Mark Attanasio

[Sufyellow 223]

8 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 

That's great,  how does that help us as fans ? I find that a problem with our fanbase,  so many seem to think success is how much we get for our best players.  And how does selling a player for a club record help the team on the pitch ? 

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

18 minutes ago, Sufyellow said:

That's great,  how does that help us as fans ? I find that a problem with our fanbase,  so many seem to think success is how much we get for our best players.  And how does selling a player for a club record help the team on the pitch ? 

It is a recognition of the reality that we are not at the top of the football food chain, even if we are in the Premier League, so really talented players, which Rowe might turn out to be, will sooner of later want to move on. In percentage terms there are very few clubs for whom this is not true. The upside, from which we frequently benefit, is that we are closer to the top of this chain than the bottom.

[Sufyellow 223]

1 hour ago, Badger said:

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.😁

Great , none of the players we have bought in will be good enough if we go up. Have a look at CP and Burnley s highest players bought in , do you think they are under ten million? The plan has always been buy youngsters to build a team,  trouble is after 11 games in the prem we chucked it all Away. We had to bring in free transfers and go for stronger players , get a few youngsters in free and we could of been in big trouble this season. We bought players this season to steady the ship anything else comes down to  a few players having a great season,  Rowe is a great surprise,  the main 2 were Sargent and Sara,  unfortunately we have lost Sargent already.

[Sufyellow 223]

5 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

It is a recognition of the reality that we are not at the top of the football food chain, even if we are in the Premier League, so really talented players, which Rowe might turn out to be, will sooner of later want to move on. In percentage terms there are very few clubs for whom this is not true. The upside, from which we frequently benefit, is that we are closer to the top of this chain than the bottom.

I don't have a problem with that , I have no problem if we now give Rowe a 5 year contract and we sell him in 3 years. He gives us 3 years of his career to help our team.  Unlike the Andy sale , not only did fans except we sold an up and coming defender but even thought a player signed on a one year contract was a great replacement,  we sold our future defender.  

[Indy 3,315]

I must admit to being stumped on Omobamdele being sold, it’s not like we needed the money for a replacement and he never made any signal to wanting to go! We have a very old and slow back line, time will tell if in reality our other youth products can make the step up!

Still money in the bank……

[chicken 2,642]

1 hour ago, Sufyellow said:

The plan has always been buy youngsters to build a team,

I don't think that's been the plan per se. It's been part of it. Every season so far under Webber we have tried to carefully blend young talent with experienced pros.

Hanley wasn't signed as a particular youngster as such. Pukki wasn't. Rhodes wasn't. Even Sara and Nunez are comparatively older when compared to the likes of Buendia etc.

It's important to get the balance right. And it isn't just about age either. Barnes is actually only about 5months older than Pukki. So we have effectively replaced like for like in terms of age. However, as much as I love Pukki, Barnes is clearly more of a leader.

Duffy is older than Hanley and has clearly been brought in to add competition and cover with what is looking likely to be Gibson's last season... I can't see him going into the last year of his contract if the club isn't keen to keep him.

With Stacey, we needed a full back that could hit the ground running to soften the blow of losing Aarons. He is in his prime but a tad older which makes Fisher his ideal understudy without throwing the balance out too much.

The issue in the premier league is that the lack of experience with youngsters means you can get turned over and rather than add value, it can decrease it. You need a good mix. That first season we did. The second season maybe less? We've done better with a more experienced squad though. Lambert, Hughton and then Alex Neil all did a bit better with more experienced squads. Bar Alex Neil, the others didn't spend massively.

[Sufyellow 223]

48 minutes ago, chicken said:

I don't think that's been the plan per se. It's been part of it. Every season so far under Webber we have tried to carefully blend young talent with experienced pros.

Hanley wasn't signed as a particular youngster as such. Pukki wasn't. Rhodes wasn't. Even Sara and Nunez are comparatively older when compared to the likes of Buendia etc.

It's important to get the balance right. And it isn't just about age either. Barnes is actually only about 5months older than Pukki. So we have effectively replaced like for like in terms of age. However, as much as I love Pukki, Barnes is clearly more of a leader.

Duffy is older than Hanley and has clearly been brought in to add competition and cover with what is looking likely to be Gibson's last season... I can't see him going into the last year of his contract if the club isn't keen to keep him.

