Mark Attanasio

[nutty nigel 7,702]

2 hours ago, Canary Wundaboy said:

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.

That doesn't make sense to me. Yes we are TV funded and the more successful we are the more TV funding we get. All the other clubs are also TV funded. It's not like a foodbank where we get more because we have poorer owners.

The question that's never answered is how a self funded club can get so much more TV funding than so many clubs that supposedly aren't self funded.

 

 

[Big Vince 335]

3 hours 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.

And those operating costs are vastly inflated by Webber's vanity project at Colney where he has lined every single corridor with gold panels.

[norfolkngood 1,101]

5 hours ago, Canary Wundaboy said:

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.

My idea was we were owed parachute money say for example 60 mill ,

AM said i can loan that upfront so we can use that now so we owe or in debt to  AM 60 mill ,

when we got paid parachute money we could then pay back AM 60 mill ,

problem is a poster has said we have spent most of the parachute money already as well ? 

so say for example we have spent half of that parachute money we might be 90 mil over spent ? 

30 mill of parachute money plus 60 mill loaned by AM 

for a club that has had sky money and parachute money and players sales that seems to be way out not a little overspend  !! 

of course i might have wrong end of stick and not understood it properly 

Edited September 8, 2023 by norfolkngood

[GMF 757]

Re parachute payments and loans against them, what usually happens is that the Club will approach a lender, saying that we’re due £42m in 12 months time and another £32m a year later.

The lender will then give the Club an advance against some, or all, of those future payments, but they will charge you an up front arrangement fee, plus interest, usually at so many base points above the bank base rate.

When those parachute payments are received, usually in instalments, the lender effectively gets first dibs on the receipt. Any balance not previously drawn against will then come to the Club.

[norfolkngood 1,101]

7 minutes ago, GMF said:

Re parachute payments and loans against them, what usually happens is that the Club will approach a lender, saying that we’re due £42m in 12 months time and another £32m a year later.

The lender will then give the Club an advance against some, or all, of those future payments, but they will charge you an up front arrangement fee, plus interest, usually at so many base points above the bank base rate.

When those parachute payments are received, usually in instalments, the lender effectively gets first dibs on the receipt. Any balance not previously drawn against will then come to the Club.

i understand that but if you have spent the Parachute payments or most or some ,

then you are in debt due to not be able to pay back lender when you receive the payments ,

you said we had spent a large portion of these payments so what happened to the money that was loaned against these payments if that also has spent we have nearly spent twice as much as the payments owed to us 

[GMF 757]

5 minutes ago, norfolkngood said:

i understand that but if you have spent the Parachute payments or most or some ,

then you are in debt due to not be able to pay back lender when you receive the payments ,

you said we had spent a large portion of these payments so what happened to the money that was loaned against these payments if that also has spent we have nearly spent twice as much as the payments owed to us 

No, you can’t spend more than will be due, but it does mean that your income will be substantially lower than it otherwise would have been had you not taken the advance in the first place.

[chicken 2,700]

6 hours ago, Canary Wundaboy said:

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.

That's a bit iffy.

Self funded doesn't mean you generate all of the funds from within, it means you run with what you have. The TV money is always there, it fluctuates but it's always there. More, obviously, if you are in the premier league, then the Europe and then the Champions league. It isn't outside of the self funding model, it's part of it. The club 'earns' that money by performance.

Self funding just means that there is no one dipping into their pocket to fund it, or dipping into their state pension fund, or oil reserve fund or weapons trade business fund etc etc etc.

It is part of the modern game, but it isn't not part of a self funding model. That'd be like you saying you were self funding but not really because you need your wages, but they are external so don't count, only self employed work counts. 

[chicken 2,700]

30 minutes ago, norfolkngood said:

i understand that but if you have spent the Parachute payments or most or some ,

then you are in debt due to not be able to pay back lender when you receive the payments ,

you said we had spent a large portion of these payments so what happened to the money that was loaned against these payments if that also has spent we have nearly spent twice as much as the payments owed to us 

Put very simply, we wanted an advance of the parachute payments. The lender said sure, as long as you give me the money when it does come through, with some interest, I'll loan you the money.

Say we have £30m in parachute payments over the course of this season but we need the £30m now, not in instalments over the next six months. We ask for a loan of £30m on the proviso that when the parachute payments do come in, they go straight to the lender. We can spend the £30m because £30m is coming in to pay off the lender. 

[Canary Wundaboy 1,363]

6 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

That doesn't make sense to me. Yes we are TV funded and the more successful we are the more TV funding we get. All the other clubs are also TV funded. It's not like a foodbank where we get more because we have poorer owners.

The question that's never answered is how a self funded club can get so much more TV funding than so many clubs that supposedly aren't self funded.

