Laffy, what is your valuation of 1921's land and buildings for an immediate sale ....

[_Stefan_Kuntz]

..... with vacant possession?

We know that in the 1921 accounts no rules / laws have been broken by the signing off of the accounts which contain a somewhat disingenuous figure for the valuation of land and buildings. The author of the accounts is allowed to use 'replacement value', that is what it would cost to get a new ground built. In fact on this basis the figure in the accounts is actually a somewhat parsimonious amount.

But using 'replacement value' is a tad 'dubious'. We expect the valuation in the accounts to be the best possible estimate of what the real market value is and indeed to the non-professional reader of these accounts it may be thought that given this amazing figure there must be formidable amounts of oil and gold beneath Brunton Park. Fundamentally we expect the stated figure to be in close proximity to the truth.

What factors do we need to consider when estimating the real value of Brunton Park and everything built on it? Well, firstly the structures on it are highly unlikely to be suitable for any purpose other than that of a football club thus there is a cost, to a new owner, of knocking them down and removing the rubble. But there are two far more serious factors that substantially inhibit the true value of Brunton Park and the structures on it.

1)There is a permanent risk that Brunton Park will be flooded to at least 'crossbar height'. Indeed within easy memory we are aware that it has happened twice and we know that climate change is making this risk ever greater.

2)There have perpetually been rumours of there being a covenant on Brunton Park that makes it impossible to use for any purpose other than as a football stadium. I took these rumours with an enormous dose of salt but within the last 10 years a person of impeccable character has seen the actual covenant document. The covenant document specifies "football use only".

For these reasons the true value of the Brunton Park land and buildings is 'almost f­uck all' and should be stated in the accounts as such.

Laffy, do you materially disagree with this conclusion? What is your true valuation of Brunton Park and buildings? You have been and are substantially involved with a list of of numerous companies that is as long as my d­ick. How often have you seen 'replacement value' used as a basis for the valuation figure used in a company's accounts? If it is used it should be clearly stated alongside the figure that it is 'replacement value'. Then the folk reading these accounts can kick a­rse about it being disingenuous as a valuation.

[Laffy2]

https://valuationoffice.blog.gov.uk/...ball-stadiums/

[Crocodile_Perth]

Whilst the valuation office general blog is interesting, it is your actual opinion of the true value of specifically Brunton Park and its structures that is being sought.