Mark Attanasio

[hogesar 9,736]

16 hours 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. 

It's very possible that we sold Andy because we've decided we don't think his value is going to increase beyond this - i.e he has high potential to outsiders but we don't think that's necessarily the case.

Certainly, we bigged up Lewis and Godfrey and managed to get good money for them. Neither of them have gone onto bigger and better things. Maybe Stuart was seeing the same limited progression he saw in Godfrey and thought now was the perfect time to cash in? If he's never going to become a good Premier League CB, but we can get Premier League CB money for him, then why not?

Not saying this is the case, but generally speaking the players we've sold for good money have been sold at good times where I can't see where we'd ever get more for them.

[Robert N. LiM 4,479]

13 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

no matter how they vote For, Against or Abstain the result is the same – Attanasio will not have to offer the buy them out.

Thanks Purple, really helpful summary. Just to confirm my understanding of the above - this is because if shareholders approve the waiver he won't have to offer to buy their shares, and if they don't approve it, he won't be buying the newly created shares, so there will be no obligation on him to buy any others?

Presumably this would also have been the case if the TP themselves had refused to allow the waiver? In other words, isn't it, in practice, Attanasio's millions that give him the power in this situation, rather than the actions of the TP? Or am I missing something? Otherwise, I'm struggling to see this 'ultimatum' as anything other than academic. The guy with all the cash is surely always going to have more control over the situation than the hobby shareholders?

Edited September 12, 2023 by Robert N. LiM
added the last two sentences

[Canary Wundaboy 1,360]

1 minute ago, Robert N. LiM said:

Thanks Purple, really helpful summary. Just to confirm my understanding of the above - this is because if shareholders approve the waiver he won't have to offer to buy their shares, and if they don't approve it, he won't be buying the newly created shares, so there will be no obligation on him to buy any others?

That's my understanding. Those who want to force Attanasio to buy their shares have to reject the waiver, calling off the sale of the 194k shares, and then hope Attanasio comes back with a more forceful takeover. The risk, of course, is that he just backs away.

Quote

Presumably this would also have been the case if the TP themselves had refused to allow the waiver? In other words, isn't it, in practice, Attanasio's millions that give him the power in this situation, rather than the actions of the TP? Or am I missing something?

If the Takeover Panel had refused, Attansio would either go ahead and buy the shares and be forced to offer to buy the shareholders out, or he would simply walk away. By getting the TO to agree to this waiver vote they're just giving minor shareholders the ability to forego their rights to be bought out.

I'm not a vote-holding shareholder, just for the record. But I agree with the impression that Attanasio is attempting to have his cake and eat it. He only wants to spend the bare minimum to gain his joint-majority share and no more. The only way he can accomplish this is to leverage his money and power in this transaction to get shareholders to give up their legal rights. It's not exactly a good look.

Certainly not the "friendly, benevolent investor" he attempted to portray himself as when being interviewed with the TNC boys.

Also @PurpleCanary that was a cracking post. Someone should send it to the EDP so they can publish it.

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

9 minutes ago, Robert N. LiM said:

Thanks Purple, really helpful summary. Just to confirm my understanding of the above - this is because if shareholders approve the waiver he won't have to offer to buy their shares, and if they don't approve it, he won't be buying the newly created shares, so there will be no obligation on him to buy any others?

Presumably this would also have been the case if the TP themselves had refused to allow the waiver? In other words, isn't it, in practice, Attanasio's millions that give him the power in this situation, rather than the actions of the TP? Or am I missing something? Otherwise, I'm struggling to see this 'ultimatum' as anything other than academic. The guy with all the cash is surely always going to have more control over the situation than the hobby shareholders?

Robert, that is it. If he doesn't get the waiver then he won't buy the shares, so his holding will stay well below the 30 per cent mark at which he would have to offer to buy.

Getting the waiver now is a preemptive move so he can then immediately buy the shares and hit 40 per cent without having to offer to buy.

[Nuff Said 5,176]

41 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

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.

But you’ve already said why the club can’t give more information haven’t you? The TP won’t allow it. Sounds like they’re damned if they do (but they’re not allowed to) and damned if they don’t . Even if they did try and enter the discussion, you seem to think it would be “spin”?

