Mark Attanasio

[The Real Buh 3,432]

7 minutes ago, essex canary said:

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?

Amidst life's bustling, I'm otherwise engaged,
In the dance of existence, on a different stage.
With duties and dreams that demand my embrace,
I navigate moments, each a delicate space.

Though distractions may beckon, I stay in the flow,
For in purposeful moments, my heart tends to glow.
With focus and purpose, I'll steadily engage,
In this intricate dance, on life's vibrant page.

[essex canary 496]

9 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

Any one voted?

I abstained.

Interesting that you refer to 'anyone'? Have the family shareholders to whom you donated placed their votes?

In relation to the misleading context of conflating the Rule 9 waiver with the future of the Club, perhaps abstain is the right answer. Many will feel like you hence why the whole expensive exercise is unlikely to reach a threshold which would be considered quorate in most organisations.

My vote was against for the reasons outlined in response to @GMF and because as @PurpleCanary states the whole performance is amateurish and needs to be resolved appropriately sooner rather than later.

In terms of filing my vote (on account of my holiday) before Tom's independence was withdrawn, maybe my vote will be disregarded? They probably only found that out because of my objection about his cheap shares which probably happened when Zoe was on maternity leave.

 

[Robert N. LiM 4,364]

3 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

In isolation, although embarrassing for the club, the Panel finding out it hadn’t been so informed and Smith’s consequent axing are not of major importance, since the outcome of the vote won’t change. But it is not the first example of amateurism at Carrow Road during this saga.

Hahaha, has this actually happened?! Missed this development if so. Amateur hour all round.

[TIL 1010 4,748]

2 hours ago, essex canary said:

 

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?

@GMF now look what you have gone and done.

 

[GMF 746]

5 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

@GMF now look what you have gone and done.

 

ALL. MY. FAULT…

[TIL 1010 4,748]

2 hours ago, essex canary said:

 

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?

You must consider that the Trust was a totally different animal back in 2002 and was aligned with Supporters Direct and not with Norwich City to any extent. In fact it declined an invitation to have representation on the SCG unlike numerous other supporters groups. At the time it made it known that they were not involved in club politics so i am not too sure what your ' endorse a Fans Trust approach ' actually means as the Trust did not embrace any such approach at that time. Everything to do with the Trust has changed drastically.

[GMF 746]

@PurpleCanary ignoring for one moment that the Independent Director previously worked at McCormicks, the firm is actually renowned within football for its work within the game. Indeed, they’ve acted for the Premier League on various matters.

Of course, it’s also worth observing that virtually all other clubs are private limited companies, so the interaction with the Takeover Code was probably a first. However, that doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t have been fully aware of its implications, especially in the context of the proposed deal.

Personally, and I’ve said this before, I doubt that their advice was anything but sound. I suspect that they would have highlighted the challenges with the proposals, but the decision was made to press ahead.

But, leaving aside all these concerns for one moment, the real issue is the need to drill down into the Terms Sheet. It gives a clear understanding of what was happening in December 2022 and January 2023.

The two December loans, which combined were for nearly £8m, were clearly intended to help with short term cash flow problems, as they were due to mature 1st September 2023.

However, by January, things were getting worse, as the Term Sheet confirmed the need for two further loans, for another £6.4m, plus a £21m credit line.

Let that sink in for a moment…

Second loan is the relevant loan. Now, of course, it could be purely coincidental that it was for $6,020,146.41, (don’t forget the 41 cents!) when converted at the relevant exchange rate, and then divided by £25.00, just so happened to coincide with the consideration due on 195,012 ordinary shares.

Parking that coincidence for a moment, the term sheet also refers to the maturity date for the Relevant Loan being the 6th February, some 17 days later. But, if the loan isn’t capitalised at maturity, then the repayment due is twice the loan amount.

Again, let that sink in for a moment - that’s pay day loan territory!

So, this loan was for a specific purpose, and, seemingly, conditional upon the simultaneous grant of the other loan agreement, also dated 20th January, plus the £21m credit line facility of the same date.

Someone has been very cute here. His support is coming at a huge price, and it’s shareholders who are being trampled over in order to solve a cash crisis, primarily caused by the independent director’s other half.

So, it probably doesn’t take much figuring out which way I will personally be voting in relation to the first resolution. Others, of course, are entitled to their own opinion.

OTBC

Edited September 28, 2023 by GMF
Typo

[TIL 1010 4,748]

Interesting indeed @GMF but your expression ' cash crisis ' should be sending out signals to even those that refuse to acknowledge our finances are in a perilous state and God knows where we would be without MA coming on board when he did.

[GMF 746]

5 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

Interesting indeed @GMF but your expression ' cash crisis ' should be sending out signals to even those that refuse to acknowledge our finances are in a perilous state and God knows where we would be without MA coming on board when he did.

Either AO would have been sold back in January, for the reported £20m, or that offer was never actually received and someone was being cute, back in May, in terms of managing supporters’ expectations and, simultaneously hoisting the “for sale” signs on a centre back.

I can hazard a guess as to which of those was the most likely.

[shefcanary 2,409]

1 hour ago, GMF said:

@PurpleCanary ignoring for one moment that the Independent Director previously worked at McCormicks, the firm is actually renowned within football for its work within the game. Indeed, they’ve acted for the Premier League on various matters.

Of course, it’s also worth observing that virtually all other clubs are private limited companies, so the interaction with the Takeover Code was probably a first. However, that doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t have been fully aware of its implications, especially in the context of the proposed deal.

Personally, and I’ve said this before, I doubt that their advice was anything but sound. I suspect that they would have highlighted the challenges with the proposals, but the decision was made to press ahead.

But, leaving aside all these concerns for one moment, the real issue is the need to drill down into the Terms Sheet. It gives a clear understanding of what was happening in December 2022 and January 2023.

The two December loans, which combined were for nearly £8m, were clearly intended to help with short term cash flow problems, as they were due to mature 1st September 2023.

However, by January, things were getting worse, as the Term Sheet confirmed the need for two further loans, for another £6.4m, plus a £21m credit line.

Let that sink in for a moment…

Second loan is the relevant loan. Now, of course, it could be purely coincidental that it was for $6,020,146.41, (don’t forget the 41 cents!) when converted at the relevant exchange rate, and then divided by £25.00, just so happened to coincide with the consideration due on 195,012 ordinary shares.

Parking that coincidence for a moment, the term sheet also refers to the maturity date for the Relevant Loan being the 6th February, some 17 days later. But, if the loan isn’t capitalised at maturity, then the repayment due is twice the loan amount.

Again, let that sink in for a moment - that’s pay day loan territory!

So, this loan was for a specific purpose, and, seemingly, conditional upon the simultaneous grant of the other loan agreement, also dated 20th January, plus the £21m credit line facility of the same date.

Someone has been very cute here. His support is coming at a huge price, and it’s shareholders who are being trampled over in order to solve a cash crisis, primarily caused by the independent director’s other half.

So, it probably doesn’t take much figuring out which way I will personally be voting in relation to the first resolution. Others, of course, are entitled to their own opinion.

OTBC

Thanks for delving into this @GMF Your conclusion of a worsening of the cash position in the period after the 2022 AGM in November and the closure of the January 2023 transfer window (I think this more than the payment of any salaries is the telling date and your subsequent discussion of the sale of AO is more than relevant) matches my own. However, without further disclosures from the club, I am unable to conclude whether this is because the club was still losing more money than it had budgeted for during that period (either salaries or transfer fees). Or, whether it was because they decided not to pursue the Ecotonian Financing, or maybe the people behind the Ecotonian Financing just withdrew (or put up too high a barrier) from negotiations. 

This whole process raises too many questions that could reasonably have been answered with normal listed company accounting disclosures. 

[GMF 746]

@shefcanary two observations are relevant.

