Mark Attanasio

[essex canary 497]

5 minutes ago, GMF said:

There are waiver provisions within the code, which are available in certain circumstances, so there’s nothing unlawful about the process.

That said, the core principle of the code is to ensure fairness to minorities, something that an exclusion of the offer to minorities would seem to go against.

It would be interesting to know the Club's Executive Directors advice to the Board in relation to the Club's own policies in relation to why Pleasure and Leisure should get a sell option but other supporters should not.

[GMF 754]

8 minutes ago, essex canary said:

It wasn't me who raised the issue concerning being uncomfortable about an incomer acquiring 40% of the Club for £8 million. 

At the end of the day when S&J have suggested that they are guardians of the Club such concerns should be addressed whether or not the Trust is the appropriate vehicle for getting there. Just that nobody knows which vehicle to use or how.

You do appreciate that this whole process was initiated by Michael Foulger wishing to sell his shares, whilst simultaneously finding someone else who could also bring fresh cash to the table?

That’s exactly what is happening right now with this proposal and something that, in principle not many people would object to occurring.

That said, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they are going to get a free pass on their route of choice, even if the end destination is still considered desirable.

[GMF 754]

17 minutes ago, essex canary said:

It would be interesting to know the Club's Executive Directors advice to the Board in relation to the Club's own policies in relation to why Pleasure and Leisure should get a sell option but other supporters should not.

Pleasure & Leisure Ltd instructed an external financial advisor to assist with the sale of their shares. That had nothing whatsoever to do with the Club, but it was certainly fortuitous timing that Michael Foulger was also seeking to sell. Timing and contacts definitely played a role too.

Edited September 7, 2023 by GMF
Typo

[chicken 2,637]

6 minutes ago, GMF said:

Pleasure & Leisure Ltd instructed an external financial advisor to assist with the sale of their shares. That had nothing whatsoever to do with the Club, but it was certainly fortuitous timing that Michael Foulger was also seeking to sell. Timing and contacts definitely played a role too.

Stop it with all of this factual content GMF... Essex is already stuffed to the gills with all the hypocracy that has been forcing him to eat his words! 😆

[essex canary 497]

6 minutes ago, GMF said:

Pleasure & Leisure Ltd instructed an external financial advisor to assist with the sale of their shares. That had nothing whatsoever to do with the Club, but it was certainly fortuitous timing that Michael Foulger was also seeking to sell. Timing and contacts definitely played a role too.

The wealthier finds these things easier to do through being able to finance advisers etc but such avenues aren't easily opened to mere mortals even within the supposed community environment. Certainly appears 'fortuitous' from the perspective of the 2nd. and 3rd. largest share holders.

[BigFish 1,988]

3 minutes ago, essex canary said:

The wealthier finds these things easier to do through being able to finance advisers etc but such avenues aren't easily opened to mere mortals even within the supposed community environment. Certainly appears 'fortuitous' from the perspective of the 2nd. and 3rd. largest share holders.

Seeing as owning shares hasn't made you any money but does seem to make you very unhappy does it ever cross your mind that it was you who made a mistake buying them? Caveat Emptor and all that.

[chicken 2,637]

9 minutes ago, essex canary said:

The wealthier finds these things easier to do through being able to finance advisers etc but such avenues aren't easily opened to mere mortals even within the supposed community environment. Certainly appears 'fortuitous' from the perspective of the 2nd. and 3rd. largest share holders.

You did it again.

'Supppsed community environment'. You even said it after saying 'the wealthier'.

For many people, owning shares is something people with more disposable income do. Or 'wealthier' people.

You have bragged about having North of 1000 shares, which whilst small in the grand scheme of things, still represents a sizeable investment when compared to most fans income and even share holdings.

Equally, you don't actually mean 'community' when you say it. You mean you. Yet you are meant to be some sort of business expert.

This is business. It can be cut throat. The reality is you don't have enough shares to warrant paying someone to find you a buyer, that's the short of it. It's not the clubs job to do that for you either.

