You seem to be completely ignoring the fact that the buyers are being consulted about player purchases/sales, are you doing this on purpose?
"New owners" may value Bruce at £100m but does the rest of the world value him at £100m? Pogba was bought for £89m (or whatever) but it's a matter of opinion whether he is worth it. Hernandez has attracted a bid of £20m but in a years time he will be worth nothing to us. What is he really worth? You can't just look at the accounting treatment. Fixed asset accounting is an allocation of costs and not valuation.
Who gives a **** if bob down the road or Jose mourinho values Bruce at 10p? His value is the price paid for him. The new owners value him at a certain price, so his value as an asset of the club when they buy the club is the value they assign him. You've got to be doing this on purpose because I know you're smarter than this.
If the buyers are being consulted it means there's no problem with the deal. But it doesn't mean that you were right to justify valuation by accounting treatment - which you did.
Yes he was. If player values are agreed by the new owners, then assessing the value of the club is done by assessing the balance sheet. If you have credited cash and debited non current assets by the same amount the value hasn't changed.
If the buyers buy the club for £100m but the rest of the world only thinks the club is only worth £40m then they will be very upset when they want to sell.
At which point there will potentially be a loss on sale, but you're now moving the goal posts when no one has talked about the sale value for the Chinese.
I was basing it on the fact that the prospective new owners were being consulted (as was Sydney) as well you know, or at least should if you read the posts you answer.
Try a painting: A certain type of paintings cost £100k but I buy a similar painting for £10m. Does that make the painting's value £10m even though nobody would buy it from me for £10m?
