Mark Attanasio

[essex canary 497]

2 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

There was lots of evidence of that independence in 2009.

 

Probably from the high society individual you referred to earlier rather than a pleb like me. To be fair he did a good job though and we would probably be doing a lot better if he was still there.

 

[Google Bot 3,294]

It's like sticking your lughole by the Masonic lodge keyhole reading some of the posts here.

Edited May 15, 2023 by Google Bot

[essex canary 497]

9 hours ago, Google Bot said:

It's like sticking your lughole by the Masonic lodge keyhole reading some of the posts here.

Indeed. It has been clarified that the seat for life concession for ADs is the shorter of their lives or the lives of the shares in their name.

I bet that disappointed those who expected to operate on the same principle as Honoury Vice Presidents.

Edited May 16, 2023 by essex canary

[essex canary 497]

17 hours ago, BigFish said:

The only reason I can see that the waiver is being discussed, and then only evidently on here, is @PurpleCanary rooting about in the Takeover code to find interesting nuggets of info that may or may not apply. Not sure anything can be inferred from that. The Foulger transaction only sets the price for 12 months anyway, if MA wished to make a lower offer to the minor shareholders he would only need to wait until it timed out. As @GMF points out these are private transactions agreed been the purchaser and the seller who set the price between themselves. If MA was sensible he wouldn't make any commitment until he was certain of the outcome, which would seem to be why he is nibbling around the club with various financial instruments without breaching any legal thresholds. When he does I suspect it will be with the full agreement of S&J, who will therefore be involved in setting the price. It will be what they are willing to accept and what he is willing to offer. The financial instruments used to engineer will be made to fit this figure, not the other way round. 

Perhaps one reason the waiver is being discussed is that it would enable investment before the start of next season which may well not be possible if doing the honourable thing by minority shareholders is now unaffordable to MA having arguably overpaid Foulger?

[essex canary 497]

15 hours ago, The Raptor said:

Whichever inflation is the most!

£80 you say? That Lego At-At is coming. Come on Mike. Maker me an offer!

I think if you look at the inflation between say Neil Doncaster's salary 20 years ago and Zoe Webbers now that will be the most or maybe the Foulger family shares.

Different rules apply to small shareholders though. Inflation there could still be NIL. 

Edited May 16, 2023 by essex canary

[Canary Pie 25]

Essex, you come across as both obsessive and desperate.

MA is a very skilled professional investor and as such there are two things we can be sure of. Firstly, he is not going to pay top dollar for the shares as the profit in professional investing is mostly made on the buy side - this is why they spend so much on due diligence. Secondly, it is not worth his while to spend time on small bets. For that reason it is almost certain that he bought all of the Folger and family shares for the £3m or about £30 per share. That would value the club at around £20m which probably looked like a bargain to him at the time but now may look a bit toppy with much of the team tired and evaporating and the manager and dof performing poorly - what is left is a brand, some players, facilities and debt. My supposition is that he has come back with an offer of what he is now willing to pay and that offer is below the £25 you and others paid which makes it unpalatable to DS and MWJ. MA has all the time in the world so he can wait until things get worse.

 

 

[Feedthewolf 4,850]

20 minutes ago, Canary Pie said:

Essex, you come across as both obsessive and desperate.

To be fair, you don't need a Masters in Psychology to work that one out. Thanks for the rest of the post, though... very informative.

11 hours ago, essex canary said:

They do still have meetings but I don't get an invite as the Club don't like challenging questions and I am considered a little bit too forthcoming with such challenges. 

Or it might have been something to do with the Football Ombudsman independently adjudicating that you need to stop hassling the club with your tiresome agenda?

The sad truth is that this forum is the only place where people will still listen to you. Why don't you do us all a favour and take your 'loyalty' to Cambridge United?

Edited May 16, 2023 by Feedthewolf

[Greavsy 2,416]

15 minutes ago, Feedthewolf said:

To be fair, you don't need a Masters in Psychology to work that one out. Thanks for the rest of the post, though... very informative.

Or it might have been something to do with the Football Ombudsman independently adjudicating that you need to stop hassling the club with your tiresome agenda?

The sad truth is that this forum is the only place where people will still listen to you. Why don't you do us all a favour and take your 'loyalty' to Cambridge United?

Well said Wolfie. 

[essex canary 497]

51 minutes ago, Canary Pie said:

Essex, you come across as both obsessive and desperate.

