Mark Attanasio

[GMF 736]

8 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

This really is an excellent thread.

The foresightism on here seems to assume that this has to be a good fork in the road and taking ownership out of Norfolk and indeed the UK has to be a good thing. Let's hope the later hindsightism on here agrees. 

 

To be fair, we are only where we currently are because Michael Foulger decided to sell his shares. I don’t think anyone begrudges him that, he’s generally perceived to have served the Club well in over a quarter of a century.

And it’s not just NCFC that seem to be heading Stateside, many other clubs have already gone that way. 

MA has already talked openly about becoming further involved, so it really wouldn’t come as any great surprise if D&M decided to do the same at some point in the future.

At the moment, all fans can base their views of him upon is his lengthy association with the Brewers, which in itself is widely seen as positive.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

6 minutes ago, GMF said:

To be fair, we are only where we currently are because Michael Foulger decided to sell his shares. I don’t think anyone begrudges him that, he’s generally perceived to have served the Club well in over a quarter of a century.

And it’s not just NCFC that seem to be heading Stateside, many other clubs have already gone that way. 

MA has already talked openly about becoming further involved, so it really wouldn’t come as any great surprise if D&M decided to do the same at some point in the future.

At the moment, all fans can base their views of him upon is his lengthy association with the Brewers, which in itself is widely seen as positive.

I'm sure MA wouldn't talk openly about further involvement if D&M weren't already on board with such talk.

And what's in the public domain now is most probably old news in reality.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

3 hours ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

@PurpleCanary ‘events dear boy’ events absolutely yes, though certainly not the ‘que sera, sera’ predestination absolutism of others.

You do not have to hit every iceberg that you initially steer towards. 

Thia is a monumentally important decision in the very history of Norwich City. This decision could easily be a very notable fork in the historic road. I make a living from foresightism, not hindsightism. Those who complain that righteous views of others are post hoc, miss the importance of proctor hoc discussions like this one. 

There is a rather strange Weltschmerzen weariness about it on here, when other -seemingly rather trivial - issues create perhaps ill-deserved animation. 

The ‘who owns the club is above my head’ mentality is rather odd. 

Whose club is it?

Parma

It is arguable, but I posted a few weeks back that this potential takeover would probably be the most significant financial/footballing event since the 1956-57 season.

The club had spent the 10 postwar seasons in Division 3 South. In 1956-57 it finished bottom and had to seek re-election. There was no automatic relegation to non-league football then, but it was feared that if we finished bottom the next season we would be chucked out. On top of that the club didn't have the money to pay a £500 wage bill. No, really - £500. Liquidation was seen by the investigating sub-committee as a possible outcome/solution before being rejected.

There was a public appeal for money, with Arthur South prominent, and an energising new board of directors, including Geoffrey Watling. So two key figures into the picture. We finished in the top half of the table the following season and so went into Division Three rather than Four, cruelly missed out on an FA Cup final, and got promoted to Division 2 in 1959-60. Since when we have spent one solitary season out of 63 out of the top two divisions, and no fewer than 27 in what had been the terra incognita of the top flight.

Other events spring to mind, and particularly the decision not to have anything to do with Cullum's takeover proposal. Which looked wise at the time and wiser still given what not long afterwards happened to Cullum's business.

[chicken 2,604]

5 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

Other events spring to mind, and particularly the decision not to have anything to do with Cullum's takeover proposal. Which looked wise at the time and wiser still given what not long afterwards happened to Cullum's business.

The fact that there are still some people who argue that Callum's offer was a good one and shouldn't have been dismissed out of hand as easily as it was is utterly bonkers. It was a micky take and a very strange offer and one, even without hindsight, that looked utterly daft.

[king canary 7,578]

10 hours ago, chicken said:

The fact that there are still some people who argue that Callum's offer was a good one and shouldn't have been dismissed out of hand as easily as it was is utterly bonkers. It was a micky take and a very strange offer and one, even without hindsight, that looked utterly daft.

When Cullum bid I was 20 years old and just thought 'woo money!' 

With hindsight it does look like a very strange offer. 

[BigFish 1,986]

56 minutes ago, king canary said:

When Cullum bid I was 20 years old and just thought 'woo money!' 

With hindsight it does look like a very strange offer. 

