Mark Attanasio

[shefcanary 2,444]

21 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."

I too am unclear. My assumption is the same as yours, but Attanasio's loan is at an interest rate double that of the original loans. Again, my assumption is that Attanasio is foregoing repayments and is not seeking payment of interest, so in fact making it more affordable to the club, as other "benevolent" owners do (e.g. Bloom at Brighton). All of these are rather big assumptions.

As I've said from the beginning of this part of the prolonged saga, if only the GM papers included the latest interim accounts with notes we would have had definitive confirmation of all this. Now we won't know until after the vote given the TP's stance on additional information. All very opaque. 

[Mello Yello 2,302]

17 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

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. 

 

 

I think MA looks like Jerry Springer....but with darker hair.....

[norfolkngood 1,087]

My question is why the 3 year term of 40% split each ? 

MA must know if he wants to buy the club or not  why the wait ? ,

Delia & MWJ still be on the board to help out if he wanted that but seems strange the wait ,

or is it Delia and MWJ still wanting to keep hold of 40 % ? 

 

[shefcanary 2,444]

17 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

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. 

 

 

What might lower your cynicism is that I see this move by Attanasio as being a project for his son to run. Young Mike seems very enthusiastic from his social media posts, I expect once Attanasio senior is fully in charge in 2026 that Mike will be installed as CEO. All the Delaware stuff is merely to protect his initial investment.

[GMF 756]

4 minutes ago, norfolkngood said:

My question is why the 3 year term of 40% split each ? 

MA must know if he wants to buy the club or not  why the wait ? ,

Delia & MWJ still be on the board to help out if he wanted that but seems strange the wait ,

or is it Delia and MWJ still wanting to keep hold of 40 % ? 

 

Personally, I’ve always been of the view that it’s probably easier, as an outsider, to suggest what they should do, than when it’s actually your own decision to make with, what’s effectively, a community asset.

Whatever your own opinion on D&M, there’s no doubt that they absolutely care passionately about the Club, and, I suspect, would absolutely hate to see it passed on to the wrong person. They’ve seen too many bad examples elsewhere to support their viewpoint.

I’m well aware that this sits uncomfortably with many, but I’m trying to look at it logically, as I’m well aware that some will be only too happy to tell me otherwise.

[norfolkngood 1,087]

Just now, GMF said:

Personally, I’ve always been of the view that it’s probably easier, as an outsider, to suggest what they should do, than when it’s actually your own decision to make with, what’s effectively, a community asset.

Whatever your own opinion on D&M, there’s no doubt that they absolutely care passionately about the Club, and, I suspect, would absolutely hate to see it passed on to the wrong person. They’ve seen too many bad examples elsewhere to support their viewpoint.

I’m well aware that this sits uncomfortably with many, but I’m trying to look at it logically, as I’m well aware that some will be only too happy to tell me otherwise.

Oh do not get me wrong i am 100 % sure Delia and MWJ want the best for the club ,

i do not know like others if we will get what is best but that would be the same with anyone buying it ,

problem is if someone has Money and 40 % in 3 years if Delia and MWJ do not think MA is the right man it will be to late anyway ,

 

 

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

8 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

I too am unclear. My assumption is the same as yours, but Attanasio's loan is at an interest rate double that of the original loans. Again, my assumption is that Attanasio is foregoing repayments and is not seeking payment of interest, so in fact making it more affordable to the club, as other "benevolent" owners do (e.g. Bloom at Brighton). All of these are rather big assumptions.

As I've said from the beginning of this part of the prolonged saga, if only the GM papers included the latest interim accounts with notes we would have had definitive confirmation of all this. Now we won't know until after the vote given the TP's stance on additional information. All very opaque. 

Shef, as far as the Panel's rejection of a Q&A is concerned my suspicion is that it was not so much worried about extra information per se but that what resulted would be pro-waiver spin.🤩

And as far as these big loans are concerned, perhaps the Panel decided they were not inextricably linked to what is a vote on the particular point of the waiver and the subsequent share purchase.

[GMF 756]

1 minute ago, norfolkngood said:

Oh do not get me wrong i am 100 % sure Delia and MWJ want the best for the club ,

i do not know like others if we will get what is best but that would be the same with anyone buying it ,

problem is if someone has Money and 40 % in 3 years if Delia and MWJ do not think MA is the right man it will be to late anyway ,

 

 

I have no issue with the proposed lock-step agreement for three years. Seems a far more sensible “get to know you” approach than an immediate sale (which D&M don’t seem to want anyway).