With Stacey, we needed a full back that could hit the ground running to soften the blow of losing Aarons. He is in his prime but a tad older which makes Fisher his ideal understudy without throwing the balance out too much.

The issue in the premier league is that the lack of experience with youngsters means you can get turned over and rather than add value, it can decrease it. You need a good mix. That first season we did. The second season maybe less? We've done better with a more experienced squad though. Lambert, Hughton and then Alex Neil all did a bit better with more experienced squads. Bar Alex Neil, the others didn't spend massively.

The managers you mention bought players in the mid twenties age bracket to build a team.  Stacey I understand,  still got a bit of time . Duffy and barns is not the future,  good for a very short term fix. I expect we had to sell Andy to fund the club this season and hopefully into the future with add ons , unfortunately if we get the 20 million it will mean he has been a success in the prem, the sort of player we could never sign if we got there. 

 

[Duncan Edwards 2,262]

13 minutes ago, Sufyellow said:

The managers you mention bought players in the mid twenties age bracket to build a team.  Stacey I understand,  still got a bit of time . Duffy and barns is not the future,  good for a very short term fix. I expect we had to sell Andy to fund the club this season and hopefully into the future with add ons , unfortunately if we get the 20 million it will mean he has been a success in the prem, the sort of player we could never sign if we got there. 

 

What would be your policy, out of interest?

Balancing ambition with sustainability, what is your suggestion? It’s a tough question, and one I’m not sure I have an answer to other than that which we utilise. 

[Sufyellow 223]

1 minute ago, Duncan Edwards said:

What would be your policy, out of interest?

Balancing ambition with sustainability, what is your suggestion? It’s a tough question, and one I’m not sure I have an answer to other than that which we utilise. 

Trying to hold onto players longer,  I get Aaron's and I also get Emi going,  both gave us a few years close to their peak,  I really don't get selling Andy this window,  we totally went out to sell him. We now can't financially buy the players like lambert bought as they would be to expensive for us, the best from the league below. For me it's more the acceptance of it all, as though it's a positive that we got good money for our best player,  when as a fan all we really did was weaken our team. This season we have no money we blew the lot , its only a good transfer window because we didn't expect much, we are lucky Rowe has come from nowhere and given us all a massive boost. I really hope we have a good season but looking at the bench doesn't fill me with confidence.  

[Duncan Edwards 2,262]

But we did hold on to Emi, we held on to Cantwell, we held on to Aarons, we held on to Pukki.

Rowe hasn’t come from nowhere, he’s followed the pathway established by the likes of Aarons, Godfrey, Lewis, Murphy, Murphy…Bellamy, O’Neill, Sutton, Fox, Gordon… 

What is your alternative? Fund a functioning and competitive club married with your obvious ambition?

Explain how we do it. How do we find that equilibrium? 

[The Raptor 1,231]

Without a bottomless pit of money we're always going to be a stepping stone club, players will move on. We generally seem to have the balance right. Keeping hold of players is fine but it may put off the next group of players from coming here.

If young players know they can come to norwich, get game time and then maybe get a big move after 2/3 years thats probably more appealing than us keeping players here when they don't want to be here. If we bought players and then didn't let them move when they'd outgrown the club then they'd be annoyed and also it might put off players thinking of coming here.

[Sufyellow 223]

4 hours ago, The Raptor said:

Without a bottomless pit of money we're always going to be a stepping stone club, players will move on. We generally seem to have the balance right. Keeping hold of players is fine but it may put off the next group of players from coming here.

If young players know they can come to norwich, get game time and then maybe get a big move after 2/3 years thats probably more appealing than us keeping players here when they don't want to be here. If we bought players and then didn't let them move when they'd outgrown the club then they'd be annoyed and also it might put off players thinking of coming here.

As I said no problem with emi and Aaron's,  but Andy was a step to far , he hadn't given us anything. We actively went out to sell a player with potential of becoming a premier league player, he was already a player we couldn't afford to buy, if we have to sell players at that stage of their career,  then purely from the football side it is pointless having them. If we end up 8th this season and sell Rowe for 20 million, then what was the point , we get twenty million and start again,  how do we ever build anything to compete? As I said we may have to , but as fans we shouldn't just except it and certainly not make out its great business. 