You weren't alone in that, a lot of people thought woo money, many of whom were old enough to know better.

Pretty much the same behaviour still continues, although it must be said that the MA situation looks far more measured.

[essex canary 491]

On 07/12/2022 at 17:04, NewNestCarrow said:

Very much this.

 

 

 

It is very difficult to make truly accurate financial comparisons between Brewers & NCFC, but here are the best figures I can find:

 

 

 

Season income:  NCFC (in the PL) =  GBP £134m         Brewers = GBP £221m

 

Income / by fans attending home games:  NCFC =  £263          Brewers = £200

 

TV income / by fans attending home games:  NCFC = £92       Brewers = £44

 

Ticket income / by fans attending home games:  NCFC = £21       Brewers = £24.76 (based on Philly guy’s USD30 average)

 

 

 

So NCFC are doing pretty well, in terms of revenue per seat.

 

 

 

Things the guy from Philly didn't quite get right:

 

- Milwaukee's metropolitan population of 1.5m is some 60% larger than Norfolk's 900k.
- Building an extended Main Stand is absolutely not a "short term" cost. Each new seat could cost some £8,000, meaning it would need to occupied for c.200 matches before paying for itself.  (I’ll also bet he doesn’t understand that public-subsidy is virtually unheard-of for new-build football stadia in the UK)

 

 - He suggests car parking is a valuable revenue-stream. It may be in the US, but I can’t see any new car parks being built around Carrow Road!

 

 

 

 

 

The article and my posting was focusing on non-broadcasting income because broadcast income is clearly hugely variable depending on PL, Championship, parachute whatever.

I suspect £21 per match ticket income is derived from £10.7 million declared as such in the 2022 Accounts?

I suspect that doesn't include Commercial ticket matchday income which I think would take the figures to around £15 million and £30 average per match ticket.

All non-broadcast turnover was £33 million last year. Probably less in Championship but perhaps broadly twice matchday income. 

If your Brewers figures are correct, how much scope does the Club really have for increases?

 

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

12 hours ago, chicken said:

The fact that there are still some people who argue that Callum's offer was a good one and shouldn't have been dismissed out of hand as easily as it was is utterly bonkers. It was a micky take and a very strange offer and one, even without hindsight, that looked utterly daft.

There was a particular factor for some which was a hatred - and I don't think that is too strong a word - of Delia. Any takeover that got her out was by definition good. No need to examine it dispassionately. This was certainly true on the club's message-board where there was a clique of half a dozen or so haters.

I had been regarded there as just another poster but when I published my account/explanation of Cullumgate I immediately became the object of a bit of abuse. Nothing that I couldn't laugh off. But it turned surreal when the clique decided I didn't exist and it was all the work of the club's PR department. Which was a compliment in a way.

In the end Joe Ferrari took the unusual step of posting himself, to say that I was a real person and that his department had certainly not been involved (which it hadn't been). To which the sort-of leader of this group of the not-so bright replied: "Oh come on, Joe. We all know it's you!"

[Grumpy 122]

I have been away from this site and the EDP for some time so there has been a lot of catching up to do.

However after ploughing through the first page of this topic I am afraid that enough is enough.

WTF are you all talking about.

Much as I would like to know what supporters think is the motivation behind the investment of MA I am afraid that your 'corporate finance' language has gone right over my head. 

Simply put - Does he want to take over and run the show

 

 

[GMF 736]

31 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

There was a particular factor for some which was a hatred - and I don't think that is too strong a word - of Delia. Any takeover that got her out was by definition good. No need to examine it dispassionately. This was certainly true on the club's message-board where there was a clique of half a dozen or so haters.

I had been regarded there as just another poster but when I published my account/explanation of Cullumgate I immediately became the object of a bit of abuse. Nothing that I couldn't laugh off. But it turned surreal when the clique decided I didn't exist and it was all the work of the club's PR department. Which was a compliment in a way.

In the end Joe Ferrari took the unusual step of posting himself, to say that I was a real person and that his department had certainly not been involved (which it hadn't been). To which the sort-of leader of this group of the not-so bright replied: "Oh come on, Joe. We all know it's you!"

But, but, but, it’s well known that Joe has a holiday home in the South France, having raided the hambag on more than one occasion! 🤣🤣🤣

[essex canary 491]

On 06/12/2022 at 16:00, shefcanary said:

It's not rocket science this.

