Mark Attanasio

[BigFish 1,987]

4 minutes ago, Graham Paddons Beard said:

It’s an opinion. Jim thinks Delia and Michael may be dragging their heels . There has been no rush to change ownership in the last  years . Now it seems there may be a motivation. 
 

There is no evidence that they are. Equally there is no evidence that they are not . Keeping one of the only informative threads on the message board civil shouldn’t be difficult. 

I did a quick Google search for a definition and far play to you @Graham Paddons Beard the first one pretty much nails it A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: I agree that keeping this thread civil shouldn't be difficult, but that requires posters to rein in their prejudice and dislike (based on absolutely nothing) of S&J and other members of the Carrow Road staff. In this subjective world view S&J should not profit from their years at the club, have been treating it as their own personal fiefdom and operate on purely selfish motivations while any new purchaser will be motivated by sporting success, injecting funds for this without any thought to getting their cash back. The contradictions here are numerous, with the only connecting thread  being a personal and deep held antipathy.

This paradigm doesn't help the current process, but rather complicates it. The quickest and easiest process is for S&J (well within their rights) simply to crystalize the capital gain @Parma Ham's gone mouldy frequently talks about and sell their stake directly to MA for the c£50 million that @Essex Canary often quotes. This almost certainly triggers a requirement to offer the same to the minority shareholders.  There are many issues with this including the hit to S&J reputation, the fact it brings no new cash into the club and not least the fact there is no indication that this is what MA (or any other purchasers) actually want.

[BigFish 1,987]

12 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Absolutely. Great civility on this thread yesterday. Ridiculous to suggest misogyny when the subject of discussion is one male and one female.

Perhaps you would care to explain why, in that case, it is DS who largely gets the flack and the derogatory nicknames which MWJ largely flies under the radar.

[sgncfc 1,228]

I'm pretty sure that S & J are on record many times saying that they are not interested in making a profit out of their ownership of the club. It just might be that all these mechanisms now in play are designed to get Attansio ownership of the majority stake but getting his money into the club rather than S & J's pockets, whilst at the same time trying to ensure that minority stake valuations are not compromised. Technically, that is quite a tough thing to achieve and would take some time to put together, because he is probably also keen that his investment is not forever lost. 

I seriously think that a straight sale by S & J would incur the wrath of many and probably isn't what they want, given that much of it would disappear in CGT and IHT over the next few years anyway.

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,431]

16 minutes ago, BigFish said:

I did a quick Google search for a definition and far play to you @Graham Paddons Beard the first one pretty much nails it A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: I agree that keeping this thread civil shouldn't be difficult, but that requires posters to rein in their prejudice and dislike (based on absolutely nothing) of S&J and other members of the Carrow Road staff. In this subjective world view S&J should not profit from their years at the club, have been treating it as their own personal fiefdom and operate on purely selfish motivations while any new purchaser will be motivated by sporting success, injecting funds for this without any thought to getting their cash back. The contradictions here are numerous, with the only connecting thread  being a personal and deep held antipathy.

This paradigm doesn't help the current process, but rather complicates it. The quickest and easiest process is for S&J (well within their rights) simply to crystalize the capital gain @Parma Ham's gone mouldy frequently talks about and sell their stake directly to MA for the c£50 million that @Essex Canary often quotes. This almost certainly triggers a requirement to offer the same to the minority shareholders.  There are many issues with this including the hit to S&J reputation, the fact it brings no new cash into the club and not least the fact there is no indication that this is what MA (or any other purchasers) actually want.

Well, whatever the opinion ,   I love the green font . 
 

 

[Indy 3,300]

23 minutes ago, BigFish said:

I did a quick Google search for a definition and far play to you @Graham Paddons Beard the first one pretty much nails it A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: I agree that keeping this thread civil shouldn't be difficult, but that requires posters to rein in their prejudice and dislike (based on absolutely nothing) of S&J and other members of the Carrow Road staff. In this subjective world view S&J should not profit from their years at the club, have been treating it as their own personal fiefdom and operate on purely selfish motivations while any new purchaser will be motivated by sporting success, injecting funds for this without any thought to getting their cash back. The contradictions here are numerous, with the only connecting thread  being a personal and deep held antipathy.

