Mark Attanasio

[TIL 1010 4,792]

4 minutes ago, Indy said:

Thanks Til, so if he’s had a seat for life and used it for 21 years that’s basically £10k he’s saved himself, so if he gets £15 per share he should be happy! I remember back then lots of options and info, I was working offshore at the time away, I used to give up my season ticket to my father in law to use! I can’t remember how many my wife bought but I know we sold them to a friend at a loss but she bought them for her grandkids as they were both Norwich nuts!

There is so much in this post of your Indy that will have him spitting feathers so just await the reply that as sure as night follows day will come.

[Indy 3,315]

13 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

There is so much in this post of your Indy that will have him spitting feathers so just await the reply that as sure as night follows day will come.

That’s his prerogative, mine is that my wife & I have been to numerous functions and held season tickets for years, I got to sit and talk with the Turners during one charity evening, very pleasant people…..I got to know young Joe while he was head of media and have been very well connected over the years as my wife was FD of a very large local firm.

When we bought the shares we only bought a low number but for mainly one reason and that was to help the club, we basically wrote off that money back then, so when our very good friends asked about them we had no hesitation in selling them to her.

I suppose I’m fortunate over the years I’ve felt very connected to the club and in the past ten years not so much, I was away a lot as part of my work.

Reality is who in their right mind doesn’t want to see us move forwards, MA is a guy who knows business and all this tax haven question over him in recent talk on here should be laughed at….who doesn’t have a multimillion pound business without some form of tax advantage from their accountants, additionally any audits would find illegal activity so I can’t see the hooha!

I’m excited about a move and the transition is in good will and best intentions, both parties need praising not so much negativity.

Just me I suppose.

Edited September 14, 2023 by Indy

[essex canary 506]

20 minutes ago, Indy said:

Thanks Til, so if he’s had a seat for life and used it for 21 years that’s basically £10k he’s saved himself, so if he gets £15 per share he should be happy! I remember back then lots of options and info, I was working offshore at the time away, I used to give up my season ticket to my father in law to use! I can’t remember how many my wife bought but I know we sold them to a friend at a loss but she bought them for her grandkids as they were both Norwich nuts!

I received that kind of logic from the Club. Strange though that there is no interest logic in those

arguments as applied to MA. Strange also that the price base they used was not the average one but the significantly higher current one.

Had some Preference Shares too but they were available to fans only £ for £, now it transpires that MA gets £3 for £1.

The bias against fans is clear.

[dylanisabaddog 4,987]

3 hours ago, Capt. Pants said:

Not sure of all this sudden distrust of MA. Seems some were happy to let him invest and loan to our club but now he wants something in return he's not to be trusted?

It has been clear that ever since he sat in the Directors Box and saw us slaughtered by Spurs it would lead to an eventual takeover. Any objection to this should have been raised much earlier, including when the 194,000 shares were announced, but not now, in my view.

What is much more important is how he runs the club going forward. Surely we have to take some encouragement from his 18 years at The Brewers?

 

I may be partly responsible for that attitude but I am a cynic by nature. I have no idea what MA is like as person but - 

He has seen Norwich City play less times than Cambridge 

He does his business through a tax haven well known for its secrecy. 

The documents related to his takeover are almost impenetrable to the ordinary person and we're not allowed to ask any questions. 

No one can give me a single good reason why he has an interest in our club, other than the obvious. 

 

Several people have said they trust him. Why? He may have been a 'good owner' for an American sports team but this isn't America and he doesn't have to worry about his reputation. 

 

Excuse me for being cynical but that's what a lifetime of experience does to you. In my case that experience is gained from 30 years of extensive involvement in offshore tax arrangements. 

I'm in no way suggesting that MA is a crook, I'm just drawing attention to his way of doing business. In case you haven't realised, this is business to him but to you and me it's our football club. 

The simple fact is we have little or no choice but please don't tell me he's here to save us. He's not, he's here to make money. 

If I can help anyone with life generally I'd say don't put your trust in anyone or anything unless you're absolutely certain. This is a very important transaction and I'm not trusting anyone. 

 

 

Edited September 14, 2023 by dylanisabaddog

[Nuff Said 5,177]

6 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

The documents related to his takeover are almost impenetrable to the ordinary person and we're not allowed to ask any questions. 

To be precise, you’re allowed to ask questions but from what others have said, *if I understand it correctly*, the club is not allowed to answer them under stock market rules.