All other clubs are TV funded to an extent nutty, but clubs that sit below the EPL don’t make a huge amount from TV money. If they don’t have TV riches or parachute payments, they either have to cut to the bone, sell their better players, or get cash injections from their owners.

How have we benefited from TV money so much compared to most other clubs in the football league? We’ve been relatively successful, achieving promotions of not silverware, but jumping up to the top flight for a short stay brings in so much TV money that we can settle the debts and when we go down, hopefully not sell our best players and give it a decent go at getting back up, with parachute payments helping too.

But Nutty, as has been pointed out time and time again, it isn’t practical because the moment you slip up, you are just fighting the tide. Farke’s first promotion, we went up and immediately were told there was no money, we had to “pay for the sins of the past”, settling debts and getting high earners off the wage bill. So we spent nothing, went down. 
Then we managed to get back up but had to sell Emi, he wanted more wages etc than we could provide and probably guessed it would be another relegation battle as we lacked the money to really strengthen. We squandered the money we did make, didn’t strengthen the spine of the side and went down just as pathetically as before. 
Last season we banked on continuing the yo-yo but it all fell apart and lo and behold where are we this summer? “Reduce the wage bill”, too many players on big contracts being let go and our exciting young talents (Aaron’s, Omo) shipped out for the first decent offer that appears.

And we’re back to square one, hunting for pennies because we lack pounds. the current ownership runs this club on a shoestring, not because they want to suck money out but because they can’t put any money IN. And with football finances the way they are, that’s just going to put us further and further behind the curve until it’s too late. They’re selling to the Attanasios out of necessity, not because they want to.

We’ve been very good at running the club on zero investment. Amazingly good, and Webber etc are to be applauded, but we’ve always been struggling against the tide and one bad season could see us swept away.

[BroadstairsR 2,241]

At this moment in time self-funding can work for a club like Norwich City, with its sound support base, flourishing Cat.1 Academy continually able to produce saleable youngsters to a greater or lesser extent and various assets including the ground with restaurants and bars, the training ground with its abundant facilities all backed up by an efficient scouting network as long as the ownership and supporters are  prepared to accept a perpetual existence in the Championship, possibly mid-table or possibly worse.

It is incompatible with Premier League existence in this age of endless billionaire benefactors, a fact that has been proven four times this century by our repeated one season excursions ..... Worthington, Neal, Farke, Farke. The other time was mostly precarious as well. Self-funding cannot cope with the obscene level of wages demanded by players capable of performing at the highest level.

Some supporters would remain content with lower league existence, others would not.

Neither is right nor wrong.  'You pays yer money, you takes yer choice.'

We are not alone in being yo-yo, but all clubs are different and some would say that our recent history has been remarkable considering that it has possibly been achieved with less external funding than most around us. 

Edited September 9, 2023 by BroadstairsR

[Badger 2,418]

On 07/09/2023 at 16:31, Canary Wundaboy said:

... It only takes a couple of years of under-performance on the pitch and you're stuffed. ...

We've been really, really lucky.... 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.

I'm sorry CW, but this is misinformed. Without parachute payments we would still have one of the higher turnovers in the EFL - we would not "be stuffed" but have every chance of being a promotion contender if we built and bought well and kept debt levels down. I think that you are a bit outdated in your view of football finances - the time when someone could come in and gift a hundred million or so and get a team established in the EPL is long gone - as many EFL billionaires can attest to.

The big question which many of us have to resolve before voting is to whether MA is the "least devilish" investor we could find - if he had the best of intentions, why is so much of the money he has "invested" in interest bearing loans - I would have been far more convinced if the he had injected cash through new equity rather than loaned us the money.

It is taking on heavy debt that is the quickest route to "being stuffed," as our natural advantages in terms of revenue would get swallowed up in debt repayments.

[Badger 2,418]

On 07/09/2023 at 19:14, Canaries north said:

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. 

This is exactly my fear.

[Badger 2,418]

On 08/09/2023 at 08:42, BigFish said:

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

On the evidence so far, the MA engagement would be a continuation of the self-funding model. He has not "gifted us" any money and indeed has bought shares at below the market rate when he could have injected new equity by buying at fair market rates.

What he has done is lent us money at a commercial rate.* Borrowing money has always been part of self-funding - and D and M have done it many times (too often imo), and I don't see how MA is any different - except in what we hope it might become (but without evidence to support the hopes).

*albeit at lower end of?

[essex canary 519]

Could be Mr. Chase Mark 2 without a Norfolk accent. Oh and a loans business rather than a building one.

[wcorkcanary 4,359]

1 minute ago, essex canary said:

Could be Mr. Chase Mark 2 without a Norfolk accent. Oh and a loans business rather than a building one.

This your latest offering... " Chase Mk 2" ?

You've already said this, repetitive,   dull and almost certainly untrue , as is virtually everything you post. 

