Mark Attanasio

[Sufyellow 244]

3 hours ago, hogesar said:

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...

Not really,  we don't have a hope of being a midtable prem side with our finances.  We hit the ceiling getting to the prem,  I agree though it wasn't all luck winning the championship,  a bit of a gamble but the right players were bought for the way we wanted to play, and the coaching team got the best out of them.  

[Sufyellow 244]

3 hours ago, Badger said:

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.

 

[Sufyellow 244]

3 hours ago, Badger said:

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.

So we can't build a team because we have to sell. Making the ground bigger by borrowing will not create more money unless we are in the prem,  we don't sell out now the demand is not there , to attract new support we would need to lower prices . A few years ago I would of been happy to see godfrey money spent on a new stand but unfortunately it all goes back into running costs. One of the most successful in last twenty years , not sure if that is correct, but it's where we are know not 15 years ago, we can't compete with Bournemouth, brentford, forest, crystal Palace, Leicester. Look at what those clubs have spent on players , ours is kloser. I agree doesn't seem as though anything changes.  

[norfolkngood 1,097]

10 minutes ago, Sufyellow said:

So we can't build a team because we have to sell. Making the ground bigger by borrowing will not create more money unless we are in the prem,  we don't sell out now the demand is not there , to attract new support we would need to lower prices . A few years ago I would of been happy to see godfrey money spent on a new stand but unfortunately it all goes back into running costs. One of the most successful in last twenty years , not sure if that is correct, but it's where we are know not 15 years ago, we can't compete with Bournemouth, brentford, forest, crystal Palace, Leicester. Look at what those clubs have spent on players , ours is kloser. I agree doesn't seem as though anything changes.  

i would say our best recent years have been when Farke and Webber first came reduced the debt spent very little and we did well ,

all self funded going up and down getting TV money and selling one or two but we did it all with no debt or very little ,

Webber did a great job finding gems free transfers and reducing debt , then he spent money on colney again debt repaid and we were bobbing along nicely , 

then someone has torn up that script and we are in debt again ,

like others have said if AM had gifted the money or put money in to get to 40 % then we would still be debt free and would have to cut the cloth to continue 

it is these Loans that bother me not gifts not putting money into the club but loans 

of course if he writes them off as part of take over that would be ok but if he keeps the word loan there he could pull the rug anytime 

 

Edited September 9, 2023 by norfolkngood

[Sufyellow 244]

2 minutes ago, norfolkngood said:

i would say our best recent years have been when Farke and Webber first came reduced the debt spent very little and we did well ,

all self funded going up and down getting TV money and selling one or two but we did it all with no debt or very little ,

Webber did a great job finding gems free transfers and reducing debt , then he spent money on colney again debt repaid and we were bobbing along nicely , 

then someone has torn up that script and we are in debt again ,

like others have said if AM had gifted the money or put money in to get to 40 % then we would still be debt free and would have to cut the cloth to continue 

it is these Loans that bother me not gifts not putting money into the club but loans 

of course if he writes them off as part of take over that would be ok but if he keeps the word loan there he could pull the rug anytime 

 

Totally agree except the lambert years were better.  After leaving season ticket money in to buy Holt because we had no money we went on to 2 promotions and competed in the Premiership. We bought players mid twenties from the lower leagues and built a hard team. To be fair I doubt a club like ours could even do that now financially.  I am not a share holder and good luck to all who are , the thing that shocks me is none of them seem to know what is really happening and they are being asked to vote on something.  

[TIL 1010 4,826]

4 hours ago, essex canary said:

Proud to be transparent.

If you mean everybody can see through you then yes.

Edited September 9, 2023 by TIL 1010

[Badger 2,415]

2 hours 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.

I hope that you are right, Shef, but will we know before we vote?

Most of the US shareholders charge interest on their loans, and seek their capital back after they end their involvement- which is not unreasonable really. However, either as scenario could see us in great difficulty. 

