So the Jacks fans have a surprise for us

1. By definition an asset must produce economic benefits which should flow to the entity. This can be directly through sale of the asset or indirectly through use of the asset to generate economic benefits. Either way economic benefits must be expected to flow to the entity. That is the definition of an asset and isn't really up for discussion.

2 The explanation as to why an asset is included in accounts is because it needs to be controlled by an entity first, and then also generate economic benefits which are expected to flow to that entity. So two stadiums which generate revenue, CCS and the San Siro - One is an asset controlled by Cardiff City and hence on their balance sheet, the other is an asset controlled by the council, and hence on their balance sheet. It's hardly rocket science is it?

I believe you deal in property development out there? I think this might be why you are being too simplistic with your view of an asset as you are valuing the stadia on the price of the land alone.

It's plain that you do not understand accountancy. Fair enough.

if you like. Now shall we get back to the debate?

You're argument is arse backwards. Yes, swansea can't add £30n to their asset base due to the income they earn. They can't add it because they haven't spent it. Cardiff have.

what the hell does that matter? its not worth £40m. I could spend a hundred grand doing up a vauxhall Astra, it wont be worth £100k though.

As for the training ground, so you think clubs say "let's spend £10m on a state of the art training facility as we will then have a nice building that we can sell if we want to"
Investment decisions are taken on the benefits that will accrue, usually net income.

Where did I say that? Its like counting an oven as an asset because it cooks food better, raises morale and results will improve and thus cash. Its nonsense.

The stadium is not just worth the land, it's a working asset thy generates income. What would stop a third party buying it an leasing it back to Cardiff for £xm per annum. That gives it value. As I've said that, whether its saleable or not doesn't mean you can't capitalise the costs of building it. Any other business would do the same.

it is just worth the land.

Why are Cardiff and Swansea expanding their stadiums? To earn more money. So these benefits accrue over a long period of time, hence why you capitalise the associated expenditure and depreciate over an appropriate time frame. That way you better match your costs to your revenue, fulfilling the accruals or matching concept that forms one of the fundamental principles of accounting.

what nonsense. You cannot predict future income, you could be in league 2 in 5 years time and the stadium making a loss. Complete and utter twaddle.

To use your analogy, if you spend £100k on an Astra but it earnt you £20k a year then yes you could probably capitalise the spend and declare it as an asset.

Look I'm sorry that accountancy rules and regulations aren't to your liking and you fail to understand how business works, but being ignorant doesn't make you right or prove that Cardiff city have done anything wrong.

1. By definition an asset must produce economic benefits which should flow to the entity. This can be directly through sale of the asset or indirectly through use of the asset to generate economic benefits. Either way economic benefits must be expected to flow to the entity. That is the definition of an asset and isn't really up for discussion.

so it doesnt have to generate regular income as I said then?

2 The explanation as to why an asset is included in accounts is because it needs to be controlled by an entity first, and then also generate economic benefits which are expected to flow to that entity. So two stadiums which generate revenue, CCS and the San Siro - One is an asset controlled by Cardiff City and hence on their balance sheet, the other is an asset controlled by the council, and hence on their balance sheet. It's hardly rocket science is it?

I was being facetious. The stadium is on the accounts sheet as £40m this is because that is how much it cost not because its oredicted earnings. Thats clear. Yet im questioning why people are offsetting the debt with this figure because in a firesale it will only be worth the land it sits on, nobody is going to buy a football stadium in Cardiff and due to the firesale being needed the stadium isnt going to generate any further monies if Cardiff cannot continue to trade.

I believe you deal in property development out there? I think this might be why you are being too simplistic with your view of an asset as you are valuing the stadia on the price of the land alone.

yes i do deal with property. Not sure if its having a baring however, im not denying its accepted to be on the accounts. Im questioning the actual point of theoretically taking £40m off the debt citing the stadium as a reason when there is no way its worth £40m to you.

It's plain that you do not understand accountancy. Fair enough.

if you like. Now shall we get back to the debate?

You're argument is arse backwards. Yes, swansea can't add £30n to their asset base due to the income they earn. They can't add it because they haven't spent it. Cardiff have.

what the hell does that matter? its not worth £40m. I could spend a hundred grand doing up a vauxhall Astra, it wont be worth £100k though.

As for the training ground, so you think clubs say "let's spend £10m on a state of the art training facility as we will then have a nice building that we can sell if we want to"
Investment decisions are taken on the benefits that will accrue, usually net income.

Where did I say that? Its like counting an oven as an asset because it cooks food better, raises morale and results will improve and thus cash. Its nonsense.

The stadium is not just worth the land, it's a working asset thy generates income. What would stop a third party buying it an leasing it back to Cardiff for £xm per annum. That gives it value. As I've said that, whether its saleable or not doesn't mean you can't capitalise the costs of building it. Any other business would do the same.

it is just worth the land.

