Gibson

The Published Accounts of every club is available until the end of the 2020-21 season. At that point Middlesbrough FC's nett Shareholder Value was -£116.6m. It was -£57.2m in 2014 and -£43.7m in 2006.
The Club has lost £77.5m since 2014, or £141.6m since 2006. Gibson O'Neill converted £56m of debt to equity in 2012-2014 and a further £8m in 2016.
All of the negative value of the club (that makes it unsaleable) is due to £120.7m loans (Group Undertakings) from Gibson O'Neill Group.
Gibson has complete control of the Club.
He runs the club, the club loses money, he increases his loan, but does not inject equity in the way other owners have and do. The Club becomes more and more indebted to him and less and less able to move on. He continues to run it, badly, making bad decisions, losing more money and the death spiral continues.

8 clubs in the PL have negative nett Shareholder value.
Brighton -£238.7m
West Ham -£165.0m
Bournemouth -£97.3m
Palace -£92.9m
Forest -£48.5m
Villa -£28.7m
Leeds -£12.7m
Newcastle -£1.2m.

So only 2 clubs are more technically insolvent than us.

In the Championship there are 15 Clubs with negative nett shareholder value.
Stoke -£194.7m and Cardiff -£141.8m are worse than us, but Stoke are backed by local benevolant billionaires.
The next nearest to us are Blackburn -£111.0m, Birmingham -£80.9m and Reading -£71.9m.
We have the 5th biggest nett shareholder value deficit in British football.

Gibson does not inject equity, he loans more money, knowing it means nobody will ever buy him out.
Yet he continues to run the club appallingly and is the reason the club is in the financial state it is.

In 2022, a football club needs:
EITHER a Sugar Daddy who actually injects money in every year within FFP constraints of £24m every 3 years outside the PL. Gibson does not, he has injected £64m in 29 years and nothing since 2016.
OR bright football leaders who can run the business within its means and deliver some sporting success. Gibson has a catastrophic financial and football record since 2006.
Really successful clubs have both, we have neither.

I could absolutely take not having a rich benefactor pumping money in, provided there was some intelligence and capability leading the club. hat's because I really think if the club was well run it could operate mainly in the PL and keep its head above water. That would do me.
I don't need to defer to King Stevie and thank him for funding the impact of his terrible leadership.
It just goes on and on.
 
The only way we get a new owner is Gibson puts is into administration by calling in the debts? It’s happened elsewhere and not been the end, but unlikely scenario here?
 
The only way we get a new owner is Gibson puts is into administration by calling in the debts? It’s happened elsewhere and not been the end, but unlikely scenario here?
He'd have to accept he wouldn't get anything for his equity and not all of the loans covered. He would drop in the way Randy Lerner did at Villa and Short did at Sunderland. He'd actually lose what lots of people think he has actually put into the club.
He'd also lose control of what he thinks only he should have and only he can run.
 
That cannot be true, Wilder is very much part of recruitment surely
You would think so but we spend most of the budget on Hoppe and Forss who have barely been used, it doesn’t seem like he wanted them especially when both Watmore and Akpom who we were trying to shift all summer are clearly preferred
 
The Published Accounts of every club is available until the end of the 2020-21 season. At that point Middlesbrough FC's nett Shareholder Value was -£116.6m. It was -£57.2m in 2014 and -£43.7m in 2006.
The Club has lost £77.5m since 2014, or £141.6m since 2006. Gibson O'Neill converted £56m of debt to equity in 2012-2014 and a further £8m in 2016.
All of the negative value of the club (that makes it unsaleable) is due to £120.7m loans (Group Undertakings) from Gibson O'Neill Group.
Gibson has complete control of the Club.
He runs the club, the club loses money, he increases his loan, but does not inject equity in the way other owners have and do. The Club becomes more and more indebted to him and less and less able to move on. He continues to run it, badly, making bad decisions, losing more money and the death spiral continues.

8 clubs in the PL have negative nett Shareholder value.
Brighton -£238.7m
West Ham -£165.0m
Bournemouth -£97.3m
Palace -£92.9m
Forest -£48.5m
Villa -£28.7m
Leeds -£12.7m
Newcastle -£1.2m.

So only 2 clubs are more technically insolvent than us.

