Mark Attanasio

[essex canary 492]

17 hours ago, GMF said:

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.

Perhaps a well written document would have explicitly stated that the authorised share figure is amended to 685,489?

Not exactly the height of democracy with a vote that attracted around 93% abstentions about 3 times as many as the Brexit proportion. 

Any subsequent vote would meet the 75% special resolution threshold regardless of the views of any shareholders outside the board.

 

[essex canary 492]

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.

Some of the discussion is nonetheless overplay.

Whilst Milwaukee County has a similar population to Norfolk, the area even including it's vast water expanse is only half the size of Norfolk therefore its immediate public is far more concentrated.

If the state of Wisconsin is considered it's population is about 6 times as large albeit in a land area greater than England and USA incomes are almost twice that of the UK.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/63957509

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/63982991

Does Bill Foley love Bournemouth?

I noted this bit: 

‘….If they could be secured as a top-flight club, the value of the asset would increase…’

Parma 

[nutty nigel 7,509]

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

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/63957509

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/63982991

Does Bill Foley love Bournemouth?

I noted this bit: 

‘….If they could be secured as a top-flight club, the value of the asset would increase…’

Parma 

I noticed that too. Problem is at least 30 clubs throw money at securing a place in the top flight. There's only at the most 17 so that in itself is unsustainable.

[BigFish 1,986]

11 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

I noticed that too. Problem is at least 30 clubs throw money at securing a place in the top flight. There's only at the most 17 so that in itself is unsustainable.

It is probably tighter than, there is probably 10 or so clubs that are pretty much assured EPL status due to their size and wealth. So those 30 clubs are probably trying to get 1 of 7 places.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

5 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

I noticed that too. Problem is at least 30 clubs throw money at securing a place in the top flight. There's only at the most 17 so that in itself is unsustainable.

The article states ‘Asset value increase’ as key.

This is the equity gain I have repeatedly indicated is key to the Attanasio deal.

It is not visible, but it is upon sale.

Delia could ‘pay it forward’ and not claim her current gain, though Attanasio could-would then cash it in upon future second sale (on top of whatever further value he adds).

Parma 

[chicken 2,604]

On 14/12/2022 at 14:41, essex canary said:

Some of the discussion is nonetheless overplay.

Whilst Milwaukee County has a similar population to Norfolk, the area even including it's vast water expanse is only half the size of Norfolk therefore its immediate public is far more concentrated.

If the state of Wisconsin is considered it's population is about 6 times as large albeit in a land area greater than England and USA incomes are almost twice that of the UK.

Are you talking about average incomes here? Because if you are, you are way off.

 

[chicken 2,604]

Quote

...and also the already enormous income from the Premier League's broadcasting contracts has not reached a ceiling.

This intrigued me.

It seemed pretty clear from the EFL rescue package and the proposal of the European Super League that top clubs felt that we were rapidly approaching that ceiling and wanted to create their own league where that ceiling wouldn't apply to them?

It's no secret that the owners of the so called "top 6" clubs feel that they are the main selling point of the Premier League and that they begrudge essentially losing revenue to smaller clubs who live off their coattails so to speak.

In more recent years, it's been pretty clear that what they are pointing at is streaming and the ability of any organisation to find a streaming platform to sell live feeds for absolutely anything through. You can reach everyone, in the world at exactly the same time. Opening up your club to pretty much any location from sitting on the bus to sitting on the toilet. In a bar to in your lounge.

I suspect that will be the way of things of the future. Some clubs already have had their own channels on various packages which are largely limited to the likes of Mustard TV with pre-game, half time and post game discussion etc as well as some club news.

[shefcanary 2,389]

11 hours ago, chicken said:

This intrigued me.

It seemed pretty clear from the EFL rescue package and the proposal of the European Super League that top clubs felt that we were rapidly approaching that ceiling and wanted to create their own league where that ceiling wouldn't apply to them?

It's no secret that the owners of the so called "top 6" clubs feel that they are the main selling point of the Premier League and that they begrudge essentially losing revenue to smaller clubs who live off their coattails so to speak.

In more recent years, it's been pretty clear that what they are pointing at is streaming and the ability of any organisation to find a streaming platform to sell live feeds for absolutely anything through. You can reach everyone, in the world at exactly the same time. Opening up your club to pretty much any location from sitting on the bus to sitting on the toilet. In a bar to in your lounge.

I suspect that will be the way of things of the future. Some clubs already have had their own channels on various packages which are largely limited to the likes of Mustard TV with pre-game, half time and post game discussion etc as well as some club news.

Maintaining access to your streaming platform is very difficult, also finding the sweet spot on price to maximise revenues will also be difficult. I would suspect a pricing model would be extremely difficult to achieve that maximised revenues without huge cost and additional infrastructure for the Big 6 et al, protecting access in all the worldwide markets would be extremely expensive, free internet streams of the product for the big guys would probably multiply and be ever more difficult to police. It may not actually work out for the big guys! However I have seen evidence elsewhere that for smaller clubs it may be easier to find the sweet spot to maximise their revenue streams above what they currently receive. Which route the EPL takes now will be interesting.

[essex canary 492]

13 hours ago, chicken said:

Are you talking about average incomes here? Because if you are, you are way off.

 

Many Internet sources quote median income in the USA as around 60,000 dollars compared to around £30,000 in the UK. Comparing like with like is open to interpretation. What do you dispute?