Why are Cardiff and Swansea expanding their stadiums? To earn more money. So these benefits accrue over a long period of time, hence why you capitalise the associated expenditure and depreciate over an appropriate time frame. That way you better match your costs to your revenue, fulfilling the accruals or matching concept that forms one of the fundamental principles of accounting.

what nonsense. You cannot predict future income, you could be in league 2 in 5 years time and the stadium making a loss. Complete and utter twaddle.

To use your analogy, if you spend £100k on an Astra but it earnt you £20k a year then yes you could probably capitalise the spend and declare it as an asset.

so if I owed 400k and the astra earned me £20k a year, do you think it would be sensible for me to assume I owe nothing due to the Astras potential earnings over the next 20 years? What if the Astra stops working?

Look I'm sorry that accountancy rules and regulations aren't to your liking and you fail to understand how business works, but being ignorant doesn't make you right or prove that Cardiff city have done anything wrong.

I have no issue with the rules of accountancy, this is what you are failing to grasp. I have an issue with the people interpreting it. Whatever you put down as the value of the stadium asset over £6m cannot realistically be used to theoretically offset any debt. If the worst came to the worst and everything was called in, thats the most you would get for it.

1. By definition an asset must produce economic benefits which should flow to the entity. This can be directly through sale of the asset or indirectly through use of the asset to generate economic benefits. Either way economic benefits must be expected to flow to the entity. That is the definition of an asset and isn't really up for discussion.

so it doesnt have to generate regular income as I said then?

I like how you just put the word regular in there, that's sly Your words were "it doesn't have to generate income." That is your argument style though it's to be expected

2 The explanation as to why an asset is included in accounts is because it needs to be controlled by an entity first, and then also generate economic benefits which are expected to flow to that entity. So two stadiums which generate revenue, CCS and the San Siro - One is an asset controlled by Cardiff City and hence on their balance sheet, the other is an asset controlled by the council, and hence on their balance sheet. It's hardly rocket science is it?

I was being facetious. The stadium is on the accounts sheet as £40m this is because that is how much it cost not because its oredicted earnings. Thats clear. Yet im questioning why people are offsetting the debt with this figure because in a firesale it will only be worth the land it sits on, nobody is going to buy a football stadium in Cardiff and due to the firesale being needed the stadium isnt going to generate any further monies if Cardiff cannot continue to trade.

We are not in a firesale situation though and we are generating revenues from the stadium so it is worth a hell of a lot of money to us. This is the fundamental point you dont seem to get your head around

I believe you deal in property development out there? I think this might be why you are being too simplistic with your view of an asset as you are valuing the stadia on the price of the land alone.

yes i do deal with property. Not sure if its having a baring however, im not denying its accepted to be on the accounts. Im questioning the actual point of theoretically taking £40m off the debt citing the stadium as a reason when there is no way its worth £40m to you.

I asked because i am assuming the only assets you really deal with in your line of work would be properties, which normally are not used for revenue generating purposes and would sit on your balance sheet at market value only. I think this is where you are getting your understanding of valuation from and I think it is distorting your view on the subject somewhat

1. By definition an asset must produce economic benefits which should flow to the entity. This can be directly through sale of the asset or indirectly through use of the asset to generate economic benefits. Either way economic benefits must be expected to flow to the entity. That is the definition of an asset and isn't really up for discussion.

so it doesnt have to generate regular income as I said then?

I like how you just put the word regular in there, that's sly Your words were "it doesn't have to generate income." That is your argument style though it's to be expected

i didnt even know i added it, ill take it away and I still stand by it. Something doesnt have to generate income to be an asset. My house that I live in doesnt generate income yet its still an asset because I can sell it.

2 The explanation as to why an asset is included in accounts is because it needs to be controlled by an entity first, and then also generate economic benefits which are expected to flow to that entity. So two stadiums which generate revenue, CCS and the San Siro - One is an asset controlled by Cardiff City and hence on their balance sheet, the other is an asset controlled by the council, and hence on their balance sheet. It's hardly rocket science is it?

I was being facetious. The stadium is on the accounts sheet as £40m this is because that is how much it cost not because its oredicted earnings. Thats clear. Yet im questioning why people are offsetting the debt with this figure because in a firesale it will only be worth the land it sits on, nobody is going to buy a football stadium in Cardiff and due to the firesale being needed the stadium isnt going to generate any further monies if Cardiff cannot continue to trade.

We are not in a firesale situation though and we are generating revenues from the stadium so it is worth a hell of a lot of money to us. This is the fundamental point you dont seem to get your head around

thats all well and good. But its ridiculous to use potential earnings to wipe out debt as nobody knows how much the stadium can generate, next year it may be making a loss. So how is it put down as £40m?