Some on here recognised this had to be done once the proposed tightening of FFP wage ratios was announced.

Some indeed (moi) argued it should have been done straight after the success of the Colney Bond proved there is finding support for such a rebuild. To not have started then now looks almost criminal on the part of the existing board and executive, certainly negligent, given what other clubs have done in the interim.

The argument against on the basis there isn't the demand only holds up if we get relegated to League One (which some on here secretly crave). It has been proven time and again once you provide the extra capacity at a club where season tickets sell out regularly, new people are prepared to fill the space. Another argument re. affordability for existing and new fans is fading already. If started now the cost of living crisis will have dissipated by the time the re-development is complete.

Of course there is opposition from the City Standers but they can be relocated in a well developed and designed scheme.

In my view Attanasio has invested at the right time to ride the crest that will result. 

It has a payback period of 15 years or so. If nothing else they could have got people to finance their own seats with a long term purchase or bonds on behalf of others. 

If they had plugged in a sensible interest rate of 3 to 4 per cent or so it was clearly doable. The problem of course being the ridiculous interest rate they plugged into the bond scheme alongside the back stop to Attanasio with the shareholding initiative being the opposite.

As you state it isn't rocket science and when the executive wage bill is as high as it is, much more should be expected.

 

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

3 hours ago, Grumpy said:

I have been away from this site and the EDP for some time so there has been a lot of catching up to do.

However after ploughing through the first page of this topic I am afraid that enough is enough.

WTF are you all talking about.

Much as I would like to know what supporters think is the motivation behind the investment of MA I am afraid that your 'corporate finance' language has gone right over my head. 

Simply put - Does he want to take over and run the show

 

 

PROBABLY.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

On 08/12/2022 at 15:13, GMF said:

To be fair, we are only where we currently are because Michael Foulger decided to sell his shares. I don’t think anyone begrudges him that, he’s generally perceived to have served the Club well in over a quarter of a century.

And it’s not just NCFC that seem to be heading Stateside, many other clubs have already gone that way. 

MA has already talked openly about becoming further involved, so it really wouldn’t come as any great surprise if D&M decided to do the same at some point in the future.

At the moment, all fans can base their views of him upon is his lengthy association with the Brewers, which in itself is widely seen as positive.

Indeed. For £3.5m if Michael Bailey is correct. 

So that share gain really isn’t theoretical. So the discussion really is important then. 

So Delia and Michael do have a c£50m gain then. 

Anyone left who thinks Attanasio doesn’t realise all of this?

Parma 

[GMF 736]

14 hours ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

Indeed. For £3.5m if Michael Bailey is correct. 

So that share gain really isn’t theoretical. So the discussion really is important then. 

So Delia and Michael do have a c£50m gain then. 

Anyone left who thinks Attanasio doesn’t realise all of this?

Parma 

I’m genuinely not sure where MB got his £3.5m figure from, given that it was a private transaction. However, if true, there would be a significant price difference between his first transfer, on a price per share basis and the likely conversion price from C-preference to ordinary shares in seven years time.

Both, of course, are / would be valid transactions and, as I’ve alluded to before, maybe MA will be taking an overall view in the round, especially if his long term play is to also acquire the majority shareholding (with D&M’s agreement, of course) at some point in the future.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

1 hour ago, GMF said:

I’m genuinely not sure where MB got his £3.5m figure from, given that it was a private transaction. However, if true, there would be a significant price difference between his first transfer, on a price per share basis and the likely conversion price from C-preference to ordinary shares in seven years time.

Both, of course, are / would be valid transactions and, as I’ve alluded to before, maybe MA will be taking an overall view in the round, especially if his long term play is to also acquire the majority shareholding (with D&M’s agreement, of course) at some point in the future.

Indeed. I wonder if Delia - who is thoroughly decent - and quite possibly including Michael Foulger (as the reverse stalking horse), have created a scenario whereby they perhaps don’t get top price, but smaller shareholders do?

nota bene: MF shares @ c £30, Delia’s @ maybe similar, smaller shareholders @ c  £100 as per (vaguely) C preference.

