WTF has it got to do with property investors? St Helens RLFC are a rugby league club with the aim to play rugby league at the top level. The fact that they have a stadium to use without having to pay rent means it is an asset to that club. Is that really so hard to understand?

The value in the accounts is the value to that company with relation to the market it operates in. Why would they they report the value in any other way?

not so - Deano is correct, 99% certain it will be stated at cost.

building an asset for say £4m but then perceiving it to be worth £8m as it would produce £8m of future revenue flows is not one you would get past the auditors.
Stick to commenting on things you know about

just wondering why no bids have been made for bulls players.Is it because smart chairmen are waiting for players to get sacked then make a move.

[url=http://gifsoup.com/view/1199947/picard-s-double-facepalm.html[/url [url=http://gifsoup.com/GIFSoup[/url

Astonishing.

I referred to property investors because you described the stadium as an asset generating rental income (which is what an investor would be interested in). You said:



Here's some light reading for you which might explain some accounting terms. Companies can't simply say well I'm saving rent by owning this property rather than leasing it so I'll pluck a figure out of the air and stick that down on my balance sheet... You either go with book value (cost, as nikos says, adjusted by depreciation over time) or if you were for examaple a property holding company you would get an independent valuation from a valuer and value the property on the balance sheet at the figure certified by the valuer.

[urlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_value[/url

[urlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_value[/url

Snipped....

I think the expression is "owned".

Well you've made that up didn't you.

It is obviously an "asset" (general use of the word as you would expect on a rugby league forum rather than an accountancy course) as it means Saints (and Warrington) do not have to pay rent for use of a stadium in which to carry out its primary purpose (eg play rugby).

The worth given to that asset that I'd used to illustrate it has a value was again an easy to understand example rather than an accountancy principle eg for the life of the stadium Saints do not have to pay any rent. If you are suggesting that has no value then I give up.

At least you're amusing the usual culprits on here. You stick to wikipedia as your business resource.

Actually the only value figure I referred to was from Warrington's audited accounts so I presume you're ok with that?

As you appear to know more than me about this can you confirm whether a rugby stadium owned by a rugby club would be considered an asset to that club?

*Comes into a thread looking for talk on Bradford, finds a legal arguement taking places, promptly leaves*.

Not to back-seat moderate, but ...

Yes, it would be normally (though if dilapidated it could be a liability rather than an asset, a ground like Odsal would potentially be problematic), though the value is probably quite low.

The book value as shown in the accounts could appear high, this is however just an accounting entry rather than showing the market value of the stadium. I imagine the HJ cost around £15m-20m to build and that that figure would have been entered in the balance sheet in the financial year in which the development completed. Depreciation charges would then be applied each financial year, these write downs (of say 5% a year) resulting in the current £12m figure you refer to, that would seem to make sense, though I haven't seen the accounts, perhaps if you have you could confirm?

The market value of somewhere like the HJ or LP is however likely to be low, unless the ground had redevelopment potential for residential or retail (but then the club would need to find somewhere else to play). Without redevelopment potential you would be looking at the rent you could achieve, the covenant strength of the tenant and any costs you were unable to pass on to the club as tenant to determine what the property was worth as an investment.

In terms of what the ground is "worth" to the club it may save some money compared with renting (unlike many Wigan fans I don't think we get a good deal at the DW which is why IL has never revealed the true position) and does offer opportunities to generate revenue through conferences etc there is something to be said for having a lease without repairing liability from a landlord with deep pockets who can meet the maintenance and repair expenses, which will only increase as any stadium ages. The day will come when the HJ and LP need a major overhaul and this may be as expensive as building a new stadium from scratch. Wire's owner may be able to fund this but I'm not sure many clubs would be in as fortunate a position. Many modern buildings only have a useful life of 30 years or so and while some of the modern stadiums in RL areas look to have been solidly built (Huddersfield and the DW spring to mind) and look like they could last for decades to come without needing vast sums spending on them, other grounds look less robust (LP in particular).

No, I didn't make it up. You referred to the value of the asset being derived from its rental income. Who apart from a property investor would be interested in owning a property in order to receive rental income.

As for your "general" use of the word "asset", here's what you actually said:



You refer to "net present value" (a technical accounting term) based on a rental calculation. You then go on to refer to the auditors having valued the stadium at c £12m (I think you mean that they have audited the accounts which contain an entry on the balance sheet of c£12m rather than valuing it, as this would be something for a surveyor or valuer rather than an auditor).



D'oh! I'm tempted to resort to the Picard double-facepalm again...

The reason they would report the value in a different way is simple - because they are required to under UK accounting standards (GAAP).

I don't use Wikipedia as a business resource myself but it's fair to say that the contributors to the two Wikipedia entries mentioned above seem to have a much firmer grasp of the issues than you do.

sorry*










[size=50*it was more of an accounting argument than a legal one #I'll get me coat#[/size

give me their company number and I will set you straight, don't wish to speculate upon what Warrington do, prefer to deal in the facts, son.

Here you go, dad: 03683966

great read thanks - valued at cost less depn at 4% rb - no mention of "valuation" anywhere

double-double facepalm anyone?



interesting contingent liability note - not paying PAYE or NI on players image rights in the past, no provision made and discussions with HMRC "ongoing"



now, up to your room, son, and think about your stupid actions...

eek! - what have I created?

Exactly where did this thread turn from "where do the points go?" to a discussion on the actuarial merits of renting vs owning - we'll be discussing Rule of 78 & iterative APR calculations next.

I won't bother asking the difference between something being "valued" and a "valuation".

As for the note - isn't that the same one that was made to Wigan's accounts the other year? As has come to light from the Bradford episode these liabilities are not quite in the millions that some people so wanted to believe. In fact Bradford's as one of the worse offenders is £250k.


Either way that's the last post from me in relation to the sematics of accountancy terms. If you want to believe that a rugby stadium has little or no value/worth/asset to a rugby club then you are seriously deluded.

I do believe that the link to the Deloitte's article about rugby union finances has a lot more merit to the discussion on Bradford's unfortunate position than the last two pages of posts.

may well do, lets get on topic or lock it?

Actually there isn't much on value of a club with the stadium. The issue is that the stadium only comes into play when someone wants to set up a new club. If the club goes into liquidation and asset stripping takes place to recover debt then the stadium is valued based on land, typically. This is because, unless the buyer wants to start their own sports club, the stadium isn't easy to redevelop into something else. For example a warehouse space has many uses like the go kart track at bank quay in Warrington or a factory or of course another warehouse. A stadium is a stadium.

However you're half right as, of course, if someone is valuing the club based on being sold as a business it does count as it would be used as a stadium still if the club were sold. It all depends on the context it was meant in and I can't be bothered reading it all tbh.

Believe it or believe it not, i heard a rumour today that a consortium of Bradford indian restaurants are planning to do this!!!!

Hells teeth i was joking when i first posted. The rumour is on the Bulls site... Good lord.

It's no rumour mate, it's the real deal.

Are you tikka the ? My nan will never believe it