In the Championship there are 15 Clubs with negative nett shareholder value.
Stoke -£194.7m and Cardiff -£141.8m are worse than us, but Stoke are backed by local benevolant billionaires.
The next nearest to us are Blackburn -£111.0m, Birmingham -£80.9m and Reading -£71.9m.
We have the 5th biggest nett shareholder value deficit in British football.

Gibson does not inject equity, he loans more money, knowing it means nobody will ever buy him out.
Yet he continues to run the club appallingly and is the reason the club is in the financial state it is.

In 2022, a football club needs:
EITHER a Sugar Daddy who actually injects money in every year within FFP constraints of £24m every 3 years outside the PL. Gibson does not, he has injected £64m in 29 years and nothing since 2016.
OR bright football leaders who can run the business within its means and deliver some sporting success. Gibson has a catastrophic financial and football record since 2006.
Really successful clubs have both, we have neither.

I could absolutely take not having a rich benefactor pumping money in, provided there was some intelligence and capability leading the club. hat's because I really think if the club was well run it could operate mainly in the PL and keep its head above water. That would do me.
I don't need to defer to King Stevie and thank him for funding the impact of his terrible leadership.
It just goes on and on.
Indeedido offers reasoned commentary as to why Gibbo should not be universally acclaimed as “the saviour”. Financial mismanagement falls very much at his door- and makes it highly improbable we would not be attractive to any potential purchaser. Not an opinion - but a fact
 
Indeedido offers reasoned commentary as to why Gibbo should not be universally acclaimed as “the saviour”. Financial mismanagement falls very much at his door- and makes it highly improbable we would not be attractive to any potential purchaser. Not an opinion - but a fact

Do the players get paid every month? Yes.
Does the manager get paid every month? Yes.
Does the club own a good stadium and training ground? Yes.
Does the manager have funds available to buy new players? Yes.

I'm sure Steve Gibson has regrets about his running of MFC but his financial management has absolutely nothing to do with the onfield performance. If the players aren't paid or the stadium is sold and leased back then question his financial management. Until that happens then it seems to me that the only person being disadvantaged by Steve Gibson's financial management is Steve Gibson. You are criticising him for the way in which he funds the club, when the only thing that matters to the team and supporters is that he is funding the club.
 
You are criticising him for the way in which he funds the club, when the only thing that matters to the team and supporters is that he is funding the club.
I don't think he was.
My criticism is that it is his woeful decisions that lead to the club wasting opportunities, performing badly and losing money, requiring more loans to shore up the increased debt.
The way he funds the club with loans rather than equity injection, leaves the club unsaleable.
 
Do the players get paid every month? Yes.
Does the manager get paid every month? Yes.
Does the club own a good stadium and training ground? Yes.
Does the manager have funds available to buy new players? Yes.

I'm sure Steve Gibson has regrets about his running of MFC but his financial management has absolutely nothing to do with the onfield performance. If the players aren't paid or the stadium is sold and leased back then question his financial management. Until that happens then it seems to me that the only person being disadvantaged by Steve Gibson's financial management is Steve Gibson. You are criticising him for the way in which he funds the club, when the only thing that matters to the team and supporters is that he is funding the club.
Wrong. I question his actions and placing us in a position where our club is not fit for purchase. A deeper situation over the basic points you make
 
He’s lauded for servicing the debt, but completely devoid of any link the continued cause of the debt. The man is Teflon.
The debt is symptomatic of the modern game. Completely unsustainable. And absolutely not Gibsons fault. The big reset will only happen when the tv companies decide to take their money elsewhere. If he walked anyone thinking of taking over would be doing it for one reason only. To make profit. I dare say that's never been on Gibson's agenda. Some pure fantasy thinking going on on this thread. Browsing some of the other posts on this board, cynical me might think this has nothing to do with his managerial appointments and more to do with his political persuasion... depressing times indeed.
 
Wrong. I question his actions and placing us in a position where our club is not fit for purchase. A deeper situation over the basic points you make
If you accept the premise that Steve Gibson is not going to get anything like what he has paid out over the years to keep the club afloat, then the details of how the club is sold at some point in the future is irrelevant. Whether he writes off all of the inter company debt or most of it, and what the shares are worth is irrelevant.

Let's be realistic. Nobody in their right mind will want to pay anything to buy an unfashionable, unprofitable, unsuccessful NE club (unless it is in the Prem League). So a sale to a benefactor who will be prepared to fund the operations of the club will be for a token amount. So the manner in which the losses are being funded is irrelevant.