[shefcanary 2,444]

1 minute ago, PurpleCanary said:

And as far as these big loans are concerned, perhaps the Panel decided they were not inextricably linked to what is a vote on the particular point of the waiver and the subsequent share purchase.

They could only have this view this based on other information presented to them, but not to us. It's so frustrating - I wanna know! 🙂 

[Robert N. LiM 4,464]

I'm actually very heartened to see all this caution, even cynicism about the Attanasio takeover. I think I'm basically in the position of 'if D&M think he's a good guy, that'll have to do for me', but I think it says quite a lot about us as a fan base that we're not all just going nuts about the prospect of more money coming into the club, but that we care who the new owner is going to be and want to preserve what we see as special about the club. I'm not sure it'll ever be possible for NCFC to square the circle of competing in the top flight and preserving a genuine community feel, but it's something to aspire to, and it really heartens me to see so many people think there's more to this than money or league position. On the ball, City and be at least slightly mindful of the danger.

Edited September 15, 2023 by Robert N. LiM

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

2 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

They could only have this view this based on other information presented to them, but not to us. It's so frustrating - I wanna know! 🙂 

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!!!

[Robert N. LiM 4,464]

Just now, Robert N. LiM said:

I'm actually very heartened to see all this caution, even cynicism about the Attanasio takeover. I think I'm basically in the position of 'if D&M think he's a good guy, that'll have to do for me', but I think it says quite a lot about us as a fan base that we're not all just going nuts about the prospect of more money coming into the club, but that we care who the new owner is going to be and want to preserve what we see as special about the club. I'm not sure it'll ever be possible for NCFC to square the circle of competing in the top flight and preserving a genuine community feel, but it's something to aspire to, and it really heartens me to see so many people think there's more to this than money or league position. On the ball, City and be at least slightly mindful of the danger.

And this seems to contrast very favourably with the Everton takeover in which one a**ehole has sold a venerable football club to a whole bunch of a**eholes over what seems like a coffee.

[GMF 756]

2 minutes ago, Robert N. LiM said:

I'm actually very heartened to see all this caution, even cynicism about the Attanasio takeover. I think I'm basically in the position of 'if D&M think he's a good guy, that'll have to do for me', but I think it says quite a lot about us as a fan base that we're not all just going nuts about the prospect of more money coming into the club, but that we care who the new owner is going to be and want to preserve what we see as special about the club. I'm not sure it'll ever be possible for NCFC to square the circle of competing in the top flight and preserving a genuine community feel, but it's something to aspire to, and it really heartens me to see so many people think there's more to this than money or league position. On the ball, City and be at least slightly mindful of the danger.

He’s put in over £40m so far, and there’s still some accusing him of being an American version of self-funding… 

[GMF 756]

On 12/09/2023 at 19:01, GMF said:

I’d always presumed that the c-preference shares would be converted into ordinary shares, making MA the largest shareholder, but still not a majority shareholder. 

Right, I’ve been given more insight into the C-preference shares. I clearly misunderstood the situation. 

Apparently, the conversion option into ordinaries only happens if there’s a Trigger Event during the seven year lifespan of the c-preference shares. In 7 years time (September 2029) they are either redeemed, or there’s another form of equity or refinancing required to establish an equivalent position. 

[Mello Yello 2,302]

If there's a stumbling block concerning MA and the Maj shareholdin' duo at the Club....I think I know where my pointy finger is gonna point....

[norfolkngood 1,087]

14 minutes ago, GMF said:

I have no issue with the proposed lock-step agreement for three years. Seems a far more sensible “get to know you” approach than an immediate sale (which D&M don’t seem to want anyway).

do you also see my point say in 3 years Delia and MWJ do not think he is the right man what can they do ? 

you have a shareholder on 40 % with more money than yourselves so you can not buy him out but he can buy D & M out ,

if that's the case MA might be a wonderful owner of course 

[GMF 756]

7 minutes ago, norfolkngood said:

do you also see my point say in 3 years Delia and MWJ do not think he is the right man what can they do ? 

you have a shareholder on 40 % with more money than yourselves so you can not buy him out but he can buy D & M out ,

if that's the case MA might be a wonderful owner of course 

It’s a fair question, although, like every other Boardroom situation, they would still have to work it out themselves, unless MA decides that he’s had enough. 

