Mark Attanasio

[GMF 757]

43 minutes ago, essex canary said:

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.

You’ve responded to my specific question to you, with more questions back at me, without any specific answers…

Notwithstanding, I’ve no idea where you’ve plucked your £2m figure from? For starters, they issued over 5,700 B-preference shares in 2002, which raised over £570, 000, plus over 142,000 ordinary shares, which raised north of £3.5m.

In the context of the original objective, that would appear a successful outcome.

[BigFish 1,988]

15 minutes ago, Canaries north said:

 It still looks possible they could purchase 40% for £8 million...

What is your alternative?

[ricardo 7,401]

2 hours 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 ?

Mine arrived yesterday.

[essex canary 506]

37 minutes ago, GMF said:

You’ve responded to my specific question to you, with more questions back at me, without any specific answers…

Notwithstanding, I’ve no idea where you’ve plucked your £2m figure from? For starters, they issued over 5,700 B-preference shares in 2002, which raised over £570, 000, plus over 142,000 ordinary shares, which raised north of £3.5m.

In the context of the original objective, that would appear a successful outcome.

Happy to look up the precise figures but in broad terms I think around 50% of what you quote came from the Board itself rather than the public which I believe they thought was disappointing since they had to contribute a little more than they had originally believed.

[Canary Wundaboy 1,360]

1 hour ago, Canaries north said:

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. 

I don't think anyone's expecting "huge outlays" on players, I'm certainly not expecting us to start laying out tens of millions on strikers, defenders etc. I think what's been killing us in recent seasons as a flaw of the self-funded model is that when an urgent need does arise (such as an injury to a key player) or an opportunity arises (a player becomes available upon promotion that would add significant quality) we can take advantage of it, rather than constantly shopping in the bargain bins or leaving the squad short in key areas. Or not HAVE to sell players like Omo would with a bit more experience and nurturing could have been worth 35-40 million and instead we've let him go for the first half-decent offer. Letting Emi go upon promotion as well.

I don't expect filthy oil state money, but just having a bit more cash so we're not constantly scraping around for every bit of loose change we can find just to stay afloat without needing external investment so Delia and MWJ stay in charge. 

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,243]

1 hour 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 , he will be professional and Delia and MWJ will have experts working and advising them but that is how it feels 

Linklaters vs McCormick’s.

Parma

@GMF

@MrBunce

[GMF 757]

41 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Happy to look up the precise figures but in broad terms I think around 50% of what you quote came from the Board itself rather than the public which I believe they thought was disappointing since they had to contribute a little more than they had originally believed.

The split is irrelevant, equity is equity, the source is irrelevant, but the Club clearly raised far more than the £2m you’ve stated.

[norfolkngood 1,087]

21 minutes ago, Canary Wundaboy said:

I don't think anyone's expecting "huge outlays" on players, I'm certainly not expecting us to start laying out tens of millions on strikers, defenders etc. I think what's been killing us in recent seasons as a flaw of the self-funded model is that when an urgent need does arise (such as an injury to a key player) or an opportunity arises (a player becomes available upon promotion that would add significant quality) we can take advantage of it, rather than constantly shopping in the bargain bins or leaving the squad short in key areas. Or not HAVE to sell players like Omo would with a bit more experience and nurturing could have been worth 35-40 million and instead we've let him go for the first half-decent offer. Letting Emi go upon promotion as well.

I don't expect filthy oil state money, but just having a bit more cash so we're not constantly scraping around for every bit of loose change we can find just to stay afloat without needing external investment so Delia and MWJ stay in charge. 

i feel it could go either way without knowing all the details ,

MA will be as smart as they come in business , Delia and MWJ  maybe not so good themselves will have top people advising them i hope ! 

i think in a deal like this , one small detail missed either side could be massive in the end ,

i think a clean cut do you want the club it is xyz for our shares would be a lot easier ,

[Wings of a Sparrow 1,428]

1 hour ago, ricardo said:

Mine arrived yesterday.

