indeedido
Well-known member
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 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.