I believe you deal in property development out there? I think this might be why you are being too simplistic with your view of an asset as you are valuing the stadia on the price of the land alone.

yes i do deal with property. Not sure if its having a baring however, im not denying its accepted to be on the accounts. Im questioning the actual point of theoretically taking £40m off the debt citing the stadium as a reason when there is no way its worth £40m to you.

I asked because i am assuming the only assets you really deal with in your line of work would be properties, which normally are not used for revenue generating purposes and would sit on your balance sheet at market value only. I think this is where you are getting your understanding of valuation from and I think it is distorting your view on the subject somewhat

i have no issue with how it is written. My issue is people are writing off debt based on a number you dont have.

It's plain that you do not understand accountancy. Fair enough.

if you like. Now shall we get back to the debate?

You're argument is arse backwards. Yes, swansea can't add £30n to their asset base due to the income they earn. They can't add it because they haven't spent it. Cardiff have.

what the hell does that matter? its not worth £40m. I could spend a hundred grand doing up a vauxhall Astra, it wont be worth £100k though.

As for the training ground, so you think clubs say "let's spend £10m on a state of the art training facility as we will then have a nice building that we can sell if we want to"
Investment decisions are taken on the benefits that will accrue, usually net income.

Where did I say that? Its like counting an oven as an asset because it cooks food better, raises morale and results will improve and thus cash. Its nonsense.

The stadium is not just worth the land, it's a working asset thy generates income. What would stop a third party buying it an leasing it back to Cardiff for £xm per annum. That gives it value. As I've said that, whether its saleable or not doesn't mean you can't capitalise the costs of building it. Any other business would do the same.

it is just worth the land.

Why are Cardiff and Swansea expanding their stadiums? To earn more money. So these benefits accrue over a long period of time, hence why you capitalise the associated expenditure and depreciate over an appropriate time frame. That way you better match your costs to your revenue, fulfilling the accruals or matching concept that forms one of the fundamental principles of accounting.

what nonsense. You cannot predict future income, you could be in league 2 in 5 years time and the stadium making a loss. Complete and utter twaddle.

To use your analogy, if you spend £100k on an Astra but it earnt you £20k a year then yes you could probably capitalise the spend and declare it as an asset.

so if I owed 400k and the astra earned me £20k a year, do you think it would be sensible for me to assume I owe nothing due to the Astras potential earnings over the next 20 years? What if the Astra stops working?

Look I'm sorry that accountancy rules and regulations aren't to your liking and you fail to understand how business works, but being ignorant doesn't make you right or prove that Cardiff city have done anything wrong.

I have no issue with the rules of accountancy, this is what you are failing to grasp. I have an issue with the people interpreting it. Whatever you put down as the value of the stadium asset over £6m cannot realistically be used to theoretically offset any debt. If the worst came to the worst and everything was called in, thats the most you would get for it.

What you owe on it doesn't mean you can't class it as an asset. And if it stops working, your in the realms of impairment or even writing it off. Or you could just repair it and carry on.

People's interpretation is one thing, but you've been arguing that we can't class the stadium as an asset when clearly it is to the running of the club.

What you would get for it in a fire sale doesn't matter as to how you can account for it. You could argue that for players too as nobody will pay you top dollar if they know you're in trouble.

Dismissing the sale and lease back option is naive. Organisations other than football clubs do own stadia you know so there is a market for it.

What is your solution? Do you want us to write of £34m to the P&L?

It's plain that you do not understand accountancy. Fair enough.

if you like. Now shall we get back to the debate?

You're argument is arse backwards. Yes, swansea can't add £30n to their asset base due to the income they earn. They can't add it because they haven't spent it. Cardiff have.

what the hell does that matter? its not worth £40m. I could spend a hundred grand doing up a vauxhall Astra, it wont be worth £100k though.

As for the training ground, so you think clubs say "let's spend £10m on a state of the art training facility as we will then have a nice building that we can sell if we want to"
Investment decisions are taken on the benefits that will accrue, usually net income.

Where did I say that? Its like counting an oven as an asset because it cooks food better, raises morale and results will improve and thus cash. Its nonsense.

The stadium is not just worth the land, it's a working asset thy generates income. What would stop a third party buying it an leasing it back to Cardiff for £xm per annum. That gives it value. As I've said that, whether its saleable or not doesn't mean you can't capitalise the costs of building it. Any other business would do the same.

it is just worth the land.

Why are Cardiff and Swansea expanding their stadiums? To earn more money. So these benefits accrue over a long period of time, hence why you capitalise the associated expenditure and depreciate over an appropriate time frame. That way you better match your costs to your revenue, fulfilling the accruals or matching concept that forms one of the fundamental principles of accounting.

what nonsense. You cannot predict future income, you could be in league 2 in 5 years time and the stadium making a loss. Complete and utter twaddle.

