Playoffs

Open now for discussion of all things Darlo!

Moderators: botrash, mikkyx, charlie, uncovered

Ghost_Of_1883
Posts: 746
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:33 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Playoffs

Post by Ghost_Of_1883 » Fri Jul 24, 2020 11:37 am

Not necessarily.

If they go up they may be more likely to release fringe players as they will be after better quality players. If they stay down, then they may decide to hold on to players who might have otherwise been released.

I hope they go up because with Fylde coming down that's another club with ££££s, making things more difficult
We are Darlo! We know our shitt! If we say it's 1-2-0-1-1-3-0-1-1 then you better believe it! La la la oo, la la la oo (clap, clap, clap, clap)

Ghost_Of_1883
Posts: 746
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:33 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Playoffs

Post by Ghost_Of_1883 » Fri Jul 24, 2020 11:41 am

HarrytheQuaker wrote:
Sun Jul 19, 2020 8:32 pm

Ainsley is there until HE decides to leave and why should he leave they are punching above but doing it well

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk
I'm beginning to wonder if you are really a Spendy fan pretending to be a Darlo fan, seeing as though you're always defending them, and at the same time knocking Darlo or Darlo fans.

We used to get this with the ape abusers back in the day.

Ainsley has a very healthy budget provided by an owner that has flooded the club with millions of pounds, and in fact put in over 600k just last season. Let's put it another way, if he needs to find an extra couple of quid to lure the best players, he can find it.

To fail to even reach the play offs in a part time regional league is a failure.
We are Darlo! We know our shitt! If we say it's 1-2-0-1-1-3-0-1-1 then you better believe it! La la la oo, la la la oo (clap, clap, clap, clap)

Darlofan97
Posts: 4372
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:44 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Playoffs

Post by Darlofan97 » Fri Jul 24, 2020 12:00 pm

Ghost_Of_1883 wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 11:37 am
Not necessarily.

If they go up they may be more likely to release fringe players as they will be after better quality players. If they stay down, then they may decide to hold on to players who might have otherwise been released.

I hope they go up because with Fylde coming down that's another club with ££££s, making things more difficult
I agree with this massively.

I think looking at York's squad, the players we are interested in are Jameson, Whitley, Langstaff & Maguire.

Jameson - York rate him and he would command a decent fee. I think the chances of us getting him are very low, to be honest.

Whitley - Could be an option if we don't get Brynn from Boro. Would be more likely to happen if York get promoted.

Langstaff - Will probably get released regardless of if York are promoted or not. Alun signed him twice at Blyth (on loan) and very nearly did again this season. Can play out on the left which is an area I think we can improve on.

Maguire - Under contract for next season at York, but given his difficulty adapting to full-time football and his decently-paid profession outside of football, it wouldn't surprise me if York want to cut their losses and/or Maguire wants to go back part-time. The chances of us signing him will increase if York go up as they will be more inclined to letting him go to a club in the league below.

darlo2001uk
Posts: 1308
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 4:10 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Playoffs

Post by darlo2001uk » Fri Jul 24, 2020 12:20 pm

Is Jameson really an option? Personally, I don't think he is.

For me, Maguire would be the No 1 target of that quartet, but there are a lot of ifs and buts.

poppyfield
Posts: 1729
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 11:36 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Playoffs

Post by poppyfield » Fri Jul 24, 2020 12:30 pm

As it has already been said before Altrincham now have a game under their belt, pressure is all on York.
Help get the club back to Darlo by helping to spread the word about the "Back to Darlo!" fund. The image on the right will be constantly updated with the latest total so please feel free to use the image link below the thermometer on your own signatures, blogs, websites, etc.Image
Image link: http://www.mydarlo.co.uk/img/BTD-therm-350x100.jpg

Darlofan97
Posts: 4372
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:44 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Playoffs

Post by Darlofan97 » Fri Jul 24, 2020 1:07 pm

darlo2001uk wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 12:20 pm
Is Jameson really an option? Personally, I don't think he is.

For me, Maguire would be the No 1 target of that quartet, but there are a lot of ifs and buts.
Which is why I said the chances of Jameson signing are very low.....

We will ask the question but I think that’s as far as it will go.

spen666
Posts: 1804
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Playoffs

Post by spen666 » Fri Jul 24, 2020 1:18 pm

Ghost_Of_1883 wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 11:41 am
HarrytheQuaker wrote:
Sun Jul 19, 2020 8:32 pm

Ainsley is there until HE decides to leave and why should he leave they are punching above but doing it well

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk
I'm beginning to wonder if you are really a Spendy fan pretending to be a Darlo fan, seeing as though you're always defending them, and at the same time knocking Darlo or Darlo fans.

We used to get this with the ape abusers back in the day.

Ainsley has a very healthy budget provided by an owner that has flooded the club with millions of pounds, and in fact put in over 600k just last season. Let's put it another way, if he needs to find an extra couple of quid to lure the best players, he can find it.

To fail to even reach the play offs in a part time regional league is a failure.
£600k last season?

You really do not have a clue how to read accounts. The £600k is not money put into the club it is related transactions between 2 companies controlled by the same legal entity.

LoidLucan
Posts: 3306
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:29 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Playoffs

Post by LoidLucan » Fri Jul 24, 2020 1:33 pm

And Brad's still got money to spare to be shirt sponsor at Sunderland. The irony of them being involved with a company that helps with cutting costs hasn't been lost on the Mackem fans :) .

QUAKERMAN2
Posts: 2056
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:43 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Playoffs

Post by QUAKERMAN2 » Fri Jul 24, 2020 2:02 pm

spen666 wrote:
Ghost_Of_1883 wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 11:41 am
HarrytheQuaker wrote:
Sun Jul 19, 2020 8:32 pm

Ainsley is there until HE decides to leave and why should he leave they are punching above but doing it well

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk
I'm beginning to wonder if you are really a Spendy fan pretending to be a Darlo fan, seeing as though you're always defending them, and at the same time knocking Darlo or Darlo fans.

We used to get this with the ape abusers back in the day.

Ainsley has a very healthy budget provided by an owner that has flooded the club with millions of pounds, and in fact put in over 600k just last season. Let's put it another way, if he needs to find an extra couple of quid to lure the best players, he can find it.

To fail to even reach the play offs in a part time regional league is a failure.
£600k last season?

You really do not have a clue how to read accounts. The £600k is not money put into the club it is related transactions between 2 companies controlled by the same legal entity.
These will be something more commonly known as inter company transactions which has to be shown in the respective balance sheets under "associated company".A debtor will be shown in the GAS accounts( sums owing from) and in the Spenny accounts as a creditor( sums owing to).Whichever way you look at it Spenny will owe GAS £600k for a variety of reasons but is cash related without question.

Sent from my moto g(6) play using Tapatalk


spen666
Posts: 1804
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Playoffs

Post by spen666 » Fri Jul 24, 2020 2:34 pm

QUAKERMAN2 wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 2:02 pm
spen666 wrote:
Ghost_Of_1883 wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 11:41 am
HarrytheQuaker wrote:
Sun Jul 19, 2020 8:32 pm

Ainsley is there until HE decides to leave and why should he leave they are punching above but doing it well

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk
I'm beginning to wonder if you are really a Spendy fan pretending to be a Darlo fan, seeing as though you're always defending them, and at the same time knocking Darlo or Darlo fans.

We used to get this with the ape abusers back in the day.

Ainsley has a very healthy budget provided by an owner that has flooded the club with millions of pounds, and in fact put in over 600k just last season. Let's put it another way, if he needs to find an extra couple of quid to lure the best players, he can find it.

To fail to even reach the play offs in a part time regional league is a failure.
£600k last season?

You really do not have a clue how to read accounts. The £600k is not money put into the club it is related transactions between 2 companies controlled by the same legal entity.
These will be something more commonly known as inter company transactions which has to be shown in the respective balance sheets under "associated company".A debtor will be shown in the GAS accounts( sums owing from) and in the Spenny accounts as a creditor( sums owing to).Whichever way you look at it Spenny will owe GAS £600k for a variety of reasons but is cash related without question.

Sent from my moto g(6) play using Tapatalk

Related transactions are not necessarily related as you seem to suggest. For example if Company A pays a bill on behalf of Company B and then Company B reimburses company A immediately ( Often done with payroll where larger company do the payroll for smaller company who immediately reimburse. This is ofteb done because company B do not have their own payroll department) then that amount would show as a related transaction even though Company A has given no money to Company B

What the £600k relates to none of us on here have any idea, but it is not the case that because there are £600k of related transactions there must have been a £600k investment.

