Mark Attanasio

[GMF 756]

13 minutes ago, NewNestCarrow said:

TBF, the administration of the NCFC Shareholders' Register is not beyond criticism.

Was Adam Drury really untraceable? Or Iwan Roberts?  

The main thrust of my point was that many of the 2003/04 squad purchased shares, something that doesn't appear to be widely known.

 

To be honest, the final sentence of my previous reply wasn’t aimed at you. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.

The management of any database is fraught with potential issues, some down to the owner, others typically the result of external factors.

This of course doesn’t mean that they can’t be more proactive, as Adam Drury can usually be found in the Gunn Club and Iwan was in the press box last night! (Winks)

Edited September 21, 2023 by GMF
Typo

[Soldier on 160]

1 hour ago, GMF said:

I can’t emphasise this enough, despite what some may want to believe, this has nothing to do with D&M. 

So Delia and Michael didn’t want a 40/40 parity arrangement . Do you mind me asking how you know this ??

[GMF 756]

3 minutes ago, Soldier on said:

So Delia and Michael didn’t want a 40/40 parity arrangement . Do you mind me asking how you know this ??

I didn’t actually say that, although they are clearly agreeable to it.

Sure, I’ve been advised that was the proposal by several people within the Club. 

[Big Vince 319]

7 hours ago, Ren said:

Re point 5.  I am pretty sure that if you approached the club to purchase shares before MA appeared, the club were selling the unsold capital at £100 per share.  This was naughty as the club had a list of buyers who were prepaid to sell at £25 but of course the club would not have benefitted from that.  

It does indeed ask questions as to how we have suddenly arrived back at the price of £25 a share.   

Because Attanasio thinks he ought to get the club as cheaply as possible. Who are the club to say he shouldn't, given this is, for them, a once in a quarter century opportunity?

[essex canary 504]

5 hours ago, Big Vince said:

Because Attanasio thinks he ought to get the club as cheaply as possible. Who are the club to say he shouldn't, given this is, for them, a once in a quarter century opportunity?

Maybe MA has a point in that he is bailing out the mortgaging of parachute receipts. At the same time though seeking interest on his loans in contrary to previous practice.

@Ren I don't believe the Club were selling at £100 per share recently but they did to some extent in 2014 and 2015 before Tom Smith bought the last allocation for £1.

[GMF 756]

8 hours ago, essex canary said:

Maybe MA has a point in that he is bailing out the mortgaging of parachute receipts. At the same time though seeking interest on his loans in contrary to previous practice.

@Ren I don't believe the Club were selling at £100 per share recently but they did to some extent in 2014 and 2015 before Tom Smith bought the last allocation for £1.

The last £100.00 allotment was back in 2014.

As for the £1.00 allotment, when are you going to let it go? Harking on about it isn’t going to alter it retrospectively, and, ultimately, does you no favours.

 

[essex canary 504]

6 hours ago, GMF said:

The last £100.00 allotment was back in 2014.

As for the £1.00 allotment, when are you going to let it go? Harking on about it isn’t going to alter it retrospectively, and, ultimately, does you no favours.

 

Aside from the £1 issue the following are nonetheless relevant:

1. The proposals have not dealt with the issue of those who paid excess prices for shareholdings or who own excess holdings. The Independent Directors ought reasonably to have taken account of that in their Report even if it was before their time.

2. All board members should be responsible for ensuring that efforts to update the shareholder database are maximised especially when they actively want to use it.

3. Norfolk Group ought to demonstrate their commitment or otherwise to the Club's history and principles regarding shareholding.

4. Prior to the Canaries Trust the Club had a Shareholders Association that ought to actively tune in to these issues. Query whether the Trusts 'critical friend' role should extend to doing likewise? 

 

[GMF 756]

33 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Aside from the £1 issue the following are nonetheless relevant:

1. The proposals have not dealt with the issue of those who paid excess prices for shareholdings or who own excess holdings. The Independent Directors ought reasonably to have taken account of that in their Report even if it was before their time.

2. All board members should be responsible for ensuring that efforts to update the shareholder database are maximised especially when they actively want to use it.

3. Norfolk Group ought to demonstrate their commitment or otherwise to the Club's history and principles regarding shareholding.

4. Prior to the Canaries Trust the Club had a Shareholders Association that ought to actively tune in to these issues. Query whether the Trusts 'critical friend' role should extend to doing likewise? 

 

1. For the allotment of new shares, the club sets the price, but it’s down to potential buyers whether or not they want to accept the price. It’s exactly the same for subsequent transfers by existing shareholders. Beyond managing the transfer process, the club has no responsibility for the price.

2. Your comment implies that they aren’t doing so, although your assertion to support this is unclear.

3. Arguably this is a valid point. The moment of a new allotment probably isn’t the right time, but this would make sense in the near future.

4. I really can’t comment on the actions of the Shareholder Association. Aside from being aware of its existence, I don’t have any knowledge of them. Once the general meeting and AGM are done, I suspect there will be a meeting with the company secretary.  For the moment, I don’t have anything to say on this, but I suspect that there will be a few matters to discuss.

[Soldier on 160]

1 hour ago, GMF said:

1. For the allotment of new shares, the club sets the price, but it’s down to potential buyers whether or not they want to accept the price. It’s exactly the same for subsequent transfers by existing shareholders. Beyond managing the transfer process, the club has no responsibility for the price.

