To think we played Leicester in a final

bevoboro said:
What have either of the sets of owners at Barnsley and Sunderland achieved thus far? Yes both clubs attracted new ownership but we don't know what their aims and ambitions are just yet. It's a bit foolish to compare them to the Thai ownership at Leicester at this stage.
Click to expand...
Given one of the men at Barnsley is THE billy beane I’d say sporting integrity should be ok.
 
jonny_greenings_sock said:
I’d say whoever brought in Kante, Mahrez and Vardy for £7m combined (£5.5 of that was Kante!) deserves a hell of a lot of the credit.

That’s a Premier League title, about £100m in sales - oh, and they’ve still got Jamie Vardy.
Click to expand...
Have you forgotten Maguire bought for £12m and sold for £78m?
Development of Ben Chilwell sold for £45m.

They've bought some duds along the way, but overall have a squad now worth hundreds of millions and a hell of a lot more than its book value.
 
zorro_mfc said:
Given one of the men at Barnsley is THE billy beane I’d say sporting integrity should be ok.
Click to expand...
Wow, i just watched Moneyball the other night -fantastic - i didn't know this about Barnsley.

On a Boro level, i think without Steve's amazing input we would be somewhere close to Bristol City (if we even existed but i mean as the phoenix club 1986 if not).
 
indeedido said:
Gibson O'Neill the Group holding company, holds the 100% ownership of Bulkhaul, Middelsbrough FC and Rockliffe, each as limited companies.
Steve Gibson owns 75% and Mike O'Neill owns 25% of Gibson O'Neill. Broadly that means they own the operating companies within.
This includes the assets, but equally the liabilities.

They are both very wealthy men as a result and good luck to them both.
Had Steve not been so fanatical about Boro - and thought it a decent long term investment punt - then they both would be a lot better off without Boro, that much is indisputable.
Middlesbrough FC owe the parent Group £116m plus whatever they lose this season which is liable to be well in excess of £20m despite the reduction in wage bill, because of Covid.
Middlesbough FC's assets are outweighed by its liabilities (including the money owed to GO'N Group) by £86m (plus whatever we lose this season).
The Club as an entity is a complete financial basket case.
If Steve (and Mike) gave the club away, whoever they gave it to would own all the assets, but would still owe Gibson O'Neill £116m plus this year's loss. They would still only own something that had book value of MINUS £86m (plus this year's loss)

Bulkhaul is so successful that the GO'N Group overall remains a solid operation. Effectively Bulkhaul covers the debt of MFC because Bulkhaul's positive value (reserves) enables it to and Bulkhaul profit refreshes/finances this.
The Nett Liability of MFC is actually covered by the huge nett Asset value of Bulkhaul (and a little by Rockliffe) within the Group.
GO'N's Balance Sheet would show £116m (plus) greater nett shareholder value if somebody would come in and buy the MFC equity £64m and assume the MFC Undertakings of £116m plus. I'm pretty sure Gibson would be delighted with this.
Nobody in their right mind would do this.

Leicester is no more attractive on the face of it than Middlesbrough as a club and certainly not as attractive on the face of it as a Leeds United, or a Newcastle United.
We have similar pulling power/population to draw from and are similarly distance from local rivals. We have similar crowds, stadiums etc etc.

Leicester got a magnificent investor in the Thai family. Investors who have hired better people to make better decisions.
Leicester have a nett asset value of £73m (£160m better than us)
They have double the equity in their club (injected legally by owners) and nearly all of their P&L balance deficit in the Balance Sheet is from last season and Covid where they lost over £60m.
They owe their Group equivalent £137m, so even more than MFC does.
They also have Bank debt of £65m, which we do not.

Overall then what does this tell us.

1. Leicester have a richer owner who underwrites their business with Group support.
2. Leicester's owners have pumped equity into the club on a large scale and this makes the Club a genuine going concern.
3. Leicester's owner has appointed people who have made excellent decisions. They have recruited superbly, traded wisely and created a squad that has performed in the league like we never have and is worth an incredible amount of money not even reflected on the Books. They are transformed from being like us to being not like us at all.
4. Leicester's position is still fragile. A couple more seasons of financial results like the last one and their position will look rather different.

5. Steve Gibson on the one hand is the only reason that MFC is still playing. Without the financial strength that Bulkhaul provides, the model of guaranteeing the systemic book losses MFC makes every year outside the Premier league, would simply not be possible.
6. Steve Gibson COMPLETELY owns and controls the Club and makes every significant decision. This means who works for it, with what scope, under what strategy, with what budget. He makes all the calls. He is entitled to, but he does.
7. Steve can only look to himself as to why his decisions have taken Middlesbrough to the football and financial position they are in, while Leicester's decisions have taken them to theirs.

8. It is about money, of course it is. But it is about so much more than just money.

9. Of course there are clubs who are in worse positions than Boro.
They may have the debt, but without the committed owner.
They may not have a big catchment area or passion and hence limited potential.
They may have no stadium, no training facilities, no assets whatsoever.
They may never be able to attract an owner who can see potential.
There are definitely clubs I would not swap with, but there are many examples of similar clubs far far better led. Leicester are just one.

10. For now, in the real world, Steve Gibson is stuck with us, as nobody else will assume the debt, let alone pay him for the privilege of assuming it from him.
And equally, we are stuck with him, meaning there is nothing we can do about his catastrophic decision making since 2016, or what he will do from now on; or for that matter whether he "sells up", who to, or whether he injects equity into the club or not.
I make no apology for wishing passionately there was another way, but I just can't see it at the moment.
Click to expand...
This is a well thought out post Indeedio but where has all the money gone since we were last promoted?
 
