Jump to content
hogesar

New Board Director Confirmed - Mark Attanasio

Recommended Posts

On 08/09/2022 at 16:59, PurpleCanary said:

But even if the C preference shares had a real as opposed to a nominal value, and that value was expressed, it still would not help being precise about the actual redemption payment because you would still not know how many shares the person concerned had bought at £1 or £30 or £100 or whatever. 

An obvious answer is that these articles have been drawn up on the expectation or even knowledge that it is Attanasio - and perhaps only Attanasio - who will be buying these shares and it is expected or known that he is buying exactly £10m worth. In other words these articles relate to one transaction.

In all probability, yes. Interesting to note that the 2021 Balance Sheet shows that the Club holds £11.4 million Ordinary Share money and £1.4 million Preference share money so the £10 million would equal up these figures. The latter primarily in Attanasio's hands gives him comparatively high reward for lower risk money with the Supporters capital being the other way about. Therefore let's hope we move to stage 2 fairly quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Decided not to vote on something I literally don't have a scooby about. Last time I did that was Brexit and I still don't have a clue about that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nutty nigel said:

Decided not to vote on something I literally don't have a scooby about. Last time I did that was Brexit and I still don't have a clue about that.

 

And me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

Decided not to vote on something I literally don't have a scooby about. Last time I did that was Brexit and I still don't have a clue about that.

 

I am afraid in this particular case whether you vote or not will change nothing. 

The decision is a majority one, so I am afraid only two shareholders votes de-facto count and it isn’t you or I (or indeed @Kathy ).

All the window dressing in the world does not change the fact that the current majority shareholders are deciding the suitability-sustainability-direction of the future of the club. 

It is a very large decision and a fundamentally important one. I am quite sure that they both realise that.

The only inter-connected questions I would ask are these:

’Over the years, was this the option that you dreamed of?’ (An American football Club owner)

If it wasn’t then:

’Is it the paradigm shift in football finances that has lead us to this point?’

If that is so then:

’Has hitting the glass ceiling of the model lead to a dilution of purity in the choice of successor?’

Any Due Diligence will not be able to meaningfully control the choice of buyer after the next buyer (that is the real danger here). 

None of this makes any difference of course. It is - in effect - a private transaction. 

Parma 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

I am afraid in this particular case whether you vote or not will change nothing. 

The decision is a majority one, so I am afraid only two shareholders votes de-facto count and it isn’t you or I (or indeed @Kathy ).

All the window dressing in the world does not change the fact that the current majority shareholders are deciding the suitability-sustainability-direction of the future of the club. 

It is a very large decision and a fundamentally important one. I am quite sure that they both realise that.

The only inter-connected questions I would ask are these:

’Over the years, was this the option that you dreamed of?’ (An American football Club owner)

If it wasn’t then:

’Is it the paradigm shift in football finances that has lead us to this point?’

If that is so then:

’Has hitting the glass ceiling of the model lead to a dilution of purity in the choice of successor?’

Any Due Diligence will not be able to meaningfully control the choice of buyer after the next buyer (that is the real danger here). 

None of this makes any difference of course. It is - in effect - a private transaction. 

Parma 

Your third question may or may not be true @Parma Ham's gone mouldy. There is another option, they are both getting old and maybe lack the energy for the fight. However, passing the club to their nephew is pretty much a poison chalice. One bad season without the accumulated good will S&J have built up would lead to the poor man being monstered in a massive pile on from the usual suspects. Without casting aspertions on the Trust who do good work, there is no obvious signs that the fanbase have the strategies to make a success if the club was gifted to them. MA may offer a way to free themselves from the burden by passing the baton to someone they trust. As you point out there is no guarantees after. Lets hope the Delia outers don't live to regret getting their wish and we end up looking back at this era as the peak of openness, transparency and communication.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BigFish said:

Your third question may or may not be true @Parma Ham's gone mouldy. There is another option, they are both getting old and maybe lack the energy for the fight. However, passing the club to their nephew is pretty much a poison chalice. One bad season without the accumulated good will S&J have built up would lead to the poor man being monstered in a massive pile on from the usual suspects. Without casting aspertions on the Trust who do good work, there is no obvious signs that the fanbase have the strategies to make a success if the club was gifted to them. MA may offer a way to free themselves from the burden by passing the baton to someone they trust. As you point out there is no guarantees after. Lets hope the Delia outers don't live to regret getting their wish and we end up looking back at this era as the peak of openness, transparency and communication.

I think I’d make a further point Big. As @PurpleCanary has repeatedly said - whilst entirely entitled - the passing of the reins to Tom always looked an uncomfortable, and thus unlikely, scenario. 