It is not unreasonable to assume that MA is looking to profit, which is quite understandable, ATM however, we are not sure if he's taking any risks at all, merely on a one-way bet - heads he wins big time, tails he makes a decent profit.

 

[Badger 2,415]

1 hour ago, norfolkngood said:

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 

Yes exactly Norfolk, lots of unanswered questions. If he's committed to writing off the debt, surely he would say so?

[Badger 2,415]

1 hour ago, Sufyellow said:

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 . 

I just don't know Suf - I haven't seen or heard of any such commitment but would be happy to be wrong.

[shefcanary 2,503]

4 hours ago, GMF said:

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?

Absolutely, if NCFC plc was a more "normal" company, not only full interim accounts (which would have carried notes that set out the loans and transactions thereon) but an independent accountants report would have been included in the circular which would have given their view of the purpose of the loans. 

Edited September 9, 2023 by shefcanary

[shefcanary 2,503]

2 hours ago, Badger said:

I hope that you are right, Shef, but will we know before we vote?

Most of the US shareholders charge interest on their loans, and seek their capital back after they end their involvement- which is not unreasonable really. However, either as scenario could see us in great difficulty. 

It is not unreasonable to assume that MA is looking to profit, which is quite understandable, ATM however, we are not sure if he's taking any risks at all, merely on a one-way bet - heads he wins big time, tails he makes a decent profit.

 

Smith & Jones history of their own financial support of the club and the Shareholder Agreement gives me some hope that Attanasio is not a Glazer type investor.

[essex canary 515]

4 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

Absolutely, if NCFC plc was a more "normal" company, not only full interim accounts (which would have carried notes that set out the loans and transactions thereon) but an independent report would have been included in the circular. 

Norfolk Group will stick at 46% so another document which will be valuable is their Statement of Intent re the one sixth fans shareholding and attitude going forward to the Government's fan led review.

Of course Opaque United (or Disunited) will disagree.

[norfolkngood 1,097]

2 hours ago, Badger said:

Yes exactly Norfolk, lots of unanswered questions. If he's committed to writing off the debt, surely he would say so?

You would think someone would say it good selling point for MA and gain a lot of credit with fans , 

At the moment they are say a Loan and that is normally something you pay back ,

if they said future payment for shares would be better 

[norfolkngood 1,097]

2 hours ago, Sufyellow said:

Totally agree except the lambert years were better.  After leaving season ticket money in to buy Holt because we had no money we went on to 2 promotions and competed in the Premiership. We bought players mid twenties from the lower leagues and built a hard team. To be fair I doubt a club like ours could even do that now financially.  I am not a share holder and good luck to all who are , the thing that shocks me is none of them seem to know what is really happening and they are being asked to vote on something.  

Lambert years wins hands down

but I was talking about Webber era recent history when we were announced as self funded cleared debt and had a clean slate yet still had success ,

now we have debt and are no better off 

[essex canary 515]

6 hours ago, Badger said:

I hope that you are right, Shef, but will we know before we vote?

Most of the US shareholders charge interest on their loans, and seek their capital back after they end their involvement- which is not unreasonable really. However, either as scenario could see us in great difficulty. 

It is not unreasonable to assume that MA is looking to profit, which is quite understandable, ATM however, we are not sure if he's taking any risks at all, merely on a one-way bet - heads he wins big time, tails he makes a decent profit.

 

Seems like a reverse Ponzi.

[Sufyellow 244]

5 hours ago, norfolkngood said:

Lambert years wins hands down

but I was talking about Webber era recent history when we were announced as self funded cleared debt and had a clean slate yet still had success ,

now we have debt and are no better off 

We have always been self funded.

[wcorkcanary 4,355]

5 hours ago, norfolkngood said:

Lambert years wins hands down

but I was talking about Webber era recent history when we were announced as self funded cleared debt and had a clean slate yet still had success ,

now we have debt and are no better off 

Now is not the end.  Many a battle was won by retreating, regrouping  , then moving forward . The shifting  sands of positions 15 -30 in the English  Football  system as is, takes a skilled helmsperson ( @essex canary take note on the gender neutral job description) . 

