kobayashi Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 49 minutes ago, mkowl said: Has to be that to get around FFP As I mentioned yesterday not convinced the EFL accountants won't suggest invoking substance over legal form and suggesting that accounting principles could equally defer some or part of the income against this future "cost. So if you bought something today but got a 10% voucher off a future purchase then accounting wise should make a provision for their future use IFRS15 revenue recognition 5 step framework 1. Identify the contract(s) with a customer 2. Identify the performance obligations in the contract 3. Determine the transaction price 4. Allocate the transaction price to the performance obligations in the contract 5. Recognise revenue when (or as) the entity satisfies a performance obligation Presumably the idea is that the transaction is the purchase of a book and the revenue recognised against supply of the book. But this bears no scutiny and is undermined by the fact that the price for the same book is anything from £255 to £3200. Same book but a price difference of 1255% - demonstrably the transaction price has nothing to do with the book but is clearly fixed to the performance obligation of the "season ticket bonus" and should be allocated to those obligations and recognised as deferred income. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morepork Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 (edited) 29 minutes ago, kobayashi said: IFRS15 revenue recognition 5 step framework 1. Identify the contract(s) with a customer 2. Identify the performance obligations in the contract 3. Determine the transaction price 4. Allocate the transaction price to the performance obligations in the contract 5. Recognise revenue when (or as) the entity satisfies a performance obligation Presumably the idea is that the transaction is the purchase of a book and the revenue recognised against supply of the book. But this bears no scutiny and is undermined by the fact that the price for the same book is anything from £255 to £3200. Same book but a price difference of 1255% - demonstrably the transaction price has nothing to do with the book but is clearly fixed to the performance obligation of the "season ticket bonus" and should be allocated to those obligations and recognised as deferred income. I've read that 15 times......can you break it down to a simple yes or no???? Edited January 23, 2019 by Morepork 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StudentOwl Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 1 hour ago, Costello 77 said: We'll never have an ideal world but I can see your viewpoint... however I think the season ticket prices aren't bad as they stand. Totally agree, they're pretty decent... and I'm happy that the loyal fans are getting a fair deal. But for me personally I'm not gonna "start off watching Wednesday" (for want of a better phrase) by diving in and forking out the best part of half a grand, and then that also leaves me in a position where I just can't justify the best part of 30 quid for a matchday ticket... never mind the travel expenses etc. Alas, maybe that just shows that top-two division football isn't for me and I should get over that. Honestly I'm more voicing this in an "I wonder how many others this is a somewhat representative scenario for" way rather than a "WOE IS ME" kinda way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roscoe P. Coltrane Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 3 minutes ago, StudentOwl said: Totally agree, they're pretty decent... and I'm happy that the loyal fans are getting a fair deal. But for me personally I'm not gonna "start off watching Wednesday" (for want of a better phrase) by diving in and forking out the best part of half a grand, and then that also leaves me in a position where I just can't justify the best part of 30 quid for a matchday ticket... never mind the travel expenses etc. Alas, maybe that just shows that top-two division football isn't for me and I should get over that. Honestly I'm more voicing this in an "I wonder how many others this is a somewhat representative scenario for" way rather than a "WOE IS ME" kinda way. Don't think you'll be on you're own mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maddogbob Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 Friendly warning to those doing a bit of name calling in the thread. Lets keep the debate going and lose the personal stuff. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maddogbob Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Mrs Blenkinsops shed said: Don't think you'll be on you're own mate. Totally agree, with you and student owl. Ill just turn up when I can afford it. Dosnt make me any less of a fan and dont expect tickets to the big games. I certainly cant justify dropping a mortgage payment on something that might not happen for ten years. Put it this way, I see it as a gamble. Would I bet roughly one months mortgage payment on a horse at 10/1, given that the owner, dispite investing in the horse he hasnt quite found a winning formula to go the extend distance needed to take a big win. Plus hes just changed the jockey. Nah ill pass. Depends on your perception of value and if you have the money to lose. Edited January 23, 2019 by Maddogbob 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiJ Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 I find the whole thing pretty unpleasant tbh. Not only is it a stupid idea and I'd be staggered if many are daft (or rich) enough to stump up for it, but it's also the quite blatant emotional blackmailing of fans too. We already pay some of the highest prices in the league - and do so for a team who have massively underperformed for two seasons running. We are now being asked to stump up further cash to cover a financial blackhole that has bee caused by the chairman's poor management and lack of know-how. I have no doubt that Chansiri will throw his toys out the pram when we sell about 10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