Ghost_Of_1883
Posts: 746
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:33 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Playoffs

Post by Ghost_Of_1883 » Fri Jul 24, 2020 3:17 pm

spen666 wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 1:18 pm
You really do not have a clue how to read accounts. The £600k is not money put into the club it is related transactions between 2 companies controlled by the same legal entity.
Why would GAS and Spennymoor Town have transactions totalling over 600k go from GAS to Spennymoor Town? Weren't they referrals and commissions etc paid to Spenny by GAS for services provided - or something like that?

Just answer with a yes, or a no, or a I think so, or a I don't know - no need for a paragraph of waffle.

Then I'll get on to my next point (which you're probably already anticipating) and you can answer that.
We are Darlo! We know our shitt! If we say it's 1-2-0-1-1-3-0-1-1 then you better believe it! La la la oo, la la la oo (clap, clap, clap, clap)

LoidLucan
Posts: 3306
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:29 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Playoffs

Post by LoidLucan » Fri Jul 24, 2020 3:26 pm

My money's on the waffle option :D

spen666
Posts: 1804
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Playoffs

Post by spen666 » Fri Jul 24, 2020 3:32 pm

Ghost_Of_1883 wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 3:17 pm
spen666 wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 1:18 pm
You really do not have a clue how to read accounts. The £600k is not money put into the club it is related transactions between 2 companies controlled by the same legal entity.
Why would GAS and Spennymoor Town have transactions totalling over 600k go from GAS to Spennymoor Town? Weren't they referrals and commissions etc paid to Spenny by GAS for services provided - or something like that?

Just answer with a yes, or a no, or a I think so, or a I don't know - no need for a paragraph of waffle.

Then I'll get on to my next point (which you're probably already anticipating) and you can answer that.

I have already answered your question.

QUAKERMAN2
Posts: 2056
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:43 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Playoffs

Post by QUAKERMAN2 » Fri Jul 24, 2020 3:32 pm

Not following your logic here Spen.If Company A provides a service on behalf of Company B and this transaction is settled between the respective companies then fine, no debt exists.If this transaction is not settled between the respective companies then a debt exists which is the point I am making, hence a debtor in one company and an equal and opposite creditor in the other company.If no debt exists then no entries will show in the respective Balance Sheets as I see it.

Sent from my moto g(6) play using Tapatalk


spen666
Posts: 1804
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Playoffs

Post by spen666 » Fri Jul 24, 2020 3:36 pm

QUAKERMAN2 wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 3:32 pm
Not following your logic here Spen.If Company A provides a service on behalf of Company B and this transaction is settled between the respective companies then fine, no debt exists.If this transaction is not settled between the respective companies then a debt exists which is the point I am making, hence a debtor in one company and an equal and opposite creditor in the other company.If no debt exists then no entries will show in the respective Balance Sheets as I see it.

Sent from my moto g(6) play using Tapatalk
You are talking balance sheets. Related transactions are exactly what they say they are related transactions. They do not necessarily end up on balance sheet. The could easily cancel each other out and have nonet impact on a balance sheet
Related transactions have to be reported in the notes to financial accounts, irrespective of the balance sheet.

The balance sheet is a snapshot at the end of the financial period. It is not a record of the transactions between the companies

QUAKERMAN2
Posts: 2056
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:43 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Playoffs

Post by QUAKERMAN2 » Fri Jul 24, 2020 3:45 pm

spen666 wrote:
QUAKERMAN2 wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 3:32 pm
Not following your logic here Spen.If Company A provides a service on behalf of Company B and this transaction is settled between the respective companies then fine, no debt exists.If this transaction is not settled between the respective companies then a debt exists which is the point I am making, hence a debtor in one company and an equal and opposite creditor in the other company.If no debt exists then no entries will show in the respective Balance Sheets as I see it.

Sent from my moto g(6) play using Tapatalk
You are talking balance sheets. Related transactions are exactly what they say they are related transactions. They do not necessarily end up on balance sheet. The could easily cancel each other out and have nonet impact on a balance sheet
Related transactions have to be reported in the notes to financial accounts, irrespective of the balance sheet.

