Mark Attanasio

[GMF 757]

11 minutes ago, BigFish said:

What value would you be content with @Essex Canary?

“Based upon Burnley”, incoming… 

[PurpleCanary 5,586]

23 hours ago, essex canary said:

One press suggestion was that the 194,512 shares would raise £24 million. If they are issued at £30 per share to raise under £6 million I don't think I will be the only one who will be disappointed especially in view of the amount of money that has been ditched in recent years.

I don't know which part of the media that was, but I have yet to see any exclusive news from anyone on any significant aspect of Attanasiogate that was clearly authoritative.

Edited July 29, 2023 by PurpleCanary

[essex canary 506]

4 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

I don't know whioch part of the media that was, but I have yet to see any exclusive news from anyone on any significant aspect of Attanasiogate that was clearly authoritative.

it did feature in one of the EDP discussion pages at one point. Rightly or wrongly based on £100 million divided by 811,425 times 194,512.

[essex canary 506]

20 minutes ago, BigFish said:

What value would you be content with @Essex Canary?

Based on Purchasing Power Parity with a season ticket in 2002 I would say £60.

Interesting to reflect though on what the Takeover Panel debate may be. Under the circumstances surely the TP would be very defensive about smaller shareholders getting the £30 offer? Could be that the debate then is whether the Club can depart from its previous precedent of allotment price and fair value price being the same by means of the waiver procedure?  

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,243]

3 hours ago, GMF said:

You’re conflating two different points here.

The Club doesn’t set the value of its own shares, that is usually set by the market. It’s also a matter for the individual companies who own the club’s shares, in conjunction with their own accountants, or external advisers, to determine what constitutes a fair value of their shares each year for inclusion in their accounts. The club has no involvement with that assessment.

 The exception to this general rule is when the company proposes to allots new shares and the allotment price is determined by the company’s directors. Should that actually happen in the not too distant future, I have a hunch you’re going to be extremely disappointed… 

This is the moment that the equity gain is concretised.

This is the crux. The road to this number is the unseen journey that is the lifeblood of good corporate finance work. 

This is where teams of advisors earn their money, creating ‘flagstones on the road to democracy’ as historical texts have it. 

Nice dinners, trips, bonding, gentle negotiating dressed as bonhomie. Fair is a nebulous concept when the number is finally written down. Dangling a carrot, playing for time and letting the waves wear down the rocks is commonplace. 

Ultimately if you have a Ferrari that you like to race and you can’t put petrol in, you have an issue. 

If you have fans you have to offer them at least a vaguely reasonable shot at dreaming of success. 

If you can’t, new suitors will wait you out. When their internal due diligence - initially just a sensible, formal ‘checking’ process - subsequently always finds structural issues, a forgotten-about skeleton or two in the cupboard …and so the price drops again. 

You start in the position of power, owning the desirable asset, lauded, praised and lionised. Then the gentle waves start lapping. And they never stop.

You’ll either understand what that means or you won’t. This is the process of defining and concretising the equity gain. It’s hard to make it fair. Promises, continuity, legacy, similarities, safe hands….oh yes.

Then the player with the biggest stack wins.

Who knew the game from the start?

Parma 

Edited July 28, 2023 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[shefcanary 2,466]

Having noted the detail of the past revaluation of the shares disposed of by P&L (thanks @GMF & @Essex Canary), a further review of the financial statements of that company also shows some land and / or buildings were also disposed of in year. It is thus perfectly likely that the £2.3M movement in Other Debtors also covers the sale of those assets as well! In short, this means that the value ascribed to those shares sold by P&L could well be anything from zero to £99 per share. Sorry I can't be more definitive without inside knowledge, or at least the confirmation statement from the club in November / December of this year that is filed with Companies House.

[NewNestCarrow 203]

19 hours ago, shefcanary said:

Thanks @GMF your extract shows that all shares originally bought at £30 each were disposed. But at what price? Unfortunately the accounts filed do not show the detailed P&L because of small companies exemption, but if you look at the P&L reserve it has grown by over £2m in the year, most of which is probably due to the profit on the disposal. Cash however hasn't increased by this amount, so looking further at the balance sheet, Other debtors has increased by exactly £2,300,000. Working on this also not being a coincidence, if this increase is the price paid for the shares, this equates to £98.81 per share giving a club valuation of c.£60m.

All this is pure conjecture however without seeing the detailed P&L, so please take this information with a very strong health warning.

Isn't everyone forgetting that Jones probably paid only £1 each for the bulk of his share-holding?

[In June 1983 NCFC stated that the number of called-up shares had increased by 83,964 and the "Proceeds of share issue" was . £108,049. Chase bought 27,500 shares, Jones purchased 25,000 and other share-holders were given a 4-for-1 purchase option. Clearly no-one was paying £30 per share in those days]

 

[BigFish 1,988]

36 minutes ago, NewNestCarrow said:

Isn't everyone forgetting that Jones probably paid only £1 each for the bulk of his share-holding?