[Badger 2,415]

5 hours ago, norfolkngood said:

You would think someone would say it good selling point for MA and gain a lot of credit with fans , 

At the moment they are say a Loan and that is normally something you pay back ,

if they said future payment for shares would be better 

It's precisely because he hasn't said this that I am worried. I cling to the straw to that there may be a technical reason why he cannot, but nobody has offered anything convincing yet.

[wcorkcanary 4,355]

18 minutes ago, Badger said:

It's precisely because he hasn't said this that I am worried. I cling to the straw to that there may be a technical reason why he cannot, but nobody has offered anything convincing yet.

Stop  flapping.  

[chicken 2,680]

14 hours ago, norfolkngood said:

now we have debt and are no better off 

That depends upon where you think we are right now.

Last season we were paying more wages for players and coaches that ultimately didn't deliver on the pitch. If you have a general look at the comments on here at the moment people are feeling more positive at this point.

As Wcork says, we don't know enough yet to say we are "no better off". That depends upon where we are in 6 months. Not now. 

Also, new owners buying clubs, or businesses for that matter, but loaning them money and turning that into shares etc isn't particularly new. A lot of aggressive ownership take overs, particularly of football clubs, have involved the owners taking no risk and essentially mortgaging the club to the tune of the amount they paid for it, running it in debt having cashed in already.

[Besthorpe-48 103]

Just thought I would record post number 2000 on this subject

 Not long now

[essex canary 515]

13 hours ago, wcorkcanary said:

Now is not the end.  Many a battle was won by retreating, regrouping  , then moving forward . The shifting  sands of positions 15 -30 in the English  Football  system as is, takes a skilled helmsperson ( @essex canary take note on the gender neutral job description) . 

A constructive post.

In relation to person specification 'attention to detail' should be a core component. Whilst accepting we are in a different situation to 21 years ago and there maybe some good reasons there nevertheless appears to be a huge gap on how Zoe shapes up against Neil Doncaster on that criteria aside from the vast difference in reward.

We just seem to lurch from one style to another without entirely clear reasoning. This is one good reason why we do need change at the top. The lack of flexibility in seeing fans perspectives following on from over weighty and poorly focused documentation is another.

Edited September 10, 2023 by essex canary

[wcorkcanary 4,355]

2 minutes ago, essex canary said:

A constructive post.

In relation to person specification 'attention to detail' should be a core component. Whilst accepting we are in a different situation to 21 years ago and there maybe some good reasons there nevertheless appears to be a huge gap for me on how Zoe shapes up against Neil Doncaster on that criteria aside from the vast difference in reward.

We just seem to lurch from one style to another without entirely clear reasoning. This is one good reason why we do need change at the top. The lack of flexibility in seeing fans perspectives following on from over weighty and poorly focused documentation is another.

Essentially what you are saying is "me , me, me , me, me and me, not forgetting me"....stop pretending you care about the Club , it's supporters  or anyone  else but yourself. Charlatan. 

[Sufyellow 244]

3 hours ago, chicken said:

That depends upon where you think we are right now.

Last season we were paying more wages for players and coaches that ultimately didn't deliver on the pitch. If you have a general look at the comments on here at the moment people are feeling more positive at this point.

As Wcork says, we don't know enough yet to say we are "no better off". That depends upon where we are in 6 months. Not now. 

Also, new owners buying clubs, or businesses for that matter, but loaning them money and turning that into shares etc isn't particularly new. A lot of aggressive ownership take overs, particularly of football clubs, have involved the owners taking no risk and essentially mortgaging the club to the tune of the amount they paid for it, running it in debt having cashed in already.

Hasn't the question been,  is he taking 40 percent by giving up the loan or getting 40 percent very cheap? Trouble is what is the club worth if they have borrowed 40 million from him ? 

[norfolkngood 1,097]

4 hours ago, chicken said:

That depends upon where you think we are right now.

