nutty nigel 7,716 Posted September 27, 2023 5 minutes ago, shefcanary said: She did indeed, and that is where me and others on here were shocked, not that she had experienced those difficulties, but that she had not anticipated them given our club's unique circumstances (which I have recognised for a very long time). This is where I certainly (through that old governance element again) would have expected the Board and the Executive to have had this in the forefront of their mind from the start. I appreciate they may not have come across such circumstances in their business lives before, but that is when you need the ear of an independent person on the Board who may well have done! Quite possibly but I'veĀ been 'different' both in business and personally and first hand found how difficult this is in this day and age. The model has to fit the predefined criteria. If it doesn't no amount of forward planning can help you. But this is just my guesswork on it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nuff Said 5,322 Posted September 27, 2023 1 hour ago, nutty nigel said: I commented because a poster seemed to claim that the FPAs on here knew better than Michael and Delia. That would be a preposterous claim.Ā I thought the same as you Nutty. There seemed to be an implication that Delia and Michael were like a couple of pensioners who were being hoodwinked into having their drive retarmaced for Ā£15,000. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Robert N. LiM 4,774 Posted September 27, 2023 24 minutes ago, Nuff Said said: I thought the same as you Nutty. There seemed to be an implication that Delia and Michael were like a couple of pensioners who were being hoodwinked into having their drive retarmaced for Ā£15,000. That implication is rife on this forum as a whole, and I do admire @nutty nigel for defending D&M against it - rightly, in my view. But I don't think it's especially rife on this thread, which has been full of thoughtful, interesting posts from informed and clearly intelligent posters. The criticisms aimed at D&M from those posters have been reasonable - and presumably NN wouldn't claim that D&M are above any kind of criticism. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nutty nigel 7,716 Posted September 27, 2023 15 minutes ago, Robert N. LiM said: That implication is rife on this forum as a whole, and I do admire @nutty nigel for defending D&M against it - rightly, in my view. But I don't think it's especially rife on this thread, which has been full of thoughtful, interesting posts from informed and clearly intelligent posters. The criticisms aimed at D&M from those posters have been reasonable - and presumably NN wouldn't claim that D&M are above any kind of criticism. That's fair. But I did quote the post. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GMF 757 Posted September 27, 2023 3 hours ago, nutty nigel said: Back to a more general point. At the forum in the Forum Zoe explained why there were difficulties getting this done. My view on what she was saying is that our football club doesn't fit with the norm. I can understand this. Ā Being candid, this was a misleading statement, as NCFC is a public limited company and therefore the Takeover Code applies. There are no exemptions, just because itās a football club. For sure, there were difficulties, not least because the shares are not traded on any authorised stock exchange, but to imply that the rules somehow didnāt apply is wrong. It might suit the narrative, to garner support for the waiver, but this doesnāt alter the basic principle. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GMF 757 Posted September 27, 2023 3 hours ago, shefcanary said: She did indeed, and that is where me and others on here were shocked, not that she had experienced those difficulties, but that she had not anticipated them given our club's unique circumstances (which I have recognised for a very long time). I would suggest that the difficulties were not as a result āunique circumstancesā, but rather they were the result of the proposed course of action, which fundamentally went against the tenet of the code.Ā 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PurpleCanary 5,650 Posted September 27, 2023 21 minutes ago, GMF said: I would suggest that the difficulties were not as a result āunique circumstancesā, but rather they were the result of the proposed course of action, which fundamentally went against the tenet of the code.Ā Yes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Graham Paddons Beard 2,504 Posted September 27, 2023 There really does appear to have been surprise that the Takeover Code applied. At best , poor advice .Ā Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GMF 757 Posted September 27, 2023 Just now, Graham Paddons Beard said: There really does appear to have been surprise that the Takeover Code applied. At best , poor advice .Ā Knowing the advisors involved, personally, I wouldnāt question the advice given. Whether it was ignored, or accepted as a challenge, who knows, but I donāt think the advice could be questioned. Personal opinion, of course. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nutty nigel 7,716 Posted September 27, 2023 40 minutes ago, GMF said: Being candid, this was a misleading statement, as NCFC is a public limited company and therefore the Takeover Code applies. There are no exemptions, just because itās a football club. For sure, there were difficulties, not least because the shares are not traded on any authorised stock exchange, but to imply that the rules somehow didnāt apply is wrong. It might suit the narrative, to garner support for the waiver, but this doesnāt alter the basic principle. I'm not sure what Zoe actually said as to whether it was misleading or not. My view about what she said can't really be misleading. Like everyone's view it an be wrong. Probably is! However we don't really know what the original plan was. What we have now is what I assume has been agreed with the TP. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Graham Paddons Beard 2,504 Posted September 27, 2023 (edited) 13 minutes ago, GMF said: Knowing the advisors involved, personally, I wouldnāt question the advice given. Whether it was ignored, or accepted as a challenge, who knows, but I donāt think the advice could be questioned. Personal opinion, of course. Sorry, Ā wasnāt meaning to make comment on any professional advice. I should have finished the saying. At best , poor advice. At worst , completely ignoring it !Ā Edited September 27, 2023 by Graham Paddons Beard Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GMF 757 Posted September 27, 2023 7 minutes ago, nutty nigel said: What we have now is what I assume has been agreed with the TP. What we have now is not the TP agreement to the waiver, itās the TP agreeing that the proposal should be put to shareholders for a vote, which accords with the Code. Thatās not quite the same thing, however the Club wants you to believe it to be. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nutty nigel 7,716 Posted September 27, 2023 Just now, GMF said: What we have now is not the TP agreement to the waiver, itās the TP agreeing that the proposal should be put to shareholders for a vote, which accords with the Code. Thatās not quite the same thing, however the Club wants you to believe it to be. Yes I know what we have now. Just don't know what we wanted originally. If that's in the public domain I can't remember seeing it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GMF 757 Posted September 27, 2023 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Graham Paddons Beard said: Sorry, Ā wasnāt meaning to make comment on any professional advice.Ā I didnāt actually interpreted it as such. I just wanted to make the observation that I believe the advice was almost certainly sound, but the course of action chosen was always going to be challenging.Ā Edited September 27, 2023 by GMF Typo Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GMF 757 Posted September 27, 2023 2 minutes ago, nutty nigel said: Yes I know what we have now. Just don't know what we wanted originally. If that's in the public domain I can't remember seeing it. I can hazard an opinion. There was a need for refinancing, MA said yes, with conditionality attached, namely parity, but that is contrary to the code. I still maintain that parity could have been achieved, via a different method, but the route chosen is the primary cause for the delay. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nutty nigel 7,716 Posted September 27, 2023 10 minutes ago, GMF said: I can hazard an opinion. There was a need for refinancing, MA said yes, with conditionality attached, namely parity, but that is contrary to the code. I still maintain that parity could have been achieved, via a different method, but the route chosen is the primary cause for the delay. Could be. I wonder if we'll ever know. We also don't know where this was at when the forum in the Forum took place. Ā Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Real Buh 3,499 Posted September 27, 2023 Share parity is a financial concept that signifies the equality in value or price per unit of two or more securities, typically stocks or bonds. When securities exhibit share parity, it means they are trading at the same price, eliminating any relative advantage or disadvantage between them. This equilibrium in pricing is fundamental for market efficiency and is often sought after by investors and traders looking to make fair and informed investment decisions. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GMF 757 Posted September 27, 2023 3 minutes ago, nutty nigel said: Could be. I wonder if we'll ever know. We also don't know where this was at when the forum in the Forum took place. Ā Beforehandā¦ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GMF 757 Posted September 27, 2023 1 minute ago, The Real Buh said: Share parity is a financial concept that signifies the equality in value or price per unit of two or more securities, typically stocks or bonds. When securities exhibit share parity, it means they are trading at the same price, eliminating any relative advantage or disadvantage between them. This equilibrium in pricing is fundamental for market efficiency and is often sought after by investors and traders looking to make fair and informed investment decisions. This is about parity in absolute terms on the number of shares held. Pricing is therefore irrelevant in these circumstances. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shefcanary 2,546 Posted September 27, 2023 Just now, GMF said: This is about parity in absolute terms on the number of shares held. Pricing is therefore irrelevant in these circumstances. Although it does seem that based on all recent shares Attanasio has bought and this allotment, all parties seem determined that Attanasio should pay no more for his shares than the other shareholders have paid!Ā 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Real Buh 3,499 Posted September 27, 2023 2 minutes ago, GMF said: This is about parity in absolute terms on the number of shares held. Pricing is therefore irrelevant in these circumstances. Share pricing, often referred to as stock pricing, represents the current market value of a company's shares or stocks. It's a crucial aspect of financial markets, indicating what investors are willing to pay for a piece of ownership in a company. Share pricing is influenced by a multitude of factors, including the company's financial performance, market sentiment, economic conditions, and investor expectations. It's constantly changing as buyers and sellers interact in the stock market, making it a dynamic and essential element of investment analysis and decision-making. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nutty nigel 7,716 Posted September 27, 2023 3 minutes ago, GMF said: Beforehandā¦ So what was misleading? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GMF 757 Posted September 27, 2023 2 minutes ago, shefcanary said: Although it does seem that based on all recent shares Attanasio has bought and this allotment, all parties seem determined that Attanasio should pay no more for his shares than the other shareholders have paid!Ā This is correct. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GMF 757 Posted September 27, 2023 1 minute ago, nutty nigel said: So what was misleading? The comment made at the Forum. They were already aware of the course of action being taken, together with the challenges faced by it. To suggest that the circumstances didnāt really apply, when it was well known that a waiver would be required, was clearly misleading.Ā Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nutty nigel 7,716 Posted September 27, 2023 1 minute ago, GMF said: The comment made at the Forum. They were already aware of the course of action being taken, together with the challenges faced by it. To suggest that the circumstances didnāt really apply, when it was well known that a waiver would be required, was clearly misleading.Ā Ok. I'm not privy to that information. Thanks GMF. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
essex canary 525 Posted September 27, 2023 1 hour ago, GMF said: What we have now is not the TP agreement to the waiver, itās the TP agreeing that the proposal should be put to shareholders for a vote, which accords with the Code. Thatās not quite the same thing, however the Club wants you to believe it to be. More misleading. Something of a trend. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GMF 757 Posted September 27, 2023 9 minutes ago, essex canary said: More misleading. Something of a trend. What took you so long? I was expecting you to be all over thisā¦Ā Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nutty nigel 7,716 Posted September 27, 2023 Any one voted? I abstained. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PurpleCanary 5,650 Posted September 28, 2023 (edited) On 25/09/2023 at 17:35, GMF said: Canāt imagine that it would make any difference to the outcome of voting, but Iām bemused by this, especially since there was extensive scrutiny of the documents before they were approved for release. GMF, itās arguable that someone at the Takeover Panel should at least have wondered if Smith and Smith might be related, even if it is the commonest English surname. But as Ā youāve indicated,Ā the clubās executives and presumably McCormicks, its outside professional advisers, apparentlyĀ had months of talks with the Panel, which means ample opportunity to mention that Tom was Deliaās nephew, and potentially the inheritor of all those shares. Hard to imagine how such a plain conflict of interest was not thought to be relevant when the question arose as to whether Smith could be categorised as independent and so able to make theĀ supposedly unbiased recommendation to shareholders to approve a waiver. In isolation, although embarrassing for the club, the Panel finding out it hadnāt been so informedĀ and Smithās consequent axing are not of major importance, since the outcome of the vote wonāt change. But it is not the first example of amateurism at Carrow Road during this saga. Presumably the club hired McCormicks to provide experienced guidance for our people, for whom this was their first real encounter with the Takeover Code/Panel. Parma has quietly wondered about a possible power mismatch between McCormicks and Linklaters, Attanasioās heavy-hitting advisers, in terms of the deal. And yesterday there were posts here wondering whether S&J have been getting the best advice possible, from within the club and without. Impossible to say from the outside, and I must stress that McCormicks may well have done a thoroughly professional job, and that within the club there are no doubt some capable executives. But it is hard to escape the conclusion that the club, which ultimately has to be responsible for its actions, significantly underestimated the challenges and the seriousness of dealing with the Code/Panel. Certainly lessons need to be learned before the fun starts again, when Attanasio comes back with his proposal to storm past 50 per cent of the Ordinaries and we go once more through this palaver with the Code and the Panel!š¤© Edited September 28, 2023 by PurpleCanary 2 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
essex canary 525 Posted September 28, 2023 9 hours ago, GMF said: What took you so long? I was expecting you to be all over thisā¦Ā Otherwise engaged. The basic problem seems to be lack of leadership in taking a contextual approach rather than the seemingly always preferred deterministic one. That said the misleading problem has deeper roots back to 2002. Why endorse a Fans Trust approach but not embrace it? Wasn't a season ticket arrangement synonymous with owning 1,000 shares? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites