Because if you didnāt, youād still show the accounts as owing FIFA 5m which would be wrong. Itās no longer a loan once the contingency kicks in.
Iām not sure what your understanding of accounting is, but if the loan isnāt going to be repaid then you need to recognise it in the income statement and you generally do so over the term of the project it is covering. That could either be the stadium, or the finance of the stadium. Thatās how and why you amortise it.
If you think of the loan as being in effect, a grant for a capital project. You recognise, or amortise the proceeds over the course of the completion of said project rather than recognising the full amount immediately.
[QUOTE=āJulio Geordio, post: 1153831, member: 332ā]According to Newstalk, just there, it seems they took ā¬1 million in 2011 & ā¬4 million in 2013 as āincomeā.
Aside from the shadiness of hiding it in income, how can you classify it as income in 2011 when youāve no idea whether it needs to be paid back or not.
You seem to imply people are making a big deal out of it for no reason when clearly there is all sorts of questions to be answered.[/QUOTE]
Those are very different questions to:
I donāt know enough about the FAIās accounting to defend them or criticise them but nobody really knows how it was accounted for or what the terms of the loan were.
If in 2011 there was good reason to suspect that we wouldnāt be paying some/all the money back then your auditors would compel you to recognise some of it.
[QUOTE=āJulio Geordio, post: 1153831, member: 332ā]According to Newstalk, just there, it seems they took ā¬1 million in 2011 & ā¬4 million in 2013 as āincomeā.
Aside from the shadiness of hiding it in income, how can you classify it as income in 2011 when youāve no idea whether it needs to be paid back or not.
You seem to imply people are making a big deal out of it for no reason when clearly there is all sorts of questions to be answered.[/QUOTE]
Surely thatās an issue for the auditors rather than John Delaney?
yep
Does that not worry you?
Why would you hide it unless it was a bribe or they shouldnāt have taken the money in the first place.
If you are not able to legitimately account for it then I would say that they should absolutely not have taken the money.
[QUOTE=āRocko, post: 1153834, member: 1ā]
If in 2011 there was good reason to suspect that we wouldnāt be paying some/all the money back then your auditors would compel you to recognise some of it.[/QUOTE]
Why not do the same in 2012 then?
[QUOTE=āJulio Geordio, post: 1153838, member: 332ā]Does that not worry you?
Why would you hide it unless it was a bribe or they shouldnāt have taken the money in the first place.
If you are not able to legitimately account for it then I would say that they should absolutely not have taken the money.
Why not do the same in 2012 then?[/QUOTE]
Why donāt you contact the FAIās auditors with your questions?
there should be no issue with the bribe per se, but the neck on the cunt for taking the high moral ground against Blatter when he on behalf of his own shoddily run organisation were beneficiaries of and were fully complicit with the underhand shady dealings of fifa and Blatter himself.
I wonder if the FAI use KPMG as well. 
[QUOTE=āJulio Geordio, post: 1153838, member: 332ā]Does that not worry you?
Why would you hide it unless it was a bribe or they shouldnāt have taken the money in the first place.
If you are not able to legitimately account for it then I would say that they should absolutely not have taken the money.
Why not do the same in 2012 then?[/QUOTE]
It doesnāt worry me because Iām not an avid reader of their financial statements so thatās the reason I donāt know how it was accounted for. Not every transaction is going to be recorded in the financial statements anyway, thatās not their point. I would be concerned if there was a suspicion that it was accounted for fraudulently or deliberately incorrectly but there is nothing at all to suggest thatās the case.
I donāt know what the GAA did with their revenue from the last concert held in Croke Park. That doesnāt mean it was wrong.
Iād agree with your assertion that you shouldnāt take money that you canāt account for. But, again, thereās a difference between accounting for it correctly and showing it on the financial statements. They have presumably accounted for the transaction perfectly correctly and normally. But without seeing the underlying accounts, that seems to be frustrating for some people.
Iād imagine the FAI may just come out and explain how this was accounted for but Iāve little doubt the public will just assume itās devious or wrong when there are references to amortization etc.
On the 2012 issue - no idea. Again, there would have to be a consideration of the likelihood of repayments and of the timing of payments to the banks. I have no idea how they coincided in 2012.
