Mark Attanasio

[nutty nigel 7,660]

https://open.spotify.com/episode/7pLj3kMMI3zGsODvqabRJ7?si=HiPgz2FrRteV91hmkQocJQ&t=846

A little bit on The Price Of Football this week.

[essex canary 515]

@Parma Ham's gone mouldy

Thanks for your latest thoughts.

I hipe you are right about the sweetheart deal for small shareholders. Given that bondholders received such substantial reward from shareholders funds for short term investment, that seems only fair for long term investment.

Then again the Club was flush with cash when it paid that out, maybe not now. However we can also ask to what extent the Takeover Code will take account of the football industry tendency to manage itself on a cash basis as opposed to an accruals basis?  Presumably not much especially if Foulger's settlement was generous?

Of course another argument is that the Club will make every endeavour not to be so generous given that there are more non-shareholder supporters than shareholders and/or that many of those who spent £100 wrote that off at the time. Not everybody is in that situation however. If soneone had 250 times the basic investment and then witnessed a benefit their family would otherwise have received vanish due to an act of God at the time of the bond issue snd the Club refusing to make any concession I dare say that if the Takeover Code provides such a sweetener, @GMF might like to reflect that it may well in that circumstance be claimed. There may also be some sympathy votes for same. 

The moral here is surely that the Club and it's Board, in it's own interests, needs to have been fully sensitive to all aspects of minority shareholding at all times. 

 

[Duncan Edwards 2,274]

16 minutes ago, essex canary said:

@Parma Ham's gone mouldy

Thanks for your latest thoughts.

I hipe you are right about the sweetheart deal for small shareholders. Given that bondholders received such substantial reward from shareholders funds for short term investment, that seems only fair for long term investment.

Then again the Club was flush with cash when it paid that out, maybe not now. However we can also ask to what extent the Takeover Code will take account of the football industry tendency to manage itself on a cash basis as opposed to an accruals basis?  Presumably not much especially if Foulger's settlement was generous?

Of course another argument is that the Club will make every endeavour not to be so generous given that there are more non-shareholder supporters than shareholders and/or that many of those who spent £100 wrote that off at the time. Not everybody is in that situation however. If soneone had 250 times the basic investment and then witnessed a benefit their family would otherwise have received vanish due to an act of God at the time of the bond issue snd the Club refusing to make any concession I dare say that if the Takeover Code provides such a sweetener, @GMF might like to reflect that it may well in that circumstance be claimed. There may also be some sympathy votes for same. 

The moral here is surely that the Club and it's Board, in it's own interests, needs to have been fully sensitive to all aspects of minority shareholding at all times. 

 

You know you’re free to negotiate a private deal for your shares. They’re worth what someone is willing to pay after all. I’ll give you £50 for your total holding. That’s 5p a share, which given our precarious financial position along with three terrible seasons in the last four, seems like a decent return for you and a bit of a gamble for me.

DM me and we can get the deal done. 👍

[PurpleCanary 5,601]

11 hours ago, essex canary said:

@Parma Ham's gone mouldy

Thanks for your latest thoughts.

I hipe you are right about the sweetheart deal for small shareholders. Given that bondholders received such substantial reward from shareholders funds for short term investment, that seems only fair for long term investment.

Then again the Club was flush with cash when it paid that out, maybe not now. However we can also ask to what extent the Takeover Code will take account of the football industry tendency to manage itself on a cash basis as opposed to an accruals basis?  Presumably not much especially if Foulger's settlement was generous?

Of course another argument is that the Club will make every endeavour not to be so generous given that there are more non-shareholder supporters than shareholders and/or that many of those who spent £100 wrote that off at the time. Not everybody is in that situation however. If soneone had 250 times the basic investment and then witnessed a benefit their family would otherwise have received vanish due to an act of God at the time of the bond issue snd the Club refusing to make any concession I dare say that if the Takeover Code provides such a sweetener, @GMF might like to reflect that it may well in that circumstance be claimed. There may also be some sympathy votes for same. 

