Jump to content
hogesar

New Board Director Confirmed - Mark Attanasio

Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Using the classification at Note 23 of the Accounts, isn't it the case that the £10 million will not be classified as 'Equity interest' but as 'Interest in shares classified as financial liabilities?'

It will also be somewhat different to other financial liabilities entered into in the past such as B Preference Shares which have only been redeemable following promotion seasons and the loans given in the past by S&J&F. That is why I voted against and why I suspect Shef makes the comments he does.

There seem to be a fundamental error in the Clubs Accounts at Note 23 which has persisted for a number of years in that the entry for B Preference Shares does not cross reference to Notes 18 and 19 in the same way as for A Preference Shares. I think the entry in the 2021 Accounts Note 23 for B Preference Shares should have been £100 each for liability of (£"000) 1,419. 

Following on from the last point it is interesting that the number of B Preference Shares has been reported consistently at 14,186 for the last 3 years but is apparently now reported as 14,052. Having relinquished 50 myself in 2020, I queried this with the Club who admitted the error and said it would be corrected in 2021 Accounts. It wasn't!

Transposing 9,675 as 9,765. Really!

Note 8  of the AA's still claims that shareholding confirs 'Full' membership of the Club despite the fact that the Company Secretary has advised me that it doesn't apply to 'Away Membership' alongside informing me that they had issued 8 memberships on that basis which they would correct. Really!

Administrative attention to detail appalling. As Shef states there is a danger of this becoming serious.

You’re right, I should have said cash injection, which will be treated as a loan, repayable in 2029, unless, of course, they are converted to ordinary shares in due course.

The B-preference figure was correct in 2016, following promotion to the Premier League in 2015, but there’s been two redemptions since, in January 2020 and 2022.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, essex canary said:

Using the classification at Note 23 of the Accounts, isn't it the case that the £10 million will not be classified as 'Equity interest' but as 'Interest in shares classified as financial liabilities?'

It will also be somewhat different to other financial liabilities entered into in the past such as B Preference Shares which have only been redeemable following promotion seasons and the loans given in the past by S&J&F. That is why I voted against and why I suspect Shef makes the comments he does.

There seem to be a fundamental error in the Clubs Accounts at Note 23 which has persisted for a number of years in that the entry for B Preference Shares does not cross reference to Notes 18 and 19 in the same way as for A Preference Shares. I think the entry in the 2021 Accounts Note 23 for B Preference Shares should have been £100 each for liability of (£"000) 1,419. 

Following on from the last point it is interesting that the number of B Preference Shares has been reported consistently at 14,186 for the last 3 years but is apparently now reported as 14,052. Having relinquished 50 myself in 2020, I queried this with the Club who admitted the error and said it would be corrected in 2021 Accounts. It wasn't!

Transposing 9,675 as 9,765. Really!

Note 8  of the AA's still claims that shareholding confirs 'Full' membership of the Club despite the fact that the Company Secretary has advised me that it doesn't apply to 'Away Membership' alongside informing me that they had issued 8 memberships on that basis which they would correct. Really!

Administrative attention to detail appalling. As Shef states there is a danger of this becoming serious.

Just a warning - boring stuff follows, casual readers may safely ignore the following!

1. I would expect the C Shares to be classed (like the A & B Preference Shares) to be classed as a liability on the balance sheet (I think I had mentioned this in this thread a while ago). Although given the convertible element, the C Shares are, like you mention, somewhat different to the A & Bs.

2. Regarding note 23 in the accounts (assuming the numbers are correct, which they are not!), I don't think the note is incorrect. The note should show the nominal amount of the shares i.e. at £1. In liabilities, you would show the amount due i.e. the nominal plus premium which for the B Shares is £100 (£99 + £1) per share (I don't know what it is for the A Shares as that's well before my time). As such, note 23 shows £14k (i.e. £14,186) for the B Shares (nominal). Note 19 shows £1,419k (i.e. £1,418,600) for the B Shares liability.

3. Thank you for pointing out the error in the number of B Shares (something @GMF pointed out to me as well) - this puzzled me as I could not match the annual returns to the accounts. Following on from that, I imagine the mistake in the AoA was they thought the number of B shares was 14,000 due to looking at the latest statement of capital in which an additional 52 shares were redeemed and subtracting that from 14,052. But that 14,052 is after the redemption. Like you say, poor administration.