Edited September 7, 2023 by chicken

[Google Bot 3,296]

58 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

It’s £425k regardless plus bonuses isn’t it?. Many would think that excessive.

It is excessive in comparison to most people's earnings, but this is Football, and so has to be comparable within that environment.

What is consistent is that in business pay is directly proportionate to the hierarchy of the job roles to ensure a fair pay structure.

So in that instance you can't have an exec who's getting paid less than the people they're overseeing, particularly if it's a woman as it would be seen as a hugely discriminatory.  And for some, Zoe being female is why they are targeting in on her pay.

McGovern was earning more than her a year for sitting on a bench just to put things into perspective.  The money is just crazy nowadays, and it leads to the common man talk about life changing money in such a flippant way in conversations relating to the game.

Edited September 7, 2023 by Google Bot

[essex canary 497]

5 minutes ago, chicken said:

You did it again.

'Supppsed community environment'. You even said it after saying 'the wealthier'.

For many people, owning shares is something people with more disposable income do. Or 'wealthier' people.

You have bragged about having North of 1000 shares, which whilst small in the grand scheme of things, still represents a sizeable investment when compared to most fans income and even share holdings.

Equally, you don't actually mean 'community' when you say it. You mean you. Yet you are meant to be some sort of business expert.

This is business. It can be cut throat. The reality is you don't have enough shares to warrant paying someone to find you a buyer, that's the short of it. It's not the clubs job to do that for you either.

Coming from the guy who has no inclination to buy any albeit he could doubtless afford to use the Canaries Trust market place or just simply be a Trust member. The truth is you have been discouraged by the insight you have gained into how it really works.

[GMF 754]

19 minutes ago, essex canary said:

The wealthier finds these things easier to do through being able to finance advisers etc but such avenues aren't easily opened to mere mortals even within the supposed community environment. Certainly appears 'fortuitous' from the perspective of the 2nd. and 3rd. largest share holders.

Just to transparent here, they were also referred to us, and, in turn, I referred them to the Chair of the Associate Directors for information. I understood that there was contact between them.

[essex canary 497]

3 minutes ago, GMF said:

Just to transparent here, they were also referred to us, and, in turn, I referred them to the Chair of the Associate Directors for information. I understood that there was contact between them.

Thanks for that. I am struggling to think what it is got to do with either. If the Trust passed it on well done for that. I would have though the AD Chair would be more focussed on AD's.

[chicken 2,637]

7 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Coming from the guy who has no inclination to buy any albeit he could doubtless afford to use the Canaries Trust market place or just simply be a Trust member. The truth is you have been discouraged by the insight you have gained into how it really works.

No. I would love to, but I simply don't have the cash flow to warrant it.

If anything has put me off, it's the very idea of having to deal with people like you chucking their toys about, making a serious of quite poorly veiled insults about the club when it often has nothing to do with the club and just your demand that the club finds someone to buy your shares at the value you want for them.

My job deals with much deeper issues, with far more importance and urgency. That tends to mean I have little patience for people who clearly have a fair bit of money, complaining that their shares don't mean as much as they want them to.

Pretty low to assume people can afford something considering the current cost of living crises... but hey ho. I probably don't work hard enough or do a more highly paid job... 

[Ren 75]

This thread has made a refreshing change for me in that there has been some really interesting chat from all parties.  I don't come on here as much as I used to as most threads used to turn into the same old regulars having silly **** for tat arguments that the rest of us don't need to read.  Thanks to all that have posted in the last 5 or so pages its been really interesting.   I think its a pity that some of you need to constantly swipe at Essex though.  You might not agree with some of the things he/she has posted but do you really need to go on the attack so much? 

Again thanks to all who have posted, I'm not going to name you all in case I miss someone, but its been very inciteful, lets keep it that way.  

[essex canary 497]

10 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

It is excessive in comparison to most people's earnings, but this is Football, and so has to be comparable within that environment.

What is consistent is that in business pay is directly proportionate to the hierarchy of the job roles to ensure a fair pay structure.

So in that instance you can't have an exec who's getting paid less than the people they're overseeing, particularly if it's a woman as it would be seen as a hugely discriminatory.  And for some, Zoe being female is why they are targeting in on her pay.

