If the season is voided how many people would waive a refund?

coluka

Well-known member
#22
They could and should have insured against this. Maybe they have, 28 of the 71 EFL clubs had been bright enough to have insurance to cover such contagious illness events. I hope Boro were one of them
 

Laughing

Well-known member
#23
I do wonder why someone would refuse a refund to financially support an organization with a 55 million turnover. Just my opinion, and each to their own.
 
#24
They could and should have insured against this. Maybe they have, 28 of the 71 EFL clubs had been bright enough to have insurance to cover such contagious illness events. I hope Boro were one of them

Since Covid-19 wasn't known until the end of 2019, it wasn't included in the lists of contagious illnesses that people and companies could insure against. Some insurance companies will pay out, but some assuredly will refuse to settle claims. It's the usual insurance company get out - if it's not on the list, then you aren't insured.

The same applies to travel insurance for individuals - right now if you go abroad and end up in hospital with Covid-19, you are on your own.
 
#25
I do wonder why someone would refuse a refund to financially support an organization with a 55 million turnover. Just my opinion, and each to their own.

£55 million turnover? Maybe in the parachute payment years, but not in 2019-20.

I know a few people who have booked airline tickets and holidays - when there's no prospect of the airline running the service - to help the airline's cash position. They'll be able to use the refund or credit note against trips in the future. Paying KLM for a flight from Teesside right now would help to keep KLM solvent and to convince them Teesside is a worthwhile spoke.

I think the word is forbearance - hold off demanding refunds and you'll be helping a company in need. For MFC, I think it would be good if people agreed to take the proportion of their season ticket not used as a discount next season. Generally the tone on here is resentful - some seem to think it's appalling that MFC hasn't offered a refund straight away.
 

coluka

Well-known member
#28
Since Covid-19 wasn't known until the end of 2019, it wasn't included in the lists of contagious illnesses that people and companies could insure against. Some insurance companies will pay out, but some assuredly will refuse to settle claims. It's the usual insurance company get out - if it's not on the list, then you aren't insured.

The same applies to travel insurance for individuals - right now if you go abroad and end up in hospital with Covid-19, you are on your own.
Well the BBC apparently reported that 28 EFL clubs had ‘Pandemic Business Interruption Insurance’ I understand your point about named viruses etc and like anything, the wording of the individual policies will be key. Yes insurance companies do their utmost to find loopholes on any claim, hopefully the clubs in question did their due diligence on their own policies.
 
#29
Yes in one of the poorest areas of the country people should let the club keep their £90, owned by a man whos wealth has increased by 60 million in the last 12 months
His deemed increase wealth in this survey will be based purely on the valuation of his business interests and not on cash in the bank. No doubt following the coronavirus the value of those companies, MFC included, will have significantly decreased. Regardless of this Steve Gibson through Gibson O'Neill bankrolls MFC to the tune of £1 million per month before tax relief (currently 19%). This is approximately the maximum he can under Fair Play Rules that allow losses of £39 million over a 3 year period.

Yes I believe options should be made available to season ticket holders but one thing is certain, any refunds will affect our ability to compete next season. We are between a rock and a hard place. There are no magic solutions that everyone will agree on.
 

Laughing

Well-known member
#30
£55 million turnover? Maybe in the parachute payment years, but not in 2019-20.

I know a few people who have booked airline tickets and holidays - when there's no prospect of the airline running the service - to help the airline's cash position. They'll be able to use the refund or credit note against trips in the future. Paying KLM for a flight from Teesside right now would help to keep KLM solvent and to convince them Teesside is a worthwhile spoke.

I think the word is forbearance - hold off demanding refunds and you'll be helping a company in need. For MFC, I think it would be good if people agreed to take the proportion of their season ticket not used as a discount next season. Generally the tone on here is resentful - some seem to think it's appalling that MFC hasn't offered a refund straight away.
Soutra, I have no problem one way or the other, each can make their own decision. The discount scheme would seem fairer. Otherwise you are asking fans of a multi-million pound company to bail it out.

Oh and the turnover to april 2019 was 55 million I believe.
 
#31
Soutra, I have no problem one way or the other, each can make their own decision. The discount scheme would seem fairer. Otherwise you are asking fans of a multi-million pound company to bail it out.

Oh and the turnover to april 2019 was 55 million I believe.

Yes, the turnover for 2018-19 was £55 million.
 

coluka

Well-known member
#32
There are various things they could do, such as

They could offer refunds
They could keep the money (unlikely)
They could offer goods and services in lieu, shop goods or free cup tickets etc
They could offer bigger discounts on SC’s in lieu
They could donate a sum to charity
They could do a variety of these things for example.

Whatever they do, they will not want to alienate fans, but they are also a business and need cashflow.