4. R.e. the memberships, didn't they years ago undermine this by creating different classes of membership? I can't remember now, but I recall a controversy a while ago. But it might be by memory failing me.

Edited by MrBunce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, MrBunce said:

Just a warning - boring stuff follows, casual readers may safely ignore the following!

1. I would expect the C Shares to be classed (like the A & B Preference Shares) to be classed as a liability on the balance sheet (I think I had mentioned this in this thread a while ago). Although given the convertible element, the C Shares are, like you mention, somewhat different to the A & Bs.

2. Regarding note 23 in the accounts (assuming the numbers are correct, which they are not!), I don't think the note is incorrect. The note should show the nominal amount of the shares i.e. at £1. In liabilities, you would show the amount due i.e. the nominal plus premium which for the B Shares is £100 (£99 + £1) per share (I don't know what it is for the A Shares as that's well before my time). As such, note 23 shows £14k (i.e. £14,186) for the B Shares (nominal). Note 19 shows £1,419k (i.e. £1,418,600) for the B Shares liability.

3. Thank you for pointing out the error in the number of B Shares (something @GMF pointed out to me as well) - this puzzled me as I could not match the annual returns to the accounts. Following on from that, I imagine the mistake in the AoA was they thought the number of B shares was 14,000 due to looking at the latest statement of capital in which an additional 52 shares were redeemed and subtracting that from 14,052. But that 14,052 is after the redemption. Like you say, poor administration.

4. R.e. the memberships, didn't they years ago undermine this by creating different classes of membership? I can't remember now, but I recall a controversy a while ago. But it might be by memory failing me.

Interesting comments re item 2 which may be correct. More than confusing though as to how there is a £99 premium on B Preference Shares which gets reflected in Creditors rather than the Share Premium Account Reserve. My logic, rightly or wrongly, was that Creditors is correct therefore Note 23 should align with that. Either way I am now unclear as to what is correct.

Re item 4 the introduction of away memberships 4 years ago hasn't been reflected in changes to the Articles of Association. Whether it should or shouldn't be isn't entirely clear given the Club's inconsistent responses to different individuals when asking about Away Membership in connection with shareholders.

Share this post


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

The AoA doesn't set out whether the C Preference shares would be owned by a single holder or multiple holders (I had initially thought perhaps a single holder when I saw an extract, but reading the whole AoA made that inference incorrect - there's an additional clause in effect saying you can read 'holder' as 'holders' if applicable).

We simply won't find out until either: (a) it's reported in the media; or (b) the allotment of shares form is filed at Companies House.

From professional experience I think it's likely that the C Shares will be held by a corporate entity. This entity will likely either be a UK Ltd owned by a Delaware LLC (or perhaps the UK Ltd might be owned by the investor). This is a common way for US investors to structure investments into the UK. Just before posting, I checked how Liverpool is owned and it is via this structure (UK Ltd owned by a Delaware LLC). Given Mr Attanasio's comments in his interview, I would wager the Delaware LLC (or whichever holding company) would be partly owned by him and partly owned by Richard Ressler, whom Mr Attanasio said was investing alongside him.

Thanks very much. I had noticed that in his interview Attanasio mentioned Ressler a few times. He was one of the seven at Carrow Road and the only one who wasn't either an Attanasio or a senior figure in the Milwaukee Brewers' organisation.

Apparently he and Attanasio go back as far as college days. His worth is estimated at a bit over $100m. Capt. Pants may be right that he will have a bit of a role in the future beyond simply having invested.

Share this post


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

We have already been through this with the Turners, so suspect the current Board think they are adequately prepared.

In any case, I would hope that the legal agreement ensures the safety of NCFC (any loan repayment being under manageable terms)  

This is on a different level to the Turners and if seven years hence the Club has a £15 million liability without any Premier League or Parachute money, a doubling of season ticket prices may need to be the solution ( not sure that would work).

Given that you refer to the 'current' Board and  in the light of Attanassio's own concern for the fans maybe he himself will be the best insurance policy we have got?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, essex canary said:

Interesting comments re item 2 which may be correct. More than confusing though as to how there is a £99 premium on B Preference Shares which gets reflected in Creditors rather than the Share Premium Account Reserve. My logic, rightly or wrongly, was that Creditors is correct therefore Note 23 should align with that. Either way I am now unclear as to what is correct.