[chicken 2,604]

On 16/12/2022 at 13:34, essex canary said:

Many Internet sources quote median income in the USA as around 60,000 dollars compared to around £30,000 in the UK. Comparing like with like is open to interpretation. What do you dispute?

The majority I can find have the median US income as being $31k. Google certainly has that as the result if you just straight up google it and they take their info from reliable sources. That is pretty on par with the UK - that $ total is roughly £25,600.00-ish. 

I think what you are finding is the median HOUSEHOLD income - which is a tad different. The problem with ONS on this is that they say "average household disposable income" which is different again. As I am sure you are aware.

In reality if you look at average individual income you get a better picture. They are not too dissimilar. I believe the average UK individual income is something around £27k, so that immediately highlights the "disposable" aspect of the ONS information. If you look at a traditional arrangement of two earners in a household then it's fair to say the average household income is £54k or there abouts. Which is more than the US.

If you are looking at disposable income alone... you start entering into a whole other debate because not everything is the same level of cost in the US compared to the UK. Fuel being a great example. Equally, I used to find tech was far cheaper in the US, as could food and clothes be.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

Some friends and I were chatting about this again. Here are some of the thoughts for those who are interested

…’….I take zero pleasure in any of the current discontent and sporting decline. 

 I do also however think that Webber was highly compromised by our extreme zero external funds model. 

He was seemingly given too much of a corporate free rein - as x have all outlined  - and the  ‘We let our managers manage’ mantra has reared its daft head again. 

The difference this time is that the football momentum is a negative runaway train. I am afraid we have blown the budget, the momentum, the interesting (and historically successful) appreciated approach on the gamble and subsequent methodology change. 

And for what? To be Crystal Palace?

QED Attanasio. Not quite the rather ugly (and racist) phrase ‘camels coming down Carrow Road’…but a long, long way from the puritanically high scratching post that was set for would be owner-investors for the past 2 decades. 

I hope Delia doesn’t fudge her equity gain - which currently stands at around +£43m. She’s left herself in an awkward position. She either takes it and the £5m training ground bond, the sale of Buendia and the ‘We don’t want a penny’ look a bit daft, or she passively hands it on to Attanasio to cash in another day.  Even more ridiculous. 

It’s a huge issue and may be it is above Webber’s head. Though it is all absolutely central and fundamental to the forced decisions he had to make. And the position we find ourself in now. Any half-decent non-Exec would make the connection. 

It is a shame that there are not more sophisticated corporate finance minds engaged, because the effect on nexus point sporting decisions is far more acute than anyone sees or realises. 

All things are connected.

Make no mistake. Attanasio  will have his eye on all of it. He’s Smiling, credible, plausible, excited, family-oriented, food-lover, legacy-oriented…

…yes. I’d be all of that for £43m.

——-

On the tactical side I honestly think that there is almost zero chance of Webber forcing 433 on anyone.

I like Petriix and Shef, though I completely fail to see this one.

I can quite believe that 433 was the vision for the signings we made and the preferred idea for the premier season. It was a zeitgeist formation that Liverpool worked well with. 

I have advised repeatedly that nobody - not Liverpool or Man City - play with anything like chalk-on-the-boots wingers. It is strategic suicide even for the best. 

That we spent all the Buendia money on wingers and a striker who played wide (and actually defends wide quite a lot) is utterly bizarre to me. It didn’t work, but it couldn’t have. Ditto Gilmour popping it around freely in front of the defensive pairing á la a Paisley Pirlo. Again huge triumphs of wishful thinking over football reality. It looked flawed before a ball was kicked and even worse on grass. 

Farke simply cannot be excused his part in all of that, though he never wanted to lose Buendia, Skipp and he was by nature very collegiate. He knows the unwritten demarcation lines of the Sporting Director role and simply gave Webber too much flex. Webber thus certainly entered the green playing arena. 

433 is also a paper formula. It’s not really how coaches create patterns on the pitch. The only exception to that is if - and it can - paint pictures in the players minds about where they should be and how they should move in certain situations. You do not need to be a genius coach to sense that this could be a good or a bad thing (depending on the player in question).

Connecting to this last point, The future of player development and elite performance will come from something I have studied for the last 10 years (and am now writing a book connected to): neuroplasticity. The way that our grooved patterns fix us (‘neurons that wire together, fire together’) for good or ill.

This is where the sale of Buendia comes in and how it connects to other points about Webber. Webber calculates carefully,  though from the prism of his own mind, his own strongly-drawn red lines of certainty. He can easily create a well-reasoned argument - with a corollary list of justifying possible outcomes and negatives confirming his decision (say in the. case of Buendia) - though is commensurately unable to forecast the negative emotional effects on vast swathes of the squad left behind. 

Their subsequent ‘feeling’ - whether they ‘should’ feel that way or not, whether it is rational or not, whether it ‘ignores the noise’ or not - that all their hard work was wasted, the ground sold from beneath them, the club ambition limited, the finances ultra-restrictive, that the 2019 failure was NOT after all in preparation for a real go as promised, that the club is now on the slide, that ‘Guardiola won’t watch us anymore’.  

That is players for you.

They have an acute sense for the way the football wind is blowing. It can be irrational, over-sensitive, simplistic and ‘street-rat’ wise. But THEY are the talent. THEY are what we are here for. THEY get up on stage and make your visions real or unreal. 

Nobody sells a Buendia at the point of promotion for THIS reason. You can sell him at other times no problem. Those intangibles don’t sit well on spreadsheets (which I love too), though they MUST be factored in and factored in large.

