Would Boro Win Pinstripe Fantasy League?

It is a question that is now increasingly frequently asked, especially when top flight owner inflation has made the self made millionaire a relative pauper in the billionaires' playground. And it is question that has been asked with increasing anxiety and the odd swirl of vitriol after the club suffered its first relegation in a decade.

Sadly we can't know where the business community would rank Gibson against the likes of the Glazers, the warring Yanks at Anfield and the petrozillionaire over-priced striker junkies at Eastland because that that relegation has denied the chance for the big boss to be put under pin-striped scrutiny and measured up for a place in the a fangled business consultants' fantasy "stewardship league."

The league - devised by Mark Goyder, of the business think tank Tomorrow's Company - purports to measure the strategic direction of a club for longevity and stability and judge whether if current trends continue their club will be left in a healthy state when they leave... which as we know, is a mantra for the Middlebrough chairman who has repeatedly insisted his current regime is just as proxy for the people of the town.

"Stewardship means handing something on to the next generation in better shape that you inherited it, and not just the next quarter's results, " said Goyder, an Arsenal fan.

"You see it in the best family businesses and in employee-owned businesses. The footballing parallels are clubs with a long-term view who see beyond wheeling and dealing, clubs which focus on management continuity, youth development, improved facilities, and the club giving something back to the community it comes from.

"Fans who care about their clubs should prize and praise good stewardship. They will, rightly, want more vigilance over how the money is being made on their behalf. This is what we mean by stewardship - looking after assets for the long term, and being more aware of what is being done in your name - whether the money is going into debt or equity - and having the assurance that those who handle that money are doing so in a principled way."

Indeed they do. Fans are the beating heart of a club, the chief asset and ultimately the financial engine and while they are distanced and often powerless to control how the club is managed they are generally the only ones that really care; care not just about the league position and the bottom line but also about public image and perception, about the present status and future direction and about the "soul" of the club.

The think tank based their league table on a "stewardship scorecard", which you can see in full here. In many ways for what is posited as an analytical business management exercise is in many way very much a subjective one. In short their criteria were:

1 Putting the Club First. Do the board and the owners focus on more than their own interest? Where are they on the scale between self-interest and putting the club first? Are they altruistic or asset-strippers? Do they give something back to the community around the club?

2 Long-termism. Is there a youth policy and promising new players coming through or does the club rely on the transfer market? Have the stadium facilities been improved or are there plans to do more. Is the level of debt prudent? How high are wages as a proportion of turnover? Does the manager feel his job is under threat after a few poor results? What is the time frame? Do they aim to hand the club on in better shape to the next generation or are they willing to take financial risks to buy success now. Is the club's reputation strong?

3 Clarity of purpose, role and responsibilities. Have the owners clearly said what their ambitions, intentions and strategy are? Is there unity on the board around this? Or is there uncertainty? Is there a clear understanding about the respective job of the owners, the directors and the manager and coaching staff? Does the owner stay out of the dressing room and let the manager get on with the job? How well does the board work? Are there independent directors who can challenge the strategy?

4 Engagement with fans and community. Do they recognise and respect and involve the voice of the fans? Do they work well with the local community, planning authorities etc? Is there a fans' forum? Are fans or the community represented in the ownership of the shares and or the governance of the club? Does ticket pricing structure enable a wide fan base e.g. are there concessions for students/senior citizens etc?

5 Passion commitment and conviction. Are the owners and board passionate about the club and their role as stewards for its future? Do they bring conviction to their role and show commitment in supporting the players and manager? Are they obsessive about doing the right thing in the right way for the club, and football more generally, and do they work to get the Premier League and other clubs to do the same?

Regular readers will note that these are issues that go to the heart of much that has been discussed here with some intensity in recent years, and with a heightened urgency as belts have been tightened of late.

The criteria include much of what is strong about Boro - commitment to community schemes, the role of the academy, to a shift away from big transfers, to a long term strategy to make the club sustainable, sensitivity on ticket pricing, security of managial tenure - and you would suspect that the club ticked a lot of boxes on the dream template dreamed up by the corporate consultants.

