Mark Attanasio

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

I don't want to stifle debate, but the rights and wrongs of Essex's views and attitudes have been covered at length elsewhere. It is true that one of his concerns - what price minority shareholders might get offered in a takeover - is certainly relevant to this thread, so perhaps comments here could stick to that valid question, with the more personal stuff left aside.

[wcorkcanary 4,337]

24 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

I don't want to stifle debate, but the rights and wrongs of Essex's views and attitudes have been covered at length elsewhere. It is true that one of his concerns - what price minority shareholders might get offered in a takeover - is certainly relevant to this thread, so perhaps comments here could stick to that valid question, with the more personal stuff left aside.

I'll stop getting personal with Shylock, if he lays off his snidey comments about virtually anyone in the club management.  Its childish , so I'm  treating him the same way. How he thinks it'll  help his case , i have No idea.  Still hoping MA will buy all he  can .....except a certain 1000.  Now that would be funny.

 

The price he gets for his shares is not one of the things he cares about , its all he cares about....the rest is just smoke and mirrors.  He'll take his money and run......it's the best way  he can " help the club" .

Edited May 31, 2023 by wcorkcanary

[essex canary 504]

The Takeover Code states that matters need to be settled within the SPIRIT of the Code.

Let's just say that Directors who clearly indicated that they would be buying shares at the same price as supporters within the 2002 Share Prospectus can only be seen to be upholding the SPIRIT of their own rules if they follow that logic at all times whereas there has been a departure from same. The issue of the extent to which a transaction can be fully private in all instances also comes into play.

The Football Club may well have under-estimated the issues but perhaps if they removed the blinkers and stood in other peoples shoes at times they would estimate better?

[Soldier on 161]

As a “supporter”I want officials to put the future success and prosperity of the club first rather than minority shareholders.

I only invested in shares to help the club not for any financial gain.

[essex canary 504]

1 hour ago, Soldier on said:

As a “supporter”I want officials to put the future success and prosperity of the club first rather than minority shareholders.

I only invested in shares to help the club not for any financial gain.

Fair enough. Let's hope that proof that Michael Foulger felt likewise will be forthcoming.

Also 20 years ago the Club had a wage bill of £8 million rather than £118 million, the last £50 million of which would have been better spent on stadium expansion. Wherever we go from here proof that the Club can help itself going forward would be helpful.

[ncfcstar 292]

4 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Fair enough. Let's hope that proof that Michael Foulger felt likewise will be forthcoming.

Also 20 years ago the Club had a wage bill of £8 million rather than £118 million, the last £50 million of which would have been better spent on stadium expansion. Wherever we go from here proof that the Club can help itself going forward would be helpful.

What was the ratio of wages to turnover in 2002, and what was it at the last set of accounts?

[TIL 1010 4,787]

13 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Fair enough. Let's hope that proof that Michael Foulger felt likewise will be forthcoming.

 

Why don't you ask him yourself because you appear to be the only person concerned about it ?

[essex canary 504]

53 minutes ago, ncfcstar said:

What was the ratio of wages to turnover in 2002, and what was it at the last set of accounts?

54.2% in 2002 and 88% in 2022. Given the hard landing upon relegation from the Premier League 50 per cent ought to be the maximum in 2022 which is what the likes of Brentford spent and other clubs in their first season. 

[essex canary 504]

52 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

Why don't you ask him yourself because you appear to be the only person concerned about it ?

If MA had a limited budget for his purchase there were only 3 ways he could spend his money 1. Foulger 2. Other minority shareholders 3. New money. 

If he spends more on number 1. he spends less on the other 2. 

Peculiar if other people aren't interested.

[Nuff Said 5,173]

6 minutes ago, essex canary said:

54.2% in 2002 and 88% in 2022. Given the hard landing upon relegation from the Premier League 50 per cent ought to be the maximum in 2022 which is what the likes of Brentford spent and other clubs in their first season. 

We were swamped with the usual “where’s the ambition” and “why aren’t we giving it a proper go?” posts as it was, with 88% of wages spent on turnover. God only knows what would have been said if we’d kept it to 50%.

[TIL 1010 4,787]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

If MA had a limited budget for his purchase there were only 3 ways he could spend his money 1. Foulger 2. Other minority shareholders 3. New money. 

If he spends more on number 1. he spends less on the other 2. 

Peculiar if other people aren't interested.

That is not an answer to the question i asked of you. Sometimes it is easier to understand Stanley Unwin than your posts.

[GMF 756]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

If MA had a limited budget for his purchase there were only 3 ways he could spend his money 1. Foulger 2. Other minority shareholders 3. New money. 

If he spends more on number 1. he spends less on the other 2. 

Peculiar if other people aren't interested.

If MA really did have a limited budget, like you infer, I doubt very much whether he’d have got approval from MF.

Notwithstanding that, it was never just about the money for MF, which makes your obsession upon him somewhat misguided. It’s all about the new money from the allotment of the additional shares. 

[Soldier on 161]

10 minutes ago, GMF said:

If MA really did have a limited budget, like you infer, I doubt very much whether he’d have got approval from MF.

Notwithstanding that, it was never just about the money for MF, which makes your obsession upon him somewhat misguided. It’s all about the new money from the allotment of the additional shares. 

Didn’t the original announcement regarding new shares pretty much spell that out ?!

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,237]

3 hours ago, GMF said:

If MA really did have a limited budget, like you infer, I doubt very much whether he’d have got approval from MF.

Notwithstanding that, it was never just about the money for MF, which makes your obsession upon him somewhat misguided. It’s all about the new money from the allotment of the additional shares. 

Indeed. 
 

And this is where it is so much more than ‘a deal between two individuals’. 

These written-agreed-unwritten quid pro quo are often at the heart of such legacy transactions. 

The shares are a share in the company. 

The Company owns assets. Stadiums, training grounds, property, IP, rights, squad ‘rosters’ (as the Americans say).
 

The ‘company’ can decide to sell-lease-franchise-sell on all assets - including players, leasebacks of stadiums, future TV monies, future brand ownership, property -  on a given vote. 

Majority shareholders can swing such votes. 

Private transactions?

Make no mistake, this is the very future of Norwich City Football Club. 

We talk about ‘who buyers sell to next’ for example. 
 

Whatever one’s views - whether for financial gain, legacy, loyalty, interest, positive or negative - if there is one subject in the Norwich City world worth spending time thinking about, discussing, understanding, dissecting, questioning…then this is it. 

Take time to understand. Ask if you don’t know something. There are fine minds here and this matters. 

There will be a time when you might wish you had. 

Parma 

@nutty nigel

@king canary

@BigFish

@GMF

@essex canary

@PurpleCanary

@MrBunce

@Don J Demorr

@TIL 1010

@Petriix

@shefcanary

Edited June 1, 2023 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[Indy 3,314]

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

Indeed. 
 

And this is where it is so much more than ‘a deal between two individuals’. 

These written-agreed-unwritten quid pro quo are often at the heart of such legacy transactions. 

The shares are a share in the company. 

The Company owns assets. Stadiums, training grounds, property, IP, rights, squad ‘rosters’ (as the Americans say).
 

The ‘company’ can decide to sell-lease-franchise-sell on all assets - including players, leasebacks of stadiums, future TV monies, future brand ownership, property -  on a given vote. 

Majority shareholders can swing such votes. 

Private transactions?

Make no mistake, this is the very future of Norwich City Football Club. 

We talk about ‘who buyers sell to next’ for example. 
 

Whatever one’s views - whether for financial gain, legacy, loyalty, interest, positive or negative - if there is one subject in the Norwich City world worth spending time thinking about, discussing, understanding, dissecting, questioning…then this is it. 

Take time to understand. Ask if you don’t know something. There are fine minds here and this matters. 

There will be a time when you might wish you had. 

Parma 

@nutty nigel

@king canary

@BigFish

@GMF

@essex canary

@PurpleCanary

@MrBunce

@Don J Demorr

@TIL 1010

@Petriix

@shefcanary

An excellent post Parma, certainly is big business in the US to segregate income streams. A lot of football clubs are following suit though some because of finances dictated the way forwards, selling grounds and leasing. Others have fallen into it luckily and made a fortune by it! West Ham & Man City come to mind regarding stadiums.

[chicken 2,642]

3 hours ago, essex canary said:

Peculiar if other people aren't interested.

How can you say that? You are the literal definition of "peculiar"! You are standing on your little mound all alone without anyone joining you. And yet you drag your little mound all around with you to every thread that you think you can plonk it down, get atop of it and start this infernal din all over again. 

[GMF 756]

2 hours ago, Soldier on said:

Didn’t the original announcement regarding new shares pretty much spell that out ?!

Absolutely, it did and MF said so too at the time, which rather makes the obsession with, “how much did Micky F wallet’ very odd indeed.