[dylanisabaddog 4,987]

1 minute ago, Nuff Said said:

To be precise, you’re allowed to ask questions but from what others have said, *if I understand it correctly*, the club is not allowed to answer them under stock market rules.

That's fine then. What could possibly go wrong...... 

[Indy 3,315]

3 minutes ago, essex canary said:

I received that kind of logic from the Club. Strange though that there is no interest logic in those

arguments as applied to MA. Strange also that the price base they used was not the average one but the significantly higher current one.

Had some Preference Shares too but they were available to fans only £ for £, now it transpires that MA gets £3 for £1.

The bias against fans is clear.

You’re not expected to run and finance the club in the future! His loan and his investments have shored up the real value of this club.

At present he’s not got anything cheap, he’s paid an agreed fee to Foulger, you’re welcome to sell you’re 1000 shares, what you get for them is what someone is willing to pay……until 2026 the value has been agreed to gain that 40%.

Until he makes a move for the rest of the shares you have no idea if you’re short changed on value or not!

I’m lost at your attitude it stinks a little of somebody wanting to profit rather than see the best for the club!

Of course he could look to build massive debt from now until the club owes him more than it’s worth and force through a very cheap transaction, who knows! But why did you buy those shares is the real question you should ask yourself, you’ve gained already from the deal so I’m at a loss at your attitude.

[Indy 3,315]

Just now, dylanisabaddog said:

That's fine then. What could possibly go wrong...... 

He pulls out, calls in his loans and we are back to square 1 with no money, debts and looking for a way forwards!

[Nuff Said 5,177]

9 minutes ago, essex canary said:

I received that kind of logic from the Club. Strange though that there is no interest logic in those

arguments as applied to MA. Strange also that the price base they used was not the average one but the significantly higher current one.

Had some Preference Shares too but they were available to fans only £ for £, now it transpires that MA gets £3 for £1.

The bias against fans is clear.

Most fans will have bought shares to help the club and have a small stake in it. Enjoying a valuable perk for 10+ years and then making a handsome profit will not have been their motivation.

 

The current plans allow them to continue to own a stake in the club, rather than forcing them to sell, so is absolutely in the spirit of what they would prefer. I would guess you are in a tiny minority, quite possibly of one.

[dylanisabaddog 4,987]

3 minutes ago, Indy said:

 

I’m lost at your attitude it stinks a little of somebody wanting to profit rather than see the best for the club!

**** off. I've made it perfectly clear on numerous occasions that I don't want to sell my shares. I have no need to and I don't want to. 

Don't judge me by your standards. Norwich City has been a huge part of my life for 55 years. 

[NewNestCarrow 203]

5 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

It isn't accurate to say ALL businesses in the USA register in Delaware. Far from it in fact. Any tax authority or financial regulator would, from experience, view it as a red flag. 

I certainly don't distrust all businessmen but I will always view anyone who is involved in tax havens with a degree of suspicion. 

You should also take into account that Delaware has no financial reporting requirements at all.  Take that together with the ridiculously complex and secretive method of the takeover and that red flag will be the size of the ones occasionally unfurled in the Barclay. 

Most importantly, Norwich City FC isn't a run of the mill business is it?  It's our club whatever the legal owners may think. At least it has been up to now, but we have now joined all the others. 

I'm afraid that within 3 years a man who has absolutely no interest in it other than personal financial gain will have complete control and he will probably have no hesitation in selling to the Middle East or whoever if it's in his financial interests. Please don't anyone tell me he will be swayed by the family club history or the 59 cup run etc. He couldn't care less. 

Of course we (NCFC) actually have no choice in the matter. If we don't take his money we have a huge problem. It would be very easy to blame the current owners and directors for that but we should bear in mind that if it wasn't for Covid we almost certainly wouldn't be in this position. 

It's a very sad time for our club. We were one of the very few sets of fans that could trust the owners of their club but because of something completely out of their control that trust will no longer exist. Something that was very special has just died.

The only good thing about it is that Essex won't be going on a cruise next year. 

60% of (US) Fortune 500 companies are incorporated in Delaware. If the US tax authorities really saw this as a "red flag" wouldn't they do something about it?  [The commercial arm of the BBC is incorporated in Delaware, and has been since the mid-1980s]

There is a big difference between efficient tax arrangements (e.g being Incorporated in a low-tax state) and cheating the system (e.g. not declaring income) 

Edited September 14, 2023 by NewNestCarrow
additional info

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

4 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

It isn't accurate to say ALL businesses in the USA register in Delaware. Far from it in fact. Any tax authority or financial regulator would, from experience, view it as a red flag. 

