Boro bottom of new sustainability index

As ever with statistics and indices, they are only as good as their construct and it is how you weight the criteria over what time period. Th key thing here is "so what, the rankings have no significance"
Middlesbrough are one of football's biggest basket cases in one irrefutable business measure. They have the 4th worst nett negative shareholder value in British football. That is a fact that makes the club unsaleable. Most sane people realise and accept this.
Parking how and why we got there, who covers the debt etc etc, it is true that if Gibson O'Neill called in their debt - or any of it really - the club would fold.

We also lose money every single year, having made a profit only a couple of years since 1993 - one being the last PL season.
So, we are severely underwater and lose a lot of money every year.
It's not hard to accept that.

BUT, the owner is unlikely to call the debt in and given the £22.5m (min) profit from player sales in the summer, the club will not make a loss this trading year.

From a FFP perspective the club are nowhere near danger given the allowances/adjustments there are. I may criticise Gibson's decision making on the football side, but he knows FFP inside out and plays by the rules.

To compliment Millwall on financial sustainability is something of a joke, given their wage bill was 120% of turnover last season and they make a loss every season. Their owners injected £13m again last season to shore up the losses. Their owners shore up losses every year with equity, ours does with loans. They play FFP smart but are a shocking business.
Stoke City have a much bigger nett negative shareholder value than us, make similar losses and do not see a better club in any way than ours. Yet thery

I could have a go at any of the clubs in that Championship table from a variety of angles, and no **** the PP clubs are the highest rated Championship clubs...
It is simply not worth getting too upset about where we sit in a league table drawn up without much thought or any authority.
 
It was my understanding that the club technically doesn’t have any debt… as it was a subsidiary of Gibson O’Neil holdings?

Either way this is a load of b***ks on both leagues… how can it be taken seriously when the top 8 in both leagues have been under investigation and penalties for FFP
 
Acklam_Lad said:
It was my understanding that the club technically doesn’t have any debt… as it was a subsidiary of Gibson O’Neil holdings?

Either way this is a load of b***ks on both leagues… how can it be taken seriously when the top 8 in both leagues have been under investigation and penalties for FFP
Click to expand...
No, technically, legally, the club has an awful lot of debt.
 
ah ok:

Fan Engagement is calculated as the weighted sum of:
• Fan Engagement (provided by the Fan Engagement
Index) with 90% weight
• Percent of stadium filled on league match days with
10% weight


Appendix C: FAN ENGAGEMENT
Fan Engagement Index
The Fan Engagement Index scores clubs on three criteria:
1. Dialogue
2. Governance
3. Transparency
A maximum of 80 points are available for each criteria.
1. Dialogue (80 pts)
(The meetings and processes in place to practice two-way
communication with their fan base and its representatives)
• Structured Dialogue with supporters’ trust/independent
supporters group
• Structured Dialogue with wider group of representatives
• Fans Forums
• Social Media (does the club have a Twitter Help Channel or a
Twitter SLO Channel)
• Any other Dialogue initiatives/innovations
2. Governance (80 pts)
(What underpins or reinforces these relationships)
• Are there supporter directors on the board of the club?
• Customer/Club/Supporter Charter: rating based on whether
it’s easy to find, and contains information about the SLO, fan
consultation, and supporter/customer services
• Whether or not the SLO is clearly a ‘stand alone’ role at the club
• Is there a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or other legal
agreement with supporters’ trust or other independent group
governing their relationship?
3. Transparency (80 pts)
(What they publish in relation to this dialogue)
• Are reports or minutes published of structured dialogue
meetings with supporters’ trust/independent group and/or its
structured dialogue with a wider group of representatives?
• Are agendas published in advance of any of these meetings?
• Are reports or minutes published of fans forums? Are agendas
published in advance of fans forums?
• Does the club report on its board meetings? Does the club
publish an agenda in advance of its board meetings?

Equality Standards is calculated by:
• Ratio of women on the club board (50%)
• Recruitment ratio of women and BAME to leadership
roles (provided by the Football Leadership Diversity
Code) with 50% weight
Where there is no data from the Football Leadership
Diversity Code, a zero score was applied. This is also the
case where it has been unclear at this stage to determine
exactly how many women are among the officers listed on
Companies House. We hope that both of these measures
will be rectified in our next iteration.
 
I suppose MFC is quite a closed shop with regards to governance and as we know a bit of an old boys club at times.
 
The governance figure of zero is spot on its Gibson's way or the highway. It's a secretive affair the supporters group have zero power in how the club is run its effectively a dictatorship but at least Gibson is a Boro fan at heart.
 
This listing or table somewhat reminds me of the FIFA rankings and how much credence we should read into them, which perhaps opens a lot of questions on how they actually derived their information. Obviously there's input from the clubs' financials but I dare say that this also could be misguided based on how the information was delivered, and how much the club was willing to divulge.
 
Let's be perfectly clear. Gibbo is going nowhere and he'll continue to fund the club he loves. We have no reason to ever worry in my eyes. I go to bed every night knowing ill always wake up with a football club still in tact, unlike a lot of fans who's worry is a very real prospect of going out and folding all together
 
Evertone second most sustainable club in the EPL?

Swansea, Huddersfield and Sheff Utd three of top five most sustainable in the championship?

Sounds reliable.
 
I read the full report and thought that some of the metrics were fairly arbitrary.Their main purpose seems to force the PL to fund their football fandom i.e. they're on the scrounge. From their manifesto -

"The Independent regulator would then directly control funding to: • Clubs in EFL, NL and WSL • Independent organisations such as KIO, FSF, LPF, PLFF, PFA, and LMA; and • Academies The football betting levy would be used to pay for the day-to-day running of independent regulator and the independent organisations listed above."
 
Red_is_best said:
The findings are not perfect. Stoke and Middlesbrough can both call upon local, affluent owners to subsidise losses, while Sheffield United’s current transfer embargo for the late payment of transfer fees hardly depicts Bramall Lane as a scene of stability. Promotion back to the Premier League, of course, would soon see those fortunes turn around.
Click to expand...
Says it all.
 
With it being The Athletic, I'm surprised Derby aren't included as a leading championship club.

I gave The Athletic a go for a year - I thought they were doing some really good in-depth things on clubs outside of the usual big six, but to be honest, you might as well subscribe to the best fan podcasts from each club you're interested in to get the same level of insight. This sustainability index reminds me of the kind of thing The Second Tier podcast does.
 
I'd say that most football clubs would be better off and better run if they had a local businessman who is also a fan, at the helm.
Playthings and ego trips are the motivation for many club owners. Then there's the opportunists who just want to turn a profit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top