This paradigm doesn't help the current process, but rather complicates it. The quickest and easiest process is for S&J (well within their rights) simply to crystalize the capital gain @Parma Ham's gone mouldy frequently talks about and sell their stake directly to MA for the c£50 million that @Essex Canary often quotes. This almost certainly triggers a requirement to offer the same to the minority shareholders.  There are many issues with this including the hit to S&J reputation, the fact it brings no new cash into the club and not least the fact there is no indication that this is what MA (or any other purchasers) actually want.

I have to say a big thanks to all on this thread, very informative indeed, and everyone has a view based o their experience and stand point. As none of us are actually privy to exactly what is going on speculation is always likely.

I still take valuation of the club with a pinch of salt, if I was MA I too would be taking my time given the possible financial challenges coming without promotion. The value of this club will surely be a fraction of the price warranted with promotion.

I believe we will see quicker movement as soon the this season is done.

But really appreciate the experts on here and the really good information a very good read brilliant thread.

Thanks to all.

[Jim Smith 2,319]

47 minutes ago, BigFish said:

I did a quick Google search for a definition and far play to you @Graham Paddons Beard the first one pretty much nails it A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: I agree that keeping this thread civil shouldn't be difficult, but that requires posters to rein in their prejudice and dislike (based on absolutely nothing) of S&J and other members of the Carrow Road staff. In this subjective world view S&J should not profit from their years at the club, have been treating it as their own personal fiefdom and operate on purely selfish motivations while any new purchaser will be motivated by sporting success, injecting funds for this without any thought to getting their cash back. The contradictions here are numerous, with the only connecting thread  being a personal and deep held antipathy.

This paradigm doesn't help the current process, but rather complicates it. The quickest and easiest process is for S&J (well within their rights) simply to crystalize the capital gain @Parma Ham's gone mouldy frequently talks about and sell their stake directly to MA for the c£50 million that @Essex Canary often quotes. This almost certainly triggers a requirement to offer the same to the minority shareholders.  There are many issues with this including the hit to S&J reputation, the fact it brings no new cash into the club and not least the fact there is no indication that this is what MA (or any other purchasers) actually want.

I have no problem with the profiting from any deal if it leaves us in a better place other than they themselves have said on multiple occasions they do not intend to do so and obviously picked up the club somewhat “on the cheap” so I would be disappointed if they looked to profit excessively from any takeover to the extent that it held things up or made it more difficult.

Not have I ever said that they own and operate the club purely for selfish reasons. They certainly didn’t buy it for selfish reasons or go through all the grief of the early years of their ownership for selfish reasons. 
 

That said I do think that the “we don’t even listen to offers” era was quite selfish and perhaps denied us the chance to take the opportunities that have been there for us and I worry that by the time they finally do let go it may be too late and we will face a much bigger rebuild than we might otherwise. They are emotionally attached to the club. It has been the centre of their world for 25 years. It is the fulcrum of their social world. I can quite understand why they have been reluctant to give that up and have clung to the belief that they could prove the world wrong. But that does not mean they should not have facilitated investment/new ownership  earlier. 
 

 

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

3 hours ago, Jim Smith said:

My thoughts are that the source of the delay is that our owners are still not genuinely open to ceding control and so it’s all a lot more complicated or long winded than it would otherwise be if they were. 

I don't think it is helpful for what is an excellent thread about the future to concentrate on what happened in the past, although I believe it is the case that S&J had been trying for some years to find the right new owner.

But if they are still the source of this delay ( which assumes that there is a delay in the first place, as opposed to simply what was always going to be a complicated process) because they really don't want to give up control then why did they actively allow the club to help Foulger sell his shares to Attanasio to allow him to get his foot in the door?

[shefcanary 2,409]

1 hour ago, Graham Paddons Beard said:

Well, whatever the opinion ,   I love the green font . 

