City & FFP | 2020/21 Accounts released | Revenues of £569.8m, £2.4m profit (p 2395)

[EalingBlue2]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Defered tax asset is essentially a current balance sheet position for a future tax position. It could be from tax offsets, costs or losses you will use in future which because they will save money in the future have value today.

 

[Centurions]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Defered tax asset is essentially a current balance sheet position for a future tax position. It could be from tax offsets, costs or losses you will use in future which because they will save money in the future have value today.

Lol, sorry but if you meant that to explain the subject I'm afraid it went 'whoosh' over my head :)

 

[BlueAnorak]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Defered tax asset is essentially a current balance sheet position for a future tax position. It could be from tax offsets, costs or losses you will use in future which because they will save money in the future have value today.

Lol, sorry but if you meant that to explain the subject I'm afraid it went 'whoosh' over my head :)

It allows losses in 1 time period to be used to lower tax payments against profits in following time periods.
<a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_tax" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_tax</a>

 

[OB1]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Defered tax asset is essentially a current balance sheet position for a future tax position. It could be from tax offsets, costs or losses you will use in future which because they will save money in the future have value today.

Lol, sorry but if you meant that to explain the subject I'm afraid it went 'whoosh' over my head :)

<a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_tax" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_tax</a>

Have not looked back on the thread to see why deferred tax is being discussed but I would advise caution: even experienced accountants can struggle with deferred tax. I have not had to deal with it hands on for several years so I am rusty.

The statement: "It allows losses in 1 time period to be used to lower tax payments against profits in following time periods." is technically wrong: deferred tax does not affect tax payments but it does affect reported profits.

The basic reason deferred tax exists is because a company does not simply pay tax on the basis of multiplying the prevailing rate of corporation tax by a company's net profit before tax. Various adjustment s are usually made to a company's net profit (or loss) to get to a taxable profit figure. For instance, the cost of entertaining customers (e.g. taking them on a jolly to a box at City) will be an expense in a company's profit and loss account but for tax purposes, it has to be added back because it is not an allowable deduction for tax purposes.

Therefore, in a great many companies, the accounting profit and taxable profit are not the same thing. Accountancy does not like that and seeks to adjust for it with deferred tax.

 

[Centurions]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Lol, sorry but if you meant that to explain the subject I'm afraid it went 'whoosh' over my head :)

<a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_tax" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_tax</a>

Have not looked back on the thread to see why deferred tax is being discussed but I would advise caution: even experienced accountants can struggle with deferred tax. I have not had to deal with it hands on for several years so I am rusty.

The statement: "It allows losses in 1 time period to be used to lower tax payments against profits in following time periods." is technically wrong: deferred tax does not affect tax payments but it does affect reported profits.

The basic reason deferred tax exists is because a company does not simply pay tax on the basis of multiplying the prevailing rate of corporation tax by a company's net profit before tax. Various adjustment s are usually made to a company's net profit (or loss) to get to a taxable profit figure. For instance, the cost of entertaining customers (e.g. taking them on a jolly to a box at City) will be an expense in a company's profit and loss account but for tax purposes, it has to be added back because it is not an allowable deduction for tax purposes.

Therefore, in a great many companies, the accounting profit and taxable profit are not the same thing. Accountancy does not like that and seeks to adjust for it with deferred tax.

It's to do with the rags dodgy accounting practises :-

Slightly off topic.

Can anyone explain what Business Tax Credits are?

The type of Tax Credits the Glazers have been using to make an operating loss, into an profit for United, over the last few years.(2/3?)

Before the tax credit the team had a little-changed loss of 6.1 million pounds for the first quarter. The team said the credit is related to a corporate restructuring

Manchester United said its 2013 net income was distorted by a one-off tax credit of £155.2m, which it received from “US deferred tax assets". Had it not received that, the club would have made a loss of £8.8m in 2013.

Why don't, or why haven't City used Business Tax Credits? Or do they?

Thanks.

 

[Sir peace frog]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

its really great to have really clever blokes/ladies on here that can explain it,however I wish people would put it in laymens terms,because I struggle a bit and a lot of whats being written goes right over my head. :)

 

[CatMan]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

its really great to have really clever blokes/ladies on here that can explain it,however I wish people would put it in laymens terms,because I struggle a bit and a lot of whats being written goes right over my head. :)

Completely agree it's all very complicated.

Of course that's if you choose to actually take any notice of anything you read. 99% of the thread is the ill informed pretending to be fonts of knowledge, whilst the few who do appear to be financially savvy are merely hypothesising with information sourced from rumour and the ill informed!

 

[bluemanc]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I've read the article and what i find the most interesting is going to be the calculation of utds MASSIVE debt
If they say its £350 million then you can bet that it far exceeds that total.
utd finances are buried deep in Delaware & the Caymans,will they have to open the books to show the full extent of the debt.
We shall see.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

its really great to have really clever blokes/ladies on here that can explain it,however I wish people would put it in laymens terms,because I struggle a bit and a lot of whats being written goes right over my head. :)

Completely agree it's all very complicated.

Of course that's if you choose to actually take any notice of anything you read. 99% of the thread is the ill informed pretending to be fonts of knowledge, whilst the few who do appear to be financially savvy are merely hypothesising with information sourced from rumour and the ill informed!

