Post subject: Re: Rovers Accounts to 30th November 2007
Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 10:25 pm
Vicenzo
Club Coach
Joined: Jul 31 2005 Posts: 1802
Mrs Barista wrote:So FC's net value is much more than Rovers, then. Glad we've cleared that up
You're really struggling with the concepts of P&L and Balance sheet, aren't you? If FC had recorded the invoices for sponsorship before the end of October, the double entry in the accounts would be Debit Debtors (Balance sheet - Debtors), Credit Deferred Income (Balance sheet- creditors due within one year). Some companies do this to inflate asset value, but it also inflates creditors and is known as window dressing as it makes no difference to the net asset position. So really using your methodology, I'm understating Hull's net worth by £534k and Rovers by £219k, increasing the differential by £300k in Hull's favour. The other thing is you don't know what's in that debtors number. If we pay rent quarterly in advance to the SMC in September for example, two thirds of that payment would be classed as a prepayment and shown within debtors.
I'm going to drop a line to Sadofsky's anyway to clarify their principles on income recognition as your comments suggest there is a material misstatement in Hull's accounts that their shareholders should be aware of.
You do that, I couldn't care less. Like I said before, an abbbreviated balance sheet does not give a true story. If Hull SL are owed so much money at the end of 2007 (Oct) it can only be for the next season and is therefore not relevant to that years figures.I assume they issue invoices for snsorship etc for the next season but date them in the current financial year, it is not the way I was taught to run a company. If the Directors insist to their accountants that they wish it be included then so be it. I said at the beginning, I look at a balance sheet not throught the eyes of an accountant. I will go further and say that a companies true worth cannot be declared unless it goes into liquidation. That is why I say that if the debtors included in the 2007 y/e refers to the next year I am nearer the true valuation than what is shown. I have NEVER said anywhere that Rovers are in a better position than anyone else. As to Kosh joining in, its strange is it not that he choses to do so when he does not afford me the opportunity of doing the same thing on your boards. In fact, he went even further and banned some poor sucker because he suspected it was me. I'd like to see what part of the AUP covers such an action. Mind you, he is a scientist so his mind is probably way ahead of mere mortals!
Just for interest, who do you think will owe the company over £500k to the year ending 2007?
Post subject: Re: Rovers Accounts to 30th November 2007
Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 10:54 pm
Mrs Barista
International Board Member
Joined: Jul 15 2005 Posts: 29811 Location: West Yorkshire
Vicenzo wrote:You do that, I couldn't care less. Like I said before, an abbbreviated balance sheet does not give a true story. If Hull SL are owed so much money at the end of 2007 (Oct) it can only be for the next season and is therefore not relevant to that years figures.I assume they issue invoices for snsorship etc for the next season but date them in the current financial year, it is not the way I was taught to run a company. If the Directors insist to their accountants that they wish it be included then so be it. I said at the beginning, I look at a balance sheet not throught the eyes of an accountant. I will go further and say that a companies true worth cannot be declared unless it goes into liquidation. That is why I say that if the debtors included in the 2007 y/e refers to the next year I am nearer the true valuation than what is shown. I have NEVER said anywhere that Rovers are in a better position than anyone else. As to Kosh joining in, its strange is it not that he choses to do so when he does not afford me the opportunity of doing the same thing on your boards. In fact, he went even further and banned some poor sucker because he suspected it was me. I'd like to see what part of the AUP covers such an action. Mind you, he is a scientist so his mind is probably way ahead of mere mortals!
Just for interest, who do you think will owe the company over £500k to the year ending 2007?
Unless Sadofsky's have failed to apply the accruals principle, IF FC have raised invoices in respect of 2008 in the year to October 2007, the entry in the accounts is to debtors and creditors (equal and opposite amounts) so the net worth of the company is not affected. If the invoices are raised and booked to the P&L in 2007, you are correct, this would be a debtor without value, but it would also contravene basic accounting principles. I have raised this concern with Sadofsky as it could potentially be a material misstatement in the accounts that they have signed off as true and fair. When I qualified as an accountant I did a fair bit of auditing and in my experience there is a lot of work done on year-end cut-off dates and making sure income and costs are reflected in the correct periods. I would be shocked if Sadofskys allowed income to be posted incorrectly as you imply. Not because there haven't been some major accounting c0ck-ups in some companies in the past, but because it's such a basic thing to get wrong.
There are a whole host of things that can be recorded as debtors in a balance sheet - any item of expenditure where the cash has been spent before consideration has been received for e.g. if the club had paid for an annual IT maintenance contract in September, 11/12 of that payment would be shown in the balance sheet as a debtor. Other examples where you pay up front could be SMC or payroll costs , or HMCE if VAT on purchases exceeds that on sales, a quite feasible scenario if you think our season ticket sales don't go on sale until November.
