ChezGiven

Any good tunes on it?

The big CMEs were all last week, weren't they? What happened?

Seems the Chinese are more on top of 'social control' than most countries. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12522856 Whats your general take on whats happening Billy? . Where's this all going? Is fundamentalism going to come in and fill the political gap or are a generation of twitter and facebook users intellectually beyond what these groups can offer? The internet was meant to be the next economic frontier, seems to be that no-one can monetise the fucker properly but its changed the nature of human interaction.

Fish Tank. If you like Ken Loach, you'll like this. Although it doesnt really take the genre anywhere new (if a genre of films documenting the British under-class can be said to exist), its well acted and a fair crack at showing the sort of issues excluded kids must face growing up on council estates etc. Not enough laughs though, apart from the younger sister having a few good lines. Manages to be fairly grim but without being overtly depressive.

Quite a few people on here rate Sunderland as a bigger club than Villa. With debates like these, opinions are massively varied. I've got more respect for Sunderland than Villa anyway, couldnt give a shit about their trophies, Villa fans are fucking mugs and would be a nothing club if they got relegated.

No one replied in the SBR thread because he started it. Danny serves to remind us why a lot of football fans think Spurs fans are wankers. The irony is he thinks he was righting the wrongs. He just confirmed it, the fucking idiot

Am doing a moghul curry, a sort of adaptation of a mullah do pyaza. Shoulder of lamb done with onions, ginger, garlic, yogurt, tomato, raisins, with cumin, tumeric, cloves, coriander, etc. Leazes will be proud

Every player has a price and if someone comes in with stupid money like they did for Carroll then its bye bye. If the money is re invested in the club then what's the problem?? Also if he wants to asset strip I'm sure he could have flogged Jose,Collo and Jonas by now Its not a case of asset stripping, its a case that every player is basically purchased and played with the ultimate aim to shift them on at a canny profit. Turning us from a football club into a shop window. ie have a good scouting network that unearthes young, lower league or foreign talent, buys them cheaply, pays them a fairly low wage and then when they hit the big time sell em on at a profit. Every player has their price, trouble is ours arent the silly, Carroll type amounts that mean we hold onto them, Carroll would have been sold at £20m it was simply Liverpools stupidity that meant we got a lot more. e'll have valued the likes of Tiote at an amount they can see as being good profit yet still likely to mean we get willing buyers. Id guess £10m would see him pushed out the door. The 6 for Enrique being a valid value based on the shortness of his contract. Chelsea's surely? Id say Liverpools, they could have paid us £25m, still sold Torres for 50 and pocketed an extra 10, this logic of we want to make £15m seems ludicrous to me, it should be a guide to what you'll be happy with but not laid down in stone. Either way, the only set of fans to end up unhappy in this will ultimately be us, although Chelsea possibly could be narked based on his start! My understanding of the situation is very different. Henry has stated very clearly that the price of Torres was based on the price of Caroll +15m. This was to add to the Babel money to pay for Suarez. Henry also says that the Torres £50m offer was on the table first thing on monday morning. This can only be logically interpreted one way: everyone in the market knew that Carroll was available at £35m , take it or leave it. Abramovich knows Henry will sell Torres for 15m on the Carroll price so offers the 50m. Any other interpretation concludes that Henry is talking shit since the Torres offer was a coincidence. I've looked at this every possible way and there is only one conclusion if you believe Henry, that the price of Carroll drove the market. If we dont believe Henry, then there is fuck all else to go on. as was said during the whole of January by some of us [bar the asking price which we didn't know at the time]. How much are Enrique, Tiotte and Barton available for ? Messi is also available for sale. £200m apparently and he's ours. Every player is for sale at a price, everywhere no matter the club. If someone stumped up £200m for Messi, Barcelona would sell him.