Green ink is a sign of paranoia, apparently! 😉 

[king canary 7,607]

12 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

I don't think it is helpful for what is an excellent thread about the future to concentrate on what happened in the past, although I believe it is the case that S&J had been trying for some years to find the right new owner.

But if they are still the source of this delay ( which assumes that there is a delay in the first place, as opposed to simply what was always going to be a complicated process) because they really don't want to give up control then why did they actively allow the club to help Foulger sell his shares to Attanasio to allow him to get his foot in the door?

Not saying I agree with Jim here- but if you did the answer is pretty obvious no?

They couldn't stop Foulger selling his shares so being involved in the process would allow them to have a say in who was coming in to make sure it wasn't someone who'd try and aggressively push them out.

[shefcanary 2,409]

My view is that Smith & Jones are not averse to giving up control, they just want to ensure that there are checks and balances in place for the supporters and the local community to ensure the club and its assets are still here long after they have gone. I've posited one route for this, there are bound to be others, but all will be extremely complicated to implement, they will also be subject of much negotiation. The only real problem here is that it is all going on behind closed doors with people involved who think they are doing the best for the club and the supporters, but are "unable rather than unwilling" to engage more broadly because of the nature of the "private transaction".

[Soldier on 160]

3 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

My view is that Smith & Jones are not averse to giving up control, they just want to ensure that there are checks and balances in place for the supporters and the local community to ensure the club and its assets are still here long after they have gone. I've posited one route for this, there are bound to be others, but all will be extremely complicated to implement, they will also be subject of much negotiation. The only real problem here is that it is all going on behind closed doors with people involved who think they are doing the best for the club and the supporters, but are "unable rather than unwilling" to engage more broadly because of the nature of the "private transaction".

How much of it is a timing issue though I.e. we here more as soon as this season has concluded ?

[shefcanary 2,409]

1 minute ago, Soldier on said:

How much of it is a timing issue though I.e. we here more as soon as this season has concluded ?

I think very little, Soldier on. Yes, the view of football tends to be fixed on the playing season, but very rarely do takeovers start and conclude in the summer break.

As other elder statesmen (sorry Mello Yellow) on here have said, the takeover will be concluded when the takeover is concluded - this is very much in the lap of the legal teams, rather than the needs of the football club unfortunately.

If the club was listed on a public share trading exchange there might be more pressure to name a date to conclude such matters and stick to it.  As the club's shares are not traded on such a market, I think the only issue on timing is currently with the FA and the EFL (or the EPL if we get promoted 🙂 ), which would probably only manifest if we suffered cashflow problems and started missing scheduled payments to other football clubs. 

[Soldier on 160]

20 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

I think very little, Soldier on. Yes, the view of football tends to be fixed on the playing season, but very rarely do takeovers start and conclude in the summer break.

As other elder statesmen (sorry Mello Yellow) on here have said, the takeover will be concluded when the takeover is concluded - this is very much in the lap of the legal teams, rather than the needs of the football club unfortunately.

If the club was listed on a public share trading exchange there might be more pressure to name a date to conclude such matters and stick to it.  As the club's shares are not traded on such a market, I think the only issue on timing is currently with the FA and the EFL (or the EPL if we get promoted 🙂 ), which would probably only manifest if we suffered cashflow problems and started missing scheduled payments to other football clubs. 

It’s definitely all a bit odd as i think even Zoe Ward touched on it in her boardroom notes before making it sound much more like a done deal/ further down the line. 
 

perhaps divisional status is impacting on price being offered ?

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

29 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

My view is that Smith & Jones are not averse to giving up control, they just want to ensure that there are checks and balances in place for the supporters and the local community to ensure the club and its assets are still here long after they have gone. I've posited one route for this, there are bound to be others, but all will be extremely complicated to implement, they will also be subject of much negotiation. The only real problem here is that it is all going on behind closed doors with people involved who think they are doing the best for the club and the supporters, but are "unable rather than unwilling" to engage more broadly because of the nature of the "private transaction".

