BoroMart
Well-known member
considering we only had about 25 senior pros on the books that is very high. I guess it includes all of the youth players, all of the coaches etc too?
Boro Accounts 21-22
- Thread starter sparkins
- Start date
indeedido
Well-known member
Playing staff went up from 69 to 82, as per my post earlier.
The wage bill surprised me too. Loans will have been expensive.
As I have consistently posted, without Gibson's Group loans the club would go under.
He can't call them in.
The club has horrendous negative value and is unsaleable.
Only promotion and a run in the top flight will bring the revenue to make the club self sufficient, enable some reduction in the Group debt (as with the last PL season) and give Gibson an option to sell. At the minute he could not give it away.
Other owners do convert loans to equity and formally write off what they are owed by something they already own. This means they are real businesses, with nett value and people will always buy them. Gibson does what he does to ensure his position is impregnable, which he is so long as Bulkhaul stays so profitable and he can play with balance sheets.
It is also true however that with absolute power goes absolute accountability.
As I say there are only 4 other clubs in Britain who are in a worse financial mess (Brighton, Stoke, West Ham and Cardiff)
The losses he offsets with loans are only made as a consequence of the big decisions he makes. For 16 years he has made largely poor ones. (Managers, Execs, Structures, Budgets, Pricing). He is literally paying for his mistakes, so honourable, but he hasn't got any option unless he is prepared to actually write off the money he is owed in Group loans.
If we stay in the Championship, we will lose money simply bumbling along in mid table. The debt will continue to rise and the club will be ever more unsaleable.
PL revenue and status is what is desperately required, not only to fund better football and cover costs, but also to grow intangible asset value, confidence in future revenue stream and a market value above book
The wage bill surprised me too. Loans will have been expensive.
As I have consistently posted, without Gibson's Group loans the club would go under.
He can't call them in.
The club has horrendous negative value and is unsaleable.
Only promotion and a run in the top flight will bring the revenue to make the club self sufficient, enable some reduction in the Group debt (as with the last PL season) and give Gibson an option to sell. At the minute he could not give it away.
Other owners do convert loans to equity and formally write off what they are owed by something they already own. This means they are real businesses, with nett value and people will always buy them. Gibson does what he does to ensure his position is impregnable, which he is so long as Bulkhaul stays so profitable and he can play with balance sheets.
It is also true however that with absolute power goes absolute accountability.
As I say there are only 4 other clubs in Britain who are in a worse financial mess (Brighton, Stoke, West Ham and Cardiff)
The losses he offsets with loans are only made as a consequence of the big decisions he makes. For 16 years he has made largely poor ones. (Managers, Execs, Structures, Budgets, Pricing). He is literally paying for his mistakes, so honourable, but he hasn't got any option unless he is prepared to actually write off the money he is owed in Group loans.
If we stay in the Championship, we will lose money simply bumbling along in mid table. The debt will continue to rise and the club will be ever more unsaleable.
PL revenue and status is what is desperately required, not only to fund better football and cover costs, but also to grow intangible asset value, confidence in future revenue stream and a market value above book
NorthumberlandBoro
Well-known member
Good!
indeedido
Well-known member
Gibson bought the original 1986 shares at cost - the £1m of equity.
He then put in £50m of equity in 2012. He internalised debt with the Banking crisis earlier, then wrote £50m off by the equity conversion in 2012. We were toast without it as nobody would have funded the club with Gibson in full control.
Another £5m in 2014.
Another £8m in 2016.
So Gibson O'Neill have effectively injected £64m in equity.
In 2001 GON injected £26m capital, which still sits on the Balance Sheet. This completely offset the losses the club had made to that point. Up until that point the club was entirely funded by debt.
So the facts are that Gibson O'Neill has injected £90m in capital in his 29 years at the helm.
They are also currently owed £142.4m in Group loans.
The club has lost an aggregate £244m over his tenure.
