Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

 

Everton Transfer Thread 2016

Status
Not open for further replies.
ToffeeTim said:
I assume it would be more a tax term Goat. Profit per accounts is the start.

Then we adjust accounting profit for anything that is tax sensitive to get tax adjusted profit, or trade profit. I assume in this case you mean a business carrying on a trade, of which trading footballers is the principal activity?
Click to expand...

Lad?

Dunno where you learnt your accounting but I have no idea what you just said.

Allow me to explain :

We sell young John for pyar wonga, then we go and spunk the lot of it on overpriced tosh like the boy Williams and crazy eyes Indi.
 
roydo said:
Ahh. I see. Knew the/a Stones sale was important re wages, just not that big an increase.
Click to expand...
Won't be quite as simple as that.

Stones' book value won't be £3m for a start. That £3m (assuming it was a straight £3m) will be amortised over a period of time. I'd imagine that the amortisation period will be quite short given the risk (maybe a couple of years?).

Not sure what will happen to the sales proceeds but probably the present value of the transfer fee would be 'capitalised' and some of the gain will come through the income statement as interest.

Can't remember exactly off the top of my head.

What I'm saying is it's not going to be as simple as 'bought for X sold for y = z amount of profit.
 
billyblue80 said:
What I can't understand is why we hardly ever do much early business, players need time to gel.I understand our financial situation and saving wages but surely some cheaper signings to bed into the squad would help us even as we try to persuade these big names or move others on?! Just smacks of shambles, our preseason is over and we look average.
Click to expand...

We're the tightest club in the prem, that's all there is to it
 
bizzaro said:
Its only a profit if you don't spend it subsequently on wages or transfer fees Goat.

(q.v. Ashley Williams alerts I've raised).

@The Esk made this very clear. What it does is allows us to get around STTC very easily. As its counted as non-broadcast revenue.
Click to expand...

A Stones sale would create a increase in the P&L from the gain on sale realised when the sale is completed.

Purchasing Williams would not effect the P&L as we would be buying an asset and no P&L hit would be realised until we sold the asset and a gain or loss on sale (determined by the asset's amortised value) was realised.

This is also why we would be better off loaning Niasse than selling cheaply and realising the loss on sale in the P&L.
 

bobbydigital said:
A Stones sale would create a increase in the P&L from the gain on sale realised when the sale is completed.

Purchasing Williams would not effect the P&L as we would be buying an asset and no P&L hit would be realised until we sold the asset and a gain or loss on sale (determined by the asset's amortised value) was realised.

This is also why we would be better off loaning Niasse than selling cheaply and realising the loss on sale in the P&L.
Click to expand...

It would in STTC terms as purchasing an asset and one you have to pay - takes away from that available non-broadcast revenues (which the sale represents).

Honestly. You guys need to stop thinking in purely accounting terms and think in regulatory compliance terms

That is a set of additional rules over and above accountancy rules. :rolleyes:
 
MoutsGoat said:
Lad?

Dunno where you learnt your accounting but I have no idea what you just said.

Allow me to explain :

We sell young John for pyar wonga, then we go and spunk the lot of it on overpriced tosh like the boy Williams and crazy eyes Indi.
Click to expand...

God, give me strength.

images
 


Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top