In fact only know as much as we know because the club/company became a PLC back in 2002, which means this is an odd hybrid of a semi-private, semi-public transaction. Previously we knew nothing about what was going on with potential changes of ownership.

[BigFish 1,987]

56 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

Green ink is a sign of paranoia, apparently! 😉 

I am not paranoid, they really are out to get me

[norfolkngood 1,087]

33 minutes ago, Soldier on said:

It’s definitely all a bit odd as i think even Zoe Ward touched on it in her boardroom notes before making it sound much more like a done deal/ further down the line. 
 

perhaps divisional status is impacting on price being offered ?

Not that i know much about the shares etc 

but you would of thought a club 10th in champs would be much cheaper than a team that has just got up to PL with the income guaranteed  from Sky and income from sponsors 

you would of thought Attanasio would be saying this is not the same club it was when i was first interested we have gone backwards with players to sell and income has gone down 

[Google Bot 3,278]

51 minutes ago, Soldier on said:

perhaps divisional status is impacting on price being offered ?

The 'worth' of the squad has got to be a big factor too, imagine being interesting in a club that had a squad value of 160 mil, and when you get your cheque book you find out it's gone down by 60 mil.

2021/2022:

2022/2023:

I know that's pretty simplistic, but this is surely considered when moving millions of their own money into any business.

 

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,431]

14 minutes ago, norfolkngood said:

Not that i know much about the shares etc 

but you would of thought a club 10th in champs would be much cheaper than a team that has just got up to PL with the income guaranteed  from Sky and income from sponsors 

you would of thought Attanasio would be saying this is not the same club it was when i was first interested we have gone backwards with players to sell and income has gone down 

The value of the football club is incredibly hard to measure .

In many circumstances the value of a business is based on EBITDA. In others a value is set by the overall financial position or debt . Others still will be based on potential , or market share , or brand . 
The motivation of the seller , or the buyer plays a part . 
and you can’t just make up a value and give it to colleagues or family , HMRC will take an interest. 

But NCFC is not a “ normal” business . It tends to spend all of their income whatever division they are in.

Even standards measures are skewed where the produced accounts can be tactical - we made a large loss in Farkes first promotion as the club elected to pay all of the promotion bonuses in the Championship year against Championship income. 
 

It could be that MA is now claiming a reduction in value but I doubt it would be considered for long , bearing in mind the complexity in valuing . 

[BigFish 1,987]

1 hour ago, Graham Paddons Beard said:

The value of the football club is incredibly hard to measure .

In many circumstances the value of a business is based on EBITDA. In others a value is set by the overall financial position or debt . Others still will be based on potential , or market share , or brand . 
The motivation of the seller , or the buyer plays a part . 
and you can’t just make up a value and give it to colleagues or family , HMRC will take an interest. 

But NCFC is not a “ normal” business . It tends to spend all of their income whatever division they are in.

Even standards measures are skewed where the produced accounts can be tactical - we made a large loss in Farkes first promotion as the club elected to pay all of the promotion bonuses in the Championship year against Championship income. 
 

It could be that MA is now claiming a reduction in value but I doubt it would be considered for long , bearing in mind the complexity in valuing . 

All true @Graham Paddons Beard. Where I would caveat this is cash flow is king in these kind of deals and whether we are in the EFL or the EPL makes a significant difference. I assume S&J and MA both have plans for each eventuality and you'd hope these match up. Only MA knows how much cash he has and how much he can borrow to make the deal happen. The EPL would need significant team strengthening in the Summer, while the EPL will only come in stages through the year. We don't have a Buendia to sell so the club and its incumbent owner would be on the hook for underwriting this, or the criticism for not doing so. The EFL is easier, and cheaper, while probably sitting nicely in current forecasts. So very different deals.

Where I do agree whole heartedly is that none of the options changes the fundamentals of the club and therefore the value. We will spend all we have either way.

