Steve Gibson

[RiseAgainst 164]

it makes you wonder how different things might have been if we'd had a decent head of recruitment over the last decade. Gibson has poured more than enough money into MFC for us to be back established in the PL, but we've wasted incalculable sums on poor or unsuitable players. Taking the letter G alone, we've signed Gestede, Guediora and Guzan, none of whom justified a fraction of their outlay.

[AnglianRed 149]

4 hours ago, Duvel said:

So according to a new Gazette article this morning Gibson is putting in a million a month. 

https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/steve-gibsons-1m-month-makes-17167426

I don't think this is new news. As I understand it he's been doing that for a few years now. Possibly since we got relegated...which just shows what a financial imbalance the club was in, even with the parachute payments.

 

I don't think Gibson's support for the club has ever been in question. Unfortunately the ways in which the money has been spent have often left a lot to be desired.

The club is still paying for those few seasons of big spending and high wage bills, when we chased silverware, or promotion.

 

Edited October 30 by AnglianRed

[LinoJo3 303]

Is he actually putting this money in though? If he is are we supposed to have sympathy? As already said he’s made his own nest and now he has to pay the mortgage.

 

[Borodane 363]

If we've gone from Gibson needing to put in 1 million a month three years ago to being in the exact same spot following a promotion and two years of massive parachute payments it's almost criminal neglectand heads really need to start rolling. If you take into consideration the massively unbalanced squad we might aswell shut up shop as a professional enterprise. 

I do have issues with the article though. They make it sound like we had a net spend of 50 million two years ago and 20+ million a year ago. They comfortably forget the big fees we've recieved in the last few windows. Especially the "50 million window" we received some hefty fees and even in the "20 million window" we more or less broke even with the Adama sale.

[LinoJo3 303]

17 minutes ago, Borodane said:

If we've gone from Gibson needing to put in 1 million a month three years ago to being in the exact same spot following a promotion and two years of massive parachute payments it's almost criminal neglectand heads really need to start rolling. If you take into consideration the massively unbalanced squad we might aswell shut up shop as a professional enterprise. 

I do have issues with the article though. They make it sound like we had a net spend of 50 million two years ago and 20+ million a year ago. They comfortably forget the big fees we've recieved in the last few windows. Especially the "50 million window" we received some hefty fees and even in the "20 million window" we more or less broke even with the Adama sale.

I’m convinced it’s all bull *** anyway, it’s just a way to keep the less questioning fans happy as they will fall for it all. HES PUTTING IN £1m PER MONTH!!! WHO ELSE WOULD DO THAT!???

My own look at the accounts and other more knowledgeable people’s view of them shows Gibson personally hasn’t ‘propped us up’ for a while now. Last time was the promotion push while karanka was here. 

In the summer one of the ITK posters mentioned a defecit that needed to be bridged to cover the wages. Coincidentally our player sales total was very similar to that defecit. 

I don’t believe he is putting in any of his own money so far this season. With saleable assets such as Randolph, Fry and Britt, a ton of high earners out of contract soon I don’t think he will next season either.

[SmogDane 447]

If he puts in 1m per month, like it was peanuts, how come we couldn't afford wingers for like 2-3m each?  Sounds a bit weird ... Hopefully not all fans falls for this bluff 😄

[JMC91 10]

Not the most recent but there's a fairly useful and comprehensive breakdown of the club's finances in the first two seasons back in the Championship in this twitter thread: 

 

 

 

[RiseAgainst 164]

I'm notoriously bad at interpreting financial data (which is ironic considering I'm married to a tax lawyer), but is the second graphic suggesting we spent £56.1 million on transfer fees in 2018? If so, who? I thought we'd only spent around £20 million on players in the entire Pulis reign, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

N.B. I accept there may have been staggered payments paid in 2018 for players signed by Monk et al, but again, you'd have thought the same would be true for all the players we sold after relegation. Looking at our squad, it's hard to believe we increased its value by £29.3 million during 2018.

[AnglianRed 149]

It is very confusing when the first graph (as far as I can make out) is suggesting a net transfer spend of -£23.9m (i.e. player sales revenue was considerably in excess of what we spent for the 18-19 season).

