Jump to content

MrBunce

Members
  • Content Count

    122
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

MrBunce last won the day on November 4 2023

MrBunce had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

252 Excellent

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I think year 1 parachute payments are roughly somewhere between £40m and £45m (vague recollection from Kieran Maguire). This is 55% of the equal broadcast share. Reduces to 45% in year 2 and 20% (if applicable) in year 3. The Premier League used to publish the broadcast revenue figures but haven't for several years. I think the EFL media deal was roughly £5m per year, under the old deal.
  2. I'm not sure whether the C-prefs can be used for PSR purposes. The EFL rules refer to the share capital account, for which in the club's accounts, the C-prefs are classed as liabilities not share capital. That would of course change on redemption with the £10m going into the share capital account. I'm sure the club have clarified treatment with the EFL. Whether it's included or not, I'm not worried about PSR. I reckon the club may make a small profit in this year's accounts.
  3. I don't think PSR will be an issue. Firstly, the club have the incomings for selling Omobamidele, Aarons, Rachica and Mumba (>£20m in total) plus Tzolis (assuming completed before end of June). Second, the Attanasio loan conversion of around £4.7m earlier this year increases the allowable loss. Thirdly, the club will have significantly reduced their wage bill this season. For example, Pukki leaving alone will reduce the bill by £2m (£40k per week). Finally, interest costs will likely be lower due to loans (from Attanasio and the those secured on parachute payments / transfer receivables) maturing.
  4. Not for PSCs. They must update their PSC register in 14 days and then notify CH 14 days after that.
  5. Understood. If so, definitely barking up the wrong tree! Or let me put it another way, that notification on CH was submitted late by the club... a year after the event! 😅 So there'll be plenty of time for a certain poster to ride their hobby horse for now!
  6. As I think @GMF pointed out on another thread, this is because MA has the 10,000,000 C Preference shares. He has >75% of all shares, just not voting shares (although he would also be a PSC due to having >25% and also because of the shareholder agreement with Delia and Michael which gives them >50% voting power). Another clue, look at the date of notification - September 2022. The above is old news, separate to any potential future takeover.
  7. 20-40% discount is typically what I would be considering for a minority holding like this, dependant on the specific facts. Even £175m feels very high, at the very top end you'd expect a Championship club to potentially transact at. From what I've seen online, some questionable presentation of the financials as well.
  8. I voted for Sargent. He might not have been the best player or played the most games. But he's been by far the most important. Record when Sargent starts: P21 W14 D4 L3 pts 46 ppg 2.19 Record when Sargent doesn't start: P22 W7 D4 L11 pts 25 ppg 1.14 Extrapolated over 43 games: When Sargent starts: 94 points, 1st Actual: 71 points, 6th When Sargent doesn't start: 49 points, 17th
  9. I broadly agree. I'd 100% take Farke over Wagner. I'd very likely take McKenna, Corberan and Robins. I haven't seen enough of Maresca and Rosenior. I'm unconvinced on Martin.
  10. Hogesar: I know Idah/SvH is your pet topic but stepping back has it really made any difference. Looking at the results, I can't see how any of them would have been different with Idah. The team were well beaten against Leicester and Boro. The draws away at QPR and Blackburn are decent points on the road where leads were let slip. Besides, Idah hadn't scored in nearly two months by the time he left and only twice in five months - despite a lot of game time. I'm willing to trust Knapper's and Wagner's strategic judgement on this, even if short-term it doesn't seem to have 'paid off'. All: Back to the topic at hand, a hypothetical question: looking at the other teams at the top of the table, which of those would you take over Wagner? (i.e. Maresca, Farke, McKenna, Martin, Corberan, Robins and Rosenior)
  11. Yesterday Mark Attanasio was at the FT Business of Football Summit. He was a panel member discussing: "Panel of Investors: Building a long-term strategy to make money from football". (Unfortunately very expensively paywalled)
  12. My view regarding EFL approval is from reading the regulations. Helpfully, the EFL provide a Q&A on the Owners and Directors Test. On control they write: "The Regulations also allow the League to consider shareholders holding less than 25% if they are acting “in concert” with others and together they go over 25%, and the definition of ‘control’ also applies to persons who have been given the authority to give directions or instructions which the Club’s management are accustomed to act in accordance with." Leaving that aside, I completely agree with you that it is odd regarding the FFI which is an obligation. Perhaps 1+1=2 didn't twig for the EFL or the Club didn't fully meet it's requirements. I don't know. However, I feel safe in saying that something doesn't seem right. Taking a hypothetical and say it turned out Mr Attanasio is a loan shark (he's a distressed debt investor after all!). Joking aside, Norwich miss their budget end of last season, they default on the loans to Mr Attanasio. An inability to refinance could lead him to putting the club into administration. I do not think for one moment that ever would or will happen. Maybe you think I'm crazy. However, it happened to Wigan - their new owner put the club into administration the day he took control of the club. That this saga is still rumbling on, with no resolution from the EFL in sight, seems like a loophole that could allow unscrupulous owners to cause severe damage to a football club. (I've now removed my tin foil hat)
  13. Leaving aside that it's Norwich and Attanasio, it's remarkable that an individual who has not passed the EFL's Owners and Directors test can reportedly (via his apparent involvement in football affairs) and actually (via his financing of the club) have such significant influence on a football club. I absolutely don't think that Attanasio is a wrong'un, but it's concerning that there could be a football club out there who could get unlucky with an unscrupulous owner and 'fall through the cracks' like Norwich seemingly are at the moment. P.S. I'm still of the view that Attanasio should have been required to pass the Owners and Directors Test (not just the Directors Test) in September 2022 when the Shareholders' Agreement was entered into.
  14. Something to bear in mind, those sums spent on wages and transfers were for a team that were relegated. Those would have been substantially higher if Norwich had stayed up. Both player bonuses as well as transfer add-ons would have been due.
  15. I think you should be able to sign up for a free trial to Swiss Ramble's substack and cancel (if you choose to) before the first payment. @PurpleCanary is correct r.e. directors (Zoe Webber's) remuneration. A few things jumped out at me (among others): The highest ever wage bill for a relegated club in history (and as I mentioned last year, spending on wages being similar to many 'established' premier league sides. Kieran Maguire mentioned on a recent Price of Football podcast that only Man United did worse on a £wage per goal than Norwich. The club spent more on wages and transfers than Brentford (recall the narrative pushed around that). That last years' revenue was the second highest in Championship history. That last years' wage bill was the the fourth highest to not achieve promotion behind Villa x 2 and Bournemouth (both clubs, if I recall, effectively broke FFP in getting promoted). It would have been even higher if the club had been promoted due to bonuses.
×
×
  • Create New...