42 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

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.”

 

[Soldier on 162]

31 minutes ago, Canary Wundaboy said:

That's my understanding. Those who want to force Attanasio to buy their shares have to reject the waiver, calling off the sale of the 194k shares, and then hope Attanasio comes back with a more forceful takeover. The risk, of course, is that he just backs away.

If the Takeover Panel had refused, Attansio would either go ahead and buy the shares and be forced to offer to buy the shareholders out, or he would simply walk away. By getting the TO to agree to this waiver vote they're just giving minor shareholders the ability to forego their rights to be bought out.

I'm not a vote-holding shareholder, just for the record. But I agree with the impression that Attanasio is attempting to have his cake and eat it. He only wants to spend the bare minimum to gain his joint-majority share and no more. The only way he can accomplish this is to leverage his money and power in this transaction to get shareholders to give up their legal rights. It's not exactly a good look.

Certainly not the "friendly, benevolent investor" he attempted to portray himself as when being interviewed with the TNC boys.

Also @PurpleCanary that was a cracking post. Someone should send it to the EDP so they can publish it.

Mis

 

31 minutes ago, Canary Wundaboy said:

That's my understanding. Those who want to force Attanasio to buy their shares have to reject the waiver, calling off the sale of the 194k shares, and then hope Attanasio comes back with a more forceful takeover. The risk, of course, is that he just backs away.

If the Takeover Panel had refused, Attansio would either go ahead and buy the shares and be forced to offer to buy the shareholders out, or he would simply walk away. By getting the TO to agree to this waiver vote they're just giving minor shareholders the ability to forego their rights to be bought out.

I'm not a vote-holding shareholder, just for the record. But I agree with the impression that Attanasio is attempting to have his cake and eat it. He only wants to spend the bare minimum to gain his joint-majority share and no more. The only way he can accomplish this is to leverage his money and power in this transaction to get shareholders to give up their legal rights. It's not exactly a good look.

Certainly not the "friendly, benevolent investor" he attempted to portray himself as when being interviewed with the TNC boys.

Also @PurpleCanary that was a cracking post. Someone should send it to the EDP so they can publish it.

misses the point of the 40/40 parity agreement. He can’t buy additional shares from shareholders as that would take him over the prescribed agreement. Not sure it is about having cake and eating eat when nominal figure like £25 per share is in play.

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

4 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

But you’ve already said why the club can’t give more information haven’t you? The TP won’t allow it. Sounds like they’re damned if they do (but they’re not allowed to) and damned if they don’t . Even if they did try and enter the discussion, you seem to think it would be “spin”?

 

My points are twofold. One, that the club should have published a genuinely independent analysis and assessment of the plan, to give shareholders information they could trust,  instead of which you essentially have Smith and Webber as cheerleaders. Secondly,  that given this lack of any independent analysis the EDP has fallen down on the job by seeming to rely on the club's authorised version.

[shefcanary 2,448]

Thanks Purple, Robert and Wundaboy.

Another point mentioned in the paperwork is that the parties who are in concert do not ever envisage a need for a trigger event in all this. So, the only conclusion is at some point that Delia and Mike will sell to Attanasio (after all Tom is an independent director so has had to forego his inheritance of their shares, surely (??!! 😉 ). However we have no clue as to what consideration passes at this point. However would Foulger sell for no profit then stand idly by and watch Delia and Mike coin it in? 🤷🏻‍♂️ After they sell though, you would then expect Attanasio would take the club private, buying out the <20% of minority shareholders at a price negotiated with them, perhaps the only opportunity they will get to receive any significant cash. I for one will hold out as long as I legally can. 😉 

The proverbial "gun to our head" is not helped by the lack of a fuller story. Mrs Webber presented a 3 year strategy to the OSP only a few week ago, the wider shareholders have still not been granted the opportunity to review that. Why was this not in the paperwork if if had been shared with a supporters group? You would also expect some draft year-end figures as at 31 July 2023 to have been available within the paperwork - any company that has not got such figures two months  after this date for public dissemination is to be viewed with a certain amount of suspicion, it just encourages people to ask "what are they hiding?" One thing they are most certainly is how much on the hook to Attanasio  / Norfolk the club really is.

