Welcome to my world, Mr Pig.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Norpig wrote:If this is all simplified then i'm definitely thicker than i thought.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
boltonbonce wrote:It's difficult for those of us who run a mile at the sight of a ledger, but joking aside, at least some effort is being made to try to clue us in on what's going on in the murky depths, and it's appreciated.
I fear though, Norpig and I will be shedding very little in the way of light.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
OK - there is a (semantic) difference between "renegotiating" and "getting away with not paying it" - although I'm sure someone must have had words about it at some point in time if only to gain consensus.Ten Bobsworth wrote:Sorry Sluffy but it does belong in the P&L. Its the failure to make clear how it’s been dealt with that I don’t like and the inevitable consequence that interested parties will misunderstand the financial results.
If you look at the past accounts of Burnden Leisure you’ll see how debt write offs were dealt with in the past with no room for any misunderstanding of the financial results.
Ten Bobsworth wrote:Sorry Sluffy but it does belong in the P&L. Its the failure to make clear how it’s been dealt with that I don’t like and the inevitable consequence that interested parties will misunderstand the financial results.
If you look at the past accounts of Burnden Leisure you’ll see how debt write offs were dealt with in the past with no room for any misunderstanding of the financial results.
wanderlust wrote:OK - there is a (semantic) difference between "renegotiating" and "getting away with not paying it" - although I'm sure someone must have had words about it at some point in time if only to gain consensus.
I'm also struggling to see why a debt write off has been ascribed as income unless it was accounted as paid and then came back in the form of a rebate. Is there another way? If so it doesn't spring to mind ATM.
What makes you so sure it's what you suggest? Surely the accounts wouldn't have been signed off if the true and fair principle was breached?
wanderlust wrote:Ah! The penny has dropped. The write off should appear as operating expenses in a bad debt line under the creditors GP line which would then impact on the creditors OP and bottom line income.
I said Creditor's accounts. Money due is accounts receivable. When it's not paid it's usually accounted as an operating cost by convention. Conversely the debtor (FV) would account it as operating income - hence the perceived anomaly. Is that right Bob?Sluffy wrote:
???
No.
It isn't an operating expense at all???
It is the exact opposite, it is a 'one off' income receipt for that year which is added to operating income.
They (Burnden Leisure - now FV) have already received £5.5m but have only paid back £2.75m to settle the loan - meaning they have GAINED £2.75m in the transaction.
Hence it being shown as a one off special item in INCOME on the P and L account in order to balance that a £5.5m loan has been settled for just a payment of just £2.75m
wanderlust wrote:
I said Creditor's accounts. Money due is accounts receivable. When it's not paid it's usually accounted as an operating cost by convention. Conversely the debtor (FV) would account it as operating income - hence the perceived anomaly. Is that right Bob?
Sluffy wrote:They (Burnden Leisure - now FV) have already received £5.5m but have only paid back £2.75m to settle the loan - meaning they have GAINED £2.75m in the transaction.
Hence it being shown as a one off special item in INCOME on the P and L account in order to balance that a £5.5m loan has been settled for just a payment of just £2.75m
Ten Bobsworth wrote:I prefer to stick to the facts, Sluffy. If Lusty want’s to wander off into blind alleys it doesn’t bother me. Neither do schoolyard insults on t’internet.
FV took on a difficult task and they’ve done OK on the whole but I do think that BWFC fans, in large numbers, have been far too easily led into believing things that just don’t stack up on any rational assessment.
You might have noticed the absence of any intelligent commentary from the Supporters Trust. I’m not going to start supporting Morecambe, but what a contrast with the Shrimps ST.
Sluffy wrote: Capital and Reserves - Note 22 (page 13, 16 of 41)?
This simply shows called up share capital at the time of just £2.75m plus Profit and Loss reserves of £14.3m in debit - showing FV.s actual loss for the year to be £13,769,015
Hence the need for Sharon, Luckock and James to pump their millions into FV for the required capital equity it urgently needed!
The facts Bob? Surely you're just speculating?Ten Bobsworth wrote:I prefer to stick to the facts, Sluffy. If Lusty want’s to wander off into blind alleys it doesn’t bother me. Neither do schoolyard insults on t’internet.
FV took on a difficult task and they’ve done OK on the whole but I do think that BWFC fans, in large numbers, have been far too easily led into believing things that just don’t stack up on any rational assessment.
wanderlust wrote:The facts Bob? Surely you're just speculating?
You're saying FV seem to have done OK, but something smells fishy and yet you don't know what it is for sure.
OK fair enough. I don't know for sure either - which was my original point that the 20/21 returns alone simply don't provide enough information to make a rational assessment - but do provide a basis for speculation - and you are speculating, even implying that they are doing something wrong without the facts to back it up.
Or am I wrong and you do actually know the facts of what lies behind the returns? If so, please spill the beans because we'd all love to know the details of the deals and transactions they've made since taking over.
Whatever it turns out to be, reducing debt is generally a sign of good management in my book, providing there are no hidden trade offs. But none of us know of any at this point in time.
You and your buddy have every right to make negative insinuations about FV and other organisations on a forum, but please don't insult our intelligence by claiming that you are basing it on "the facts".
And for the record, I have no problem with your musings for the most part other than when you directly insult people, but try not get led by the nose by your sycophantic buddy into his well documented personal vendetta. He needs friends and approval, not a sidekick and you can be better than that.
Last edited by Ten Bobsworth on Tue Jul 12 2022, 09:47; edited 1 time in total
Bolton Nuts » BWFC » Bolton Wanderers Banter » Bolton's Finances / Accounts for year ending 30th June 2021 and everything else since.
Similar topics
Permissions in this forum:
You can reply to topics in this forum