But the list also includes areas where Boro come in for the most sustained criticism - the lack of a genuine voice for fans, the lack of a membership scheme of substance or the prospect for even a token stake in the shares, let alone imput into strategic decisions, a lack or transparency in structure and stratgey and most glaringly the absence of any independent directors to question or advise on the actions of the board.

Here's the "stewardship league table" the scorecards threw up.

1. Aston Villa
2. Arsenal
3. Wigan Athletic
4. Everton
5. Blackburn Rovers
6. Stoke City
7. Birmingham City
8. Hull City
9. Burnley
10. Bolton Wanderers
10. Sunderland
10. Wolverhampton Wanderers
13. Manchester United
14. Manchester City
15. Chelsea
16. Fulham
17. Portsmouth
18. Tottenham Hotspur
19. Liverpool
20. West Ham United

There are no real surprises: three of the bottom four have had to be urgently refinanced in the past six months to avoid the prospect of administration whil ethird bottom Spurs have plunged themselves into debt in order to fund a planned new ground in the heart of London.

Just above the drop spots are Fulham, Chelsea and Manchester City which appear to be ego vehicles with no concrete relation between spending and income and with owners who have no no discernable links to either their community or the wider football family.

Aston Villa come top which is maybe strange because the scorecard says among other things they do not over spend on players, a statement at odds with the £100m+ that Martin O'Neill has forked out in three years, although arguably his recruits have on the whol appreciated in value and his home grown players are turning into solid assets.

Arsenal come second despite their hefty debt levels and new stadium financing hitting a sticky patch because of the fall in values of the Highbury housing they planned to sell as part of the funding. They score highly though because they have played the transfer market superbly with an investment in youth that get moved on at a profit, their corporate stability and the low wages to turnover ratio.

So, where would you put Boro in that league?

********

RIGHT, we might be on a hiding to nothing here but.... Boro have NEVER lost at home to Doncaster Rovers.

In fact, six meetings at home in the league, six wins, 32 goals for, 12 against... biggest score a 6-0 in 1901 but there has also been a 5-0 in 1957/59 and a 4-1 in 1955/56. Away we've won two, drawn one and lost three, the last a 3-2 reverse in 1958.

To be fair the gap has been closing over the last few games. In 1966/67 (a promotion year) it was 2-0, although we did win 4-0 in the return at Belle Vue, while in the last meeting in 1986/87 (another promotion year... is there a pattern emerging?) Mogga scored in a 1-0 win in front of 8,100 supporters and in the reverse Gary Hamilton and Stuart Ripley netted in a 2-0 win in front a 3,500 crowd, over half who were from Boro and there to celebration elevation to division two.

The only other competitive meeting with Doncaster at home was in the preliminary round of the 1986/87 Freight Rover Trophy, an early incarnation of what is now the Johnsons Paints Trophy, right at the stuttering start of Boro's great post-liquidation boom.

Boro easily won the first leg on a blustery Monday night at Ayresome in November, 1986 and as the Gazette - bang on the money as usual - said: "Boro fans found a new goal hero to salute in two goal debutant Paul Proudlock as they cruised to a 3-0 win."

Proudlock had been released by Hartlepool and with a squad of just 14 players boss Bruce Rioch took a chance.He repaid it with a gem of an opener after seven minutes, taking a Stuart Ripley cross on his thigh then thundering a volley home from an angle.

Doncaster had arrived unbeaten in seven but with their noses in front, Rioch's division three table-toppers stepped up a gear to take complete control. Proudlock all but sealed the game on the hour, stabbing home another Ripley cross after good work from bargain basement goal getter Bernie Slaven then late substitute Lee Turnbull wrapped it up four minutes from time, netting the rebound after a Brian Laws shot had been parried.

Team: Pears, Laws, Cooper, Mowbray, Parkinson, Pallister, Slaven (Turnbull 83), Proudlock, Hamilton (Kernaghan 87), Gill Ripley. Att: 3,977.

Boro lost 2-1 to Chesterfield in the other preliminary game in their round robin group but went through and beat Halifax 2-1 away, then saw off Rochdale on penalties after a 0-0 draw away then were squeezed out of the Northern semi-final 1-0 at home to Mansfield in March in front of a crowd of 11,724.... the revival was gathering pace.