To use your analogy, if you spend £100k on an Astra but it earnt you £20k a year then yes you could probably capitalise the spend and declare it as an asset.

so if I owed 400k and the astra earned me £20k a year, do you think it would be sensible for me to assume I owe nothing due to the Astras potential earnings over the next 20 years? What if the Astra stops working?

Look I'm sorry that accountancy rules and regulations aren't to your liking and you fail to understand how business works, but being ignorant doesn't make you right or prove that Cardiff city have done anything wrong.

I have no issue with the rules of accountancy, this is what you are failing to grasp. I have an issue with the people interpreting it. Whatever you put down as the value of the stadium asset over £6m cannot realistically be used to theoretically offset any debt. If the worst came to the worst and everything was called in, thats the most you would get for it.

What you owe on it doesn't mean you can't class it as an asset. And if it stops working, your in the realms of impairment or even writing it off. Or you could just repair it and carry on.

I didnt say you cant class it as an asset. I said you cant realistically offset debt. How to you repair a waining fan base?

People's interpretation is one thing, but you've been arguing that we can't class the stadium as an asset when clearly it is to the running of the club.

no I havent once said that. You are making up an argument. I said you cannot offset £40m of debt from the stadium, which you cant.

What you would get for it in a fire sale doesn't matter as to how you can account for it. You could argue that for players too as nobody will pay you top dollar if they know you're in trouble.

I do. I dont think players are included in asset section of accounts are they?

Dismissing the sale and lease back option is naive. Organisations other than football clubs do own stadia you know so there is a market for it.

i genuinely dont think anybody would so it, especially for a small club with a major stadium already in the city.

What is your solution? Do you want us to write of £34m to the P&L?

there doesnt need to be a solution. Im making the observation to the people claiming your debt levels are at £100m are a little far fetched. If you had to cash in your assets to pay the debt then to think you would get £40m for the CCS is incredible.

1. By definition an asset must produce economic benefits which should flow to the entity. This can be directly through sale of the asset or indirectly through use of the asset to generate economic benefits. Either way economic benefits must be expected to flow to the entity. That is the definition of an asset and isn't really up for discussion.

so it doesnt have to generate regular income as I said then?

I like how you just put the word regular in there, that's sly Your words were "it doesn't have to generate income." That is your argument style though it's to be expected

i didnt even know i added it, ill take it away and I still stand by it. Something doesnt have to generate income to be an asset. My house that I live in doesnt generate income yet its still an asset because I can sell it.

And round and round in circles we go. You should stop saying income when trying to define an asset. ECONOMIC BENEFIT can mean regular income, or as you say, sale of a property. Either way, it is clear the definition is totally lost on you

2 The explanation as to why an asset is included in accounts is because it needs to be controlled by an entity first, and then also generate economic benefits which are expected to flow to that entity. So two stadiums which generate revenue, CCS and the San Siro - One is an asset controlled by Cardiff City and hence on their balance sheet, the other is an asset controlled by the council, and hence on their balance sheet. It's hardly rocket science is it?

I was being facetious. The stadium is on the accounts sheet as £40m this is because that is how much it cost not because its oredicted earnings. Thats clear. Yet im questioning why people are offsetting the debt with this figure because in a firesale it will only be worth the land it sits on, nobody is going to buy a football stadium in Cardiff and due to the firesale being needed the stadium isnt going to generate any further monies if Cardiff cannot continue to trade.

We are not in a firesale situation though and we are generating revenues from the stadium so it is worth a hell of a lot of money to us. This is the fundamental point you dont seem to get your head around

thats all well and good. But its ridiculous to use potential earnings to wipe out debt as nobody knows how much the stadium can generate, next year it may be making a loss. So how is it put down as £40m?

No-one's wiping out debt. And future earnings can be predicted on past performance, trends, other forecasting models etc etc, again probably too in-depth for yourself

I believe you deal in property development out there? I think this might be why you are being too simplistic with your view of an asset as you are valuing the stadia on the price of the land alone.

yes i do deal with property. Not sure if its having a baring however, im not denying its accepted to be on the accounts. Im questioning the actual point of theoretically taking £40m off the debt citing the stadium as a reason when there is no way its worth £40m to you.

I don't quite know how you think having an asset somehow reduces the liability figure? If we owe money for the stadium, then it will be a liability no matter what. The balancing of an asset against liabilities merely shows how we as a business are financing our assets.

I asked because i am assuming the only assets you really deal with in your line of work would be properties, which normally are not used for revenue generating purposes and would sit on your balance sheet at market value only. I think this is where you are getting your understanding of valuation from and I think it is distorting your view on the subject somewhat

i have no issue with how it is written. My issue is people are writing off debt based on a number you dont have.

See above

1. By definition an asset must produce economic benefits which should flow to the entity. This can be directly through sale of the asset or indirectly through use of the asset to generate economic benefits. Either way economic benefits must be expected to flow to the entity. That is the definition of an asset and isn't really up for discussion.

so it doesnt have to generate regular income as I said then?

