So the Jacks fans have a surprise for us

50-60 million stadium is not a assist until its paid off u f*cking retard.
You owe the banks for the loan taken out to build it.

Difference is what we owe, we pay.

So you paid Sam the full amount I take it then?

Lets face it ! Your a easy target to take the piss out off.

Totally agree Paul, if it was the other way round - Cardiff fans would be rubbing their hands together.

but its not cardiff fans fault that we got a f*cking ballbag of a chairman...

You cant genuinely believe that? You practically voted him in.

In the wake of the announcement that the rebrand was to be halted due to fan anger he released a statement saying he will seek other means of investment instead of from himself, basically saying hes stepping away.

This prompted fans to make such ludicrous statements as "We need to hold up Malaysian flags (actually called them thai) and banners to show Mr Tan we love him" and "Mr Tan I will pick you up from the airport myself" etc etc

It was this nauseating response to Tans camouflaged threat which made him stay in power and rid your club of everything it stood for while you guys cheered and waved attending the games in even bigger numbers, many wearing the red he introduced with pride.

Dont for one second think you didnt bring it on yourself, dont for one second think we dont know what went on and dont for one second think we arent going to let you know about it

50-60 million stadium is not a assist until its paid off u f*cking retard.
You owe the banks for the loan taken out to build it.

You're correct the stadium is not an "assist".
It is an asset though you f*cking retard.
Otherwise the loan against it isn't a liability

50-60 million stadium is not a assist until its paid off u f*cking retard.
You owe the banks for the loan taken out to build it.

You're correct the stadium is not an "assist".
It is an asset though you f*cking retard.
Otherwise the loan against it isn't a liability

It isn't an asset to the value stated though, he is right. It was a creative piece of accounting that made your account only look disastrous instead of impending doom levels of disastrous.

It is only an asset if someone will buy it. And who would buy it? Newport County? The land is the value, not the stadium. And how much did the council buy it for again?

50-60 million stadium is not a assist until its paid off u f*cking retard.
You owe the banks for the loan taken out to build it.

You're correct the stadium is not an "assist".
It is an asset though you f*cking retard.
Otherwise the loan against it isn't a liability

It isn't an asset to the value stated though, he is right. It was a creative piece of accounting that made your account only look disastrous instead of impending doom levels of disastrous.

It is only an asset if someone will buy it. And who would buy it? Newport County? The land is the value, not the stadium. And how much did the council buy it for again?

You do know how accounts work?
I referred to his claim that you have to pay for something first for it to be classed as an asset. Not true, unless of course you want to dismiss the loan too

The key point is that the stadium is controlled by the Club and generates revenue and will continue to do so for many years, therefore it's an asset. Whether someone can buy it or not is irrelevant.

Who do we need to satisfy, the auditors in line with accounting standards, or a few wum jacks, one of whom can't even spell the word "asset"

Brilliant.

Swanseatard calls someone a retard, in a triple posted response, referring to 'assists'

Comedy gold.

50-60 million stadium is not a assist until its paid off u f*cking retard.
You owe the banks for the loan taken out to build it.

You're correct the stadium is not an "assist".
It is an asset though you f*cking retard.
Otherwise the loan against it isn't a liability

It isn't an asset to the value stated though, he is right. It was a creative piece of accounting that made your account only look disastrous instead of impending doom levels of disastrous.

It is only an asset if someone will buy it. And who would buy it? Newport County? The land is the value, not the stadium. And how much did the council buy it for again?

You do know how accounts work?
I referred to his claim that you have to pay for something first for it to be classed as an asset. Not true, unless of course you want to dismiss the loan too

The key point is that the stadium is controlled by the Club and generates revenue and will continue to do so for many years, therefore it's an asset. Whether someone can buy it or not is irrelevant.

Who do we need to satisfy, the auditors in line with accounting standards, or a few wum jacks, one of whom can't even spell the word "asset"

I do indeed know how they work.