McGovern was earning more than her a year for sitting on a bench just to put things into perspective.  The money is just crazy nowadays, and it leads to the common man talk about life changing money in such a flippant way in conversations relating to the game.

I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't a good number of Championship clubs who are paying nothing like that for a similar remit.

Perhaps that is also why some of the ladies who are playing football think they should get equal pay. I suspect that other SMT members are getting significantly less.

Footballers do tend to have shorter contracts than what is going on here. For some of us who have worked in professional administrative roles it is easier to comment on professional office outcomes.

[CANARYKING 641]

Got the share forms in the post today, not clear what to do next, do I vote for on all resolutions, if I do nothing is the result the same ?

[essex canary 497]

6 minutes ago, Ren said:

This thread has made a refreshing change for me in that there has been some really interesting chat from all parties.  I don't come on here as much as I used to as most threads used to turn into the same old regulars having silly **** for tat arguments that the rest of us don't need to read.  Thanks to all that have posted in the last 5 or so pages its been really interesting.   I think its a pity that some of you need to constantly swipe at Essex though.  You might not agree with some of the things he/she has posted but do you really need to go on the attack so much? 

Again thanks to all who have posted, I'm not going to name you all in case I miss someone, but its been very inciteful, lets keep it that way.  

Many thanks for your contributions too. I have been in complete agreement with your very well made and expressed points of view.

[GMF 754]

28 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Thanks for that. I am struggling to think what it is got to do with either. If the Trust passed it on well done for that. I would have though the AD Chair would be more focussed on AD's.

I was asked if I knew anybody else who might be interested in selling. A referral to the AD’s seemed logical to me, even if the conversation wasn’t likely to lead anywhere.

[shefcanary 2,435]

I've received my voting envelope this morning, the post to South Yorks is damn slow. First my apologies, i appear to have made one or two false assumptions in earlier posts, although nothing detracts from the story and wouldn't have changed anybodies view.

Anyway, as promised, now I have hard copy of some of the relevant documents I have scribbled out a diagram (below my scribble, yes, I have awful handwriting) of what is going on and also been able to compare the contents of the shareholder agreement to the financials in the circular.

One question that bothered me was Paddy's clear statement that Attanasio had injected £70m into the club. My review of the paperwork I think has enabled me to identify where Paddy's £70m investment figure came from! But, and it is a big but, there is no direct linkage from the shareholder agreement figures to those in the circular document and thus no overarching summary of what has occurred - I guess we wait for the annual financial statements for that? There is a lot of detail unsaid, as i have said previously.

Anyway, I think there are actually two large loans to the club from across the pond, not one big one and a small one! One on 13 Sept 22 from Norfolk for £33m, which includes $6m share capitalisation amount (the inconsistency of use of GBP to US$ has led to me previously making false assumptions that it was 2 loans, a $33m loan and a separate $6m loan) as discussed in the circular. But also another £27m made on 20 Jan 2023 from Attanasio (not Norfolk and so not discussed in the circular paperwork?) as part of the Shareholder agreement. Add the £10m for the C Pref Shares, this is I believe the £70m cash injection that Attanasio and Co. have provided as revealed by Paddy. But there is no confirmation that all this has happened, it may be that some of the loans have never been drawn, they could just be facilities available! 🤷

On top of that is the £3.3m paid by Norfolk for the shares of Foulger et al plus costs etc. So total US investment to date could be £73m, which as a cost so far for 40% values the club at £175m, if the loans are not repaid. If the loans are repaid however, the shares acquired will only have cost £8m with the much lower valuation of only £20m. I personally think the club is worth c.£100m, the value put on the club in the C Pref issuance.

The total loans above from the US are equivalent to the two loans of £66m set out in the last set of accounts, the clear assumption being Attanasio has provided the cash to pay these off early. Is the club actively repaying the loans to Attanasio et al and paying interest on them? Oh for a set of interim accounts! If the vote goes against him and Attanasio asks for his loans back as soon as possible, will the club be solvent? 🤷

On the other hand is Attanasio a benevolent person, rolling up interest and not seeking repayments to assist the club to operate soundly? If so it would go against the reason many critics gave for the sale of Omo!! But what is all that cash being used for?

Then there is the question of who exactly is backing Norfolk. Yes, we know of Attanasio and Ressler, but they only own 83% of it, who are the other minority interests (the US individuals / trusts / corporates)? I feel a little short changed by the paperwork that I now have to spend time on the Internet in this glorious weather (how do you do it Purps?) to try and ascertain this. But Attanasio is in overall control!

And, just who is going to chair the GM? I'd like to know who I am addressing my proxy votes to!

In short, there are many questions I'd still like answered, mainly around financials, what has happened definitively plus governance issues. I do not think the paperwork tells the full story, but also I don't think what I don't know changes how other people should vote, its just my personal curiosity. There remains just one show in town.

OTBC 

[Google Bot 3,296]

22 minutes ago, essex canary said:

I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't a good number of Championship clubs who are paying nothing like that for a similar remit.

But it's what happens within our club that defines pay structure.  We can't get to Zoe and say "We're going to pay you less than the people you're overseeing and instead you're getting paid based on the Plymouth wage structure".

It seems that you have quite the dislike to her,  Picked out her use of capital letters, and wearing beach sandals in public spaces, and now hammering her for what she earns.

I really don't think she's a bad apple, and she has some good credentials supporting the roles that she undertakes.  But of course, you're free to dislike or take aim at anyone you please. 

If you want my full honesty It just reads that you're taking quite a sexist stance and trying to belittle her achievements and worth.  Of course, I apologise if I've got that wrong but it's just how your posts read to me.

[Ren 75]

16 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

I've received my voting envelope this morning, the post to South Yorks is damn slow. First my apologies, i appear to have made one or two false assumptions in earlier posts, although nothing detracts from the story and wouldn't have changed anybodies view.

Anyway, as promised, now I have hard copy of some of the relevant documents I have scribbled out a diagram (below my scribble, yes, I have awful handwriting) of what is going on and also been able to compare the contents of the shareholder agreement to the financials in the circular.

One question that bothered me was Paddy's clear statement that Attanasio had injected £70m into the club. My review of the paperwork I think has enabled me to identify where Paddy's £70m investment figure came from! But, and it is a big but, there is no direct linkage from the shareholder agreement figures to those in the circular document and thus no overarching summary of what has occurred - I guess we wait for the annual financial statements for that? There is a lot of detail unsaid, as i have said previously.

Anyway, I think there are actually two large loans to the club from across the pond, not one big one and a small one! One on 13 Sept 22 from Norfolk for £33m, which includes $6m share capitalisation amount (the inconsistency of use of GBP to US$ has led to me previously making false assumptions that it was 2 loans, a $33m loan and a separate $6m loan) as discussed in the circular. But also another £27m made on 20 Jan 2023 from Attanasio (not Norfolk and so not discussed in the circular paperwork?) as part of the Shareholder agreement. Add the £10m for the C Pref Shares, this is I believe the £70m cash injection that Attanasio and Co. have provided as revealed by Paddy. But there is no confirmation that all this has happened, it may be that some of the loans have never been drawn, they could just be facilities available! 🤷

On top of that is the £3.3m paid by Norfolk for the shares of Foulger et al plus costs etc. So total US investment to date could be £73m, which as a cost so far for 40% values the club at £175m, if the loans are not repaid. If the loans are repaid however, the shares acquired will only have cost £8m with the much lower valuation of only £20m. I personally think the club is worth c.£100m, the value put on the club in the C Pref issuance.

The total loans above from the US are equivalent to the two loans of £66m set out in the last set of accounts, the clear assumption being Attanasio has provided the cash to pay these off early. Is the club actively repaying the loans to Attanasio et al and paying interest on them? Oh for a set of interim accounts! If the vote goes against him and Attanasio asks for his loans back as soon as possible, will the club be solvent? 🤷

On the other hand is Attanasio a benevolent person, rolling up interest and not seeking repayments to assist the club to operate soundly? If so it would go against the reason many critics gave for the sale of Omo!! But what is all that cash being used for?

