Gillingham Football Club have laid bare the scale of their financial challenge after publishing accounts for the year ending June 2025, figures that underline just how heavily the club remains reliant on owner support while trying to rebuild both on and off the pitch.
The newly released accounts show pre-tax losses of £5.7m for the 2024–25 season, up from £4.3m the previous year, taking total recorded losses beyond £13m. Central to those figures is the ongoing backing of chairman Brad Galinson, who has loaned the club £6.97m on an interest-free basis, repayable within two to five years and secured against Priestfield Stadium. That figure has risen sharply from £2.2m a year earlier.
In addition to the loan, the accounts confirm £1.578m in non-repayable donations from Galinson, designed to keep the club trading while losses continue to mount. The club’s net liabilities now stand at £7.8m, a number that inevitably dominates any reading of the financial position.
Turnover down
Turnover for the year fell to £7.5m, down from £8.22m in the previous accounts, although that earlier figure covered a 13-month period and included £833,000 generated by the GFC School, which has since closed. Within the headline numbers there are signs of progress in certain areas, with commercial and catering sales up 26 percent and season ticket sales also increasing.
Revenue was split between £3.5m from football activity, £2.3m in commercial income, £518,000 from the club shop and £653,000 generated by the academy. Matchday kiosk sales and programme income both declined, while transfer income totalled just £35,000. The only undisclosed fee related to the sale of Dom Jefferies to Lincoln City in July 2024, while player purchases for the period amounted to £255,000.
Wages rose from £5.6m to just over £6m, despite the club changing manager twice during the season. Player registrations increased from £184,000 to £286,000, although the club state that the playing budget has since been reduced by around £500,000 in the current campaign. The accounts also show that a £600,000 loan owed to Three Directors Limited, a company including former chairman Paul Scally, has been settled.
The financial statements sit against the backdrop of an ongoing legal dispute between Galinson and Scally, with the current majority owner alleging financial wrongdoing linked to the £7m takeover. The Galinson family hold a 70 percent stake in the club, with Scally retaining a minority share.
What the numbers mean for supporters
For supporters, the numbers have triggered a fierce and sometimes uncomfortable debate.
On one hand, the reality is stark. Without the Galinsons, Gillingham would be in serious trouble. An interest-free £7m loan and more than £1.5m in donations are not abstract accounting entries; they are the difference between survival and something far worse. In that sense, it is entirely rational for fans to express thanks, particularly after years in which the club drifted and infrastructure visibly decayed.
Yet the other side of the argument is just as hard to dismiss. Losses of £5.7m in a single year are not a blip. They are part of a pattern, and patterns matter. Dependency on owner funding is a dangerous place for any club to be, especially when that funding takes the form of secured loans rather than equity written off without consequence. The fact that Priestfield is charged against those loans sharpens that anxiety considerably.
There is also a footballing frustration underpinning much of the reaction. Increased attendances, record season ticket sales and stronger commercial revenue sit awkwardly alongside the sense that the on pitch product has not improved in line with the spending. A rising wage bill, a larger staff headcount and repeated managerial changes are easy to point to, but harder to justify when results lag behind investment.
Definitely not a financial expert, but to anyone saying we need to go out and spend £500k on a striker in January may need to reconsider. #Gills https://t.co/eplVCwAnYd
— 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗠𝗘𝟳 𝗣𝗼𝗱𝗰𝗮𝘀𝘁 🎙️ (@TheME7Podcast) January 8, 2026
What complicates the picture further is that Gillingham are far from alone. Accounts across League Two and League One increasingly tell the same story. Clubs bleed money, owners plug gaps, and sustainability is promised somewhere over the horizon. In that context, the Galinson approach is neither unusual nor uniquely reckless. It is simply the modern lower league model, with all its flaws laid bare.
The key question is not whether losses exist, but whether there is a credible path to reducing them. Commercial growth is encouraging, but wages have risen faster. Infrastructure investment should pay off in time, but time costs money. The club’s own words point towards patience, but patience requires trust, and trust is tested by numbers like these.
Perhaps the fairest conclusion is that both instincts are valid. Gratitude for owners willing to fund losses, and concern about what happens if that willingness fades, can coexist. Gillingham’s accounts do not signal imminent collapse, but they do underline how fine the margins remain. For now, the club survives because the owners choose to underwrite it.
Turning that choice into something closer to self-sufficiency remains the real challenge ahead.