nice of you to confirm that. Cheers.

Anyone know how your "Favorites" tabs can be changed when you ain't looking? I clicked on RLfans to discuss rugby league but its turned into "Sad Accountants.com"

Death to Bean Counters!

You'd think I'd be offended, but we proper accountants recognise and embrace our nerdiness. Self-awareness is a great thing.

thank god rugby is played with an oval ball and not a pen, paper and a calculator,
the seasons started with a bang and still its finances on some peoples minds.
Rovers cant be that skint surely, i havent read anything about Justin Morgan having to run marathons to raise funds yet,

good old Royce....

Intelligent women who like high heels and make a wicked cup of coffee really turn me on.

So if you work on the first part there may be a chance for us

You do that, I couldn't care less. Like I said before, an abbbreviated balance sheet does not give a true story. If Hull SL are owed so much money at the end of 2007 (Oct) it can only be for the next season and is therefore not relevant to that years figures.I assume they issue invoices for snsorship etc for the next season but date them in the current financial year, it is not the way I was taught to run a company. If the Directors insist to their accountants that they wish it be included then so be it. I said at the beginning, I look at a balance sheet not throught the eyes of an accountant. I will go further and say that a companies true worth cannot be declared unless it goes into liquidation. That is why I say that if the debtors included in the 2007 y/e refers to the next year I am nearer the true valuation than what is shown. I have NEVER said anywhere that Rovers are in a better position than anyone else. As to Kosh joining in, its strange is it not that he choses to do so when he does not afford me the opportunity of doing the same thing on your boards. In fact, he went even further and banned some poor sucker because he suspected it was me. I'd like to see what part of the AUP covers such an action. Mind you, he is a scientist so his mind is probably way ahead of mere mortals!

Just for interest, who do you think will owe the company over £500k to the year ending 2007?

I might add that I am more upset about Jimmy Bullards injury than the finances of both clubs put together!

Unless Sadofsky's have failed to apply the accruals principle, IF FC have raised invoices in respect of 2008 in the year to October 2007, the entry in the accounts is to debtors and creditors (equal and opposite amounts) so the net worth of the company is not affected. If the invoices are raised and booked to the P&L in 2007, you are correct, this would be a debtor without value, but it would also contravene basic accounting principles. I have raised this concern with Sadofsky as it could potentially be a material misstatement in the accounts that they have signed off as true and fair. When I qualified as an accountant I did a fair bit of auditing and in my experience there is a lot of work done on year-end cut-off dates and making sure income and costs are reflected in the correct periods. I would be shocked if Sadofskys allowed income to be posted incorrectly as you imply. Not because there haven't been some major accounting c0ck-ups in some companies in the past, but because it's such a basic thing to get wrong.

There are a whole host of things that can be recorded as debtors in a balance sheet - any item of expenditure where the cash has been spent before consideration has been received for e.g. if the club had paid for an annual IT maintenance contract in September, 11/12 of that payment would be shown in the balance sheet as a debtor. Other examples where you pay up front could be SMC or payroll costs , or HMCE if VAT on purchases exceeds that on sales, a quite feasible scenario if you think our season ticket sales don't go on sale until November.

Unlikely. I reckon you're David Burns on account of your apparent dislike of both clubs.

I've mentioned this before, but you have some rather strange ideas about scientists.

Why, did rovers not trade during the period they were not in SL?

What was the average gate in '07? Close to 8000, yet a loss of over £400k. Thats the worrying part.

Agreed that neither sets of A/cs look good, but you are off the mark with your comment about Hull proposed investment. At last they will have a few more tangible assets to their name which will match off the liability of any borrowings when first recognised, therefore that should not impact on the net asset / liability position.

Having Hull SL's abbreviated accounts didn't stop you forming a fairly damning opinion in the past



The tangibled you halved were only revalued to market value in the year to those accounts so halving them is unrealistic.

The fact remains Vince, that rovers lost over £400k in their first season in the top flight and have a must worse net liability position. If I recall you warned many Hull fans that the end of the world was just around the corner a few years ago on the back of some abbreviateds but you seem strangley calm about rovers situation.

How peculiar, Vince doesn't want to talk finances all of a sudden.



I wonder why that is?

WHO BLOODY CARES??!!

You all really need to get out more



Enjoy the season of RL coming up, that's what it's all about.

Thats the biggest load of tosh you have posted for some time.

A companies true worth is n othing to do with its balance sheet. Its what someone is prepared to pay for it. Usually what someone is prepared to pay for it is based on all the inherent factors which are virtually impossible to value (customer base, perceived quality, brand etc - or put another way, the companies future profitability potential).

You seem to confuse the role accountants have in business with your bad experiance of ONE which you chose in the past. Who do you think corporate finance and due dillegance are?

Judging by the number of postings from you on this board and the fact you bookmark anything relating to Hull KR you appear to have an addiction to the club.

The loss you are referring to should also take into account the fact that its a 15 months accounting period with the extra three months being Sept, Oct and Nov where income is virtually non existant, yet fixed costs such as salaries still have to be paid, this will clearly adversely affect the profitablilty of the company in that period.

The next accounts for a 12 month period will offer a much better indication of performance.

Like I said, when I am allowed to debate with you on all forums I will respond. I am waiting for the AUP which allows you to ban people who you THINK are someone else. It could be interesting. Over to you Homer!

He asks at 2.08 am !!!!!

The tangibles are halved to reflect not their "market" value but a firesale valuation. Even 50% is generous in those circumstances

"Due diligance" is something the accountants of Nat West, HBos,Sandfords,Lloyds TSb....etc. etc carried out over many years only to find in the end they had actually been valuing worthless bits of paper called "derivatives" etc.. Unfortunately for the world they had their noses
stuck so firmly in the corporate troughs, they failed to recognise this!
I rest my case!

thank f*** for that.

Yet you choose to ignore that fact that this period would include the ticket, merchandise and prize money revenue benefits from Rovers NL1 play-off promotion campaign in September and October 2006, plus a full season of SL revenue.

You just did.



Let's see if you can resist the temptation this time...