Nonetheless - as I referred to multiple times in the past - the accumulated gains on the original investment were and are significant. It was and is material. Whether it was intended, wanted, planned for or otherwise was always likely to be moot when the moment for change - or suitable opportunity - arose.

There is nothing wrong with this. It is an entirely equitable outcome and a product of buying at a good time for a low price. The rescue was - I think we would nearly all agree - heartfelt and conducted as genuine, passionate fans. 

Though here we are - selling to an American football club owner for reasonable market rates, with reasonable market gains. 

I repeat, there is nothing wrong with that. Though the sustainable model, previously prudence with ambition, bonds for training ground improvements have arguably been a necessity as much as a strategic choice. All the while such gains existed, accumulated, gained in value. Unrealised, unleveraged. 

The original purchase, plus the significant material gain on share value, has further lead to a scenario whereby the handover of the club is an anointment. 

Whatever the intention, motivation or belief, that is all quite sizeable power and influence over the history of Norwich City. 

What happens to the money - in light of the model, multiple premier opportunities over the years, community ethos -  is quite a material question now isn’t it? Does the Trust have a role @GMF ?

Parma 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/09/2022 at 22:41, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

I think I’d make a further point Big. As @PurpleCanary has repeatedly said - whilst entirely entitled - the passing of the reins to Tom always looked an uncomfortable, and thus unlikely, scenario. 

Nonetheless - as I referred to multiple times in the past - the accumulated gains on the original investment were and are significant. It was and is material. Whether it was intended, wanted, planned for or otherwise was always likely to be moot when the moment for change - or suitable opportunity - arose.

There is nothing wrong with this. It is an entirely equitable outcome and a product of buying at a good time for a low price. The rescue was - I think we would nearly all agree - heartfelt and conducted as genuine, passionate fans. 

Though here we are - selling to an American football club owner for reasonable market rates, with reasonable market gains. 

I repeat, there is nothing wrong with that. Though the sustainable model, previously prudence with ambition, bonds for training ground improvements have arguably been a necessity as much as a strategic choice. All the while such gains existed, accumulated, gained in value. Unrealised, unleveraged. 

The original purchase, plus the significant material gain on share value, has further lead to a scenario whereby the handover of the club is an anointment. 

Whatever the intention, motivation or belief, that is all quite sizeable power and influence over the history of Norwich City. 

What happens to the money - in light of the model, multiple premier opportunities over the years, community ethos -  is quite a material question now isn’t it? Does the Trust have a role @GMF ?

Parma 

 

 

A few points. My indeed oft-expressed view that the Nephew Plan was very much not set in stone was based not on any inside knowledge but on having worked for a Footsie-100 company and finding, despite supposedly world-class business people in charge, that 10 year plans rarely lasted for anything like a decade and that even simple binary choices for the next CEO could be got badly wrong.

I think Parma summed it up most pithily by saying it was essentially just fallback – that it was only the plan until a better one came along. Which may be the case now.

What is remarkable is that despite S&J and senior people at Carrow Road and Attanasio having been in serious talks for months, and with at least one highly significant private sale being involved, and a brokerage firm involved in more than one such deal, absolutely nothing leaked out.

The first indication was that parade of the seven at Carrow Road in May, and even that was apparently not intended as a public sign. As I understand it the club’s press office thought either that no-one would notice or that if they did the local media could be persuaded to keep quiet. I don’t know what the background is of the head of communications but if that is true then perhaps it doesn’t include enough experience of the real world of journalism.

Parma’s paragraphs two to seven are a succinct summary of how a deal with Attanasio would potentially pan out well financially for S&J. Bearing in mind that I don’t believe they for a moment acted over the last 25 or so years with that in mind.

I don’t know whether the Canaries Trust will have a significant role to play, but there is a fun-filled if rather Panglossian counter-intuitive future scenario.

Attanasio ends up buying the club and takes it private, by way of acquiring 100 per cent ownership of the Ordinaries. An end to AGMs and the start of complaints of a lack of openness and consultation.

But it turns out what is said about his stewardship of the Brewers is true, and he really does believe in community participation. And happily at the same time the currently pie-in-the-sky movement for shadow boards and supporter-directors gets some serious political support. Attanasio decides the board could do with a fan-elected director.

Which in practical terms is more useful? A PLC with AGMs at which questions get batted away and consultations with groups of fans that produce only non-binding decisions, or a private company that doesn’t hold AGMs but has a supporter-director with some albeit limited golden-share veto powers?

I did say it was an overly optimistic scenario, but it could to an extent come true.

Edited by PurpleCanary
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

I think I’d make a further point Big. As @PurpleCanary has repeatedly said - whilst entirely entitled - the passing of the reins to Tom always looked an uncomfortable, and thus unlikely, scenario. 

