you just bit your tounge didnt you

When you are repeatedly stating that our low penalty count during the disastrous 2009 season is evidence that Agar had instilled a high degree of discipline into the team then there really isn't anything else that needs saying.

Aw bless

I'm pretty sure that rule confirmed last year that the directors loans had been repaid.

Now, I'm no accountant, but presumably a reduction in debt must be brought about by money so does the reduction in debt equate roughly to our profitability over the last 5 years?

www.thisishullandeastriding.co.u ... ticle.html Read the comments - better than this board as no MODS on daily wail

www.thisishullandeastriding.co.u ... ticle.html Read the comments - better than this board as no MODS on daily wail

Wouldn't really matter, the loan repayments would be an agreed amount as an expense of the business. Why would Kath use her rightful share of profits to reduce her own personal asset?

As I said, I'm no accountant but I think loan repayments aren't in the P&L so don't affect profitability, only loan interest is. Plus there needs to be a corresponding entry to the reduction in the debt in the BS so the funds must come from somewhere.

I can't believe our accountant in residence isn't around to clarify

Bl00dy hell, Jake, can't a woman have a lie-in on a Sunday morning?

If you look at our balance sheet since 2004, the movements are as follows. I've stripped out player valuations:


Change
Tangible Fixed Assets 333
Stocks 69
Debtors -389
Cash 289
Creditors < 1 Year 1,037
Creditors > 1 Year -276
Net Assets 1,063

Share Capital 21
Share Premium 0
Revaluation Reserve (exc Player valuations) 280
P&L Reserve 762
Shareholders Funds 1,063

So you're right in that essentially the increase in the P&L reserves essentially mirrors the movement on total creditors. We never get a breakdown of the creditors number as the accounts are abbreviated so don't get the visibility on loan movements you would in full accounts.

Mrs. B and Kath are robbing us blind.

It means that by making profit, we've reduced our liabilities. There is nothing in the accounts to show how much of this is due to the directors, but Rule has said the directors' loans have been repaid. I'm not really sure what your point is. The directors loaned the club money. The club has made some money since and it sounds like the directors loans have been repaid.

His point was that the profit has paid the directors off? I think. Which is why I said they wouldn't reduce their personal asset with money they are owed anyway as profit. At least it would seem silly to me.