BoroMart
Well-known member
not at all, you have to buy project players, that can gain value and be sold to balance the books. Some will work, some will be a loss
Boro Accounts 21-22
- Thread starter sparkins
- Start date
BoroMart
Well-known member
agreed, the large reduction in our losses, and probable profit next year (Spence and Tav sales) are a financial about turn from the last couple of years.
MickaelDebevePhenomenal
Well-known member
Other companies he owns are offsetting Boro's losses. You might want to be pedantic about the term used but remove Gibsons financial support/offsetting losses/pouring in cash etc and the landscape of being a boro fan is VERY VERY different.
pierrequiroule
Well-known member
I'm rather poor at reading accounts, but would the £17 miillion plus under "Creditors: amount falling due within one year." be mostly from the Tav and Spence sales?
ThePrisoner
Well-known member
I'm deffo stealing that!
NorthumberlandBoro
Well-known member
No creditors are people who MFC owe money to.
Monies owed to MFC should fall under debtors.
clay
Well-known member
changingman
Well-known member
Whilst not particularly surprising given the financial inequality in the modern game, it has got me thinking about what one thing clubs could focus on which would go most of the way to improving financial standing.
Is it successful recruitment? Buy low, sell high?
What impact would an extra 10k on the gate add each season?
What about merchandise? Surely there's a reason the biggest sides are marketed globally (although appreciate this is a chicken/egg scenario but Venezia have made decent strides in recent years for a Serie B side).
What do you think?
Is it successful recruitment? Buy low, sell high?
What impact would an extra 10k on the gate add each season?
What about merchandise? Surely there's a reason the biggest sides are marketed globally (although appreciate this is a chicken/egg scenario but Venezia have made decent strides in recent years for a Serie B side).
What do you think?
JM14
Well-known member
It’s definitely not something to be celebrated, the actions of Gibson and others running the club have left us in a financial mess to the stage where the club is totally reliant on him to stay afloat. Bizarre that some on here are praising Gibson for this, we might not have a club when he decides enough is enough
To be anywhere near solvent, we would have to reduce our wages even more. However that is likely to make us less competitive. It's always a tricky balancing act and I guess you have to leave those decisions to whoever is running the club and its owners, hence Gibson. He's been involved since 86, whether directly or indirectly, so that's coming up to nearly 40 years. I think that shows a significant commitment. I can't think of many clubs who have had the same owner for that length of time. Obviously the tricky period will come when he eventually leaves...
indeedido
Well-known member
The latest accounts are more or less as I predicted they would be a year ago.
Turnover has grown £12.4m with the return of paying crowds. The Cup run was worth half the season ticket sales as extra. Ticket revenue grew £9.3m overall.
Commercial/Sponsorship also grew £4.1m, though we got £1m less in Broadcasting.
Surprisingly the wage bill grew £1.5m, despite Assombolonga, Fletcher and Saville being chased. There were 13 more players on the staff than the previous year.
The club lost £3.3m v prior year on Covid insurance and Furlough payments, but pasid £0.6m less in interest.
There is no direct reference to Mel Morris/Derby; the only thing I can see is a £2.4m payroll related credit in Tax note 6 - though this might not be right and the money may not be included in the Club accounts.
The pre tax loss fell from £30.8m to £19.4m.
The Group offset tax, so the nett loss post tax for the year fell from £27.3m to £15.3m.
As expected annual amortisation fell to £6.2m, but there was an impairment taken on player value of £1.8m (am guessing this is the £1.8m outstanding on Saville's book value at sale). Combined there was still a £5m saving in Player amortisation.
So in short, turnover up, amortisation down, wages similar and then puts and takes to slash losses that the Group offset for tax.
This leaves the club in the worst financial shape it has ever been, which is no surprise at all.
There was no injection of equity, so Nett Club value/Shareholder value dropped a further £15.3m to -£131.9m.
In the year to June 2021, there were only 4 clubs worse. Brighton (-£239m, Stoke -£195m,West Ham -£165m Cardiff -£142m).
The club is massively insolvent, kept going by the loans/guarantees from Gibson O'Neill (Group Undertakings). They grew by £21.7m to £142.4m.
Without these Undertakings and a commitment not to call in within 12 months leaves the club horrendously underwater with defining debt to Gibson' s Group.
It has always depended on your perspective:
1. Without Gibson the club would fold. If he calls his debt in, he effectively folds the club and can't recover anything like what he is owed.
2. With the financial burden the club has - of Gibson's making, Gibson can not sell the club/give it away. The reality is a continually loss making Championship club in this financial mess is unsaleable.
Now more than ever we are stuck with each other. His decisions equal his loans.
Only promotion and a run in the PL can change the financial position to enable a change and enable him to ever recoup any money.
Turnover will be up again this year to 2023, amortisation will not grow as there has been too little recruitment to cycle what we freed up in summer of 2022.
There will be a massive profit on player sales through Tav and Spence of £22.5m minimum in the next accounts to June 2023.
I maintain Gibson could have been bolder this last summer as this is a weak Championship and we had real scope to go up.