What little support you may have had is dwindling fast....looks like it's just you and Pig  Mince who are in accord. Not quite the esteemed back slapping you envisioned for yourself.  

There is little  as amusing as watching a puffed up, inconsequential  , whiney , snivelling, low life cretin such as yourself , clutch at straws in desperation , trying to achieve  something that can only be given by others..... respect.  Unfortunately you are transparent, pathetic and and whatsmore, unrespectable. 

It's not happening for you is it?

[Sufyellow 247]

11 hours ago, chicken said:

Put very simply, we wanted an advance of the parachute payments. The lender said sure, as long as you give me the money when it does come through, with some interest, I'll loan you the money.

Say we have £30m in parachute payments over the course of this season but we need the £30m now, not in instalments over the next six months. We ask for a loan of £30m on the proviso that when the parachute payments do come in, they go straight to the lender. We can spend the £30m because £30m is coming in to pay off the lender. 

So the money they have loaned the club can't be used , to say he has bought 40% in shares for 50 to 60 million as it is set up to be paid back isn't correct. Unless he is saying the 33 million dollar loan and the 10 million loan are being written off as part of the 40%

[Sufyellow 247]

34 minutes ago, Badger said:

I'm sorry CW, but this is misinformed. Without parachute payments we would still have one of the higher turnovers in the EFL - we would not "be stuffed" but have every chance of being a promotion contender if we built and bought well and kept debt levels down. I think that you are a bit outdated in your view of football finances - the time when someone could come in and gift a hundred million or so and get a team established in the EPL is long gone - as many EFL billionaires can attest to.

The big question which many of us have to resolve before voting is to whether MA is the "least devilish" investor we could find - if he had the best of intentions, why is so much of the money he has "invested" in interest bearing loans - I would have been far more convinced if the he had injected cash through new equity rather than loaned us the money.

It is taking on heavy debt that is the quickest route to "being stuffed," as our natural advantages in terms of revenue would get swallowed up in debt repayments.

We can't build ,we have to sell our best players to pay the bills and keep the debt down. We can operate as a mid championship club and have the odd good season,  we have no chance of competing in the prem.

[essex canary 519]

22 minutes ago, wcorkcanary said:

This your latest offering... " Chase Mk 2" ?

You've already said this, repetitive,   dull and almost certainly untrue , as is virtually everything you post. 

What little support you may have had is dwindling fast....looks like it's just you and Pig  Mince who are in accord. Not quite the esteemed back slapping you envisioned for yourself.  

There is little  as amusing as watching a puffed up, inconsequential  , whiney , snivelling, low life cretin such as yourself , clutch at straws in desperation , trying to achieve  something that can only be given by others..... respect.  Unfortunately you are transparent, pathetic and and whatsmore, unrespectable. 

It's not happening for you is it?

Proud to be transparent.

[hogesar 9,862]

For those saying we've been "lucky" under our current owners with the TV money we've acquired etc - that only works if youre happy to admit we've simply been unlucky in our Prem seasons and that's why we arent currently a midtable prem side.

Somehow I doubt...

[PurpleCanary 5,623]

Morning fellow shareholders! My notice of meeting and voting form arrived today by email, with attached some of the relevant documents, but by no means all. Still, they did include the spectacularly independent report by the so obviously independent directors with its scrupulously independent advice, which is the main thing, and those that are missing can be found on the club site…😜

[wcorkcanary 4,359]

12 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Proud to be transparent.

Apologies. Your connivings are transparent , i should have been clearer for  the stupid.  Of which you are team leader. 

[Badger 2,418]

39 minutes ago, Sufyellow said:

We can't build ,we have to sell our best players to pay the bills and keep the debt down. We can operate as a mid championship club and have the odd good season,  we have no chance of competing in the prem.

1. We should have built (a new stand) when interest rates were low, but I wouldn't recommend it atm. We have invested heavily in training facilities which will be amongst the best for clubs our size.

2. All clubs sell their best players with possible (debateable) exceptions at the very top level. It is a fundamental part of modern football.

3. Keeping debt low is good as it means you can spend more money on football and less on interest.

4. We have been one of the most successful clubs of our size in the last 20 years.

5. I would be very happy to have a benefactor who gives us money, but the evidence we have so far suggests that MA is not that person. I hope he proves me wrong, as I suspect that he will get what he wants.

Edited September 9, 2023 by Badger
Added a couple of clauses.

[essex canary 519]

53 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Morning fellow shareholders! My notice of meeting and voting form arrived today by email, with attached some of the relevant documents, but by no means all. Still, they did include the spectacularly independent report by the so obviously independent directors with its scrupulously independent advice, which is the main thing, and those that are missing can be found on the club site…😜

Good to note you have received it. Hopefully it includes Page 22 and 23 with details of the earnings of the Executive Director who logically ought to be taking ultimate responsibility for the contents of the pack.

