Spider Jerusalem Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Not sure that this is the time of the week to be delving into accounts. Ammortisation etc etc..... This is one of the other things that puzzles me about accounts to be honest. The whole ammortisation thing has became come to the forefront whenever the accounts are published during the time that Ashley has been in charge as a major loss area. However, in his first year we were told that a) players were being bought outright, without installments over the players contract and that b) prior to the January transfer window in that first year we were told that they had 'discovered' a load of debt owed from transfers and paid that off so we were no longer in debt. According to the accounts from the Pardew thread, the player ammortisation loss has gone up year on year under Ashley. Tell me if I'm wrong but isn't this supposed to be based on the asset bought related to money owed on that asset over time. If we had paid outright for players since he came into the club and paid off the debt, how were the ammortisation figures not just increasing, but actually present in the accounts? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BooBoo Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 As Gemmill used to say: it's like watching retards play swingball. what are reatrds ? Ask Gemmill, you reatrd so you don't know ? Well, yes, I know the answer. There are kids on here who talk utter shite with very little substance to their arguments. When pressed, they disappear. No idea why? Yourself? So much rage. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
midds Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 As Gemmill used to say: it's like watching retards play swingball. what are reatrds ? Ask Gemmill, you reatrd so you don't know ? Well, yes, I know the answer. There are kids on here who talk utter shite with very little substance to their arguments. When pressed, they disappear. No idea why? Yourself? Do you want to name names or keep it vague? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pie Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Not sure that this is the time of the week to be delving into accounts. Ammortisation etc etc..... This is one of the other things that puzzles me about accounts to be honest. The whole ammortisation thing has became come to the forefront whenever the accounts are published during the time that Ashley has been in charge as a major loss area. However, in his first year we were told that a) players were being bought outright, without installments over the players contract and that b) prior to the January transfer window in that first year we were told that they had 'discovered' a load of debt owed from transfers and paid that off so we were no longer in debt. According to the accounts from the Pardew thread, the player ammortisation loss has gone up year on year under Ashley. Tell me if I'm wrong but isn't this supposed to be based on the asset bought related to money owed on that asset over time. If we had paid outright for players since he came into the club and paid off the debt, how were the ammortisation figures not just increasing, but actually present in the accounts? Accounts are not black and white. Are they in any business? They will tell you what the owner(s) want you to hear. SOme good, some shite. The latter should be music to your ears. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveMc Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Not sure that this is the time of the week to be delving into accounts. Ammortisation etc etc..... This is one of the other things that puzzles me about accounts to be honest. The whole ammortisation thing has became come to the forefront whenever the accounts are published during the time that Ashley has been in charge as a major loss area. However, in his first year we were told that a) players were being bought outright, without installments over the players contract and that b) prior to the January transfer window in that first year we were told that they had 'discovered' a load of debt owed from transfers and paid that off so we were no longer in debt. According to the accounts from the Pardew thread, the player ammortisation loss has gone up year on year under Ashley. Tell me if I'm wrong but isn't this supposed to be based on the asset bought related to money owed on that asset over time. If we had paid outright for players since he came into the club and paid off the debt, how were the ammortisation figures not just increasing, but actually present in the accounts? I think that the value of player on paper decreases over the course of his contract. So if Jose was worh 6m in 2007 he is worth 1.5 now. So nowt to do with how we pay or what we owe. Very rudimentary stuff though - not sure if right Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pie Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 As Gemmill used to say: it's like watching retards play swingball. what are reatrds ? Ask Gemmill, you reatrd so you don't know ? Well, yes, I know the answer. There are kids on here who talk utter shite with very little substance to their arguments. When pressed, they disappear. No idea why? Yourself? Do you want to name names or keep it vague? Plural too difficult? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider Jerusalem Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Accounts are not black and white. Are they in any business? They will tell you what the owner(s) want you to hear. SOme good, some shite. The latter should be music to your ears. So you don't know then. Thank you for imparting your lack of knowledge and increasing your count. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pie Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Not sure that this is the time of the week to be delving into accounts. Ammortisation etc etc..... This is one of the other things that puzzles me about accounts to be honest. The whole ammortisation thing has became come to the forefront whenever the accounts are published during the time that Ashley has been in charge as a major loss area. However, in his first year we were told that a) players were being bought outright, without installments over the players contract and that b) prior to the January transfer window in that first year we were told that they had 'discovered' a load of debt owed from transfers and paid that off so we were no longer in debt. According to the accounts from the Pardew thread, the player ammortisation loss has gone up year on year under Ashley. Tell me if I'm wrong but isn't this supposed to be based on the asset bought related to money owed on that asset over time. If we had paid outright for players since he came into the club and paid off the debt, how were the ammortisation figures not just increasing, but actually present in the accounts? I think that the value of player on paper decreases over the course of his contract. So if Jose was worh 6m in 2007 he is worth 1.5 now. So nowt to do with how we pay or what we owe. Very rudimentary stuff though - not sure if right Is that your contribution ? Depeciation? Well,you could now work out why Andy Carroll. Nile Ranger etc were recently given five year contracts. Genius. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
midds Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 As Gemmill used to say: it's like watching retards play swingball. what are reatrds ? Ask Gemmill, you reatrd so you don't know ? Well, yes, I know the answer. There are kids on here who talk utter shite with very little substance to their arguments. When pressed, they disappear. No idea why? Yourself? Do you want to name names or keep it vague? Plural too difficult? Ok. Who are these kids you're talking about? Is that a clear enough question your highness? Just giz a list, eh? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Not sure that this is the time of the week to be delving into accounts. Ammortisation etc etc..... This is one of the other things that puzzles me about accounts to be honest. The whole ammortisation thing has became come to the forefront whenever the accounts are published during the time that Ashley has been in charge as a major loss area. However, in his first year we were told that a) players were being bought outright, without installments over the players contract and that b) prior to the January transfer window in that first year we were told that they had 'discovered' a load of debt owed from transfers and paid that off so we were no longer in debt. According to the accounts from the Pardew thread, the player ammortisation loss has gone up year on year under Ashley. Tell me if I'm wrong but isn't this supposed to be based on the asset bought related to money owed on that asset over time. If we had paid outright for players since he came into the club and paid off the debt, how were the ammortisation figures not just increasing, but actually present in the accounts? Accounts are not black and white. Are they in any business? They will tell you what the owner(s) want you to hear. SOme good, some s****. The latter should be music to your ears. you reckon ? in some cases like enron (i decided to go big for something everyones heard of) you have a point, but in the most part business accounts give a fairly accurate picture of where the company in question is at. it's learning how to read them and knowing what to look for. something which i admit i am only just learning. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Is that your contribution ? Depeciation? Well,you could now work out why Andy Carroll. Nile Ranger etc were recently given five year contracts. Genius. His contribution has been no less than yours. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pie Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Accounts are not black and white. Are they in any business? They will tell you what the owner(s) want you to hear. SOme good, some shite. The latter should be music to your ears. So you don't know then. Thank you for imparting your lack of knowledge and increasing your count. Evidently, i do. So who do you play with? http://www.cluefairy.com/photos/brownie.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Not sure that this is the time of the week to be delving into accounts. Ammortisation etc etc..... This is one of the other things that puzzles me about accounts to be honest. The whole ammortisation thing has became come to the forefront whenever the accounts are published during the time that Ashley has been in charge as a major loss area. However, in his first year we were told that a) players were being bought outright, without installments over the players contract and that b) prior to the January transfer window in that first year we were told that they had 'discovered' a load of debt owed from transfers and paid that off so we were no longer in debt. According to the accounts from the Pardew thread, the player ammortisation loss has gone up year on year under Ashley. Tell me if I'm wrong but isn't this supposed to be based on the asset bought related to money owed on that asset over time. If we had paid outright for players since he came into the club and paid off the debt, how were the ammortisation figures not just increasing, but actually present in the accounts? I think that the value of player on paper decreases over the course of his contract. So if Jose was worh 6m in 2007 he is worth 1.5 now. So nowt to do with how we pay or what we owe. Very rudimentary stuff though - not sure if right Is that your contribution ? Depeciation? Well,you could now work out why Andy Carroll. Nile Ranger etc were recently given five year contracts. Genius. here, i'll loan you an 'r' for your depreciation saying as you were cheeky before. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interpolic Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 As Gemmill used to say: it's like watching retards play swingball. what are reatrds ? Ask Gemmill, you reatrd so you don't know ? Well, yes, I know the answer. There are kids on here who talk utter shite with very little substance to their arguments. When pressed, they disappear. No idea why? Yourself? You're not actually saying anything meaningful yourself. You started off by slagging off Wullie for not having a good enough understanding of what happened in the 80s and at the same time expecting better of the current board than the one we had in the 80s. I don't get the point you're making, other than that you're feeling brave and that everyone's talking shite. What do you think of the situation atm? That would be a good start. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider Jerusalem Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 His contribution has been no less than yours. Don't bite Mick, he's either a) after a ban b) a troll c) spamming d) an utter wanker e) all of the above I'm going for d to be honest.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 His contribution has been no less than yours. Don't bite Mick, he's either a) after a ban b) a troll c) spamming d) an utter w***** e) all of the above I'm going for d to be honest.... f) post pub. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pie Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Not sure that this is the time of the week to be delving into accounts. Ammortisation etc etc..... This is one of the other things that puzzles me about accounts to be honest. The whole ammortisation thing has became come to the forefront whenever the accounts are published during the time that Ashley has been in charge as a major loss area. However, in his first year we were told that a) players were being bought outright, without installments over the players contract and that b) prior to the January transfer window in that first year we were told that they had 'discovered' a load of debt owed from transfers and paid that off so we were no longer in debt. According to the accounts from the Pardew thread, the player ammortisation loss has gone up year on year under Ashley. Tell me if I'm wrong but isn't this supposed to be based on the asset bought related to money owed on that asset over time. If we had paid outright for players since he came into the club and paid off the debt, how were the ammortisation figures not just increasing, but actually present in the accounts? I think that the value of player on paper decreases over the course of his contract. So if Jose was worh 6m in 2007 he is worth 1.5 now. So nowt to do with how we pay or what we owe. Very rudimentary stuff though - not sure if right Is that your contribution ? Depeciation? Well,you could now work out why Andy Carroll. Nile Ranger etc were recently given five year contracts. Genius. here, i'll loan you an 'r' for your depreciation saying as you were cheeky before. Typo allowed then? I'll loan you a dimwit in return. No worries mate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
midds Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Fucking arsehole. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 LOOK AT ME EVERYONE! LOOK AT ME! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Not sure that this is the time of the week to be delving into accounts. Ammortisation etc etc..... This is one of the other things that puzzles me about accounts to be honest. The whole ammortisation thing has became come to the forefront whenever the accounts are published during the time that Ashley has been in charge as a major loss area. However, in his first year we were told that a) players were being bought outright, without installments over the players contract and that b) prior to the January transfer window in that first year we were told that they had 'discovered' a load of debt owed from transfers and paid that off so we were no longer in debt. According to the accounts from the Pardew thread, the player ammortisation loss has gone up year on year under Ashley. Tell me if I'm wrong but isn't this supposed to be based on the asset bought related to money owed on that asset over time. If we had paid outright for players since he came into the club and paid off the debt, how were the ammortisation figures not just increasing, but actually present in the accounts? I think that the value of player on paper decreases over the course of his contract. So if Jose was worh 6m in 2007 he is worth 1.5 now. So nowt to do with how we pay or what we owe. Very rudimentary stuff though - not sure if right Is that your contribution ? Depeciation? Well,you could now work out why Andy Carroll. Nile Ranger etc were recently given five year contracts. Genius. here, i'll loan you an 'r' for your depreciation saying as you were cheeky before. Typo allowed then? I'll loan you a dimwit in return. No worries mate. your's are typos,mine aren't ?, now i know where you're coming from. enjoy it everyone, it's like having vicky back for a night. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Don't bite Mick, he's either a) after a ban b) a troll c) spamming d) an utter w***** e) all of the above I'm going for d to be honest.... I didn't bite and I agree with madras, f. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BooBoo Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Drunken buffoon. He'll regret this hogwash in the morning. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pie Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 LOOK AT ME EVERYONE! LOOK AT ME! Weak. Predictable though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider Jerusalem Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 I think that the value of player on paper decreases over the course of his contract. So if Jose was worh 6m in 2007 he is worth 1.5 now. So nowt to do with how we pay or what we owe. Very rudimentary stuff though - not sure if right Any way, cheers Steve - I did very (and I mean very) rudimentary accounts at Uni, and felt that this was rather a 'value of the business' issue rather than actual money being taken out of the bank account. Just makes you wonder where all that 'virtual money' has gone from the club to help towards a large year-on-year loss... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pie Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Fucking arsehole. Pardon? I'msure you are aware OFSTED/in the absence of the GTC) could have your IP address? Given the right encouragement, of course. Oops, appears they do! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now