Post subject: Re: Rovers Accounts to 30th November 2007
Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 11:17 pm
Mild mannered Janitor
Club Owner
Joined: Feb 09 2004 Posts: 7735 Location: Here there and everywhere
Gordon Gekko wrote:There is no absolute proof that this person exists unless long term liabilities (£737k) are made up of directors loans from the said 'person' which would lessen the overall net liability somewhat in the short/medium term.
Also if you want a direct comparison with the performance of Hull you would have to look at Hulls books after their first S/L season, the season which these accounts are produced for. Remember Hull have had 7 years of S/L handouts to get where they are now.
Neither Clubs accounts make particularly good reading but nor do most RL clubs, and with Hull about to commit £2m to their training facility i would say theirs are about to take a turn for the worse as there is no evidence that this money can be raised without considerable borrowing, thus incurring more debt.
Why, did rovers not trade during the period they were not in SL?
What was the average gate in '07? Close to 8000, yet a loss of over £400k. Thats the worrying part.
Agreed that neither sets of A/cs look good, but you are off the mark with your comment about Hull proposed investment. At last they will have a few more tangible assets to their name which will match off the liability of any borrowings when first recognised, therefore that should not impact on the net asset / liability position.
Post subject: Re: Rovers Accounts to 30th November 2007
Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 11:30 pm
Mild mannered Janitor
Club Owner
Joined: Feb 09 2004 Posts: 7735 Location: Here there and everywhere
Vicenzo wrote:I've said many times that abbreviated accounts do not give enough information to form a real opinion. I have sent for Rovers to look at but I will say about yours, unlike you I do not look at them like an accountant but as a director/investor. I calculate that the present situation is that they are in a negative position to the tune of £1.573 million. I calculate this by completely removing the intangibles, halving the tangibles to reflect the true (firesale) valuation and removing the debtors amount which we have all agreed (I think) do not belong in the accounts to y/e 2007 as they are apparently for the following season. Lets be honest, if the club folded in the October of 2007 you could hardly count them could you?
Remember, I do not do "account speak" I look at the true value of the company (Hull SL) and this is the nearest to the truth. I do know someone who has seen the full balance sheet when he attempting to buy the club and he walked away from it saying there was an undisclosed "blackhole"
Having Hull SL's abbreviated accounts didn't stop you forming a fairly damning opinion in the past
The tangibled you halved were only revalued to market value in the year to those accounts so halving them is unrealistic.
The fact remains Vince, that rovers lost over £400k in their first season in the top flight and have a must worse net liability position. If I recall you warned many Hull fans that the end of the world was just around the corner a few years ago on the back of some abbreviateds but you seem strangley calm about rovers situation.
Post subject: Re: Rovers Accounts to 30th November 2007
Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:26 am
Mild mannered Janitor
Club Owner
Joined: Feb 09 2004 Posts: 7735 Location: Here there and everywhere
Vicenzo wrote:You do that, I couldn't care less. Like I said before, an abbbreviated balance sheet does not give a true story. If Hull SL are owed so much money at the end of 2007 (Oct) it can only be for the next season and is therefore not relevant to that years figures.I assume they issue invoices for snsorship etc for the next season but date them in the current financial year, it is not the way I was taught to run a company. If the Directors insist to their accountants that they wish it be included then so be it. I said at the beginning, I look at a balance sheet not throught the eyes of an accountant. I will go further and say that a companies true worth cannot be declared unless it goes into liquidation. That is why I say that if the debtors included in the 2007 y/e refers to the next year I am nearer the true valuation than what is shown. I have NEVER said anywhere that Rovers are in a better position than anyone else. As to Kosh joining in, its strange is it not that he choses to do so when he does not afford me the opportunity of doing the same thing on your boards. In fact, he went even further and banned some poor sucker because he suspected it was me. I'd like to see what part of the AUP covers such an action. Mind you, he is a scientist so his mind is probably way ahead of mere mortals!
Just for interest, who do you think will owe the company over £500k to the year ending 2007?
Thats the biggest load of tosh you have posted for some time.
A companies true worth is n othing to do with its balance sheet. Its what someone is prepared to pay for it. Usually what someone is prepared to pay for it is based on all the inherent factors which are virtually impossible to value (customer base, perceived quality, brand etc - or put another way, the companies future profitability potential).
You seem to confuse the role accountants have in business with your bad experiance of ONE which you chose in the past. Who do you think corporate finance and due dillegance are?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum