Mark Attanasio

[Canaries north 151]

6 hours ago, GMF said:

This is covered within the 60 page Shareholder Agreement provided within the bundle of papers released by the Club.

As I am not a share holder. What are the guarantees that the will not just call in the loan and keep 40% of the club for £8 million? As I was led to believe this is still a possibility and a lot of this was on trust. 

[essex canary 506]

21 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

Whataboutery at its finest. Shares in football clubs are extremely speculative investments, if bought with that intention. 

Agreed. But similar to Burnley over 20 years at least (albeit not 10) NCFC has been on a significant upward curve at least until the folly of the last couple of years.

[essex canary 506]

15 minutes ago, chicken said:

 

People may have bought shares at the point of special availability to raise funds, and they are likely to have been fans.

We are lucky that this club has largely stayed that way. But it isn't typical in football anymore at all. Yet you slag it off at every oppertunity.

Chase is a great example. Might have been fantastic to shareholders but the supporters had enough of his money wasting.

The community aspect of the club is it's outward approach to the community. In a sense, when acting as shareholders you are part of the club system, so whilst you are also in the community the club may work closely with, shareholding itself isn't necessarily 'the community'.

Whatever frustrations there were with Chase, any look at the Accounts will show that the current lot have wasted far more money.

Shareholding isn't typical in football any more which is why we either need to wind it up or renew it.

Shareholding needs to be community oriented otherwise turnout in this vote will be low which ironically will increase my influence which you are clearly opposed to. 

[The Raptor 1,232]

Is it this thread where there was link to a complete list of shareholders? I've had a quick search and can't find it. I had a look on companies house and the club website and they only listed the main holders but I'm sure at some point I've seen a complete list but can't remember where!

 

 

[essex canary 506]

7 minutes ago, The Raptor said:

Is it this thread where there was link to a complete list of shareholders? I've had a quick search and can't find it. I had a look on companies house and the club website and they only listed the main holders but I'm sure at some point I've seen a complete list but can't remember where!

 

 

It is back in 2019. Not very user friendly to read.

[CANARYKING 644]

2 hours ago, ricardo said:

I have a similar dilemma but I doubt my 20 shares will sway the result either way.

I didn't buy them with any thought if profit, indeed the first ten were converted to shares from a bond issued to build the River End Stand. 

At the end of the day if its not Attanasio then who is it going to be.

I have 100, is the consensus that if I don’t reply my vote will go to the right place ?

[chicken 2,642]

8 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Whatever frustrations there were with Chase, any look at the Accounts will show that the current lot have wasted far more money.

Shareholding isn't typical in football any more which is why we either need to wind it up or renew it.

Shareholding needs to be community oriented otherwise turnout in this vote will be low which ironically will increase my influence which you are clearly opposed to. 

Completely different "community" though. And that's the point. You know that but you like to confuse them in an effort to undermine the actually community aspect of the club of which the likes of Nutty and Diane do tremendous work to help promote.

Again, it isn't particularly usual for shareholders to be a community either. Most companies, including football clubs, are international affairs now so shareholders are not limited to the region, country or even continent.

The other aspect of that is that it isn't down to anyone to do anything other than is required of them by law,/legislation or policy - the latter appears to be an incredibly flexible affair in modern times anyway. That said, there is absolutely nothing stopping a shareholder from trying to establish some 'community' amongst fellow shareholders... you know, network, establish a list of contacts, start up regular communications, discussions about what is going on at the club etc etc etc.

In a sense, isn't that what these trusts are about?

It's unlikely too, that you will get much "community" from professional shareholders. They are likely to not see smaller shareholders as having much in common, nor their investment as big and therefore won't see much in common unless there is something that would be of benefit to them too.

It's like walking into the dragons den, sitting on a bean bag next to the dragons and investing in 0.1% compared to the dragons 25%. You can bet your bottom dollar the dragon isn't going to really be concerned about what you are jumping up and down about. That isn't particularly unfair either. If they have invested hundreds of thousands if not millions, and you (general, not you you) invested £1k, then you can understand why there is a disparity. They stand to lose a hell of a lot more on their investment if it goes to pot.