MA is a very skilled professional investor and as such there are two things we can be sure of. Firstly, he is not going to pay top dollar for the shares as the profit in professional investing is mostly made on the buy side - this is why they spend so much on due diligence. Secondly, it is not worth his while to spend time on small bets. For that reason it is almost certain that he bought all of the Folger and family shares for the £3m or about £30 per share. That would value the club at around £20m which probably looked like a bargain to him at the time but now may look a bit toppy with much of the team tired and evaporating and the manager and dof performing poorly - what is left is a brand, some players, facilities and debt. My supposition is that he has come back with an offer of what he is now willing to pay and that offer is below the £25 you and others paid which makes it unpalatable to DS and MWJ. MA has all the time in the world so he can wait until things get worse.

 

 

So Burnley and WBA sold for close on £200 million but the shrewd businessman Foulger would have sold his shares based on a club valuation  of £20 million at a time when the Club had 20 points from 10 games which if projected throughout the season would have taken us back to the Premier League.

Our resident experienced Corporate Governance expert @shefcanary doesn't believe it. Neither do I.

[king canary 7,623]

41 minutes ago, Feedthewolf said:

Or it might have been something to do with the Football Ombudsman independently adjudicating that you need to stop hassling the club with your tiresome agenda?

 

I must have missed this but jeeeez. What a guy.

[BigFish 1,988]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

Perhaps one reason the waiver is being discussed is that it would enable investment before the start of next season which may well not be possible if doing the honourable thing by minority shareholders is now unaffordable to MA having arguably overpaid Foulger?

Unless you are an insider that can only be based on supposition, there is zero evidence in the public domain. In addition there are various methods of injecting capital into club without involving a waiver, the C-Class shares being one example.

[BigFish 1,988]

1 hour ago, Canary Pie said:

Essex, you come across as both obsessive and desperate.

MA is a very skilled professional investor and as such there are two things we can be sure of. Firstly, he is not going to pay top dollar for the shares as the profit in professional investing is mostly made on the buy side - this is why they spend so much on due diligence. Secondly, it is not worth his while to spend time on small bets. For that reason it is almost certain that he bought all of the Folger and family shares for the £3m or about £30 per share. That would value the club at around £20m which probably looked like a bargain to him at the time but now may look a bit toppy with much of the team tired and evaporating and the manager and dof performing poorly - what is left is a brand, some players, facilities and debt. My supposition is that he has come back with an offer of what he is now willing to pay and that offer is below the £25 you and others paid which makes it unpalatable to DS and MWJ. MA has all the time in the world so he can wait until things get worse.

I am being lazy @GMF, but would it be possible to remind all on this thread what the Trust paid the Archant administrators for the club's shares please? It is in the public domain & will kill some of this tiresome speculation on the clubs value.

[Indy 3,307]

The trouble I can see, it doesn’t matter what process is going on behind the scenes, if this investment or takeover isn’t in place by the start of next season and we don’t have a great summer with players any poor start to next season could have a major impact on the atmosphere at CR.

The reality is we’re thinking of selling Omobamadele, Aaron’s, and other value assets to finance a change, to me I read this as saying we aren’t going to get much change at top level this summer! I believe this entire process might well drag on.

[Mello Yello 2,297]

Self-funding?....Pfft!....

[Google Bot 3,294]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

It has been clarified that the seat for life concession for ADs is the shorter of their lives or the lives of the shares in their name.

Mate, I haven't a clue what any of this means, could you make it simpler to understand for laymen if you're trying to make a point?

I'm reading this thinking that you have a substantial amount of shares, yet you don't have a seat/get invited to the canary masonic lodge due to how outspoken you are? And there's others here that are giving the impression that they're not surprised by that - But I don't know if that's through the posts you make, or them actually knowing you or being in your company at an event?

Furthermore, is that why you go at the throat of how the club is currently run?

Moreso what is your underlying fear?  Is it of your shares losing value, or that you'd in some way be forced to sell them? Or is it more than you want to be a part of the club yet feel isolated from it and treated unfairly because the opinions you feel are validated?

Edited May 16, 2023 by Google Bot

[PurpleCanary 5,570]

12 hours ago, BigFish said:

MA is currently the only game in town. As such he controls the timing of the action that will trigger the offer, and by implication the value of that offer [to minority shareholders]. At that point the choice will be with the shareholders to decide whether they accept or not. He could chose to sit on his hands until all his purchases are older than 12 months, the allocation may never be taken up & a totally different vehicle created for any putative takeover.