Every player has a price and if someone comes in with stupid money like they did for Carroll then its bye bye. If the money is re invested in the club then what's the problem?? Also if he wants to asset strip I'm sure he could have flogged Jose,Collo and Jonas by now Its not a case of asset stripping, its a case that every player is basically purchased and played with the ultimate aim to shift them on at a canny profit. Turning us from a football club into a shop window. ie have a good scouting network that unearthes young, lower league or foreign talent, buys them cheaply, pays them a fairly low wage and then when they hit the big time sell em on at a profit. Every player has their price, trouble is ours arent the silly, Carroll type amounts that mean we hold onto them, Carroll would have been sold at £20m it was simply Liverpools stupidity that meant we got a lot more. e'll have valued the likes of Tiote at an amount they can see as being good profit yet still likely to mean we get willing buyers. Id guess £10m would see him pushed out the door. The 6 for Enrique being a valid value based on the shortness of his contract. Chelsea's surely? Id say Liverpools, they could have paid us £25m, still sold Torres for 50 and pocketed an extra 10, this logic of we want to make £15m seems ludicrous to me, it should be a guide to what you'll be happy with but not laid down in stone. Either way, the only set of fans to end up unhappy in this will ultimately be us, although Chelsea possibly could be narked based on his start! My understanding of the situation is very different. Henry has stated very clearly that the price of Torres was based on the price of Caroll +15m. This was to add to the Babel money to pay for Suarez. Henry also says that the Torres £50m offer was on the table first thing on monday morning. This can only be logically interpreted one way: everyone in the market knew that Carroll was available at £35m, take it or leave it. Abramovich knows Henry will sell Torres for 15m on the Carroll price so offers the 50m. Any other interpretation concludes that Henry is talking shit since the Torres offer was a coincidence. I've looked at this every possible way and there is only one conclusion if you believe Henry, that the price of Carroll drove the market. If we dont believe Henry, then there is fuck all else to go on.

Tax man will have his say in April don't forget. Which is why we amortise our player assets to produce paper losses, so we can reduce the tax bill. Is amortisation tax deductible though? Obviously with traditional fixed assets there will be certain capital allowances, I'm not sure how it works with footballers. Can major companies amortise the contracts of their key personnel for tax purposes? Its a loss in asset value which is part of the profit and loss account. The more asset values are amortised, the more paper loss the club has, the less tax it pays. Indeed. But depreciation is also included in most companies P&L, even though it isn't tax deductible. Although as I said, the tax system allows for certain capital allowances on machinery purchased. I believe clubs can reduce their net profit on this basis and therefore pay less tax. You're the accountant though, you tell me!

Tax man will have his say in April don't forget. Which is why we amortise our player assets to produce paper losses, so we can reduce the tax bill. Chez would you please explain amortisation to me? In thicko terms? From that link I have posted a few times, but no-one reads: "The concept of amortisation confuses many people, but it is simply how accountants handle player transfers. Instead of booking 100% of the player’s transfer price as a cost in the year of purchase, accountants treat players as assets, so the cost is capitalised and written-down (amortised) over the length of his contract. At the end of the contract, the player is considered to have no value, because he can then leave the club on a free transfer. It’s probably easier to understand with a real world example. Let’s take Fabrizio Coloccini, who was bought for £10 million in 2008 on a five-year contract, meaning that the annual amortisation is £2 million. After two years his net book value in the accounts is £6 million (the original cost of £10 million less two years amortisation at £2 million per annum)". Any idea how this works with players who have not cost you anything? Do they look at the worth of their contract instead of how much the player is valued at and then amortise from this point? If so, all the 5 1/2 yr contracts could point towards a potential sale, trying to build the value of the clubs assets from an accounting purpose higher than they are? No, their contribution to the cost of goods is simply their wages.

Top left corner is Llambias and just behind him little Kevin off here.

"Most income tax systems allow a tax deduction for recovery of the cost of assets used in a business or for the production of income. Such deductions are allowed for individuals and companies. Where the assets are consumed currently, the cost may be deducted currently as an expense or treated as part of cost of goods sold." 'Cost of goods sold' includes all cash costs to the club and the additional costs. The depreciation in asset (player) value across its lifetime (contract) is part of the cost of goods sold. Therefore, the higher the cost of goods sold, the lower the net profit, the lower the tax.

