Guest mkowl Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 Cheers Sam - the real reason is I am crap at computer crap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mkowl Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 It's not the same. Large ticket agencies have different clients so keep funds for each client separate. Wednesday don't have different clients. They are selling tickets for Wednesday only. Yep the clue is the use of the word agency in other circumstances. If a band sold tickets directly and trousered the cash then the same applies as with us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whatahoot Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 (edited) It's not the same. Large ticket agencies have different clients so keep funds for each client separate. Wednesday don't have different clients. They are selling tickets for Wednesday only. I think the short answer is that we are going to have to wait for the 2016 accounts, before we can be sure of the accountancy treatment of the advanced season ticket sales monies. SWFC have never been in this position before re advanced sales. The FA or League may issue their directives, remembering the debacle that was Glasgow Rangers and the illicit use of forward season ticket sales monies. Edited February 29, 2016 by Whatahoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mkowl Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 I think the short answer is that we are going to have to wait for the 2016 accounts, before we can be sure of the accountancy treatment of the advanced season ticket sales monies. SWFC have never been in this position before re advanced sales. The FA or League may issue their directives, remembering the debacle that was Glasgow Rangers and the illicit use of forward season ticket sales monies. We have it every season with one year season tickets sold before the year end. In my professional opinion there is a very simple answer as set out in accounting standards as to how this is treated. That is to treat as deferred income until the season it relates to when it is then released to P and L None of this stops the cash received now from being spent now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S36 OWL Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 (edited) The Blunts are going through our accounts with a fine tooth comb on S2 4su They are wondering why their admin costs are higher than ours. http://www.s24su.com/forum/index.php?threads/the-budget.44598/page-7 Post 132 onwards Edited February 29, 2016 by S36 OWL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whatahoot Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 We have it every season with one year season tickets sold before the year end. In my professional opinion there is a very simple answer as set out in accounting standards as to how this is treated. That is to treat as deferred income until the season it relates to when it is then released to P and L None of this stops the cash received now from being spent now I agree with your response for monies received for a season that is imminent, which has been received in the financial period just ended (May). My comments are aimed at those monies received for seasons following that ie year 2 and 3. I would prefer to wait and see how the accounts are presented next year ....thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mkowl Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 Shouldn't really make any difference Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest oasisowl81 Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 I agree with your response for monies received for a season that is imminent, which has been received in the financial period just ended (May). My comments are aimed at those monies received for seasons following that ie year 2 and 3. I would prefer to wait and see how the accounts are presented next year ....thanks Try and dig out the 99/00 and 00/01 accounts as we had three year season tickets back then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whatahoot Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 Shouldn't really make any difference We shall see then next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mkowl Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 Try and dig out the 99/00 and 00/01 accounts as we had three year season tickets back then. Be in deferred income due less than year and more than one year. If it wasn't then the accounts were wrong With some of the staff I have had working for me over the years then they might have done it like that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonny Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 Thanks for posting your thoughts Sam. MK, how much is the big sum owed to us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mkowl Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 Over a million Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluesteel Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 (edited) Why would DC need to put STs on sale to repay a loan of 1.5m when we have been spending bigger sums than that in other areas? I knew the accounts would also prove what a desperate deal MM struck for Antonio. Especially if we haven't been paid some of it. Milan was also saying he was 20m deep by the time we reached the championship, I'm guessing this was his cap and he borrowed a couple of years worth of losses to tide him over til he made a sale? Edited February 29, 2016 by Bluesteel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichieB Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 How the hell can forest get away without paying us the Antonio money? Especially as they got £7m (I think) for him, they should have payed us with that. That's if it is true they owe us money of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcx666 Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 How the hell can forest get away without paying us the Antonio money? Especially as they got £7m (I think) for him, they should have payed us with that. That's if it is true they owe us money of course. given the fact they screwed peterbrough over Assonbalonga, and are in their 2nd year of embargo it wouldnt surprise me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mkowl Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 How the hell can forest get away without paying us the Antonio money? Especially as they got £7m (I think) for him, they should have payed us with that. That's if it is true they owe us money of course. It's an hypothesis, there is insufficient detail in the accounts as to who actually owes us money It is quite common for transfer fees to be paid in instalments not a one off. More interesting was that we appeared to have spent £1.7m on players Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonny Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 Stevie May, possibly some money to pay up Tom Lees contract? Will it include Melo, Bus and Vermilj? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mkowl Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 Stevie May, possibly some money to pay up Tom Lees contract? Will it include Melo, Bus and Vermilj? Yep thinking about when those players came in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsioOtus Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 The accounting treatment of the 3 years season tickets will be matched to the correct period as said. The cash however is in the bank and available to spend now. Whilst on obviously connected, the P&L, B/S and cash flow represent different things. What would the point of selling in advance at a discount if the money for years 2 and 3 was just going to sit in a bank account protected till we could spend it...good for the fans who can afford to take it , but not exactly commercially sensible for club if it worked this way. The point of doing it is to generate cash.... We have a lot more cash than normal now/for next season. We won't have as much for the two seasons after unless we get it from elsewhere....ie. Premiership, owner loans, investment, (sponsorship) etc. A good decision if the investment delivers the intended result, not so good if it doesn't. There are 23 other teams each with their own plan to get the same intended result at same time. Our position ought to be up there nearer the top of those than the bottom to give us a good chance, but nothing guaranteed. Leicester and Tottenham are pretty good current examples that it isn't all about the biggest investment, it's about implementing your plan better than anyone else. Money obviously important, but just as important in years two and three too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eDDie Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 ^^^ This it the post I logged on to write ^^^ It's clear that the structure of loans/investment in and repayments back out were part of the overall tax treatment of the business. It looks like DC is continuing the good practice of MM in that regard. Accumulated tax losses of £56m. That'll come in handy at some point. Link to comment 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