Boro Accounts 21-22

Soutra said:
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.
Click to expand...
This isn’t just about Wilder, we had the same thing with Warnock, Woodgate, Pulis, Monk
 
NorthumberlandBoro said:
York are getting great crowds at that level (nearly 5k average).
Didn't realise.👍
Click to expand...
If I’ve read it right they have only achieved around 1000 extra walk ups than were budgeted for. But you’re right, the fact our division 5 is generally getting crowds that other nations 2nd tier would kill for just shows how daft we are for our local clubs. BBC wouldn’t know that though given the fact EFL is an absolute also ran for football share of voice on all their media channels.
 
Interesting that it says profit from incomings/outgoings after the accounts is only 13million. Some of which will be in later installments.

Much less than you would expect if the Tav/Spencer fees were as high as reported.

I often think fees are reported much higher (for all teams) than they are - likely including all possible future incentives.

We probably have less money to spend in Jan than people expect.
 
Ravshoutsatbeck said:
Interesting that it says profit from incomings/outgoings after the accounts is only 13million. Some of which will be in later installments.

Much less than you would expect if the Tav/Spencer fees were as high as reported.
Click to expand...
noticed that and wonder if that is simply this seasons incoming or just Spence as Tav was done later, maybe after these accounts started to be compiled
 
Ravshoutsatbeck said:
Interesting that it says profit from incomings/outgoings after the accounts is only 13million. Some of which will be in later installments.

Much less than you would expect if the Tav/Spencer fees were as high as reported.

I often think fees are reported much higher (for all teams) than they are - likely including all possible future incentives.

We probably have less money to spend in Jan than people expect.
Click to expand...
Clarke, Forss and Hoppe will bring down the net figure a fair bit
 
clay said:
Of course he is. He's keeping his options open in terms of taking it back again, but he is - very literally - cashflowing the club
Click to expand...
Bristol City’s majority share holder Steve Lansdown effectively written off £15.3m of debt by converting it into club shares, as he has often done at the beginning of June each year.

That’s pouring your money in, which is not what Steve Gibson is doing.
 
InglebyUTB said:
Bristol City’s majority share holder Steve Lansdown effectively written off £15.3m of debt by converting it into club shares, as he has often done at the beginning of June each year.

That’s pouring your money in, which is not what Steve Gibson is doing.
Click to expand...
Looking at the accounts he has literally put in £64m at some point in the last few years - check the share capital number.
 
InglebyUTB said:
He’s not put a penny of his own money in, again.
Click to expand...
*sigh*

Let's do this in stages...

Last year, the club did not earn enough cash to survive. It didn't even earn enough cash to pay wages, let alone any other expenditure. The only way we could survive was to have cash "pour in".

And that's exactly what happened. Not from from selling the stadium, not from a new owner who dismembers journalists, not from a magic money tree, but from Gibson. He injected the cash via an interest-free loan from the parent company that he has complete control of via his 75% shareholding.

To suggest he didn't pour cash in is simply wrong, and you're being disingenuous because you clearly know he's the source of the cash.

So the second stage is the balance sheet. That injection of cash is via debt, and it's debt that theoretically the club have to repay eventually. None of us know Gibson's motives here: you think he's holding out for repayment, which I disagree with but accept it's a valid position to take. I think he knows full well the debt is worthless and is most likely holding out until it suits his personal tax position to write it off. I'm sure other people probably have other theories, and only Gibson himself likely knows the full picture.

But to suggest multi-million pound, interest-free loans from his company equate to him not putting in a penny is laughable.
 
Regardless of whether the money going in is cash injections with the intent of converting it to equity, or intercompany loans with no real prospect of ever getting it back - the point is that Steve Gibson is keeping the club afloat.

Without that money, sooner or later, the wages aren't paid, the lights go off and HMRC starts kicking off.

Some businesses can fund loss making operations for a while by managing cash, but football clubs aren't like that. If the club loses £13 million, someone has to stump up £13 million.
 
We've already had a thread where everybody wants new January signings in. I would be much happier if we didn't spend a penny. We've just spent money on 2 strikers let's give them a chance. If they don't work let's see if one of the kids can step up. Where would we be this season without a striker who was chucked in the bin and a kid who hadn't been given a chance. I'm glad the madness of the Pulis and monk days are behind us.
 
r00fie1 said:
How has Covid [over a year without spectators] effected those figures?
How do those figures compare with other football clubs?
Just to put them in perspective:unsure:
Click to expand...
It says that revenue increased by £12m due to the return of matchday income.
 
clay said:
*sigh*

Let's do this in stages...

Last year, the club did not earn enough cash to survive. It didn't even earn enough cash to pay wages, let alone any other expenditure. The only way we could survive was to have cash "pour in".

And that's exactly what happened. Not from from selling the stadium, not from a new owner who dismembers journalists, not from a magic money tree, but from Gibson. He injected the cash via an interest-free loan from the parent company that he has complete control of via his 75% shareholding.

To suggest he didn't pour cash in is simply wrong, and you're being disingenuous because you clearly know he's the source of the cash.

So the second stage is the balance sheet. That injection of cash is via debt, and it's debt that theoretically the club have to repay eventually. None of us know Gibson's motives here: you think he's holding out for repayment, which I disagree with but accept it's a valid position to take. I think he knows full well the debt is worthless and is most likely holding out until it suits his personal tax position to write it off. I'm sure other people probably have other theories, and only Gibson himself likely knows the full picture.

But to suggest multi-million pound, interest-free loans from his company equate to him not putting in a penny is laughable.
Click to expand...
*Sigh*

You are wrong, it’s as simple as that. He hasn’t written off any debt or converted any into equity, therefore hasn’t put a penny of his own money in for a couple of years.

He could do this just like the Bristol City majority shareholder but has decided not to. Why not? I don’t know.

If I was to guess it would be because he hopes to get us in the PL, with the TV money being able to write some of that off. If we somehow stayed up he could clear the debt that is owed to himself over time.

Maybe he plans to sell the club at some point in the future, and try and claw back as much of that back as possible.

Either way, he’s not investing any of his own money into the club. Anyone saying he is “pouring cash into the club” is talking out their backside and doesn’t have a clue what they’re talking about.

One thing it does ensure is that there’s no threat to his ownership unless he actually does get us into the PL or actually invests in the club, who on earth is going to buy a £50m club with £156m debt?
 
I was surprised how high the wage bill was at over £28m. I would have thought it would have come down, after getting some of Monk's signings off the books in the summer of 2021.
 
InglebyUTB said:
You are wrong, it’s as simple as that. He hasn’t written off any debt or converted any into equity, therefore hasn’t put a penny of his own money in for a couple of years.
Click to expand...
If the debt is to Gibson-O'Neil Ltd then it is his money that being sent from one of his companies to another of his companies to support the cash flow. Now you can argue about it being in the form of debt or an equity swap, these are not relevant to the fact that money doesn't appear from thin air, it moves from one of his businesses, to another, thus his agreement to move that money is propping up MFC and if he stopped that flow out of one business and into another MFC would be unable to service its debts
 
InglebyUTB said:
One thing it does ensure is that there’s no threat to his ownership unless he actually does get us into the PL or actually invests in the club, who on earth is going to buy a £50m club with £156m debt?
Click to expand...
As a 100% share holder there is no threat to his ownership, he can never be forced to sell, it's a choice. It's also his choice at point of sale if he chooses to right off any debt or not. As a prem club he could probably sell for 150m and wipe out his debts as part of that sale.....if he chooses. But I doubt he will
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top