martnewts

9 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

To simplify my argument.

IF a revaluation plus write back of depreciation occurs in 2008, there shouldn't be a new Revaluation Reserve or certainly not much of one.

Either there should be the Upward Revaluation Plus write back in the Accounts in 2008 and next to nothing, in the Revaluation Reserve.

Or the Book Value should have remained similar but with a whacking great Revaluation Reserve added in 2007/08.

To have both seems incongruous to me!

For arguments sake had it been Option A, assume Depreciation at about 2% year but yes some additions...Pride Park sells at maybe £45-50m.

Had it been Option B, what with Depreciation and yes some additions, Pride Park sells at £45-50m.

I'd have to do the full workings later but it seems to me that both were benefited from. There was no Revaluation Reserve in 2006/07 Accounts for example- this is purely IMO about Pride Park.

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.

34 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Except they received £81.1m for it.

£81.1M is broadly Net book value eliminated £41.6 plus profit on disposal £39.9

8 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I've looked through about 11 years worth and there certainly doesn't appear to be a further £39m or whatever it is of other Tangible Fixed Assets in there...surely with the Revaluation in 2007/08, this Revaluation Reserve assuming it's all for Pride Park or mostly for Pride Park should have become much smaller or cancelled out entirely?

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

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

So unrealised surplus in this instanced would be the Revaluation Reserve? To be realised on sale of Pride Park?

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

On 30/10/2019 at 14:55, Mr Popodopolous said:

Aston Villa intrigues me owing to their Impairment of Villa Park in 2015/16- yes it's an accounting trick but interested in how it works, add back on Impairment or a chunk of it.

Surely there would be strict Tests, criteria, formula- etc.

@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.

On 30/10/2019 at 14:55, Mr Popodopolous said:

I wonder then, given that it was Revalued to £55m in 2007, why then was there still a Revaluation Reserve thereafter- Pride Park truly worth nearly £95m in 2007?? How was that Revaluation Reserve accounted for in 2008 and subsequent years? Is there some formula of Net Book (Carrying) Value + Revaluation Reserve?

In 2007/08, the Unrealised surplus on revaluation of Stadium was equal to, the Revaluation Reserve- certainly the numbers were the same. Yet I struggle to believe that as of December 2007, Pride Park was worth £55m + £39,554,000=so about £94,554,000. Unrealised in terms of profit maybe?

@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.

@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.

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

Another one of theirs covering himself in glory. Apparently a prominent member of supporters club and worked bars at the mem 

https://www.devonlive.com/news/churchgoer-travelled-bristol-mcdonalds-exeter-3316556

14 minutes ago, Loon plage said:

Not getting ahead of themselves on the stadium of shite or nothing mind...

Singupgas said :

"Things i want: 

Not to be a stadium that is an identibuild bowl - something like the Etihad on a smaller scale would be nice. 
Big Screens outside and inside.
Speakers outside and the ground
Big Bar Areas which have some character to them - not 
Decent club shop
Food stand that always have pasties
Quality sound system
Nice perimeter - statues of gas legends, trees, benches "

Isnt that a description of Ashton Gate?

2 hours ago, 22A said:

In the pre match threads, they still refer to Wycombe as The Cheats".

Now the game is over; http://gaschat.co.uk/thread/14832/bristol-rovers-wycombe-wanderers-official?page=8

Dreadful negative performance.
Coughlan always sets up for a 0-0 imo,reminds me of ian atkins but not as good.

Absolutely shocking, glad I didn’t purchase a season ticket. £20 down the ******* drain. 

 

 

Don’t click the link it seems their forum has an std like most it’s users

Going forward I wonder if the solution is that if a promoted club has been found to have breached FFP in the promotion season then perhaps the punishment should be that if they are subsequently relegated from the PL at any time in the future that they would then not be eligible for Parachute payments? This would certainly lessen the financial advantage gained by "cheating" to get promotion.

Not an area in which I have massive expertise but is the required stamp duty land tax being paid over on these “sales” eg on an £80m sale of non residential property there is approximately £4m of stamp duty due

3 hours ago, downendcity said:

If Villa ( or any team) is given wriggle room by using the "we will sell Grealish in the summer" to sidestep an ffp breach,  then what is to stop a team buying the best players in the division, paying massive wages and busting ffp by £30m and securing promotion, but then telling the EFL that they will  will sell 4/5/6 players for £40m in the summer window?

It makes a complete mercury of the whole excercise. Also, if they are not going to address ffp and issue punishment for breaches within the 3rd season of the 3 year cycle, what was the point of requiring projected accounts in the third year? 

I wonder whether the EFL thought that with the new rules clubs would not risk breaching ffp limits and incurring the penalties now available and had not considered how they would deal with clubs breaching, and especially bigger clubs in and around the promotion stakes. It looks to me that we are on the verge of a massive fudge in order to not rock the boat.

I dont think that accounting rules would permit the sale of a player being back dated into a previous accounting period unless the contract for the sale was dated before the end of the accounting period and that date was during a valid transfer window. If projected accounts to 31 May 19 are included projected player sales revenue then surely that would fail on both counts . 

Companies house shows 6 companies that have the pleasure of Mr W Aqadi as a director all of which appear to have failed to submit accounts which were due by 31 March 2019 and in one case due by 28 February 2019.

As Bristol Rovers Football Club Limited and Bristol Rovers (1883) Limited are audited accounts they are likely to have been submitted by post (they were last year) so they may have been submitted and are awaiting Companies House updating their records.

The other companies all appeared to be submitted online last year and if they had been this year they would be shown as submitted on Companies House by now.

26 minutes ago, Ska Junkie said:

Nicking that for Facebook 

Next bit of great professionalism they failed to open the "megastore" in kings wood where apparently the unwashed needed to collect tickets for yesterday's game https://bristolroverssc.co.uk/2017/08/12/an-apology/