I'm sure if there was anyone else out there who would safeguard the club and fund it (and it's highly likely that any such benefactor would be local) then Steve Gibson would sell tomorrow.

None of this has any bearing on the onfield performance.
 
If you accept the premise that Steve Gibson is not going to get anything like what he has paid out over the years to keep the club afloat, then the details of how the club is sold at some point in the future is irrelevant. Whether he writes off all of the inter company debt or most of it, and what the shares are worth is irrelevant.

Let's be realistic. Nobody in their right mind will want to pay anything to buy an unfashionable, unprofitable, unsuccessful NE club (unless it is in the Prem League). So a sale to a benefactor who will be prepared to fund the operations of the club will be for a token amount. So the manner in which the losses are being funded is irrelevant.

I'm sure if there was anyone else out there who would safeguard the club and fund it (and it's highly likely that any such benefactor would be local) then Steve Gibson would sell tomorrow.

None of this has any bearing on the onfield performance.
I doubt he would get anything for the club such is our perilous financial position - all down to one man.You look at the purchases made - absolutely ridiculous. Who in our position- having one injury prone forward and a striker not wanted by us- would sign “development players”?

This is synonymous and offers a great example into how badly run the club is.

And who does the buck stop with ultimately?

Poor decisions have cost us both financially and also the ability to compete in a very mediocre league.
 
I’ve said before he’s out of his depth in the modern football world, mainly because he can’t out spend others and is too hands on, so doesn’t let the professionals get on with it and constantly changes the model. However, he’s here as long as he wants to be, so we have to hope the strategy being employed works. At last we seem to have a strategy, but not sure whether the manager completely buys into it. Time to hold our nerve, bigger clubs than us have gone to the third tier and bounced back.
 
I’ve said before he’s out of his depth in the modern football world, mainly because he can’t out spend others and is too hands on, so doesn’t let the professionals get on with it and constantly changes the model. However, he’s here as long as he wants to be, so we have to hope the strategy being employed works. At last we seem to have a strategy, but not sure whether the manager completely buys into it. Time to hold our nerve, bigger clubs than us have gone to the third tier and bounced back.
That's the thing though, he's obviously a savvy business man in other ventures.

How can he not see running the club into -£115 million with little or no chance of ever recovering that based solely on his own decision making is a terrible situation.

He needs a proper football bod in to run it and make decisions as a football professional, not a fan who thinks one more push with Jordan Rhodes, or Alves, or Downing will get us over the line and deliver us into the promised land.

I'll never fault him for it, he does what he thinks is best and ultimately has lost £100 million quid into the club, but he needs to relinquish control at some point.

We find ourselves 5 years after relegation, having spent circa £90 million on loans and signings, with one of the most sought after managers of recent times, in the bottom three, with all of our best players as loans and only three starting central midfielders.

It is appalling mismanagement looking in from the outside.

I could weep.
 
Last edited:
I mean he has appointed someone. Kieron Scott.
It is so hard to make a true assessment of anyone and the role they perform at the club.

It has often been said Gibson surrounds himself with yes men, none of us truly know what their targets are, and the budgets or limitations they are expected to work within etc.

Equally we don't know if we have identified ten targets who would have been perfect for us who are working wonders for their current clubs who we just couldn't get over the line for whatever reason.

We don't know if financially we were going balls out for promotion this season or we need to keep our powder dry for some reason.

Ultimately we know very little about the direction the club is going and what we are hoping to realistically achieve as Gibson himself doesn't tell us.

In the past he has removed people who he felt he had to, quite ruthlessly, so you would think everyone is performing to his expectations currently? (other than hoped for league position obviously)

I honestly think sacking Wilder will achieve little and we'll just go around the merry-go-round for another season.

We need investment, we need less loans, we need the scouts and recruitment to deliver a few gems, we need the manager to be 100% on board with the players provided to him, we need time to let Scott and the new chief scout deliver, it could be three years, who knows.

But obviously we can't let the manager relegate us in that time.
 
I think the thing to do is if you've got a plan then stick with it and don't bail at the first sign of trouble. I wouldn't necessarily agree that the plan we are putting in place at the moment is the right one, but weve had trouble before from bailing and then taking the opposite approach and we need to not do so again.
 
Back
Top