Last season we were paying more wages for players and coaches that ultimately didn't deliver on the pitch. If you have a general look at the comments on here at the moment people are feeling more positive at this point.

As Wcork says, we don't know enough yet to say we are "no better off". That depends upon where we are in 6 months. Not now. 

 

now we have debt and are no better off  

what i was trying to say we are back in the championship with debt not PL  ( sorry for not making myself clear like always ! ) 

exactly where we were a couple of seasons ago but back in debt this time 

Yes i Agree we are better off as in lowered the wages and got some great free signings ,

the club does seem to have sorted a lot of issues out player and coach wise we have a plan again it seems ,

 

Webber sadly has his mojo back now he is leaving it really is important we get the right DOF to carry on his good work this season 

[Sufyellow 244]

19 minutes ago, norfolkngood said:

now we have debt and are no better off  

what i was trying to say we are back in the championship with debt not PL  ( sorry for not making myself clear like always ! ) 

exactly where we were a couple of seasons ago but back in debt this time 

Yes i Agree we are better off as in lowered the wages and got some great free signings ,

the club does seem to have sorted a lot of issues out player and coach wise we have a plan again it seems ,

 

Webber sadly has his mojo back now he is leaving it really is important we get the right DOF to carry on his good work this season 

It's a short term fix for this season.  If we don't go up , next season we have less assets to sell, it will have to be Rowe, Sara or Sargent if he comes back strong. 

 

[norfolkngood 1,097]

2 minutes ago, Sufyellow said:

It's a short term fix for this season.  If we don't go up , next season we have less assets to sell, it will have to be Rowe, Sara or Sargent if he comes back strong. 

 

i think if Rowe continues with his form who knows where he will end up ! 

the way he is playing i would not discount a club record for the boy 

[chicken 2,680]

Yes, we needed the money to help cover wages, but worth remembering we also spent a fair amount brining in Sara and Nunez. We aren't skint... yet.

I also don't think it is as simple as Webber losing his mojo. There are lots of various opinions on the signings for the premier league, but it is pretty evident we wanted to sign fewer, better players but that in the end, combined fees and wages ended up being largely out of our levels. Two arguments from that really would be, would we have been better off if we had spent/gambled a little more? And, perhaps we should have retained one or two players allowing us to focus funds a bit better (Vrancic and Onel the only really obvious options there).

The biggest argument about last season is really whether we had been better off going for a complete refresh. Keeping Pukki for that triggered year cost us more money, and arguably pushed Sargent and Idah to the wings so cost them precious time developing down the middle. Dowel and Cantwell could have been off loaded. With a bit more room in the squad, perhaps we could have looked at nominal feels for Barnes and Duffy in January which may well have made a big difference to our season. We were clearly looking at them then. Smith goes, we get a new coach in, new impetus, fresh start... We'll never know of course, but I can't help but feel we could have saved a lot of money and got more out of last season. 

[Badger 2,415]

On 09/09/2023 at 14:17, Sufyellow said:

Not really,  we don't have a hope of being a midtable prem side with our finances.  We hit the ceiling getting to the prem,  I agree though it wasn't all luck winning the championship,  a bit of a gamble but the right players were bought for the way we wanted to play, and the coaching team got the best out of them.  

In our previous EPL seasons our finances have been better than Burnley, Crystal Palace and others that have stayed up. Part of our problem has been that we have wanted to play champagne football with finances which meant that we just couldn't recruit that level of player.

Burnley, Palace etc essentially played defensive and pragmatic football, which is why they stayed up. 

This has been recognized, which is why we have changed our approach to be more energetic and physically robust and staying up is definitely possible. Of course, a sugar daddy (or mummy) would help.😁

[Badger 2,415]

6 hours ago, norfolkngood said:

i think if Rowe continues with his form who knows where he will end up ! 

the way he is playing i would not discount a club record for the boy 

I think his contract runs out in 2025 - need to get him signed up quickly!