BF, that is true. Frankly I hadn’t considered that scenario. Attanasio certainly seems the only game in town and if he didn’t want to pay the remaining minority shareholders as much as he whatever was the highest price he has paid Foulger et al so far he could delay by letting that figure expire.

But then he would indeed have to delay buying the 194,512 shares from the club. Once he did that and broke 30 per cent he would have to make the offer to the remainers. He could not put off that consequential offer. Nor could he separate the price. And the price presumably would be lower, since otherwise why delay.

I am not naïve about these things. All’s fair in love, war and big business. But in PR terms it wouldn’t look good. Delaying an infusion of funds into the club so he could pay it less per share than he had put into Foulger’s wallet.

[Indy 3,307]

3 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

BF, that is true. Frankly I hadn’t considered that scenario. Attanasio certainly seems the only game in town and if he didn’t want to pay the remaining minority shareholders as much as he whatever was the highest price he has paid Foulger et al so far he could delay by letting that figure expire.

But then he would indeed have to delay buying the 194,512 shares from the club. Once he did that and broke 30 per cent he would have to make the offer to the remainers. He could not put off that consequential offer. Nor could he separate the price. And the price presumably would be lower, since otherwise why delay.

I am not naïve about these things. All’s fair in love, war and big business. But in PR terms it wouldn’t look good. Delaying an infusion of funds into the club so he could pay it less per share than he had put into Foulger’s wallet.

Why? Surely those who own the shares are fans first and want the best for the club, Delia has said in the past she doesn’t want to make a profit out the club! So if we have to wait a year or more to see a cheap takeover with more investment directly into the club than peoples pockets surely we should be happy?

Hasn’t MA already invested more into the club than the current owners in 28 years? Surely we can’t judge MA on what he pays for the club, but what he delivers once in charge?

[BigFish 1,988]

4 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

I am not naïve about these things. All’s fair in love, war and big business. But in PR terms it wouldn’t look good. Delaying an infusion of funds into the club so he could pay it less per share than he had put into Foulger’s wallet.

We are on the same page apart from on the PR. While one frequent poster on this thread may be very upset, no change there, pretty much the reputational damage would be negligible. Most fans aren't shareholders for a start, and most fans aren't interested. MA would sweep in on a wave of optimism and goodwill, at least for the honeymoon period. In addition most shareholders didn't buy their stake as an investment and many probably didn't expect to get their money back let alone make a small notional profit. To accept or not would be their choice. The massive majority would feel a sense of relief that this stage was at an end. Whether it lasts is another matter, and if it gets to a stage where MA takes the club private it is another, totally separate debate.

[PurpleCanary 5,570]

5 minutes ago, BigFish said:

We are on the same page apart from on the PR. While one frequent poster on this thread may be very upset, no change there, pretty much the reputational damage would be negligible. Most fans aren't shareholders for a start, and most fans aren't interested. MA would sweep in on a wave of optimism and goodwill, at least for the honeymoon period. In addition most shareholders didn't buy their stake as an investment and many probably didn't expect to get their money back let alone make a small notional profit. To accept or not would be their choice. The massive majority would feel a sense of relief that this stage was at an end. Whether it lasts is another matter, and if it gets to a stage where MA takes the club private it is another, totally separate debate.

Yes, BF. I agree with that all of that. Any reputational damage would be greatly outweighed by the positives.

[GMF 754]

49 minutes ago, BigFish said:

I am being lazy @GMF, but would it be possible to remind all on this thread what the Trust paid the Archant administrators for the club's shares please? It is in the public domain & will kill some of this tiresome speculation on the clubs value.

Indeed you are being lazy 😜

Notwithstanding, I’m firmly of the view that one single share transfer isn’t of relevance in this context (one swallow doesn’t make a summer) unless, of course I was MA (which I’m not) and it was the highest price I’d paid for NCFC shares in the past 12 months (which it isn’t). 

[shefcanary 2,426]

As Essex has once again drawn me into the fray some further latest thoughts.

We currently have two pieces of evidence over the valuation of the club in the public domain.

The creation of the C Preference Shares valued the club at £100 million in September 2022. That is in black and white - Attanasio paid £10m to purchase shares that eventually would be 10% of the total shareholding of the club, ergo club valuation 10 x £10m = £100 million. Attanasio must have agreed to that valuation otherwise he would not have paid £10m for those C Preference shares.