The more you reflect on all this, the more you revert to "wassgornorn"?

[Canary Wundaboy 1,360]

17 minutes ago, Soldier on said:

Misses the point of the 40/40 parity agreement. He can’t buy additional shares from shareholders as that would take him over the prescribed agreement. Not sure it is about having cake and eating eat when nominal figure like £25 per share is in play.

Your point assumes that if he can't buy the 40% without being forced to purchase the remaining shares that he wants to go ahead with the original ones.

If his goal is to get a joint-majority shareholding as cheap as possible, buying the remainder of the 40% off the club for £25 and not being forced to offer the other shareholders is at cheap as it gets.

But it seems like he wants to get 40%, pay bottom-dollar AND escape the obligation to buy out the remaining shareholders. That's definitely "cake and eat it" territory, especially given the ultimatum of "no waiver, no investment" that's been pushed by the club itself. 

[norfolkngood 1,087]

3 minutes ago, Canary Wundaboy said:

 

But it seems like he wants to get 40%, pay bottom-dollar AND escape the obligation to buy out the remaining shareholders. That's definitely "cake and eat it" territory, especially given the ultimatum of "no waiver, no investment" that's been pushed by the club itself. 

The more i hear the more the more i think is this the right man 

What will he use the club for ? how will he make money ?

will he invest after buying the club ? most important thing is to buy better than we can now and improve ?

We need New owners to drive the club forward not just buy it cheaply and run it as it is now ,

might as well leave it all to Tom if AM is not investing as well as buying 

[hogesar 9,736]

Thanks for the long post @PurpleCanary - I wanted to make a joke about it being boring and me falling asleep but in reality it's far more informed than anything the wider public (including the voting shareholders) have had to go on.

[hogesar 9,736]

1 minute ago, norfolkngood said:

The more i hear the more the more i think is this the right man 

What will he use the club for ? how will he make money ?

will he invest after buying the club ? most important thing is to buy better than we can now and improve ?

We need New owners to drive the club forward not just buy it cheaply and run it as it is now ,

might as well leave it all to Tom if AM is not investing as well as buying 

You're possibly right. We have no idea. But fans on here have been desperate for new ownership for years and have seemingly not been bothered about the repercussions. 

Compared to most, this has been a 'soft' takeover approach and even still, you can see evidence of MA being in it for himself. Which is fine, we all know that's going to be the case with any new owners who aren't life-long NCFC fans. I just don't think we're used to it.

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

27 minutes ago, Soldier on said:

Mis

 

misses the point of the 40/40 parity agreement. He can’t buy additional shares from shareholders as that would take him over the prescribed agreement. Not sure it is about having cake and eating eat when nominal figure like £25 per share is in play.

But what apart from symbolism is the point of this rigid 40 per cent equality? Providing S&J get below 50 per cent and Attanasio  doesn't get that high does it matter if they end up with, say, 38 per cent and Attanasio 42 per cent? And with those figures then being set in stone? There is no legal requirement for that 40:40 split. It was just a decision they came to. They could easily have put some flexibility into the numbers and then settled on them.

[norfolkngood 1,087]

1 minute ago, hogesar said:

You're possibly right. We have no idea. But fans on here have been desperate for new ownership for years and have seemingly not been bothered about the repercussions. 

Compared to most, this has been a 'soft' takeover approach and even still, you can see evidence of MA being in it for himself. Which is fine, we all know that's going to be the case with any new owners who aren't life-long NCFC fans. I just don't think we're used to it.