This would be akin to the halfway house scenario I painted earlier, with Delia and MF getting a return, but not an exaggerated one (leaving something clearly in the pot for Attanasio and somewhat avoiding accusations of profiteering and/or previously under-leveraging) with many small shareholders making quite a dramatic % equity gain on their shares acting as a ‘soft landing’ for the new regime?

Parma 

What says you @GMF @PurpleCanary @essex canary @shefcanary @BigFish ?

@nutty nigel @Petriix @king canary

Edited December 10, 2022 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[nutty nigel 7,509]

2 minutes ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

Indeed. I wonder if Delia - who is thoroughly decent - and even to some degree including Michael have created a scenario whereby they perhaps don’t get top price, but smaller shareholders do?

nota bene: MF shares @ c £30, Delia’s @ maybe similar, smaller shareholders @ c  £100 as per (vaguely) C preference.

This would be akin to the halfway house scenario I painted earlier, with Delia and MF getting a return, but not an exaggerated one (leaving something clearly in the pot for Attanasio and somewhat avoiding accusations of profiteering and/or previously under-leveraging) with many small shareholders making quite a dramatic % equity gain on their shares acting as a ‘soft landing’ for the new regime?

Parma 

What says you @GMF @PurpleCanary @essex canary @shefcanary @BigFish ?

@nutty nigel @Petriix @king canary

This is how I see it Parma. It fits with what they've said all along. 

Where we are now, although it's news, has probably been a year or more in the making.

 

[shefcanary 2,385]

2 hours ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

Indeed. I wonder if Delia - who is thoroughly decent - and quite possibly including Michael Foulger (as the reverse stalking horse), have created a scenario whereby they perhaps don’t get top price, but smaller shareholders do?

nota bene: MF shares @ c £30, Delia’s @ maybe similar, smaller shareholders @ c  £100 as per (vaguely) C preference.

This would be akin to the halfway house scenario I painted earlier, with Delia and MF getting a return, but not an exaggerated one (leaving something clearly in the pot for Attanasio and somewhat avoiding accusations of profiteering and/or previously under-leveraging) with many small shareholders making quite a dramatic % equity gain on their shares acting as a ‘soft landing’ for the new regime?

Parma 

What says you @GMF @PurpleCanary @essex canary @shefcanary @BigFish ?

@nutty nigel @Petriix @king canary

I've also been perplexed by Bailey's figure, given the conversion price - they are so far apart as to render Bailey's figure ridiculous.  However there is merit for a reduced price for majority shareholders in a not quite a public company. I also wonder if a share for share arrangement in a multi-national sporting group may yet emerge? 🤔 Just to stir the pot a bit more! 

[BigFish 1,986]

3 hours ago, shefcanary said:

 I also wonder if a share for share arrangement in a multi-national sporting group may yet emerge? 

Now you are just being naughty 😀

I would add that if you and @GMF could share your workings when you post, the lazy amongst us would greatly appreciate it!

[shefcanary 2,385]

18 hours ago, BigFish said:

Now you are just being naughty 😀

I would add that if you and @GMF could share your workings when you post, the lazy amongst us would greatly appreciate it!

For once it's quite simple really. Attanasio's £10m C Shares can be converted to 10% of total ordinary share capital.Thus total value of all shares can be inputed as £10m x 10= £100m. Foulgers 18% under this scenario would be worth £18m. To have sold for only £3.5m seems a giveaway.

I can only hypothesise that Foulger may have originally paid £3.5m for these shares in total and Bailey has misquoted part of the deal (this approximates to £53 a share which also seems high given the 2004 flotation was valued at £25 per share 🤷‍♂️)? @TIL 1010 seems to be ITK as far as Foulger is concerned, perhaps he can add more? Appreciate he may not want to divulge confidential information though.

Edited December 11, 2022 by shefcanary

[GMF 736]

2 hours ago, shefcanary said:

For once it's quite simple really. Attanasio's £10m C Shares can be converted to 10% of total ordinary share capital.Thus total value of all shares can be inputed as £10m x 10= £100m. Foulgers 18% under this scenario would be worth £18m. To have sold for only £3.5m seems a giveaway.

I can only hypothesise that Foulger may have originally paid £3.5m for these shares in total and Bailey has misquoted part of the deal (this approximates to £53 a share which also seems high given the 2004 flotation was valued at £25 per share 🤷‍♂️)? @TIL 1010 seems to be ITK as far as Foulger is concerned, perhaps he can add more? Appreciate he may not want to divulge confidential information though.