The Cloughs and Fergusons probably did not study Neuroplasticity, though they instinctively placed it at the top of their agenda. Clough said ‘they come to me with false confidence, I strip that away and give them real confidence’. Ferguson said Beckham (ultra, ultra professional)  ‘had to be sold, because he was too big for the club’ though he indulged Cantona (chaotic, violent, tormented) far, far worse and let him be bigger than the club. I do not criticise it at all.  Wenger simply developed masterful ‘wilful blindness’ and simply didn’t see what didn’t suit. Actively, calculatedly, strategically. I do not criticise that at all either. It is football. These are hugely overpaid, hyper-competive, rich-beyond-Croesus, testosterone-fuelled young men. THEY are the talent that make the spreadsheets either tally or create circular references. 

An interesting subplot for context comes from a friend. FOI Government documents pertaining to COVID are interesting.  They are vast and detailed. They’ve been studied closely of course, as all are now free to do. What was incredibly, remarkably striking to my friend - though in retrospect, and despite his first reactions, quite logical - was the huge weight (majority directional weight) given to Behavioural science. 

Not pure Science. Not medical Science. Behavioural Science. 

In effect ‘we know what’s true, we know what’s necessary, we know what will-should happen’, THOUGH ‘this is how people will actually act’. So they redacted, amended, distorted somewhat the advice and largely based it on the realpolitik of what people would do-reckon-think despite largely knowing it was wrong-flawed-compromised. 

Webber massively, catastrophically underestimated the impact on the remaining  players (and their agents, friends and the wider footbal world and the ‘noise’ - which I note he could ignore then, though which he cannot now ignore even from fairly tepid local paparazzi) on what he already knew was a very fine line decision. He over-believed in his Midas touch. It was a huge self-justified gamble that even the much-lamented Smith would have made a back-me-or-sack-me moment. He sure as hell knows football momentum (and its black-hole sucking vortex opposite). Farke of course paid high for his collegiate nature (and inexperience?).

I long counselled for the Sporting Director model. I firmly believe it to be fundamentally important for a provincial club, with limited funding, a somewhat closed-shop catchment clientele and particularly with the benign, credulous, hugely decent, though occasionally cultish-minded fine owners we have. 

I dread the thought that the lovely Delia will fudge the equity gain issue and allow Attanasio to hoover some of it. There is absolutely no need for this. 

He makes his money spotting assets and corporate carcasses that have been under-rated by more conservative financial institutions. Whether he is good, bad or indifferent as a person is utterly irrelevant. 

Asking whether he could switch-off, disown, forget it, or just simply get so enthusiastic or excited about Norwich that he forgets-forgoes his 40 years of carcass-picking, would be like asking a writer to forget how to spell, or to lose her sense of syntax, or to write with poor punctuation. 

If I was Delia, I wouldn’t want Webber protecting my interests on that one. Though I hope someone is. 

Hugely ironically ‘what’s best for the club’ could be a hugely-influential argument over her. Both Webber and Attanasio could use it on her for different reasons. 

She could have leveraged the equity gain differently with different advice. Though she has ignored it right up to the point of sale. She did it out of decency, though now huge errors could easily be made and painted as something different. By people with differing agendas. Again. 

Equity gain as it pertains to Norwich-Delia is reasonably straightforward.

Regardless of intentions or motivations, you buy as asset (in this case the majority shares in a football club) for £8m.

You enjoy it for 25 years, then an American comes along who wants to buy it. 

He buys other shares from other private individuals at about £30 and takes a C-Preference deal (that buys him leverage, gives the club cash, creates an internal due diligence process for him and his team, and allows time for everyone to smell each other, that provides a pathway to a full buyout. Caveat: in my experience minds are typically made up already) for about £100 per share. 

This means your original purchase asset (the majority shareholding) is now worth a likely minimum of £51m (and of course potentially more, depending on how you negotiate and project the future).

So this is the equity gain. £51m (buyer to pay)  - £8m (original purchase investment) = £43m (‘profit’)

Now this is where the issue is. 

Delia never really wanted to think about this. Making a profit from the football club was ‘not her intention’. They were ‘never in it for the money’. She has - intentionally or otherwise - been the driver of the anti-sky, capitalism is bad, Football is crazy, self-sustaining model.

Because she didn’t have any more ready cash.  Because wages shot up. Because ‘camels came down (not Carrow) Maine Road’.

Except football clubs became hugely valuable assets. People wanted to buy them. People did and do pay billions for them. Delia couldn’t believe it or foresee it. Glazer was crazy. Borrowing was awful. Risky. Remember administration? Then Glazer bought for £0.5bn (with Man United’s money) and will now sell for £5bn??!!? So - once again - everything we know to be true is wrong. 

A Mike Ashley would be hammered for making a huge equity gain then making the fans fork out for a new training ground because the portakabins leak. 

I love and respect Delia, but that money was there. It can be used. Other owners leveraged the equity - in effect funded improvements and used it to fund the football club, keeping Buendia at a key point say - because they considered that they were investing in the asset they owned and it was gaining value because of their investment. They also used club money to do this too - and ‘underwrote the risk’ via their own funds and of course the equity gain.

Delia rejected these choices because she had no access to cash. She couldn’t risk leveraging the (theoretical-until-true) equity gain - like everyone else did. But she DID buy a football club. This IS the world she chose. 

All of this is actually a defence of Webber. He had to square some very difficult circles. 

Ironically of course it is the very Sky money that Delia despises that has kept Norwich sportingly competitive. 