[Greavsy 2,475]

28 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Good to note you have received it. Hopefully it includes Page 22 and 23 with details of the earnings of the Executive Director who logically ought to be taking ultimate responsibility for the contents of the pack.

On a bike! 

[nutty nigel 7,702]

11 hours ago, Canary Wundaboy said:

All other clubs are TV funded to an extent nutty, but clubs that sit below the EPL don’t make a huge amount from TV money. If they don’t have TV riches or parachute payments, they either have to cut to the bone, sell their better players, or get cash injections from their owners.

How have we benefited from TV money so much compared to most other clubs in the football league? We’ve been relatively successful, achieving promotions of not silverware, but jumping up to the top flight for a short stay brings in so much TV money that we can settle the debts and when we go down, hopefully not sell our best players and give it a decent go at getting back up, with parachute payments helping too.

But Nutty, as has been pointed out time and time again, it isn’t practical because the moment you slip up, you are just fighting the tide. Farke’s first promotion, we went up and immediately were told there was no money, we had to “pay for the sins of the past”, settling debts and getting high earners off the wage bill. So we spent nothing, went down. 
Then we managed to get back up but had to sell Emi, he wanted more wages etc than we could provide and probably guessed it would be another relegation battle as we lacked the money to really strengthen. We squandered the money we did make, didn’t strengthen the spine of the side and went down just as pathetically as before. 
Last season we banked on continuing the yo-yo but it all fell apart and lo and behold where are we this summer? “Reduce the wage bill”, too many players on big contracts being let go and our exciting young talents (Aaron’s, Omo) shipped out for the first decent offer that appears.

And we’re back to square one, hunting for pennies because we lack pounds. the current ownership runs this club on a shoestring, not because they want to suck money out but because they can’t put any money IN. And with football finances the way they are, that’s just going to put us further and further behind the curve until it’s too late. They’re selling to the Attanasios out of necessity, not because they want to.

We’ve been very good at running the club on zero investment. Amazingly good, and Webber etc are to be applauded, but we’ve always been struggling against the tide and one bad season could see us swept away.

Not silverware?

We've won two championships and a Wembley play off final in the last 8 years.

How does that stack against our competitors and indeed the other 113 years of our beloved club's existence?

[GMF 757]

Football clubs generate revenue from three primary sources; gate receipts, commercial revenues from sponsorship and other off field activities, and TV revenues.

But they can also generate revenue from player trading, and, contrary to some perceptions, all clubs do it, even Chelsea, who, under Abramovich, actually generated more money from player trading than anyone else.

So, football’s primary problems are the huge differences between the Premier League and EFL’s media deals, plus the soft FFP rules, which actually permit clubs to lose huge amounts of money.

I’m not sure how this is sustainable across the game generally, and I personally find it bemusing that some fans seem to be advocating following a similar route, primarily on the justification that everyone else seems to be doing it.

[shefcanary 2,518]

@Badger the test of whether Attanasio is merely providing loans as a means of him generating income will be answered when the financial statements are revealed. Yes, the terms of his loans to the club revealed in the papers suggest an arms length arrangment, but that is probably for tax and SEC purposes rather than a meaningful arrangment. I suspect loan repayments and interest are being foregone and rolled up, but am prepared to be disavowed of this.

[GMF 757]

4 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

@Badger the test of whether Attanasio is merely providing loans as a means of him generating income will be answered when the financial statements are revealed. Yes, the terms of his loans to the club revealed in the papers suggest an arms length arrangment, but that is probably for tax and SEC purposes rather than a meaningful arrangment. I suspect loan repayments and interest are being foregone and rolled up, but am prepared to be disavowed of this.

Did you find it odd that there wasn’t greater clarity on the other unsecured loans, rather than leaving it to the forthcoming annual statements?

[norfolkngood 1,101]

4 hours ago, Badger said:

On the evidence so far, the MA engagement would be a continuation of the self-funding model. He has not "gifted us" any money and indeed has bought shares at below the market rate when he could have injected new equity by buying at fair market rates.

What he has done is lent us money at a commercial rate.* Borrowing money has always been part of self-funding - and D and M have done it many times (too often imo), and I don't see how MA is any different - except in what we hope it might become (but without evidence to support the hopes).

*albeit at lower end of?

The best thing would be that his loans are a way of buying 40% and once the 3 years is up he writes them off as part of buying the club ,

he is a investor and a clever Businessman so will he keep it as a loan ? and buy the club dirt cheap , is it his personal money ? or is the club paying for some Americans pensioners to have a better life ?  a lot of unknown questions 

[Sufyellow 247]

4 hours ago, Badger said:

This is exactly my fear.

Surely he has to terminate the loan for the 40% . A loan is a loan.  I thought I read from the pinkun lads that  stated the 10 million loan would give him 10 percent of the value of the club if sold .