@shefcanary @BigFish Conversion to 10% on a fully diluted basis is 616,913 (current number) / 90% x 100% = 685,459, gives 68,546 new ordinary shares. £10m / 68,546 = £145.88 per share.

Contrast MF selling 98,000 ordinary shares at MB’s suggested price of £3.5m = £35.71 per share.

That would give a combined average price of £13.5m / 166,546 = £81.06 per share.

[BigFish 1,986]

1 hour ago, GMF said:

@shefcanary @BigFish Conversion to 10% on a fully diluted basis is 616,913 (current number) / 90% x 100% = 685,459, gives 68,546 new ordinary shares. £10m / 68,546 = £145.88 per share.

Contrast MF selling 98,000 ordinary shares at MB’s suggested price of £3.5m = £35.71 per share.

That would give a combined average price of £13.5m / 166,546 = £81.06 per share.

Perfect @GMF, I understand the Maths. Thank you for taking the time.

 

[essex canary 491]

On 10/12/2022 at 10:57, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

Indeed. I wonder if Delia - who is thoroughly decent - and quite possibly including Michael Foulger (as the reverse stalking horse), have created a scenario whereby they perhaps don’t get top price, but smaller shareholders do?

nota bene: MF shares @ c £30, Delia’s @ maybe similar, smaller shareholders @ c  £100 as per (vaguely) C preference.

This would be akin to the halfway house scenario I painted earlier, with Delia and MF getting a return, but not an exaggerated one (leaving something clearly in the pot for Attanasio and somewhat avoiding accusations of profiteering and/or previously under-leveraging) with many small shareholders making quite a dramatic % equity gain on their shares acting as a ‘soft landing’ for the new regime?

Parma 

What says you @GMF @PurpleCanary @essex canary @shefcanary @BigFish ?

@nutty nigel @Petriix @king canary

That would be a thoroughly good solution from the viewpoint of minority shareholders. Still a good deal for MA. If he undertook the stadium expansion promptly it would set him up quite nicely with supporters.

[essex canary 491]

On 11/12/2022 at 12:04, shefcanary said:

For once it's quite simple really. Attanasio's £10m C Shares can be converted to 10% of total ordinary share capital.Thus total value of all shares can be inputed as £10m x 10= £100m. Foulgers 18% under this scenario would be worth £18m. To have sold for only £3.5m seems a giveaway.

I can only hypothesise that Foulger may have originally paid £3.5m for these shares in total and Bailey has misquoted part of the deal (this approximates to £53 a share which also seems high given the 2004 flotation was valued at £25 per share 🤷‍♂️)? @TIL 1010 seems to be ITK as far as Foulger is concerned, perhaps he can add more? Appreciate he may not want to divulge confidential information though.

If MF sold 98,200 shares for £3.5 million that would equate to a little over £35 per share. I believe he paid around £18 per share in 1996 so has almost doubled his money against that baseline though I believe he bought some of his shares later probably at a higher price.

£3.5 million for his shares still seems extremely low as would imply little over £20 million for the whole club.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

On 09/12/2022 at 13:56, GMF said:

But, but, but, it’s well known that Joe has a holiday home in the South France, having raided the hambag on more than one occasion! 🤣🤣🤣

True, but Joe could only afford the cheap end of the Cote d'Azur🏖️ because of all the money Watling had already walleted from the hambag...😍

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

If MF sold 98,200 shares for £3.5 million that would equate to a little over £35 per share. I believe he paid around £18 per share in 1996 so has almost doubled his money against that baseline though I believe he bought some of his shares later probably at a higher price.

£3.5 million for his shares still seems extremely low as would imply little over £20 million for the whole club.

When he bought 80,000 in 2010-11 he paid at least £25 a share and at most £30. About 1,000 other Ordinaries were were bought from the club that year and the accounts, while giving those two figures, doesn't of course say who paid what.

[essex canary 491]

22 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

When he bought 80,000 in 2010-11 he paid at least £25 a share and at most £30. About 1,000 other Ordinaries were were bought from the club that year and the accounts, while giving those two figures, doesn't of course say who paid what.