Anecdotal evidence is this is about right for a championship club - Swiss Ramble this morning quotes Burnley's acquisition price last May as being £112m ("The acquisition cost was reported to be £112m, comprising a £65m payable in Burnley FC Holdings Ltd, a £37m payable in Burnley Football & Athletic Holdings Ltd and a further £10m advance to a group company after the 2021 year-end."). Also Dozy n Boozie had agreed a price of £115m for Sheffield United, however since they have gained promotion to the EPL, he has upped his offer to £150m. Both these pieces of information suggest that even the valuation of £100m is a little light and again why the club is attractive to Attanasio.

On the other hand, elsewhere on this Board there is currently a thread where there is an offer to sell shares at £80 per share.  This actually values the club at only c.£50m based on the pre-allotment shares in circulation. A generous offer Essex - snap the guys hand off!

So, the club has a current valuation based on known transactions in the public arena of between £50 - 100m.

Elsewhere in this thread I have posed potential alternative scenarios depending on the outcome of the allotment and Attanasio converting his preference shares. But that is speculation. As is worrying about what Attanasio has paid Foulger and the Foulger Trust, plus any other minority interests.

My personal view is that most of the share dealing with Foulger and the other minorities was completed before the September board meeting last year when the C Preference shares were issued. That is, we are nearly at the 12 month anniversary of those transactions, so whatever was paid then becomes a by-line in history as far as future transactions are concerned. The current allotment is a potential mechanism that reduces the price per share further, without necessarily changing the valuation of the club. So no-one should expect to receive £165 per share (the value per share of the club based on £100m valuation and the pre-allotment shares in circulation) by the time Attanasio completes the takeover - indeed as GMF has stated the value per share is likely to be £110 once all the corporate transactions in progress are complete. As Big Fish and Purple have been discussing this may look immoral, but that is the way of share transactions to the majority of people involved, although as far as the general public is concerned as long as their pensions aren't affected so what.

Irrespective of all the above, I would not be surprised that some form of "community trust shareholding" is created by Smith & Jones, as part of the transaction where they sell some of their shares to Attanasio, as per Indy's recognition that Smith & Jones would not want to be seen as profiting hugely from their sale. I also accept that would go against the grain of the usual US investor takeover model, but given his Milwaukee Brewer's track record Attanasio does indeed go against the grain of most US sport investors.

Who knows?

[essex canary 497]

1 hour ago, BigFish said:

We are on the same page apart from on the PR. While one frequent poster on this thread may be very upset, no change there, pretty much the reputational damage would be negligible. Most fans aren't shareholders for a start, and most fans aren't interested. MA would sweep in on a wave of optimism and goodwill, at least for the honeymoon period. In addition most shareholders didn't buy their stake as an investment and many probably didn't expect to get their money back let alone make a small notional profit. To accept or not would be their choice. The massive majority would feel a sense of relief that this stage was at an end. Whether it lasts is another matter, and if it gets to a stage where MA takes the club private it is another, totally separate debate.

I suspect a greater percentage of Norwich supporters are shareholders relative to any other Club though can see where you are coming from in the context of many of them having invested £100 in the distant past. A pretty clever wheeze, if you look at it that way, to get 30% of the Club funded in that way and to believe there are no obligations.

Burnley's statement in settling  generously with their shareholders was that it was only right to do so. It is only right also to deal with individual supporter issues appropriately which is why Clubs are signed up to initiatives such as the Ombudsman.

Besides not to do so eventually spills over into issues affecting the wider supporter base such as charging the highest season ticket prices in the EFL and finishing 13th. 

Edited May 16, 2023 by essex canary

[Indy 3,307]

23 minutes ago, essex canary said:

 

Besides not to do so eventually spills over into issues affecting the wider supporter base such as charging the highest season ticket prices in the EFL and finishing 13th. 

That’s little unfair as no one is obligated to buy the season tickets and where you finish isn’t a given on the price of the season ticket or turnover.

I still believe no one in going to invest more money into this club without more power, MA has already bought a seat on the board and invested £10 million in cat c shares! That’s a big start in my book and helped sure up this summer. How he does the dealing to take over is his business and as long as he has the right set up I have no issue on what he pays to takeover. He’s already invested more into the club financially and he knows sports! Hopefully he can bring the success he has in baseball into football which will benefit all parties including us the fans.

TO ADD. The one thing I do agree with you on Essex is the current set up at top level where on couple is employed to run the club on behest of the old couple! It isn’t conducive to a dynamic set up nor much accountability on two failed seasons.

