Printable View
Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bald Student
No cross purposes either, I don't think. Fintan knows he's wrong, but is mudding the waters as he does so well.
Shels were cash neutral maybe, but made a loss. Tolka was sold entirely when the contract was signed; you can't spread its sale over numerous years.
It's very simple.
The sale was completed a few years ago, but full payment was deferred.
Shels have drawn down several payments out of the total amount.
Payment will be completed in full when Shels move out and the buyer takes possession.
The payments are spread - not the sale.
So can you tell us roughly how much Shels have left to take from the sale, or even roughly what percentage has been drawn down so far?
Have Shels any plans regarding a new ground?
afaik we're expected to have a few million when we leave but no where near enough to build our own ground from scratch so we've been lookin elsewhere. a plan to move into home farms ground and building a new stand there was rejected by home farm so we're still lookinQuote:
Originally Posted by Mr A
circa €4m
The club are looking around.
Latest rumour (source not from Shels) is that the FAI want us move into Dalyer with that sum & groundshare with Bohez. The FAI would invest a similar amount to redevelop the ground between the two clubs.
Total non-starter for a variety of reasons on all sides - imho.
FAI won't have to meny to develop Dalymount with so much invested in new Lansdowne
I'm aware what your point is; the above though is you saying that you are making a loss, but you're cash neutral.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fintan Cassidy
Look up any accounting standard, which defines how to treat what you're talking about, and you'll see you're making a loss.
E4m left would just about clear Bohs' overdraft...
The FAI have been pushing that for years, Both clubs are in that big a mess it may very well be the only long term solution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fintan Cassidy
I don't agree with you here. Your disagreement seems to be a semantic one. You're using the correct accountancy definition of a loss, he's using commoner language.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Have to agree to disagree so. Fintan said -
And the answer is yes, because the asset was sold years ago, and you can't spread the sale over a large number of periods as it suits you. "Commoner language", as you put it, I assume means that Shels are happy they were cash neutral over the last year, but that's a completely different matter, common language or not.Quote:
Technically speaking does this qualify as a loss - i.e an asset was sold to balance the books?
Meanwhile, the issue of UCD's alleged financial problems on the basis of a small loss has been swept under the carpet.
What I meant by common language was that most people do their household budgeting on a cash basis. If someone keeps a budget at home it's on a money in / money out basis. That's how most people look at budgeting.
I think you're letting your specialist knowledge of accountancy distract you. Most people don't use technical terms with the same precision as a professional in the area. Fintan's use of the words 'profit' and 'loss' aren't technically correct in the world of accountancy but they're in line with what most normal people understand them to mean.
When you're running a business though, it's more important. There's a big difference between being cash neutral and breaking even. It could be argued Drogheda were breaking even over the past couple of years by having money pumped into them and by not paying the Revenue. Whether most people use the two to describe the same thing is irrelevant.
And bear in mind, his initial question was specifically on a technical level.
No its not. Fintan has quite clearly explained the situation, as far as he knows. Whether you choose to ignore that, or try and use his use of specific phrases against him is quite clearly relevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
It is relevant; the alternative is that something which is wrong can become right by common usage, which is clearly nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
And the answer to the question he posed,
is yes, it does qualify as a loss.Quote:
Technically speaking does this qualify as a loss - i.e an asset was sold to balance the books?
Suggest we leave it there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
okey then. We'll leave it thereQuote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
I think there's a difference between wrong and imprecise.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Either way, we're in agreement on the facts of the case. The words used to describe them are less important.
Some nice selective quoting there Dodge. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
What's irrelevant is what meaning people use a phrase for if it's being used incorrectly. The fact that it's being used incorrectly, however, is relevant.
Afaiu, Delaney got it right over the directors cash input
He is correct to classify a directors cash input (a donation) to a club as income, as he says,'as long as it doesn't have to be paid back'
It is written into the books as other income, similar to cash from fundraising activities.
A club selling a club asset have to mark that in as income in the years running account. It would be criminal accounting practice not to do so.
But whether they made a profit or loss on that asset sale depends on if it was sold for more or less than the book value of that asset as recorded in the previous years accounts (with adjustment for a years depreciation or appreciation).
You moved into Home Farms old ground years ago and just look at what you's did to it through mismanagement !!!:DQuote:
Originally Posted by shelsfan1
You can't blame them for not wanting you in their "new" home.