I certainly don't distrust all businessmen but I will always view anyone who is involved in tax havens with a degree of suspicion. 

You should also take into account that Delaware has no financial reporting requirements at all.  Take that together with the ridiculously complex and secretive method of the takeover and that red flag will be the size of the ones occasionally unfurled in the Barclay. 

Most importantly, Norwich City FC isn't a run of the mill business is it?  It's our club whatever the legal owners may think. At least it has been up to now, but we have now joined all the others. 

I'm afraid that within 3 years a man who has absolutely no interest in it other than personal financial gain will have complete control and he will probably have no hesitation in selling to the Middle East or whoever if it's in his financial interests. Please don't anyone tell me he will be swayed by the family club history or the 59 cup run etc. He couldn't care less. 

Of course we (NCFC) actually have no choice in the matter. If we don't take his money we have a huge problem. It would be very easy to blame the current owners and directors for that but we should bear in mind that if it wasn't for Covid we almost certainly wouldn't be in this position. 

It's a very sad time for our club. We were one of the very few sets of fans that could trust the owners of their club but because of something completely out of their control that trust will no longer exist. Something that was very special has just died.

The only good thing about it is that Essex won't be going on a cruise next year. 

I am not downplaying your fears, but is that true? Until we became a plc the changes of ownership were always private deals which became known afterwards and had zero fan involvement. That certainly applied to post-Chase, when a new board was set up, including S&J, and events totally uncontrolled by the fans meant they ended up as majority owners.

It is sometimes said we are fan-owned but it isn't the case. The owners may be fans but we have never been owned - and so controlled - by THE fans.

And even now, as a plc, in essence the situation doesn't seem to have changed. Having to take account of the Takeover Code and its Panel has certainly added to the bureaucracy, and introduced a welcome element of public scutiny. But because we are unlisted it is not possible for fans to try to use the power of insitutions with big holdings, such as pension funds, to influence events.

We still have 52-per cent majority owners and if the October 2 proposals are passed we will then in effect have 80-per cent majority owners for three years. It is true the club and Attanasio could be defeated in that vote, but if that happened I imagine some way would be found to get round the setback. Or Attanasio would walk away, leaving S&J with their 52 per cent.

[NewNestCarrow 203]

2 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

I am not downplaying your fears, but is that true? Until we became a plc the changes of ownership were always private deals which became known afterwards and had zero fan involvement. That certainly applied to post-Chase, when a new board was set up, including S&J, and events totally uncontrolled by the fans meant they ended up as majority owners.

It is sometimes said we are fan-owned but it isn't the case. The owners may be fans but we have never been owned - and so controlled - by THE fans.

And even now, as a plc, in essence the situation doesn't seem to have changed. Having to take account of the Takeover Code and its Panel has certainly added to the bureaucracy, and introduced a welcome element of public scutiny. But because we are unlisted it is not possible for fans to try to use the power of insitutions with big holdings, such as pension funds, to influence events.

We still have 52-per cent majority owners and if the October 2 proposals are passed we will then in effect have 80-per cent majority owners for three years. It is true the club and Attanasio could be defeated in that vote, but if that happened I imagine some way would be found to get round the setback. Or Attanasio would walk away, leaving S&J with their 52 per cent.

And, IIRC, didn't Watling bravely declare that NCFC would never again be owned by one individual?

For better or for worse, I believe D&M have had far greater control (via shares) than any previous Directors of NCFC.

 

 

[Indy 3,315]

1 hour ago, dylanisabaddog said:

**** off. I've made it perfectly clear on numerous occasions that I don't want to sell my shares. I have no need to and I don't want to. 

Don't judge me by your standards. Norwich City has been a huge part of my life for 55 years. 

Wasn’t talking to you! Unless you’re Essex! Where’s my reference to you? Don’t jump before you have any direct connection!

Edited September 14, 2023 by Indy

[TIL 1010 4,792]

1 hour ago, dylanisabaddog said:

**** off. I've made it perfectly clear on numerous occasions that I don't want to sell my shares. I have no need to and I don't want to. 

Don't judge me by your standards. Norwich City has been a huge part of my life for 55 years. 

Dylan you have got it wrong as Indy was answering our resident buffoon essex not you.