The story of Webber, Farke, Smith cannot be told without the story of Delia. 

These are the corporate principles and economic drivers that create the fixed fence lines that dictate policy. That policy forces the imperfect compromises. 

Attanasio knows or senses all of this. As he has some access to funds, he does not have to force such autistically narrow operational lines. He can promise (and deliver) some flexibility. Some ‘keep Buendia-Skipp’ moments. Intoxicating . 

He likes stadiums. He might talk about expanding Carrow Road. He is excited and enthusiastic. He offers change. He offers a competitive future. 

Does he offer £51m? Does he offer £8m?

Delia owns a Ferrari she hasn’t - and can’t - put petrol in. 

Webber might be excited about what Attanasio can bring (him). Attanasio will encourage and groom him (until he doesn’t). 

If anyone - for any reason - takes less than £51m - that is like putting that cash into Attanasio’s pension pot (or his children’s trust fund). He will not feel guilty about that. 

Though of course Delia might. She will know how that will all be presented. Do you see how that sense of guilt might be used against her? By both Webber and Attanasio (though he will happily hide blind and innocent behind Webber if he thinks he’s pushing it the right way)

Delia is credulous, she rather loves a new Messiah. I worry for her….’….

Parma

Edited December 24, 2022 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[shefcanary 2,389]

@Parma Ham's gone mouldy I appreciate the considered post again Parma (I like you too BTW). I will bow to your better knowledge over the inner workings of football clubs about the imposition of tactics above, you alone on this board as far as I am aware, are qualified to provide a counter to my suggestion of Webber's control over playing matters. However forgive me if I still tend to believe he has more say under the current corporate model at the Carra' than he should.  Who is Smith to turn to when he hasn't given proof at Norwich of a better plan, given the current structure among the Board and Executive?

I do think everything you say on Delia's current predicament is true. At any other club, Attanasio would have completed the takeover, as if it is right what I have read, that dance began nearly 12 months ago. 

[Badger 2,405]

On 16/12/2022 at 13:34, essex canary said:

Many Internet sources quote median income in the USA as around 60,000 dollars compared to around £30,000 in the UK. Comparing like with like is open to interpretation. What do you dispute?

This data suggests that incomes are 50% bigger in the US than they are in the UK. 

https://www.worlddata.info/average-income.php

 

 

 

 

Edited December 23, 2022 by Badger

[essex canary 492]

5 hours ago, shefcanary said:

@Parma Ham's gone mouldy I appreciate the considered post again Parma (I like you too BTW). I will bow to your better knowledge over the inner workings of football clubs about the imposition of tactics above, you alone on this board as far as I am aware, are qualified to provide a counter to my suggestion of Webber's control over playing matters. However forgive me if I still tend to believe he has more say under the current corporate model at the Carra' than he should.  Who is Smith to turn to when he hasn't given proof at Norwich of a better plan, given the current structure among the Board and Executive?

I do think everything you say on Delia's current predicament is true. At any other club, Attanasio would have completed the takeover, as if it is right what I have read, that dance began nearly 12 months ago. 

Absolutely. Great stuff from Parma. I only hope that Delia reflects upon the offspring of those who have partnered her in shareholding all these yeara at least as much as Attanassio's child trust funds.

[essex canary 492]

4 hours ago, Badger said:

This data suggests that incomes are 50% bigger in the US than they are in the UK. 

https://www.worlddata.info/average-income.php

 

 

 

 

The Economist quotes USA GDP per capita as 76,190 dollars with the same Purchasing Power as against UK of 44,330 dollars with purchasing power of 55,900.

[chicken 2,604]

7 hours ago, essex canary said:

The Economist quotes USA GDP per capita as 76,190 dollars with the same Purchasing Power as against UK of 44,330 dollars with purchasing power of 55,900.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/median-income-by-country
This one has the UK at $49,931 Vs USA $51,668.

I also suspect that this difference is relatively recent with the dollar having gained against the £ and the cost of living crisis here and the strange state of affairs with the unemployment figures.

If you look up the average rather than median, it's much more like for like. But it does help to actually state what the hell it is you are quoting in the first instance.

The world bank has the UK at 37,334 and the US at 69,287. There appears to be wildly so much difference from source to source I'd almost suggest they are using different methods to reach it. Suffice to say it actually means very little when it comes to sports fans in any case.

 

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

Further cards laid.

Parma 

[Indy 3,284]

On 23/12/2022 at 11:56, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

Some friends and I were chatting about this again. Here are some of the thoughts for those who are interested

…’….I take zero pleasure in any of the current discontent and sporting decline. 

 I do also however think that Webber was highly compromised by our extreme zero external funds model. 

He was seemingly given too much of a corporate free rein - as x have all outlined  - and the  ‘We let our managers manage’ mantra has reared its daft head again. 

The difference this time is that the football momentum is a negative runaway train. I am afraid we have blown the budget, the momentum, the interesting (and historically successful) appreciated approach on the gamble and subsequent methodology change. 

And for what? To be Crystal Palace?

QED Attanasio. Not quite the rather ugly (and racist) phrase ‘camels coming down Carrow Road’…but a long, long way from the puritanically high scratching post that was set for would be owner-investors for the past 2 decades. 

I hope Delia doesn’t fudge her equity gain - which currently stands at around +£43m. She’s left herself in an awkward position. She either takes it and the £5m training ground bond, the sale of Buendia and the ‘We don’t want a penny’ look a bit daft, or she passively hands it on to Attanasio to cash in another day.  Even more ridiculous. 

