I sat at a Hull FC fans forum just a few weeks ago and saw these words come out the mouth of James Rule.

There are no problems with the signing of Micheal Crocker and his visa is just a formality.

We do not have any positions available on our coaching staff for Lee Crooks.

I guess people say what they feel is correct at the time.

Mr Forum Leader please stay on topic!

Indeed.

and it was.

With regards to the long term liabilities, I believe they are the same as Hull's, with them being accounted for as directors loans. A 'loan' would inply that the money is to be paid back at some point, or will they be written off, with the wealthy backer effectively making a donation?

Apart from Humberside had already "broke" the story about Cooke by then you mean? He specifically said Rovers had not had any contact with Cooke and as far as he was concerned they were not interested in him. He signed the next day IIRC.

The Crocker situation was pure speculation by Rule as he would have no idea about the likely success or failure and indeed even said "the club know as much as you" so he was stating his opinion.

As for Crooks who knows, as it was weeks ago maybe something came up.

=redThere are no problems with the signing of Micheal Crocker and his visa is just a formality.
Any fan would be very disapointed not to get him after that from the CEO
So he speculated on your Blue Chip signing for 2009.

Hudgell's comment at the time was 'Its News To Me' neither confirming or denying Rovers wish to sign Cooke after RH broke the story.

It all depended on whether Cooke was available to sign and if Morgan wanted him, he picks the team so maybe Morgs didnt consult Hudge until it became apparant Cooke could leave FC for no fee.
It wasnt the next day he signed it was the following week.

We could go round in circles but as its been pointed out this is a Finances thread and we both know that peoples perspective of certain issues will be different.

IIRC he actually said he had no idea as the consulate pull up the draw bridge and pull down the shutters and don't let anyone know whats going on untill they see fit.

Butt out or i give Dave M your mobile number

He's a big softie really.

Couldn't have chosen a better time to quote ......as Rule denies any interest to sign Lee Crooks from the Robins

True. Until this time next year though the magic number is £2.4m. Given the battering we've taken from the Rovers know-alls on FC's £2m debt over the last decade,I'd be disappointed if this were not referred to at least once a day. And quite rightly so. As you sow, so shall you reap.



That's twice this week you've been nice to me, should I be worried? Mine's a double shot extra hot latte.

I've said many times that abbreviated accounts do not give enough information to form a real opinion. I have sent for Rovers to look at but I will say about yours, unlike you I do not look at them like an accountant but as a director/investor. I calculate that the present situation is that they are in a negative position to the tune of £1.573 million. I calculate this by completely removing the intangibles, halving the tangibles to reflect the true (firesale) valuation and removing the debtors amount which we have all agreed (I think) do not belong in the accounts to y/e 2007 as they are apparently for the following season. Lets be honest, if the club folded in the October of 2007 you could hardly count them could you?

Remember, I do not do "account speak" I look at the true value of the company (Hull SL) and this is the nearest to the truth. I do know someone who has seen the full balance sheet when he attempting to buy the club and he walked away from it saying there was an undisclosed "blackhole"

Which was correct.

Lee Crooks wasn't signed from rovers

Yet Sadofsky's said that, intangible assets apart, the accounts were a true and fair view of the company's financial status. So you're saying they've breached their duty of care to Hull's shareholders. Interesting opinion.

Not sure how you get to -£1.6m. Using your methodology (which is flawed on the subject of debtors, but let's go with it), I make:
Hull FC
Half of tangible fixed assets £184k
Half of Stocks £75k
Cash £290k
Creditors -£1,712k
Net valuation -£1,163k

Rovers
Half of tangible fixed assets £464k
Half of Stocks £78k
Cash £13k
Creditors -£2,414k
Net Valuation -£1,859

This excludes debtors. We have no analysis of debtors, but, as I've said before, this is only balance sheet anyway unless you are saying Sadofsky's have signed off income recognition in the incorrect period.

I applaud your efforts to deflect from the subject of Rovers accounts and the £2.4m creditors number. When can we expect your insight on them?

You can see words that people speak?

If my methodology is applied to Rovers figures then yes,that will be the situation. Let me put into normal peoples terms. If Hull FC had to finish business at the end of year 2007 that is exactly the situation they would be in...end of! As to Sadofskys, do you think that Sandfords accountants have been given a true and fair reflection of the group or have they been,like all accountants,relying on the info.given them by the Directors of the companies. We always included a "purchase reserve" at our year end which reflected the accounts not submitted but relevant to that years trading. We NEVER included sales for the following financial year and I can see no reason for doing so, well apart from making the figures look better!


END OF DISCUSSION!!

Get your hankie ready then.

Careful you don't grab one of the sharp straws.

I'll borrow vince's he won't be needing them anymore.

So FC's net value is much more than Rovers, then. Glad we've cleared that up



You're really struggling with the concepts of P&L and Balance sheet, aren't you? If FC had recorded the invoices for sponsorship before the end of October, the double entry in the accounts would be Debit Debtors (Balance sheet - Debtors), Credit Deferred Income (Balance sheet- creditors due within one year). Some companies do this to inflate asset value, but it also inflates creditors and is known as window dressing as it makes no difference to the net asset position. So really using your methodology, I'm understating Hull's net worth by £534k and Rovers by £219k, increasing the differential by £300k in Hull's favour. The other thing is you don't know what's in that debtors number. If we pay rent quarterly in advance to the SMC in September for example, two thirds of that payment would be classed as a prepayment and shown within debtors.

I'm going to drop a line to Sadofsky's anyway to clarify their principles on income recognition as your comments suggest there is a material misstatement in Hull's accounts that their shareholders should be aware of.

Which is quite a serious accusation to make on a public forum. Here's hoping Vince doesn't get RLFans into any bother...

So they didn't "tap" him up whilst still under contract