Like others, if I had shares it would be purely to help the club as a supported and I doubt I would ever sell them. I certainly wouldn't be looking for a profit. But owning a bit of the club (ok, in our heads we do) we love is something to be proud of, even if it's just one share. Equally though, that sentiment isn't particularly valuable in it's own right and again, won't be seen as much use by the bigger players.

No point winging about how things have operated in the business world for decades if not centuries.

[Sufyellow 223]

4 hours 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!

You can't compare player wages with hers , that's madness. We can't sell her 4 20 million.  

[Nuff Said 5,177]

3 hours ago, Canary Wundaboy said:

That's the ultimate problem with our self-funded model. It only takes a couple of years of under-performance on the pitch and you're stuffed. The parachute payments run out, you have to sell the assets that will make you money to balance the books off the pitch which also compromises your ability to succeed on the pitch and the whole thing spirals.

We've been really, really lucky. Some of that is the luck we've made through astute investments in the academy, unearthing some real gems for a pittance etc, but sooner or later we were bound to have a dip and without the ownership being able to inject hard cash the wall approaches with real speed. The game has changed so much from a financial POV, we've stood still until the last second but we now need additional investment and in the absence of a benevolent local fan, it's about doing a deal with the least-devilish person you can find.

No we haven’t. Sorry, but that’s nonsense. As someone once said, you make your own luck. It’s like the tired trope that when we do well it’s in spite of our majority owners, when we do badly, it’s because of them. 
 

A random investment doing well would be lucky, an “astute” investment isn’t. It’s astute precisely because of things like experience, judgment and good planning. Putting the academy in place, investing in it and Colney, recruiting the right people and many other actions are all things our management and directors have done to make sure that as far as possible we keep the production line of valuable players (valuable both on the pitch and as assets that can be sold) keeps delivering. And not “investing”, “showing ambition” or however people want to describe spending money we don’t have is how they keep the club safe in the unlikely event that something goes badly wrong with our model.

[Nuff Said 5,177]

1 hour ago, CANARYKING said:

I have 100, is the consensus that if I don’t reply my vote will go to the right place ?

Surely that depends on what you think the right place is?

Edited September 7, 2023 by Nuff Said

[CANARYKING 644]

4 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

Surely that depend on what you think the right place is?

Okay for the American to come on board

[Sufyellow 223]

3 hours ago, Indy said:

Not true really as I’ve pointed out this was more a gamble in promotion last season, we spent this seasons money and as such it’s a bridging loan. On paper we have parachute money and player sales to more or less cover this debt!

MA is the future! The past is done.

I thought we borrowed 66 million for that which the TV rights covered. So why now do we need a bridging loan? This is the last year of parachute money, so why haven't they just let it run its coarse? The 20 plus million raised in player sales is the normal to keep the club running through the following season. I don't see why we need the extra debt. 

[chicken 2,642]

1 minute ago, Nuff Said said:

No we haven’t. Sorry, but that’s nonsense. As someone once said, you make your own luck. It’s like the tired trope that when we do well it’s in spite of our majority owners, when we do badly, it’s because of them. 
 

A random investment doing well would be lucky, an “astute” investment isn’t. It’s astute precisely because of things like experience, judgment and good planning. Putting the academy in place, investing in it and Colney, recruiting the right people and many other actions are all things our management and directors have done to make sure that as far as possible we keep the production line of valuable players (valuable both on the pitch and as assets that can be sold) keeps delivering. And not “investing”, “showing ambition” or however people want to describe spending money we don’t have is how they keep the club safe in the unlikely event that something goes badly wrong with our model.

100% - also, it defeats the point of the self funded model if you become "stuffed". It's all about working within your means. That may be that one summer you  are forced to sell to raise as much money as possible - the often mentioned "fire sale" that we actually never see. Both in an effort to raise money through bringing in money but also to offload higher paid players.