Nonetheless - as I referred to multiple times in the past - the accumulated gains on the original investment were and are significant. It was and is material. Whether it was intended, wanted, planned for or otherwise was always likely to be moot when the moment for change - or suitable opportunity - arose.

There is nothing wrong with this. It is an entirely equitable outcome and a product of buying at a good time for a low price. The rescue was - I think we would nearly all agree - heartfelt and conducted as genuine, passionate fans. 

Though here we are - selling to an American football club owner for reasonable market rates, with reasonable market gains. 

I repeat, there is nothing wrong with that. Though the sustainable model, previously prudence with ambition, bonds for training ground improvements have arguably been a necessity as much as a strategic choice. All the while such gains existed, accumulated, gained in value. Unrealised, unleveraged. 

The original purchase, plus the significant material gain on share value, has further lead to a scenario whereby the handover of the club is an anointment. 

Whatever the intention, motivation or belief, that is all quite sizeable power and influence over the history of Norwich City. 

What happens to the money - in light of the model, multiple premier opportunities over the years, community ethos -  is quite a material question now isn’t it? Does the Trust have a role @GMF ?

Parma 

 

An element of crystal ball gazing here, about the future, not least because we’ve yet to hear anything so far from Attanasio himself throughout the whole process to date. Therefore, to answer your final question @Parma Ham's gone mouldy I suppose is best answered by looking elsewhere. Have the supporters trusts at the likes of Arsenal, Manchester United, Liverpool, Manchester City and Leicester disappeared as a result of their changes in ownership? The answer is no, but, equally, their respective roles have undoubtedly evolved as a consequence. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, GMF said:

An element of crystal ball gazing here, about the future, not least because we’ve yet to hear anything so far from Attanasio himself throughout the whole process to date. Therefore, to answer your final question @Parma Ham's gone mouldy I suppose is best answered by looking elsewhere. Have the supporters trusts at the likes of Arsenal, Manchester United, Liverpool, Manchester City and Leicester disappeared as a result of their changes in ownership? The answer is no, but, equally, their respective roles have undoubtedly evolved as a consequence. 

Both ends of the spectrum Gary show that Man Utd Trust have 200,000 members and Arsenal have 1,000 . The Canaries Trust sit nowhere within those numbers by some distance. Man City and Liverpool both have a larger number of Official Supporters Clubs than the membership numbers of yourselves.

You are comparing apples with pears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TIL 1010 said:

Both ends of the spectrum Gary show that Man Utd Trust have 200,000 members and Arsenal have 1,000 . The Canaries Trust sit nowhere within those numbers by some distance. Man City and Liverpool both have a larger number of Official Supporters Clubs than the membership numbers of yourselves.

You are comparing apples with pears.

It’s only apples and pears if you benchmark it exclusively by numbers - I didn’t do so, you did.

Likewise, it’s no great surprise that the big six clubs have more members than us, frankly I’d be shocked if they didn’t. But the point that I made, which you’ve ignored, and this is based upon actually knowing some of the fans involved at other trusts, is that their roles have definitely evolved following ownership changes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, GMF said:

It’s only apples and pears if you benchmark it exclusively by numbers - I didn’t do so, you did.

Likewise, it’s no great surprise that the big six clubs have more members than us, frankly I’d be shocked if they didn’t. But the point that I made, which you’ve ignored, and this is based upon actually knowing some of the fans involved at other trusts, is that their roles have definitely evolved following ownership changes. 

Forget the Big 6 ( i understand Man City who you quoted don't even have a Supporters Trust ) but clubs far smaller than Noriwch namely Reading, Exeter and Dundee have between 3,000 and 7,000 members.That begs the question why numbers which of course you will not disclose even to your members are so low here at Norwich City.As for me using numbers as a benchmatk the Canaries Trust have been willy waving for the last year or so with regard to the number of shares held with the latest proclamation of being the 6th largest shareholder preceeded by publicity on social media in the days before the official announcement.

 

Edited by TIL 1010

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The key point as expressed by Purple and Parma concerns fan representation. It would be good to hear the views of the Board on the subject of the Crouch recommendations. If they approve of strengthening the Canaries Trust, they could help that happen. If they are not keen on that there are still other possibilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, essex canary said:

The key point as expressed by Purple and Parma concerns fan representation. It would be good to hear the views of the Board on the subject of the Crouch recommendations. If they approve of strengthening the Canaries Trust, they could help that happen. If they are not keen on that there are still other possibilities.

Seeing as the current board is being very discrete about significant financial reengineering of the club it is unlikely they would have anything they are willing to share at this point. As for the Crouch report, to mix metaphors it is already dead in the water and gathering dust on the shelf. This needs legislation and I can't see a small government anti-regulation Truss government having the time or the inclination to do anything in this area.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, essex canary said:

The key point as expressed by Purple and Parma concerns fan representation. It would be good to hear the views of the Board on the subject of the Crouch recommendations. If they approve of strengthening the Canaries Trust, they could help that happen. If they are not keen on that there are still other possibilities.