2. Your comment implies that they aren’t doing so, although your assertion to support this is unclear.

3. Arguably this is a valid point. The moment of a new allotment probably isn’t the right time, but this would make sense in the near future.

4. I really can’t comment on the actions of the Shareholder Association. Aside from being aware of its existence, I don’t have any knowledge of them. Once the general meeting and AGM are done, I suspect there will be a meeting with the company secretary.  For the moment, I don’t have anything to say on this, but I suspect that there will be a few matters to discuss.

Presumably once all this has been ratified we will hear more about the clubs future for all involved parties.

[TIL 1010 4,781]

1 hour ago, GMF said:

 

4. I really can’t comment on the actions of the Shareholder Association. Aside from being aware of its existence, I don’t have any knowledge of them.

Didn't it cease to exist during the tenure of McNally ?

[GMF 756]

23 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

Didn't it cease to exist during the tenure of McNally ?

Around that point, if I recall.

Most unusual for a group to be marginalised… (winks)

[essex canary 504]

52 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

Didn't it cease to exist during the tenure of McNally ?

I was never aware of its existence as such until discovering fairly recently that the apparent first Chairman of the AD group had previously been Chairman of the Shareholders Association. 

Just a belief that Non-Executive Directors should protect fans from CEO vandalism. They should also ensure the availability of the Shareholders Association in this instance as whilst pleasing to see that the Canaries Trust has made some good contributions, it's remit doesn't appear to be the same.

[TIL 1010 4,781]

Anybody a clue what ' CEO vandalism ' is ?

[Indy 3,314]

26 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

Anybody a clue what ' CEO vandalism ' is ?

Constant Essex Overload?

[GMF 756]

54 minutes ago, essex canary said:

I was never aware of its existence as such until discovering fairly recently that the apparent first Chairman of the AD group had previously been Chairman of the Shareholders Association. 

Just a belief that Non-Executive Directors should protect fans from CEO vandalism. They should also ensure the availability of the Shareholders Association in this instance as whilst pleasing to see that the Canaries Trust has made some good contributions, it's remit doesn't appear to be the same.

Any chance we can have this in English please. 

[GMF 756]

3 hours ago, Soldier on said:

Presumably once all this has been ratified we will hear more about the clubs future for all involved parties.

You would hope so. 

[Robert Ketts Yellow Army 15]

Can someone summarise this thread in one paragraph please? 

[The Real Buh 3,479]

This is thread is like the anti-Quagliarella thread

nobody is having fun

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,036]

12 minutes ago, Robert Ketts Yellow Army said:

Can someone summarise this thread in one paragraph please? 

American looking to invest in the club, taking a long while, Essex bloke unhappy with just about anything you could be unhappy about, you are welcome..............

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

15 minutes ago, Robert Ketts Yellow Army said:

Can someone summarise this thread in one paragraph please? 

‘‘No one knows anything.’’

[Midlands Yellow 4,049]

20 minutes ago, Robert Ketts Yellow Army said:

Can someone summarise this thread in one paragraph please? 

There will be a full takeover but the most drawn out one in football history. 

[The Real Buh 3,479]

23 minutes ago, Robert Ketts Yellow Army said:

Can someone summarise this thread in one paragraph please? 

“There’s still a chance Quagliarella could sign for us”

[GMF 756]

7 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

‘‘No one knows anything.’’

For £1.00 a share and I’ll tell you everything that’s wrong with NCFC… 

[GMF 756]

30 minutes ago, Robert Ketts Yellow Army said:

Can someone summarise this thread in one paragraph please? 

The inheritors aren’t happy, Tom’s still smiling, D&M won’t let go, Attanasio is doing his Nicholas Parsons impression, having bagged the Sale of the Century, but, apart from that, nothing to see here, please move on… 

[chicken 2,640]

2 hours ago, TIL 1010 said:

Anybody a clue what ' CEO vandalism ' is ?

I think someone wrote a rude name on the front of his maths book... 

[Indy 3,314]

35 minutes ago, GMF said:

The inheritors aren’t happy, Tom’s still smiling, D&M won’t let go, Attanasio is doing his Nicholas Parsons impression, having bagged the Sale of the Century, but, apart from that, nothing to see here, please move on… 

And Essex is unhappy that he might not make a fortune from his shares! 

Edited September 22, 2023 by Indy

[GMF 756]

2 minutes ago, Indy said:

And Essex is unhappy that he might not make a fortune from his shares! 

And Mark Attanasio aiming to satisfy his desire for share purchases at £1.00 a pop… 

[TIL 1010 4,781]

4 hours ago, essex canary said:

I was never aware of its existence as such until discovering fairly recently that the apparent first Chairman of the AD group had previously been Chairman of the Shareholders Association. 

Just a belief that Non-Executive Directors should protect fans from CEO vandalism. They should also ensure the availability of the Shareholders Association in this instance as whilst pleasing to see that the Canaries Trust has made some good contributions, it's remit doesn't appear to be the same.

So you want the non executive directors to protect the fans from a CEO that we do not have ?

[essex canary 504]

4 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

So you want the non executive directors to protect the fans from a CEO that we do not have ?

I would have expected them to protect fans from him when he was here.

In a sense the same can be said about Stu with his comments about women's football and divorcees. 

[TIL 1010 4,781]

2 minutes ago, essex canary said:

I would have expected them to protect fans from him when he was here.

In a sense the same can be said about Stu with his comments about women's football and divorcees. 

In the same sense this forum needs a moderator to protect posters from you.