Mark Attanasio

[dylanisabaddog 5,015]

30 minutes ago, GMF said:

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.

https://international-adviser.com/quarters-uk-football-clubs-offshore/

 

[sgncfc 1,259]

10 hours 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. 

Andy O was the surprise, not Jonny Rowe. He came from almost nowhere and we've cashed in while we can in my opinion - he wasn't first choice and was unlikely to be as we now know we need some steel in his position and he is very much not it. Quite weak in the air, not that quick with his feet and no tackler. He is very good positionally, excellent at anticipation and closing down space and is in style a Premier League CB rather than a Champs one. That's why he's gone.

And also interesting that Ireland choose Duffy over him against teams like France and Holland.

[Indy 3,323]

10 minutes ago, sgncfc said:

He is very good positionally, excellent at anticipation and closing down space and is in style a Premier League CB rather than a Champs one. That's why he's gone.

Interesting you say this, but isn’t this exactly what we need if we go up? How much will he cost if we needed him or that type next summer? Maybe loan would have been better? 

[GMF 757]

1 hour ago, dylanisabaddog said:

https://international-adviser.com/quarters-uk-football-clubs-offshore/

 

The article is conflating two different issues, ownership (which can clearly be overseas) and the football clubs (which clearly aren’t). The registered offices of all clubs remain in the UK and will not change.

[wcorkcanary 4,346]

On 23/11/2022 at 11:35, GMF said:

You’re focusing on just the income and ignoring the debt. Without knowing the latter, such comparisons are almost meaningless.

Ethics , meaningless ? In the sane sentence? Surely not. !!

[shefcanary 2,468]

50 minutes ago, GMF said:

The article is conflating two different issues, ownership (which can clearly be overseas) and the football clubs (which clearly aren’t). The registered offices of all clubs remain in the UK and will not change.

Indeed it will be a pre-requisite to be a member of the FA, the EPL and EFL.

[Sufyellow 225]

13 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.

So our whole future is this season? What's your ambition this season? For some reason lots of clubs were interested in him and forest paid 11 million,  that's higher than our transfer buying record.  I would have loved to have godfrey back this season and kept Andy , who knows what could of happened.  We know we have four defenders who wouldn't be good enough if we did go up this season,  and we know we can't afford players ready for the prem. Not sure about our form this season,  how many games is it? 

[Sufyellow 225]

20 hours ago, Duncan Edwards said:

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? 

We need to have ambition,  what's the point without it. Just seems to much acceptance in our fanbase to sell our best . Virtually all the players you named achieved something with us. If we remain in the championship this season we have 3 players of value to sell, one has a bad injury. We just seem to be going nowhere.  I accept mid championship my ambition would be to see us competing in the Premier league again,  I can't see it happening.  

[chicken 2,654]

10 hours ago, shefcanary said:

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.

Precisely, if we can get £11-20m for a player who hadn't yet established themselves as a standout regular starter in the way that Godfrey had, Maddison had, Aarons had... then we have to be doing something right.

And like you say, Tomkinson looked reasonably comfortable when he has played but as the next oldest possibly looks to be on another path with younger players seemingly impressing. In fact, I wonder if Tomkinson is one of those players that we have used to get in loan fees? His wages will be low enough for League 1 teams to be able to afford you'd think. Warner and Hills were already getting good reviews, particularly Hills who had been training with the 1st team for a bit with Wagner. Warner too. But yes, Adebowega also now too.

Honestly, people try to deny this system is working on that front, but I honestly cannot remember a time in the 35yrs + i have been supporting us that we have had such riches of youth coming through either brought in to be apprentices or younger. I think the best I can think of is Eadie and Sutton and then the likes of Llewelyn, Coote, Carey, O'Neil, Forbes, Kenton, Marshall (bound to have missed some). It seemed to have dried up a bit by the time we got Green and Shackell through though. And lets be honest, whilst many of those did a good job for us, only a couple actually progressed beyond us. Certainly not in the way Maddison, Godfrey, Buendia have... 

I wonder in some ways if it weren't for Neil Adams just how well some of these players will have done. His loans seem to have given some players new leases of life. Certainly the case for Cantwell. Makes you wonder if we had this set up with the FA youth cup winning team, how many of them would have been given a better route to first team football? How much more money we could have made from those who did? 

 

[Sufyellow 225]

14 hours 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 

If only it would work,  trouble is we are running out , he has had a surprisingly great start which has given us all a lift . Unfortunately the players we have brought in have no resale value and the youngsters brought in will have no value yet , let's hope we have a great season so we don't need to sell as I only see 3 worth much.

[chicken 2,654]

3 minutes ago, Sufyellow said:

We need to have ambition,  what's the point without it. Just seems to much acceptance in our fanbase to sell our best . Virtually all the players you named achieved something with us. If we remain in the championship this season we have 3 players of value to sell, one has a bad injury. We just seem to be going nowhere.  I accept mid championship my ambition would be to see us competing in the Premier league again,  I can't see it happening.  

