top two, a chronic injury crisis in the first leg of the semi final, and then a stirring but ultimately futile performance (and a shit refereeing decision) in the second leg, then I could understand it more. Not in Derby's situation though.
As for the final, hopefully it will be Fulham against Villa, as Boro is a disgusting place for an away trip. Then I'd be grateful if Fulham could turn Villa over at Wembley, as there were plenty in the Holte End who took rather too much pleasure (for my liking) in their spawny last ditch equaliser in our 2017 promotion season. Screw you all, and I'll make an exception to my rule of not wanting to see football fans sobbing just for you
Ok, it turns out my life is not interesting enough to keep me from the article after all.
In the article it says the residual value doesn't have to be zero if there is an active market for the asset and it is probable that the market will exist at the end of the assets useful life. You could certainly argue that you can sell players and so they have residual value. The article then defines 'active market' which requires the assets to be homogeneous. Where is this 'active market' definition taken from?
https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:721716/FULLTEXT01.pdf
your MumOk, it turns out my life is not interesting enough to keep me from
Your payroll cost fir 2015/16 was £80.5m. That was under the old broadcasting income deal (which inevitably falls the way of players), and you've since acquired players who'd demand top money Sakho, Townsend, Van Aanholt, Schlupp and Benteke. I reckon CPFC's payroll costs for 2017/18 will be £95m to £100m.
It's the way of the PL.
View attachment 96932
*Dullard Klaxon Alert �� Approaching*
Wage bill can only increase by £7m plus any extra money generated by the club itself, ie excluding broadcasting income increases.
Does the generated by itself include sponsorship / commercial, allowing scope for ‘overly generous’ receipts of that ilk?
We’ll have to wait years to find out! But what your guess be on CP’s 2017/18 total payroll costs?
You need to read the whole article. There is a definition of an 'active market' and it is very hard to argue that it could include footballers.Ok, it turns out my life is not interesting enough to keep me from the article after all.
In the article it says the residual value doesn't have to be zero if there is an active market for the asset and it is probable that the market will exist at the end of the assets useful life. You could certainly argue that you can sell players and so they have residual value. The article then defines 'active market' which requires the assets to be homogeneous. Where is this 'active market' definition taken from?
https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:721716/FULLTEXT01.pdf
You need to read the whole article. There is a definition of an 'active market' and it is very hard to argue that it could include footballers.