Re item 4 the introduction of away memberships 4 years ago hasn't been reflected in changes to the Articles of Association. Whether it should or shouldn't be isn't entirely clear given the Club's inconsistent responses to different individuals when asking about Away Membership in connection with shareholders.

It wouldn't be reflected in the Share Premium account as the club class it as a liability. The bit about the A&Bs in note 23 is a disclosure, they don't come into the balance sheet there. The total amount £100 (£1+£99) is a liability as the club has to payback the total amount paid up for the shares on redemption under the AoA. The thing that gets me is that the trial balance won't add up given they are using incorrect numbers!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MrBunce said:

Just a warning - boring stuff follows, casual readers may safely ignore the following!

1. I would expect the C Shares to be classed (like the A & B Preference Shares) to be classed as a liability on the balance sheet (I think I had mentioned this in this thread a while ago). Although given the convertible element, the C Shares are, like you mention, somewhat different to the A & Bs.

2. Regarding note 23 in the accounts (assuming the numbers are correct, which they are not!), I don't think the note is incorrect. The note should show the nominal amount of the shares i.e. at £1. In liabilities, you would show the amount due i.e. the nominal plus premium which for the B Shares is £100 (£99 + £1) per share (I don't know what it is for the A Shares as that's well before my time). As such, note 23 shows £14k (i.e. £14,186) for the B Shares (nominal). Note 19 shows £1,419k (i.e. £1,418,600) for the B Shares liability.

3. Thank you for pointing out the error in the number of B Shares (something @GMF pointed out to me as well) - this puzzled me as I could not match the annual returns to the accounts. Following on from that, I imagine the mistake in the AoA was they thought the number of B shares was 14,000 due to looking at the latest statement of capital in which an additional 52 shares were redeemed and subtracting that from 14,052. But that 14,052 is after the redemption. Like you say, poor administration.

The A-preference shares don’t have an automatic redemption right, like the B-preference (and now C-preference) shares have. I believe that the last time A-preference shareholders were offered a right to redeem was back in the Chase era and, (although this is by no means certain) I think that the redemption price was a £1.00, equivalent to the notional value.

They are a bit like the old Government war time bonds, but whether that means that they should be treated in accounting terms any different to the B & C preference shares, I don’t personally know.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

This is on a different level to the Turners and if seven years hence the Club has a £15 million liability without any Premier League or Parachute money, a doubling of season ticket prices may need to be the solution ( not sure that would work).

Given that you refer to the 'current' Board and  in the light of Attanassio's own concern for the fans maybe he himself will be the best insurance policy we have got?

It really isn't.

In 2007/08 a £2.5m loan was approx 13% of NCFC income (and 95% of the club's TV income) 

This season a £15m loan will be approx 20% of NCFC income, and just 30% of TV income. Obviously these figures shrink (12% overall & 14% of TV income) if promoted.

And if, after seven years, NCFC are without any PL cash then Attanasio's input will clearly have done us no good!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, NewNestCarrow said:

🤔 Well at least it ain't public money hey? One for Ethics I think.

Still at least we know now Attanasio has acquired Foulgers shares and a few (unnamed) others. Drip, drip, drip. The full story surely can't be revealed by press releases by third parties surely?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, shefcanary said:

🤔 Well at least it ain't public money hey? One for Ethics I think.

Still at least we know now Attanasio has acquired Foulgers shares and a few (unnamed) others. Drip, drip, drip. The full story surely can't be revealed by press releases by third parties surely?

There’s nothing like a bit of good, old-fashioned openness, transparency and fan engagement… 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/09/2022 at 19:22, NewNestCarrow said:

It really isn't.

In 2007/08 a £2.5m loan was approx 13% of NCFC income (and 95% of the club's TV income) 

This season a £15m loan will be approx 20% of NCFC income, and just 30% of TV income. Obviously these figures shrink (12% overall & 14% of TV income) if promoted.

And if, after seven years, NCFC are without any PL cash then Attanasio's input will clearly have done us no good!

 

The Turnover ratio's aren't that different but the Turner's loan was declared as being interest free and repayable upon return to the Premier League which is a different risk prospect to 7% interest at a fixed 7 year time frame.