Hog i think you and Nutty have been Right all along 

i have been wanting Delia to sell for years i wanted investment ,

the more and more i hear i think as we are going up and down and having a bit of success here and there is better than someone making money out of loans to the club ,

Of course we do not know if that happens MA might be fantastic ,

but it is looking like he will not be a Cash cow owner he will want something in return 

 

[shefcanary 2,448]

Having criticised the lack of "really" helpful information included in the paperwork despite knowing of presentations to OSP and the TP of further information about the future, I am nevertheless of the mind to trust Attanasio. I can see how he has managed the Brewers, he has a similar philosophy to Delia and Mike about retaining a "community club" vibe without pumping millions of his own money in. Despite this it is clear he has more nous about how to leverage more money out of the all-round performance of the club, to reinvest into the club to get even more out of the assets, be it the real estate or the playing staff.

I still see him as a good "bet" to secure the club's future and success on and off the pitch.

It is to be hoped that the football world comes to its senses and stops this billionaire and State plaything that it has become and evens up the playing field. But that is perhaps for another thread.

Edited September 12, 2023 by shefcanary

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

5 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

Having criticised the lack of "really" helpful information included in the paperwork despite knowing of presentations to OSP and the TP of further information about the future, I am nevertheless of the mind to trust Attanasio. I can see how he has managed the Brewers, he has a similar philosophy to Delia and Mike about retaining a "community club" vibe without pumping millions of his own money in. Despite this it is clear he has more nous about how to leverage more money out of the all-round performance of the club, to reinvest into the club to get even more out of the assets, be it the real estate or the playing staff.

I still see him as a good "bet" to secure the club's future and success on and off the pitch.

It is to be hoped that the football world comes to its senses and stops this billionaire and State plaything that it has become and evens up the playing field. But that is perhaps for another thread.

I agree with all of that. To be clear, nothing I have posted should be taken as anti-Attanasio. One can only go on fairly superficial signs, but he certainly doesn't look like an obviously bad potential owner. If I have any targets they are the Takeover Panel, the club, for what looks like a mishandled approach, with questionable PR/information, and the poor old journalists at the EDP!

[hogesar 9,736]

17 minutes ago, norfolkngood said:

Hog i think you and Nutty have been Right all along 

i have been wanting Delia to sell for years i wanted investment ,

the more and more i hear i think as we are going up and down and having a bit of success here and there is better than someone making money out of loans to the club ,

Of course we do not know if that happens MA might be fantastic ,

but it is looking like he will not be a Cash cow owner he will want something in return 

 

The thing is mate, what choice do we have? At some point we're going to have to take the jump. At least this guy has been patient enough to be vetted by Delia and Michael for a while.

Of course, he's not doing this for the love of Norwich. He wants to make money. But I can't see how he can generate anything worthwhile without making us (relatively) successful.

Personally, my dream has always been for a Tony Bloom (Brighton) owner. He is basically Delia, but with 500x the amount of available finance. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a billionaire life-long NCFC fan so we're working with what we've got.

[hogesar 9,736]

5 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

I agree with all of that. To be clear, nothing I have posted should be taken as anti-Attanasio. One can only go on fairly superficial signs, but he certainly doesn't look like an obviously bad potential owner. If I have any targets they are the Takeover Panel, the club, for what looks like a mishandled approach, with questionable PR/information, and the poor old journalists at the EDP!

The EDP are currently running a "news" article on the "top 10 UK betting websites".

Just thought it was interesting context if you were starting to feel bad, that's all 🙂

[essex canary 505]

24 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

But what apart from symbolism is the point of this rigid 40 per cent equality? Providing S&J get below 50 per cent and Attanasio  doesn't get that high does it matter if they end up with, say, 38 per cent and Attanasio 42 per cent? And with those figures then being set in stone? There is no legal requirement for that 40:40 split. It was just a decision they came to. They could easily have put some flexibility into the numbers and then settled on them.

Many thanks for the excellent summary. It is disappointing that the Takeover Panel itself doesn't follow through on such issues as the Independent Advice and as a result it seems to undermine the value of their process. In relation to the Club surely some joint Board responsibility would have been appropriate and under the circumstances shouldn't the ED have played a similar role to what might be expected of a senior civil servant in Government? As for the press I sent a letter in last week. I suspect at this juncture they won't be publishing it but they could be following up issues with the Club.

If we vote 'For' Resolution 1 and 'against' Resolution 2, MA isn't going to walk away is he? At £25 per share it would only cost him less than £4 million to pay everybody off and move to the desired 46%. That would then surely require him to table that and explain why he can't do better or incentivise shareholders in another way to defer further down the line. Why don't we just do that?        