No one is saying we don't have ambition but you. The difficulty is, if your ambition is based around having money to throw at problems, is it really ambition?

As much as the Newcastle fans might be enjoying how temporary is it? Look at Chelsea. If you look at their top flight history in the decade or so before Abramovic a league title was pipe dream stuff. Yet now, everyone knows that their success was bought essentially by Russian money laundering which in turn has been funding Russian imperialism and empire expansionism. Not exactly the greatest thing to have thrown back at you when arguing your club has history...

There are sort of natural places for clubs in the pyramid. That's not to say that should be expected or content with, but there are only so many ways of climbing to loftier positions. One of those is that a new owner brings riches beyond the clubs ability to bring in usually and simply buys success by bringing in players and being ruthless with those that don't make it. A good example of that is Bournemouth. They spent a lot of money on so-so players, Afobe and Grabban for example. Best part of £20m there and that was some time ago now, before these regular £70m+ signings. Other examples would be Wolves, Forest, Fulham etc. 

Then you have clubs which have had new ownership and a decent level of investment from it, but also want to go the way of being smarter with recruitment. Brentford and Brighton perhaps represent this. It's harder than just buying good players per se, they rely on one or two big signings and then trying to spot players, or buy players, just before anyone else is prepared to. Now they have more ability to do this than some clubs because of that bit of extra cash, though perhaps not mega cash rich. It does also mean they can mitigate some failures in signings that don't make it with them, just not as much as cash rich teams who can afford to just churn through players. 

Then you have the majority of the EFL which are clubs that very much have to try and live within their means. Or make the best of what they have. AKA self sufficient. That means having to be incredibly shrewd with signings. Having being that each signing that doesn't make it takes money away from a possible transfer that does. It is hard and every mishap is felt, like a car without suspension going over a speed bump. In the past Crewe was seen as a really good example of a club that focused on coaching to produce a steady stream of quality youngsters. 

Now, I think I am right in saying that profitability wise, we are one of the best clubs in the championship, or have been even without parachute payments. That is a pretty good base to work from. However, it is incredibly difficult to get every transfer right, and one season, as we have seen so many times before, can often not be a good indicator as players can need longer to find their feet or sometimes start amazingly well and go off the boil. Those sorts of things are felt even more acutely when you can't just go out and buy better.

Ambition exists in all three of those. An unwillingness to prop up that ambition with money, doesn't mean there is no ambition, it just means that people care more for the club than playing double or nothing with it. You may not agree on those odds, but in reality, any owners in the EFL in that model know that getting it wrong can mean administration and ultimately a club starting again from non-league. Fine margins. 

 

[Sufyellow 225]

14 hours 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.

Stand up and shine ? He was playing along side a midfielder,  the midfielder also needed to be playing in front of him. He's worth 12 million,  more than we have ever spent on a player,  we had to sell him for some reason, I expect we needed the cash. If you had been offered Duffy on a free or a 12 million pound defender who would you have chosen. If we have ambition of getting back to the  Premier league then surely we should be holding onto a player like him . 

[Sufyellow 225]

14 hours ago, GMF said:

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.

I am definitely not blaming share holders , I don’t know anything about shares , but I would of thought for them to vote the club should be absolutely transparent,  they should at least know exactly what he is paying for 40% and what happens with the loans . 

[chicken 2,654]

13 minutes ago, Sufyellow said:

Stand up and shine ? He was playing along side a midfielder,  the midfielder also needed to be playing in front of him. He's worth 12 million,  more than we have ever spent on a player,  we had to sell him for some reason, I expect we needed the cash. If you had been offered Duffy on a free or a 12 million pound defender who would you have chosen. If we have ambition of getting back to the  Premier league then surely we should be holding onto a player like him . 

Yeah, this isn't exactly how it works though. Value isn't based entirely upon ability.

Duffy won't be worth £11/12m now because he is 31 and because he has hit his peak and is unlikely to get better so people know his level.

Omobamidele is worth £11/12m rising to £20m because that is what Forest were prepared to pay for him. What they are buying is a promising 21yr old who has a fair bit of experience with over 100 appearances mainly at championship level, will count as homegrown so helps with their squad balance in that regard, and is a good 4-5years off the start of what is considered to be a football players peak period in their career, especially a CB. In otherwords, they know he isn't the complete player yet, but that they hope they can help him progress to being one. That is what the add ons represent as well as the large fee.

What it doesn't mean is that given a choice, you would pick one over the other right now. My point about last season was that if you put Hanley or Duffy into a similar situation that back four instantly becomes better. To be that next level of player, that is one of the areas that Omobamidele needs to improve upon. He needs to be a voice in that back four. To stand out. That isn't unfair by the way, just because players around you are having a stinker, doesn't mean you should get away with one.