I like how you just put the word regular in there, that's sly Your words were "it doesn't have to generate income." That is your argument style though it's to be expected

i didnt even know i added it, ill take it away and I still stand by it. Something doesnt have to generate income to be an asset. My house that I live in doesnt generate income yet its still an asset because I can sell it.

And round and round in circles we go. You should stop saying income when trying to define an asset. ECONOMIC BENEFIT can mean regular income, or as you say, sale of a property. Either way, it is clear the definition is totally lost on you

then we havent disagreed on the subject have we?

2 The explanation as to why an asset is included in accounts is because it needs to be controlled by an entity first, and then also generate economic benefits which are expected to flow to that entity. So two stadiums which generate revenue, CCS and the San Siro - One is an asset controlled by Cardiff City and hence on their balance sheet, the other is an asset controlled by the council, and hence on their balance sheet. It's hardly rocket science is it?

I was being facetious. The stadium is on the accounts sheet as £40m this is because that is how much it cost not because its oredicted earnings. Thats clear. Yet im questioning why people are offsetting the debt with this figure because in a firesale it will only be worth the land it sits on, nobody is going to buy a football stadium in Cardiff and due to the firesale being needed the stadium isnt going to generate any further monies if Cardiff cannot continue to trade.

We are not in a firesale situation though and we are generating revenues from the stadium so it is worth a hell of a lot of money to us. This is the fundamental point you dont seem to get your head around

thats all well and good. But its ridiculous to use potential earnings to wipe out debt as nobody knows how much the stadium can generate, next year it may be making a loss. So how is it put down as £40m?

No-one's wiping out debt. And future earnings can be predicted on past performance, trends, other forecasting models etc etc, again probably too in-depth for yourself

yes they are, your debt levels showed you owed £130 odd million. This is now spoken about as £100m due to the inclusion of the stadium. As I said, you CANT do this.

Trends are useless. Look at the last 6 years of stadium income. Look at the first and second season and now look at this season. you could well get relegated this year and the next and be in league 1. The stadium would probably struggle to make anything, let alone £40m

I believe you deal in property development out there? I think this might be why you are being too simplistic with your view of an asset as you are valuing the stadia on the price of the land alone.

yes i do deal with property. Not sure if its having a baring however, im not denying its accepted to be on the accounts. Im questioning the actual point of theoretically taking £40m off the debt citing the stadium as a reason when there is no way its worth £40m to you.

I don't quite know how you think having an asset somehow reduces the liability figure? If we owe money for the stadium, then it will be a liability no matter what. The balancing of an asset against liabilities merely shows how we as a business are financing our assets.

I dont. Surely thats my whole point?

I asked because i am assuming the only assets you really deal with in your line of work would be properties, which normally are not used for revenue generating purposes and would sit on your balance sheet at market value only. I think this is where you are getting your understanding of valuation from and I think it is distorting your view on the subject somewhat

i have no issue with how it is written. My issue is people are writing off debt based on a number you dont have.

See above

So does this all come down to you being miffed off by some people speaking about the debt as one figure and not another?

In which case can we all just look at the accounts and take the debt figure to be what sits as liabilities on the balance sheet and stop all this nonsense?

So does this all come down to you being miffed off by some people speaking about the debt as one figure and not another?

In which case can we all just look at the accounts and take the debt figure to be what sits as liabilities on the balance sheet and stop all this nonsense?

Spot on, i think i made it clear from my opening post.

So does this all come down to you being miffed off by some people speaking about the debt as one figure and not another?

In which case can we all just look at the accounts and take the debt figure to be what sits as liabilities on the balance sheet and stop all this nonsense?

Spot on, i think i made it clear from my opening post.

Your opening post was about sam hammam. And then you started banging on about the valuation of the stadium as an asset. Which you got wrong.

Your opening post was about sam hammam. And then you started banging on about the valuation of the stadium as an asset. Which you got wrong.

I said you cannot value the stadium at £40m to wipe out the equivalent in debt, which you cant.

Im referring to his point it isn't a saleable asset.

It speaks volumes that you would prefer to "satisfy auditors" rather than give a true reflection on your financial situation. That £40 million offset £40 million of debt. However in reality it has done nothing of the sort.

Your opening post was about sam hammam. And then you started banging on about the valuation of the stadium as an asset. Which you got wrong.

I said you cannot value the stadium at £40m to wipe out the equivalent in debt, which you cant.

Im referring to his point it isn't a saleable asset.

It speaks volumes that you would prefer to "satisfy auditors" rather than give a true reflection on your financial situation. That £40 million offset £40 million of debt. However in reality it has done nothing of the sort.

We are not valuing at 40m to wipe out debt though. The debt still appears as a liability! The 40m is the value of the stadium as an asset to the business, which includes land value, and revenue earning potential. The asset will be regularly revalued (revaluations which will be scrutinised by independent auditors) and should there be any fall in the value of the stadium it will get written off the book value as impairment of the asset.

