FC Bayern Forum

MUTU wrote:Where would they fit the extra seats?

String a couple wires from each end of the stadium and suspend them from there....itd be one hell of a view.

Erm I don't get it... Isn't our screen supposed to be the biggest in Europe?
What do they mean about the trophy?
Confused

I think they are implying that the Wembley stadium screen is bigger. Theirs is 23.88m x 8.15m=194.622sq.m. Don't know the dimensions of ours but from the news article it states 200sq.m.

Hahahahahaha, damn what a burn.

Regarding screens, I think it's a bit pointless to compare external ones to internal screens like the one Bayern just installed. No team would install too big of a screen inside because it would just take valuable seating places eventually.

Apparently we are losing out on some 28 million euros by cancelling the Allianz Arena contract with 1860, as per BILD.

MUTU wrote:Apparently we are losing out on some 28 million euros by cancelling the Allianz Arena contract with 1860, as per BILD.

Smart. Apparently most of that money is still owed and Bayern must be paying taxes on uncollected revenue. If they write it off (as they will probably need to) they can extinguish the tax burden altogether.

tflags wrote:Bayern must be paying taxes on uncollected revenue.

What kind of tax is that? Paying taxes to revenue you didnt get? Man, that doesnt exist in Europe.

Lets put it this way - a company owns you money (for X reasons) and you get to pay tax for that money? When the income isnt even in bank accounts? No, it doesnt work that way.

zozon wrote:What kind of tax is that? Paying taxes to revenue you didnt get? Man, that doesnt exist in Europe.

Lets put it this way - a company owns you money (for X reasons) and you get to pay tax for that money? When the income isnt even in bank accounts? No, it doesnt work that way.

Hello there. I once again find you on this thread. Ok, fine. Let's get into the nitty gritty details. Worldwide General Accepted Accounting Principles dictate that both expenses and revenues are accrued at the time of cost was incurred and sale/service was performed; not when you paid (on the first case) or when you collected the money (in the latter.)

Both rules are called, respectively, the Matching and the Revenue Recognition principles. You can look them up if you like. You do realize all services and/or sales have to be invoiced prior to an accouting adjustment don't you?

So if you want to accrue your expenses in the case of a bonus paid to an employee when you'd like or had the actual cash to pay him instead of when the reason for the bonus ocurred, then you'd be infringing a few accounting rules.

In the second case, if you decide to write down the revenuew or invoice a service when the customer pays (and you collected the dough) instead of when you performed the service . . . well . . . same case: accounting principle infringment.

So your next move will probably be to argue that this is not the case when in fact it is one of the more controlled govermental policies because you could actually backlog your entire tax burden if you chose to accrue it when you wanted instead of when the rules say so. . .

In this example, as you think it works, anyone could say, for example, that customers paid for other services instead of the once being invoiced and you could register the tax years later if you wanted. So as you can see, accouting rules exists to avoid these time of 'smart' situations.

So let me put it this way: It actually does work this way. .

Glad to see someone understands financial accounting concepts.

https://fcbayern.com/de/news/2017/07/pr ... -aufgelost

1859+1 will leave the arena, and will NEVER RETURN.

In 2018 this picture becomes reality. Rolex confirmed at the press-conference.

tflags wrote:

zozon wrote:What kind of tax is that? Paying taxes to revenue you didnt get? Man, that doesnt exist in Europe.

Lets put it this way - a company owns you money (for X reasons) and you get to pay tax for that money? When the income isnt even in bank accounts? No, it doesnt work that way.

Hello there. I once again find you on this thread. Ok, fine. Let's get into the nitty gritty details. Worldwide General Accepted Accounting Principles dictate that both expenses and revenues are accrued at the time of cost was incurred and sale/service was performed; not when you paid (on the first case) or when you collected the money (in the latter.)

Both rules are called, respectively, the Matching and the Revenue Recognition principles. You can look them up if you like. You do realize all services and/or sales have to be invoiced prior to an accouting adjustment don't you?

So if you want to accrue your expenses in the case of a bonus paid to an employee when you'd like or had the actual cash to pay him instead of when the reason for the bonus ocurred, then you'd be infringing a few accounting rules.

In the second case, if you decide to write down the revenuew or invoice a service when the customer pays (and you collected the dough) instead of when you performed the service . . . well . . . same case: accounting principle infringment.

So your next move will probably be to argue that this is not the case when in fact it is one of the more controlled govermental policies because you could actually backlog your entire tax burden if you chose to accrue it when you wanted instead of when the rules say so. . .

In this example, as you think it works, anyone could say, for example, that customers paid for other services instead of the once being invoiced and you could register the tax years later if you wanted. So as you can see, accouting rules exists to avoid these time of 'smart' situations.

So let me put it this way: It actually does work this way. .

Owned