Mine came yesterday too.

[shefcanary 2,456]

18 hours 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. 

I assume Attanasio's cash was used to repay the loans as his repayment terms may well be more generous than the original ones (i.e. like any benevolent "owner" he is not seeking immediate repayment and will roll up or even forego interest on the loans, just like Smith and Jones did). So in theory all the parachute payments could be free to be spent on operating costs if they have stuck to their budgets, but somehow I think that is not the case.

[GMF 757]

@shefcanary the Club took an advance on future parachute payments and, on the basis that they can only spend it once, a significant portion has already gone.

[norfolkngood 1,087]

4 minutes ago, GMF said:

@shefcanary the Club took an advance on future parachute payments and, on the basis that they can only spend it once, a significant portion has already gone.

if a significant portion has already gone. does that mean we have over spent and ditched the self funding model ?

putting ourselves in debt something the club worked so hard to avoid without anyway of paying it back now parachute money has mostly been spent ?

[shefcanary 2,456]

16 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

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.

 

Nutty, rest assured as a fully paid up FPA, the club is not in financial difficulties. Attanasio has bankrolled c.£65m to allow the club to use the parachute payments more freely. I don't think they have misled anyone, they just haven't told us the exact position as of today's date over how much it is on the hook to Attanasio. I suspect very heavily now, hence why the current GM has only one valid option to avoid everyone losing. Unless another White Knight rides over the horizon which I certainly haven't heard of, have you?

[shefcanary 2,456]

16 hours 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? 

There was the opportunity of him to use the Canary Trust facility to pick up shareholdings as they come available, as long as he didn't breach that 30% limit. I assume minority shareholders could have written to him and offered to sell their shares in a private deal as well. But all that is time consuming & costly for Attanasio, he's probably a very busy man, so happy to go through a less troublesome (!) route.

[Canary Wundaboy 1,360]

18 minutes ago, norfolkngood said:

if a significant portion has already gone. does that mean we have over spent and ditched the self funding model ?

putting ourselves in debt something the club worked so hard to avoid without anyway of paying it back now parachute money has mostly been spent ?

Well yeah. Without bringing in the EPL TV money we can't afford to run the club, that's why we're selling players and taking out loans. We've never been "self-funded", we've been "TV money funded". If we aren't in the Premier League receiving TV money, or in the Championship for a single season receiving parachute money, we don't have enough to run the club.

That's the reality of "self-funded" under the current ownership.

[hogesar 9,745]

1 hour ago, Canary Wundaboy said:

I don't think anyone's expecting "huge outlays" on players, I'm certainly not expecting us to start laying out tens of millions on strikers, defenders etc. I think what's been killing us in recent seasons as a flaw of the self-funded model is that when an urgent need does arise (such as an injury to a key player) or an opportunity arises (a player becomes available upon promotion that would add significant quality) we can take advantage of it, rather than constantly shopping in the bargain bins or leaving the squad short in key areas. Or not HAVE to sell players like Omo would with a bit more experience and nurturing could have been worth 35-40 million and instead we've let him go for the first half-decent offer. Letting Emi go upon promotion as well.

I don't expect filthy oil state money, but just having a bit more cash so we're not constantly scraping around for every bit of loose change we can find just to stay afloat without needing external investment so Delia and MWJ stay in charge. 

I don't disagree with your overall point but plenty of fans said the same about Godfrey, Lewis, the Murphy's, Pritchard....

[shefcanary 2,456]

7 hours ago, Sufyellow said:

Its difficult to understand how they managed to go from we are ok to 66 million in debt.

They broke their budgets - both on net transfers in but more importantly on player salaries; again Ethics is not wrong to highlight our salary bill in our last EPL season was nearly £50m more than clubs who have a similar profile as us.

I don't want to sound patronising, but the answer is incredibly simple. We increased our debt by £66m by spending too much on player transfer fees and their subsequent salaries (over the rest of their contracts, which also did not have full relegation clauses).