[BroadstairsR 2,203]

The UEFA Financial Fair Play regulations have to be (or should be) taken into account. Basically by preventing clubs going into debt by spending more than their income.

That various loopholes are constantly exposed does not denigrate the principle. This and other factors such as the fact that star players will always seek more rewarding pastures (eg. Emi Buendia) and the sheer cost of running a professional football club in this day and age being massive (and exacerbated by disproportionate wage levels) means that even clubs like Coventry City are compelled to sell their best (Gyorkeres, Harmer) despite their majority shareholder being Doug King, a sort of UK version of Mark Annatasio (?)

It has always been the case and will never change, especially since the advent of global brands with astronomical incomes such as Manchester United, Liverpool and a few others.

 

Edited September 11, 2023 by BroadstairsR

[chicken 2,642]

49 minutes ago, Sufyellow said:

As I said no problem with emi and Aaron's,  but Andy was a step to far , he hadn't given us anything. We actively went out to sell a player with potential of becoming a premier league player, he was already a player we couldn't afford to buy, if we have to sell players at that stage of their career,  then purely from the football side it is pointless having them. If we end up 8th this season and sell Rowe for 20 million, then what was the point , we get twenty million and start again,  how do we ever build anything to compete? As I said we may have to , but as fans we shouldn't just except it and certainly not make out its great business. 

That almost seems genius to me... sell a player that hadn't given us anything. Our form this season didn't need him. Our form last season was poorer with him as a regular starter. Potentially he could be a premier league regular. We thought the same of Godfrey and a few others.

I'm not saying he's rubbish, but imagine Buendia being sold before the team was built around him, Pukki and Cantwell for example. Much less of an impact than once he was established.

[Indy 3,315]

2 minutes ago, chicken said:

That almost seems genius to me... sell a player that hadn't given us anything. Our form this season didn't need him. Our form last season was poorer with him as a regular starter. Potentially he could be a premier league regular. We thought the same of Godfrey and a few others.

I'm not saying he's rubbish, but imagine Buendia being sold before the team was built around him, Pukki and Cantwell for example. Much less of an impact than once he was established.

I’m sorry but I don’t buy this from our fans! OK that argument is ok for Mumba who went to Plymouth but Omobamdele went to a premier team for a fee rising to £20 million, that’s more than all our defenders combined worth! If he was so ****e he would’ve still been lower league! He wasn’t used as we were told from May that Aaron’s and Omobamdele were going.

[norfolkngood 1,087]

9 hours ago, Sufyellow said:

That's great,  how does that help us as fans ? I find that a problem with our fanbase,  so many seem to think success is how much we get for our best players.  And how does selling a player for a club record help the team on the pitch ? 

I agree with you on i do not want to sell Rowe would love to keep him for years ,

but some times to progress you have to sell to reinvest ,

I hate the idea of selling Rowe to pay running costs but to reinvest in squad if he bought another 3/4 quality players would be good

Only sell to to reinvest in squad 

[chicken 2,642]

10 minutes ago, Indy said:

I’m sorry but I don’t buy this from our fans! OK that argument is ok for Mumba who went to Plymouth but Omobamdele went to a premier team for a fee rising to £20 million, that’s more than all our defenders combined worth! If he was so ****e he would’ve still been lower league! He wasn’t used as we were told from May that Aaron’s and Omobamdele were going.

Not what I have said, in fact I specifically say I don't think he is rubbish. However, Omobamidele is not a player that was integral to our side. That probably would have been this season if he'd remained here and the plan would have been to go with him. When I talk of last seasons form, I mean those last games without Gibson, without Hanley. That was his moment to step up and shine. The vast majority of fans didn't feel he did that. That's not to say he isn't a great player, he has that potential, that's why he could be worth £20m. Worth noting he is not yet worth £20m... I think it was around £12m with add ons taking it to £20m.

[chicken 2,642]

13 minutes ago, norfolkngood said:

I agree with you on i do not want to sell Rowe would love to keep him for years ,

but some times to progress you have to sell to reinvest ,

I hate the idea of selling Rowe to pay running costs but to reinvest in squad if he bought another 3/4 quality players would be good

Only sell to to reinvest in squad 

Running costs are usually wages. That includes players.