The problem with discounts off next seasons SC is whenever football starts, will spectators be allowed in? Some people may have lost jobs and not afford to go, some for health or shielding reasons may not be able to go. It is a minefield really and I doubt whatever happens will see us competing for promotion. However lots of clubs will be in a similar state.

That said we are getting a load of high earners off the books In one go. I am sure EFL footballers wages will be significantly lower than before and there will be smaller squads and some players will have to lower their expectations or face not getting contracted at all. In some ways it could work for clubs, perversely.
 

Zoophonic

Well-known member
#33
Yes the revenue in the last audited accounts was £55m. Rather unbalanced source of income mind. I think its a personal decision whether to ask for a ST refund or not. Its a club I support in my own tiny way I will not ask for that refund as my way of support.

E9DBD876-6147-4233-96F1-FF1FE73D5940.jpeg
 
#34
I think its a personal decision whether to ask for a ST refund or not. Its a club I support in my own tiny way I will not ask for that refund as my way of support.
Exactly my view. I support the club, and sometimes that means more than simply turning up and cheering for them. I'm lucky in that I don't need the refund and so I'm happy to let it go, but accept that other people may be a bit more cash strapped at this time.
 

JM14

Active member
#35
His deemed increase wealth in this survey will be based purely on the valuation of his business interests and not on cash in the bank. No doubt following the coronavirus the value of those companies, MFC included, will have significantly decreased. Regardless of this Steve Gibson through Gibson O'Neill bankrolls MFC to the tune of £1 million per month before tax relief (currently 19%). This is approximately the maximum he can under Fair Play Rules that allow losses of £39 million over a 3 year period.

Yes I believe options should be made available to season ticket holders but one thing is certain, any refunds will affect our ability to compete next season. We are between a rock and a hard place. There are no magic solutions that everyone will agree on.
The only reason he has to put so much money into the club to keep is going is down to the shocking decisions he has made over the years. A well run club at this level shouldnt need that level of support each month.

We wont be able to compete next season because pretty much every player we have is worth less than we signed them for and we have players on contracts which far exceeds their ability, making it impossible to move them on for what we paid for them
 
#36
The only reason he has to put so much money into the club to keep is going is down to the shocking decisions he has made over the years. A well run club at this level shouldnt need that level of support each month.

We wont be able to compete next season because pretty much every player we have is worth less than we signed them for and we have players on contracts which far exceeds their ability, making it impossible to move them on for what we paid for them
Codswallop - most clubs will have plenty of players who will not command a fee greater than than their purchase price. Similarly with contract lengths. Plenty of people on here either complain about Gibbo being a cheapskate or being a spendthrift. Pro football isn't a science and there's always a risk in whatever a club does. Gibbo has kept us fairly competitive over the years - and Cliff willing,will continue to do so.
 

coluka

Well-known member
#37
The only reason he has to put so much money into the club to keep is going is down to the shocking decisions he has made over the years. A well run club at this level shouldnt need that level of support each month.

We wont be able to compete next season because pretty much every player we have is worth less than we signed them for and we have players on contracts which far exceeds their ability, making it impossible to move them on for what we paid for them
I agree a well run club would not be where we are currently. It is clear that the amount of money he has to put in to keep the club afloat is significant. Given that he is both owner AND chairman the buck rests with him. Everyone accepts he is a fan too and wants the club to be successful.

I personally believe the Southgate era was ok for a while till It became obvious the financial taps were being significantly reduced with higher wage earners were replaced by low cost poorer standard players - that failed. However, I suspect it had to be done, but recruitment failures began then. He rolled the dice under Robson but under McClaren it appears given the stories that are creeping out, we maybe spent far too much going for the relative success we had in that era. Big players like Boksic, JFH and Viduka, Schwarzer, Boateng under Macca, as good as they were and as pleased as I was at that time, had no sell on values and their wages were no doubt a huge drain on finances. I am so glad we had that era, please don’t misunderstand me, but that probably led to the cloth cutting under Southgate and ultimately 2009 relegation.

His decision making especially largely since 2006 (and as said arguably before) has been found questionable and at times wanting. A player will not come in or leave the club via transfer without his approval, players have clearly come to the club that head coaches did not want, Southgate has said so under him, Karanka implied it several times in his own way, one of our players (Downing) has even stated AK did not want him. Therefore one assumes Mr Gibson did. Recruitment is key, this is the area we have been most woeful at in particular and where decisions have been poor. The Manager should have sole responsibility for that decision if a player is signed or sold in my view, unless the club were at risk financially that is. If it were it would be the fault of the board though.

The inability to support appropriate recruitment via what has been through significant spending is alarming imho. In modern football you need a mixture of know how, experience, youth, strength, pace and flair, not to mention ability. The latter 3 being most lacking for years.