[Indy 3,300]

6 minutes ago, BigFish said:

All true @Graham Paddons Beard. Where I would caveat this is cash flow is king in these kind of deals and whether we are in the EFL or the EPL makes a significant difference. I assume S&J and MA both have plans for each eventuality and you'd hope these match up. Only MA knows how much cash he has and how much he can borrow to make the deal happen. The EPL would need significant team strengthening in the Summer, while the EPL will only come in stages through the year. We don't have a Buendia to sell so the club and its incumbent owner would be on the hook for underwriting this, or the criticism for not doing so. The EFL is easier, and cheaper, while probably sitting nicely in current forecasts. So very different deals.

Where I do agree whole heartedly is that none of the options changes the fundamentals of the club and therefore the value. We will spend all we have either way.

Indeed BF but I was under the impression we borrowed on the Parachute money already and have a loan debt, (I assume) the additional injection of cash from the new shares, I'm still nor sure if these have been bought by MA or has he only bought out the Foulger shares, which won't mean any cash injection thus far.

So your last statement the fundamentals must in fact have changed hugely from the initial talks last year prior to relegation, the clubs assets have shrunk in players values, the cash flow is restricted by loan repayments from parachute money.

As such MA will have a massive and experienced financial team working through these consequences for any offer on the table. Like someone posted above having the ferrari sitting on the drive not being able to afford to use it letting it rot rather than sell at a slightly reduced price.

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

8 minutes ago, Indy said:

Indeed BF but I was under the impression we borrowed on the Parachute money already and have a loan debt, (I assume) the additional injection of cash from the new shares, I'm still nor sure if these have been bought by MA or has he only bought out the Foulger shares, which won't mean any cash injection thus far.

So your last statement the fundamentals must in fact have changed hugely from the initial talks last year prior to relegation, the clubs assets have shrunk in players values, the cash flow is restricted by loan repayments from parachute money.

As such MA will have a massive and experienced financial team working through these consequences for any offer on the table. Like someone posted above having the ferrari sitting on the drive not being able to afford to use it letting it rot rather than sell at a slightly reduced price.

Indy, there was a £10m injection from Attanasio's purchase of the C Preference shares.

[Indy 3,300]

6 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Indy, there was a £10m injection from Attanasio's purchase of the C Preference shares.

Thanks Purple I remember asking but couldn't remember if it was confirmed......so the reality we have borrowed on future Parachute money and we have had a 10 million injection already, so there should be some cash available for swift transfers if needed.

But overall the finances are challenging from this summer onwards given the squad and the wages.

As a side note I notice that his Brewers are top of the standings in their division in the early stages of the new Baseball season.....

[Indy 3,300]

Not to stir up anything, but realty is in 12 months MA has injected more cash into our club than our owners have in 26 years. It must show MA is very much invested in our club and would be what is needed to maybe kickstart the new season starting with June transfer.

[Jack Flash 13]

Indy regarding your last post, if my memory serves me correctly didn't they put £11M in their very early days when our position was extremely dire. OK sure this has since been repaid but it saved us from extinction. Also as a percentage of total wealth MA's £10M is less than 2% of his personal estimated worth, whereas DS would have been nearer to 33%? 

[Indy 3,300]

1 minute ago, Jack Flash said:

Indy regarding your last post, if my memory serves me correctly didn't they put £11M in their very early days when our position was extremely dire. OK sure this has since been repaid but it saved us from extinction. Also as a percentage of total wealth MA's £10M is less than 2% of his personal estimated worth, whereas DS would have been nearer to 33%? 

I can't say I know but it was more around 8 million after everything and loans repaid, but I should have phrased it different I was making the point MA must be invested in the club to take on a cat C share issue for 10 million, It doesn't gain him any control of the club. So a positive in my book that it's more than just a potential cash cow for him.

[BigFish 1,987]

39 minutes ago, Indy said:

Indeed BF but I was under the impression we borrowed on the Parachute money already and have a loan debt, (I assume) the additional injection of cash from the new shares, I'm still nor sure if these have been bought by MA or has he only bought out the Foulger shares, which won't mean any cash injection thus far.