[essex canary 504]

5 hours ago, Nuff Said said:

We were swamped with the usual “where’s the ambition” and “why aren’t we giving it a proper go?” posts as it was, with 88% of wages spent on turnover. God only knows what would have been said if we’d kept it to 50%.

Looks like you have hit the nail on the head. The previous ratios for the first season after promotion for NCFC  are 45%, 49%, 69% and 74%. Therefore it has been progressively higher and higher. Yet which 1 of those seasons did we survive? Answer the one that was closest to Brentford's ratio last season. 

Is the Club being managed by intellect or popularity?

[Soldier on 161]

The prem has changed rather a lot in recent years in terms of finance 

[Nuff Said 5,173]

9 hours ago, essex canary said:

Looks like you have hit the nail on the head. The previous ratios for the first season after promotion for NCFC  are 45%, 49%, 69% and 74%. Therefore it has been progressively higher and higher. Yet which 1 of those seasons did we survive? Answer the one that was closest to Brentford's ratio last season. 

Is the Club being managed by intellect or popularity?

You’re focused on numbers to the extent that you can’t see the wood for the trees. 

[essex canary 504]

10 hours ago, Soldier on said:

The prem has changed rather a lot in recent years in terms of finance 

There are numerous other clubs who are not running an 88% ratio of wages to turnover in early years in the PL. Leeds for example have had the same level of wage spend as us but on a £190 million turnover thereby achieving 63% in addition to Brentford's 50%.

Besides if it has changed so much that only goes to emphasise how such individual supporter shareholding initiatives are obsolete which is the point Burnley reached.

[BigFish 1,988]

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

Indeed. 
 

And this is where it is so much more than ‘a deal between two individuals’. 

These written-agreed-unwritten quid pro quo are often at the heart of such legacy transactions. 

The shares are a share in the company. 

The Company owns assets. Stadiums, training grounds, property, IP, rights, squad ‘rosters’ (as the Americans say).
 

The ‘company’ can decide to sell-lease-franchise-sell on all assets - including players, leasebacks of stadiums, future TV monies, future brand ownership, property -  on a given vote. 

Majority shareholders can swing such votes. 

Private transactions?

Make no mistake, this is the very future of Norwich City Football Club. 

We talk about ‘who buyers sell to next’ for example. 
 

Whatever one’s views - whether for financial gain, legacy, loyalty, interest, positive or negative - if there is one subject in the Norwich City world worth spending time thinking about, discussing, understanding, dissecting, questioning…then this is it. 

Take time to understand. Ask if you don’t know something. There are fine minds here and this matters. 

There will be a time when you might wish you had. 

Parma 

@nutty nigel

@king canary

@BigFish

@GMF

@essex canary

@PurpleCanary

@MrBunce

@Don J Demorr

@TIL 1010

@Petriix

@shefcanary

For me, it is emotion that clouds everything on this thread. The club isn't an actor in this process, it is an object upon which others act. If we were being objective it is more understandable if the shareholders (including Foulger, Smith and Jones) try to get as much for their shares as possible as long as this is done lawfully and is what they wish. Equally, it would be perfectly understandable for MA to invest as little as possible with a view to turning as large a profit as can be managed.

As fans we are just interested and invested on-lookers. We don't want what is reasonable, we want the actors to act against their best interests. We are emotional and subjective. We are unreasonable. Foulger, Smith, Jones and most of the shareholders are also fans, it clouds their judgement and makes this whole transaction difficult. A compromise is required between their best interests, their emotions and their self-identity. This is murky grey rather than black and white. The question is not whether the current shareholders will sacrifice to their emotional self (and the club), it is only how much.

[CANARYKING 644]

Isn’t it about time we had some sort of statement from the club or has it all collapsed !

[GMF 756]

10 minutes ago, CANARYKING said:

Isn’t it about time we had some sort of statement from the club or has it all collapsed !

I suspect that the pesky lawyers are still wrestling with those regulatory issues…

Something’s a brewing… 

[Midlands Yellow 4,057]

Patience is a virtue but it’s moving along like an asthmatic snail pushing a heavy load. 

 

 

[GMF 756]

4 hours ago, essex canary said:

Besides if it has changed so much that only goes to emphasise how such individual supporter shareholding initiatives are obsolete which is the point Burnley reached.

Burnley Football & Athletic Company Limited, together with its immediate holding company, Burnley FC Holdings Limited, are both private limited companies, unlike NCFC, which is public.