Edited September 12, 2023 by essex canary

[Soldier on 162]

31 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

But what apart from symbolism is the point of this rigid 40 per cent equality? Providing S&J get below 50 per cent and Attanasio  doesn't get that high does it matter if they end up with, say, 38 per cent and Attanasio 42 per cent? And with those figures then being set in stone? There is no legal requirement for that 40:40 split. It was just a decision they came to. They could easily have put some flexibility into the numbers and then settled on them.

I agree I guess it was either stipulated by Delia and Michael by MA or by both. If he hadn’t agreed to it though he wouldn’t be able to purchase the shares as they arguably wouldn’t have been made available to him.

[Soldier on 162]

47 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

Having criticised the lack of "really" helpful information included in the paperwork despite knowing of presentations to OSP and the TP of further information about the future, I am nevertheless of the mind to trust Attanasio. I can see how he has managed the Brewers, he has a similar philosophy to Delia and Mike about retaining a "community club" vibe without pumping millions of his own money in. Despite this it is clear he has more nous about how to leverage more money out of the all-round performance of the club, to reinvest into the club to get even more out of the assets, be it the real estate or the playing staff.

I still see him as a good "bet" to secure the club's future and success on and off the pitch.

It is to be hoped that the football world comes to its senses and stops this billionaire and State plaything that it has become and evens up the playing field. But that is perhaps for another thread.

Pity the fans are unable to be privvy to this presentation. We may hear more on the future plans once all this has been ratified 

[Badger 2,412]

51 minutes ago, norfolkngood said:

The more i hear the more the more i think is this the right man 

What will he use the club for ? how will he make money ?

will he invest after buying the club ? most important thing is to buy better than we can now and improve ?

We need New owners to drive the club forward not just buy it cheaply and run it as it is now ,

might as well leave it all to Tom if AM is not investing as well as buying 

The thing is Norfolk if he buys 40 % or more at a bargain price say, £20 million (perhaps with an option to buy another 40% at the same price) he could end up buying City for under £50 million with no promise of investment other than the money he has lent us at commercial rates.

He could easily double his money without shelling out any more ad if we get promoted get 3 or 4 times his money. He is buying the shares for less than they are worth (judging by other sales). He doesn't need to "drive the club forwards" as he can make good money without doing to.* He could actually use this profit and the experience gained to buy a "bigger club."

I'm not saying that this is the case, but I think it is a reasonable worry.

*(Don't quote me exactly/ hold me to task on the figures, I'm talking in principle, I've forgotten how much he as actually definitely paid for his 40% if this goes through.)

[Sufyellow 223]

2 hours ago, hogesar said:

It's very possible that we sold Andy because we've decided we don't think his value is going to increase beyond this - i.e he has high potential to outsiders but we don't think that's necessarily the case.

Certainly, we bigged up Lewis and Godfrey and managed to get good money for them. Neither of them have gone onto bigger and better things. Maybe Stuart was seeing the same limited progression he saw in Godfrey and thought now was the perfect time to cash in? If he's never going to become a good Premier League CB, but we can get Premier League CB money for him, then why not?

Not saying this is the case, but generally speaking the players we've sold for good money have been sold at good times where I can't see where we'd ever get more for them.

All those big clubs last season who wanted him and then forest paying 11 million,  surely they can't all be wrong? I think we needed the money, as someone said we had to sell one of them.  

[Robert N. LiM 4,479]

57 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

Having criticised the lack of "really" helpful information included in the paperwork despite knowing of presentations to OSP and the TP of further information about the future, I am nevertheless of the mind to trust Attanasio. I can see how he has managed the Brewers, he has a similar philosophy to Delia and Mike about retaining a "community club" vibe without pumping millions of his own money in. Despite this it is clear he has more nous about how to leverage more money out of the all-round performance of the club, to reinvest into the club to get even more out of the assets, be it the real estate or the playing staff.

I still see him as a good "bet" to secure the club's future and success on and off the pitch.