Then there is the question of who exactly is backing Norfolk. Yes, we know of Attanasio and Ressler, but they only own 83% of it, who are the other minority interests (the US individuals / trusts / corporates)? I feel a little short changed by the paperwork that I now have to spend time on the Internet in this glorious weather (how do you do it Purps?) to try and ascertain this. But Attanasio is in overall control!

And, just who is going to chair the GM? I'd like to know who I am addressing my proxy votes to!

In short, there are many questions I'd still like answered, mainly around financials, what has happened definitively plus governance issues. I do not think the paperwork tells the full story, but also I don't think what I don't know changes how other people should vote, its just my personal curiosity. There remains just one show in town.

OTBC 

Shef, great post again for which I am very grateful.  It does make me wonder where this club would be had MA not arrived when he did?   I think it tells me that we probably need to get this vote through so that we don't all end up with no shares or worse no club. 

I know I will get called anti Delia for this statement, but I think it does prove that had we have stuck with this self (fan) funded model we could have quite simply found ourselves in Administration again and on the way to league one and beyond.  

Webber came in and gave it the big 'un about how mismanaged the club had been until he showed up,  erm sorry Stuart but this looks worse, and its under your wife's very expensive watch.  

Edited September 7, 2023 by Ren
typo

[Indy 3,307]

10 minutes ago, Ren said:

Shef, great post again for which I am very grateful.  It does make me wonder where this club would be had MA not arrived when he did?   I think it tells me that we probably need to get this vote through so that we don't all end up with no shares or worse no club. 

I know I will get called anti Delia for this statement, but I think it does prove that had we have stuck with this self (fan) funded model we could have quite simply found ourselves in Administration again and on the way to league one and beyond.  

Webber came in and gave it the big 'un about how mismanaged the club had been until he showed up,  erm sorry Stuart but this looks worse, and its under your wife's very expensive watch.  

You’re not wrong, though that £66 million was supposed to be covered by the last parachute payment, thus it’s not really £66 million for long…but like Sheffield I said earlier in the No Need To Sell thread we have sold newly 30 million pounds worth of players spent around 1.7 million, we parachute money in so reality is we don’t need these loans, they could be repaid, from what I see they’re more bridging loans until this summer, we’re probably quite cash rich at present but MA has two loans on us! 

Edited September 7, 2023 by Indy

[essex canary 497]

19 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

But it's what happens within our club that defines pay structure.  We can't get to Zoe and say "We're going to pay you less than the people you're overseeing and instead you're getting paid based on the Plymouth wage structure".

It seems that you have quite the dislike to her,  Picked out her use of capital letters, and wearing beach sandals in public spaces, and now hammering her for what she earns.

I really don't think she's a bad apple, and she has some good credentials supporting the roles that she undertakes.  But of course, you're free to dislike or take aim at anyone you please. 

If you want my full honesty It just reads that you're taking quite a sexist stance and trying to belittle her achievements and worth.  Of course, I apologise if I've got that wrong but it's just how your posts read to me.

I hope you have digested the two posts either side of this one.

In some senses I don't blame Zoe. She didn't appoint herself to the job.

She is the identified officer in the Annual Report for Vision and Strategy albeit many people may believe the true answer to that question is Stu. 

The real question is how did this level of obfuscation and opaqueness occur and where does true accountability lie? 

Edited September 7, 2023 by essex canary

[Ren 75]

7 minutes ago, Indy said:

You’re not wrong, though that £66 million was supposed to be covered by the last parachute payment, thus it’s not really £66 million for long…but like Sheffield I said earlier in the No Need To Sell thread we have sold newly 30 million pounds worth of players spent around 1.7 million, we parachute money in so reality is we don’t need these loans, they could be repaid, from what I see they’re more bridging loans until this summer, we’re probably quite cash rich at present but MA has two loans on us! 

Yes that is assuming that these loans haven't been used to cover wages and other "expenses" which I guess we won't know until the next set of accounts are out.  

