|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Jan 21, 2020 23:19:23 GMT
Sorry if this has appeared on another thread but here is an interesting article which sheds light on how the accounting process of amortisation, combined with the FFP situation, influences Stoke's current practice of loaning out some of their very expensive flops. link |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2020 23:53:23 GMT
I have a sneaking suspicion that whoever wrote that piece of "journalism", has done most of his/her research on this MB.
|
|
|
|
Post by rickyfullerbeer on Jan 22, 2020 10:19:16 GMT
I have a sneaking suspicion that whoever wrote that piece of "journalism", has done most of his/her research on this MB. 95% of their information comes from this MB, including any transfer rumours. |
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Jan 22, 2020 11:05:20 GMT
I have a sneaking suspicion that whoever wrote that piece of "journalism", has done most of his/her research on this MB. Quite possibly so. But, in this case, whether it is down to the Oatie or not, they do at least seem to have their facts right. They've mentioned Imbula's contract which will only have a year to run this summer and so will only be valued at £3.5 million after amortisation. Anyone know how long the contracts have to run on the other (expensive) players we have out on loan. Maybe we'll be free of most of the constraints of FFP sooner than we think? |
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on Jan 22, 2020 11:13:09 GMT
I have a sneaking suspicion that whoever wrote that piece of "journalism", has done most of his/her research on this MB. Quite possibly so. But, in this case, whether it is down to the Oatie or not, they do at least seem to have their facts right. They've mentioned Imbula's contract which will only have a year to run this summer and so will only be valued at £3.5 million after amortisation. Anyone know how long the contracts have to run on the other (expensive) players we have out on loan. Maybe we'll be free of most of the constraints of FFP sooner than we think? They've made no mention about the impairment charge we posted in our final premeir league accounts. We wrote off an extra 29.3 Million in ammortisation so surely we've already wrote off the disaster signings such as Imbula & Wimmer down to zero. |
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Jan 22, 2020 11:24:29 GMT
Quite possibly so. But, in this case, whether it is down to the Oatie or not, they do at least seem to have their facts right. They've mentioned Imbula's contract which will only have a year to run this summer and so will only be valued at £3.5 million after amortisation. Anyone know how long the contracts have to run on the other (expensive) players we have out on loan. Maybe we'll be free of most of the constraints of FFP sooner than we think? They've made no mention about the impairment charge we posted in our final premeir league accounts. We wrote off an extra 29.3 Million in ammortisation so surely we've already wrote off the disaster signings such as Imbula & Wimmer down to zero. Yep based on say how stock is treated which has to be valued at the lower of cost or net realisable value (ie what you can sell it for) the only explanation for the impairment is the club wrote their value to zero or close to zero (any loan fees they might expect for loaning them out). Any FFP problems on amortisation will come from the Rowett / Jones signings combined with reduction in parachute money. |
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Jan 22, 2020 12:23:56 GMT
Quite possibly so. But, in this case, whether it is down to the Oatie or not, they do at least seem to have their facts right. They've mentioned Imbula's contract which will only have a year to run this summer and so will only be valued at £3.5 million after amortisation. Anyone know how long the contracts have to run on the other (expensive) players we have out on loan. Maybe we'll be free of most of the constraints of FFP sooner than we think? They've made no mention about the impairment charge we posted in our final premeir league accounts. We wrote off an extra 29.3 Million in ammortisation so surely we've already wrote off the disaster signings such as Imbula & Wimmer down to zero. If we really have written down the value of Imbula and Wimmer to zero via the impairment process, then I can't see why they are still out on loan. I'd have assumed that they would have been attractive to aquire on permanent deals rather than loans. Unless, of course, their wages are so high that they require permanent wage subsidy by Stoke until such time as the contracts expire? |
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on Jan 22, 2020 12:28:42 GMT
They've made no mention about the impairment charge we posted in our final premeir league accounts. We wrote off an extra 29.3 Million in ammortisation so surely we've already wrote off the disaster signings such as Imbula & Wimmer down to zero. If we really have written down the value of Imbula and Wimmer to zero via the impairment process, then I can't see why they are still out on loan. I'd have assumed that they would have been attractive to aquire on permanent deals rather than loans. Unless, of course, their wages are so high that they require permanent wage subsidy by Stoke until such time as the contracts expire? That's exactly what I think the problem is, because no Prem clubs have been interested only the bigger clubs from abroad can afford the sort of wages We'll have given to a 18 Million pound signing even after relegation reductions, so with the caliber of clubs these players have gone to only a loan deal would do. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2020 17:42:30 GMT
They've made no mention about the impairment charge we posted in our final premeir league accounts. We wrote off an extra 29.3 Million in ammortisation so surely we've already wrote off the disaster signings such as Imbula & Wimmer down to zero. If we really have written down the value of Imbula and Wimmer to zero via the impairment process, then I can't see why they are still out on loan. I'd have assumed that they would have been attractive to aquire on permanent deals rather than loans. Unless, of course, their wages are so high that they require permanent wage subsidy by Stoke until such time as the contracts expire? There is the answer. Depreciation/amortisation are book figures only, and do not affect wages or ownership. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2020 18:06:53 GMT
I have a sneaking suspicion that whoever wrote that piece of "journalism", has done most of his/her research on this MB. 95% of their information comes from this MB, including any transfer rumours. Which makes it somewhat incestous since a great deal of the threads here are based on articles in the Sentinel... |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 22, 2020 20:17:29 GMT
They've made no mention about the impairment charge we posted in our final premeir league accounts. We wrote off an extra 29.3 Million in ammortisation so surely we've already wrote off the disaster signings such as Imbula & Wimmer down to zero. If we really have written down the value of Imbula and Wimmer to zero via the impairment process, then I can't see why they are still out on loan. I'd have assumed that they would have been attractive to aquire on permanent deals rather than loans. Unless, of course, their wages are so high that they require permanent wage subsidy by Stoke until such time as the contracts expire? I think you've answered your own question John. What an incredibly sorry situation. |
|