[In June 1983 NCFC stated that the number of called-up shares had increased by 83,964 and the "Proceeds of share issue" was . £108,049. Chase bought 27,500 shares, Jones purchased 25,000 and other share-holders were given a 4-for-1 purchase option. Clearly no-one was paying £30 per share in those days]

Not forgetting, but like most of the history that some posters try to drag up this is irrelevant.

Also irrelevant is anything any of the protagonists have said in the past - the world has changed.

Ultimately all that is relevant is

1) What MA wants?

2) What he is willing to pay for this

3) Whether this is acceptable to S&J

4) Whether the value MA puts on this is acceptable to S&J

5) How this can be done legally

The general opinion on this board seems to be 5 is the sticking point. Assumption is that 1 & 3 have been sorted between MA and S&J otherwise we wouldn't have got to this point. 2 & 4 are liable to change if this drags on.

[GMF 757]

@BigFish anything acquired within the last year is relevant, unless, of course, the waiver is granted. Thereafter, assuming the proposal is subsequently approved by shareholders, it’s all about the allotment price, at least for the foreseeable future.

Something’s a brewing 

[wcorkcanary 4,342]

4 hours ago, BigFish said:

What value would you be content with @Essex Canary?

Have Cake + Eat it = Happy Ethics

[Soldier on 168]

2 hours ago, GMF said:

@BigFish anything acquired within the last year is relevant, unless, of course, the waiver is granted. Thereafter, assuming the proposal is subsequently approved by shareholders, it’s all about the allotment price, at least for the foreseeable future.

Something’s a brewing 

Not very quickly it isn’t !!

[shefcanary 2,466]

4 hours ago, NewNestCarrow said:

Isn't everyone forgetting that Jones probably paid only £1 each for the bulk of his share-holding?

[In June 1983 NCFC stated that the number of called-up shares had increased by 83,964 and the "Proceeds of share issue" was . £108,049. Chase bought 27,500 shares, Jones purchased 25,000 and other share-holders were given a 4-for-1 purchase option. Clearly no-one was paying £30 per share in those days]

 

Wow, that's great archaeology, where did you get that nugget? Whatever, potentially a 7 figure profit then! Essex will have a field day.

[PurpleCanary 5,586]

5 hours ago, essex canary said:

it did feature in one of the EDP discussion pages at one point. Rightly or wrongly based on £100 million divided by 811,425 times 194,512.

Unfortunately the EDP coverage has generally been very unenlightening. For example, I strongly believe, as said for months now, that a crucial part of the plan, and quite possibly the main reason for this unplanned delay, is for Attanasio to be granted a shareholder vote on having a waiver, so he doesn't have to offer to buy out everyone else.

I confess I haven't seen everything that has been written, although certainly most of it, but I have never once come across any reference to this waiver, despite its obvious importance and newsworthiness. 

[BigFish 1,988]

3 hours ago, GMF said:

@BigFish anything acquired within the last year is relevant, unless, of course, the waiver is granted. Thereafter, assuming the proposal is subsequently approved by shareholders, it’s all about the allotment price, at least for the foreseeable future.

Something’s a brewing 

All true, my oversight.

[GMF 757]

34 minutes ago, BigFish said:

All true, my oversight.

No worries, mate. 

[PurpleCanary 5,586]

On 22/11/2022 at 12:26, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

 

That Attanasio used the term ‘win…winning …winner’ several times in his short AGM speech might well be indicative. His business approach seems to rather vault over ‘prudence with ambition’ or ‘self-sustainability’ into a wilder jungle whereby forensic homework, granular market knowledge and a huge belief in the superior skills, knowledge and judgment of yourself and your team over the market is used to drive decision-making. 

His jovial appearance, accommodating nature and laid-back approach is no doubt genuine. Though his business acts and operates at the high risk sharp end. His skills are hiding in plain sight. 

 

Yes. What motivates Attanasio and how will he behave with (at least) a significant minority stake in Norwich City?

If the words “cuddly” and “avuncular” didn’t exist it would be necessary to coin them to round out a description. He has so far said all the right - nice – things about the club and his aims for it. Backed up by the reports of his ownership of the Milwaukee Brewers, it is an appealing image.

And bound to be at least partially true. No amount of PR spin can for very long believably paint black as white, or evil as angelic.

But, as Parma has indicated, no-one gets to where Attanasio is in the world of finance without a ruthless streak. And words are one thing. Actions and facts another. Supposedly there will some time this millennium be an announcement about the fate of the nearly 200,000 Ordinary shares. With the assumption that Attanasio wants to buy them.

But how exactly? The details of the purchase plan will count for more than nice words. And one hard fact can illuminate the reality behind an image.

Edited July 30, 2023 by PurpleCanary

[Soldier on 168]

A month tomorrow since the fan forum where ZW said an update would be received in short order ??