It was a gamble (using future parachute payments to cover that spend to secure players who it was hoped would avoid relegation) that ultimately didn't pay off. I believe the budget holder wasn't subject to appropriate governance (as confirmed in a question put to the FD who confirmed Webber was responsible for those budgets), although we can argue that one for aeons! 

[Canary Wundaboy 1,360]

6 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

They broke their budgets - both on net transfers in but more importantly on player salaries; again Ethics is not wrong to highlight our salary bill in our last EPL season was nearly £50m more than clubs who have a similar profile as us.

I don't want to sound patronising, but the answer is incredibly simple. We increased our debt by £66m by spending too much on player transfer fees and their subsequent salaries (over the rest of their contracts, which also did not have full relegation clauses).

It was a gamble (using future parachute payments to cover that spend to secure players who it was hoped would avoid relegation) that ultimately didn't pay off. I believe the budget holder wasn't subject to appropriate governance (as confirmed in a question put to the FD who confirmed Webber was responsible for those budgets), although we can argue that one for aeons! 

I don't disagree, but I'd argue we spent too much on player fees and wages for players who did not contribute. Tzolis, Rashica etc, both expensive flops. God knows how much of Hayden's sages we were paying. Brandon Williams. Gilmour....just too many players who cost us far more than provided value.

[shefcanary 2,456]

3 hours ago, Canaries north said:

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. 

Attanasio is bound legally to a Shareholder Agreement until 23rd January 2026. As long as both parties stick to the terms of that agreement Attanasio will continue to provide the loans set out in that agreement, albeit at a high coupon rate. If he doesn't then Smith &Jones can sue for their losses, which as of today I'd argue they have £40 - 70m in share value.  If Smith and Jones breach that agreement, they'd potentially breach the trigger event of the C Preference shares, so Attanasio would effectively be in control of the club by default, something they potentially will not be content with.

On 24th January 26th, as things stand Attanasio can do what he likes, although by then I would imagine recovering full value for those loans will be very difficult without risk losing his £18m investment in shares to date. How much can he afford to write-off just because he is upset with someone at the club?

I can see an extension of the Shareholder Agreement being negotiated anyway, depending on how energised Smith and Jones still are.

There are of course still opportunities for a 3rd party to get involved, but we haven't seen evidence of such a party to date.

[Canaries north 151]

3 hours ago, BigFish said:

What is your alternative?

Say no and if you are serious about buying the whole club as everyone seems to believe they are go for a full takeover. You can still keep Delia and Co on as non shareholding directors to help guide you. As they say "put your money where your mouth is"  

 

As said they could well turn out to be perfect owners and everything could work out great. But for me, I would want some real financial commitment. It looks like a lot of people are relying on them doing the right thing with the loan money without and certainty. 

[Canaries north 151]

2 hours ago, Canary Wundaboy said:

I don't think anyone's expecting "huge outlays" on players, I'm certainly not expecting us to start laying out tens of millions on strikers, defenders etc. I think what's been killing us in recent seasons as a flaw of the self-funded model is that when an urgent need does arise (such as an injury to a key player) or an opportunity arises (a player becomes available upon promotion that would add significant quality) we can take advantage of it, rather than constantly shopping in the bargain bins or leaving the squad short in key areas. Or not HAVE to sell players like Omo would with a bit more experience and nurturing could have been worth 35-40 million and instead we've let him go for the first half-decent offer. Letting Emi go upon promotion as well.

I don't expect filthy oil state money, but just having a bit more cash so we're not constantly scraping around for every bit of loose change we can find just to stay afloat without needing external investment so Delia and MWJ stay in charge. 

I agree with what you say. Money would be easier to access without having to borrow but we will still be a club that balances the books. They will still want that money back. Yes we will be in a better position than we are in now, my only problem is if they are serious why don't they take the club over now. As said Delia and Co can still be kept on to help the transfer even if they don't have a financial stake. 