Your opening post was about sam hammam. And then you started banging on about the valuation of the stadium as an asset. Which you got wrong.

I said you cannot value the stadium at £40m to wipe out the equivalent in debt, which you cant.

Im referring to his point it isn't a saleable asset.

It speaks volumes that you would prefer to "satisfy auditors" rather than give a true reflection on your financial situation. That £40 million offset £40 million of debt. However in reality it has done nothing of the sort.

We are not valuing at 40m to wipe out debt though. The debt still appears as a liability! The 40m is the value of the stadium as an asset to the business, which includes land value, and revenue earning potential. The asset will be regularly revalued (revaluations which will be scrutinised by independent auditors) and should there be any fall in the value of the stadium it will get written off the book value as impairment of the asset.

Who is we?

Your fans almost to a man state the level of debt is £100m due to taking away this phantom £40m. I simply said it is stupid to do so... Which it is.

Your opening post was about sam hammam. And then you started banging on about the valuation of the stadium as an asset. Which you got wrong.

I said you cannot value the stadium at £40m to wipe out the equivalent in debt, which you cant.

Im referring to his point it isn't a saleable asset.

It speaks volumes that you would prefer to "satisfy auditors" rather than give a true reflection on your financial situation. That £40 million offset £40 million of debt. However in reality it has done nothing of the sort.

We are not valuing at 40m to wipe out debt though. The debt still appears as a liability! The 40m is the value of the stadium as an asset to the business, which includes land value, and revenue earning potential. The asset will be regularly revalued (revaluations which will be scrutinised by independent auditors) and should there be any fall in the value of the stadium it will get written off the book value as impairment of the asset.

Who is we?

Your fans almost to a man state the level of debt is £100m due to taking away this phantom £40m. I simply said it is stupid to do so... Which it is.

1. You can value the stadium at 40m.
2. You are correct in saying that the value of the stadium cannot be deducted from the liabilities. However, I couldn't see anyone suggesting this was the case. I haven't seen our latest Financial statements. Are you saying the liabilities figure is £140m? Could you point me to it?

Your opening post was about sam hammam. And then you started banging on about the valuation of the stadium as an asset. Which you got wrong.

I said you cannot value the stadium at £40m to wipe out the equivalent in debt, which you cant.

Im referring to his point it isn't a saleable asset.

It speaks volumes that you would prefer to "satisfy auditors" rather than give a true reflection on your financial situation. That £40 million offset £40 million of debt. However in reality it has done nothing of the sort.

We are not valuing at 40m to wipe out debt though. The debt still appears as a liability! The 40m is the value of the stadium as an asset to the business, which includes land value, and revenue earning potential. The asset will be regularly revalued (revaluations which will be scrutinised by independent auditors) and should there be any fall in the value of the stadium it will get written off the book value as impairment of the asset.

Who is we?

Your fans almost to a man state the level of debt is £100m due to taking away this phantom £40m. I simply said it is stupid to do so... Which it is.

1. You can value the stadium at 40m.

I am not disputing this. Although there is obvious flaws to it.


2. You are correct in saying that the value of the stadium cannot be deducted from the liabilities. However, I couldn't see anyone suggesting this was the case. I haven't seen our latest Financial statements. Are you saying the liabilities figure is £140m? Could you point me to it?

nearly every fan I speak to regarding the debt claims this. I am going off Keith Morgans analysis on CCMB a few months back.

Your opening post was about sam hammam. And then you started banging on about the valuation of the stadium as an asset. Which you got wrong.

I said you cannot value the stadium at £40m to wipe out the equivalent in debt, which you cant.

Im referring to his point it isn't a saleable asset.

It speaks volumes that you would prefer to "satisfy auditors" rather than give a true reflection on your financial situation. That £40 million offset £40 million of debt. However in reality it has done nothing of the sort.

We are not valuing at 40m to wipe out debt though. The debt still appears as a liability! The 40m is the value of the stadium as an asset to the business, which includes land value, and revenue earning potential. The asset will be regularly revalued (revaluations which will be scrutinised by independent auditors) and should there be any fall in the value of the stadium it will get written off the book value as impairment of the asset.

Who is we?

Your fans almost to a man state the level of debt is £100m due to taking away this phantom £40m. I simply said it is stupid to do so... Which it is.

1. You can value the stadium at 40m.

I am not disputing this. Although there is obvious flaws to it.

It's how asset valuation works. There are flaws but that's the role of the auditors to make sure valuations are as realistic as possible. It's a lot different in some businesses compared to others. Intangibles are particularly difficult to value, but they need to be in order to put a value on a business.