It’s a huge issue and may be it is above Webber’s head. Though it is all absolutely central and fundamental to the forced decisions he had to make. And the position we find ourself in now. Any half-decent non-Exec would make the connection. 

It is a shame that there are not more sophisticated corporate finance minds engaged, because the effect on nexus point sporting decisions is far more acute than anyone sees or realises. 

All things are connected.

Make no mistake. Attanasio  will have his eye on all of it. He’s Smiling, credible, plausible, excited, family-oriented, food-lover, legacy-oriented…

…yes. I’d be all of that for £43m.

——-

On the tactical side I honestly think that there is almost zero chance of Webber forcing 433 on anyone.

I like Petriix and Shef, though I completely fail to see this one.

I can quite believe that 433 was the vision for the signings we made and the preferred idea for the premier season. It was a zeitgeist formation that Liverpool worked well with. 

I have advised repeatedly that nobody - not Liverpool or Man City - play with anything like chalk-on-the-boots wingers. It is strategic suicide even for the best. 

That we spent all the Buendia money on wingers and a striker who played wide (and actually defends wide quite a lot) is utterly bizarre to me. It didn’t work, but it couldn’t have. Ditto Gilmour popping it around freely in front of the defensive pairing á la a Paisley Pirlo. Again huge triumphs of wishful thinking over football reality. It looked flawed before a ball was kicked and even worse on grass. 

Farke simply cannot be excused his part in all of that, though he never wanted to lose Buendia, Skipp and he was by nature very collegiate. He knows the unwritten demarcation lines of the Sporting Director role and simply gave Webber too much flex. Webber thus certainly entered the green playing arena. 

433 is also a paper formula. It’s not really how coaches create patterns on the pitch. The only exception to that is if - and it can - paint pictures in the players minds about where they should be and how they should move in certain situations. You do not need to be a genius coach to sense that this could be a good or a bad thing (depending on the player in question).

Connecting to this last point, The future of player development and elite performance will come from something I have studied for the last 10 years (and am now writing a book connected to): neuroplasticity. The way that our grooved patterns fix us (‘neurons that wire together, fire together’) for good or ill.

This is where the sale of Buendia comes in and how it connects to other points about Webber. Webber calculates carefully,  though from the prism of his own mind, his own strongly-drawn red lines of certainty. He can easily create a well-reasoned argument - with a corollary list of justifying possible outcomes and negatives confirming his decision (say in the. case of Buendia) - though is commensurately unable to forecast the negative emotional effects on vast swathes of the squad left behind. 

Their subsequent ‘feeling’ - whether they ‘should’ feel that way or not, whether it is rational or not, whether it ‘ignores the noise’ or not - that all their hard work was wasted, the ground sold from beneath them, the club ambition limited, the finances ultra-restrictive, that the 2019 failure was NOT after all in preparation for a real go as promised, that the club is now on the slide, that ‘Guardiola won’t watch us anymore’.  

That is players for you.

They have an acute sense for the way the football wind is blowing. It can be irrational, over-sensitive, simplistic and ‘street-rat’ wise. But THEY are the talent. THEY are what we are here for. THEY get up on stage and make your visions real or unreal. 

Nobody sells a Buendia at the point of promotion for THIS reason. You can sell him at other times no problem. Those intangibles don’t sit well on spreadsheets (which I love too), though they MUST be factored in and factored in large.

The Cloughs and Fergusons probably did not study Neuroplasticity, though they instinctively placed it at the top of their agenda. Clough said ‘they come to me with false confidence, I strip that away and give them real confidence’. Ferguson said Beckham (ultra, ultra professional)  ‘had to be sold, because he was too big for the club’ though he indulged Cantona (chaotic, violent, tormented) far, far worse and let him be bigger than the club. I do not criticise it at all.  Wenger simply developed masterful ‘wilful blindness’ and simply didn’t see what didn’t suit. Actively, calculatedly, strategically. I do not criticise that at all either. It is football. These are hugely overpaid, hyper-competive, rich-beyond-Croesus, testosterone-fuelled young men. THEY are the talent that make the spreadsheets either tally or create circular references. 

An interesting subplot for context comes from a friend. FOI Government documents pertaining to COVID are interesting.  They are vast and detailed. They’ve been studied closely of course, as all are now free to do. What was incredibly, remarkably striking to my friend - though in retrospect, and despite his first reactions, quite logical - was the huge weight (majority directional weight) given to Behavioural science. 

Not pure Science. Not medical Science. Behavioural Science. 

In effect ‘we know what’s true, we know what’s necessary, we know what will-should happen’, THOUGH ‘this is how people will actually act’. So they redacted, amended, distorted somewhat the advice and largely based it on the realpolitik of what people would do-reckon-think despite largely knowing it was wrong-flawed-compromised. 

Webber massively, catastrophically underestimated the impact on the remaining  players (and their agents, friends and the wider footbal world and the ‘noise’ - which I note he could ignore then, though which he cannot now ignore even from fairly tepid local paparazzi) on what he already knew was a very fine line decision. He over-believed in his Midas touch. It was a huge self-justified gamble that even the much-lamented Smith would have made a back-me-or-sack-me moment. He sure as hell knows football momentum (and its black-hole sucking vortex opposite). Farke of course paid high for his collegiate nature (and inexperience?).