[Canaries north 151]

2 hours ago, norfolkngood said:

i feel it could go either way without knowing all the details ,

MA will be as smart as they come in business , Delia and MWJ  maybe not so good themselves will have top people advising them i hope ! 

i think in a deal like this , one small detail missed either side could be massive in the end ,

i think a clean cut do you want the club it is xyz for our shares would be a lot easier ,

My feeling exactly. If you want the club get it done. Show your commitment. 

[shefcanary 2,456]

1 hour ago, GMF said:

@shefcanary the Club took an advance on future parachute payments and, on the basis that they can only spend it once, a significant portion has already gone.

 

1 hour ago, GMF said:

@shefcanary the Club took an advance on future parachute payments and, on the basis that they can only spend it once, a significant portion has already gone.

Yes, but the parachute payments were to pay off that original debt. Instead I assume Attanasio's loans have been used to pay off that original debt (as his terms were cheaper than those of the original lenders).

The parachute payments should in theory then be used to repay Attanasio instead.

This may indeed have happened. Or, and this is purely subjective on my part in the absence of any form of interim accounts that you would normally have been included in the GM papers, Attanasio may not actually have sought repayment and /or payment of interest, thus allowing some of his debt to be made available to cover other things, like operating costs / salaries and transfer fees over budget; or these funds are being held as a war chest for the future (a deposit on the City Stand rebuild? 🙏). Until we see the next financial statements or the Board confirms what Attansio's loans and the parachute payments have been used for, only the Board & executive and thier bankers know.

As I've said this doesn't change much for the GM, but there are plenty of unanswered questions for an FPA like me!

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,243]

1 hour ago, shefcanary said:

I assume Attanasio's cash was used to repay the loans as his repayment terms may well be more generous than the original ones (i.e. like any benevolent "owner" he is not seeking immediate repayment and will roll up or even forego interest on the loans, just like Smith and Jones did). So in theory all the parachute payments could be free to be spent on operating costs if they have stuck to their budgets, but somehow I think that is not the case.

@shefcanary I think you’ll find that Attanasio has just undertaken a basic refinancing on the advance monies package that NCFC took out against future parachute money.

The advance funding method for EPL monies is relatively common, so simply rolling it into a vehicle brokered by Attanasio saves on repayment costs. 

You might like to do a little due diligence on whether Attanasio banked any commission for the refinancing of course …..

Parma 

[shefcanary 2,456]

1 hour ago, GMF said:

@shefcanary the Club took an advance on future parachute payments and, on the basis that they can only spend it once, a significant portion has already gone.

 

1 hour ago, GMF said:

@shefcanary the Club took an advance on future parachute payments and, on the basis that they can only spend it once, a significant portion has already gone.

Yes, but the parachute payments were to pay off that original debt. Instead I assume Attanasio's loans have been used to pay off that original debt (as his terms were cheaper than those of the original lenders).

The parachute payments should in theory then be used to repay Attanasio instead.

This may indeed have happened. Or, and this is purely subjective on my part in the absence of any form of interim accounts that you would normally have been included in the GM papers, Attanasio may not actually have sought repayment and /or payment of interest, thus allowing some of his debt to be made available to cover other things, like operating costs / salaries and transfer fees over budget; or these funds are being held as a war chest for the future (a deposit on the City Stand rebuild? 🙏). Until we see the next financial statements or the Board confirms what Attansio's loans and the parachute payments have been used for, only the Board & executive and thier bankers know.

As I've said this doesn't change much for the GM, but there are plenty of unanswered questions for an FPA like me!

[shefcanary 2,456]

24 minutes ago, Canary Wundaboy said:

I don't disagree, but I'd argue we spent too much on player fees and wages for players who did not contribute. Tzolis, Rashica etc, both expensive flops. God knows how much of Hayden's sages we were paying. Brandon Williams. Gilmour....just too many players who cost us far more than provided value.

And I also agree even with appropriate governance the answer may still have turned out the same. But I suspect not to the extent of £66m!

