Jump to content

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be a part of One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums by signing in or creating an account.

  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Full access to all forums (not all viewable as guest)
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members.
  • Support OTIB with a premium membership

martnewts

Members
  • Content Count

    90
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

31

About martnewts

  • Birthday 23/02/1975

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location:
    Portishead

Recent Profile Visitors

1,875 profile views
  1. Interesting didn’t know they both had. Think I knew Wilbs had a preference for another playing contract up north. But didn’t know about Wade
  2. Exactly what we needed even at this stage of his career. You can see he has the hunger, ability and attitude. A genuine winner and warrior with no little quality. His reading of the game is excellent and he seems a real leader pushing everyone on. Better than I expected by some distance
  3. Absolutely I’m all for it when we do it having watched everyone else do it to us for years.
  4. Following seeing out yesterday’s win and other occasions have we finally discovered the art of game management (or shithousery as some would call it). it seems teams like Preston and Cardiff have been doing it to us for years and we are finally holding our own. The number of yellow cards Fulham picked up yesterday at the end was a great illustration of how we had frustrated them. Bentley and Famara’s late injuries being an example. I’m not sure whether there should have been more punishment for the Fulham players who picked up fam when he was injured to ensure that he was off the pitch to receive treatment. That just doesn’t seem acceptable to me what if they had caused him further injury?
  5. @Mr Popodopolous You have probably seen it but in case you havent. The valuation report for the London Olympic Stadium is available online http://www.queenelizabetholympicpark.co.uk/-/media/15034-stadium-island-site-annex-a.ashx?la=en whilst the basis of this seems to be largely based on the long term leases on the property it may be useful. If the sale of Hillsborough also included such leases it may be relevant in determining that valuation however if there is a lease to the football club and the rental charge is low that would be more likely reduce the value of the stadium rather than enhance it.
  6. I agree with your argument completely. The revaluation reserve was established in the 2008 accounts which was the first year of revaluations it is the "other side" of the accounting entry which increases the fixed asset valuation, the revaluation reserve then sits in the balance sheet until either disposal or subsequent revaluation (up or down) subject to annual depreciation amounts. The Total annual depreciation charge on the property is then split between the amount which relates to the original cost which is deducted from the net book value and the amount which relates to the revalued amount which is deducted from the revaluation reserve The write back of depreciation in 2008 is to restart the clock so to speak on that asset so that the full £55M is included in fixed assets. Effectively in the 2007 accounts pride park was included at cost £20.8M less accumulated depreciation of £5,4M ie £15.4M if in 2008 it is revalued up to £55M but the accumulated depreciation of £5.4M remains in the accounts then in the 2008 accounts Pride Park is then only shown at £49.6M when the valuation shows it to be "worth" £55M In subsequent years the £55M is then subject to annual depreciation charges.
  7. £81.1M is broadly Net book value eliminated £41.6 plus profit on disposal £39.9
  8. In the 2018 accounts the revaluation reserve has been eliminated. It is no longer shown on the balance sheet on page 12. The movement in the reserve is not shown in Note 19 as you might expect it to be. From Note 11 of the accounts the Cost or revaluation eliminated on disposal is £56,502,091 I presume this to be the original cost of £20,852,867 plus the revaluation of £34,147,133 plus I presume costs added to freehold property since the revaluation of £5,056,695
  9. Exactly that. Pride Park in the 2008 accounts was included at £55M See note 9 in the accounts tangible fixed assets, Land and Buildings which show a total net book value of £60.1M for Land and Buildings. So there must be some other land and buildings included in the accounts in addition to Pride park
  10. @Mr Popodopolous I suspect the rational for the impairment was that up to 2015/16 Villa were a Premier League Club and therefore the "asset" Villa Park was generating premier league levels of income, following relegation the asset is no longer generating Premier league levels of income and consequently arguably its value has been impaired. Not sure of the date of the subsequent Villa park sale but if after they achieved promotion then I guess Villa Park is again an asset that will generate Premier League levels of income and therefore the impairment would be reversed.
  11. @Mr Popodopolous you have made me interested and I have now looked at the accounts for 2007/8. The revaluation reserve at 30/6/08 of £39,554,000 is the difference between the valuation of £55,000,000 and historic cost of £20,852,867 = £34,147,133 plus writing back of depreciation previously charged on land and buildings of £5,407,000 This results in Pride Park being stated in those accounts in fixed assets at £55,000,000 The £39,554,000 revaluation reserve in the balance sheet is not an additional asset it is actually a credit on the balance sheet so more similar to a liability than an asset. The unrealised surplus reported is effectively disclosing the amount of the revaluation "profit" in the statement of total recognised gains and losses. ie a "profit" which has been recognised but that is not reported in the profit and loss account. The 2008 accounts do not include a provision for deferred tax, possibly because the requirements for measuring and disclosing deferred tax were different than they are currently.
  12. @Mr Popodopolous A deferred tax charge would be calculated on the potential taxable chargeable gain arising if the property was sold at the revalued amount and would only become payable in the event of a disposal. It would be (broadly) calculated on the difference between the historic cost and the revalued amount (less indexation if applicable) at current corporation tax rates.
  13. I haven’t looked at the accounts in question but is there a deferred tax provision in them? If so a proportion of the revaluation could/should be part of the deferred tax balance
  14. It also took him five minutes into the second half to work out we had made subs at half time
  15. How old was Taylor Moore when he joined us?
×
×
  • Create New...