[hogesar 9,744]

2 hours ago, essex canary said:

I received that kind of logic from the Club. Strange though that there is no interest logic in those

arguments as applied to MA. Strange also that the price base they used was not the average one but the significantly higher current one.

Had some Preference Shares too but they were available to fans only £ for £, now it transpires that MA gets £3 for £1.

The bias against fans is clear.

Why would that bother you?

[MrBunce 245]

7 hours ago, Badger said:

One thing I am unclear on re the money MA lent us is whether it was additional to the debt we already have or whether it is a replacement for this (I have always assumed the latter). For example, the accounts (page 68) refer to 2 loans repayable in 2024 for about £66 million, at in the context of the current market, quite reasonable interest rates (5.75% and 5.6%). 

Am I wrong in my present view that MA replaced these loans or are they additional?

 

"Included in the short-term loan totalling £43,914,000 (amount due over one year: £30,830,000) relates to accelerated funds secured on future media rights and fully repayable by March 2024. The interest rate due on the loan is 5.75% per annum. Included in the short-term loan totalling £22,568,000 (amount due over one year: £14,474,000) relates to accelerated funds secured on future contracted player receivables and fully repayable by September 2024. The interest rate due on the loan is 5.6% per annum."

It's not clear Badger. On the one hand, it's a lot of money to borrow for working capital type purposes but on the other hand some of the terms are less favourable (higher interest rate, the repayment clause) and the maturity isn't much longer than the secured loans. The documents were suitably (and expectedly) vague on the purpose of the financing saying something like (off of the top of my head) that the financing was for payroll and other expenses. I suppose we won't find out until the accounts come out (even then, that will be a snapshot as at 30 June 2023).

[GMF 757]

11 hours ago, MrBunce said:

It's not clear Badger. On the one hand, it's a lot of money to borrow for working capital type purposes but on the other hand some of the terms are less favourable (higher interest rate, the repayment clause) and the maturity isn't much longer than the secured loans. The documents were suitably (and expectedly) vague on the purpose of the financing saying something like (off of the top of my head) that the financing was for payroll and other expenses. I suppose we won't find out until the accounts come out (even then, that will be a snapshot as at 30 June 2023).

The loans taken out against future receivables (media rights and the Emi Buendia transfer fee) are still outstanding and due for repayment in March and September 2024.

I suspect that the interest rates on both loans will have increased significantly from the figures quoted in the last accounts.

The more recent two promissory loan notes and the two other loan notes, specified within the recent documents are almost certainly refinancing on previous short term loans taken out with external lenders. I would presume (hope) that owner loans would be available on more favourable terms than would otherwise be offered elsewhere if external lenders had been used.

[essex canary 506]

15 hours ago, NewNestCarrow said:

And, IIRC, didn't Watling bravely declare that NCFC would never again be owned by one individual?

For better or for worse, I believe D&M have had far greater control (via shares) than any previous Directors of NCFC.

 

 

Here, here. That is THE very good reason for wanting to sell shares. It was supposed to be a project taking the fans on board in a shareholder context but it hasn't been.

[essex canary 506]

15 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

We still have 52-per cent majority owners and if the October 2 proposals are passed we will then in effect have 80-per cent majority owners for three years. It is true the club and Attanasio could be defeated in that vote, but if that happened I imagine some way would be found to get round the setback. Or Attanasio would walk away, leaving S&J with their 52 per cent.

The last bit could be a good outcome if we can go back round the circuit and get a Statement of Intention from Norfolk group on fan shareholder involvement.

[Capt. Pants 4,277]

It wouldn't be a good outcome if MA walks, calls in the loans and we have to sell every last decent player we have to survive.

I'm astounded some so called supporters, shareholders or not, would welcome that outcome.

 

[Indy 3,315]

9 minutes ago, Capt. Pants said:

It wouldn't be a good outcome if MA walks, calls in the loans and we have to sell every last decent player we have to survive.

I'm astounded some so called supporters, shareholders or not, would welcome that outcome.

 

Yes that’s my view, it’s sad that we’re in this potential position given Webbers statement on the last regime when he came in!

We could be making a rod for your own back I mean if he wanted to he could call in the loans unless there’s an agreement in a timeline, then virtually make the club at its lowest value and possibly make an aggressive takeover at a lowball figure! 

Edited September 15, 2023 by Indy

[GMF 757]

8 minutes ago, Capt. Pants said:

It wouldn't be a good outcome if MA walks, calls in the loans and we have to sell every last decent player we have to survive.