Thanks and point noted. In this years Amnual Report however those 80,000 shares related to his wider family rather than himself. Perhaps the £3.5 million was for his 18,200 shares which would be far closer to the principle of £10 million being equal to 10%, in his case £3.5 million being worth slightly less than 3% in that event or interpretation.

[essex canary 491]

On 11/12/2022 at 14:47, GMF said:

@shefcanary @BigFish Conversion to 10% on a fully diluted basis is 616,913 (current number) / 90% x 100% = 685,459, gives 68,546 new ordinary shares. £10m / 68,546 = £145.88 per share.

Contrast MF selling 98,000 ordinary shares at MB’s suggested price of £3.5m = £35.71 per share.

That would give a combined average price of £13.5m / 166,546 = £81.06 per share.

Three issues though with this 685,459 shares in issue supposition (assuming that is what it is as distinct from knowledge?)

1. Other shareholders would be diluted in a way that MF was not upon his sale.

2. The new Articles of Association do not explicitly state that the 10% shares would be additional to those already in issue so question whether they are adequate for purpose if this is indeed the intention?

3. Is there anything that could prevent the AA's being amended again, say to round up to 700,000 shares in issue and MA claiming 70,000 new ones with someone else claiming the 13,000 or so other new issues so as to keep his ownership below 30% and avoid any obligations to other minority shareholders?

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

Thanks and point noted. In this years Amnual Report however those 80,000 shares related to his wider family rather than himself. Perhaps the £3.5 million was for his 18,200 shares which would be far closer to the principle of £10 million being equal to 10%, in his case £3.5 million being worth slightly less than 3% in that event or interpretation.

GMF may know whether this is right or not, but I think the point is that irrespective of any family ownership Foulger had the voting rights for those 80,000 Ordinary shares (and indeed for his overall total of 98,200). If so then my guess would be that Attanasio has bought all or most of those 98,200 shares - at whatever price - to acquire those voting rights.

[GMF 736]

5 hours ago, essex canary said:

Three issues though with this 685,459 shares in issue supposition (assuming that is what it is as distinct from knowledge?) 

1. Other shareholders would be diluted in a way that MF was not upon his sale.

2. The new Articles of Association do not explicitly state that the 10% shares would be additional to those already in issue so question whether they are adequate for purpose if this is indeed the intention?

3. Is there anything that could prevent the AA's being amended again, say to round up to 700,000 shares in issue and MA claiming 70,000 new ones with someone else claiming the 13,000 or so other new issues so as to keep his ownership below 30% and avoid any obligations to other minority shareholders?

The conversion of the C-preference shares, to 10% diluted shares value, was explained by @MrBunce on another thread.

1. MF chose to sell his shares in 2022. There is no dilution of shares at this point, see 2 next, so your point isn’t really relevant.

2. That’s correct, there’s nothing in the new AA’s about the conversion, but that’s because authorisation to allocate the C-preference was passed by shareholders, by a resolution at the General meeting back on the 12 September. Those proposals included the option for the conversion in seven years time. If you approve an £10m equity injection, you can hardly complain about the possibility of a future dilution of equity in seven years time. Also, at the same meeting, another resolution, also passed by shareholders, approved the revised AA’s.

3. Absolutely no reason why the AA’s can’t be amended at some point in the future, but any significant alterations to the share capital would require a resolution, to be approved by shareholders, either at an AGM, or another general meeting.

[GMF 736]

4 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

GMF may know whether this is right or not, but I think the point is that irrespective of any family ownership Foulger had the voting rights for those 80,000 Ordinary shares (and indeed for his overall total of 98,200). If so then my guess would be that Attanasio has bought all or most of those 98,200 shares - at whatever price - to acquire those voting rights.

The confirmation statement, dated 11 October, contained no information about any share transfers at the September board meeting a few days before - of course, it’s possible that there weren’t any!

However, it was acknowledged at the subsequent AGM that the shareholder information contained in the annual report contained errors, considered to be minor and of no consequence.

I suspect, at that point, MF had either sold, or agreed to sell, all but a handful of his (and his family’s) shares. As a technicality, MF had retain at least 100 ordinary shares, given that he’s staying as a director until next summer, so, maybe, just a guess, he might have retained 200, giving MA a nice round 98,000. 😉