[essex canary 506]

3 hours ago, GMF said:

The split is irrelevant, equity is equity, the source is irrelevant, but the Club clearly raised far more than the £2m you’ve stated.

The figures raised in 2002 were 

Public Ordinary £1.55 million 

Public Preference £0.38 million 

TOTAL PUBLIC. £1.93 million

Board Ordinary £1.98 million

Board Preference £0.07 million

TOTAL BOARD £2.05 million

GRAND TOTAL £3.98 million

So of the £4 million raised (only £2.4 million net of Board loan conversion) if Public Company status was required presumably only the top entry of £1.55 million is relevant?

Perhaps some of it is with the benefit of hindsight but it is hard to believe that the £1.55 million wasn't eaten up by lawyers fees then and recently rather than truly going to the benefit of the Club? Around 40% of that would have been from the 24 AD's.

Perhaps that is why the Directors reached the verdict in 2018 that we had 'hugely benefitted' from our seating arrangement? It is fallacy from our perspective and certainly doesn't justify inheritors bearing the brunt. If we had split our initial investment 50:50 between Ordinary and Preference they would never have been able to deny inheritors their fair cut and overall would face a lower risk profile than the pompous AD initiative.

The Club having sought to put the focus on equity then now seek to put the focus on debt now in favour of paying interest to an American multimillionaire. Fairness to minority shareholders is a joke.

 

 

Edited September 8, 2023 by essex canary

[Duncan Edwards 2,264]

32 minutes ago, essex canary said:

The figures raised in 2002 were 

Public Ordinary £1.55 million 

Public Preference £0.38 million 

TOTAL PUBLIC. £1.93 million

Board Ordinary £1.98 million

Board Preference £0.07 million

TOTAL BOARD £2.05 million

GRAND TOTAL £3.98 million

So of the £4 million raised if Public Company status was required presumably only the top entry of £1.55 million is relevant?

Perhaps some of it is with the benefit of hindsight but it is hard to believe that the £1.55 million wasn't eaten up by lawyers fees then and recently rather than truly going to the benefit of the Club? Around 40% of that would have been from the 24 AD's.

Perhaps that is why the Directors reached the verdict in 2018 that we had 'hugely benefitted' from our seating arrangement? It is fallacy from our perspective and certainly doesn't justify inheritors bearing the brunt. If we had split our initial investment 50:50 between Ordinary and Preference they would never have been able to deny inheritors their fair cut and overall would face a lower risk profile than the pompous AD initiative.

The Club having sought to put the focus on equity then now seek to put the focus on debt now in favour of paying interest to an American multimillionaire. Fairness to minority shareholders is a joke.

 

 

Did you get a shiny badge with “Associate Director” on it? I mean, the name was just to blow a few bubbles up your balloon knot, wasn’t it? You were never actually important or listened to. Still, you could put it in your Twitter Bio or LinkedIn profile I suppose. And you did get a free seat for life. So I suppose you’ve had half your money back at least in that respect. Every cloud and that. 

[essex canary 506]

4 minutes ago, Duncan Edwards said:

Did you get a shiny badge with “Associate Director” on it? I mean, the name was just to blow a few bubbles up your balloon knot, wasn’t it? You were never actually important or listened to. Still, you could put it in your Twitter Bio or LinkedIn profile I suppose. And you did get a free seat for life. So I suppose you’ve had half your money back at least in that respect. Every cloud and that. 

There was certainly some frills they promised and didn't provide and of course the benefits for lesser holdings weren't great unless you wanted a home membership so I take your every cloud point. Did they really need to go to those lengths for such a modest sum of money and is a contrast to now even accepting the goal posts have moved. But then fan engagement should be resolved in the new context rather clinging on to the past.

[GMF 757]

@essex canary I really don’t understand the point you’re trying to make here. If the gist is that it was unsuccessful because the benefits weren’t sufficient, so be it. Notwithstanding, it achieved its primary purpose, which is good enough for the majority of fans.