Blue Union

[MikeO]

Players are counted as assets mike, just not at transfer Market value.

Again, I know that.

 

My point is that the BU figures (£30m in the last few months) are presenting full transfer fees as assets. How else would they come to that figure?

[pete0]

Again, I know that.

 

My point is that the BU figures (£30m in the last few months) are presenting full transfer fees as assets. How else would they come to that figure?

30 mil would be the wages. Arteta going has saved us £15.6 mil alone.

[StevO]

 

Again, I know that.

 

My point is that the BU figures (£30m in the last few months) are presenting full transfer fees as assets. How else would they come to that figure?

 

Fair enough mate. I do also wonder where they come from with that, and the sale of the training ground?

 

Edit: just reread. Thought they meant selling finch farm which was years back, now I see they meant bellefield.

Was that about £8m? Leaving £22m valued for arteta yak becks Vaughan and pienaar?

Edited October 9, 2011 by StevO

[MikeO]

...now I see they meant bellefield.

Was that about £8m? Leaving £22m valued for arteta yak becks Vaughan and pienaar?

That was how I understood it....not arguing with the fact that we got £30m in by selling "stuff," just the way it was described.

 

And pete you can't describe the saving of £15.6m over the next four years as an asset . It's a potential saving for sure but presumably we're paying Drenthe and Stracq a quid or two.

[pete0]

That was how I understood it....not arguing with the fact that we got £30m in by selling "stuff," just the way it was described.

 

And pete you can't describe the saving of £15.6m over the next four years as an asset . It's a potential saving for sure but presumably we're paying Drenthe and Stracq a quid or two.

Thats how players are valued on the balance sheet. Their contract are liabilities.

Liabilities + Capital = Assets

You could argue that players are capital, but it's safer and easier to have monetary value for players determined by their contracts.

 

Also using this logic we sold Arteta for £5 mil less than we valued him

Edited October 9, 2011 by pete0

[MikeO]

Thats how players are valued on the balance sheet. Their contract are liabilities.

Liabilities + Capital = Assets

You could argue that players are capital, but it's safer and easier to have monetary value for players determined by their contracts.

 

Also using this logic we sold Arteta for £5 mil less than we valued him

So this is completely wrong then?

...players are intangible assets

 

The costs associated with the acquisition of players' registrations are capitalised as intangible fixed assets in the balance sheet. These are then fully amortised in equal annual instalments over the period of the player's initial contract.

The balance sheet shows the cost and amortisation of player's registrations, with a note to the effect that a bosman will mean values being reduced, because a player can now walk away from a club at the end of his contract.

Turnover in the accounts excludes transfer fees. Staff costs in the P+L account include signing on fees payable to players representing part of their remuneration, and are charged to P+L evenly over the football seasons covered by the player's contract.

 

In effect players are assets - intangible ones and add very little to the valuation of the club.

 

I'm seriously confused....and surely the value of the club could swing £100m ish on the answer.

[pete0]

So this is completely wrong then?

 

 

I'm seriously confused....and surely the value of the club could swing £100m ish on the answer.

Who ever wrote that must have a different definition of intangible or they are completely wrong.

From wiki: Intangible assets are defined as identifiable non-monetary assets that cannot be seen, touched or physically measured, which are created through time and/or effort and that are identifiable as a separate asset

 

The article is not relevant, but says that players are 'fixed tangible assets'

http://journals.camb...line&aid=977848

 

http://gupea.ub.gu.s...1/03-04-107.pdf worth a look if you have any spare time. The paper basically says football accounting is a mess and everyone does it differently. At the end there is an extra 10 pages. At the bottom of the 5th theres a rough answer to how players should be regarded as assets.

Edited October 9, 2011 by pete0

[Louis]

I think the confusion is using accountancy terms and common sense at the same time.

 

Players do have a value, no one is disputing that. I imagine clubs will pay to have players insured for millions. When it comes down to submitting financial accounts to companies house, the players who have come through the academy aren't given a value, nor are players who have stayed beyond their initial contract length.

 

The market value of the player isn't realised until the player is sold.

 

Next to no one is reporting on the meeting from Saturday. Supposedly it was three hours long.

 

http://www.toffeeweb.com/season/11-12/news/19282.html

[Hafnia]

I think the confusion is using accountancy terms and common sense at the same time.

 

Players do have a value, no one is disputing that. I imagine clubs will pay to have players insured for millions. When it comes down to submitting financial accounts to companies house, the players who have come through the academy aren't given a value, nor are players who have stayed beyond their initial contract length.

 

The market value of the player isn't realised until the player is sold.

 

Next to no one is reporting on the meeting from Saturday. Supposedly it was three hours long.

 

http://www.toffeeweb.com/season/11-12/news/19282.html

 

I'm sure they would have had someone recording it! And yes, I think they may have requested time to get a transcript out. Be a waste otherwise,

[c1982]

http://www.sos1878.co.uk/everton-news/blue-union-to-resume-protests-with-immediate-effect/

[Louis]

I don't see the point.

[c1982]

I don't see the point.

 

Agree. I can see how some become swayed/convinced by such articles but ultimately they are just focusing on 50% of the facts and processing them in a way that gets across their message. They are ignoring so much important information and dressing up what they want people to hear.

 

I think what they should be judged on is their efforts at getting the BU message out since Jan - oh we're doing alright again we'll leave it for now! Do they truely believe in what they stand for?

[Matt]

So close... They actually started sounding reasonable, then they descend into their childish bitching and moaning....

 

Nevermind City made massssssive losses (-197m) , nevermind Utd are carrying huuuuuge debts (471m), Chelsea lost 68m, Liverpool lost 49m.....