Im not referring to his point about not having paid for it yet. 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.

50-60 million stadium is not a assist until its paid off u f*cking retard.
You owe the banks for the loan taken out to build it.

You're correct the stadium is not an "assist".
It is an asset though you f*cking retard.
Otherwise the loan against it isn't a liability

It isn't an asset to the value stated though, he is right. It was a creative piece of accounting that made your account only look disastrous instead of impending doom levels of disastrous.

It is only an asset if someone will buy it. And who would buy it? Newport County? The land is the value, not the stadium. And how much did the council buy it for again?

You do know how accounts work?
I referred to his claim that you have to pay for something first for it to be classed as an asset. Not true, unless of course you want to dismiss the loan too

The key point is that the stadium is controlled by the Club and generates revenue and will continue to do so for many years, therefore it's an asset. Whether someone can buy it or not is irrelevant.

Who do we need to satisfy, the auditors in line with accounting standards, or a few wum jacks, one of whom can't even spell the word "asset"

I do indeed know how they work.

Im not referring to his point about not having paid for it yet. 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.

Actually my point was that if the auditors are happy, why would we be bothered about the opinion of wum jacks, trolls if you like

Bizarre the way you think it's a choice between satisfying auditors or giving a true reflection on the financial situation. You do know what they do, right?

Because auditors arent going to buy your stadium off you.

Because auditors arent going to buy your stadium off you.

We're not selling it, we built it to earn money, making it an asset

Brilliant.

Swanseatard calls someone a retard, in a triple posted response, referring to 'assists'

Comedy gold.

He's the gift that just keeps giving. Is there anything he doesn't know anything about?

Because auditors arent going to buy your stadium off you.

We're not selling it, we built it to earn money, making it an asset

I havent denied its an asset.

What it earns is also included in the accounts, or are you telling me the club double counts it?.

Because auditors arent going to buy your stadium off you.

We're not selling it, we built it to earn money, making it an asset

I havent denied its an asset.

What it earns is also included in the accounts, or are you telling me the club double counts it?.

SL did, which was why I replied.

No idea what you mean by your last point, where did I say earnings aren't included? Double count what exactly?
You do know the difference between the balance sheet and P&L?

Because auditors arent going to buy your stadium off you.

We're not selling it, we built it to earn money, making it an asset

I havent denied its an asset.

What it earns is also included in the accounts, or are you telling me the club double counts it?.

SL did, which was why I replied.

No idea what you mean by your last point, where did I say earnings aren't included? Double count what exactly?
You do know the difference between the balance sheet and P&L?

If the stadium is rightly worth £40m on your accounts due to the monies it generates, you cannot then add the monies in generates on it too.

As i said it was a creative piece of accounting that doesn't reflect the true scenario at the club. The saleable price of the stadium offset £ 40m worth of debt, yet as I have pointed out, it isn not a saleable asset.

Because auditors arent going to buy your stadium off you.

We're not selling it, we built it to earn money, making it an asset

I havent denied its an asset.

What it earns is also included in the accounts, or are you telling me the club double counts it?.

SL did, which was why I replied.

No idea what you mean by your last point, where did I say earnings aren't included? Double count what exactly?
You do know the difference between the balance sheet and P&L?

If the stadium is rightly worth £40m on your accounts due to the monies it generates, you cannot then add the monies in generates on it too.

As i said it was a creative piece of accounting that doesn't reflect the true scenario at the club. The saleable price of the stadium offset £ 40m worth of debt, yet as I have pointed out, it isn not a saleable asset.

The saleable issue is irrelevant as its the revenue it generates that categorises it as an asset. We haven't built it to sell it now have we? This applies to all sporting stadia owned by sports clubs.

Let me get this straight. Your saying the stadium cost £40m but through creative accounting we value it at £50m?

Hope the club are coming away from the welcoming thing with regards to the jacks.

Didn't they vandalise the toilets last time?

I would ditch the welolming policy on this occasion

I believe you did the Liberty ones first

Because auditors arent going to buy your stadium off you.

We're not selling it, we built it to earn money, making it an asset

I havent denied its an asset.

What it earns is also included in the accounts, or are you telling me the club double counts it?.

SL did, which was why I replied.

No idea what you mean by your last point, where did I say earnings aren't included? Double count what exactly?
You do know the difference between the balance sheet and P&L?

If the stadium is rightly worth £40m on your accounts due to the monies it generates, you cannot then add the monies in generates on it too.

As i said it was a creative piece of accounting that doesn't reflect the true scenario at the club. The saleable price of the stadium offset £ 40m worth of debt, yet as I have pointed out, it isn not a saleable asset.

The saleable issue is irrelevant as its the revenue it generates that categorises it as an asset. We haven't built it to sell it now have we? This applies to all sporting stadia owned by sports clubs.

Let me get this straight. Your saying the stadium cost £40m but through creative accounting we value it at £50m?

Something doesnt have to generate revenue to be an asset. Whats the point in wiping out £40m of debt for the sake of vanity by sticking something on your accounts that you cannot sell to gain.

It doesnt matter how much it costs. its not worth anything but the land it sits on which I believe is £6m is it not? You have wiped out (metaphorically speaking that is) £34m of debt by adding it. It is not a saleable asset, which means it is futile if you are to offset debt against it.

Toilet wars

Because auditors arent going to buy your stadium off you.

We're not selling it, we built it to earn money, making it an asset

I havent denied its an asset.

What it earns is also included in the accounts, or are you telling me the club double counts it?.

SL did, which was why I replied.

No idea what you mean by your last point, where did I say earnings aren't included? Double count what exactly?
You do know the difference between the balance sheet and P&L?

If the stadium is rightly worth £40m on your accounts due to the monies it generates, you cannot then add the monies in generates on it too.

As i said it was a creative piece of accounting that doesn't reflect the true scenario at the club. The saleable price of the stadium offset £ 40m worth of debt, yet as I have pointed out, it isn not a saleable asset.

The saleable issue is irrelevant as its the revenue it generates that categorises it as an asset. We haven't built it to sell it now have we? This applies to all sporting stadia owned by sports clubs.

Let me get this straight. Your saying the stadium cost £40m but through creative accounting we value it at £50m?

Something doesnt have to generate revenue to be an asset. Whats the point in wiping out £40m of debt for the sake of vanity by sticking something on your accounts that you cannot sell to gain.

It doesnt matter how much it costs. its not worth anything but the land it sits on which I believe is £6m is it not? You have wiped out (metaphorically speaking that is) £34m of debt by adding it. It is not a saleable asset, which means it is futile if you are to offset debt against it.

The fact it generates revenue makes it an asset. Keep up
An asset has to deliver future economic benefits, generally meaning income for the business.
And creating an asset, in line with correct accounting standards, doesn't wipe out any debt. You still owe it.

You could apply your bizarre logic to every football club that owns its stadium and had capitalised its value. Your way would see every club write off the cost to the P&L in year one.

Why would any business do that when you can follow accepted accounting practice, backed up in law?

No substance to your creative accounting claim then?

The fact it generates revenue makes it an asset. Keep up

no it doesnt. The training ground will be an asset too, whoever will own it. It wont generate a penny.

An asset has to deliver future economic benefits, generally meaning income for the business.

no it doesnt.

And creating an asset, in line with correct accounting standards, doesn't wipe out any debt. You still owe it.

of course it doesnt wipe it out physically, but it shows it can be covered by tallying up assets v deficit. Which isnt accurate as you have a £40m elephant you can only make £6m on, leaving £34m thats uncovered.

You could apply your bizarre logic to every football club that owns its stadium and had capitalised its value. Your way would see every club write off the cost to the P&L in year one.

I dont know anyone that adds the cost of a stadium build to the asset column on their accounts. In fact its the first time ive seen it, and ive seen many a club account.