He then put in £50m of equity in 2012. He internalised debt with the Banking crisis earlier, then wrote £50m off by the equity conversion in 2012. We were toast without it as nobody would have funded the club with Gibson in full control.
Another £5m in 2014.
Another £8m in 2016.
So Gibson O'Neill have effectively injected £64m in equity.
In 2001 GON injected £26m capital, which still sits on the Balance Sheet. This completely offset the losses the club had made to that point. Up until that point the club was entirely funded by debt.
So the facts are that Gibson O'Neill has injected £90m in capital in his 29 years at the helm.
They are also currently owed £142.4m in Group loans.
The club has lost an aggregate £244m over his tenure.
Air Resistance
Well-known member
It would be interesting to see how that matches up against clubs over the same time period who have spent circa 15 seasons in the premier league, plus two European campaigns, plus build a new stadium then expanded it and spend £5mil putting new studios in, plus built a top class training facility and an academy which has produced a number of premier league and international players.
Quicksilvera
Well-known member
Only one Stevie Gibson 
clay
Well-known member
Agree 100%
Which is why he won't, which is why the only option is to eventually write them off, which is why any further conclusion that considers any other possibility doesn't make any sense to me?
Yes, because it's carrying the loans at 100%, when we all know the market value of that debt is probably 0%. Again, it's only a problem if the debt is called in, and as you say it can't be.
I doubt even that would be enough, but fingers crossed.
He could, if he writes off the debt, which he eventually has to do, etc, etc
Boro (and most other clubs) are inherently loss-making. Injecting equity to cover historic losses doesn't turn them into investable "real businesses" going forward.
Here's where you lose me. You are assigning motive to Gibson's actions that you simply have no evidence for.
Haven't been through every other club's finances so I'm coming at this from a position of ignorance. However, I assume you are basing those figures on net liabilities? If so, I'd rather Boro had £198m of interest-free loans from an owner who "can't call them in" than £19.8m debt to an owner who wanted 10% interest and eventual capital repayment. Also, just to pick one example: are you saying that you think Coventry are in a better financial position than Boro?
Agree with most of that. Some of it is hindsight (for every appointment and signing, you'll find some fans who agreed with it at the time), and you'd be hard pushed to find any chairman/owner at any club who has made more than one successful managerial appointment, but it's his job as chairman to get the big decisions rights so the buck stops with him.
Never going to happen. If your criteria for a successful chairman is one who makes MFC a viable investment, you're going to be disappointed. It's a hobby and a vanity project, and will never be any more than that.
Bruce
Well-known member
We are simultaneously in a terrible and good position. Terrible because the balance sheet is a disaster. A terrible balance sheet tends to be par for the course in football but this one appears to be worse than most.
Good because the balance sheet is almost meaningless. Gibson is not going to devalue his loans by declaring bankruptcy so really the only person who cares about the loans is Gibson. At some point he will sell and at that point he will take some amount of a haircut. It will be painful for him but not terminal. In the meantime, Gibson will keep Boro afloat with the profits from his companies.
Gibson seems to have been trying to find a sustainable model for the club; first with the golden thread and now with a head of football. It might work but probably any club aiming for the play-offs without parachute payments probably has to lose £10-20m to be competitive.
BoroMart
Well-known member
He turns 65 in a month, he's a multi-millionaire, I doubt it'll cause him an ounce of pain to sell at a loss because he's retirement age with a bigger nest egg than any of us could dream of. I'm sure he has an exit strategy planned, probably with us in the prem to maximise the clubs value
Quicksilvera
Well-known member
You’d think in the next 5 years or so he will be looking at selling or passing the mantle.
indeedido
Well-known member
Spot on sadly.
Most clubs outside the PL are inherently loss making.
You are right that conversion of mountainous debt to equity does not change the ongoing performance of the business, make it profitable and scale it (especially if the debt is interest free).
But it does impact whether someone else will invest in it in order to transform its performance to transform revenue. After 16 years, I no longer have confidence that Gibson is capable of creating that transformation..
If Gibson has mentally written off the loans, then why not convert debt to equity and make an eventual sale both more possible and at some value?
Nobody will take on a Championship club that owes its owner over £142m and is worth -£132m as a result. But we would have far more chance of getting a good new owner if the club had nett assets rather than nett liabilities.
It need not be so, but the club does have to be in the PL.
And to get there you lose money, need to write it off and crucially need to get the big calls right. And have a chunk of luck too.
The_Big_Woodowski
Well-known member
Why do we think the club will get rid of the debt in the premier league? Without looking I can’t imagine many clubs making a profit, Man U, but even they lost money in the last accounts, Spuds 
probably, Arsenal of old, prob not these days and can’t think of many others who would get close.
Look at forest spent best part of £100m if not more that’s the TV revenue gone, plus increased wages. If ours are current £28m adding another £100m is only going to increase that. Don’t leave much to pay down that loan.
Also cash is king and if Gibson or his business did not put money in we wouldn’t exist as already mentioned.
Yes he had the right to get it back but that is still money he could ave used for other purposes. If does call it back then he has at least lost opportunity costs I.e Lost revenue for him even if sat in bank at low interest rates, other investments.
probably, Arsenal of old, prob not these days and can’t think of many others who would get close.Look at forest spent best part of £100m if not more that’s the TV revenue gone, plus increased wages. If ours are current £28m adding another £100m is only going to increase that. Don’t leave much to pay down that loan.
Also cash is king and if Gibson or his business did not put money in we wouldn’t exist as already mentioned.
Yes he had the right to get it back but that is still money he could ave used for other purposes. If does call it back then he has at least lost opportunity costs I.e Lost revenue for him even if sat in bank at low interest rates, other investments.
Dynamo Kev
Active member
its not the clubs dept its gibsons dept. he has full control over the club. its his house. its its loosing money its all down to how hes running it. which is his choice. hes made bad calls which have cost him money.
i cant thank him enough. hes funded the club through thick and thin and will continue to do so. you can bet if we go up again and get the extra revenue hes invest in the stadium and training ground etc. he wont be pocketing anything. he never has done. he is mr middlebrough. he's the best fan the club have ever had. all hail sir steve.
i cant thank him enough. hes funded the club through thick and thin and will continue to do so. you can bet if we go up again and get the extra revenue hes invest in the stadium and training ground etc. he wont be pocketing anything. he never has done. he is mr middlebrough. he's the best fan the club have ever had. all hail sir steve.
indeedido
Well-known member
That's the key, you haven't looked.
muniz
Well-known member
we wouldn't of had a club without him also, and was in a much worse state then.
the money his companies is owed every few years part of it gets converted to equity, otherwise he would be owed more than the quarter of a billion thats on the books.
It's just done at times which are more financially beneficial to them to do it.
if he decided to move it onto someone else then what he is owed would be up for negotiation for the money paid for the asset.
does not make business sense to take that off the books as there is other benefit for leaving on there.
theres no way in hell that he remains a millionaire and does not look after the club and leave them in safe hands after he lets the club go, I believe the plan is to keep it in his family anyways
BoroMart
Well-known member
depends on th emodel. Wolves made 53m profit over the last 2 seasons. It is possible to create a sustainable model, but very, very difficult.
No they didn't. Wolves made £18 million in the last year, due (partly) to player sales, and revenue deferred from broadcasting rights in the previous Covid affected season.
In the year before that, Wolves lost £40 million.
The only way to make a small fortune out of football is to invest a large fortune.
Players are paid too much, not just a bit too much, but far, far, far, far too much. It can't be too much longer before this dawns on club owners and they decide to call the players' bluff.
The_Big_Woodowski
Well-known member
If that is the case, what did they lose the season before that, I remember them having very big losses the year they went up. Has this cleared all those ?