First, all clubs, following relegation from the Premier League, will see their media revenues fall at a much faster rate than salaries, even with relegation clauses. This means that player sales are almost a necessity, but NCFC didn’t have any following relegation in 2022, so a major problem for all clubs became more acute for NCFC.

Second, by December 2022 base rates were already rising, making any debt financing (unless it was on fixed rate deals) even more expensive. I suspect that was another factor that went against whatever modelling NCFC did prior to the 2022-23 season.

There is no explanation for the lack of Ecotonian finance, I can only assume that whatever rates offered by MA were more favourable - you would certainly have hoped so!

 

[norfolkngood 1,087]

1 hour ago, GMF said:

@PurpleCanary ignoring for one moment that the Independent Director previously worked at McCormicks, the firm is actually renowned within football for its work within the game. Indeed, they’ve acted for the Premier League on various matters.

Of course, it’s also worth observing that virtually all other clubs are private limited companies, so the interaction with the Takeover Code was probably a first. However, that doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t have been fully aware of its implications, especially in the context of the proposed deal.

Personally, and I’ve said this before, I doubt that their advice was anything but sound. I suspect that they would have highlighted the challenges with the proposals, but the decision was made to press ahead.

But, leaving aside all these concerns for one moment, the real issue is the need to drill down into the Terms Sheet. It gives a clear understanding of what was happening in December 2022 and January 2023.

The two December loans, which combined were for nearly £8m, were clearly intended to help with short term cash flow problems, as they were due to mature 1st September 2023.

However, by January, things were getting worse, as the Term Sheet confirmed the need for two further loans, for another £6.4m, plus a £21m credit line.

Let that sink in for a moment…

Second loan is the relevant loan. Now, of course, it could be purely coincidental that it was for $6,020,146.41, (don’t forget the 41 cents!) when converted at the relevant exchange rate, and then divided by £25.00, just so happened to coincide with the consideration due on 195,012 ordinary shares.

Parking that coincidence for a moment, the term sheet also refers to the maturity date for the Relevant Loan being the 6th February, some 17 days later. But, if the loan isn’t capitalised at maturity, then the repayment due is twice the loan amount.

Again, let that sink in for a moment - that’s pay day loan territory!

So, this loan was for a specific purpose, and, seemingly, conditional upon the simultaneous grant of the other loan agreement, also dated 20th January, plus the £21m credit line facility of the same date.

Someone has been very cute here. His support is coming at a huge price, and it’s shareholders who are being trampled over in order to solve a cash crisis, primarily caused by the independent director’s other half.

So, it probably doesn’t take much figuring out which way I will personally be voting in relation to the first resolution. Others, of course, are entitled to their own opinion.

OTBC

Great Post GMF sorry for being Thick ! 

but when did the self funding model get ripped up and thrown away ,

the model was supposed to keep wages and spending in line with income ,

we went up we spent more , we go down we spend less ,

it was all supposed to be planned ahead and never put the club at risk ,

that's what we were told and sold by webber and owners ,

 

[komakino 272]

5 minutes ago, GMF said:

@shefcanary two observations are relevant.

First, all clubs, following relegation from the Premier League, will see their media revenues fall at a much faster rate than salaries, even with relegation clauses. This means that player sales are almost a necessity, but NCFC didn’t have any following relegation in 2022, so a major problem for all clubs became more acute for NCFC.

Second, by December 2022 base rates were already rising, making any debt financing (unless it was on fixed rate deals) even more expensive. I suspect that was another factor that went against whatever modelling NCFC did prior to the 2022-23 season.

There is no explanation for the lack of Ecotonian finance, I can only assume that whatever rates offered by MA were more favourable - you would certainly have hoped so!

 

This does highlight that the failure of selling Max and Todd after relegation, which the club - somewhat naively in my opinion - thought would be a given. Their combined sales when they were eventually sold was a modest £8.5M, whereas the figures being bandied around at their peak as we all know were significantly higher, which would have helped the club quite considerably.