Maddison played some outstanding football in a very limited Norwich side. I watched him Vs Wolves at home and he would progress us up into their half and then look for movement... we lacked it, we lacked footballing intelligence in some of our wide players and they just didn't know how to connect with the level of ability Maddison had. It didn't make him a bad player, it made him look better, and at a similar age. 

That isn't a slight either. it just means that Omobamidele isn't there yet, it takes defenders longer, generally, to get there. And that's my point. I don't think anyone can say from what we have seen of him that putting him into our starting line up would instantly improve it. And I much suspect he will not be regularly going straight into the Forest starting line up either. Again, not a slight, he is still just 21 and at the start of his career.

My point was that you had argued we should build the team around a player that hasn't really shown that he has "stepped up" fully yet. 

[Sufyellow 225]

13 hours ago, chicken said:

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.

If we should of learnt one thing , it's if we do get back to the prem we can't afford to buy a player good enough to hit the ground running. We have to build a squad in the championship good enough to go up and compete,  that is none of the central defenders we have now. Trouble end of last season was a double hit for him , he needed a defender beside him and sorensen in front of him. By that time we couldn't buy a goal either which put more pressure on him . 

[Sufyellow 225]

11 hours ago, shefcanary said:

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.

If that's the case he should be on the bench, or starting.  OMO  would be . 

[Sufyellow 225]

11 hours ago, BroadstairsR said:

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

The only shame will be , if we get 20 million he has done well in the prem,  and become the type of player we can't buy .

[Sufyellow 225]

5 hours ago, Indy said:

Interesting you say this, but isn’t this exactly what we need if we go up? How much will he cost if we needed him or that type next summer? Maybe loan would have been better? 

That's what I mean about giving up on ambition and worse trying to justify it. I don't blame our fans because this is the line we have been fed and some have excepted. It would of been interesting to loan a player upwards and probably good for all concerned.  Trouble is I think we needed the money. 

[Sufyellow 225]

1 hour ago, chicken said:

Precisely, if we can get £11-20m for a player who hadn't yet established themselves as a standout regular starter in the way that Godfrey had, Maddison had, Aarons had... then we have to be doing something right.

And like you say, Tomkinson looked reasonably comfortable when he has played but as the next oldest possibly looks to be on another path with younger players seemingly impressing. In fact, I wonder if Tomkinson is one of those players that we have used to get in loan fees? His wages will be low enough for League 1 teams to be able to afford you'd think. Warner and Hills were already getting good reviews, particularly Hills who had been training with the 1st team for a bit with Wagner. Warner too. But yes, Adebowega also now too.

Honestly, people try to deny this system is working on that front, but I honestly cannot remember a time in the 35yrs + i have been supporting us that we have had such riches of youth coming through either brought in to be apprentices or younger. I think the best I can think of is Eadie and Sutton and then the likes of Llewelyn, Coote, Carey, O'Neil, Forbes, Kenton, Marshall (bound to have missed some). It seemed to have dried up a bit by the time we got Green and Shackell through though. And lets be honest, whilst many of those did a good job for us, only a couple actually progressed beyond us. Certainly not in the way Maddison, Godfrey, Buendia have... 

I wonder in some ways if it weren't for Neil Adams just how well some of these players will have done. His loans seem to have given some players new leases of life. Certainly the case for Cantwell. Makes you wonder if we had this set up with the FA youth cup winning team, how many of them would have been given a better route to first team football? How much more money we could have made from those who did? 

 

So money is more important than building a team? Sutton had great success with us , he then went on and won the league,  didn't Bellamy come through the youth. No point in producing them if we Start selling them at big Andy's stage . Tomkinson went out on loan and did nothing, he has a lot to prove.

[chicken 2,654]

1 minute ago, Sufyellow said:

So money is more important than building a team? Sutton had great success with us , he then went on and won the league,  didn't Bellamy come through the youth. No point in producing them if we Start selling them at big Andy's stage . Tomkinson went out on loan and did nothing, he has a lot to prove.

At this point I don't know what your point is. Your argument appears to be that ambition is holding onto younger players until they are 23 or something...

That's just not reality. You can't pre determine which players will attract interest or not. You can make a sort of choice depending upon which players have interest. Sargent, for example, is arguably far more important to the team than Omobamidele. The same with Sara, Rowe and arguably Barnes and Gunn. So yes, sometimes we will sell younger players before they have achieved with us because there is no guarantee of that "achieve with us".

Your argument relies upon over inflating what we have seen from Omobamidele so far, to the point of building a team around him. He is not there yet. Nor do we know for sure he will get there. Hold onto him for another year and play him regularly and he could be worth half that. How does that relate to your philosophy? 

[Sufyellow 225]

30 minutes ago, chicken said:

Yeah, this isn't exactly how it works though. Value isn't based entirely upon ability.

Duffy won't be worth £11/12m now because he is 31 and because he has hit his peak and is unlikely to get better so people know his level.

Omobamidele is worth £11/12m rising to £20m because that is what Forest were prepared to pay for him. What they are buying is a promising 21yr old who has a fair bit of experience with over 100 appearances mainly at championship level, will count as homegrown so helps with their squad balance in that regard, and is a good 4-5years off the start of what is considered to be a football players peak period in their career, especially a CB. In otherwords, they know he isn't the complete player yet, but that they hope they can help him progress to being one. That is what the add ons represent as well as the large fee.

What it doesn't mean is that given a choice, you would pick one over the other right now. My point about last season was that if you put Hanley or Duffy into a similar situation that back four instantly becomes better. To be that next level of player, that is one of the areas that Omobamidele needs to improve upon. He needs to be a voice in that back four. To stand out. That isn't unfair by the way, just because players around you are having a stinker, doesn't mean you should get away with one.

Maddison played some outstanding football in a very limited Norwich side. I watched him Vs Wolves at home and he would progress us up into their half and then look for movement... we lacked it, we lacked footballing intelligence in some of our wide players and they just didn't know how to connect with the level of ability Maddison had. It didn't make him a bad player, it made him look better, and at a similar age. 

That isn't a slight either. it just means that Omobamidele isn't there yet, it takes defenders longer, generally, to get there. And that's my point. I don't think anyone can say from what we have seen of him that putting him into our starting line up would instantly improve it. And I much suspect he will not be regularly going straight into the Forest starting line up either. Again, not a slight, he is still just 21 and at the start of his career.

My point was that you had argued we should build the team around a player that hasn't really shown that he has "stepped up" fully yet. 

Hanley and soresen , Gibson and soreson with out any protection in front of them,  gets the same results. We couldn't score a goal,  so conceding one looks worse . As you said we know what Duffy,  Hanley,  Gibson can do , and it isn't the prem. Everything you virtually said was correct,  it's about building a team for the future not this season,  there is no point in going up this season except for the money. Go back read what you just said and then think what's the five year plan. 

[Sufyellow 225]

39 minutes ago, chicken said:

Yeah, this isn't exactly how it works though. Value isn't based entirely upon ability.

Duffy won't be worth £11/12m now because he is 31 and because he has hit his peak and is unlikely to get better so people know his level.

Omobamidele is worth £11/12m rising to £20m because that is what Forest were prepared to pay for him. What they are buying is a promising 21yr old who has a fair bit of experience with over 100 appearances mainly at championship level, will count as homegrown so helps with their squad balance in that regard, and is a good 4-5years off the start of what is considered to be a football players peak period in their career, especially a CB. In otherwords, they know he isn't the complete player yet, but that they hope they can help him progress to being one. That is what the add ons represent as well as the large fee.

What it doesn't mean is that given a choice, you would pick one over the other right now. My point about last season was that if you put Hanley or Duffy into a similar situation that back four instantly becomes better. To be that next level of player, that is one of the areas that Omobamidele needs to improve upon. He needs to be a voice in that back four. To stand out. That isn't unfair by the way, just because players around you are having a stinker, doesn't mean you should get away with one.

Maddison played some outstanding football in a very limited Norwich side. I watched him Vs Wolves at home and he would progress us up into their half and then look for movement... we lacked it, we lacked footballing intelligence in some of our wide players and they just didn't know how to connect with the level of ability Maddison had. It didn't make him a bad player, it made him look better, and at a similar age. 

That isn't a slight either. it just means that Omobamidele isn't there yet, it takes defenders longer, generally, to get there. And that's my point. I don't think anyone can say from what we have seen of him that putting him into our starting line up would instantly improve it. And I much suspect he will not be regularly going straight into the Forest starting line up either. Again, not a slight, he is still just 21 and at the start of his career.

My point was that you had argued we should build the team around a player that hasn't really shown that he has "stepped up" fully yet. 

We are having a debate not an argument,  I will leave that to the others , I respect your opinion 👍 

[Sufyellow 225]

10 minutes ago, chicken said:

At this point I don't know what your point is. Your argument appears to be that ambition is holding onto younger players until they are 23 or something...

That's just not reality. You can't pre determine which players will attract interest or not. You can make a sort of choice depending upon which players have interest. Sargent, for example, is arguably far more important to the team than Omobamidele. The same with Sara, Rowe and arguably Barnes and Gunn. So yes, sometimes we will sell younger players before they have achieved with us because there is no guarantee of that "achieve with us".

Your argument relies upon over inflating what we have seen from Omobamidele so far, to the point of building a team around him. He is not there yet. Nor do we know for sure he will get there. Hold onto him for another year and play him regularly and he could be worth half that. How does that relate to your philosophy? 

Barnes is important for one season,  he's irrelevant and has no sell on value,  he wasn't signed for the future,  thats not saying he's not a good signing . If we don't build a team with players like big Andy then we are going nowhere,  if as fans our ambition is to get back in the prem and actually compete holding on to players like him is the only way. Building a team round him is hugely different from building a team with him in it . If we don't go up this season we will be selling at least one of the 4 you mentioned. 

[chicken 2,654]

3 minutes ago, Sufyellow said:

Hanley and soresen , Gibson and soreson with out any protection in front of them,  gets the same results. We couldn't score a goal,  so conceding one looks worse . As you said we know what Duffy,  Hanley,  Gibson can do , and it isn't the prem. Everything you virtually said was correct,  it's about building a team for the future not this season,  there is no point in going up this season except for the money. Go back read what you just said and then think what's the five year plan. 

No, it's about balance.

There is no point considering the future if you haven't got this season sorted. There is no point planning for the premier league when you haven't even reached 1/4 of the way into the season. Or as the old saying goes, don't count your chickens until they have hatched (though I would add grown from chicks but there you go).

It would be absolutely lovely if we could resist losing all of our younger players and put 100% faith in their ability at the next level. However, we also cannot ignore history. Not every youngster makes it. Josh Murphy is only been in the squad once for a league game for Oxford United this season, he's played in two cup games. He left for £11.4m for Cardiff. He, like his brother, was influential for us at a young age. In fact, some people felt Josh was the more likely destined for top flight success. The same could be said of Cantwell.

You can believe that Omobamidele is destined for great heights, we all can, but the proof is in the pudding. Now you can make reasons as to why you feel he didn't stand out. But when I said stand out before, I clearly said that he should have looked the assured CB, no matter if the player next to him isn't, or is wobbling.

I'm not a CB, I have played there when needs must, but even at amateur level, if you are not a CB you are looking to the player who is to communicate to you where you need to be and what you need to do. Now, there is an argument that they will have trained for this, that is true. But partnerships are built on good communication and adapting to each others game.

This is indeed a debate, but the issue is your "argument" which is what you put forward in a debate (doesn't mean you are having one), or point of view, is mainly based upon the idea that Andy was good enough to be first choice on the team sheet and seen as the leading light in our back four this season. Because you build teams around influential players. Evidence so far has been that Andy isn't quite there yet in terms of being influential. I'm certainly not saying he is rubbish, I just do not see any evidence to suggest that he is as big a loss as many other candidates in our team would be.

For example, though this wouldn't have been an option necessarily. If you had to sell a player for £12m would you sell Sargent, Rowe, Gibbs, Gunn or Omobamidele? 

In principle your idea isn't bad, it's just naïve. There are many reasons why players move, many factors. It is part and process of every club in the English system. Wan Bisaka went to Man Utd for £50m wasn't it? It is incredibly difficult in modern football for clubs to force players to stay and still get performance levels out of them. Equally, it is hard for some clubs to balance the books and then it becomes about which player they feel they can live without the most and also generate a decent amount of funds.

This time last season in the spring, when rumours arose of £20m interest in Omobamidele, people here were generally stating that whilst they felt he was good, he hadn't shown £20m value. Even as recently as this summer, some people were starting to suggest that Webber had in fact concocted the entire story. Yet here we are.

[chicken 2,654]

10 minutes ago, Sufyellow said:

Barnes is important for one season,  he's irrelevant and has no sell on value,  he wasn't signed for the future,  thats not saying he's not a good signing . If we don't build a team with players like big Andy then we are going nowhere,  if as fans our ambition is to get back in the prem and actually compete holding on to players like him is the only way. Building a team round him is hugely different from building a team with him in it . If we don't go up this season we will be selling at least one of the 4 you mentioned. 

Building a team is about balance. Every time we have been in the premier league in recent years we have massively lacked experience and leadership across the team. I think our average squad age was something like 23/24. It's great to say we should build around youth, but honestly it really doesn't work like that. You need a mix. A balance. And you need things like experience and leadership in more than just a couple of first team regulars.

You also underrate Barnes to suite your point and it doesn't work. He is here for two seasons at least. What he brings is the ability to add value to youngsters by imparting knowledge and modelling aspects of the game they may need to learn. His encouragement on the pitch no doubt inspires them onwards to, and lets not forget, he has been a premier league player for several seasons in a row, and a regular at that. Once considered a key part of Burnley's team until only a couple of seasons ago. He is anything but irrelevant.

Relevance is getting promotion. We don't say season long loans are irrelevant. As for the future, would it not be better if it were in the  premier league? 

We have other youngsters in our team and waiting to come through - biding their time is perhaps a better term. I didn't claim Tomkinson is the next big thing, but others have mentioned three others that folks at the club are very excited about. Rowe, Gibbs, Fisher, even Sara, Nunez, Sargent and Idah are all still relatively young. Then throw in Spriingett on the wing. Sainz who should be back after the international break.

And even then that still doesn't answer the question of if the club needs to sell players to raise funds, they may not get a choice of who to sell, and if they did, who would you pick? Of those worth money, Omobamidele would be one of the highest on the list. Not just because he is yet to influence a game in the same way that Rowe has done this season, or perhaps Gibbs has shown he can in spells, but because usually, a young CB is not the player you build a team around.

Again, like I said, you appear to suggest ambition is around retaining young players and hoping that translates into some success with us before we sell them. That is a fantastic sentiment, and one that many EFL clubs fans can dream of. But it just isn't reality. 

[Sufyellow 225]

8 hours ago, chicken said:

No one is saying we don't have ambition but you. The difficulty is, if your ambition is based around having money to throw at problems, is it really ambition?

As much as the Newcastle fans might be enjoying how temporary is it? Look at Chelsea. If you look at their top flight history in the decade or so before Abramovic a league title was pipe dream stuff. Yet now, everyone knows that their success was bought essentially by Russian money laundering which in turn has been funding Russian imperialism and empire expansionism. Not exactly the greatest thing to have thrown back at you when arguing your club has history...

There are sort of natural places for clubs in the pyramid. That's not to say that should be expected or content with, but there are only so many ways of climbing to loftier positions. One of those is that a new owner brings riches beyond the clubs ability to bring in usually and simply buys success by bringing in players and being ruthless with those that don't make it. A good example of that is Bournemouth. They spent a lot of money on so-so players, Afobe and Grabban for example. Best part of £20m there and that was some time ago now, before these regular £70m+ signings. Other examples would be Wolves, Forest, Fulham etc. 

Then you have clubs which have had new ownership and a decent level of investment from it, but also want to go the way of being smarter with recruitment. Brentford and Brighton perhaps represent this. It's harder than just buying good players per se, they rely on one or two big signings and then trying to spot players, or buy players, just before anyone else is prepared to. Now they have more ability to do this than some clubs because of that bit of extra cash, though perhaps not mega cash rich. It does also mean they can mitigate some failures in signings that don't make it with them, just not as much as cash rich teams who can afford to just churn through players. 

Then you have the majority of the EFL which are clubs that very much have to try and live within their means. Or make the best of what they have. AKA self sufficient. That means having to be incredibly shrewd with signings. Having being that each signing that doesn't make it takes money away from a possible transfer that does. It is hard and every mishap is felt, like a car without suspension going over a speed bump. In the past Crewe was seen as a really good example of a club that focused on coaching to produce a steady stream of quality youngsters. 

Now, I think I am right in saying that profitability wise, we are one of the best clubs in the championship, or have been even without parachute payments. That is a pretty good base to work from. However, it is incredibly difficult to get every transfer right, and one season, as we have seen so many times before, can often not be a good indicator as players can need longer to find their feet or sometimes start amazingly well and go off the boil. Those sorts of things are felt even more acutely when you can't just go out and buy better.

Ambition exists in all three of those. An unwillingness to prop up that ambition with money, doesn't mean there is no ambition, it just means that people care more for the club than playing double or nothing with it. You may not agree on those odds, but in reality, any owners in the EFL in that model know that getting it wrong can mean administration and ultimately a club starting again from non-league. Fine margins. 

 

Is holding on to our youngsters longer chucking money around? We are never going to get that sort of owner. And to be honest you should of used jack walker as an example,  the Russians would have made a billion at least out of that sale after what was put in. We are never going to get an owner to put alot in as our value will never be huge. 

[Sufyellow 225]

7 hours ago, chicken said:

Building a team is about balance. Every time we have been in the premier league in recent years we have massively lacked experience and leadership across the team. I think our average squad age was something like 23/24. It's great to say we should build around youth, but honestly it really doesn't work like that. You need a mix. A balance. And you need things like experience and leadership in more than just a couple of first team regulars.

You also underrate Barnes to suite your point and it doesn't work. He is here for two seasons at least. What he brings is the ability to add value to youngsters by imparting knowledge and modelling aspects of the game they may need to learn. His encouragement on the pitch no doubt inspires them onwards to, and lets not forget, he has been a premier league player for several seasons in a row, and a regular at that. Once considered a key part of Burnley's team until only a couple of seasons ago. He is anything but irrelevant.

Relevance is getting promotion. We don't say season long loans are irrelevant. As for the future, would it not be better if it were in the  premier league? 