We made a profit of around £5 million when we had a season in the Prem - very low when compared to the riches received....
 
allied_assault said:
This is a well thought out post Indeedio but where has all the money gone since we were last promoted?
Click to expand...
The Club had signed players to get promoted that it still had to pay for/amortise.
The promoted team got new contracts, inflating the wage bill.
The Club then signed players for fees they had to start amortising and paid them huge salaries. (Valdes, Negredo). They also paid much bigger agents fees.
The wage bill rose from £32m to £65m all in.
The amortisation rose from £13m we couldn't afford to £28m that we could afford that season.
So the club spent a lot more on players, but especially their wages.
The club still made a profit of £11.5m that year to June 2017. Gibson took that back into Gibson O'Neill.

Then came relegation.
Turnover halved to £62m, but wage bill dropped only 25% to £49m, but was still 50% higher than the £32m we couldn't afford in the promotion season. We carried on paying players a lot of money which became 79% of the turnover (even with parachute payments)
Amortisation stayed high at £24m, so the club spent £73m on players and their wages in the Monk/pulis season. Almost 120% of turnover.
Gibson clearly had a go, but just couldn't have got things more wrong.

Then came the pulis season where he was apparently sorting everything out in the final year of parachutes.
Turnover fell but by just £6m, reflecting £18m profit on the disposal of players. (Ramires, Espinosa etc)
Wage bill dropped by £8m, but was still £40m, so still 25% higher than Karanka's promotion season.
Amortisation incredibly actually rose that season by £1m to £26m.
So players wages and amortisation cost were still £66m, way ahead of turnover and covering turnover plus profit from sales.

So there you have it.
Gibson reduced Group Undertakings by the £11m profit generated in the PL season. They spent virtually everything else on players and their wages.
The two seasons of parachute payments were completely wasted on players wages and amortisation of their fees. They sold players, made profit on their nett book value, but this still saw them lose money in the first season, and just about hold their own the second season.
Last season there was no parachute payment, reduced revenue, continued amortisation and wages and the club lost £31m. The wheels came off.

I think Gibson should have spent more to stay up and less when he came down. The numbers make that a no brainer.
But the biggest **** up was appointing Monk and pulis to waste so much money on players and their wages.
It beggars belief just how badly things were done since that great day against Brighton.
 
indeedido said:
The Club had signed players to get promoted that it still had to pay for/amortise.
The promoted team got new contracts, inflating the wage bill.
The Club then signed players for fees they had to start amortising and paid them huge salaries. (Valdes, Negredo). They also paid much bigger agents fees.
The wage bill rose from £32m to £65m all in.
The amortisation rose from £13m we couldn't afford to £28m that we could afford that season.
So the club spent a lot more on players, but especially their wages.
The club still made a profit of £11.5m that year to June 2017. Gibson took that back into Gibson O'Neill.

Then came relegation.
Turnover halved to £62m, but wage bill dropped only 25% to £49m, but was still 50% higher than the £32m we couldn't afford in the promotion season. We carried on paying players a lot of money which became 79% of the turnover (even with parachute payments)
Amortisation stayed high at £24m, so the club spent £73m on players and their wages in the Monk/pulis season. Almost 120% of turnover.
Gibson clearly had a go, but just couldn't have got things more wrong.

Then came the pulis season where he was apparently sorting everything out in the final year of parachutes.
Turnover fell but by just £6m, reflecting £18m profit on the disposal of players. (Ramires, Espinosa etc)
Wage bill dropped by £8m, but was still £40m, so still 25% higher than Karanka's promotion season.
Amortisation incredibly actually rose that season by £1m to £26m.
So players wages and amortisation cost were still £66m, way ahead of turnover and covering turnover plus profit from sales.

So there you have it.
Gibson reduced Group Undertakings by the £11m profit generated in the PL season. They spent virtually everything else on players and their wages.
The two seasons of parachute payments were completely wasted on players wages and amortisation of their fees. They sold players, made profit on their nett book value, but this still saw them lose money in the first season, and just about hold their own the second season.
Last season there was no parachute payment, reduced revenue, continued amortisation and wages and the club lost £31m. The wheels came off.

I think Gibson should have spent more to stay up and less when he came down. The numbers make that a no brainer.
But the biggest **** up was appointing Monk and pulis to waste so much money on players and their wages.
It beggars belief just how badly things were done since that great day against Brighton.
Click to expand...
Well explained Indeedio
 
indeedido said:
Have you forgotten Maguire bought for £12m and sold for £78m?
Development of Ben Chilwell sold for £45m.
Click to expand...
Certainly didn’t - and most importantly, banked the profit and replaced them both without fuss.

In fact quite a few Leicester fans think Jonny Evans and the new left back (name escapes me - Pereira?) are upgrades on Maguire and Chilwell.

Superb recruitment and development. As you say, a few duds along the way too like.
 
jonny_greenings_sock said:
Certainly didn’t - and most importantly, banked the profit and replaced them both without fuss.

In fact quite a few Leicester fans think Jonny Evans and the new left back (name escapes me - Pereira?) are upgrades on Maguire and Chilwell.

Superb recruitment and development. As you say, a few duds along the way too like.
Click to expand...
Pereira is the Portuguese right back and has been there a few seasons. He’s also a quality player.

Castagne replaced Chilwell and looks just as good if not better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top