At least if MA brings in his son and keeps the Webbers on he will enforce more culpability if the performance targets are not met, unlike the current owners who begged Webber to stay and dictate his terms! Wrong in my book.

Edited May 16, 2023 by Indy

[Canary Pie 25]

The value of the C preferance shares is totally irrelevant as they carry a 7% per annum return and have significant financial rights in the event of wind up or sale. NCFC would probably be worth £50m to £100m at a push if it was entering the Premier League again next season. It is not and its current financial and sporting momentum is downward. If any of the £25 pound shareholders get a profitable return they should consider themselves lucky. The mistakes made to get into the current financial situation come down to luck and some poor scouting. The club made some player bets and almost none of them paid off - but had the luck gone in the other direction things would be very different. 

[Canary Wundaboy 1,359]

51 minutes ago, Indy said:

I still believe no one in going to invest more money into this club without more power, MA has already bought a seat on the board and invested £10 million in cat c shares! That’s a big start in my book and helped sure up this summer. How he does the dealing to take over is his business and as long as he has the right set up I have no issue on what he pays to takeover. He’s already invested more into the club financially and he knows sports! Hopefully he can bring the success he has in baseball into football which will benefit all parties including us the fans.

TO ADD. The one thing I do agree with you on Essex is the current set up at top level where on couple is employed to run the club on behest of the old couple! It isn’t conducive to a dynamic set up nor much accountability on two failed seasons.

At least if MA brings in his son and keeps the Webbers on he will enforce more culpability if the performance targets are not met, unlike the current owners who begged Webber to stay and dictate his terms! Wrong in my book.

Attanasio isn't going to invest more of his money without more power, he's too smart a businessman for that and his motivation isn't some kind-hearted "lifetime fan" thing but more a pragmatic opportunity to get into the lucrative world of UK football with as-strong a position as possible. The issue is striking a balance, and for the current owners the longer their presence at the top continues the more difficult and toxic the atmosphere at Carrow Road is becoming.

If, god forbid, this situation is still in limbo at the beginning of next season, which will have limited money for transfers and caused further distraction for those behind the scenes at the club, a bad start to the season will cause friction the likes of which we haven't seen since the Chase days. The only thing buying Delia and MWJ time here is the belief widely-held that they are holding out for the best interests of the club. If it starts looking like this takeover might not happen, the arguments about them holding the club back will turn from a quiet murmur to a raoar.

[essex canary 497]

4 hours ago, Feedthewolf said:

 

Or it might have been something to do with the Football Ombudsman independently adjudicating that you need to stop hassling the club with your tiresome agenda?

 

The same Football Ombudsman who always seemed to favour the Club's in his judgement albeit the new one seems to be much tougher as his most recent judgement on Brighton demonstrates and as the Football Supporters Association has acknowledged. At least Brighton, absurd as their case was, had a panel structure to deliberate. No one knows what review structure took place with NCFC to engage in their ludicrous cherry picking nonsense. 

The chronology was the other way around. 

[Greavsy 2,416]

1 minute ago, essex canary said:

The same Football Ombudsman who always seemed to favour the Club's in his judgement albeit the new one seems to be much tougher as his most recent judgement on Brighton demonstrates and as the Football Supporters Association has acknowledged. At least Brighton, absurd as their case was, had a panel structure to deliberate. No one knows what review structure took place with NCFC to engage in their ludicrous cherry picking nonsense. 

The chronology was the other way around. 

.......on a bike!

Read the room.

[Feedthewolf 4,850]

50 minutes ago, essex canary said:

The same Football Ombudsman who always seemed to favour the Club's in his judgement albeit the new one seems to be much tougher as his most recent judgement on Brighton demonstrates and as the Football Supporters Association has acknowledged. At least Brighton, absurd as their case was, had a panel structure to deliberate. No one knows what review structure took place with NCFC to engage in their ludicrous cherry picking nonsense. 

The chronology was the other way around. 

I don't care. No one cares. You do understand that, don't you?

[Greavsy 2,416]

24 minutes ago, Feedthewolf said:

I don't care. No one cares. You do understand that, don't you?

Essex cares......

[Google Bot 3,294]

30 minutes ago, Feedthewolf said:

I don't care. No one cares. You do understand that, don't you?

Local paper shop cares, they're making a killing on sharpies, pins, boards and invisible ink.