Sometimes there are gambles, but usually they are with players that are at the club already more than those that aren't. Two good examples are Cantwell and Pukki. We could have pushed to get Cantwell off the books at least last summer, but for whatever reason we didn't. It didn't work out, he contributed nothing and went for a small fee in January.

Pukki had a one year extension added. He could have been sold last summer but we wanted him to stay. The extension kept him on very good wages, so we are told, and again, I would suggest that the hope was that he would be able to repeat his previous feats and score goals to put us in the play-off picture. At one point that looked a possibility, ultimately it didn't work out. Worth the money? Would it have been better to switch to Sargent up front in January and perhaps brought in a fee for Pukki as well as get his wages for half a season off the books? 

Bringing in players is always a risk. It's why I say folks really must separate the player we signed at the point of signing them and how we measure them with hindsight. Players are signed on the basis of a lot of different things, much of it these days is the "moneyball" approach. We're competing with others in that realm so we are likely taking bigger gambles on players on the fringes of that hot zone for stats.

Examples like Tzolis who was quite sought after as he had a hell of a good set of stats for his age group. Has that translated to progress and ability here? No. But then we have signed Omobamidele who has been sold for a potential £20m.

There are so many factors in a players success. I think the only "luck" aspect there is, isn't about which players are scouted and signed, but just how well their "fit" is to the various factors at the club. The other players around them, the coach, the way of life in Norwich and Norfolk, the change in cultures, adapting to language and possibly climate, the change in levels of coaching and expectancy etc.

We have a long history. Throughout it there are players signed who's careers were all but written off in terms of top flight football, some would have been happy to be championship regulars... possibly even league one regulars.

Holt, for example, had done well next to nowhere until the season before we signed him. And that (I think, iirc) was league 2. To the degree that at the time, people thought we had gone for the wrong player and instead we should have gone for Bishop. Holt isn't alone though. 

Pukki had plaid in several of Europe's top flights and had never established himself. Again, on here, at the point of signing, people thought we'd signed him as back up to Rhodes who was seen as the goal getter. Instead, he had to make do with a super sub role as Pukki shone and Stiepermann became the No.10.

Equally we have paid big money for players that never quite hit it off here. 

We've also had players that were more or less written off by one regime but who found a new lease of life under the next. Hoolahan was chastised by Roeder but became talismanic for Lambert. Maddison and Godfrey were repeatedly sent out on loan... Maddison more so, before he was played and very quickly showed that he probably should have been playing for us the season before when we actually had a decent squad and with that flair, could have gone up. Same with how Aarons and Lewis were unlikely to get the opportunities they did under Webber/Farke with Alex Neil still around.

You can never quite be sure.

[chicken 2,642]

4 minutes ago, Sufyellow said:

I thought we borrowed 66 million for that which the TV rights covered. So why now do we need a bridging loan? This is the last year of parachute money, so why haven't they just let it run its coarse? The 20 plus million raised in player sales is the normal to keep the club running through the following season. I don't see why we need the extra debt. 

Same thing.

The loan was taken against parachute payments and I believe known player payment instalments for players we'd sold. So predictable income. Some people call this a "bridging loan" because what you are doing is getting a loan to speed up the money coming to you now and the source of the loan gets it back with some sort of guarantee because the income is assured if that makes sense? 

[ricardo 7,401]

30 minutes ago, CANARYKING said:

I have 100, is the consensus that if I don’t reply my vote will go to the right place ?

I think you have to have the courage of your convictions and use your vote.

[hogesar 9,743]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

Agreed. But similar to Burnley over 20 years at least (albeit not 10) NCFC has been on a significant upward curve at least until the folly of the last couple of years.

Burnley aren't the be all and f*cking end all although I'd much rather you support them and seemingly so would you.

All this criticism of Zoe seems to be based purely on speculation rather than the overall position of the club during her time here and the improvements in a wide range of areas.

