To be honest, I think the chances of the 'investment' ever being recouped in full are slim to vanishing. I know it is on a different scale, but do you think Abramovich expects to ever get a financial return on Chelsea?

Keeping the club afloat and maybe turning a modest profit have to be the realistic ambitions. Hudgell has said the board are committed to financially supporting the club through 2010 at least, beyond that a different model might have to be adopted. An upturn in the economy and the potential for improvement on the retail side of things could help, as would any largesse from local stakeholders. Bringing through a few young, local and cheaper players to gradually replace some of the big earners brought in to make us competitive quickly would help cut costs. It won't be easy - as evidenced by the 10 other SL clubs running sizeable deficits. Of the other 3, Bradford's transition hasn't been altogether painless and you have to wonder how much Hull's financial success is down to business acumen (I'd be the first to admit some of it is, btw) and how much due to the KC falling in their lap. Leeds, being bigger than most of their rivals have an inbuilt advantage - just the way it is. So, in theory, should Wigan though.

There are two ways to get their money back:

1. Increase revenue/reduce expenditure leading to increased profitability over a period of time gradually reducing the debt, as is happening at Hull FC.

2. Sell out to someone else who will invest the money to repay their loans as part of the deal.

The third option is to accept that they are doing it for their love of the club and are unlikely to get their money back. In this day and age you have to admire anyone who takes that view.

It overstates Fixed Assets simply because it is against standard accounting practice. I don't know of many companies that include their employees as fixed assets in their y/e accounts.

It doesnt. It adds players on their for information. They do not officially count against fixed assets. They do not feed into the financials that make up the P&L. Anyone reading the accounts that knows what theyre reading will know that the players are not fixed assets. Its not against any practice that i know of, its just not standard, doesnt mean its wrong.

Is that from our accounts ? How do we know its the accountants disagreeing with the club, it could be the other way around ?

Again, its of no consequence to the P&L though.

The disagreement must go in both directions, by definition. Or are you suggesting the accountants insisted on including the valuations, despite dissent from the club, then included a note implying it was an unusual thing to do? Strikes me as unlikely.



Indeed. Biggest red herring since Sherlock Holmes' 'Case of the Giant Crimson Kipper'.

As i understand it its nothing to do with accountants, the simple case here as youve hinted at with the red herring comment is that the auditors have said they wouldnt have shown it on accounts like we have.

Then why show them as such. Hull's total Fixed Assets show a value of £1,296,451 with an Intangible Asset value of £942,500 which the auditors qualify by saying 'internally generated intangible assets should NOT be capitalised in the balance sheet'. This clearly overstates the true value of the Total Fixed Assets.

Capitalising employees as assets on a balance sheet may not be against the law, but it is certainly not in accordance with the companies act of 1985.

Indeed its not.

Is it? Which section of the Act?

Is any action to be taken against Hull FC by the Registrar of Companies or by BERR?

Have the auditors resigned in protest at their advice being ignored, or will they be seeking re-appointment at the next AGM?

Leaving aside all these questions, I thought this thread was supposed to be about Rovers' accounts? Hull's accounts can be discussed on their forum.