Toon1892

No it’s not silent in FRS102. A balance sheet is at the end of a day. A general ledger has daily periods. The accounting policy clearly states that it is spread over the life of the contract. If you weren’t doing it daily you could argue annual recognition is spreading it over the lifetime of the contract but we both know this isn’t the case. Depending on the amount of PPE or intangibles and whether they are material you may get away with doing it monthly. I work with mainly listed entities though and companies with £100m + turnover. These are done daily. The risk of an error being material is too high to do monthly. Smaller businesses that don’t require audits or with a relatively small amount of PPE/ IA’s can do it monthly as it will be immaterial. Given the main cost in the accounts is player costs (transfers and wages) there isn’t a chance that it is done monthly. There is no auditor in the world that would sign off on that. The risk of material misstatement is too high. I have done quite a few football DD deals over the last few years. As a chartered accountant I can’t say who as it will breach confidentiality and it is now all done daily. Perhaps it’s changed since 20 years ago? If you are a chartered accountant I’m surprised you’re telling people your clients. Quick way to get struck off?

Football clubs do not amortise transfer fees monthly. It is daily. Sorry. Sorry but you’re just wrong here. Even if you were correct and it was monthly you round to the nearest month. Therefore if a player was signed on 30 June 2024, the months charge would be recognised in July 2024 given the majority of the first contractual month falls in July 2024. But in practice this isn’t how it works. It is done daily.

But the Tottenham game was the main fixture in a much bigger stadium. That was the game we would have agreed to play the first team as part of the payment for travelling that way. The match today wouldn’t have had an agreement in terms of which players to play.

No, I’m telling you as a chartered accountant. The standard dictates it needs to be calculated daily. It’s not a faff.

No it’s calculated daily

Why is everyone not thinking we can’t spend before 1 July!? Any transfer fee and wages are amortised over the length of the contract. If you sign a player the last day of June on a 5 year contract there is minimal expense for the year ended 30 June 2024. It doesn’t affect the buying side. The only reason you’d set up a contract to complete on 1 July is if the selling club wanted the profit in the latter period.

Wonder if everyone that was criticising Howe for not playing more of the kids when we had loads of injuries still thinks the same…

Yeah agree. His posts about City since he left them look a bit bitter. Hope he puts it behind him. The reserves compared to the u18’s is a big step up. He hasn’t been able to score in the reserve league this season. The step up from the reserves to top 8 premier league football is even bigger. I think fans will have to be very patient to see him/ if we ever see him. I think the local media have bigged him up a bit given he was a Man City youngster. Not sure how much that will help him because our fan base is now under the impression he’s amazing. We aren’t the most patient bunch. If a lower league club is willing to take him on loan next season that may be his best route.

It was based on ability. He hadn’t stepped up to City’s reserves at the age of 18. They made a decision that he wouldn’t make it.

How has his step up from under 18s to the reserves gone so far?

Yeah unfortunately the insinuation is incorrect though. He wasn’t offered a new contract.

I want a pathway to a pl first team too. If no one else offered me a contract it still doesn’t mean I’m going to be good.

Why do people think he’s going to be so good? I heard through someone with connections that Man City didn’t offer him a contract. The other ‘big 5’ didn’t either. He’s one that could make it, like the others, but as it stands he’s still got a very long way to go.

Anyone that goes will be a bit pissed off. Therefore it makes sense to take players that don’t have a future as it doesn’t matter if you do annoy them.

It’s the time difference that kills you regardless of what class

Has he not just done to Hall as he’s done with every other player he’s signed?

Squad decisions for next season: Pope (1) Dubravka (sell) Gillespie (2) karius (gone) Trippier (3, or sell and replace) Schar (4) Botman (5) Hall (Doesn’t count in 25 squad) Tino (6) Burn (7) Targett (sell) Krafth (8) Dummet (European contract only) Bruno (9) Joelinton (10) Tonali (11) Miley (Doesn’t count in squad) Longstaff (12) Willock (13) Ritchie (gone) Anderson (14) Almiron (sell?) Barnes (15) Murphy (16) Gordon (17) Wilson (18) Isak (19) Lascelles (20) Which means we need: New cb/ lb, Kelly? (21) New cb, Tosin? (22) New right winger (23) New reserve GK (24) Youngish striker? (25)

I didn’t get a say either despite having a season ticket. It was just a random sample I believe.

I don’t

I don’t think it’s negative. Beth speaks more sense than most of this forum. I know it’s just realism and a lot of posters prefer an echo chamber of happiness. Don’t get too upset if someone has a different opinion to you on a forum. That’s the whole point of a forum. Otherwise sit yourself in front of a mirror and crack on.

Not really. The value of the club will only increase if the debt on the balance sheet has a realistic ROI. If a balance sheet has huge debt in relation to a stadium that does not generate enough profit to pay back that debt the the value of the club will not increase. If the PL determine the new stadium build is not ‘feasible’ that cost/ depreciation on the build would not be an exempt cost for FFP/ PSR spending.

In order for it to be feasibly built they’d need to assess payback/ ROI. Which stadium hasn’t been built using ROI analysis (payback)? All new pl stadium builds would have had to be assessed and therefore they were found to be feasibly built. It’s not just as easy as saying the Saudi’s won’t care about payback. Given the rules the Saudi’s will very much care about payback.

They will be for footballing financial reasons- the cost of a new stadium is only exempt from ffp/psr if it’s feasibly built. They have to demonstrate a payback period that a third party would also be willing to do that project. Therefore in order for us to comply with ffp/ psr the payback will be high on their list of considerations.

Disagree a little here. Man City have the money to buy players that are class in the air and on the floor. I don’t think ‘it just happens that they’re both’. They’ve scouted those players and signed them because they’re good at both.

Yes but our third best defensive aerial player- Tino, wasn’t good enough to mark Burnley’s third best attacking player. Hence they scored. It’s our depth of good players in the air that is currently missing. I agree though if we keep Joelinton fit it is probably less of an issue. And with him fit we did manage to bully them at home this season and may have even had a bigger side with burn at left back. When Burn and Joelinton didn’t play at the Emirates I think they scored 2 or 3 set pieces against us.