Mark Attanasio

[GMF 757]

2 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

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

Not sure that would happen now.

 

That is correct and anyone is entitled to offer whatever they want from here on too.

[GMF 757]

29 minutes ago, Duncan Edwards said:

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? 

Seems like MA was only interested in acquiring from four parties at the time and there was certainly no desire to make a wider offer. Ultimately, I guess that was his decision.

[Duncan Edwards 2,263]

16 minutes ago, GMF said:

Seems like MA was only interested in acquiring from four parties at the time and there was certainly no desire to make a wider offer. Ultimately, I guess that was his decision.

Thanks, Gary.

But to clarify, there was nothing stopping anyone else with a relatively significant holding making contact and “dipping their toe”?

I’m assuming he didn’t approach the Trust. 

 

[essex canary 505]

56 minutes ago, Duncan Edwards said:

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 

 

Edited September 7, 2023 by essex canary

[essex canary 505]

54 minutes ago, Duncan Edwards said:

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? 

I did ask the question of the Football Club but other than the acknowledgement didn't receive a further response. I believe the £25 offer was put to the AD group. I am wondering whether one member did take it up as there seem to be an extra 1,000 in MA's holding other than accounted for by shareholders numbers 2,3 and 4 with five figure sums.

Can't really see given that the Board must have a collective responsibility for equality of treatment, how they are able to draw a dividing line whether below 5 figures or 4?

The Cansries Trust activity is not very helpful for larger holdings so three figure sums would still in essence need the offer.

Edited September 7, 2023 by essex canary

[GMF 757]

5 minutes ago, Duncan Edwards said:

Thanks, Gary.

But to clarify, there was nothing stopping anyone else with a relatively significant holding making contact and “dipping their toe”?

I’m assuming he didn’t approach the Trust. 

 

Given the shareholder agreement, included in the package, it would be a waste of time for the foreseeable future, but that doesn’t prevent shareholders from selling their shares to another person in the interim, just as it has always been.

[GMF 757]

7 minutes ago, essex canary said:

The Cansries Trust activity is not very helpful for larger holdings so three figure sums would still in essence need the offer.

Thanks for the ringing endorsement…

Would I recommend someone to list, say, 1,000 shares in one lot? No, but there’s always a way to trade these. The only precondition is that you don’t annoy those with the know how… 

[essex canary 505]

16 minutes ago, GMF said:

Thanks for the ringing endorsement…

Would I recommend someone to list, say, 1,000 shares in one lot? No, but there’s always a way to trade these. The only precondition is that you don’t annoy those with the know how… 

Apologies if that is the case just that the list supplied in the Club documents implies that all transactions are low volume. 

Certainly if the Trust framework is able to sustain it, there isn't really a problem is there? Would there really be enough buyers if quite a few were traded at once?

Just from a personal point of view given that I would loose the concession upon selling 1 share,  I would obviously want to sell a substantial number relatively quickly even if I retained a more token number.

I am not sure I want to sell at all but if this is to continue for another generation I would look to do so as I dont want to risk a large number with no yield.

Edited September 7, 2023 by essex canary

[chicken 2,642]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

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?

 

'Hard skills'? What's your son got to do with this? 

Re the dragons, it was literal. D&M are pretty decent people by all accounts. Btw S&J is wrong, his last name is Wynn-Jones.

I'm now completely baffled. You argued you wanted more community amongst shareholdets, now you are suggesring we'd be better of if they were more dragon-esque in my example and give even less of a damn about the smaller investors...

[essex canary 505]

2 minutes ago, chicken said:

'Hard skills'? What's your son got to do with this? 

Re the dragons, it was literal. D&M are pretty decent people by all accounts. Btw S&J is wrong, his last name is Wynn-Jones.

I'm now completely baffled. You argued you wanted more community amongst shareholdets, now you are suggesring we'd be better of if they were more dragon-esque in my example and give even less of a damn about the smaller investors...

Surely the principle of the real dragons is they share the spoils pro-rata the percentages they put in? I am sure if you had the misfortune to pass away they wouid give your descendants a fair chance to continue.

I have Duncan Bannatyne's book on my shelf. His comment  in relation to what NCFC did 21 years ago is as follows:

'Changing from a privately to a publicly owned company is a huge upheaval, but it's also an amazing experience to see the company transformed by millions of pounds of investment. You have to accept that your corporate culture will change and you will be answering to shareholders as well as your customers, but if you can ride that wave, then there is no better way to improve your company's, and your own, fortune.'

Unlike all other Football Club's currently in the Championship NCFC embarked on that journey 21 years ago. How have we got on in relation to Duncan's yardstick?

 

 

[wcorkcanary 4,337]

4 hours ago, essex canary said:

Surely the principle of the real dragons is they share the spoils pro-rata the percentages they put in? I am sure if you had the misfortune to pass away they wouid give your descendants a fair chance to continue.

I have Duncan Bannatyne's book on my shelf. His comment  in relation to what NCFC did 21 years ago is as follows:

'Changing from a privately to a publicly owned company is a huge upheaval, but it's also an amazing experience to see the company transformed by millions of pounds of investment. You have to accept that your corporate culture will change and you will be answering to shareholders as well as your customers, but if you can ride that wave, then there is no better way to improve your company's, and your own, fortune.'

Unlike all other Football Club's currently in the Championship NCFC embarked on that journey 21 years ago. How have we got on in relation to Duncan's yardstick?

 

 

The same Duncan Bannatyne that made his first real money from ' Ice Cream ' Vans in Glasgow. 

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

6 hours ago, essex canary said:

Surely the principle of the real dragons is they share the spoils pro-rata the percentages they put in? I am sure if you had the misfortune to pass away they wouid give your descendants a fair chance to continue.

I have Duncan Bannatyne's book on my shelf. His comment  in relation to what NCFC did 21 years ago is as follows:

'Changing from a privately to a publicly owned company is a huge upheaval, but it's also an amazing experience to see the company transformed by millions of pounds of investment. You have to accept that your corporate culture will change and you will be answering to shareholders as well as your customers, but if you can ride that wave, then there is no better way to improve your company's, and your own, fortune.'

Unlike all other Football Club's currently in the Championship NCFC embarked on that journey 21 years ago. How have we got on in relation to Duncan's yardstick?

 

 

But he presumably there is talking about going public in the sense of being  listed on a stock market, since he refers to millions of pounds of new investment. That doesn’t apply to us, because we have never been listed.

[chicken 2,642]

6 hours ago, essex canary said:

Surely the principle of the real dragons is they share the spoils pro-rata the percentages they put in? I am sure if you had the misfortune to pass away they wouid give your descendants a fair chance to continue.

I have Duncan Bannatyne's book on my shelf. His comment  in relation to what NCFC did 21 years ago is as follows:

'Changing from a privately to a publicly owned company is a huge upheaval, but it's also an amazing experience to see the company transformed by millions of pounds of investment. You have to accept that your corporate culture will change and you will be answering to shareholders as well as your customers, but if you can ride that wave, then there is no better way to improve your company's, and your own, fortune.'

Unlike all other Football Club's currently in the Championship NCFC embarked on that journey 21 years ago. How have we got on in relation to Duncan's yardstick?

 

 

Again, not the point. 

Though you just further muddy it. You support the idea of shareholders, not something you you really have any controll of but still.

The dragons are not all hard nosed but my point was you are asking people with considerably larger investments and larger shares to care more about the 0.1%ers and to treat them equally...

Realistically that's never going to happen because it's not how things tend to work in the world.

As I said many times over the course of the last couple of years - this was taking time because they were making a plan this is the plan.

The best way for MA to come onboard slowly(with friends) and to benefit the club financially. I understand that much.

Foulger was the vehicle that allowed the opertunity for him to come in. Before, perhaps we didn't have the carrot. Obviously that benefitted Foulger but it also appears he may not have demanded to whack.

I doubt MA would have come in on 1% or less of shares. Equally navigating a sea of small shareholders would have been slow going and not benefitted either him, the club or the actual community (outside of shareholders) the club serves.

It may suck, but I'd hope that you have enough experience of life to understand that you have to be incrsdibly wealthy to be able to influence things like this. Business isn't like a democracy, it's about who owns more. Vast majority of the time, that's how it is.

We know that from seeing clubs go into administration and the bigger debtors tend to get prioritized over smaller ones who stand to lose more and can even be caught in a chain reaction of bankrupcy.

Shout, scream into the void all you like... but this forum isn't a void. You are just narking people off.

Edited September 8, 2023 by chicken

[Sufyellow 223]

11 hours ago, chicken said:

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? 

The thing is we only have a few parachute payments left to come this season. Its difficult to understand how they managed to go from we are ok to 66 million in debt. How did we get from selling Emi to this. Still none of us will ever really know. 

[Sufyellow 223]

11 hours ago, chicken said:

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? 

If you think it is just a bridging loan and it will get paid from parachute money and future player payments,  surely people can't then think that is part of what the club is valued at ? Or is that what you are saying? 

[essex canary 505]

13 minutes ago, Sufyellow said:

If you think it is just a bridging loan and it will get paid from parachute money and future player payments,  surely people can't then think that is part of what the club is valued at ? Or is that what you are saying? 

The parachute money is predictable income so will increase declared profit and shareholder funds albeit it is already claimed in cash flow terms by the loan repayments. The past player sales are not "income' in the same way because the profits will already have been posted to the I&E account when the players are sold. Even if the first bit sounds positive it will doubtless be offset by a wage bill that will again be very high in relation to declared Turnover.

[BigFish 1,988]

22 minutes ago, Sufyellow said:

The thing is we only have a few parachute payments left to come this season. Its difficult to understand how they managed to go from we are ok to 66 million in debt. How did we get from selling Emi to this. Still none of us will ever really know. 

It will all become clear in the accounts. It was a common understanding that we would be financially constrained at the end of this season not if promoted and as @Essex Canary constantly but correctly notes we have a large wage bill. None of this is a mystery, none of it a surprise and the club is managing through this. The current proposal forms part of that, as does the moving of large wage players off the payroll.

If funding is seen as a necessity than it would appear that MA is the only game in town. That means the choice is the self funding model or accepting the MA engagement, not between MA and some unicorn offer. That only leaves three possible outcomes. 1) Shareholders reject the offer, we get promoted, happy days; 2) Shareholders reject the offer, we don't get promoted, I think we know what that looks like; 3) Shareholders accept the offer & we transition slowly into an American owned club with access to additional funding steams.

[essex canary 505]

1 hour ago, BigFish said:

It will all become clear in the accounts. It was a common understanding that we would be financially constrained at the end of this season not if promoted and as @Essex Canary constantly but correctly notes we have a large wage bill. None of this is a mystery, none of it a surprise and the club is managing through this. The current proposal forms part of that, as does the moving of large wage players off the payroll.

If funding is seen as a necessity than it would appear that MA is the only game in town. That means the choice is the self funding model or accepting the MA engagement, not between MA and some unicorn offer. That only leaves three possible outcomes. 1) Shareholders reject the offer, we get promoted, happy days; 2) Shareholders reject the offer, we don't get promoted, I think we know what that looks like; 3) Shareholders accept the offer & we transition slowly into an American owned club with access to additional funding steams.

 

3 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

But he presumably there is talking about going public in the sense of being  listed on a stock market, since he refers to millions of pounds of new investment. That doesn’t apply to us, because we have never been listed.

Given some of the personalities in the AD Group when formed 20 years ago the Club were definitely trying to lever some millions in at least in the local business context and probably had some scope for doing so but it never happened. My late friend and I made it clear that it was a once-off for us in doing from the perspective of an ordinary fan albeit a fairly comfortable one in relation to society as a whole, not sure that went down well in some quarters.

Of course one thing that came out of it was Allan Bowkett's Chairmanship. Perhaps if that was still ongoing we wouldn't have gone exactly where we have gone?  

In terms of going forward if we don't get promoted under the new regime for a while then the 'bridging' loan becomes an elongated bridge. If we get promoted let's hope we can be far more competitive as there is nothing more dispiriting than getting thrashed each week and the economics behind it.   

In an ideal world we would still get feedback on the Club Valuation and future plans for fan ownership participation going forward ahead of being asked to vote. In that sense the bureaucracy associated with the Public Company seems to be counter productive.  

Edited September 8, 2023 by essex canary

[Soldier on 162]

Still not had letters. If no reply is made is vote void for your shares or taken in the affirmative by default ?

[Google Bot 3,301]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

Of course one thing that came out of it was Allan Bowkett's Chairmanship. Perhaps if that was still ongoing we wouldn't have gone exactly where we have gone?

I think a lot of people would like to see a chairman type role back at the club, but reading this makes me curious as to what you think is the ideal blueprint.

i.e. Which era of ownership/senior management do you feel was best/strongest at this club during your time as a supporter?

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,243]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

 

Given some of the personalities in the AD Group when formed 20 years ago the Club were definitely trying to lever some millions in at least in the local business context and probably had some scope for doing so but it never happened. My late friend and I made it clear that it was a once-off for us in doing from the perspective of an ordinary fan albeit a fairly comfortable one in relation to society as a whole, not sure that went down well in some quarters.

Of course one thing that came out of it was Allan Bowkett's Chairmanship. Perhaps if that was still ongoing we wouldn't have gone exactly where we have gone?  

In terms of going forward if we don't get promoted under the new regime for a while then the 'bridging' loan becomes an elongated bridge. If we get promoted let's hope we can be far more competitive as there is nothing more dispiriting than getting thrashed each week and the economics behind it.   

In an ideal world we would still get feedback on the Club Valuation and future plans for fan ownership participation going forward ahead of being asked to vote. In that sense the bureaucracy associated with the Public Company seems to be counter productive.  

Nicely written @essex canary, a perfectly reasonably-constructed and valid point. 

Democracies are designed to be more volatile, argumentative, awkward and polemic than command-and-control economies. 

It is right that everybody bangs drums. Whether the sound is sonorous to all is irrelevant and misses the point.  

Parma 

 

Edited September 8, 2023 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[GMF 757]

11 hours ago, essex canary said:

Unlike all other Football Club's currently in the Championship NCFC embarked on that journey 21 years ago. How have we got on in relation to Duncan's yardstick?

Simple question, given the financial situation NCFC were in back in 2002, following the collapse of ITV Digital (something that was completely outside the Club’s control) with the associated £3m forecasted hole in cash flow, rather than complaining constantly about the conversion to a Public Liability Company, what alternative solution would you have proposed to have taken?

[essex canary 505]

10 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

I think a lot of people would like to see a chairman type role back at the club, but reading this makes me curious as to what you think is the ideal blueprint.

i.e. Which era of ownership/senior management do you feel was best/strongest at this club during your time as a supporter?

Personally Roger Munby and Andy Cullen were great personalities. I didn't like the public statement of Allan Bowkett in 2009 but understand that Allan definitely saw a need for a hard skill focus and maybe a little political grandstanding was necessary to get there. Ed Balls made a great contribution in terms of the COO role. The Chairperson concept has to be good.

[essex canary 505]

12 minutes ago, GMF said:

Simple question, given the financial situation NCFC were in back in 2002, following the collapse of ITV Digital (something that was completely outside the Club’s control) with the associated £3m forecasted hole in cash flow, rather than complaining constantly about the conversion to a Public Liability Company, what alternative solution would you have proposed to have taken?

Was some theshold crossed that made it absolutely necessary? There certainly seems to be a different approach to the balance between equity and debt now given that in buying shares then equity was the priority and debt could only be engaged in up to the same level. Was Neil Doncaster's approach the best one? He wasn't popular in some quarters.