We have other youngsters in our team and waiting to come through - biding their time is perhaps a better term. I didn't claim Tomkinson is the next big thing, but others have mentioned three others that folks at the club are very excited about. Rowe, Gibbs, Fisher, even Sara, Nunez, Sargent and Idah are all still relatively young. Then throw in Spriingett on the wing. Sainz who should be back after the international break.

And even then that still doesn't answer the question of if the club needs to sell players to raise funds, they may not get a choice of who to sell, and if they did, who would you pick? Of those worth money, Omobamidele would be one of the highest on the list. Not just because he is yet to influence a game in the same way that Rowe has done this season, or perhaps Gibbs has shown he can in spells, but because usually, a young CB is not the player you build a team around.

Again, like I said, you appear to suggest ambition is around retaining young players and hoping that translates into some success with us before we sell them. That is a fantastic sentiment, and one that many EFL clubs fans can dream of. But it just isn't reality. 

If the ambition is to compete in the prem, then unless you have a buy on clause loan signings are irrelevant,  a one season fix , skipp taught us that.  personally I wouldn't want this team to go up, play offs would be great so we all have some enjoyment, that's it. Burnley let Barnes go because he wouldn't be upto the prem, he fits what we need now to steady the ship, so I don't under estimate him. 

[Soldier on 168]

My pack finally arrived via pigeon carrier . Something to read with the morning coffee 

[LaUnionCanary 86]

11 hours ago, Sufyellow said:

So our whole future is this season? What's your ambition this season? For some reason lots of clubs were interested in him and forest paid 11 million,  that's higher than our transfer buying record.  I would have loved to have godfrey back this season and kept Andy , who knows what could of happened.  We know we have four defenders who wouldn't be good enough if we did go up this season,  and we know we can't afford players ready for the prem. Not sure about our form this season,  how many games is it? 

It's a bit of an oxymoron. Players good enough to get us out of this league are not good enough for the EPL, but players good enough for the EPL are not good enough to get t us promoted. A bit simplistic, and obviously does not apply to all players.

[PurpleCanary 5,587]

Just over a week on, some things are clear and some are not. To try to sum up without muddying the waters, with apologies for the likely length and the repetition of some previously made arguments.

One. The waiver and the Takeover Panel.

This is a bit of a multi-faceted subject, and I confess I have made great play about it (in part to compensate for the singular failure to highlight it by the EDP, either simply because of a lack of understanding, or an unwillingness to upset the club and threaten the rapprochement that has taken place) but I am not alone.

As shef said: “You would have to believe the TP were party to some other documentation over future strategy, otherwise I struggle to see why they have agreed to the waiver on the basis of what is presented in the circular.” Perhaps they did see stuff not available to shareholders, but hardly helpful in terms of knowing how to vote on October 2.

Either way, the upshot is straightforward. Any minority shareholders who either want Attanasio to buy them out, or at least want to have the chance to force him to do that, or even just want to uphold the principle of having that chance, lose out no matter how they vote For, Against or Abstain the result is the same – Attanasio will not have to offer the buy them out.

On the face of it this goes clearly against the remit of the Takeover Code, as summed up in the Panel’s latest annual report: “The Code is designed principally to ensure that shareholders in an offeree company are treated fairly and are not denied an opportunity to decide on the merits of a takeover and that shareholders in the offeree company of the same class are afforded equivalent treatment by an offeror.”

Foulger and some other minority shareholders have been given – and taken - the chance to sell out no fewer than 130,000 shares, apparently including at £25, but that is being denied to the rest. So shareholders of the same class are not getting equal treatment.

I can understand the Panel might in general terms decide that it is only giving approval for a vote for or against, but in this case, in this case the vote is meaningless. The term Catch-22 is frequently misused, describing what is just a vicious circle, but here what is happening is very close to the real definition, of an act which is the only way out of a bad situation actually taking you right back in. Vote against the waiver because you want a chance of selling and you are voting against having that chance.

So why has the Panel approved what Mr Bunce correctly describes as an ultimatum to vote a particular way when it seems to run directly counter to the Takeover Code? As shef says above, a possible explanation is that the Panel has seen evidence that in the long run the remaining minority shareholders will be treated fairly.

And Parma has said this: “The issue of the waiver is another hurdle to be overcome, though no one need fear that it will somehow be used to penalise-undervalue-disenfranchise minority shareholders (6k odd fans). The desire - from both purchaser and seller -  is for minority shareholders-fans to ‘win’ comfortably regardless of mechanism.”

Which if true is heartening, although it would need to be something more legally binding than a desire, but in voting shareholders can only go on the facts that have been presented to them. One of which is that in the here and now the waiver IS being used to penalise them.

And it seems clear, given that all the documents have now been read by posters professionally qualified to understand them, that nowhere is there anything that even hints at a good deal later on for the minorities, let alone a hard-fact promise. And not only now. I cannot remember either the club or Attanasio ever hinting at such.