The balance sheet is a snapshot at the end of the financial period. It is not a record of the transactions between the companies
We will only know the true extent of money owing to GAS from Spennymoor Town by reference to the respective Balance Sheets, that is my point irrespective of the related transactions sum in the supporting notes to the accounts..Any idea what this figure is, I assumed from previous comments that the 600k was in fact this figure.Will it be in excess of this Spen ?, would be very interesting.

Sent from my moto g(6) play using Tapatalk


spen666
Posts: 1804
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Playoffs

Post by spen666 » Fri Jul 24, 2020 3:57 pm

QUAKERMAN2 wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 3:45 pm
spen666 wrote:
QUAKERMAN2 wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 3:32 pm
Not following your logic here Spen.If Company A provides a service on behalf of Company B and this transaction is settled between the respective companies then fine, no debt exists.If this transaction is not settled between the respective companies then a debt exists which is the point I am making, hence a debtor in one company and an equal and opposite creditor in the other company.If no debt exists then no entries will show in the respective Balance Sheets as I see it.

Sent from my moto g(6) play using Tapatalk
You are talking balance sheets. Related transactions are exactly what they say they are related transactions. They do not necessarily end up on balance sheet. The could easily cancel each other out and have nonet impact on a balance sheet
Related transactions have to be reported in the notes to financial accounts, irrespective of the balance sheet.

The balance sheet is a snapshot at the end of the financial period. It is not a record of the transactions between the companies
We will only know the true extent of money owing to GAS from Spennymoor Town by reference to the respective Balance Sheets, that is my point irrespective of the related transactions sum in the supporting notes to the accounts..Any idea what this figure is, I assumed from previous comments that the 600k was in fact this figure.Will it be in excess of this Spen ?, would be very interesting.

Sent from my moto g(6) play using Tapatalk
You will not find out the figure you seek by looking at a balance sheet.

You are seemingly under a misapprehension as to what a balance sheet is

Ghost_Of_1883
Posts: 746
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:33 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Playoffs

Post by Ghost_Of_1883 » Fri Jul 24, 2020 4:15 pm

I'm sure I read on the Spenny website that GAS pay Spenny for providing them new business. Although I do stand to be corrected by the forum's resident expert solicitor, accountant, cyclist, encyclopedia.

All looks good at first glance and helps to keep the illusion up that Spenny are a self sufficient, self financing club that are just incredibly good at making money, and will no doubt satisfy most.
We are Darlo! We know our shitt! If we say it's 1-2-0-1-1-3-0-1-1 then you better believe it! La la la oo, la la la oo (clap, clap, clap, clap)

JE93
Posts: 1386
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 2:48 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Playoffs

Post by JE93 » Fri Jul 24, 2020 4:24 pm

spen666 wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 2:34 pm
QUAKERMAN2 wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 2:02 pm
spen666 wrote:
Ghost_Of_1883 wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 11:41 am
HarrytheQuaker wrote:
Sun Jul 19, 2020 8:32 pm

Ainsley is there until HE decides to leave and why should he leave they are punching above but doing it well

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk
I'm beginning to wonder if you are really a Spendy fan pretending to be a Darlo fan, seeing as though you're always defending them, and at the same time knocking Darlo or Darlo fans.

We used to get this with the ape abusers back in the day.

Ainsley has a very healthy budget provided by an owner that has flooded the club with millions of pounds, and in fact put in over 600k just last season. Let's put it another way, if he needs to find an extra couple of quid to lure the best players, he can find it.

To fail to even reach the play offs in a part time regional league is a failure.
£600k last season?

You really do not have a clue how to read accounts. The £600k is not money put into the club it is related transactions between 2 companies controlled by the same legal entity.
These will be something more commonly known as inter company transactions which has to be shown in the respective balance sheets under "associated company".A debtor will be shown in the GAS accounts( sums owing from) and in the Spenny accounts as a creditor( sums owing to).Whichever way you look at it Spenny will owe GAS £600k for a variety of reasons but is cash related without question.