So your last statement the fundamentals must in fact have changed hugely from the initial talks last year prior to relegation, the clubs assets have shrunk in players values, the cash flow is restricted by loan repayments from parachute money.

As such MA will have a massive and experienced financial team working through these consequences for any offer on the table. Like someone posted above having the ferrari sitting on the drive not being able to afford to use it letting it rot rather than sell at a slightly reduced price.

Thing is @Indy  , although these factors are important I don't really count them as fundamental. Rather they are factors of the fundamentals. For example, the club has a capacity of 27,359 whatever League it competes in. The commercial and match day revenues are capped at the club profile, the number of supporters and the appetite in terms of volume and price that the supporters are willing to consume. Norwich is also geographically a bit out of the way. This all drives the magnitude of revenue streams that are possible for the club and therefore the price.

Against that the current regime have made decisions of the expenditure rate they are comfortable with (although many fans would want this much higher). The level and the cash flow impact of the disconnect between when the income is received (such of the dates of the parachute payments) and when it is spent means the club needs to borrow against them, have loan debt & the explains the £10 million injection from MA. This is a choice rather than fundamental.

When it comes to the players the amortisation of the value is down to previous choices. In five years time the value of all the players in the current squad is zero. But when it comes to value now the key is the risk appetite of the owners. As we saw with Cantwell a valuable asset can lose value without any input from the club. Equally a players career can be ended in an instant, it all comes down to the risk appetite of the owners and the magnitude of the possible revenue streams. MA may have a bigger appetite, he may be able to absorb bigger costs if it all goes wrong, but this doesn't move the fundamentals.

[essex canary 496]

7 hours ago, BigFish said:

Perhaps you would care to explain why, in that case, it is DS who largely gets the flack and the derogatory nicknames which MWJ largely flies under the radar.

In watching Zoe's 'successful women in Business' interview it was interesting to note her claim that the decision to run without a Chairman but with an Executive Director was made by her and Delia. That came over as somewhat misandristic as MWJ wasn't mentioned. Perhaps a first ever Chairwoman - essentially a non remunerated position - would have been a good idea?

I also felt a little sympathy for the female interviewer. Even more so now as the Business performance of the Executive Director seems to be more ignominious than any Chairman in club history whilst successful women in Business is a serious subject.

[sgncfc 1,228]

22 hours ago, king canary said:

They couldn't stop Foulger selling his shares

I don't think we know that do we? There could be a Shareholders Agreement in force which we know nothing about. The Articles deal with the technical items on share transfers, but private agreements between parties in such an organisation are quite normal.

[GMF 745]

7 minutes ago, sgncfc said:

I don't think we know that do we? There could be a Shareholders Agreement in force which we know nothing about. The Articles deal with the technical items on share transfers, but private agreements between parties in such an organisation are quite normal.

We are where we are at the moment because MF actually wanted to do so, rather than as a result of D&M seeking external investment, and one of his primary objectives was to make sure that his sale came with a commitment to additional investment in the club.

I have no reason to believe that MF’s motivation was anything but genuine and, if anything, perhaps also driven by the overall state of the club’s finances, despite record revenues following the most recent season in the Premier League. 

The words Deja Vu, Webber, wall, and urinating, spring to mind..

[Jim Smith 2,319]

16 hours ago, essex canary said:

In watching Zoe's 'successful women in Business' interview it was interesting to note her claim that the decision to run without a Chairman but with an Executive Director was made by her and Delia. That came over as somewhat misandristic as MWJ wasn't mentioned. Perhaps a first ever Chairwoman - essentially a non remunerated position - would have been a good idea?

I also felt a little sympathy for the female interviewer. Even more so now as the Business performance of the Executive Director seems to be more ignominious than any Chairman in club history whilst successful women in Business is a serious subject.

I do find it interesting that the £66m debt/loan referenced in the pinkun article summarising the same interview just gets glossed over. I don’t know how much has been repaid now using the parachute payments but that is a very significant figure for a “self funding” club.