The moral here is surely that the Club and it's Board, in it's own interests, needs to have been fully sensitive to all aspects of minority shareholding at all times. 

 

I really am not an expert but I get the impression you may be ascribing to the Takeover Code/Panel more influence over the treatment of minority shareholders than is justified.

The Code/Panel does insist that  if someone gets to 30 per cent then the subsequent manadatory offer to the minorities has to be at the highest price paid by the potential owner in the last 12 months.

And the Code/Panel does have the power to approve or not approve any application by the potential owner to waive that otherwise mandatory offer. So the Code/Panel does get involved in the fairness or otherwise of the parts of the current offer within itself.

But what you seem to want/expect is for the Code/Panel also to take into account historical factors and supposed inequalities and injustices that are not directly relevant to the current offer, and I doubt that is the case.

Edited May 30, 2023 by PurpleCanary

[GMF 757]

1 hour ago, PurpleCanary said:

But what you seem to want/expect is for the Code/Panel also to take into account historical factors and supposed inequalities and injustices that are not directly relevant to the current offer, and I doubt that is the case.

The Takeover Panel is absolutely guided by the legislation, as detailed within the relevant Acts, plus any subsequent case law arising thereafter.  Anything else beyond that is wishful thinking on the part of Essex Canary 

[PurpleCanary 5,601]

20 minutes ago, GMF said:

The Takeover Panel is absolutely guided by the legislation, as detailed within the relevant Acts, plus any subsequent case law arising thereafter.  Anything else beyond that is wishful thinking on the part of Essex Canary 

I was trying to be not quite so blunt!😍

Edited May 30, 2023 by PurpleCanary

[MrBunce 245]

23 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

So, these 194,512 Ordinary shares! Why no news? The intention to create them came early this year, and was approved by shareholders on February 13. So 13 weeks ago, and the only public statement from the club has been to the effect that some legalities – unspecified - are being sorted out. Which is one of those vague statements that might be both strictly true but also in reality misleading. To put it another way, is this hiatus normal and expected by the club or has there been a hitch (with apologies for what will be a quite lengthy post.)

Since this is a Bank Holiday weekend one might regard this as an entertainment, and call it The Mystery of the Stupidly Unrounded Number. Why 194,512?  Stupid because it was bound to cause fans to think about it in a way 190,000, say, or 200,000 would not have done.

It seems clear these shares are being created for Attanasio – and him alone - to buy, and the obvious explanation for this precise number is that if it is put together with however many Ordinary shares he has bought from Foulger and other minority holdings, such perhaps as the 23,000 shares Jimmy Jones used to have, then it creates a precise and so significant total number.

Although it might be the figure is important not as a figure but more as a percentage of the new total of Ordinaries. In two ways.

If, for the sake of argument, Attanasio’s holding reaches 40 per cent or thereabouts (194,512 plus 98,000 plus 23,000 plus a few thousands others), then, coincidentally, it is very much on a par with that of S&J, theirs having been reduced from 53 per cent.

Secondly, having broken the 30 per cent limit, Attanasio would be forced to make an offer to buy out the remaining minority shareholders. Which presumably he doesn’t want to do, since it is a fair assumption some at least would demand he did buy, and that would mean he ended up with more than the precise figure and percentage that seem to be the point of the stupidly unrounded number.

The way round that is via the Takeover Code and a Rule 9 whitewash waiver. But that is not a simple process, and there has to be a justification before it goes to a vote of the minority shareholders..  One reason the Takeover Panel accepts is that the company being bought is on the verge of collapse. That plainly doesn’t apply to NCFC plc.

Even in more normal circumstances the Panel has a duty to look after the interests of the minority shareholders in a takeover. In general terms, a waiver removing the right of such shareholders to sell out at a good price hardly fits in with that remit. Especially if, as I have seen suggested on the message-board, voting to give Attanasio a waiver is a condition of him actually buying the shares.

That, I must stress, has only been raised as a possibility but if it was the case I would imagine the Panel would be unhappy with such a blunt proviso, which in effect would place some minority shareholders in a position where they could vote for their own financial interests or those of the club.

I know Attanasio used a well-known UK firm, Freshfields, for the Foulger purchase and may well be still using them. Whereas as I understand it the club, which has never really had to deal with the intricacies of the Takeover Code before, has kept it in-house.

Given that the creation of these shares must have been discussed some time before the first announcement early this year, it would seem odd that the legalities have still not been worked out, if they were straightforward.

But then if, as I believe, Attanasio wants a waiver that might have thrown up unforeseen or at least unhoped for difficulties. Hence there is what does start to look more like a delay than a factored-in wait.

But there is another potential reason, instead of or even as well as that of the waiver. I am as sure as I can be that the agreed overall plan is for Attanasio to take over, by way of acquiring a majority stake.

But it is possible that on one side or the other there has been a bit of a rethink on the details of that plan. If so then that could well be having a knock-on effect on the details of the first stage – the acquisition of an equal-partners minority stake - since both stages involve buying shares at one price or another, and pricing is a not insignificant factor.

A small point of correction Purple. It was Linklaters who advised Attanasio. The club was advised (for the Foulger transaction) by a small Harrogate-based firm called Mccormicks (incidentally where Zoe Webber has worked previously). I don't know whether the club has subsequently retained Mccormicks for the subsequent transactions. 

[PurpleCanary 5,601]

12 minutes ago, MrBunce said:

A small point of correction Purple. It was Linklaters who advised Attanasio. The club was advised (for the Foulger transaction) by a small Harrogate-based firm called Mccormicks (incidentally where Zoe Webber has worked previously). I don't know whether the club has subsequently retained Mccormicks for the subsequent transactions. 

Thanks, Mr Bunce. I am always happy to be corrected on facts and to acknowledge that.

[GMF 757]

14 minutes ago, MrBunce said:

A small point of correction Purple. It was Linklaters who advised Attanasio. The club was advised (for the Foulger transaction) by a small Harrogate-based firm called Mccormicks (incidentally where Zoe Webber has worked previously). I don't know whether the club has subsequently retained Mccormicks for the subsequent transactions. 

Someone has being paying attention (winks).

[wcorkcanary 4,355]

14 hours ago, Duncan Edwards said:

You know you’re free to negotiate a private deal for your shares. They’re worth what someone is willing to pay after all. I’ll give you £50 for your total holding. That’s 5p a share, which given our precarious financial position along with three terrible seasons in the last four, seems like a decent return for you and a bit of a gamble for me.

DM me and we can get the deal done. 👍

I've already offered him 20p in the pound Duncano , didn't hear from him, he just carried on whining. Considering he initially wanted to ' help the Club'. But then turned sour as he missed out on the Bond issue combined with him being unable to distinguish between for life and for ever leads me to believe that he actually enjoys being such a sourpuss moneygrabbing Shylock. God help his nearest and dearest. 

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,246]

3 hours ago, MrBunce said:

A small point of correction Purple. It was Linklaters who advised Attanasio. The club was advised (for the Foulger transaction) by a small Harrogate-based firm called Mccormicks (incidentally where Zoe Webber has worked previously). I don't know whether the club has subsequently retained Mccormicks for the subsequent transactions. 

 

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

[Soldier on 172]

Out of interest how do we know which firm Attanasio appointed ?

[MrBunce 245]

29 minutes ago, Soldier on said:

Out of interest how do we know which firm Attanasio appointed ?

https://www.linklaters.com/en/about-us/news-and-deals/deals/2022/september/linklaters-advises-on-the-acquisition-of-a-stake-in-norwich-city-fc

[Soldier on 172]

Nice one thanks 

[essex canary 515]

6 hours ago, wcorkcanary said:

I've already offered him 20p in the pound Duncano , didn't hear from him, he just carried on whining. Considering he initially wanted to ' help the Club'. But then turned sour as he missed out on the Bond issue combined with him being unable to distinguish between for life and for ever leads me to believe that he actually enjoys being such a sourpuss moneygrabbing Shylock. God help his nearest and dearest. 

Thanks to you and @Duncan Edwards for your kind offers. Unfortunately unlike Directors of the Football Club, we would be unable to agree an exclusive private transaction as the Club would wish to intervene on the matter of the seat concession. Once again a matter of treating ordinary supporters as second class citizens.

[Duncan Edwards 2,274]

33 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Thanks to you and @Duncan Edwards for your kind offers. Unfortunately unlike Directors of the Football Club, we would be unable to agree an exclusive private transaction as the Club would wish to intervene on the matter of the seat concession. Once again a matter of treating ordinary supporters as second class citizens.

I’d be willing to gift the seat back to the club. 

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,047]

6 minutes ago, Duncan Edwards said:

I’d be willing to gift the seat back to the club. 

I am sure Corkio would also be happy to gift the seat back to the club..........

[essex canary 515]

11 minutes ago, Duncan Edwards said:

I’d be willing to gift the seat back to the club. 

You mean to the Webber's bank account. No thanks.

[Duncan Edwards 2,274]

13 minutes ago, essex canary said:

You mean to the Webber's bank account. No thanks.

Well, no. To the club.

Why do you assume your couple of quid goes to the Webbers? Why would yours not help out putting on a ladies game or supporting the CSF or paying for youth development?

Don’t ever analyse your council tax bill; I hate to think where you would decide your couple of quid goes. 

[essex canary 515]

20 minutes ago, Duncan Edwards said:

Well, no. To the club.

Why do you assume your couple of quid goes to the Webbers? Why would yours not help out putting on a ladies game or supporting the CSF or paying for youth development?

Don’t ever analyse your council tax bill; I hate to think where you would decide your couple of quid goes. 

The Council has transparent Corporate Governance arrangements.

[Duncan Edwards 2,274]

2 hours ago, essex canary said:

The Council has transparent Corporate Governance arrangements.

So you choose where your money to the club goes but are happy for the council to administer your CT payment? 

[wcorkcanary 4,355]

3 hours ago, Duncan Edwards said:

I’d be willing to gift the seat back to the club. 

Me too, it'd be a waste for me to have one, maybe it could be raffled to people with 999 shares or less.Or let Nuttyo find  a way of raising dosh with it.

[wcorkcanary 4,355]

9 hours ago, essex canary said:

The Council has transparent Corporate Governance arrangements.

Idiot. 

[essex canary 515]

8 hours ago, wcorkcanary said:

Me too, it'd be a waste for me to have one, maybe it could be raffled to people with 999 shares or less.Or let Nuttyo find  a way of raising dosh with it.

They won't give you that option. It is only available to me as long as I am alive and possess ownership of  the shares. 

[TIL 1010 4,826]

45 minutes ago, essex canary said:

They won't give you that option. It is only available to me as long as I am alive and possess ownership of  the shares. 

Quite right too but it is only you who thinks it should be otherwise.

[wcorkcanary 4,355]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

They won't give you that option. It is only available to me as long as I am alive and possess ownership of  the shares. 

Good . As it should be. Carry on with whatever it is you're trying to achieve  then. Pi55ing in the wind springs  to mind , but at least in this weather your trousers will dry quickly.

PS ..

YOU REALLY ARE STUPID. If I kept the ticket in my name i can do pretty much what I want with it. No one minds a fundraiser.....in a good cause that is, some money mad Shylock isnt a good cause by the way.....and nor are his ancestors.  Cont. Have you ever seen  a Cake that's been eaten AND kept.  Moron.

 

[essex canary 515]

1 hour ago, wcorkcanary said:

 

YOU REALLY ARE STUPID. If I kept the ticket in my name i can do pretty much what I want with it.