Why would any business do that when you can follow accepted accounting practice, backed up in law?

every club can generate revenue from their stadium. Swansea can too even though its rented, yet we cant add £30m to the accounts though, its ridiculous.

No substance to your creative accounting claim then?

yes

I'm not going to get into a conversation with the tw*t, but Roathies grasp of accounting standards is truly shocking

I'm not going to get into a conversation with the tw*t, but Roathies grasp of accounting standards is truly shocking

Good choice because of thats your grasp on whats being discussed you would be destroyed.

We arent discussing accounting standards, we are discussing the worth of a £40m stadium on an accounts sheet. When these accounts were released people automatically said, "oh its only £100m debt" obviously offsetting the value of the stadium against the debt... My point is, its not worth £40m, its worth £6m. Leaving £34m worth of debt which still cannot be covered by assets.

This "small detail" is all likelihood the difference between administration and liquidation.

The training ground delivers value over a long period that can be deemed to deliver income. Better training better results, better facilities attracts better players, leads to results. Results boost income.
If there was no benefit to training facilities, why would any club bother?

Ever heard of a business case?

And yes an asset should deliver future economic benefits. Saying no it doesn't is a hollow repost and smacks of ignorance.

Owning a ground earns more revenue that renting one. Fact. Hence why it's an asset. The stadium is saleable as it can be sold and leased back. However it's irrelevant as the cost is capitalised to spread the cost in the accounts, as you do with all assets. Would you have been happier if we wrote off £40m in year 1? Perhaps you should lobby the auditors?

None of this changes debt or cash flow. I find it hilarious that your so obsessed with whinging about Cardiff City your trying (yet failing miserably) to pick fault with a business following generally accepted accounting practice

The training ground delivers value over a long period that can be deemed to deliver income. Better training better results, better facilities attracts better players, leads to results. Results boost income.
If there was no benefit to training facilities, why would any club bother?

what? thats nonsense. Its an asset because its bricks and mortar and can be sold, nothing else.

Ever heard of a business case?

And yes an asset should deliver future economic benefits. Saying no it doesn't is a hollow repost and smacks of ignorance.

no it shouldnt. That is just simply wrong.

Owning a ground earns more revenue that renting one. Fact. Hence why it's an asset. The stadium is saleable as it can be sold and leased back. However it's irrelevant as the cost is capitalised to spread the cost in the accounts, as you do with all assets. Would you have been happier if we wrote off £40m in year 1? Perhaps you should lobby the auditors?

owning Old Trafford earns more than the CCS does that mean you cant put that down then? Again your argument is just nonsense. The stadium is worth what it can be sold for, which is the land £6m. What it earns will be on the yearly account sheet in the form of income.

None of this changes debt or cash flow. I find it hilarious that your so obsessed with whinging about Cardiff City your trying (yet failing miserably) to pick fault with a business following generally accepted accounting practice

im not whinging, im making the point that people are reducing the level of your debt by taking £40m from the stadium off it. Yet you cannot sell it for £40m. £34m of debt is left unaccounted for and assumed "covered" when in fact it is not in the slightest.

The San Siro generates more income than the CCS yet you wont catch either Milan clubs adding £60m to their accounts on the basic premise that they simply cannot sell it.

The training ground delivers value over a long period that can be deemed to deliver income. Better training better results, better facilities attracts better players, leads to results. Results boost income.
If there was no benefit to training facilities, why would any club bother?

what? thats nonsense. Its an asset because its bricks and mortar and can be sold, nothing else.

your definition of an asset is basic and incorrect

Ever heard of a business case?

And yes an asset should deliver future economic benefits. Saying no it doesn't is a hollow repost and smacks of ignorance.

no it shouldnt. That is just simply wrong.

An asset is a resource controlled by the entity as a result of past events and from which future economic benefits are expected to flow to the entity - there's the definition for you.