I long counselled for the Sporting Director model. I firmly believe it to be fundamentally important for a provincial club, with limited funding, a somewhat closed-shop catchment clientele and particularly with the benign, credulous, hugely decent, though occasionally cultish-minded fine owners we have. 

I dread the thought that the lovely Delia will fudge the equity gain issue and allow Attanasio to hoover some of it. There is absolutely no need for this. 

He makes his money spotting assets and corporate carcasses that have been under-rated by more conservative financial institutions. Whether he is good, bad or indifferent as a person is utterly irrelevant. 

Asking whether he could switch-off, disown, forget it, or just simply get so enthusiastic or excited about Norwich that he forgets-forgoes his 40 years of carcass-picking, would be like asking a writer to forget how to spell, or to lose her sense of syntax, or to write with poor punctuation. 

If I was Delia, I wouldn’t want Webber protecting my interests on that one. Though I hope someone is. 

Hugely ironically ‘what’s best for the club’ could be a hugely-influential argument over her. Both Webber and Attanasio could use it on her for different reasons. 

She could have leveraged the equity gain differently with different advice. Though she has ignored it right up to the point of sale. She did it out of decency, though now huge errors could easily be made and painted as something different. By people with differing agendas. Again. 

Equity gain as it pertains to Norwich-Delia is reasonably straightforward.

Regardless of intentions or motivations, you buy as asset (in this case the majority shares in a football club) for £8m.

You enjoy it for 25 years, then an American comes along who wants to buy it. 

He buys other shares from other private individuals at about £30 and takes a C-Preference deal (that buys him leverage, gives the club cash, creates an internal due diligence process for him and his team, and allows time for everyone to smell each other, that provides a pathway to a full buyout. Caveat: in my experience minds are typically made up already) for about £100 per share. 

This means your original purchase asset (the majority shareholding) is now worth a likely minimum of £51m (and of course potentially more, depending on how you negotiate and project the future).

So this is the equity gain. £51m (buyer to pay)  - £8m (original purchase investment) = £43m (‘profit’)

Now this is where the issue is. 

Delia never really wanted to think about this. Making a profit from the football club was ‘not her intention’. They were ‘never in it for the money’. She has - intentionally or otherwise - been the driver of the anti-sky, capitalism is bad, Football is crazy, self-sustaining model.

Because she didn’t have any more ready cash.  Because wages shot up. Because ‘camels came down (not Carrow) Maine Road’.

Except football clubs became hugely valuable assets. People wanted to buy them. People did and do pay billions for them. Delia couldn’t believe it or foresee it. Glazer was crazy. Borrowing was awful. Risky. Remember administration? Then Glazer bought for £0.5bn (with Man United’s money) and will now sell for £5bn??!!? So - once again - everything we know to be true is wrong. 

A Mike Ashley would be hammered for making a huge equity gain then making the fans fork out for a new training ground because the portakabins leak. 

I love and respect Delia, but that money was there. It can be used. Other owners leveraged the equity - in effect funded improvements and used it to fund the football club, keeping Buendia at a key point say - because they considered that they were investing in the asset they owned and it was gaining value because of their investment. They also used club money to do this too - and ‘underwrote the risk’ via their own funds and of course the equity gain.

Delia rejected these choices because she had no access to cash. She couldn’t risk leveraging the (theoretical-until-true) equity gain - like everyone else did. But she DID buy a football club. This IS the world she chose. 

All of this is actually a defence of Webber. He had to square some very difficult circles. 

Ironically of course it is the very Sky money that Delia despises that has kept Norwich sportingly competitive. 

The story of Webber, Farke, Smith cannot be told without the story of Delia. 

These are the corporate principles and economic drivers that create the fixed fence lines that dictate policy. That policy forces the imperfect compromises. 

Attanasio knows or senses all of this. As he has some access to funds, he does not have to force such autistically narrow operational lines. He can promise (and deliver) some flexibility. Some ‘keep Buendia-Skipp’ moments. Intoxicating . 

He likes stadiums. He might talk about expanding Carrow Road. He is excited and enthusiastic. He offers change. He offers a competitive future. 

Does he offer £51m? Does he offer £8m?

Delia owns a Ferrari she hasn’t - and can’t - put petrol in. 

Webber might be excited about what Attanasio can bring (him). Attanasio will encourage and groom him (until he doesn’t). 

If anyone - for any reason - takes less than £51m - that is like putting that cash into Attanasio’s pension pot (or his children’s trust fund). He will not feel guilty about that. 

Though of course Delia might. She will know how that will all be presented. Do you see how that sense of guilt might be used against her? By both Webber and Attanasio (though he will happily hide blind and innocent behind Webber if he thinks he’s pushing it the right way)

Delia is credulous, she rather loves a new Messiah. I worry for her….’….

Parma

 Looks like you’ve had an excellent evening! 😉👍

Might I suggest a compromise to Delia’s gain, maybe she could cash in say the £5 million and the other £38 million she would gain goes into the new City Stand development, increasing the ground and naming it after her. The ground & Colney made part of a Club Trust and no point can it be separated from the club to be bought on the cheap and then rent required like other clubs, any money made from the club would be through player and results for the new regime, leave a legacy? Win win?

Edited January 28, 2023 by Indy

[essex canary 492]

2 hours ago, Indy said:

 Looks like you’ve had an excellent evening! 😉👍

Might I suggest a compromise to Delia’s gain, maybe she could cash in say the £5 million and the other £38 million she would gain goes into the new City Stand development, increasing the ground and naming it after her as a legacy? Win win?

