Boro loss last season

http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/business/b ... e-12792314" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Market leaders

Get them down.

So £31m loss last season, £14m loss the season before - must be close to breaching FFP in the championship - what penalty will re-admittance to the championship bring should they be relegated in May - not holding my breath on that one though they can't have spent much on infrastructure they will have spent a bit on the academy

Still as the comments section on that report says - Dyche was right - they did dramatically overspend last year

taken from the boro m/board

Creditors: amounts falling due within one year.

(all in £m )

Trade creditors..................................5.44
Bank loan........................................5.00
Amounts owed to group undertakings..93.56
Compensation and loan fees payable...20.93
Taxation and social security................4.06
Other creditors................................0.74
Deferred income...............................7.53
Accruals........................................10.68

TOTAL..........................................147.94

that loan from the parent company ouch!!

Seems like they did make FFP - along with everyone else last season

http://www.efl.com/news/article/2016/ef ... QiFxe1m.99" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

an interesting comparison between boro and brighton on the brighton board

http://www.northstandchat.com/showthrea ... g-loss-of-" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;£36-million-in-being-promoted-last-season

shows boro's transfers last season at a net £42.6m - the mind boggles

Gibson wrote off approx £80 million before FFP was introduced, bit like Leicester's owners did.

Boro fans never listen though, ask for proof of this and continue to whine when its provided.
Something about Gibson being a fan, the owner, can do what he likes with his money and what's it got to do with anyone else etc etc.

I'm just reading the comments section and there are a few who haven't got a clue

It appears a couple think the money they've received this season will clear the debts and they're now one of the richest clubs in the world...

Sidney1st wrote:I'm just reading the comments section and there are a few who haven't got a clue

It appears a couple think the money they've received this season will clear the debts and they're now one of the richest clubs in the world...

Despite all of the money written off by Gibson over the years, they are still £93m in debt to the parent company. Their fans argument is that you can't owe money to yourself. Yes, they are THAT stupid!

Try explaining that Gibson O'Neill is a separate company with 3 owners, and you've no chance! If you mention Bolton and Eddie Davies they start frothing at the mouth.

Reason they signed Bamford is not football related it is obviously to do the press conference when they go into administration the floods of tears will tug at the creditors heart strings.

Is a 28m wage bill so excessive for someone at the top of the championship chasing the premier league dream?

I know past debts are a problem but the only way to pay them off is getting in the premier league which they did.

If the wage bill exceeds the clubs earnings then yes its excessive.

Not reading any of this until royboy explains it, but as and when he does I bet he'll mention profitability and sustainability rules

Excerpt from the EFL FFP statement:
"Promoted clubs Burnley, Middlesbrough and Hull City all stayed within the fair play regulations whilst two of the sides relegated to Sky Bet League One – MK Dons and Charlton Athletic – also met the requirement.

However, Bolton Wanderers - also relegated to League One – have not submitted a 2015/16 FFP return or audited accounts and as a result will remain under FFP embargo."

Don't forget though, according to the pundits Steve Gibson is the Best Chairman In The Premier League™

That's what happens when you pay Jay Spearing £17k a week in the championship.

"Boro made a big financial loss last season"

Good.

Top of the Championship demands big spending....with no guarantee of promotion. Ask Brighton.

Boro have lost huge money in apevery season but one since the Premier League was formed, and lost £215m in the process.

Seem to remember there was a lot of scepticism on here when FFP was introduced as to how effective the rules would be in curbing the over-spending of clubs, but the proof is there for all to see that (after an uncertain start) all clubs were compliant with the rules during the year to June'16.

That was of course the final year of the old rules, to be replaced now by Profit & Sustainability regulations which mean that the FL and the PL are now in sync in that all clubs will be measured over a rolling three year period. Two of those years will be historic with an forecast added in for the current season. PL clubs are allowed losses of up to £105m (£35m per season) and FL clubs £39m (£13m per season)

I think we recently looked at Aston Villa on here in the wake of their reported loss to Jun'16 at over £81m and concluded that they will therefore not comply with the new limits and will suffer sanctions at the end of this season. So now, in response to this thread, it's worth taking a look at Middlesbrough's potential situation.

Firstly a look at their allowances......they will be assessed over two historic FL seasons ('14/'15 & '15/'16) plus an estimate for this season in the PL.......therefore £13m + £13m +£35m, a total of £61m. Their accounts for the first two seasons showed Losses of £14m and £31m, so unless their estimated loss for this season exceeds £16m they will be compliant with the new P&S rules. Based on the fact that they will receive a minimum of £97m from the PL broadcast money this year they should in fact comfortably make a profit, in which case they will also fully comply with the new three year measurement.

In more general terms it's interesting to note that all submissions have to in by March 1st each year and the aim of the PL and FL is to review all clubs by the end of the season with any applicable sanctions effective immediately after that. Under the new rules nothing is off the table in the way of sanctions, including points deductions, demoting clubs from play-off positions etc and a crucial point is that all FL clubs have agreed to these new terms in order to ensure they receive the new level of solidarity payments (£5m per Championship club) each season from the PL.

See

Didn't QPR agree to the old rules and still challenged them?

I'm curious how Boro complied with FFP rules in 2015/16. They made a loss of ~ £32m, way in excess of the permitted £13m under the FFP rules for that year. https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/docu ... xJHjxgU%3D" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Wasn't something to do with the Academy, and you could offset stuff in there against it?

I'm sure I'm not the only one who is very, very sceptical of points deductions ever happening for breaching financial rules.

Worth remembering that Bournemouth got fined, and paid. QPR as far as I'm aware still have not.

"I'm curious how Boro complied with FFP rules in 2015/16. They made a loss of ~ £32m, way in excess of the permitted £13m under the FFP rules for that year."


That's a fair question. The EFL initial review for '15/'16, linked in post#5, is dated 31st Dec.'16 and is probably based on the FFP return submitted by clubs at that time. Boro's audited accounts for the same period were released on 24th Mar.'17 and clearly did not reflect previously submitted documents.

On that basis you'd expect the FL to revisit Boro's situation with regard to compliance.

Lancasterclaret wrote:Wasn't something to do with the Academy, and you could offset stuff in there against it?

I'm sure I'm not the only one who is very, very sceptical of points deductions ever happening for breaching financial rules.

Worth remembering that Bournemouth got fined, and paid. QPR as far as I'm aware still have not.

Academy fees and exceptional promotion spending (e.g. bonuses, payments triggered by promotion, etc) are allowable but I'd be very surprised if that came to £20m.

I think pretty much every year one of the promoted teams has breached FFP to a lesser or greater extent, it's always been a bit toothless.

"I'm sure I'm not the only one who is very, very sceptical of points deductions ever happening for breaching financial rules."


Lancaster......the way I read the revised sanctions is that the points deduction element is more a threat of last ditch action if a club continues to flout the rules. Overall though the transfer embargo sanction has proved to be a success with 95%+ of clubs now operating with their 'house in order' and only a handful still resisting change (Bolton and Forest being a couple of examples).

The fair play fines, as you rightly say, have only been a partial success, mainly due to the fact that the FL had major problems with recovering the fines from promoted clubs once they were under the jurisdiction of the Premier League. These appear to have been dropped going forward.

Another club that could go bump due to over stretching themselves. Karanka was backed above and beyond what was sensible and he still left them with Gestede and Bamford as the only strikers they actually own. The mind boggles.

Obsessed.

Or discussing the pros and cons of an FFP system and the number of clubs who have to rely on external financial backing to stay afloat.