Interest in club

Red n White Dreamer said:
Never going to happen Gibson won't relinquish control unless his daughter fancies a go with it
Click to expand...
I'm not actually sure there's any evidence that he wouldn't relinquish (some or all) control of the club if he could find someone who'd make it his worthwhile financially and seemed to have the club's interests at heart?

There's evidence that he won't let message board posters set ticket prices, which appears to make him a control freak, but that's about it.
 
fmttmadmin said:
Be careful what you wish for - is something fans of an awful lot of clubs would say to you from Oldham, Scunthorpe, Chesterfield and Bury to Derby County and Everton.
Click to expand...
Or you could look at Brentford, Brighton, forest, villa, wolves, ( dare I say Man City and Chelsea as both clubs were doing absolutely nothing before they were bought out ) depends which way you want to look at it really.
 
Ayresome_park said:
Or you could look at Brentford, Brighton, forest, villa, wolves, ( dare I say Man City and Chelsea as both clubs were doing absolutely nothing before they were bought out ) depends which way you want to look at it really.
Click to expand...

I'll rarely stick up for Chelsea, but they were doing OK before the Russian money arrived. In the 7 seasons before they won the FA Cup twice, the league cup and the cup winners cup. They qualified for the champions league 3 times, including the season before RA took over. This was reported as an important factor in his selection of them: there was a base on which to build. 4th, if not 3rd most successful English club over that period.

It's not the success they had after, but it's a a long way from "Absolutely nothing" too.
 
Last edited:
Decent_Left said:
Wouldn’t necessarily have to pay the £142m immediately though would

It would be all down to the purchase structure.

The Gibson O’Neil company accrue tax benefits with that debt on its books so that would be a consideration for example
Click to expand...
If you buy a company, you have to buy the shares of the company. It's not like buying a house or a car. All you get are bits of paper. You can't buy a company today and pay tomorrow or next year. When you pay the money to buy the shares, you own the company. If you don't buy the shares then you don't own it.

Gibson O'Neil gets no benefit from the intra company debt. It's just shown as a debt on the balance sheet of the holding company. HMRC and any other interested party would expect that the debt would be repaid at some point in the future. If the debt is used to try to avoid tax - and some companies have tried this in the past - then HMRC will try to force GO'N to call in the debt, or write it off. Writing off the debt will reduce the value of G

GO'N can offset the losses that MFC makes against the holding company's profits, but this is hugely inefficient because GO'N has to make good the losses. So if the group makes (say) £100 million in profit, but MFC loses £20 million, then the tax saved is about £4 million. Making good the losses will cost £20 million. So it costs £20 million to save £4 million.

Why is anyone bothered about the intra company debt? Nobody will buy MFC as it is at the moment, but if that debt is written off then it's possible. But I don't understand what will change? Some new guy pumping money in will just buy the same players who miss the same chances and make the same defensive errors. It's not Steve Gibson who is screwing up the on field activities. The budget is constrained because of FFP. If a new owner comes in, he'll have to work with the pretty much same budget as the club has at present. If player salaries stay at about the same level as they are, then increasing revenue is the only way to increase the budget. But fans won't pay higher ticket prices than they are now, and sponsorship and merchandising is not likely to rocket up for a failing relegation threatened Championship team.
 
Frozen Horse said:
I'll rarely stick up for Chelsea, but they were doing OK before the Russian money arrived. In the 7 seasons before they won the FA Cup twice, the league cup and the cup winners cup.
Click to expand...
It was the Matthew Harding money before the russian gangster. Ken Bates was doing his usual build the debt and try and sell it, until Harding started to invest with a vision for the club. He even left them a nice pot when he was killed in that tragic accident, but of course Ken Bates took the credit for it.

I was told by a friend of Harding that I used to live with, that they were going to make a mega-signing that week, with money from Hardings estate which was contractually due to chelsea despite his death. Think the Harding family were pretty upset about it all. Anyway they bought Zola the next day with the money.
 
BoroMart said:
It was the Matthew Harding money before the russian gangster. Ken Bates was doing his usual build the debt and try and sell it, until Harding started to invest with a vision for the club. He even left them a nice pot when he was killed in that tragic accident, but of course Ken Bates took the credit for it.

I was told by a friend of Harding that I used to live with, that they were going to make a mega-signing that week, with money from Hardings estate which was contractually due to chelsea despite his death. Think the Harding family were pretty upset about it all. Anyway they bought Zola the next day with the money.
Click to expand...

Probably all true enough, but surely Harding was in the SG mould? Lifelong fan, local boy done well for himself etc., rather than an overseas billionaire.
 
Morton94 said:
This isn't even the craziest rumour I've read within the last week.
A friend of my sent me a screenshot of a conversation with a fella who claimed that Gibbo had turned down multiple offers and one of them was from Red Bull 🤣 RB Middlesbrough!
Click to expand...
Has anyone done the "I think this rumour might have wings..." comment yet?

All of this talk about renaming stadiums and clubs reminds me of the opening scene of the movie Baseketball...


How long before we have a Preparation H arena?!
 
Frozen Horse said:
Probably all true enough, but surely Harding was in the SG mould? Lifelong fan, local boy done well for himself etc., rather than an overseas billionaire.
Click to expand...
He was yeah, he was pretty minted mind, self made in re-insurance I believe. to be honest there were very very few billionaires around in the 90s, not just in football but in life. The internet didn't have enough users to allow it be a conduit to a global market at your fingertips, exploitation of personal data for marketing or political abuse was negligible, and neo-liberalism hadn't consumed commerce and politics to steal the wealth of the many and move it to the billionaries.

Happier times really.
 
Soutra said:
Why is anyone bothered about the intra company debt? Nobody will buy MFC as it is at the moment, but if that debt is written off then it's possible. But I don't understand what will change? Some new guy pumping money in will just buy the same players who miss the same chances and make the same defensive errors. It's not Steve Gibson who is screwing up the on field activities. The budget is constrained because of FFP. If a new owner comes in, he'll have to work with the pretty much same budget as the club has at present.
Click to expand...
Exactly this. Gibson has been putting in as much as FFP allows until the last 12 months or so. A new owner or minority shareholder won't change that. I personally think that Gibson is throttling his loans last season and this in order to get our FFP balance down to as close to zero as he can to make room to spend in year 3 of the cycle.

That said, a new minority shareholder may bring other benefits. If we become part of a group of clubs and we get access to data and experience from new markets plus can build synergies between the clubs, that might help a lot. If and when we get promoted, access to additional income beyond what Gibson would feel comfortable spending may also be really helpful.

Basically, it won't allow the club to spend any more money than it does under Gibson but it may bring other benefits that are worth having.
 
Druss_The_Legend said:
In an ideal takeover and I don't know if this is possible as I'm not an expert on.... Well anything!
But say an investor bought 19% of the club then in 2 year bought 10% then a year after they bought another 10% and did that until they had a 49% stake in the club(5 year schedule) then after that they had the option to buy a majority stake or buy complete control. That way it gets them used to the club and Gibson can get a better idea whether they are a good fit for the club before handing over full control. I don't know if this was possible but it would be a much smoother transition and easing the fans anxieties than some alternative options.
Click to expand...
This is kinda what Delia Smith has down at Norwich
 
Ayresome_park said:
Or you could look at Brentford, Brighton, forest, villa, wolves, ( dare I say Man City and Chelsea as both clubs were doing absolutely nothing before they were bought out ) depends which way you want to look at it really.
Click to expand...
Weren’t the people behind wolves interested in us first but we rejected them
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top