Players are employees, not assets. Their contracts would become null and void if FC were to be liquidated, just like any other employee. The Administrator would have a hard time selling players that would become free agents if clubs just waited a few weeks. And even if they somehow managed to con some clubs into paying for a free resource, the valuations achieved would bear no relation to the figures given in the accounts.

Their value while the club is solvent is an asset, though. A club does not need to be in administration for this figure to become of interest. Kath has reputedly had the club up for sale on and off over the last few years - any buyer or investor would want to know the amount they could expect to get if any of the playing staff were transferred during their contracts.

So why do you think Hull include it?

More to the point why do they consistently go against their own accountants advice, why bother employing them if Hull fc know best.

Trying to get back on topic I find it strange that the publication of Rovers accounts has not been mentioned in the Hull Daily Mail or on Radio Humberside sports news. Has Hudge got to them? Was the subject raised on Sportstalk last night?

No mention of a/cs in Wednesday's Mail either , not heard sportstalk though

Maybe they didn't think it newsworthy or sport? I know this has come to be seen as something of huge import in certain quarters, but 'business (finally ) submits accounts' or 'Rovers running at a roughly League-average loss during period of rapid development' are not startling headlines. As has been shown on this board, with varying degrees of success, a more negative spin can be put on it. However, HDM and RH journalists won't necessarily share the worldview of a group of very committed (including a couple who probably should be committed ) Hull Trolls. The media's failure to follow the troll's agenda is either a dark conspiracy or a reflection of how mad certain obsessions have become - I look forward to finding out which it is in Wilf's diary.

I think they include it in order to try and artificially inflate the value of the club for potential purchasers. I also think that's a forlorn hope as anyone with an ounce of sense will see straight through that particular ploy.

Players are not assets in any normally-accepted sense of the word. Which is why it's against normal accounting practice to include them as such. Harmless, but ultimately pointless.