[QUOTE=āRocko, post: 1153832, member: 1ā]
Iām not sure what your understanding of accounting is, but if the loan isnāt going to be repaid then you need to recognise it in the income statement and you generally do so over the term of the project it is covering.it.[/QUOTE]
i think its more my understanding of Englishā¦a loan is something borrowed that is returnedā¦ if its not that then it shouldnāt be called a loanā¦its more of a giftā¦
Yeah, fair enough, a contingent loan is what it was. It become either a loan or a āgiftā depending on circumstances.
And Iām not arguing that the FAI shouldnāt account for it properly. And Emmet Maloneās article on the topic seemed fair. And journalists should be digging to find out how it was treated because itās an unusual transaction.
But the article from Henry Winter in the Indo is just absurd. Itās about betrayal and Richard Dunne and the supporters in fine voice. And frankly itās massively patronising. But the gombeens from the likes of YBIG are lapping it up and feel vindicated because an Englishman is telling them how it is.
āItās reflected as a loan from FIFA initially in the accounts but when ā¬1m of it was written off in 2011, and ā¬4m was written off in 2013, it appears in the receipts as income,ā they said.
āā¬1m appears as turnover for 2011 and ā¬4m of appears as turnover for 2013. Itās recorded under receipts or turnover,ā they said.
Asked if the money is listed as being from FIFA, the source said it wasnāt and the reason given for not recording it as being from FIFA was the confidentiality agreement insisted upon by the world body.
It is also believed that a fine may have been issued from FIFA if the pay-out figure was revealed by the FAI.
[QUOTE=āTreatyStones, post: 1153853, member: 1786ā]āItās reflected as a loan from FIFA initially in the accounts but when ā¬1m of it was written off in 2011, and ā¬4m was written off in 2013, it appears in the receipts as income,ā they said.
āā¬1m appears as turnover for 2011 and ā¬4m of appears as turnover for 2013. Itās recorded under receipts or turnover,ā they said.
Asked if the money is listed as being from FIFA, the source said it wasnāt and the reason given for not recording it as being from FIFA was the confidentiality agreement insisted upon by the world body.
It is also believed that a fine may have been issued from FIFA if the pay-out figure was revealed by the FAI.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=āRocko, post: 1153842, member: 1ā]It doesnāt worry me because Iām not an avid reader of their financial statements so thatās the reason I donāt know how it was accounted for. Not every transaction is going to be recorded in the financial statements anyway, thatās not their point. I would be concerned if there was a suspicion that it was accounted for fraudulently or deliberately incorrectly but there is nothing at all to suggest thatās the case.
I donāt know what the GAA did with their revenue from the last concert held in Croke Park. That doesnāt mean it was wrong.
Iād agree with your assertion that you shouldnāt take money that you canāt account for. But, again, thereās a difference between accounting for it correctly and showing it on the financial statements. They have presumably accounted for the transaction perfectly correctly and normally. But without seeing the underlying accounts, that seems to be frustrating for some people.
Iād imagine the FAI may just come out and explain how this was accounted for but Iāve little doubt the public will just assume itās devious or wrong when there are references to amortization etc.
On the 2012 issue - no idea. Again, there would have to be a consideration of the likelihood of repayments and of the timing of payments to the banks. I have no idea how they coincided in 2012.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=āTreatyStones, post: 1153853, member: 1786ā]āItās reflected as a loan from FIFA initially in the accounts but when ā¬1m of it was written off in 2011, and ā¬4m was written off in 2013, it appears in the receipts as income,ā they said.
āā¬1m appears as turnover for 2011 and ā¬4m of appears as turnover for 2013. Itās recorded under receipts or turnover,ā they said.
Asked if the money is listed as being from FIFA, the source said it wasnāt and the reason given for not recording it as being from FIFA was the confidentiality agreement insisted upon by the world body.
It is also believed that a fine may have been issued from FIFA if the pay-out figure was revealed by the FAI.[/QUOTE]
Thoughts now Rocko
And what the flip is your issue with that?
Iām not sure how thatās different to anything else Iāve said.
It got recorded in the accounts in 2 years, we already knew that.
The accounting of a secret loan as income.
Ask the auditors, you fuckwit.
[QUOTE=āRocko, post: 1153868, member: 1ā]Iām not sure how thatās different to anything else Iāve said.
It got recorded in the accounts in 2 years, we already knew that.[/QUOTE]