IMG Grading System (Many Merged Threads)

[LeeF]

4 minutes ago, dboy said:

Yeah, it's a forum for discussion, for opinions.

I don't believe that valuation, as stated.

Equally, as stated, I'm sure that whatever the truth, the powers that be will know what they are doing.

They may well have no issues with it at all - no issue.

The truth is in the accounts

[dboy]

1 minute ago, Click said:

What business are you in dboy?

Professional stripper.

Bloody hate woodchip!

[LeeF]

2 minutes ago, dboy said:

Odd comment.

I just re-measured on a mapping tool I have. I didn't follow every inch of the fractile boundaries. 

Not odd. I just quoted from a source document which is legally correct and would be accepted in any dispute

[JohnM]

At this point in the discussion of the IMG gradings, I feel I should remark that there was only ever one Horatius Cocles and all attempts to copy him are doomed to fail.

"Haul down the bridge, Sir Consul, With all the speed ye may; I, with two more to help me, Will hold the foe in play." 

 

Edited August 29, 2024 by JohnM

[RP London]

4 minutes ago, dboy said:

Yeah, it's a forum for discussion, for opinions.

I don't believe that valuation, as stated.

Equally, as stated, I'm sure that whatever the truth, the powers that be will know what they are doing.

They may well have no issues with it at all - no issue.

Of course you can discuss opinions, and they will be challenged.

Opinions really do need to be backed up especially when those with the opposing opinion are giving reasoning rather than just "i dont/wont/cant believe it"

 

[dboy]

1 minute ago, LeeF said:

The truth is in the accounts

No, I mean if the massive up-valuing has been done for a disingenuous purpose, IMG for example, will have a view on it.

[RP London]

7 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Yes, we've all seen Homes Under the Hammer too. 

spotted on his way to Cas

[RP London]

7 minutes ago, dboy said:

Yes, I would imagine it's worth 3 times more than I thought originally.

Hint - it's still not worth £800k per acre.

funny that, thats just under what ours was worth the last time we had it valued.. 

[dboy]

2 minutes ago, RP London said:

Of course you can discuss opinions, and they will be challenged.

Opinions really do need to be backed up especially when those with the opposing opinion are giving reasoning rather than just "i dont/wont/cant believe it"

 

I stated a whole range of reasons why that land can't, IMO, be that value. I've supported my opinion with a reasoning.

Others have simply said "well it's in the accounts it must be true".

If it's written down or on the internet, I suppose it must be. 

[Griff]

41 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

It's just under 10 acres of land, according to the financial charges against the club held by the Fulton's on the Freehold. Even at 8 properties per acre (working on 9 acres), selling at modest 150k a piece, that's £13 million...

I do like that everyone's taking dboy seriously.

It shows respect.

[dboy]

1 minute ago, RP London said:

funny that, thats just under what ours was worth the last time we had it valued.. 

You should get some houses on there!

[LeeF]

7 minutes ago, dboy said:

No, I mean if the massive up-valuing has been done for a disingenuous purpose, IMG for example, will have a view on it.

There is zero evidence of any underhand practice or malfeasance.
The value used is supported by a valuation. 

There is nothing to take a view on

[RP London]

11 minutes ago, dboy said:

I stated a whole range of reasons why that land can't, IMO, be that value. I've supported my opinion with a reasoning.

Others have simply said "well it's in the accounts it must be true".

If it's written down or on the internet, I suppose it must be. 

if its written down in a legally binding document and by an expert in their field its probably worth more than your opinion, originally based on massivly incorrect information anyway, or my opinion.

[RP London]

10 minutes ago, dboy said:

You should get some houses on there!

dont tempt me... depending on the day of the week and the staff its very bloody tempting

[17 stone giant]

I intend to believe that Cas are telling the truth, until I have good cause not to.

Although, it's not a real jungle that they play in, is it? Just saying.

[RP London]

29 minutes ago, 17 stone giant said:

I intend to believe that Cas are telling the truth, until I have good cause not to.

Although, it's not a real jungle that they play in, is it? Just saying.

Ooh good question... dboy might be right as woodland isnt worth anywhere near as much.

https://www.woods4sale.co.uk/woodlands/northern-england/2220.htm

although this one is very misleading with its name.. 

https://www.woods4sale.co.uk/woodlands/northern-england/2242.htm

Edited August 29, 2024 by RP London

[dboy]

8 minutes ago, RP London said:

Ooh good question... dboy might be right as woodland isnt worth anywhere near as much.

https://www.woods4sale.co.uk/woodlands/northern-england/2220.htm

although his one is very misleading with its name.. 

https://www.woods4sale.co.uk/woodlands/northern-england/2242.htm

Woodland comes with also sorts of restrictive covenants, so that's a relief.

Try not to get fixated RP. 

[dkw]

An absolutely amazing couple of pages completely based on someone's "Feelings" 

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

1 hour ago, dkw said:

A high asset valuation will have a massive impact on insurance wont it? Also any asset with value impacts on the annual financials, I know we had a massive stock take on spare parts we held, got rid of over £1m worth of obsolete stuff because it was weighing the end of year finances. 

So inflating the valuation of an asset makes no sense whatsoever financially. 

Not really. The revaluation will almost certainly have no effect on insurance. The buildings/stadium will (or should) already be insured for rebuild (to modern standards) which will be considerably more than either their actual 'worth' or this revaluation (one new, modern stand is going to cost £10m or so if they ever build it).

Carrying spare parts add to costs not assets; that's why companies try to run lean. 

And finally, to swap the argument around, are you suggesting they've been undervaluing for some time to gain an advantage?

[RP London]

9 minutes ago, dboy said:

Woodland comes with also sorts of restrictive covenants, so that's a relief.

Try not to get fixated RP. 

[dkw]

Just now, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

Not really. The revaluation will almost certainly have no effect on insurance. The buildings/stadium will (or should) already be insured for rebuild (to modern standards) which will be considerably more than either their actual 'worth' or this revaluation (one new, modern stand is going to cost £10m or so if they ever build it).

Carrying spare parts add to costs not assets; that's why companies try to run lean. 

And finally, to swap the argument around, are you suggesting they've been undervaluing for some time to gain an advantage?

That's completely different to where I work, I am involved in the insurance assessment every time and we need to deliver a list of any new buildings or assets to the insurer which would then be added to the whole site calculation. I`m not sure how a value of something cant have an effect on insurance costs.

The spare parts project was all around getting rid of residual costs that were adversely effecting the top line at the end of each year.

As for the last line, I have absolutely no idea how they have valued it in the past so cant comment.

[dboy]

12 minutes ago, RP London said:

Oh, right. Got ya.

[Griff]

1 hour ago, dkw said:

That's completely different to where I work, I am involved in the insurance assessment every time and we need to deliver a list of any new buildings or assets to the insurer which would then be added to the whole site calculation. I`m not sure how a value of something cant have an effect on insurance costs.

The spare parts project was all around getting rid of residual costs that were adversely effecting the top line at the end of each year.

As for the last line, I have absolutely no idea how they have valued it in the past so cant comment.

The value a property is insured for is unlikely to be the value on the balance sheet.

For one thing, the insurance value will include the cost of clearing the destroyed building from the site.

The balance sheet value will not.

[Jill Halfpenny fan]

3 hours ago, Dave T said:

Yes, we've all seen Homes Under the Hammer too. 

Never been the same since Lucy left.

[N2022]

This is one of the most random threads. How on earth have we got onto the cost of woodland acreage and favourite Homes Under The Hammer presenters?