Tax man will have his say in April don't forget. Which is why we amortise our player assets to produce paper losses, so we can reduce the tax bill. Chez would you please explain amortisation to me? In thicko terms? Liverpool have spent £35m on Carroll so what does that mean? They have lost cash (£30m up front) but gained an asset worth £35m. That asset is part of the valuation of the club's accounts. As the player has a fixed term contract (5 years), each year the asset value falls by £7m. At the end of the contract the player is worth £0.

Tax man will have his say in April don't forget. Which is why we amortise our player assets to produce paper losses, so we can reduce the tax bill. Is amortisation tax deductible though? Obviously with traditional fixed assets there will be certain capital allowances, I'm not sure how it works with footballers. Can major companies amortise the contracts of their key personnel for tax purposes? Its a loss in asset value which is part of the profit and loss account. The more asset values are amortised, the more paper loss the club has, the less tax it pays.

Which would be reflected in the balance sheet and thus the purchase price, net effect = nowt either way. Club's in private ownership and we deal in 'undisclosed' transfer fees. Irrelevant. Toonpack is right. I'm still not convinced this money won't go the same way the Milner cash did. More than likely. Doesnt change the basic fact that the only difference between £30m now and it spread over the next few seasons for the valuation of the club is the discount rate. Which works in favour of having the money earlier but thats it.

Tax man will have his say in April don't forget. Which is why we amortise our player assets to produce paper losses, so we can reduce the tax bill.

I bet his lass was winding him up about it because she was bitter and angry about her and the Stevenage player not being together anymore. Just a hunch.

Every player has a price and if someone comes in with stupid money like they did for Carroll then its bye bye. If the money is re invested in the club then what's the problem?? Also if he wants to asset strip I'm sure he could have flogged Jose,Collo and Jonas by now Its not a case of asset stripping, its a case that every player is basically purchased and played with the ultimate aim to shift them on at a canny profit. Turning us from a football club into a shop window. ie have a good scouting network that unearthes young, lower league or foreign talent, buys them cheaply, pays them a fairly low wage and then when they hit the big time sell em on at a profit. Every player has their price, trouble is ours arent the silly, Carroll type amounts that mean we hold onto them, Carroll would have been sold at £20m it was simply Liverpools stupidity that meant we got a lot more. e'll have valued the likes of Tiote at an amount they can see as being good profit yet still likely to mean we get willing buyers. Id guess £10m would see him pushed out the door. The 6 for Enrique being a valid value based on the shortness of his contract. Chelsea's surely?

You can find potato scones in the shops but nowhere near as good as homemade.

Kevin has 'Irish' hair? (As in, hair like Dylan Moran) Ah right, I misunderstood you. No, I don't look like I'm about to try to sell you some lucky heather either. 'tuts' Shame! I once refused to buy lucky heather from a 'gypsy' and she cursed me and mine for eternity It was so embarrassing as she shouted it right loud in the middle of town I got out of a taxi at a busy station and a gypsy was trying to get money off me as i was getting out of the car. As i was hassled and late i was a bit abrasive with her. Walked away from her and seconds later the handle on my travel suitcase fell off.

Potato scones are fucking great. Its one of the things our lass imported back to France, tells her mates about them. We have ours done from the proper old school scottish recipe. Me mam does them on a hot plate then when they are cooled off later on you whack em in with the fry-up. I look forward to it every time i go home.

He wont, thats what Quinn is basically telling everyone. The reality is he wont be able to continue doing that anyway unless its just to keep Sunderland in the prem league. If he wasnt them to play in the Europa league he wont be able to underwrite those losses.

We may have higher revenues but that means nothing if we have higher costs. Our wage bill was at £100m a few years back and people struggle to understand the situation we were in. Its easier to understand if it helps you laugh at Sunderland tbf.