If there was tucked away in the available documents a cast-iron guarantee from Attanasio to waive the waiver in three years’ time and offer the minorities £120 a share that would be bankable. But none of the experts here has noticed such a thing.

OK, but does this matter? I have seen the argument that very few would want to sell up anyway, and the price for many would in effect represent a loss. Yet the owners of those 130,000 shares decided to take Attanasio’s private pre-waiver offer. Leaving aside the principle of the thing, a lack of take-up cannot be assumed, or used as an argument.

A few days back I did suggest an alternative plan which seemed workable. It probably would have cost the club a bit of money but would have had the virtue lacking in the real plan of treating the minorities fairly. However we are where we are.

Two. The report of the “independent directors”.

The Code requires that shareholders are provided with a copy of the “… competent independent advice to the board of the offeree company regarding the transaction, the controlling position which it will create and the effect which this will have on shareholders generally.”

“Independent” has to mean independent of the club. A disinterested analysis and assessment from an outside company. Instead the club has pulled a fast one by describing Tom Smith and Zoe Webber as “independent directors” when they are nothing of the kind. Truly independent directors, even with their connection to the company concerned, are disinterested by way of not being beholden to it and can offer unbiased advice.

Smith and Webber are independent only in the strict sense that they are not regarded as being in concert with S&J and Attanasio because they are not the active creators of the deal. But Smith is the nephew of the owners and a potential inheritor, while Webber is the paid CEO of the club. They both have a significant stake in this deal and are not independent of the board, let alone of the club. Yet the Takeover Panel allowed them to be presented as such.

Surprise, surprise, their “independent” advice to the board, but more importantly to shareholders, is to vote for the waiver. At the risk of appearing to want to keep on bashing the EDP (along with the Panel), this fake independence has not been challenged. Rather it seems the journalists have relied heavily, perhaps even exclusively, on club briefings.

The first Davitt piece, last Monday was a clearly written explanation, and fine as far as it went, but of the ultimatum, which had to be prominently covered, there was no mention. And I know I am not I am not the only poster who has been aware of its existence for months.

To be fair to the Panel, it seemingly did eventually act to limit the club’s spin. Mr Bunce said last week he understood the club had wanted to put out an extra explanation but that was blocked, and with good reason.. And yesterday Southwell said this, presumably backing up Mr Bunce’s information: “The club asked the Takeover Code [sic] if they could publish a Q&A with more information and that wasn't allowed.”

Certainly if the Q&A, as was likely, would have been the club asking its own questions and answering them, rather than a genuine session with informed shareholders, then it is not surprising the Panel draw a line in the sand.

Again, does any of this matter? Yes. Some shareholders, including some here, will be professionally trained to understand. Some others may hire such to explain it. But most, myself included, are amateurs. As Mr Bunce put it: “I'm unimpressed (even if there is principled negation) as it leaves ‘mom and pop’ investors having to make a call on something we can't possibly hope to understand.” And the bizarre situation is that there is more information and informed discussion here than there is coming out of the club or the EDP.

Three.

But, big-picture time, does any of this really matter? There are all the financial plans, including loans, that shef and others have so usefully detailed, albeit with significant caveats about a distinct lack of clarity and certainly. But on the face of it the October 2 vote is pretty limited.

As I understand it, the only direct financial consequence would be that the club lost out on £5m, by way of Attanasio not buying the 195,012 new Ordinary shares. Those big loans etc would not be automatically cancelled.

But S&J would then stay as majority owners, and Attanasio might take umbrage and alter his plans, either to speed up a takeover (perhaps with the aim of getting rid of pesky shareholders by taking the club private) or start to walk away.

Several posters have pointed out, especially in terms of those loans, and what and who are Attanasio’s companies and colleagues in all this, that a suspension of cautious cynicism is required. As Badger posted: “I am most certainly not a conspiracy theorist but as I understand it, we are being asked to put a very great deal of trust in Attanasio's good faith.”

There is an argument that this is a usefully salutary lesson to anyone who thought Attanasio was just all cuddly avuncularity, but most here already knew that anyone who had been successful in the US financial sector was also steely-hearted.

And as Big Fish has suggested, in his to-the-point fashion, do shareholders really have any choice? “Ultimately, shareholders would be foolish to vote against this. It is the only game in town and yes there would be repercussions should the motions be unsuccessful, while on the other hand their actual financial position remains unchanged. Should the waiver be voted down I would understand, because this has been badly handled, but it achieves nothing. MA would come back with a different approach, one that may not be quite so gentle as this one.”

Arguably that is right. But if S&J and Attanasio had not fixed on this symbolic parity at 40 per cent, and allowed some wiggle room either side (while still keeping both below 50 per cent) then shareholders might not have found themselves boxed into a corner and having to take a very great deal on trust.
 

Edited September 12, 2023 by PurpleCanary