 

And as Louis says, what is the point?

[Louis]

Nevermind City made massssssive losses (-197m) , nevermind Utd are carrying huuuuuge debts (471m), Chelsea lost 68m, Liverpool lost 49m.....

 

That doesn't come into it for me, each of those teams outperforms the club off the pitch.

[Matt]

That doesn't come into it for me, each of those teams outperforms the club off the pitch.

Same could be said for Everton, I only point it out because their arguments are focused on off pitch performance

[Louis]

Isn't that their point, that the off the pitch performance doesn't match and in fact, hinders the on the pitch performance?

 

 

[Matt]

Isn't that their point, that the off the pitch performance doesn't match and in fact, hinders the on the pitch performance?

partly yes, but a large part is how this board has put the club into financial difficulties. when I pointed out that the owners/boards at these other clubs that are shown as "this is what money can achieve", they fail to show how bad the finances are there too. Its just not balanced, again.

[pete0]

These lot would sell us to Venky's for a pound if they could. Bunch of numpties.

[SimonButtle]

partly yes, but a large part is how this board has put the club into financial difficulties. when I pointed out that the owners/boards at these other clubs that are shown as "this is what money can achieve", they fail to show how bad the finances are there too. Its just not balanced, again.

but the likes of Chelsea and City have owners who can wipe out their clubs debt in one go if need be, and they may have huge debts will but still operate and are able to spend big money on players, we have what we are told is a relativly small debt, but struggle to find 50p to rub together, our problem is not so much the lack of money, its that the people in charge are completely out of their depth and have no idea about running and marketing a sports based business.

[Matt]

but the likes of Chelsea and City have owners who can wipe out their clubs debt in one go if need be, and they may have huge debts will but still operate and are able to spend big money on players, we have what we are told is a relativly small debt, but struggle to find 50p to rub together, our problem is not so much the lack of money, its that the people in charge are completely out of their depth and have no idea about running and marketing a sports based business.

and the BU do?

[pete0]

and the BU do?

No, but there plan is to get someone he does. Sad thing is, they dont see how stupid this plan is as they have no way of implementing it.

[SimonButtle]

and the BU do?

Did i say that? NO! and for the god knows how many times, because im getting sick of saying of fucking saying it, the BU are knobs who refuse to look at the big picture, I DO NOT SUPPORT THEM OR WHAT THEY DO, but how much worse of a job could they do than the board at Everton have done, because they hav'nt done a good job of it.

[Matt]

No, but there plan is to get someone he does. Sad thing is, they dont see how stupid this plan is as they have no way of implementing it.

exactly my point. Im sure the current board are also looking into getting investment based on a long term plan. Just because they dont share business sensitive material doesnt mean it isnt happening!

[Matt]

Did i say that? NO! and for the god knows how many times, because im getting sick of saying of fucking saying it, the BU are knobs who refuse to look at the big picture, I DO NOT SUPPORT THEM OR WHAT THEY DO, but how much worse of a job could they do than the board at Everton have done, because they hav'nt done a good job of it.

alright, chill! Just asking the question!

 

Infinitely worse because they have no idea of how a business is run (if they do theyre doing a damn good job of hiding it). I think we agree - good intentions with shocking implementation due to lack of knowledge / brains.

[SimonButtle]

exactly my point. Im sure the current board are also looking into getting investment based on a long term plan. Just because they dont share business sensitive material doesnt mean it isnt happening!

But this IS the problem, it's now been going on for years and years, as we have watched clubs not just in this country but in others get taken over, it's very odd that a club the size of ours and with the herritage continues to be ignored, something is going on, and maybe if the board opened up a few more communication lines with the fans, there would not be so much angst against them, like i said they are out of their depth

[marcopaulo]

or maybe these other clubs were just preferred because new owners wouldn't have to fund a new stadium as well as a new playing squad etc...and our board are fussy with who they sell to..

 

why should they share every drop of info with the fans? what would that achieve? it's like the club price argument all over again..boring

[Matt]

or maybe these other clubs were just preferred because new owners wouldn't have to fund a new stadium as well as a new playing squad etc...and our board are fussy with who they sell to..

 

why should they share every drop of info with the fans? what would that achieve? it's like the club price argument all over again..boring

BINGO!

[SimonButtle]

alright, chill! Just asking the question!

 

Infinitely worse because they have no idea of how a business is run (if they do theyre doing a damn good job of hiding it). I think we agree - good intentions with shocking implementation due to lack of knowledge / brains.

This is why they frustrate though, because they say they do know who they would want to go in and sell the club, but they fail to say how these people would be payed, and also who these people are, also they promised an interview with the Americans that were interested in buying the club not long ago, and there was going to be a big expose on why it fell through, because these Americans were shocked at the way Kenwright and Elstone wanted to do business, but yet again they have failed to deliver that.

[SimonButtle]

or maybe these other clubs were just preferred because new owners wouldn't have to fund a new stadium as well as a new playing squad etc...and our board are fussy with who they sell to..

 

why should they share every drop of info with the fans? what would that achieve? it's like the club price argument all over again..boring

er because thats how you keep your fans onside by actually letting them know whats going on, its not the Cold War, cloak and dagger never achieved anything, it just surprises me how many evertonians seem happy to settle for this situation, each to their own though.

[pete0]

er because thats how you keep your fans onside by actually letting them know whats going on, its not the Cold War, cloak and dagger never achieved anything, it just surprises me how many evertonians seem happy to settle for this situation, each to their own though.

How many football clubs release all their information or any other business for that matter? Would be like purposely not mucking your losing hand in poker, your rivals gain much more than you will ever do from it.