[norfolkngood 1,087]

1 minute ago, GMF said:

It’s a fair question, although, like every other Boardroom situation, they would still have to work it out themselves, unless MA decides that he’s had enough. 

Yes that is also a thought if he cools interest himself or he wants to get his hands on the club quicker ,

all unknown and just thinking of everything that might happen 

which of course it might go through smooth as butter 

 

[TIL 1010 4,781]

1 hour ago, PurpleCanary said:

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.

 

I believe the Turners still hold 5,000 shares but i am sure @GMF can confirm one way or the other.

[Robert N. LiM 4,464]

50 minutes ago, GMF said:

He’s put in over £40m so far, and there’s still some accusing him of being an American version of self-funding… 

As Mary Trump (who posts on here as @PurpleCanary) would say, "Too much and never enough"

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

32 minutes ago, Robert N. LiM said:

As Mary Trump (who posts on here as @PurpleCanary) would say, "Too much and never enough"

As always she is just so right!

[GMF 756]

1 hour ago, TIL 1010 said:

I believe the Turners still hold 5,000 shares but i am sure @GMF can confirm one way or the other.

Even though the information is within the public domain, I don’t think it’s appropriate to name specific shareholders.

Nevertheless, attached is a breakdown by size of shareholdings, for amusement.

Amendment - sorry, link not working properly 

Edited September 15, 2023 by GMF
Link not available

[Big Vince 319]

2 hours ago, GMF said:

I have no issue with the proposed lock-step agreement for three years. Seems a far more sensible “get to know you” approach than an immediate sale (which D&M don’t seem to want anyway).

It takes three years to learn how to boil an egg anyway.

[essex canary 504]

2 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

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...

A 'poll' in NCFC speak means by number of shares held. Defined as such in the 2002 Share Offer document though no definition in the circulated papers for this Poll. Confusion within Carrow Road any surprise?  

AD's numbered 24, some owned more than 1,000 probably around 30,000 in Total. Assuming no changes, inheritance itself doesn't impact that.   

[Big Vince 319]

2 hours ago, shefcanary said:

What might lower your cynicism is that I see this move by Attanasio as being a project for his son to run. Young Mike seems very enthusiastic from his social media posts, I expect once Attanasio senior is fully in charge in 2026 that Mike will be installed as CEO. All the Delaware stuff is merely to protect his initial investment.

Giampaolo and Gino Pozzo Mk2?

[Big Vince 319]

2 hours ago, GMF said:

He’s put in over £40m so far, and there’s still some accusing him of being an American version of self-funding… 

Of course he's an American version of self funding. £40m is peanuts these days and he's acquiring shares on the cheap at 2002 prices. Do you really think Delia would have got into bed with him otherwise? He's been handpicked by her and has signed up for a three year grooming/indoctrination period.

Edited September 15, 2023 by Big Vince

[essex canary 504]

8 minutes ago, Big Vince said:

Of course he's an American version of self funding. £40m is peanuts these days and he's acquiring shares on the cheap at 2002 prices. Do you really think Delia would have got into bed with him otherwise? He's been handpicked by her and has signed up for a three year grooming/indoctrination period.

Except one reason he is on board is self funding has gone wrong.

[Big Vince 319]

3 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Except one reason he is on board is self funding has gone wrong.

A club record six relegations later, did it ever go right?

[duke63 545]

As i just posted in another thread, the Everton owner's statement on why he is selling is very pertinent. Unless you are owned by one of those stated, any other clubs will ultimately be left behind and struggle to survive.

 

Moshiri said in a statement: "The nature of ownership and financing of top football clubs has changed immeasurably since I first invested in Everton over seven years ago.

"The days of an owner/benefactor are seemingly out of reach for most, and the biggest clubs are now typically owned by well-resourced private equity firms, specialist sports investors or state-backed companies and funds."

[Big Vince 319]

1 minute ago, duke63 said:

As i just posted in another thread, the Everton owner's statement on why he is selling is very pertinent. Unless you are owned by one of those stated, any other clubs will ultimately be left behind and struggle to survive.

 

Moshiri said in a statement: "The nature of ownership and financing of top football clubs has changed immeasurably since I first invested in Everton over seven years ago.

"The days of an owner/benefactor are seemingly out of reach for most, and the biggest clubs are now typically owned by well-resourced private equity firms, specialist sports investors or state-backed companies and funds."

The last bit is of course a euphemism for money associated with kidnappings, beheadings, stonings and murderous activities generally by authoritarian regimes.