Sent from my moto g(6) play using Tapatalk

Related transactions are not necessarily related as you seem to suggest. For example if Company A pays a bill on behalf of Company B and then Company B reimburses company A immediately ( Often done with payroll where larger company do the payroll for smaller company who immediately reimburse. This is ofteb done because company B do not have their own payroll department) then that amount would show as a related transaction even though Company A has given no money to Company B

What the £600k relates to none of us on here have any idea, but it is not the case that because there are £600k of related transactions there must have been a £600k investment.
Too right Spen. But without any contradictory evidence you can present, then there is nothing stopping a Darlington fan on a Darlington forum asserting that Spennymoor are propped up by GAS to the sum of £600k a year. Should you have evidence to contradict this assertion, I'm sure people would gladly hear it, but you don't so you can't. You can take up the matter on the Spennymoor forum and come back when you have further evidence. But waiting for honest words to be published by the Spennymoor Town FC PR team, one can wait a rather long time, no need to pop back in the meantime. :wave:

spen666
Posts: 1804
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Playoffs

Post by spen666 » Fri Jul 24, 2020 4:29 pm

Ghost_Of_1883 wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 4:15 pm
I'm sure I read on the Spenny website that GAS pay Spenny for providing them new business. Although I do stand to be corrected by the forum's resident expert solicitor, accountant, cyclist, encyclopedia.

All looks good at first glance and helps to keep the illusion up that Spenny are a self sufficient, self financing club that are just incredibly good at making money, and will no doubt satisfy most.
#I won't comment on it because I am not privy to the accounting records of either company, neither are any of us on here.

All I have done is point out that the Related Transactions Figure is not the amount of the investment/ loan/subsidy etc.

you are taking a figure that means nothing of the sort and equating it to something it is not. Simple accountancy principles

QUAKERMAN2
Posts: 2056
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:43 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Playoffs

Post by QUAKERMAN2 » Fri Jul 24, 2020 4:35 pm

spen666 wrote:
QUAKERMAN2 wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 3:45 pm
spen666 wrote:
QUAKERMAN2 wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 3:32 pm
Not following your logic here Spen.If Company A provides a service on behalf of Company B and this transaction is settled between the respective companies then fine, no debt exists.If this transaction is not settled between the respective companies then a debt exists which is the point I am making, hence a debtor in one company and an equal and opposite creditor in the other company.If no debt exists then no entries will show in the respective Balance Sheets as I see it.

Sent from my moto g(6) play using Tapatalk
You are talking balance sheets. Related transactions are exactly what they say they are related transactions. They do not necessarily end up on balance sheet. The could easily cancel each other out and have nonet impact on a balance sheet
Related transactions have to be reported in the notes to financial accounts, irrespective of the balance sheet.

The balance sheet is a snapshot at the end of the financial period. It is not a record of the transactions between the companies
We will only know the true extent of money owing to GAS from Spennymoor Town by reference to the respective Balance Sheets, that is my point irrespective of the related transactions sum in the supporting notes to the accounts..Any idea what this figure is, I assumed from previous comments that the 600k was in fact this figure.Will it be in excess of this Spen ?, would be very interesting.

Sent from my moto g(6) play using Tapatalk
You will not find out the figure you seek by looking at a balance sheet.

You are seemingly under a misapprehension as to what a balance sheet is
I know full well what a Balance Sheet is you clown, what I am referring to is just how much Spenny owe GAS.Obviously the reference to "associated companies" will include this in part or in full depending on whether other associated or related companies have dealings with GAS .Why don't you just concentrate on your favourite teams message board and go on there.....forgot you don't have one.

Sent from my moto g(6) play using Tapatalk


LoidLucan
Posts: 3306
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:29 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Playoffs

Post by LoidLucan » Fri Jul 24, 2020 5:01 pm

Spen always over-complicates things. So let's just keep it simple and leave it to Spendy's own MD to explain things about how money moves from GAS to the club. In April he said: "This commercial relationship works by the club being a referral partner to GAS. For every successful referral to the Group, we are paid a fee. This has proven useful so far this season and will be priceless over the coming weeks and months to help us earn revenue."

Transactions solved and case closed.

Old Git
Posts: 465
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 9:09 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Playoffs

Post by Old Git » Fri Jul 24, 2020 5:30 pm

Who cares how Spennymoor are funded it’s obvious that they are totally dependent on Uncle Brad but that’s just how it is. I believe we will finish above them next season and that is what really matters.

QUAKERMAN2
Posts: 2056
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:43 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Playoffs

Post by QUAKERMAN2 » Fri Jul 24, 2020 5:30 pm

LoidLucan wrote:Spen always over-complicates things. So let's just keep it simple and leave it to Spendy's own MD to explain things about how money moves from GAS to the club. In April he said: "This commercial relationship works by the club being a referral partner to GAS. For every successful referral to the Group, we are paid a fee. This has proven useful so far this season and will be priceless over the coming weeks and months to help us earn revenue."