I think that's harsh mate. Of course there's the odd wanker about, but by and large most of the posters on here are decent sorts and some are generally very knowledgeable and helpful. Others chip in with interesting and often informed if not expert comment. There's not many tossers, contrary to your 99% comment.

 

[I'm no cynic but...]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

its really great to have really clever blokes/ladies on here that can explain it,however I wish people would put it in laymens terms,because I struggle a bit and a lot of whats being written goes right over my head. :)

Completely agree it's all very complicated.

Of course that's if you choose to actually take any notice of anything you read. 99% of the thread is the ill informed pretending to be fonts of knowledge, whilst the few who do appear to be financially savvy are merely hypothesising with information sourced from rumour and the ill informed!

I think that's harsh mate. Of course there's the odd wanker about, but by and large most of the posters on here are decent sorts and some are generally very knowledgeable and helpful. Others chip in with interesting and often informed if not expert comment. There's not many tossers, contrary to your 99% comment.

I agree. In the world of truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,there can only be one absolute truth which may or may not have been revealed within these pages, but until this truth becomes clear then learned suppositions will be published, many of which seem plausible and are worthy of generating thoughtful insight. Anyone who finds this tiresome should just stick to twitter.

 

[rushts]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

So what does FFP stand for?....


;-)

 

[everythingchangesbutblue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

So what does FFP stand for?....


;-)

frilly fanny packs

 

[mindmyp's_n_q's]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I've read the article and what i find the most interesting is going to be the calculation of utds MASSIVE debt
If they say its £350 million then you can bet that it far exceeds that total.
utd finances are buried deep in Delaware & the Caymans,will they have to open the books to show the full extent of the debt.
We shall see.

I bet it is £350m

 

[Chippy_boy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I've read the article and what i find the most interesting is going to be the calculation of utds MASSIVE debt
If they say its £350 million then you can bet that it far exceeds that total.
utd finances are buried deep in Delaware & the Caymans,will they have to open the books to show the full extent of the debt.
We shall see.

I bet it is £350m

I do too. If that's what they say it is, and I think that's roughly the number quoted. You can't lie about these things unless you fancy class action lawsuits from investors, or worse, jail.

 

[fbloke]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Slightly off topic but it will be interesting to see how the Glazers deal with the debt issue as it is perfectly manageable as long as a) they maintain revenues b) they limit spending to less than revenues c) they hold off drawing cash out via dividends or consultancy fees.

I do see a scenario that would mean the clubs debt increases and that's not too far away if they have to repeat the summer spending again.

 

[stony]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Slightly off topic but it will be interesting to see how the Glazers deal with the debt issue as it is perfectly manageable as long as a) they maintain revenues b) they limit spending to less than revenues c) they hold off drawing cash out via dividends or consultancy fees.

I do see a scenario that would mean the clubs debt increases and that's not too far away if they have to repeat the summer spending again.

They'll probably do something really desperate like ask the Premier league if they can have sponsors on the back of their shirts as well as the front.

 

[mad4city]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Slightly off topic but it will be interesting to see how the Glazers deal with the debt issue as it is perfectly manageable as long as a) they maintain revenues b) they limit spending to less than revenues c) they hold off drawing cash out via dividends or consultancy fees.

I do see a scenario that would mean the clubs debt increases and that's not too far away if they have to repeat the summer spending again.

They'll probably do something really desperate like ask the Premier league if they can have sponsors on the back of their shirts as well as the front.

And then wheel out Bobby Charlton to tut tut at City's latest rebranding of the Etihad Campus. "It wouldn't be the United way" don't you know.

 

[higgi1p]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Slightly off topic but it will be interesting to see how the Glazers deal with the debt issue as it is perfectly manageable as long as a) they maintain revenues b) they limit spending to less than revenues c) they hold off drawing cash out via dividends or consultancy fees.

I do see a scenario that would mean the clubs debt increases and that's not too far away if they have to repeat the summer spending again.

They'll probably do something really desperate like ask the Premier league if they can have sponsors on the back of their shirts as well as the front.

According to a report in the Sunday Times they have been refused permission to sell replica shirts with sponsor details on them by the Premier league, bloody great, they are very afraid of what is happening

 

[Falastur]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Slightly off topic but it will be interesting to see how the Glazers deal with the debt issue as it is perfectly manageable as long as a) they maintain revenues b) they limit spending to less than revenues c) they hold off drawing cash out via dividends or consultancy fees.

I do see a scenario that would mean the clubs debt increases and that's not too far away if they have to repeat the summer spending again.

They'll probably do something really desperate like ask the Premier league if they can have sponsors on the back of their shirts as well as the front.

Got rejected by all the other clubs, so it's not going to happen. Got thrown out before even going to a vote. And since the other clubs' reasons for rejecting the proposition was financial (the main sponsors will pay less if they're competing for shirt advertising space) then you can bet it won't become popular overnight like a lot of other things the rags have tried to introduce have.

 

[Helmet Cole]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Come on fellas - this is the City FFP thread. Any posts about the scums situation should be in either the the Utd, or in the case of the shirt sponsors and debt mountain the Utd funnies thread. Hopefully sir bobby will live long enough to see it all turn to shit.