Share this post


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

There’s nothing like a bit of good, old-fashioned openness, transparency and fan engagement… 

Quite.

Perhaps the Harrogate firm has specialist skills that justify their appointment. Then again if we still had the likes of Roger Munby's fan roadshows we could ask the question as to whether the Club's Community credentials should have favoured a local firm.

Share this post


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

Quite.

Perhaps the Harrogate firm has specialist skills that justify their appointment. Then again if we still had the likes of Roger Munby's fan roadshows we could ask the question as to whether the Club's Community credentials should have favoured a local firm.

Personally, I have no issues with their location, as, ultimately it’s about choosing the right person for the job. And, maybe, there was a thought that using a local firm might increase the likelihood of news getting out (although that’s a pretty feeble argument, if used).

As for engagement, the whole process should evolve over the years. And, there’s always the danger, harkening back to what happened in the past, of being accused of being like the ‘history boys’ down the A140! 😜

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My sources tell me Attanasio has sent Truss and Kwarteng an encouraging "Carry on regardless" email. The further the pound falls against the dollar the cheaper Norwich City will be for him to buy.🤓

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

My sources tell me Attanasio has sent Truss and Kwarteng an encouraging "Carry on regardless" email. The further the pound falls against the dollar the cheaper Norwich City will be for him to buy.🤓

Trouble is, most of the longstanding season ticket holders will have no pensions to renew next season, and everyone else will have nothing left out of their paypackets to buy them instead. 😵💫

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, shefcanary said:

Trouble is, most of the longstanding season ticket holders will have no pensions to renew next season, and everyone else will have nothing left out of their paypackets to buy them instead. 😵💫

True, but Attanasio is going to deal with that problem anyway. Anyone who hits the pension age will be invited to tour Colney and be asked to step inside the Soccerbot, which is being re-engineered as a Logan's Run-style disintegration machine. Then the gaps in the stadium will be filled by pre-teens pressganged from local schools.😎

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/09/2022 at 09:17, PurpleCanary said:

Leaving aside the technicalities of this deal, and irrespective of how much money Attanasio might put in, immediately and perhaps later on, and even irrespective of whether this turns into a takeover, it is hard to see him joining the board as anything but a significant benefit.

Nonsense. Nothing is going to change. Attanasio himself has even declared that he is joining the board in order to play second fiddle to the Socialists, who will still therefore reign supreme. The only thing that will make Norwich City competitive at EPL level is an ongoing injection of money that will total hundreds of millions of pounds. He is not going to do that.The benefit of his involvement is therefore not significant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, wcorkcanary said:

 

More significant  than yours Vincey boy
  • Indeed, the capital ist lackey. 
  •  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Big Vince said:

Nonsense. Nothing is going to change. Attanasio himself has even declared that he is joining the board in order to play second fiddle to the Socialists, who will still therefore reign supreme. The only thing that will make Norwich City competitive at EPL level is employing the likes of Boris, Rees-Mogg and Rishi, those chaps know how to run a tight ship!! Plus they are rolling in cash, Boris even actually spaffed it up the wall in the flat at number 10! Glorious!

The Tories could even have their annual conference at Carrow Road! Huzzah! My two favourite things in the same place! BRAVO!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got lost with this thread after the shareholders meeting posts

So have the club actually confirmed which shareholdings Mark Attanasio  has bought in addition to the Foulgers family ones or if they haven't, will we find out at the AGM in Nov ?

 

Share this post


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

I got lost with this thread after the shareholders meeting posts

So have the club actually confirmed which shareholdings Mark Attanasio  has bought in addition to the Foulgers family ones or if they haven't, will we find out at the AGM in Nov ?

 

Diane, they are private transactions, so the club may never confirm them. But eventually the records will be updated and show how many Ordinary shares Attanasio, or a company of his, owns. And nerds such as me will also be able to spot which large private shareholdings, such as that of the old Trust, have disappeared from the list.

The accounts to be published in a month or so also list how many Ordinary shares the directors have, but Attanasio wasn't a director for the year in question, so it may only be the accounts for this season that show that.

Edited by PurpleCanary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Fantastic news, out with the old and in with the new. 

Bit harsh, Foulger was nothing but helpful for this club.

Really pleasing to see Attanasio is focussed initially on learning from two excellent football club owners.

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...