Transactions solved and case closed.
I think they call this "creative accounting".Those Spenny fans must have a hell of a lot of contacts, take a bow boys, great support for GAS.

Sent from my moto g(6) play using Tapatalk


Darlo_Pete
Posts: 12894
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:13 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Playoffs

Post by Darlo_Pete » Fri Jul 24, 2020 6:10 pm

I'd be happy with an Altrincham v Boston final, by the way this isn't a prediction!!!

spen666
Posts: 1804
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Playoffs

Post by spen666 » Sat Jul 25, 2020 9:10 am

QUAKERMAN2 wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 4:35 pm
spen666 wrote:
QUAKERMAN2 wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 3:45 pm
spen666 wrote:
QUAKERMAN2 wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 3:32 pm
Not following your logic here Spen.If Company A provides a service on behalf of Company B and this transaction is settled between the respective companies then fine, no debt exists.If this transaction is not settled between the respective companies then a debt exists which is the point I am making, hence a debtor in one company and an equal and opposite creditor in the other company.If no debt exists then no entries will show in the respective Balance Sheets as I see it.

Sent from my moto g(6) play using Tapatalk
You are talking balance sheets. Related transactions are exactly what they say they are related transactions. They do not necessarily end up on balance sheet. The could easily cancel each other out and have nonet impact on a balance sheet
Related transactions have to be reported in the notes to financial accounts, irrespective of the balance sheet.

The balance sheet is a snapshot at the end of the financial period. It is not a record of the transactions between the companies
We will only know the true extent of money owing to GAS from Spennymoor Town by reference to the respective Balance Sheets, that is my point irrespective of the related transactions sum in the supporting notes to the accounts..Any idea what this figure is, I assumed from previous comments that the 600k was in fact this figure.Will it be in excess of this Spen ?, would be very interesting.

Sent from my moto g(6) play using Tapatalk
You will not find out the figure you seek by looking at a balance sheet.

You are seemingly under a misapprehension as to what a balance sheet is
I know full well what a Balance Sheet is you clown, what I am referring to is just how much Spenny owe GAS.Obviously the reference to "associated companies" will include this in part or in full depending on whether other associated or related companies have dealings with GAS .Why don't you just concentrate on your favourite teams message board and go on there.....forgot you don't have one.

Sent from my moto g(6) play using Tapatalk
If you know what a balance sheet is, then why are you equating related transactions to the balance sheet.

The figure for related transactions is not a reflection of any amount owed by one company to another.

Related transactions are exactly what they say. They are not necessarily debts.

You are mistaken in trying to equate investment/ loan/ subsidy to the figure for related transactions.

poppyfield
Posts: 1729
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 11:36 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Playoffs

Post by poppyfield » Sat Jul 25, 2020 9:32 am

Just stop feeding the spen, its a pointless exercise as been seen in god knows how many threads.
Help get the club back to Darlo by helping to spread the word about the "Back to Darlo!" fund. The image on the right will be constantly updated with the latest total so please feel free to use the image link below the thermometer on your own signatures, blogs, websites, etc.Image
Image link: http://www.mydarlo.co.uk/img/BTD-therm-350x100.jpg

QUAKERMAN2
Posts: 2056
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:43 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Playoffs

Post by QUAKERMAN2 » Sat Jul 25, 2020 10:30 am

For god's sake Spen I mentioned on an earlier comment that I picked up this £600k topic from an early post and assumed this was a Balance Sheet sum and not a "note" as you keep blabbing about.Surprisingly I do know the difference, I come across these transactions regularly so stop repeating yourself.As I have stated several times the Balance Sheet values have more relevance, we all know that this is not shown although related companies may give a clue Now can we call a halt to all this, agree to disagree, and for god's sake just concentrate on your own forum......if you have one!

Sent from my moto g(6) play using Tapatalk


Darlopartisan
Posts: 843
Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2017 12:49 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Playoffs

Post by Darlopartisan » Sat Jul 25, 2020 10:35 am

More food for spen :thumbdown:

jjljks
Posts: 1898
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2015 10:25 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Playoffs

Post by jjljks » Sat Jul 25, 2020 2:56 pm

York 0 Alty 1 (HT)

Post Reply