[Nuff Said 5,147]

5 hours ago, Indy said:

As always dome people aren’t happy with the wording  of the explanations or the way it’s done but I reckon it’s this way as advised by the experts!

So you’re happy to accept the actions of financial/legal experts but when footballing experts pick McLean they are wrong?!? 😉 <- winky emoji

[essex canary 497]

1 hour ago, chicken said:

No. I would love to, but I simply don't have the cash flow to warrant it.

If anything has put me off, it's the very idea of having to deal with people like you chucking their toys about, making a serious of quite poorly veiled insults about the club when it often has nothing to do with the club and just your demand that the club finds someone to buy your shares at the value you want for them.

My job deals with much deeper issues, with far more importance and urgency. That tends to mean I have little patience for people who clearly have a fair bit of money, complaining that their shares don't mean as much as they want them to.

Pretty low to assume people can afford something considering the current cost of living crises... but hey ho. I probably don't work hard enough or do a more highly paid job... 

An appreciation of people doing deeper jobs was why we all clapped for nurses during the pandemic.

But seemingly, to your mind, freedom of expression doesn't extend to being able to be critical of people doing high reward shallow jobs albeit that it may help your case in relative terms?

[Indy 3,307]

3 minutes ago, essex canary said:

I hope you have digested the two posts either side of this one.

In some senses I don't blame Zoe. She didn't appoint herself to the job.

She is the identified officer in the Annual Report for Vision and Strategy albeit many people may believe the true answer to that question is Stu. 

The real question is how did this level of obfuscation, opaqueness and where does true accountability lie? 

No the real question is is she worth the salary, has she been the major influenced in and big part of arranged this takeover process, including   finding the investor getting them interested and coaxing them?

I’m sorry Essex but your criticism feels like a whinge about unfair salaries and you conveniently don’t mention all the players, manager coaching staff all who are probably on a damn site more!

[Ren 75]

1 minute ago, Indy said:

No the real question is is she worth the salary, has she been the major influenced in and big part of arranged this takeover process, including   finding the investor getting them interested and coaxing them?

I’m sorry Essex but your criticism feels like a whinge about unfair salaries and you conveniently don’t mention all the players, manager coaching staff all who are probably on a damn site more!

As a betting man, I wouldn't mind a bet that one of the first questions at the next AGM will be regarding Zoe's salary.  

[Indy 3,307]

3 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

So you’re happy to accept the actions of financial/legal experts but when footballing experts pick McLean they are wrong?!? 😉 <- winky emoji

I agree, every team needs a McLean! He’s nearly as good as Gilmour!

[essex canary 497]

1 minute ago, Indy said:

No the real question is is she worth the salary, has she been the major influenced in and big part of arranged this takeover process, including   finding the investor getting them interested and coaxing them?

I’m sorry Essex but your criticism feels like a whinge about unfair salaries and you conveniently don’t mention all the players, manager coaching staff all who are probably on a damn site more!

I am not sure how you know the first part. Perhaps that puts a different complexion on it if true. Still not sure though how it would be right to go £66 million in debt without all the i"s dotted and t's crossed? 

[Google Bot 3,296]

19 minutes ago, essex canary said:

The real question is how did this level of obfuscation and opaqueness occur and where does true accountability lie? 

I haven't a clue as don't really follow the financial side of the club as proudly as others do.  It's just business innit?

And just so I'm clear, the dislike towards Zoe is based on what?  Is it that you think she's self serving and without regard to putting the club in financial problems, perhaps?

As we're looking at this from a shareholding perspective the figures are skewed massively to reduce the true value of this club to allow MA to come in and invest and for Delia/MWJ to not walk away with a fortune either - and during that period it's wise for other shareholders to waiver the will the sell at this low price, surely?

This then allows money that's put aside for the project to go into the club in some other way I presume?  Players, facilities etc.

I'm not sure if you're extending this out to suggest that it means the club is on it's knees currently and pointing the finger on that basis, or I'm missing a massive reason why Zoe is the enemy here.

Edited September 7, 2023 by Google Bot