I wonder how HMRC would view that? Perhaps best to seek some advice from Nadheem Zahawi or his father.

[shefcanary 2,389]

5 hours ago, Indy said:

 Looks like you’ve had an excellent evening! 😉👍

Might I suggest a compromise to Delia’s gain, maybe she could cash in say the £5 million and the other £38 million she would gain goes into the new City Stand development, increasing the ground and naming it after her. The ground & Colney made part of a Club Trust and no point can it be separated from the club to be bought on the cheap and then rent required like other clubs, any money made from the club would be through player and results for the new regime, leave a legacy? Win win?

 

3 hours ago, essex canary said:

I wonder how HMRC would view that? Perhaps best to seek some advice from Nadheem Zahawi or his father.

Delia certainly does face a dilemma. I struggle to see how she can avoid tax issues by gifting her equity profits to the club. Perhaps instead, her gain could go to the club's charitable arm the CSF and further develop The Nest. Or some form of endowment to ensure that site continues to benefit the wider community for years to come. That would be a fitting legacy. Delia's Nest anyone?

As I've noted elsewhere I expect Smith & Jones to retain a small holding in the club to avoid Zahawi type issues. 

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

On 14/12/2022 at 14:41, essex canary said:

and USA incomes are almost twice that of the UK.

So they are when you compare whole of the US versus whole of the UK, but the median is then skewed by the fact that they have multiple major economic centres versus our one. To keep it relevant...

Median household income in 2021 in Milwaukee was $45,318

Median household income in the East of England in 2020 about $37000 at current exchange rate.

So the difference is much less significant.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

On 24/12/2022 at 01:41, chicken said:

and the cost of living crisis here

There's been a cost of living crisis everywhere including the USA, its very much a global phenomenon, which it would be as commodity markets are globalised. US inflation been similar to ours.

 

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

On 23/12/2022 at 17:34, essex canary said:

The Economist quotes USA GDP per capita as 76,190 dollars with the same Purchasing Power as against UK of 44,330 dollars with purchasing power of 55,900.

Median household income surely much more relevant.

[essex canary 492]

11 hours ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

So they are when you compare whole of the US versus whole of the UK, but the median is then skewed by the fact that they have multiple major economic centres versus our one. To keep it relevant...

Median household income in 2021 in Milwaukee was $45,318

Median household income in the East of England in 2020 about $37000 at current exchange rate.

So the difference is much less significant.

Thanks. That is useful information.

Of course in using the wider East of England versus Millwaukee state, the question becomes to what extent do the teams draw support from the respective areas and do same person repeat attendance patterns differ.

Also I would suspect that urban areas of Milwaukee where the Brewers are located may tend to have higher incomes than the State as a whole? Possibly the reverse for Norfolk versus the wider East of England?

[essex canary 492]

On 28/01/2023 at 12:53, shefcanary said:

 

Delia certainly does face a dilemma. I struggle to see how she can avoid tax issues by gifting her equity profits to the club. Perhaps instead, her gain could go to the club's charitable arm the CSF and further develop The Nest. Or some form of endowment to ensure that site continues to benefit the wider community for years to come. That would be a fitting legacy. Delia's Nest anyone?

As I've noted elsewhere I expect Smith & Jones to retain a small holding in the club to avoid Zahawi type issues. 

Given the charitable status of Private schools and the public support that West Ham and Manchester City have received for their stadiums, could a stadium improvement initiative be set up with Charitable Status?

@Indyidea would be great if this could work. Perhaps the relevant portion of annual gate income assigned to a Trust dedicated to S&J could then be donated to the CSF or similar. It would help to solve S&Js taxation and pledge challenges. It may also aid the stadium development being more general admission and less commercial admission oriented.

 

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

3 hours ago, essex canary said:

Thanks. That is useful information.

Of course in using the wider East of England versus Millwaukee state, the question becomes to what extent do the teams draw support from the respective areas and do same person repeat attendance patterns differ.

Also I would suspect that urban areas of Milwaukee where the Brewers are located may tend to have higher incomes than the State as a whole? Possibly the reverse for Norfolk versus the wider East of England?

Gov / ONS don't publish data on that at county level unfortunately, did look for a Norfolk figure but without luck. 

Edited January 29, 2023 by TeemuVanBasten

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

 

•  
  •  

Posted just now

My ‘good politics’ point vid small shareholders involved Attanasio deliberately making a small purchase somewhere along the road at quite a high rate. 

I would expect this to be an unwritten gentleman’s agreement between him and Delia, suiting both.

It would ensure that the large swathes of fan share owners get an attractive premium, acting as a PR sweetener, despite this being virtually irrelevant in the grander sweep of scale share buying. £100 looks a nice figure, perhaps even up to £150, it really wouldn’t cost much in context. 
 

The reported £3m for Foulger’s shares is more concerning, in the sense that it benchmarks ‘big lumps’ at a low ceiling, which to me is indicative of new money squeezing old money that can’t afford to put petrol in the Ferrari, plus somewhat negating an claim to equity gain. 

This can be presented as ‘fair’ and ‘worth what someone will pay for it’ though in reality it is carcass-picking and paying forward the equity gain to the next sale (which will then only go into Attanasio’s pocket). In some ways no-one will see the ‘loss’ they made. 
 

Did the Glazers create all of the value in Manchester United post buyout? Or did they buy it very cheap? (and not even with their own money of course)

If they bought it far too cheap, then previous shareholders ‘lost value’

If shareholders are lovely, kind, decent and promised to ‘never profit’ from the company, might they be vulnerable to such a scenario?