Owning a ground earns more revenue that renting one. Fact. Hence why it's an asset. The stadium is saleable as it can be sold and leased back. However it's irrelevant as the cost is capitalised to spread the cost in the accounts, as you do with all assets. Would you have been happier if we wrote off £40m in year 1? Perhaps you should lobby the auditors?

owning Old Trafford earns more than the CCS does that mean you cant put that down then? Again your argument is just nonsense. The stadium is worth what it can be sold for, which is the land £6m. What it earns will be on the yearly account sheet in the form of income.

The stadium is worth what someone is prepared to pay for it, the price of which will take into account the ability to generate revenues from said stadium

None of this changes debt or cash flow. I find it hilarious that your so obsessed with whinging about Cardiff City your trying (yet failing miserably) to pick fault with a business following generally accepted accounting practice

im not whinging, im making the point that people are reducing the level of your debt by taking £40m from the stadium off it. Yet you cannot sell it for £40m. £34m of debt is left unaccounted for and assumed "covered" when in fact it is not in the slightest.

The San Siro generates more income than the CCS yet you wont catch either Milan clubs adding £60m to their accounts on the basic premise that they simply cannot sell it.



Neith Milan club own the San Siro, which is the reason they cannot put it on their accounts you absolute tool. It was sold to the council

So what is this surprise we've apparently got for you?

All you knobs are dressing up in arm bands,o wait been done a thousands times before,very boring,hope this surprise will be interesting,I doubt it very much though,nobody down there got enough brain cells to come up with something original[/quote

They are dressing as Tan shirts ties football shirt over the top with black trousers pulled high and face tanned and black hair and tash .......,

The training ground delivers value over a long period that can be deemed to deliver income. Better training better results, better facilities attracts better players, leads to results. Results boost income.
If there was no benefit to training facilities, why would any club bother?

what? thats nonsense. Its an asset because its bricks and mortar and can be sold, nothing else.

your definition of an asset is basic and incorrect

its neither. Something doesnt have to generate income to be an asset.

Ever heard of a business case?

And yes an asset should deliver future economic benefits. Saying no it doesn't is a hollow repost and smacks of ignorance.

no it shouldnt. That is just simply wrong.

An asset is a resource controlled by the entity as a result of past events and from which future economic benefits are expected to flow to the entity - there's the definition for you.

right, and how is that valued at £40m then? And how does that metaphorically cover debt in order to off set it? If you were required to cash these assets in NOW future revenue of the stadium is futile. You would get £6m for the land.

Owning a ground earns more revenue that renting one. Fact. Hence why it's an asset. The stadium is saleable as it can be sold and leased back. However it's irrelevant as the cost is capitalised to spread the cost in the accounts, as you do with all assets. Would you have been happier if we wrote off £40m in year 1? Perhaps you should lobby the auditors?

owning Old Trafford earns more than the CCS does that mean you cant put that down then? Again your argument is just nonsense. The stadium is worth what it can be sold for, which is the land £6m. What it earns will be on the yearly account sheet in the form of income.

The stadium is worth what someone is prepared to pay for it, the price of which will take into account the ability to generate revenues from said stadium

who is going to buy a football stadium in Cardiff then? West Ham? its not saleable.

None of this changes debt or cash flow. I find it hilarious that your so obsessed with whinging about Cardiff City your trying (yet failing miserably) to pick fault with a business following generally accepted accounting practice

im not whinging, im making the point that people are reducing the level of your debt by taking £40m from the stadium off it. Yet you cannot sell it for £40m. £34m of debt is left unaccounted for and assumed "covered" when in fact it is not in the slightest.

The San Siro generates more income than the CCS yet you wont catch either Milan clubs adding £60m to their accounts on the basic premise that they simply cannot sell it.



Neith Milan club own the San Siro, which is the reason they cannot put it on their accounts you absolute tool. It was sold to the council

thats my point you pleb, they cannot sell it just like you cannot sell your stadium. The explanation as to why it is included is because it generates income for the club.... So does the san siro.

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

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.

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.

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.


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.

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.