It is to be hoped that the football world comes to its senses and stops this billionaire and State plaything that it has become and evens up the playing field. But that is perhaps for another thread.

That is exactly where I am.

[hogesar 9,736]

1 hour ago, shefcanary said:

Having criticised the lack of "really" helpful information included in the paperwork despite knowing of presentations to OSP and the TP of further information about the future, I am nevertheless of the mind to trust Attanasio. I can see how he has managed the Brewers, he has a similar philosophy to Delia and Mike about retaining a "community club" vibe without pumping millions of his own money in. Despite this it is clear he has more nous about how to leverage more money out of the all-round performance of the club, to reinvest into the club to get even more out of the assets, be it the real estate or the playing staff.

I still see him as a good "bet" to secure the club's future and success on and off the pitch.

It is to be hoped that the football world comes to its senses and stops this billionaire and State plaything that it has become and evens up the playing field. But that is perhaps for another thread.

Agree with all of this Shef but the underlying point is ensuring everyone realises this is a "bet". There is no guarantee and if he ends up acquiring for the club for as low a price as it seems possible, there is nothing to stop him flogging us on for easy money.

I agree with what we know about him that seems unlikely and your reference to Brewers is the best evidence we have to go on.

[GMF 756]

1 hour ago, Nuff Said said:

But you’ve already said why the club can’t give more information haven’t you? The TP won’t allow it. Sounds like they’re damned if they do (but they’re not allowed to) and damned if they don’t . Even if they did try and enter the discussion, you seem to think it would be “spin”?

 

Personally, I remain sceptical that this is at the insistence of the TP, far more likely, in my opinion, is that the solicitors acting for the Club & / or Attanasio, advised against it.

 

[GMF 756]

1 hour ago, shefcanary said:

Having criticised the lack of "really" helpful information included in the paperwork despite knowing of presentations to OSP and the TP of further information about the future, I am nevertheless of the mind to trust Attanasio. I can see how he has managed the Brewers, he has a similar philosophy to Delia and Mike about retaining a "community club" vibe without pumping millions of his own money in. Despite this it is clear he has more nous about how to leverage more money out of the all-round performance of the club, to reinvest into the club to get even more out of the assets, be it the real estate or the playing staff.

I still see him as a good "bet" to secure the club's future and success on and off the pitch.

It is to be hoped that the football world comes to its senses and stops this billionaire and State plaything that it has become and evens up the playing field. But that is perhaps for another thread.

@shefcanary you have mentioned this point on more than one occasion, but I think that you’re reading far too much into this. Having heard it twice, I would suggest that the strategic review, which is now into its second year of three, is Club focused and doesn’t make any references to the current situation. 

[Soldier on 162]

Presume this is unrelated ?

 

https://twitter.com/pinkun/status/1701639972997009666?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet

[GMF 756]

2 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

Robert, that is it. If he doesn't get the waiver then he won't buy the shares, so his holding will stay well below the 30 per cent mark at which he would have to offer to buy.

Getting the waiver now is a preemptive move so he can then immediately buy the shares and hit 40 per cent without having to offer to buy.

There seems to be a consensus that this is a black / white issue. Although I don’t expect it to fall, there has to be a contiguity plan, not least because the Relevant Loans are due for repayment.

I would like to know the views of others, but is there nothing to stop MA making a £25 offer to existing shareholders as a precursor to a reduced allotment of new shares thereafter?

Clearly, this would be suboptimal for the Club, in contrast to the current proposal, which is suboptimal for shareholders. Just because the majority would have little interest in selling their shares, does that mean those that might want to sell are deprived of the opportunity.

[Sufyellow 223]

18 hours ago, chicken said:

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.

Firstly Rowe and Gibbs weren't worth 11 million. I have no idea if he is destined for great heights,  I also didn't say he is the shining light we should build a team round.  But as many have said and others clubs supposedly agree he has potential,  that's the only way we build a team. We lost a player with potential and gained some money,  probably that is the disappointing bit. I hope our club are planning to get promoted or the ambition has gone.  Its a debate not an argument. How do you think we can build a team to compete in the Premier league?