It has less than 78,000 shares, held by fewer than 1,800 shareholders, compared to 617,000 shares in NCFC, with over 6,800 shareholders.

Its owners held almost 84% of its shares, compared to 53% for Norwich, of which only 6% were held by private individuals.

The Club isn’t bound by the same Takeover Code rules, unlike NCFC.

I can’t work out if you’re really advocating for NCFC to go down the same path, being taken private, with a single person ownership (which would be ironic given how you’ve repeatedly moaned about D&M having a majority ownership) or just desperate for a payout for your shares, which, otherwise you’re unlikely to receive? 

[Soldier on 161]

35 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Patience is a virtue but it’s moving along like an asthmatic snail pushing a heavy load. 

 

 

Ha ha feels like a good description

[It's Character Forming 1,164]

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

Indeed. 
 

And this is where it is so much more than ‘a deal between two individuals’. 

These written-agreed-unwritten quid pro quo are often at the heart of such legacy transactions. 

The shares are a share in the company. 

The Company owns assets. Stadiums, training grounds, property, IP, rights, squad ‘rosters’ (as the Americans say).
 

The ‘company’ can decide to sell-lease-franchise-sell on all assets - including players, leasebacks of stadiums, future TV monies, future brand ownership, property -  on a given vote. 

Majority shareholders can swing such votes. 

Private transactions?

Make no mistake, this is the very future of Norwich City Football Club. 

We talk about ‘who buyers sell to next’ for example. 
 

Whatever one’s views - whether for financial gain, legacy, loyalty, interest, positive or negative - if there is one subject in the Norwich City world worth spending time thinking about, discussing, understanding, dissecting, questioning…then this is it. 

Take time to understand. Ask if you don’t know something. There are fine minds here and this matters. 

There will be a time when you might wish you had. 

Parma 

@nutty nigel

@king canary

@BigFish

@GMF

@essex canary

@PurpleCanary

@MrBunce

@Don J Demorr

@TIL 1010

@Petriix

@shefcanary

I realise the Company can decide to sell assets like the stadium etc, I think Coventry did this and it took them forever to sort it out.  Whenever a club does that it's always a massive red flag for me, because going forward the club will have to pay for using an asset it used to own (at the moment we don't have to pay rent to use CR).  It's like a club borrowing (borrowing from the owners is obviously different).  It means going forward you have to pay interest & eventually repay the debt.

All these things subtract from the money available for the playing squad in future.

 

I know everyone is getting very excited about Brentford doing so well while keeping their wage bill firmly under control.  When we were promoted the first time under Farke, we gave a lot of players big wage rises to tie in some of our rising stars to extended contracts, rather than spending money improving the squad.  This allowed us to cash in on some of those stars over the next couple of years.

 

Brentford will have to increase the wages they pay or lose players (which is probably going to happen anyway, to a degree) and if they've kept players on pre-promotion contracts, that will mean the contracts don't have so long to run & will reduce the transfer fees they can get from them.

[essex canary 504]

8 hours ago, GMF said:

Burnley Football & Athletic Company Limited, together with its immediate holding company, Burnley FC Holdings Limited, are both private limited companies, unlike NCFC, which is public.

It has less than 78,000 shares, held by fewer than 1,800 shareholders, compared to 617,000 shares in NCFC, with over 6,800 shareholders.

Its owners held almost 84% of its shares, compared to 53% for Norwich, of which only 6% were held by private individuals.

The Club isn’t bound by the same Takeover Code rules, unlike NCFC.

I can’t work out if you’re really advocating for NCFC to go down the same path, being taken private, with a single person ownership (which would be ironic given how you’ve repeatedly moaned about D&M having a majority ownership) or just desperate for a payout for your shares, which, otherwise you’re unlikely to receive? 

As the Crouch Report is recommending an increased role for fan Trusts, why not get the 160,000 shares in minority hands, around 20 per cent of the total into Trust hands? 

Attanasio wouid need to make a goodwill gesture to make that happen given the excess salary and golden handshake payments that have been made in recent times without suitable payback return.

[Duncan Edwards 2,261]

17 minutes ago, essex canary said:

As the Crouch Report is recommending an increased role for fan Trusts, why not get the 160,000 shares in minority hands, around 20 per cent of the total into Trust hands? 

Attanasio wouid need to make a goodwill gesture to make that happen given the excess salary and golden handshake payments that have been made in recent times without suitable payback return.

Are you going to start by donating yours? If you DM me I can provide you with some contact details for prominent Trust members, or I’m sure @GMF can facilitate it for you.