Anyway, Burnley decided to go down our route ala Farke and look like coming down immediately like us. Your fantastic, brilliant Burnley scrapped their own visions to try and become Norwich mk2.

[nutty nigel 7,620]

In the midst of self congratulations and back slapping for the 'quality' of this thread we are back to the old agendas.

So, would one of the FPAs point me to where I can find evidence of this impending administration?

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

9 hours ago, GMF said:

This is almost certainly true, but, in reality, unless you make that offer to all minority shareholders, you won’t know for sure. Are minorities being treated equally, as per the requirement of the code? Clearly not. As I’ve said before, this is more about the principle than the price being offered (not offered in this instance).

Quite. Even if most don’t want to sell, not least because they didn’t buy the shares as an investment, it cannot be assumed that applies to everyone, and it isn’t up to those who wouldn’t sell to assume that.

And we now have an arguably unfair position where the holders of about 130,000 shares have been able to sell them to Attanasio, but unbeknownst to everyone else the drawbridge has in effect already come down and they are being deprived of the chance. 

 

[essex canary 506]

1 hour ago, hogesar said:

Burnley aren't the be all and f*cking end all although I'd much rather you support them and seemingly so would you.

All this criticism of Zoe seems to be based purely on speculation rather than the overall position of the club during her time here and the improvements in a wide range of areas.

Anyway, Burnley decided to go down our route ala Farke and look like coming down immediately like us. Your fantastic, brilliant Burnley scrapped their own visions to try and become Norwich mk2.

What the future holds for Burnley or us is indeed a matter of speculation. Wasn't isn't though is that they have been top 22 for 10 consecutive years and their minority shareholders got a fair exit option on a high with their new American investors.

Edited September 7, 2023 by essex canary

[Nuff Said 5,177]

1 hour ago, CANARYKING said:

Okay for the American to come on board

That means you should vote for the waiver, right?

[GMF 757]

27 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

In the midst of self congratulations and back slapping for the 'quality' of this thread we are back to the old agendas.

So, would one of the FPAs point me to where I can find evidence of this impending administration?

Two observations to support your belief.

First, the documentation includes a statement that they have prepared cash flow forecasts to support their claims that the Club will still be a going concern in 2026, even without promotion back to the Premier League.

Second, with Attanasio so heavily invested in the Club, it seems more likely than not that he would support the Club for the foreseeable future, even if those projections don’t live up to their expectations. 

Edited September 7, 2023 by GMF
Typo

[Duncan Edwards 2,264]

18 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Quite. Even if most don’t want to sell, not least because they didn’t buy the shares as an investment, it cannot be assumed that applies to everyone, and it isn’t up to those who wouldn’t sell to assume that.

And we now have an arguably unfair position where the holders of about 130,000 shares have been able to sell them to Attanasio, but unbeknownst to everyone else the drawbridge has in effect already come down and they are being deprived of the chance. 

 

As I’ve said, I’m not up on this sort of thing, but once it became apparent that Attanasio was hoovering up some shares, was there anything preventing other minority shareholders making their holding available to him/them? I’m not sure of the process or the exact timeline but could they have initiated contact? 

[GMF 757]

18 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Quite. Even if most don’t want to sell, not least because they didn’t buy the shares as an investment, it cannot be assumed that applies to everyone, and it isn’t up to those who wouldn’t sell to assume that.

And we now have an arguably unfair position where the holders of about 130,000 shares have been able to sell them to Attanasio, but unbeknownst to everyone else the drawbridge has in effect already come down and they are being deprived of the chance. 

 

If you add D&M’s shareholding to MA’s shares, and deduct that total from 616,913 shares currently allotted, the independent shareholders (those entitled to vote) have approximately 157,000 shares between them. Slightly more than you’ve suggested, nevertheless it is highly presumptuous to assume that none will want to sell. Bottom line is, unless someone (MA) puts his money on the table with an offer, you’re never going to know for sure.

[GMF 757]

2 minutes ago, Duncan Edwards said:

As I’ve said, I’m not up on this sort of thing, but once it became apparent that Attanasio was hoovering up some shares, was there anything preventing other minority shareholders making their holding available to him/them? I’m not sure of the process or the exact timeline but could they have initiated contact? 

They have agreed to hold their current positions the same until at least January 2026.

[nutty nigel 7,620]

14 minutes ago, GMF said:

Two observations to support your belief.

First, the documentation includes a statement that they have prepared cash flow forecasts to support their claims that the Club will still be a going concern in 2026, even without promotion back to the Premier League.

Second, with Attanasio so heavily invested in the Club, it seems more likely than not that he would support the Club for the foreseeable future, even if those projections don’t live up to their expectations. 

Thanks GMF. I can't get my head around the documents that arrived this morning. (Postman back at work albeit mentally scarred). But I go go to AGMs  and take on board the information our club put out especially on the insight videos. Surely if they misled us to the point that the club wasn't imminently a going concern it would be criminal activity.

 

[essex canary 506]

2 hours ago, chicken said:

Completely different "community" though. And that's the point. You know that but you like to confuse them in an effort to undermine the actually community aspect of the club of which the likes of Nutty and Diane do tremendous work to help promote.

Again, it isn't particularly usual for shareholders to be a community either. Most companies, including football clubs, are international affairs now so shareholders are not limited to the region, country or even continent.

The other aspect of that is that it isn't down to anyone to do anything other than is required of them by law,/legislation or policy - the latter appears to be an incredibly flexible affair in modern times anyway. That said, there is absolutely nothing stopping a shareholder from trying to establish some 'community' amongst fellow shareholders... you know, network, establish a list of contacts, start up regular communications, discussions about what is going on at the club etc etc etc.

In a sense, isn't that what these trusts are about?

It's unlikely too, that you will get much "community" from professional shareholders. They are likely to not see smaller shareholders as having much in common, nor their investment as big and therefore won't see much in common unless there is something that would be of benefit to them too.

It's like walking into the dragons den, sitting on a bean bag next to the dragons and investing in 0.1% compared to the dragons 25%. You can bet your bottom dollar the dragon isn't going to really be concerned about what you are jumping up and down about. That isn't particularly unfair either. If they have invested hundreds of thousands if not millions, and you (general, not you you) invested £1k, then you can understand why there is a disparity. They stand to lose a hell of a lot more on their investment if it goes to pot.

Like others, if I had shares it would be purely to help the club as a supported and I doubt I would ever sell them. I certainly wouldn't be looking for a profit. But owning a bit of the club (ok, in our heads we do) we love is something to be proud of, even if it's just one share. Equally though, that sentiment isn't particularly valuable in it's own right and again, won't be seen as much use by the bigger players.

No point winging about how things have operated in the business world for decades if not centuries.

A fairly sensible post. Only thing is though our dragons S&J aren't very dragon like in their approach at least in the sense that you intended. If they were there may not be a problem.

You are also quite right that I am not the greatest networker. My son aged just under 30 is pretty good at it. In addition he is pretty smart at hard skills too. It is a potent combination. The problem is there are too many so called soft skill networkers who don't possess the hard skills to give it substance. That is another reason why we are where we are. Perhaps the hard skills should come first?

 

[Duncan Edwards 2,264]

13 minutes ago, GMF said:

They have agreed to hold their current positions the same until at least January 2026.

So there was no opportunity for others to initiate contact once it was rumoured/apparent that Attanasio was picking up minority shareholdings? 
It’s not a loaded question but could I/we/they have been more proactive before such undertakings were made?

My shareholding is minuscule so would never have crossed my mind, but for those with a more significant holding what was stopping them from initiating contact then? 

[CANARYKING 644]

So how much are my 100 shares worth ?

[Duncan Edwards 2,264]

5 minutes ago, CANARYKING said:

So how much are my 100 shares worth ?

What someone is willing to pay for them…I still think that’s the case… 

[nutty nigel 7,620]

I understand shares have been traded privately for more than £25.

Not sure that would happen now.