Was not the OSP formed by the club as a result of a recommendation of the Crouch report ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BigFish said:

Seeing as the current board is being very discrete about significant financial reengineering of the club it is unlikely they would have anything they are willing to share at this point. As for the Crouch report, to mix metaphors it is already dead in the water and gathering dust on the shelf. This needs legislation and I can't see a small government anti-regulation Truss government having the time or the inclination to do anything in this area.

No, there is zero chance of this government doing anything, or probably the next government, which will have its hands full with the economy et al. But some years in the future, especially if there is some football scandal that could have been prevented by better corporate governance, the pressure for change could increase. And of course individual clubs don't have to wait for legislation. They can act unilaterally.

Meanwhile, with tonight's vote is it 75 per cent of the total shareholdings, which is what I assume, or 75 per cent of the shareholdings actually being voted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

Was not the OSP formed by the club as a result of a recommendation of the Crouch report ?

I'm pretty sure the foundation of the OSP predates the findings of the Crouch Report as we discussed it in a meeting late last year.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, ncfcstar said:

I'm pretty sure the foundation of the OSP predates the findings of the Crouch Report as we discussed it in a meeting late last year.

I stand corrected then but it shows the club have become somewhat more proactive with fan engagement than some suggest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

I stand corrected then but it shows the club have become somewhat more proactive with fan engagement than some suggest.

In reviewing my copy of 'the Archive' perhaps the entries for 14 December 1996, 10 January 1997 and 16 February 1998 are far better examples of fan engagement than any observed recently. 

I suspect that the OSP was Ben Kensell's parting initiative?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, essex canary said:

The key point as expressed by Purple and Parma concerns fan representation. It would be good to hear the views of the Board on the subject of the Crouch recommendations. If they approve of strengthening the Canaries Trust, they could help that happen. If they are not keen on that there are still other possibilities.

Theres plenty of fans engagement, we have the Supporters Panel,  lots of fans groups,  lots more fan engagement than other clubs have.

Re the Trust how do you propose they are strengthened? , they've been going for 20 years, have a large committee with experienced people on it, so are doing the best for their members,  but with only 1:5% of the shareholding are limited I suspect? 

Assume as uve posted on this thread more than anyone else youre going go the meeting  tonight ?

Edited by Diane
Spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Diane said:

Theres plenty of fans engagement, we have the Supporters Panel,  lots of fans groups,  lots more fan engagement than other clubs have.

Re the Trust how do you propose they are strengthened? , they've been going for 20 years, have a large committee with experienced people on it, so are doing the best for their members,  but with only 1:5% of the shareholding are limited I suspect? 

Assume as uve posted on this thread more than anyone else youre going go the meeting  tonight ?

I am at meeting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From today's EDP;

What's key to note is that these 'C-preference' shares have a nominal aggregate value of £10,000,000, meaning that's how much the club will receive upon the sale of all of them.

No. It doesn't necessarily mean that at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

From today's EDP;

What's key to note is that these 'C-preference' shares have a nominal aggregate value of £10,000,000, meaning that's how much the club will receive upon the sale of all of them.

No. It doesn't necessarily mean that at all.

That was what I thought. Attanasio can pay £1bn for the £10m nominal value if he wants, he won't, but that was a crass statement in my view!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

That was what I thought. Attanasio can pay £1bn for the £10m nominal value if he wants, he won't, but that was a crass statement in my view!

Shef, as it happens it seems likely Attanasio is actually going to spend £10m but indeed that amount is not dictated by the nominal aggregate price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

I look forward to your notes on the meeting.

Sadly as dull as dishwater.

Re Resolution 1, I attempted to ask how the C Preference share proposal could be reconciled to the duty of equality of treatment of shareholders. The response was simply a reassertion of what was in the papers.

The same kind of response to somebody's question about the conversion process re Resolution 2.

Flat bat none engaging approach. About 40 people in attendance. Just under 500 proxy votes registered with 15 or thereabouts against for each Resolution.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Sadly as dull as dishwater.

Re Resolution 1, I attempted to ask how the C Preference share proposal could be reconciled to the duty of equality of treatment of shareholders. The response was simply a reassertion of what was in the papers.

The same kind of response to somebody's question about the conversion process re Resolution 2.

Flat bat none engaging approach. About 40 people in attendance. Just under 500 proxy votes registered with 15 or thereabouts against for each Resolution.

 

Someone on twitter said it was over by 6:15pm ?

 

Share this post


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

Someone on twitter said it was over by 6:15pm ?

 

Diane, did they say whether the resolutions were all passed?!

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...