Jump to content
oneBoro Forum

'Other Boro stuff'


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, DanFromDownSouth said:

Looking at the average attendance of 19/20 it is a similar level to the 14/15 season. In that season our gate receipts stood at around £8m, but included in that figure was a play-off game and a game at Wembley (Those 2 games maybe equate to £2m being generous). So for 19/20 I would be expecting a figure of roughly £6m if the season was entirely finished within the accounting period and we had fans in. 

* League Home games.

 

As the loser we took all the Wembley gate receipts, apparently it's traditional. The commentator suggested it was around the £3m mark. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 14.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Great quote from Kevin Blackwell in the Athletic today 🤣🤣🤣

It's my birthday today, meant to be my 30th but I've refused to allow that in current circumstances of not being able to celebrate it. I usually get my age on the back of one of my shirts so I re

https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/neil-warnock-obvious-choice-manage-18614026.amp?__twitter_impression=true "Gibson is a hands-on owner and Bausor is a hands-on chief exe

Posted Images

14 minutes ago, estonpidge said:

As the loser we took all the Wembley gate receipts, apparently it's traditional. The commentator suggested it was around the £3m mark. 

I found something that said the season before we got to Wembley, QPR and Derby agreed amongst themselves that the loser should get the full cut of the gate receipts. Whether we had a similar agreement with Norwich I don't know, but looking at the sums suggested for the QPR vs Derby Final, £3m seems about right if we had the same agreement.

Edited by DanFromDownSouth
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting quote from SG

"Middlesbrough chairman Gibson indicated that the club’s biggest financial risk is “failing to perform competitively in the league in which it competes”.

https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/19169772.steve-gibson-says-poor-pitch-performance-biggest-risk-club-reveals-record-financial-losses/

Perhaps goes some way into the thinking behind SG sticking with Warnock with a short term strategy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Redcar Rioja said:

Interesting quote from SG

"Middlesbrough chairman Gibson indicated that the club’s biggest financial risk is “failing to perform competitively in the league in which it competes”.

https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/19169772.steve-gibson-says-poor-pitch-performance-biggest-risk-club-reveals-record-financial-losses/

Perhaps goes some way into the thinking behind SG sticking with Warnock with a short term strategy.

I’ve a feeling something similar appears every year. Basically, the biggest financial risk is relegation. The biggest reward would be promotion - but there’s no obligation to put that in the accounts, whilst they do have to spell out the biggest risked - even if they are pretty obvious.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DanFromDownSouth said:

I can't be 100% sure, but I think they (The EFL) are doing a one off 4 year cycle for the profit and sustainability rules, so that the 2019/2020 and 2020/2021 seasons (COVID affected) are technically "merged" into one.

But I haven't seen anything anywhere to say they are upping the amount the clubs can lose, but I would assume they would raise the upper limit if they are including a 4th year.

That would probably not benefit us then? It essentially keeps our worst financial result as part of the limits for an extra year. So even if they raise the loss limit it acts against us more than a club who had roughly equal losses each year.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, ScarBoro said:

That would probably not benefit us then? It essentially keeps our worst financial result as part of the limits for an extra year. So even if they raise the loss limit it acts against us more than a club who had roughly equal losses each year.

Yeah wouldn't benefit us at all. The only reason I can think of why they are merging the seasons is so both COVID affected seasons are at most in 2 cycles. Rather than potentially spreading over 3/4, if that makes sense?

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Changing Times said:

Booooorrrrrrrrrrriiiinnnnggggggggggggg 🥱

 

1 hour ago, DanFromDownSouth said:

Yeah wouldn't benefit us at all. The only reason I can think of why they are merging the seasons is so both COVID affected seasons are at most in 2 cycles. Rather than potentially spreading over 3/4, if that makes sense?

You've lost me there. Try boring CT completely and expand on that?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Changing Times said:

Can we move this stuff to the transfer thread please, where it belongs.

Do you mean Dans tranfer thread or the official oneBoro summer transfer thread which has not been started as yet😄

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Changing Times said:

Can we move this stuff to the transfer thread please, where it belongs.

Seriously - why are the club accounts and losses/FFP a transfer thread rather than "Other Boro stuff"?

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, ScarBoro said:

 

You've lost me there. Try boring CT completely and expand on that?

I think that what he's saying is that as FFP is a rolling three year assessment, then two years of Covid related issues would appear in multiple assessments because one financial year is part of three different assessments.  2019/20, is in 2017/18, 2018/19, 2019/20 (assessment 1), then it's in 2018/19, 2019/20, 2020/21 (assessment 2), and then 2019/20, 2020/21, 2021/22 (assessment 3).  So now add another covid year to that 2020/21, and the effects of covid would be felt in 4 different assessments as it will also be in 2020/21, 2021/22, 2022/23 (assessment 4).  Making them all one year wouldn't make any difference though, unless you altered which years were assessed as well, as you'd still be assessing two years and they'd still appear in the same assessments.  You'd have to switch from a three year rolling to something else for this purpose.

Anyway, I don't think the EFL are doing that are they?  They are simply allowing clubs to exclude covid related costs from the assessments, so it won't be included.  Not that this would help us much for this latest set of accounts as our issues aren't related to covid.  It will make more of a difference for the next set of accounts however.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Downsouth said:

Do you mean Dans tranfer thread or the official oneBoro summer transfer thread which has not been started as yet😄

I would prefer to see it on all three transfer threads, so Dan's transfer thread, the official oneBoro summer transfer thread, and the official oneBoro concise summer transfer thread.  That way as many people as possible can really get into the nitty gritty of it all.

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Changing Times said:

I think that what he's saying is that as FFP is a rolling three year assessment, then two years of Covid related issues would appear in multiple assessments because one financial year is part of three different assessments.  2019/20, is in 2017/18, 2018/19, 2019/20 (assessment 1), then it's in 2018/19, 2019/20, 2020/21 (assessment 2), and then 2019/20, 2020/21, 2021/22 (assessment 3).  So now add another covid year to that 2020/21, and the effects of covid would be felt in 4 different assessments as it will also be in 2020/21, 2021/22, 2022/23 (assessment 4).  Making them all one year wouldn't make any difference though, unless you altered which years were assessed as well, as you'd still be assessing two years and they'd still appear in the same assessments.  You'd have to switch from a three year rolling to something else for this purpose.

 

Thanks. I didn't think it would really make any difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Latest Posts

    • If Muniz does fall through we really do need to get some players in sharpish We've lost 30 goals from the players who've left, including 6 of our 8 top scorers (assuming Akpom leaves) and so far have brought in 15 goals with Ikpeazu, Crooks and Ameobi  This for a side that's already notoriously low scoring and lacking in creativity What worries me is the absence of links to wingers and attacking midfielders other than Lazaro and a few washed up has beens  11 days till Fulham...    
    • What will happen is; Muniz will go to Athletico We will bid for Lazaro We will agree a deal for Lazaro  Fulham will bid for lazaro We will buy Smith from Rotherham
    • Get begging Muniz to join us Twitter link
    • He will undoubtedly sign for Fulham and play for one of the most inoffensive clubs in English football in one of the least intimidating grounds in England.  He won't have a clue though. 
    • Yeah that is what I meant. Fulham never technically beat us to Bryan. They beat Villa to him. We were technically not in running for Bryan as far as player was concerned. His 3rd and final choice.

×
×
  • Create New...