The K's In Point
Newest article: Re: Home attendances by Korky1Yesterday 21:05Yesterday at 21:05:55view thread
Oldest article: FOR IRISK
by tim1/7/2023 18:46Sat Jul 1 18:46:02 2023
3 peopleview thread
Next thread: Isthmian League - Premier Division results by Football Web Pages13/1 17:06Sat Jan 13 17:06:16 2024view thread
Maddest thing I've read on here
Views: 6742
In homage to a recent a post.
AFCW didn't included a break clause in the tenancy agreement for Ks.
Ksuals
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people
Re: Maddest thing I've read on here
Views: 5252
Another mad thing is that AFC Wimbledon gave us a total of £1,220,000 according to their accounts. Only £990,211 showed in the club accounts back on 31 May 2018. At the same time our liabilities shot up from £132,123 to £1,097,054. As of the latest accounts dated 31 May 2023, we now have £671,421 in assets, just under a £60k reduction from last year, must have been an expensive ground share...
We have nearly used half of the pot in the space of six seasons and it has got us where exactly? Still, the board have a plan.
reply to this article | return to the front page
9 people
Re: Maddest thing I've read on here
Views: 4008
Picking up on the “liabilities shot up…” point - and apologies for the boring accountancy post - when the Wimbledon money was received, the bookkeeping entry in the accounts would have been:
Debit cash (assets) : £1m (or whatever the actual amount was)
Credit deferred income (liabilities) : the same amount
Then over time this deferred income is gradually released to the profit and loss account and the accounting entry each year is:
Debit deferred income : £x
Credit profit & loss account : £x
So the liabilities will come down each year as some of the Wimbledon money is spent.
Hope that makes sense - basically the apparently high level of liabilities in the accounts is in itself nothing to be concerned about. (Though obviously there are many other issues to worry about.)
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Maddest thing I've read on here
Views: 3977
this makes sense. since the money is held by AFC and released on a conditional basis year by year...
"The payment is considered a liability because there is still the possibility that the good or service may not be delivered"
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Maddest thing I've read on here
Views: 4049
I have many times in my life been described as a "fucking liability" but only an accountant (or a lawyer, apparently) could describe someone promising to give you more than a million quid, a liability...
Maddest thing I've read on here, indeed.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Maddest thing I've read on here
Views: 3728
I've certainly described many of our players as that over the years.
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Maddest thing I've read on here
Views: 4667
Was the sum subject to corporation tax? I think it probably was as profits of Kingstonian. Corporation tax on 1,220,000 would have been 230,000 thus the sum recorded is 990,000.
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Maddest thing I've read on here
Views: 4475
Presume not. The money has not been "received"/banked in full. It's held in escrow and released piecemeal.
Also Fenwick said the club used some of the money to get advice so as to safely NOT pay tax on it. Unless they hired a KC for 100 hours' work, it wouldn't eat up £200 000.
Also if the discrepancy is due to tax, what is stopping the board from saying "we had to pay tax".
Edited by WeHateWombles at 17:36:34 on 11th January 2024
reply to this article | return to the front page
5 people
Re: Maddest thing I've read on here
Views: 4553
Perhaps the advice was the sum was taxable? It is otherwise a coincidence that 19 percent off gives the right figure. Kingstonian is a trading company not a charity.
The accounts for AFCW plc give the best information on the blood money.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Maddest thing I've read on here
Views: 4705
This is accurate. KBH sought clarification on accounts, as any investor would.
I wonder if Ben Flatt knows the answer.
reply to this article | return to the front page
5 people
Re: Maddest thing I've read on here
Views: 4262
Easier getting an answer out of a deer in Richmond Park…..
reply to this article | return to the front page
Previous thread: Saturday's match v Canvey Island by www.kingstonian.com12/1 12:00Fri Jan 12 12:00:22 2024view thread