[GMF 746]

20 minutes ago, norfolkngood said:

Great Post GMF sorry for being Thick ! 

but when did the self funding model get ripped up and thrown away ,

the model was supposed to keep wages and spending in line with income ,

we went up we spent more , we go down we spend less ,

it was all supposed to be planned ahead and never put the club at risk ,

that's what we were told and sold by webber and owners ,

 

I can’t answer that specifically, but some time between promotion in the summer of 2021 and now, it seems.

[norfolkngood 1,087]

7 minutes ago, komakino said:

This does highlight that the failure of selling Max and Todd after relegation, which the club - somewhat naively in my opinion - thought would be a given. Their combined sales when they were eventually sold was a modest £8.5M, whereas the figures being bandied around at their peak as we all know were significantly higher, which would have helped the club quite considerably.

i agree to a point ,

i think they were both sold very cheap but i do not know if there was any interest seemed to be but different to a bid ,

i am starting to feel and see even if we had of got say 20 million each ,

it would have been wasted away just like all the other money ,

pretty sad how it has come to all this debt and needing MA to help us out 

[shefcanary 2,409]

9 minutes ago, norfolkngood said:

Great Post GMF sorry for being Thick ! 

but when did the self funding model get ripped up and thrown away ,

the model was supposed to keep wages and spending in line with income ,

we went up we spent more , we go down we spend less ,

it was all supposed to be planned ahead and never put the club at risk ,

that's what we were told and sold by webber and owners ,

 

I'm sure they haven't thrown the model away, but something went wrong in 2021-22, presumably in the race to preserve EPL status. Contracts were signed with players that could never have conceivably been within the policy on self-funding. The only get out was the belief that even if relegated, at least there was the future media rights income (parachute payments), as long as they could cover short term cash flow issues. The 2022 financial statements obviously showed they believed they could do this. 

However, as @GMF and my own thoughts clearly show, something went wrong between the signing of the 2022 financial statements in November 2022 and the close of the transfer window in January 2023, possibly they had planned the sale of AO or Cantwell at previously higher level of fee than achieved to underpin cashflow, which didn't happen. Certainly Stu's comments re. an offer being received for £20m+ for AO, plus the final sale of Cantwell for relatively small amounts, suggest this.

Maybe, as a potential planned strategy, Attanasio agreed to provide more funding to avoid the sale of AO, but if so why sell him this summer?

[GMF 746]

9 minutes ago, komakino said:

This does highlight that the failure of selling Max and Todd after relegation, which the club - somewhat naively in my opinion - thought would be a given. Their combined sales when they were eventually sold was a modest £8.5M, whereas the figures being bandied around at their peak as we all know were significantly higher, which would have helped the club quite considerably.

I would suggest that it was the combination of a lack of player sales and too many players still under contract, which no other clubs were seemingly interested in, that compounded our problems.

[Mello Yello 2,296]

Oh deary me....I do hope we're not going from well run to well ruined?....

[NewNestCarrow 191]

1 hour ago, norfolkngood said:

Great Post GMF sorry for being Thick ! 

but when did the self funding model get ripped up and thrown away ,

the model was supposed to keep wages and spending in line with income ,

I don't think it was ever ripped up and thrown away but I suspect we were relying on one of our 2021 signings coming good & being sold on for Buendia-esque money - and that clearly didn't happen.

As for wages, we have always overpaid,  but now the fiscal commitments of post-PL seasons are beyond us.

 

[norfolkngood 1,087]

15 minutes ago, NewNestCarrow said:

I don't think it was ever ripped up and thrown away but I suspect we were relying on one of our 2021 signings coming good & being sold on for Buendia-esque money - and that clearly didn't happen.

As for wages, we have always overpaid,  but now the fiscal commitments of post-PL seasons are beyond us.