The way our club is organised and run, the staff appointed like our CEO, Heads of Recruitment etc are under the control of Mr Gibson. He is a major common denominator and whilst others are culpable in their own way, their posts appear safe. The coach repeatedly gets the blame for results on the pitch, but a tradesman, in part, is only as good as the tools he has at his disposal to complete a task. One reason why I currently feel sorry for Woodgate, despite my not wanting him as Head Coach. Karanka's sacking was to appease a section of disgruntled fans, it was a mistake, as have all the lurches from side to side, like a rudderless ship, have been ever since.

We remain grateful for his financial support, we all want him to succeed, the current crisis shows why it is important to have someone who loves the club in charge rather than someone who may just be an asset stripper, but that does not excuse or negate the primary reason for why we are where we are. If you support a club, have the feelings most of us have for the team, honesty and understanding in any relationship is vital, without that, no relationship, whether in family, business or sport can survive on blind faith alone. Fans are entitled to opinion and their say, those in charge would do well to listen, understandand perhaps be honest and open in return.
 
#38
I agree a well run club would not be where we are currently. It is clear that the amount of money he has to put in to keep the club afloat is significant. Given that he is both owner AND chairman the buck rests with him. Everyone accepts he is a fan too and wants the club to be successful.

I personally believe the Southgate era was ok for a while till It became obvious the financial taps were being significantly reduced with higher wage earners were replaced by low cost poorer standard players - that failed. However, I suspect it had to be done, but recruitment failures began then. He rolled the dice under Robson but under McClaren it appears given the stories that are creeping out, we maybe spent far too much going for the relative success we had in that era. Big players like Boksic, JFH and Viduka, Schwarzer, Boateng under Macca, as good as they were and as pleased as I was at that time, had no sell on values and their wages were no doubt a huge drain on finances. I am so glad we had that era, please don’t misunderstand me, but that probably led to the cloth cutting under Southgate and ultimately 2009 relegation.

His decision making especially largely since 2006 (and as said arguably before) has been found questionable and at times wanting. A player will not come in or leave the club via transfer without his approval, players have clearly come to the club that head coaches did not want, Southgate has said so under him, Karanka implied it several times in his own way, one of our players (Downing) has even stated AK did not want him. Therefore one assumes Mr Gibson did. Recruitment is key, this is the area we have been most woeful at in particular and where decisions have been poor. The Manager should have sole responsibility for that decision if a player is signed or sold in my view, unless the club were at risk financially that is. If it were it would be the fault of the board though.

The inability to support appropriate recruitment via what has been through significant spending is alarming imho. In modern football you need a mixture of know how, experience, youth, strength, pace and flair, not to mention ability. The latter 3 being most lacking for years.

The way our club is organised and run, the staff appointed like our CEO, Heads of Recruitment etc are under the control of Mr Gibson. He is a major common denominator and whilst others are culpable in their own way, their posts appear safe. The coach repeatedly gets the blame for results on the pitch, but a tradesman, in part, is only as good as the tools he has at his disposal to complete a task. One reason why I currently feel sorry for Woodgate, despite my not wanting him as Head Coach. Karanka's sacking was to appease a section of disgruntled fans, it was a mistake, as have all the lurches from side to side, like a rudderless ship, have been ever since.

We remain grateful for his financial support, we all want him to succeed, the current crisis shows why it is important to have someone who loves the club in charge rather than someone who may just be an asset stripper, but that does not excuse or negate the primary reason for why we are where we are. If you support a club, have the feelings most of us have for the team, honesty and understanding in any relationship is vital, without that, no relationship, whether in family, business or sport can survive on blind faith alone. Fans are entitled to opinion and their say, those in charge would do well to listen, understandand perhaps be honest and open in return.
Started to read that but ran out of steam!
 

JM14

Active member
#39
Codswallop - most clubs will have plenty of players who will not command a fee greater than than their purchase price. Similarly with contract lengths. Plenty of people on here either complain about Gibbo being a cheapskate or being a spendthrift. Pro football isn't a science and there's always a risk in whatever a club does. Gibbo has kept us fairly competitive over the years - and Cliff willing,will continue to do so.
Just because other clubs are poorly run shouldnt excuse the fact that we are too. You dont have to be a genius to realise signing players 29/30+ on long term contracts isnt sustainable for a club our size. Plus spending vast amounts on players who have never played above the championship is a massive risk that we could never afford to take
 

1finny

Well-known member
#40
I'm sure the club will give some options one of which is likely to be a refund. Then it is up to the individual.
Personal view on administration is unlikely in the short term, and, even if that happens - so what?

The club will continue to exist in some way shape or form and begin again. Depends what you want I suppose
 
Top