2. You are correct in saying that the value of the stadium cannot be deducted from the liabilities. However, I couldn't see anyone suggesting this was the case. I haven't seen our latest Financial statements. Are you saying the liabilities figure is £140m? Could you point me to it?

nearly every fan I speak to regarding the debt claims this. I am going off Keith Morgans analysis on CCMB a few months back.

I'd rather go off the published accounts thanks. Point me in the direction of the analysis though sounds like an interesting read.

Your opening post was about sam hammam. And then you started banging on about the valuation of the stadium as an asset. Which you got wrong.

I said you cannot value the stadium at £40m to wipe out the equivalent in debt, which you cant.

Im referring to his point it isn't a saleable asset.

It speaks volumes that you would prefer to "satisfy auditors" rather than give a true reflection on your financial situation. That £40 million offset £40 million of debt. However in reality it has done nothing of the sort.

We are not valuing at 40m to wipe out debt though. The debt still appears as a liability! The 40m is the value of the stadium as an asset to the business, which includes land value, and revenue earning potential. The asset will be regularly revalued (revaluations which will be scrutinised by independent auditors) and should there be any fall in the value of the stadium it will get written off the book value as impairment of the asset.

Who is we?

Your fans almost to a man state the level of debt is £100m due to taking away this phantom £40m. I simply said it is stupid to do so... Which it is.

1. You can value the stadium at 40m.

I am not disputing this. Although there is obvious flaws to it.

It's how asset valuation works. There are flaws but that's the role of the auditors to make sure valuations are as realistic as possible. It's a lot different in some businesses compared to others. Intangibles are particularly difficult to value, but they need to be in order to put a value on a business.

thats fine, ive not disputed this have I? I have simply said you cannot take £40m of debt away because of the valuation put on a stadium as that £40m doesnt actually exist.


2. You are correct in saying that the value of the stadium cannot be deducted from the liabilities. However, I couldn't see anyone suggesting this was the case. I haven't seen our latest Financial statements. Are you saying the liabilities figure is £140m? Could you point me to it?

nearly every fan I speak to regarding the debt claims this. I am going off Keith Morgans analysis on CCMB a few months back.

I'd rather go off the published accounts thanks. Point me in the direction of the analysis though sounds like an interesting read.

i didnt say you had to did I? You asked where I got the info from, i told you. CCMB. Im sure hes done accountant work for the club before too. Excellent poster.

Your opening post was about sam hammam. And then you started banging on about the valuation of the stadium as an asset. Which you got wrong.

I said you cannot value the stadium at £40m to wipe out the equivalent in debt, which you cant.

Im referring to his point it isn't a saleable asset.

It speaks volumes that you would prefer to "satisfy auditors" rather than give a true reflection on your financial situation. That £40 million offset £40 million of debt. However in reality it has done nothing of the sort.

We are not valuing at 40m to wipe out debt though. The debt still appears as a liability! The 40m is the value of the stadium as an asset to the business, which includes land value, and revenue earning potential. The asset will be regularly revalued (revaluations which will be scrutinised by independent auditors) and should there be any fall in the value of the stadium it will get written off the book value as impairment of the asset.

Who is we?

Your fans almost to a man state the level of debt is £100m due to taking away this phantom £40m. I simply said it is stupid to do so... Which it is.

1. You can value the stadium at 40m.

I am not disputing this. Although there is obvious flaws to it.

It's how asset valuation works. There are flaws but that's the role of the auditors to make sure valuations are as realistic as possible. It's a lot different in some businesses compared to others. Intangibles are particularly difficult to value, but they need to be in order to put a value on a business.

thats fine, ive not disputed this have I? I have simply said you cannot take £40m of debt away because of the valuation put on a stadium as that £40m doesnt actually exist.

So you keep telling me. I'm just trying to point out how the valuation of 40m comes about and is justified


2. You are correct in saying that the value of the stadium cannot be deducted from the liabilities. However, I couldn't see anyone suggesting this was the case. I haven't seen our latest Financial statements. Are you saying the liabilities figure is £140m? Could you point me to it?

nearly every fan I speak to regarding the debt claims this. I am going off Keith Morgans analysis on CCMB a few months back.

I'd rather go off the published accounts thanks. Point me in the direction of the analysis though sounds like an interesting read.

i didnt say you had to did I? You asked where I got the info from, i told you. CCMB. Im sure hes done accountant work for the club before too. Excellent poster.

I'm asking if you could point me to it. I'd like to read it!

Your opening post was about sam hammam. And then you started banging on about the valuation of the stadium as an asset. Which you got wrong.

I said you cannot value the stadium at £40m to wipe out the equivalent in debt, which you cant.

Im referring to his point it isn't a saleable asset.

It speaks volumes that you would prefer to "satisfy auditors" rather than give a true reflection on your financial situation. That £40 million offset £40 million of debt. However in reality it has done nothing of the sort.