Which I think is what most of us assumed.

That Twitter thread also highlights something most of us probably already knew...but which often gets overlooked, when people complain about lack of spending. I can't think of many chairmen who would essentially write off a £100m debt.

 

[JMC91 10]

23 minutes ago, RiseAgainst said:

I'm notoriously bad at interpreting financial data (which is ironic considering I'm married to a tax lawyer), but is the second graphic suggesting we spent £56.1 million on transfer fees in 2018? If so, who? I thought we'd only spent around £20 million on players in the entire Pulis reign, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

N.B. I accept there may have been staggered payments paid in 2018 for players signed by Monk et al, but again, you'd have thought the same would be true for all the players we sold after relegation. Looking at our squad, it's hard to believe we increased its value by £29.3 million during 2018.

I think the 56m figure is referring to the total amount of transfer fees owed, which has accumulated from us structuring deals over time 

 

 

[JMC91 10]

15 minutes ago, AnglianRed said:

It is very confusing when the first graph (as far as I can make out) is suggesting a net transfer spend of -£23.9m (i.e. player sales revenue was considerably in excess of what we spent for the 18-19 season).

Which I think is what most of us assumed.

That Twitter thread also highlights something most of us probably already knew...but which often gets overlooked, when people complain about lack of spending. I can't think of many chairmen who would essentially write off a £100m debt.

 

Not the first time either, 69m was written off in the first season in the Championship in 2009

[wilsoncgp 723]

1 hour ago, AnglianRed said:

That Twitter thread also highlights something most of us probably already knew...but which often gets overlooked, when people complain about lack of spending. I can't think of many chairmen who would essentially write off a £100m debt.

This is entirely why I can't support getting rid of him. No other chairman would write this off after the mistakes he's made. Not at all am I suggesting he should get a free ride, not when he's covering some of the losses by incurring higher costs on the fans to help him out, but who else would do this? So many owners are capable of making mistakes, big or small. Very few cover them so strongly financially.

We need him to accept his mistakes and get some bloody help, then maybe he can stop bleeding his money into the club to keep us going.

[RiseAgainst 164]

1 hour ago, wilsoncgp said:

We need him to accept his mistakes and get some bloody help, then maybe he can stop bleeding his money into the club to keep us going.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

[LinoJo3 303]

1 hour ago, wilsoncgp said:

This is entirely why I can't support getting rid of him. No other chairman would write this off after the mistakes he's made. Not at all am I suggesting he should get a free ride, not when he's covering some of the losses by incurring higher costs on the fans to help him out, but who else would do this? So many owners are capable of making mistakes, big or small. Very few cover them so strongly financially.

We need him to accept his mistakes and get some bloody help, then maybe he can stop bleeding his money into the club to keep us going.

Also let’s not forget this is company money, not his own money. Yes it’s a lot to write off but he will have received tax benefits from it.

[p_mards 119]

I like what the club attempted to do this Summer with the signings of young players like Dijksteel, Bola and Browne who, on paper anyway, seemed good value for money, with potential and on an upward career trajectory. It is the sort of transfer strategy that I have wanted to us pursue for a very long time. However, there's no denying that they have struggled a lot so far. It's unclear how much of that is their fault and how much is our fault as a club for not providing a very good environment for young players to come into. There's no denying that the reckless tactics at the start of the season which led to us consistently being caught out of position and the lack of organised team shape out of possession will have had a damaging effect on them all. Now we have moved away from them stupid tactics we've reverted back to the dinosaur formation of Pulis and stopped giving them game time as Woodgate realised that he is fighting to save his job. If we genuinely have a philosophy that Bevington is trying to oversee then surely it is abundantly clear that Woodgate's ineptitude as a manager and coach is crippling the strategy of buying young players with the aim of improving them. If we had appointed a head coach who knew what he was doing then Dijksteel, Bola and Browne will have had far better chance to prosper here. If Woodgate is sacked I hope we keep to the strategy but appoint a head coach who can actually improve young raw players through good quality coaching and tactics.