They only made £2 million from the general public because rewards were too skinny especially in the middle which is another reason why I don't think they showed much gratitude unlike 16 years later. That shouldn't have reflected on those who did contribute especially those who did so generously in context.

Edited September 8, 2023 by essex canary

[Shining White 13]

1 hour ago, Soldier on said:

Still not had letters. If no reply is made is vote void for your shares or taken in the affirmative by default ?

That makes at least 2 of us .Will be interested in the response re voting intention

[Nuff Said 5,176]

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

Nicely written @essex canary, a perfectly reasonably-constructed and valid point. 

Democracies are designed to be more volatile, argumentative, awkward and polemic than command-and-control economies. 

It is right that everybody bangs drums. Whether the sound is sonorous to all is irrelevant and misses the point.  

Parma 

 

True. However, there comes a time when hearing the same drum beat constantly repeated means people flip from dancing to irritation. You’ve only got to look at our supporters to see not everyone wants to hear it!

[essex canary 505]

4 minutes ago, Shining White said:

That makes at least 2 of us .Will be interested in the response re voting intention

@Soldier on

Did you get the set of papers for the previous meetings? I know of one supporter for whom they had the correct address on the season ticket database but not on the shareholder database. Could this be happening more generally? 

[essex canary 505]

4 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

True. However, there comes a time when hearing the same drum beat constantly repeated means people flip from dancing to irritation. You’ve only got to look at our supporters to see not everyone wants to hear it!

Or don't pick up on the what is already there like yesterday when there was at length discussion about the Annual Report entry for the ED salary whilst better more up to date information was available on the previous page.

[norfolkngood 1,087]

I do not understand all this and i trust Delia and MWJ will have the very best people they can get working on their side ,

i am sure Delia and MWJ have clauses etc that will safeguard the club and not let MA  have his own way 

but as someone who does not understand it so well ,

feels like someone has gone round to your elderly aunts and released some equity in her lovely Brancaster house worth 1.5 million ,

they have given her 300 k to spend on the family and make so and so happy and get a new kitchen ,

what old auntie does not realise is she has sold her house for 300k interest etc will eat up the rest and when she dies there will be nothing left 

not saying MA is that kind or out to do anything wrong , he will be professional and Delia and MWJ will have experts working and advising them but that is how it feels 

Edited September 8, 2023 by norfolkngood

[Canaries north 151]

5 minutes ago, norfolkngood said:

I do not understand all this and i trust Delia and MWJ will have the very best people they can get working on their side ,

i am sure Delia and MWJ have clauses etc that will safeguard the club and not let MA  have his own way 

but as someone who does not understand it so well ,

feels like someone has gone round to your elderly aunts and released some equity in her lovely Brancaster house worth 1.5 million ,

they have given her 300 k to spend on the family and make so and so happy and get a new kitchen ,

what old auntie does not realise is she has sold her house for 300k interest etc will eat up the rest and when she dies there will be nothing left 

not saying MA is that kind or out to do anything wrong but that is how it feels 

I couldn't agree more. So much of this deal from details provided to share holders appears to be based on trust. As said I'm sure Delia will have some very expensive legal people to make sure nothing untoward can happen but we have seen no proof. It still looks possible they could purchase 40% for £8 million and take back the loan. If anyone has any proof this can't happen that would put my mind at rest. 

 

The other thing is the Americans sound very similar to Delia. They have not invested fortunes into their baseball team and from what I have seen have done a Delia, ran it as a self sustained business. At the same time just as Delia has the value of the baseball team has risen hugely (By the way that is not a dig at Delia,  just the way it has worked out) Anyone expecting a huge outlay on players might be disappointed. 

 

If they do buy 40% for that little an amount of money then I will give them credit as being great businessmen. I just don't see a huge amount changing. They have bigger pockets but still have short arms if their baseball ownership is anything to go by.