Parma 

@Petriix

@GMF

@PurpleCanary

@shefcanary

@BigFish

@essex canary

 

•  

Edited January 30, 2023 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[chicken 2,604]

On 29/01/2023 at 00:42, TeemuVanBasten said:

There's been a cost of living crisis everywhere including the USA, its very much a global phenomenon, which it would be as commodity markets are globalised. US inflation been similar to ours.

Yup, but it's all relative right?

Right now the cost of living crisis here has included fuel and the impact of natural gas from Russia and grain products impacted due to Russia invading Ukraine. Where as the US has it's own oil wells, gas resources and produces a lot more of it's own produce/products.

That's also another reason why Brexit has just confounded the problems we face at the moment.

Whilst the US may be facing a cost of living crisis too, it is much better equipped to deal with it and is not facing the combined additional factors summed up here and implied in the "and" part of my previous statement where I didn't single out cost of living alone as being 'the' issue.

Many trips to the US will show you that many of their products are already much lower in cost due to their market being 5-6 times greater than the UK. It's all relative. 

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

Re Attanasio, no news is good news, right?!

What do we know for certain? Only that in a private deal Attanasio has bought Foulger’s shares.  Except we don’t know that for certain, because there are at least three different tranches of what might be called Foulger’s shares.

There is the total family holding of around 98,000 of the controlling Ordinary shares. But Foulger split that up a while back, while keeping the voting rights to it all, so it could be the 80,000 he passed onto his daughter. Or the 18,000 he held onto for himself.

The reports from the EDP and The Athletic put the holding Attanasio bought at about 16 per cent of the total, which would mean it was the whole 98,000, give or take a few kept back. But The Athletic apparently also said Attanasio had paid only £3m, which would seem on the low side for nearly 100,000 shares.

My guess is that it was the largest tranche, but in one sense it doesn’t matter, since this was a private transaction that put money into the Foulger family rather than the club (as opposed to Attanasio’s £10m purchase of non-voting C preference shares, which did benefit the club), and whichever tranche was bought was large enough to qualify Attanasio as a director, which he subsequently became.

But it matters in terms of where Attanasio stands as far as increasing his holding, and perhaps even becoming the majority owner, goes, because the club has made available nearly 200,000 new Ordinaries. The obvious assumption, which I share, is that these were earmarked for Attanasio.

And if he already has 16 per cent then buying all or even just most of the new shares would put him comfortably over the 30 per cent mark. It would also reduce S&J’s percentage holding so they were no longer majority owners.* At which point Attanasio would officially be regarded as having launched a takeover and would have to offer to buy everyone else’s shares.**

And that would be at the highest price he has paid in the last 12 months. So not only is the size of the Foulger tranche relevant but potentially so is the price Attanasio paid, bearing in mind there are other decent-sized minority holdings, such as RG Carter’s, he might have acquired. And bearing in mind the price for the new shares.

But here we come to an odd hiatus. Shareholders voted to allocate these 194,512 new Ordinaries on February 13, and two months on there has been no news, apart from a gnomic statement from the club about legal details to be worked through.

As a matter of corporate law, if Attanasio had or has bought them and gone past 30 per cent then there should have been an immediate announcement. In fact as I understand the law, even his telling the club he intended to buy them should have provoked an announcement, but I may be misreading that clause.

One has to assume then that Attanasio has not bought the new shares, or at least not enough to breach the 30 per cent barrier. Which might indicate he didn’t buy that many Foulger shares. But then why has he not yet acquired all or most of the shares that seemingly were created just for him?

I am afraid I discount the delicious theory that S&J have snaffled them up. It would explain why there has been no takeover announcement, since it would be a continuation of the status quo. But I can see no way in which that would make any sense, apart the fun of sending this message-board into a spluttering rage to end all spluttering rages, with the forum actually exploding, like one of those computers on Star Trek faced with a Mr Spock riddle.

I like Shef’s notion that Attanasio paid more than he wanted to for whatever he bought from Foulger, and so – particularly with another season in the Championship looming – is having to wait until a year has passed so that price is no longer the benchmark. I love its negative creativity, but I am afraid I doubt it.

I don’t believe Attanasio was banking on us getting back straight away to the Premier League (his approach with the Milwaukee Brewers seems to have been long-term and consolidatory) and it would need this tough US hedge-fund tycoon to have been outsmarted by a Norfolk chicken farmer.***

It is possible the deal has been done and the club simply doesn’t realise the Takeover Code demands an announcement, but I gather people involved in this do know it applies.

Perhaps, in optimistic contrast to Shef’s pessimism, Attanasio is just waiting for the football (as opposed to the baseball) season to end, to tie the news in with an announcement of his plans (including perhaps at least one new board member) and hopes for next season and beyond. 

*The EDP reported that the allocation or creation of these Ordinary shares has already pushed S&J’s holding below 50 per cent but my understanding is that until they are actually bought by someone that may not legally be the case and certainly in effect is not the case. In practice until they are bought by someone and so can be used in votes S&J still have a controlling 53 per cent.

**There is a procedure called a whitewash waiver by which shareholders can decide that Attanasio (in this case) would not have to offer to buy out everyone. However I suspect he would want the chance, and I for one would want him to be bound to do so.

***That of course is grossly unfair on Foulger, but I could not resist the cheapskate contrast.

Edited April 15, 2023 by PurpleCanary