The other aspect of this is that we don't always get much of a choice. If a premier league team come knocking, most players will angle for a move, or at least their agents will. Unless we can offer more to tempt the player to stay, which is going to be rare compared to top league sides both here and abroad, then we are left with trying to achieve as much value for the player as possible.

[GMF 757]

On 09/09/2023 at 14:54, Sufyellow said:

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.  

I would be extremely hesitant to lay the blame here on shareholders, not least because this was launched, with a bundle of ten lengthy documents (via the website only, the posted out documents are just the waiver and proxy form) and have been asked to vote on something without any meaningful analysis or explanation.

[Indy 3,315]

36 minutes ago, chicken said:

Not what I have said, in fact I specifically say I don't think he is rubbish. However, Omobamidele is not a player that was integral to our side. That probably would have been this season if he'd remained here and the plan would have been to go with him. When I talk of last seasons form, I mean those last games without Gibson, without Hanley. That was his moment to step up and shine. The vast majority of fans didn't feel he did that. That's not to say he isn't a great player, he has that potential, that's why he could be worth £20m. Worth noting he is not yet worth £20m... I think it was around £12m with add ons taking it to £20m.

Yes but that’s the point he should have been, he wasn’t as he was openly touted by the club as on the way! I firmly believe he’s better than Gibson and certainly as good and will be better than the rest! As pointed out we should be building on the Omobamdele type of player not selling when no need to!

[chicken 2,642]

13 minutes ago, Indy said:

Yes but that’s the point he should have been, he wasn’t as he was openly touted by the club as on the way! I firmly believe he’s better than Gibson and certainly as good and will be better than the rest! As pointed out we should be building on the Omobamdele type of player not selling when no need to!

It's not the point is it? He may well be better than Gibson, but the tail end of last season proved he isn't yet. And he has some way to go yet before he surpasses Hanley and Duffy.

If you are suggesting we should have built our team this season, around a CB and a relatively raw one, then I'm sorry, but the argument ends there really.

If we have learnt anything this season it is that our team, bar one or two players, was desperately short of leaders. Never was that more obvious in the run in to last season where a run of good results would have seen us competing for a top 6 finish. Instead, we lost Gibson, Hanley and McLean and it went down the pan. Those youngsters who then got their oppertunity could really have made a strong case... they didn't really. Big Andy was one of those, and as the only recognised CB you would have expected him to at least look better alongside Sorensen, but they were both poor.

[shefcanary 2,448]

3 hours ago, chicken said:

That almost seems genius to me... sell a player that hadn't given us anything. Our form this season didn't need him. Our form last season was poorer with him as a regular starter. Potentially he could be a premier league regular. We thought the same of Godfrey and a few others.

I'm not saying he's rubbish, but imagine Buendia being sold before the team was built around him, Pukki and Cantwell for example. Much less of an impact than once he was established.

And perhaps, we had a ready made direct replacement for Omo already in the building? The reviews of Adegboyega already seem to point to him getting ahead of Tomknison and Warner very soon. And Hills on loan at Accrington is having a storming season so far. The conveyor belt seems well stocked, Omo was perhaps a prospect whose light was already seemingly beginning to dim. Let's see what Florist make of him.

[shefcanary 2,448]

2 hours ago, GMF said:

shareholders ... have been asked to vote on something without any meaningful analysis or explanation.

Just where is that independent report and interim accounts? 😉 

Edited September 11, 2023 by shefcanary

[BroadstairsR 2,203]

4 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

. Let's see what Florist make of him.

He's a budding great player and certainly not a shrinking violet who has a rosy future for sure.

His sale although easily justified at this moment in time can also readily be seen as a negative.

I hope that all these add-ons materialise sooner rather than later

[dylanisabaddog 4,983]

I've been away and have only just had the opportunity to read the share documents. 

One thing that doesn't seem to have been mentioned is that Attanasio is using Delaware based companies for this transaction. Hmmmm. 

For those unfamiliar with the tax haven known as Delaware, a quick Internet search will tell you all you need to know.

It's actually easier to create a shell company there than it is to get a Norfolk library card. 

[shefcanary 2,448]

3 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

I've been away and have only just had the opportunity to read the share documents. 

One thing that doesn't seem to have been mentioned is that Attanasio is using Delaware based companies for this transaction. Hmmmm. 

