Delaney: Eight clubs made profit

**pineapple stu** · 25/01/2009, 4:05 PM

Originally Posted by Bald Student

He didn't get it wrong. Capital income appears on a cash flow statement but not the P&L account.

I think the two of you are just speaking at crossed purposes. A lot of clubs do their accounting on a cash basis and would consider themselves to have broken even if they finish the year the same amount of money in the bank account as they started but by any normal standard money from the sale of a fixed asset can't be offset against an operating loss.

Thank you.

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.

**Buile Shuibhne** · 26/01/2009, 7:14 AM

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.

**Mr A** · 26/01/2009, 8:09 AM

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?

**shelsfan1** · 26/01/2009, 8:22 AM

Originally Posted by Mr A

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 lookin

**Buile Shuibhne** · 26/01/2009, 8:37 AM

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.

**Dodge** · 26/01/2009, 9:03 AM

FAI won't have to meny to develop Dalymount with so much invested in new Lansdowne

**pineapple stu** · 26/01/2009, 9:06 AM

Originally Posted by Fintan Cassidy

The payments are spread - not the sale.

I'm aware what your point is; the above though is you saying that you are making a loss, but you're cash neutral.

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...

garyderry · 26/01/2009, 9:08 AM

Originally Posted by Fintan Cassidy

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.

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.

**Bald Student** · 26/01/2009, 9:46 AM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

No cross purposes either, I don't think. Fintan knows he's wrong, but is mudding the waters as he does so well.

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.

**pineapple stu** · 26/01/2009, 9:53 AM

Have to agree to disagree so. Fintan said -

Technically speaking does this qualify as a loss - i.e an asset was sold to balance the books?

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.

Meanwhile, the issue of UCD's alleged financial problems on the basis of a small loss has been swept under the carpet.

**Bald Student** · 26/01/2009, 12:23 PM

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.

**pineapple stu** · 26/01/2009, 12:26 PM

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.

**Dodge** · 26/01/2009, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Whether most people use the two to describe the same thing is irrelevant

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.

**pineapple stu** · 26/01/2009, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by Dodge

No its not. Fintan has quite clearly explained the situation, as far as he knows.

It is relevant; the alternative is that something which is wrong can become right by common usage, which is clearly nonsense.

And the answer to the question he posed,

Technically speaking does this qualify as a loss - i.e an asset was sold to balance the books?

is yes, it does qualify as a loss.

Suggest we leave it there.

**Dodge** · 26/01/2009, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Whether most people use the two to describe the same thing is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

It is relevant;

okey then. We'll leave it there

**Bald Student** · 26/01/2009, 12:38 PM

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.

I think there's a difference between wrong and imprecise.

Either way, we're in agreement on the facts of the case. The words used to describe them are less important.

**pineapple stu** · 26/01/2009, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by Dodge

okey then. We'll leave it there

Some nice selective quoting there 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.

**geysir** · 26/01/2009, 6:46 PM

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).