I understand others perspective who say who else would back us?
Truth is nobody in our current position.
But perhaps another would not have us here in the first place.
Each to their own.
Now that other clubs are publishing their 2022 accounts, I will do some analysis to compare our position.
Turnover has grown £12.4m with the return of paying crowds. The Cup run was worth half the season ticket sales as extra. Ticket revenue grew £9.3m overall.
Commercial/Sponsorship also grew £4.1m, though we got £1m less in Broadcasting.
Surprisingly the wage bill grew £1.5m, despite Assombolonga, Fletcher and Saville being chased. There were 13 more players on the staff than the previous year.
The club lost £3.3m v prior year on Covid insurance and Furlough payments, but pasid £0.6m less in interest.
There is no direct reference to Mel Morris/Derby; the only thing I can see is a £2.4m payroll related credit in Tax note 6 - though this might not be right and the money may not be included in the Club accounts.
The pre tax loss fell from £30.8m to £19.4m.
The Group offset tax, so the nett loss post tax for the year fell from £27.3m to £15.3m.
As expected annual amortisation fell to £6.2m, but there was an impairment taken on player value of £1.8m (am guessing this is the £1.8m outstanding on Saville's book value at sale). Combined there was still a £5m saving in Player amortisation.
So in short, turnover up, amortisation down, wages similar and then puts and takes to slash losses that the Group offset for tax.
This leaves the club in the worst financial shape it has ever been, which is no surprise at all.
There was no injection of equity, so Nett Club value/Shareholder value dropped a further £15.3m to -£131.9m.
In the year to June 2021, there were only 4 clubs worse. Brighton (-£239m, Stoke -£195m,West Ham -£165m Cardiff -£142m).
The club is massively insolvent, kept going by the loans/guarantees from Gibson O'Neill (Group Undertakings). They grew by £21.7m to £142.4m.
Without these Undertakings and a commitment not to call in within 12 months leaves the club horrendously underwater with defining debt to Gibson' s Group.
It has always depended on your perspective:
1. Without Gibson the club would fold. If he calls his debt in, he effectively folds the club and can't recover anything like what he is owed.
2. With the financial burden the club has - of Gibson's making, Gibson can not sell the club/give it away. The reality is a continually loss making Championship club in this financial mess is unsaleable.
Now more than ever we are stuck with each other. His decisions equal his loans.
Only promotion and a run in the PL can change the financial position to enable a change and enable him to ever recoup any money.
Turnover will be up again this year to 2023, amortisation will not grow as there has been too little recruitment to cycle what we freed up in summer of 2022.
There will be a massive profit on player sales through Tav and Spence of £22.5m minimum in the next accounts to June 2023.
I maintain Gibson could have been bolder this last summer as this is a weak Championship and we had real scope to go up.
I understand others perspective who say who else would back us?
Truth is nobody in our current position.
But perhaps another would not have us here in the first place.
Each to their own.
Now that other clubs are publishing their 2022 accounts, I will do some analysis to compare our position.
Decent_Left
Well-known member
At the weekend the York City board published a remarkably detailed breakdown of where and how losses were piling up this season due to what turned out to be poor planning focussing mainly on admissions.
NorthumberlandBoro
Well-known member
I think there is reference to £2.7m from ongoing disputes. Dom Shaw mentioned it in his article.
clay
Well-known member
I'll bet that the "poor planning" will be one coefficient buried in an Excel formula somewhere. Felt a bit sick reading that because I've made the exact same mistake before.
Steve Gibson can't do the right thing according to most fans. He brought in Chris Wilder who most people thought was a great manager, but Wilder failed. Ditto Warnock and Pulis. Steve Gibson sanctions signings who turn out to be duds. He agrees to loan signings who were rubbish. Was that Steve Gibson's fault? Really?
But on the other hand if he didn't spend on transfers and new managers and loan signings the fans would say he's pocketing the money himself.
He can't win, but as soon as he's gone then it'll be a different world.
"Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone…"
JM14
Well-known member
Just look at how many managers and players the club has gone through in the last few years, it’s not a sustainable way to run a club. Same old story for years, owners vision doesn’t line up with the managers which doesn’t line up with the players we bring in. Until that changes we just end up with a full scale overhaul every summer which the club can’t afford thus adding to the debt
BoroMart
Well-known member
Playing attacking football, rather than sh!thousing, talented young marquee players and longevity at the top half of the table.
Villareal are a good example, traditionally a much smaller club than us. But they've had some great marquee players starting like Requelme, Forlan, Pires, Rossi, Moreno etc.
Attackers always get bums on seats, they get attention in the media in highlights programmes. They also tend to be the players that move for the most money, so identifying talented young strikers, wingers and attacking midfielders, then putting them in a side designed to score goals will always yield the best transfer income.
But what do you do when the much vaunted manager and expensively put together squad lurch from promotion favourites to relegation candidates? Just let them get on with it and hope for the best? That wasn't popular with the fans when Wilder was screwing up.
Or do something about it, like bringing in a new managerial team.
Personally, I don't think there's much choice other than rip it up and start again.