We are not valuing at 40m to wipe out debt though. The debt still appears as a liability! The 40m is the value of the stadium as an asset to the business, which includes land value, and revenue earning potential. The asset will be regularly revalued (revaluations which will be scrutinised by independent auditors) and should there be any fall in the value of the stadium it will get written off the book value as impairment of the asset.

Who is we?

Your fans almost to a man state the level of debt is £100m due to taking away this phantom £40m. I simply said it is stupid to do so... Which it is.

1. You can value the stadium at 40m.

I am not disputing this. Although there is obvious flaws to it.

It's how asset valuation works. There are flaws but that's the role of the auditors to make sure valuations are as realistic as possible. It's a lot different in some businesses compared to others. Intangibles are particularly difficult to value, but they need to be in order to put a value on a business.

thats fine, ive not disputed this have I? I have simply said you cannot take £40m of debt away because of the valuation put on a stadium as that £40m doesnt actually exist.

So you keep telling me. I'm just trying to point out how the valuation of 40m comes about and is justified

but to what end? I havent questioned it, just pointed out its flaws. It could very realistically lose money in the very near future. For account sake then great, however the reality is probably a lot different and that £40m doesnt actually exist.


2. You are correct in saying that the value of the stadium cannot be deducted from the liabilities. However, I couldn't see anyone suggesting this was the case. I haven't seen our latest Financial statements. Are you saying the liabilities figure is £140m? Could you point me to it?

nearly every fan I speak to regarding the debt claims this. I am going off Keith Morgans analysis on CCMB a few months back.

I'd rather go off the published accounts thanks. Point me in the direction of the analysis though sounds like an interesting read.

i didnt say you had to did I? You asked where I got the info from, i told you. CCMB. Im sure hes done accountant work for the club before too. Excellent poster.

I'm asking if you could point me to it. I'd like to read it!

I did, it was on ccmb by keith months back. Not sure what his name os on there. The world wide web is at your figertips.

Your opening post was about sam hammam. And then you started banging on about the valuation of the stadium as an asset. Which you got wrong.

I said you cannot value the stadium at £40m to wipe out the equivalent in debt, which you cant.

Im referring to his point it isn't a saleable asset.

It speaks volumes that you would prefer to "satisfy auditors" rather than give a true reflection on your financial situation. That £40 million offset £40 million of debt. However in reality it has done nothing of the sort.

We are not valuing at 40m to wipe out debt though. The debt still appears as a liability! The 40m is the value of the stadium as an asset to the business, which includes land value, and revenue earning potential. The asset will be regularly revalued (revaluations which will be scrutinised by independent auditors) and should there be any fall in the value of the stadium it will get written off the book value as impairment of the asset.

Who is we?

Your fans almost to a man state the level of debt is £100m due to taking away this phantom £40m. I simply said it is stupid to do so... Which it is.

1. You can value the stadium at 40m.

I am not disputing this. Although there is obvious flaws to it.

It's how asset valuation works. There are flaws but that's the role of the auditors to make sure valuations are as realistic as possible. It's a lot different in some businesses compared to others. Intangibles are particularly difficult to value, but they need to be in order to put a value on a business.

thats fine, ive not disputed this have I? I have simply said you cannot take £40m of debt away because of the valuation put on a stadium as that £40m doesnt actually exist.

So you keep telling me. I'm just trying to point out how the valuation of 40m comes about and is justified

but to what end? I havent questioned it, just pointed out its flaws. It could very realistically lose money in the very near future. For account sake then great, however the reality is probably a lot different and that £40m doesnt actually exist.

There is a great deal of conjecture involved yes, but please remember that it could just as easily make a lot of money. All valuations will have been scrutinised by qualified individuals and adjudged to have been sound


2. You are correct in saying that the value of the stadium cannot be deducted from the liabilities. However, I couldn't see anyone suggesting this was the case. I haven't seen our latest Financial statements. Are you saying the liabilities figure is £140m? Could you point me to it?

nearly every fan I speak to regarding the debt claims this. I am going off Keith Morgans analysis on CCMB a few months back.

I'd rather go off the published accounts thanks. Point me in the direction of the analysis though sounds like an interesting read.

i didnt say you had to did I? You asked where I got the info from, i told you. CCMB. Im sure hes done accountant work for the club before too. Excellent poster.

I'm asking if you could point me to it. I'd like to read it!

I did, it was on ccmb by keith months back. Not sure what his name os on there. The world wide web is at your figertips.

I'm just being lazy, I was hoping you may have been able to get me a quick link or something. I'll have a look after the games. I'm off to watch my bets not come in. Good luck if you have anything down

Fair enough, im about to tune in to your game now.

Just got Federer to beat Pospisil later, the last selection on my accy. Heres hoping.

Fair enough, im about to tune in to your game now.

Just got Federer to beat Pospisil later, the last selection on my accy. Heres hoping.

Loved Fox Sports on a saturday night down under!!!