 

I think it is you who is being rather stupid. Why is the Club going to let you claim rights to  the seat with the 1,000 shares when it doesn't know if your longevity is greater than mine? 

If it worked like that I would transfer it to my son. Think about it! That is the whole point that my friends family faced. Though of course they won't in any way be balancing the longevity of Foulger and Attanasio.

Edited May 31, 2023 by essex canary

[wcorkcanary 4,355]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

I think it is you who is being rather stupid. Why is the Club going to let you claim rights to  the seat with the 1,000 shares when it doesn't know if your longevity is greater than mine? 

If it worked like that I would transfer it to my son. Think about it! That is the whole point that my friends family faced. Though of course they won't in any way be balancing the longevity of Foulger and Attanasio.

It's clearly personal , you've pi55ed the entire staff at the club off, no one wants to help you because you come across as an entitled, greedy, selfish Boor and bore. They'd probably give me five seats in a group , to thank me for getting rid of you.  I'd probably get Fans Player of the Season too.  I  expect your   ' friends and family ' are cringeing at your snuffling in the trough. Unless of course you've raised them right, the Essex way, to be a cadaver  bothering, gold filling collector like yourself.  

Has the lack of support that you've achieved  not taught you anything? But that doesn't matter as you rub your hands at the potential boost you may (or may not of course)  receive one day. Gordon Gheko  was wrong you know.

Greed is vile. ....and you wear a big fat greedy hat.  

[essex canary 515]

10 minutes ago, wcorkcanary said:

It's clearly personal , you've pi55ed the entire staff at the club off, no one wants to help you because you come across as an entitled, greedy, selfish Boor and bore. They'd probably give me five seats in a group , to thank me for getting rid of you.  I'd probably get Fans Player of the Season too.  I  expect your   ' friends and family ' are cringeing at your snuffling in the trough. Unless of course you've raised them right, the Essex way, to be a cadaver  bothering, gold filling collector like yourself.  

Has the lack of support that you've achieved  not taught you anything? But that doesn't matter as you rub your hands at the potential boost you may (or may not of course)  receive one day. Gordon Gheko  was wrong you know.

Greed is vile. ....and you wear a big fat greedy hat.  

Perhaps it follows that my late friend pi55ed them off too. With the hierarchy we probably did notably with our question at the 2016 AGM concerning Directors acquiring shares for £1 compared to the £100 then being charged to ordinary supporters.

Doesn't justify anybody acting unprofessionally whether pi55ed off or otherwise or any favourable treatment of any supporter vis-a-vis any other supporter.

 

 

 

[wcorkcanary 4,355]

31 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Perhaps it follows that my late friend pi55ed them off too. With the hierarchy we probably did notably with our question at the 2016 AGM concerning Directors acquiring shares for £1 compared to the £100 then being charged to ordinary supporters.

Doesn't justify anybody acting unprofessionally whether pi55ed off or otherwise or any favourable treatment of any supporter vis-a-vis any other supporter.

 

 

 

 

31 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Perhaps it follows that my late friend pi55ed them off too. With the hierarchy we probably did notably with our question at the 2016 AGM concerning Directors acquiring shares for £1 compared to the £100 then being charged to ordinary supporters.

Doesn't justify anybody acting unprofessionally whether pi55ed off or otherwise or any favourable treatment of any supporter vis-a-vis any other supporter.

 

 

 

No one is  getting behind you on this, i suspect you did a ' knight in shining Armour act'.. that you couldn't actually see through. You dont have the clout you thought you had....and you're now embarrassed. 

Show us all something/ anything that leads a reasonable person to believe  your season ticket was perpetual...and not just for life...of the person that bought the shares at the time.  If you can't do that , then why should we not mock your pomposity?. Either way , i still think you are a tw@. 

Money obsessed Cont moans about having money, but not enough . Go get a hobby rather than a hobby horse...cos they shoot horses dont they?