[PurpleCanary 5,586]

28 minutes ago, Soldier on said:

A month tomorrow since the fan forum where ZW said an update would be received in short order ??

Well, GMF keeps posting that "Something's a brewing". Eventually he will be right...🤩

[wcorkcanary 4,342]

26 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Well, GMF keeps posting that "Something's a brewing". Eventually he will be right...🤩

When does brewing become stewing?

[GMF 757]

12 minutes ago, wcorkcanary said:

When does brewing become stewing?

When Essex suddenly realises that he’s not going to get a big payout any time soon? (Winks) 

Edited July 30, 2023 by GMF
Haha

[NewNestCarrow 203]

I'm going to ask a question, and apols if a) it has already been asked & answered and b) it is stupid:

Do the Takeover Rules say anything about a 'minority' shareholder refusing to sell shares at the "previously-purchased price" but then, later on, selling to the same person (let's call him 'Mark') at a lower price?

Might this be a previously-unforseen hurdle?

[PurpleCanary 5,586]

20 minutes ago, NewNestCarrow said:

I'm going to ask a question, and apols if a) it has already been asked & answered and b) it is stupid:

Do the Takeover Rules say anything about a 'minority' shareholder refusing to sell shares at the "previously-purchased price" but then, later on, selling to the same person (let's call him 'Mark') at a lower price?

Might this be a previously-unforseen hurdle?

Skimming through, I don't think that scenario is covered. I don't know whether the offer to buy that is forced on Attanasio (unless of course he gets the waiver I believe he wants) is time-limited in that kind of way, and it is a one-off take it or leave thing. A later decision to sell up, if allowed, would not benefit/disadvantage the club, since it would be a private transaction in the way Attanasio buying the Foulger shares was.

[wcorkcanary 4,342]

1 hour ago, GMF said:

When Essex suddenly realises that he’s not going to get a big payout any time soon? (Winks) 

My mum would have said ..." leave him to pickle in his own juice ".

[PurpleCanary 5,586]

1 hour ago, wcorkcanary said:

When does brewing become stewing?

September, just after the transfer window has closed...😜

[Soldier on 168]

27 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Skimming through, I don't think that scenario is covered. I don't know whether the offer to buy that is forced on Attanasio (unless of course he gets the waiver I believe he wants) is time-limited in that kind of way, and it is a one-off take it or leave thing. A later decision to sell up, if allowed, would not benefit/disadvantage the club, since it would be a private transaction in the way Attanasio buying the Foulger shares was.

Still think you should be wording this as “the waiver that they want” as I am quite sure MA would be happy to spend the 5-10 million necessary to deal with minority shareholders.

Far more problematic seems to be D&m’s despite for 40% each and no majority.

[GMF 757]

6 minutes ago, Soldier on said:

Still think you should be wording this as “the waiver that they want” as I am quite sure MA would be happy to spend the 5-10 million necessary to deal with minority shareholders.

Far more problematic seems to be D&m’s despite for 40% each and no majority.

The person crossing the 30% threshold here would be MA, not D&M, but that would only happen immediately if the shares were allotted to MA.

Option 2, the more conventional route for reaching the 30% threshold, would be through the acquisition of shares from existing shareholders, rather than from the allotment of new shares.

That’s the nub of the issue.

Something’s a brewing…

[Soldier on 168]

31 minutes ago, GMF said:

The person crossing the 30% threshold here would be MA, not D&M, but that would only happen immediately if the shares were allotted to MA.

Option 2, the more conventional route for reaching the 30% threshold, would be through the acquisition of shares from existing shareholders, rather than from the allotment of new shares.

That’s the nub of the issue.

Something’s a brewing…

But if purple is right the waiver is required to ensure the 40/40 split is upheld. That seems of more importance to Delia and Michael than to Mark Attanassio in my opinion . We know how reluctant they have been over the years to hand over the reigns so to speak ….

[PurpleCanary 5,586]

12 minutes ago, Soldier on said:

But if purple is right the waiver is required to ensure the 40/40 split is upheld. That seems of more importance to Delia and Michael than to Mark Attanassio in my opinion . We know how reluctant they have been over the years to hand over the reigns so to speak ….

 

1 hour ago, Soldier on said:

Still think you should be wording this as “the waiver that they want” as I am quite sure MA would be happy to spend the 5-10 million necessary to deal with minority shareholders.

Far more problematic seems to be D&m’s despite for 40% each and no majority.

Quite sure? Eventually we may see whether you are right to be so certain.

[Soldier on 168]

16 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

 

Quite sure? Eventually we may see whether you are right to be so certain.

My point is you seem certain that MA wants it.

The main reason he presumably wants it is because that’s the only way at this point he increases his shareholding by buying the allotted shares. Delia and Michael hold all the cards as ever .

[TIL 1010 4,798]

Sorry to interrupt guys but essex has not been seen on this thtead for two days now so i do so hope nothing serious like him being banned or lost his log in details has happened. Now wouldn't that be unfortunate ?