There are two ways to get their money back:

1. Increase revenue/reduce expenditure leading to increased profitability over a period of time gradually reducing the debt, as is happening at Hull FC.

2. Sell out to someone else who will invest the money to repay their loans as part of the deal.

The third option is to accept that they are doing it for their love of the club and are unlikely to get their money back. In this day and age you have to admire anyone who takes that view.

It overstates Fixed Assets simply because it is against standard accounting practice. I don't know of many companies that include their employees as fixed assets in their y/e accounts.

It doesnt. It adds players on their for information. They do not officially count against fixed assets. They do not feed into the financials that make up the P&L. Anyone reading the accounts that knows what theyre reading will know that the players are not fixed assets. Its not against any practice that i know of, its just not standard, doesnt mean its wrong.

Is that from our accounts ? How do we know its the accountants disagreeing with the club, it could be the other way around ?

Again, its of no consequence to the P&L though.

The disagreement must go in both directions, by definition. Or are you suggesting the accountants insisted on including the valuations, despite dissent from the club, then included a note implying it was an unusual thing to do? Strikes me as unlikely.



Indeed. Biggest red herring since Sherlock Holmes' 'Case of the Giant Crimson Kipper'.

As i understand it its nothing to do with accountants, the simple case here as youve hinted at with the red herring comment is that the auditors have said they wouldnt have shown it on accounts like we have.

Except in this case it wasn't the accountants who were being creative eh?