For those unfamiliar with the tax haven known as Delaware, a quick Internet search will tell you all you need to know.

It's actually easier to create a shell company there than it is to get a Norfolk library card. 

I wouldn't be too worried about the companies being based in Deleware - for an American it is perfectly good business sense to do this. I'd have been more worried if he hadn't set the businesses up there as that would have raised questions about his competence.

[The Raptor 1,231]

Delaware is a tax haven so he's saving money. That means he'll have more to invest in players right. A positive thing!

Edited September 11, 2023 by The Raptor

[dylanisabaddog 4,983]

15 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

I wouldn't be too worried about the companies being based in Deleware - for an American it is perfectly good business sense to do this. I'd have been more worried if he hadn't set the businesses up there as that would have raised questions about his competence.

It means that long term our club will possibly eventually be owned by a company in a tax haven that isn't legally required to publish accounts. You should note of course that as a non resident, MA would not be liable to UK CGT if he sold his shares and the club will still be liable to CT in the unlikely event that it makes a profit. So why hold the shares through a Delaware company? It certainly doesn't benefit the club. 

Perhaps the most important part of this is the bit we don't know, which is the agreement Smith and Jones have made regarding selling their shares to MA in 3 years. We know they entered a shareholders agreement in September 2022 but we only know what some parts of that agreement say. And we don't know if there are any other binding agreements between the parties involved. 

One of the many other things we don't know is the full scope of "trigger events". What happens if one or both of Smith and Jones die? 

I fully understand why MA doesn't want to buy minority shareholdings and a lot of us (including me) don't want to sell anyway. But I'm concerned that the whole transaction is cloaked in secrecy. There is clearly far more to it than we currently know. We're voting blind. 

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,243]

Whilst ensuring minority shareholders are not forced to take the lowball offer that others have taken - at the cost of their own equity gain - thus ensuring a soft-landing for (also) fans and avoiding a scenario where some of the 6.8k suffer and the others make out….…

 

…some of the less positively-minded among you looking for indications that Attanasio has not lost his hard-nosed day job edge, might look at the Offer-related Agreements. 

You might therein note that the Relevant Loan was entered into at $6,020,146.41

Having a U$Dollar figure here is slightly incongruous. Such external currency figures are often used to protect the transferring party from the currency risk. Naturally the more savvy amongst you might then ask where this risk is thereby transferred to….….

Those who think that this is insignificant might well want to think about basic exchange fees, inherent percentage ‘fat hedges’ from transfer institutions and the difference between the first gross sum and the net figure finically cashed in.

Timing is also everything.

3 or 4 % differential could be around a £250k net profit loss.

Passing that risk on - by a company that I would expect has significant and sophisticated algorithms to hedge against this - is not the kindest move on the surface…

Parma 

…it’s the kind of thing that those in the know slip through quietly unnoticed past those who don’t….

@PurpleCanary

@GMF

@shefcanary

@essex canary

@badger

@nutty nigel

@king canary

@BigFish

@BroadstairsR

Edited September 11, 2023 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy
Just being even-handed…..

[GMF 757]

30 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

It means that long term our club will possibly eventually be owned by a company in a tax haven that isn't legally required to publish accounts. You should note of course that as a non resident, MA would not be liable to UK CGT if he sold his shares and the club will still be liable to CT in the unlikely event that it makes a profit. So why hold the shares through a Delaware company? It certainly doesn't benefit the club. 

Perhaps the most important part of this is the bit we don't know, which is the agreement Smith and Jones have made regarding selling their shares to MA in 3 years. We know they entered a shareholders agreement in September 2022 but we only know what some parts of that agreement say. And we don't know if there are any other binding agreements between the parties involved. 

One of the many other things we don't know is the full scope of "trigger events". What happens if one or both of Smith and Jones die? 

I fully understand why MA doesn't want to buy minority shareholdings and a lot of us (including me) don't want to sell anyway. But I'm concerned that the whole transaction is cloaked in secrecy. There is clearly far more to it than we currently know. We're voting blind. 

One thing that you can’t do is transfer the registered office of a company to another overseas location (certainly not from a UK perspective, anyway). So, accounts will still have to be produced for the Club, even if the main shareholder subsequently resides overseas.