 |
|
'000
(19/Dec/2012)
(23/Dec/2012)
| ||||||||
| Riding centre accounts | ||||||||
| Riding centre | GROSS: | spending '000 | income '000 | NET loss '000 | ||||
(19/Dec/2012) | 2011/12 | £1,058 | £773 | £285 | ||||
| 2010/11 | £982 | £617 | £365 | |||||
| 2009/10 | £883 | £579 | £304 | |||||
| 2008/09 | £934 | £591 | £343 | |||||
| 2007/08 | £839 | £536 | £303 | |||||
| 2006/07 | £243 | |||||||
| Accounts index | ||||||||
| There's an odd note in the 2011/12 accounts reference the riding centre. On page 63 a number of assets are down valued (or as the accounts terms it impaired). Mostly the down valuation is fairly small but there's one that's bigger than all others combined: the riding centre. The note says: "The following assets have been impaired in the last financial year as a result of movements in Market Value." The riding centre is impaired by £84k. On the whole this seems odd since a huge amount of money has been invested in the riding centre in recent years. A horse walker was built about three years ago, followed by an additional stable block. The accounts suggest that impairment is related to market value. If it's not the buildings (which are very hard to value since there are no comparable riding centres in the London area) could the downgrading be related to the valuation of the horses? If so it seems very strange. Obviously the horses should be financed over a number of years but it seems logical to charge them against current rather than capital expenditure. In fact in September 2010, Derrick Ashley, LVRPA chairman, wrote: "There is a replacement programme for horses which is a direct element of the centre's operational cost." Obviously LVRPA would never engage in accounting sleight of hand but from the perspective of a layman, it's all very puzzling. (23/Dec/2012) | ||||||||
| See economics of the riding centre | See 19 extra stables | |||||||