Search results for query: *

All of the profit for Dobbin goes into this years accounts, the costs for new players goes into next years accounts and subsequent years. Therefore PSR profit this year is £10m.

Just a small point the 10m profit is in this year's accounts and the 2.5m charge in next years accounts.

Auditors don't collaborate with companies. They have a duty of care and a legal responsibility to say whether the accounts show a true and fair view. They could be sued or lose their licence if they get that wrong. They said the '23 accounts show a true and fair view. The club maintain that...

I totally agree with this guy. I cannot believe that the FA are questioning the auditors and accounts over interest charges. How are you meant to build and finance a £700m stadium without incurring interest charges. As soon as the stadium is producing income is the time when interest charges...

They restated the '22 accounts to bring them in line with the accounting policies of the '23 accounts.

My understanding is that all the clubs had to submit audited accounts to the FA within 3 months of year end. I might be wrong on that point, but it would make sense that the FA would demand that. I agree you can negotiate and argue your point with auditors, sometimes you convince them, other...

A company can't tell anyone auditor what to do. The company prepares the accounts and presents them to the auditors for review. If the auditors disagree they state that the accounts don't show a true and fair view. That is not the case here. If the auditors get that wrong, they could be sued...

Exactly, the auditors agree with the club that it relates to the stadium. That should be the end of the argument for the commission.

The PSR calculation starts with the losses from the audited accounts and allows deductions such as youth academy etc. It should not be increasing the losses by adding back interest that has clearly increased because of the capital cost of building the stadium.

Exactly!

I agree, the auditors have confirmed that the accounts show a true and fair view. The duty of auditing is not a joke, they have to express an opinion based on both legal and accounting standards. The commission questioning the auditors is not a good place to go!

I agree with this comment. They are effectively calling in to question the work of the auditors. If they signed off on the accounts that should be sufficient for the commission!

Real Madrid have spent over a billion and Barcelona will spend a similar amount. Madrid have been rebuilding their stadium for the last 3 years and they are still working on it.

Think about this forest and ourselves could be relegated and yet city may win the league and maybe a treble. How can any person think this is rational!

Ok that's good information. I didn't have broadcasting figures so I googled it and that's where I got the £20m.

Don't forget the losses per the '22 accounts was £44m but they show a loss of £13.5m after adjusting for academy, women's league and community costs. Therefore a loss in '23 of £40m should surely allow the same reduction!

Thanks for the welcome and great to be here. I was worried about boring people with figures! I would say that if interest charges are massive that can only be because of the stadium build and the club should be able to prove that.

The key information we are missing in order to see whether we have breached the rules a second time is the '23 accounts. Using the '22 accounts I've tried to estimate the losses for this year. I estimate that turnover is £20m higher due to broadcasting income. I think player sales is £14m less...