Be careful what you wish for - is something fans of an awful lot of clubs would say to you from Oldham, Scunthorpe, Chesterfield and Bury to Derby County and Everton.If ever a club needed a change it’s ours
Be careful what you wish for - is something fans of an awful lot of clubs would say to you from Oldham, Scunthorpe, Chesterfield and Bury to Derby County and Everton.If ever a club needed a change it’s ours
Then, and purely on that emotive point, I would welcome his investment. A billionaire with decency.I believe so, yes
Absolutely true, as I posted on the Gibson thread. There is considerable tax benefit to Group through having the debt, and Boro's losses offsetting the Bulkhaul profits.Wouldn’t necessarily have to pay the £142m immediately though would
It would be all down to the purchase structure.
The Gibson O’Neil company accrue tax benefits with that debt on its books so that would be a consideration for example
Give over Rob, stop scaremongering about the bogeyman.Be careful what you wish for - is something fans of an awful lot of clubs would say to you from Oldham, Scunthorpe, Chesterfield and Bury to Derby County and Everton.
The only thing that has changed recently is the colour of the directors box seats...If ever a club needed a change it’s ours
Absolutely true, as I posted on the Gibson thread. There is considerable tax benefit to Group through having the debt, and Boro's losses offsetting the Bulkhaul profits.
I get your drift, but it takes proper wealth/backing to make it happen.Taking over a sleeping giant outside the Prem, pumping money, getting promoted and then selling when they get into the Prem is a well worn path - but unless youre buying an international household name it doesnt seem to work and the foreign owner gets bored and stops putting the cash in, we end up back where we were
Plus there are arguably better candidate clubs with potentially bigger fan bases than us - Sheff Wed off the top of my head
I agree FH - but then I do think that Steve Gibson can't think of anybody else owning the club he regards as very much his.I can see how that is beneficial and practical if you want to maintain both businesses anyway. However, I've heard the argument that "Gibson keeps the club on for tax reasons" argument a few times, with this used as the basis for it. I find that hard to buy as I don't believe businessmen consider profit to be a bad thing; he'd surely come out with more profit by ditching Boro and just paying the tax on Bulkhaul's profits?
As I say, I can see the sense of the set up if he want to run both business for their own sake, but not as a means of having greater income overall.
I don't care if our players, manager or owner is foreign, British or from a TS postcode.I'm not as keen on the 'rich foreign investor' proposition as some, as it seems to go badly more often than it being a success.
Sunderland, a club outwardly bigger and more attractive than ours, have a foreign owner that had been frugal in terms if investment and, according to some reports, created a slightly dysfunctional environment.
I'd rather the club was ran on a sustainable basis, not just season by season, but over the longer term too.
There's no such thing as zero chanceAbsolute zero chance of Gibson selling the club.
An Macclesfield an Bolton, West Brom [watch this space], Reading........Be careful what you wish for - is something fans of an awful lot of clubs would say to you from Oldham, Scunthorpe, Chesterfield and Bury to Derby County and Everton.
True. If I were a billionaire looking to create a stable of clubs with the general idea that across the whole group I break even then Boro is just one club I would look at.Taking over a sleeping giant outside the Prem, pumping money, getting promoted and then selling when they get into the Prem is a well worn path - but unless youre buying an international household name it doesnt seem to work and the foreign owner gets bored and stops putting the cash in, we end up back where we were
Plus there are arguably better candidate clubs with potentially bigger fan bases than us - Sheff Wed off the top of my head
You can tie players to longer deals, you just cannot amortise longer than 5 yearsChelsea have taken advantage of the delay in contract length rules coming in to amortise their spending over many years. You can't do that from now on; you're limited to 5 year deals.