owlsup Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 Maybe it is me being a bit over simplistic and perhaps I’ve read this thing back to front - so please correct if I am wrong - but this thing is quite straightforward: - wealthy family’s son buys club given challenge to prove worth - takes on challenge with best intentions - nearly makes it but sadly fails - realises poor decision making and how has been fleeced - completely out of depth and throws kitchen sink at it - runs close but misses out again - tries getting cash back in via membership, ticket and schemes - fails - feeling heat from efl and fans - launches more schemes....trying to avoid previous recurring issues... The basic definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result..... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mkowl Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 50 minutes ago, Morepork said: I've read that 15 times......can you break it down to a simple yes or no???? Well I understood it so ner ner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morepork Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 (edited) 3 minutes ago, mkowl said: Well I understood it so ner ner Yes or no then.....? and can you do my tax return. Edited January 23, 2019 by Morepork Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mkowl Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 1 hour ago, kobayashi said: IFRS15 revenue recognition 5 step framework 1. Identify the contract(s) with a customer 2. Identify the performance obligations in the contract 3. Determine the transaction price 4. Allocate the transaction price to the performance obligations in the contract 5. Recognise revenue when (or as) the entity satisfies a performance obligation Presumably the idea is that the transaction is the purchase of a book and the revenue recognised against supply of the book. But this bears no scutiny and is undermined by the fact that the price for the same book is anything from £255 to £3200. Same book but a price difference of 1255% - demonstrably the transaction price has nothing to do with the book but is clearly fixed to the performance obligation of the "season ticket bonus" and should be allocated to those obligations and recognised as deferred income. FRS 102 used in the accounts but yep principles of revenue recognition basically the same. So agree your conclusion - Good job we don't work for the EFL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maddogbob Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 7 minutes ago, SiJ said: I find the whole thing pretty unpleasant tbh. Not only is it a stupid idea and I'd be staggered if many are daft (or rich) enough to stump up for it, but it's also the quite blatant emotional blackmailing of fans too. We already pay some of the highest prices in the league - and do so for a team who have massively underperformed for two seasons running. We are now being asked to stump up further cash to cover a financial blackhole that has bee caused by the chairman's poor management and lack of know-how. I have no doubt that Chansiri will throw his toys out the pram when we sell about 10. And its creating, yet more devision in the fanbase. Something, we really dont need more of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobness Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 10 minutes ago, SiJ said: Not only is it a stupid idea and I'd be staggered if many are daft (and rich) enough to stump up for it, but it's also the quite blatant emotional blackmailing of fans too. Fixed it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mkowl Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 Just now, Morepork said: Yes or no then.....? Yes and no It partially works for FFP purposes and there is plenty of interpretation scope with accounts. 2 different accountants would give 2 different answers depending on what answer the client wanted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morepork Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 (edited) 3 minutes ago, mkowl said: Yes and no It partially works for FFP purposes and there is plenty of interpretation scope with accounts. 2 different accountants would give 2 different answers depending on what answer the client wanted That was like a politicians answer mkowl..... In my experience "ambiguity" can be both good and bad when it comes to matters of accounting.... Edited January 23, 2019 by Morepork Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mkowl Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 Just now, Morepork said: In my experience "ambiguity" can be both good and bad when it comes to matters of accounting.... I make a living out if it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highbury Owl Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 Forgive me for losing the plot here but imo for the prices they are quoting that's what you should be paying TO GET A SEASON TICKET. and.... If you sign up for a five year deal you MIGHT EXPECT TO GET A DISCOUNT for a few more years. (sorry for SHOUTING) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
owlsup Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 2 minutes ago, mkowl said: FRS 102 used in the accounts but yep principles of revenue recognition basically the same. So agree your conclusion - Good job we don't work for the EFL MK - your analysis and interpretation is excellent and thank you. As a general question, as you follow far more than I do, who audits the accounts (I know I can find it out), for how long and have the relevant standards been applied correctly with transitional rules applied? I don’t expect an answer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebneeb Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 I'd give the proposition some thought if I didn't have zero confidence in the chairman to run the club sensibly. Sadly, this is not an investment. An investment provides a business funds to do something with. We've already spent the funds he is now trying to raise. He's shown no signs he has learned and is about to run then club sensibly even if the fans dig him out. We need to wheel and deal. Salaries and transfer fees make any scheme such as this like weeing in the wind. At best it would delay the inevitable by 1 season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morepork Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 Hand on heart would be amazed if sales of the Club 1867 even reach double figures. Someone said it yesterday, the club does not know the demographics of the majority of its fans (customers.....) and this whole episode and the fact that they are persevering with it proves it IMO. 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