I'm astounded some so called supporters, shareholders or not, would welcome that outcome.

 

He’s too heavily invested, with the benefit of a huge potential upside, to walk away…

[GMF 757]

1 minute ago, Indy said:

Yes that’s my view, it’s sad that we’re in this potential position given Webbers statement on the last regime when he came in!

We could be making a rod for your own back I mean if he wanted to he could call in the loans unless there’s an agreement in a timeline, then virtually making the club at its lowest value and possibly make an aggressive takeover at a lowball figure! 

DON’T PANIC, MR MAINWARING…. 

[Indy 3,315]

Just now, GMF said:

He’s too heavily invested, with the benefit of a huge potential upside, to walk away…

Yes I don’t think he would walk away but he and his team could make it difficult for the current PLC as it is to force a cheap buyout, couldn’t he?

[Indy 3,315]

1 minute ago, GMF said:

DON’T PANIC, MR MAINWARING…. 

I’m not yet….”but they don’t like it up um!”

[GMF 757]

4 minutes ago, Indy said:

Yes I don’t think he would walk away but he and his team could make it difficult for the current PLC as it is to force a cheap buyout, couldn’t he?

Possibly, but why would they, unless it was a matter of last resort?

He’s invested north of £13m in shares, the majority of which are attracting interest, plus north of £33m in unsecured loans, priced according (before someone bemoans those rates of interest aren’t available to other shareholders) and, as @Parma Ham's gone mouldy has pointed out, there’s enormous potential equity upside further down the line. 

[Indy 3,315]

20 minutes ago, GMF said:

Possibly, but why would they, unless it was a matter of last resort?

He’s invested north of £13m in shares, the majority of which are attracting interest, plus north of £33m in unsecured loans, priced according (before someone bemoans those rates of interest aren’t available to other shareholders) and, as @Parma Ham's gone mouldy has pointed out, there’s enormous potential equity upside further down the line. 

Sorry that was my idea last resort! If the vote goes against him then there’s one of two ways, sit tight, collect on the loans and not invest or loan anything more, if the debt goes up to an unmanageable level he then can make a cheap aggressive takeover and buy all shares on a trigger event while the clubs value is way down! Forcing the sale, or he could go over 30% and trigger the buyout clause…..but why would he do that now when the clubs value without promotion is based on future asset sales of players?

Just pointing out that those who vote for profit might do well to consider all possibilities not just that they might not make a profit!

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

It seems (despite some confusion even within Carrow Road🤪) that the waiver decision will be a count of the number of shares being voted rather than one shareholding, one vote.

Theoretically at least the latter would have empowered the investors with a handful of shares. Going by the number of shares gives more weight to those with larger holdings.

My list is out of date, but for this purpose I have now excluded Archant, and also Foulger and the old JImmy Jones tranche (as well as the Sharman shares?) since Attanasio has those and cannot take part.

On the face of it though that leaves RG Carter with 7,500, fifteen ADs (I am assuming here😍) with a total of 15,000, and others with three or four thousand each. Adding up to around 40,000. Plus the Canaries Trust, if it can vote the size of its holding as one tranche.

Of course there is no reason to suppose the small minorities would vote en bloc or that these larger minorities would. But if some of the latter vote the same way then that would be likely to settle the result.

Bearing in mind at all times that not only is the advice from Carrow Road to vote in favour, but that the vote has been so set up that a rejection would not achieve its aim...

[GMF 757]

18 minutes ago, Indy said:

Sorry that was my idea last resort! If the vote goes against him then there’s one of two ways, sit tight, collect on the loans and not invest or loan anything more, if the debt goes up to an unmanageable level he then can make a cheap aggressive takeover and buy all shares on a trigger event while the clubs value is way down! Forcing the sale, or he could go over 30% and trigger the buyout clause…..but why would he do that now when the clubs value without promotion is based on future asset sales of players?

Just pointing out that those who vote for profit might do well to consider all possibilities not just that they might not make a profit!

MA acquired the minority shares for £25.00 each, and the proposed allotment price is also £25.00 each.

If the allotment doesn’t happen, then they will have to revisit what happens next. Doing nothing isn’t an option, because the existing loans to Norfolk are all short term.

If, however, an offer was considered an appropriate option (which would probably be one option of several, and by no means guaranteed) any offer forthcoming would almost certainly be at the same price. If some shareholders are thinking that it would be higher. I’d suggest, in my opinion, that is probably wishful thinking.