 

Overspending without a Rich owner who is willing to put money in ,is always going to end badly ,

to be honest we need a fresh start to get this all under control ,

New Owner willing to put in money and a New DOF to sort this mess out,

waiting 3 years is to long to carry on like this ,

 

 

[Davidlingfield 63]

1 hour ago, norfolkngood said:

Great Post GMF sorry for being Thick ! 

but when did the self funding model get ripped up and thrown away ,

the model was supposed to keep wages and spending in line with income ,

we went up we spent more , we go down we spend less ,

it was all supposed to be planned ahead and never put the club at risk ,

that's what we were told and sold by webber and owners ,

 

It got ripped up when the then MD and Chairman left back in 2018, leaving no vaguely objective review of financial affairs - just kids left to help themselves from a free sweet shop.

The chickens were delayed in their return home to roost by a couple of promotions, but they are now well and truly ensconced in their pens.

[Mello Yello 2,296]

Personally Self-Funding is about as much use as a honey-bee with acute hay-fever....

[Fuzzar 1,702]

Given that we appear to have pi$$Ed money up the wall to arrive at this juncture, I do find it odd that the sporting director responsible for this position is still in post working notice. 

I'm sorry, but it really is rather strange, irrespective of his previous achievements. 

[GMF 746]

21 minutes ago, norfolkngood said:

Overspending without a Rich owner who is willing to put money in ,is always going to end badly ,

to be honest we need a fresh start to get this all under control ,

New Owner willing to put in money and a New DOF to sort this mess out,

waiting 3 years is to long to carry on like this ,

 

 

It’s arguable that is now happening under MA, albeit with some historical issues to resolve first?

[essex canary 496]

4 hours ago, TIL 1010 said:

You must consider that the Trust was a totally different animal back in 2002 and was aligned with Supporters Direct and not with Norwich City to any extent. In fact it declined an invitation to have representation on the SCG unlike numerous other supporters groups. At the time it made it known that they were not involved in club politics so i am not too sure what your ' endorse a Fans Trust approach ' actually means as the Trust did not embrace any such approach at that time. Everything to do with the Trust has changed drastically.

So Mrs. Smith in her latest statement is delighted with 20% fans representation. In 2002 there was another Trust with more shares that has taken 21 more years to put to bed. Bailed out by the fans then, bailed out by Bowkett's nous in 2009. This time Foulger clearly saw that the Home Economic's ship was headed for the Northern Rock but the fans haven't had the opportunity. At least I was the noisiest as it unfolded and voted the right way even if it turns out to be in vain.

[SteveN8458 64]

59 minutes ago, Fuzzar said:

Given that we appear to have pi$$Ed money up the wall to arrive at this juncture, I do find it odd that the sporting director responsible for this position is still in post working notice. 

I'm sorry, but it really is rather strange, irrespective of his previous achievements. 

Would that be the same SD who castigated previous management for pi$$ing the money up the wall by any chance?

[GMF 746]

2 minutes ago, SteveN8458 said:

Would that be the same SD who castigated previous management for pi$$ing the money up the wall by any chance?

What goes around comes around? 

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,220]

4 hours ago, GMF said:

@shefcanary two observations are relevant.

First, all clubs, following relegation from the Premier League, will see their media revenues fall at a much faster rate than salaries, even with relegation clauses. This means that player sales are almost a necessity, but NCFC didn’t have any following relegation in 2022, so a major problem for all clubs became more acute for NCFC.

Second, by December 2022 base rates were already rising, making any debt financing (unless it was on fixed rate deals) even more expensive. I suspect that was another factor that went against whatever modelling NCFC did prior to the 2022-23 season.

There is no explanation for the lack of Ecotonian finance, I can only assume that whatever rates offered by MA were more favourable - you would certainly have hoped so!

 

Re-financing is almost free money for brokers in commercial finance.

You dream of clients wanting to re-finance decent lumps. If they are then also really grateful - vid some of your other nota bene - then you also have further free leverage. 

Working with the Premier League and working with American Asset-Hedge-Capital funds are two very different things as I am quite sure you know all too well.

As with my opening posts, it is all about corporate leverage, when you have it and when and why you exercise it. The equity gain is the prize and the buy in is the price to be paid, mostly In terms of research, time on the water and effort and opportunity cost in positioning your pieces. 
 

‘Looked for a club for 10 years’

’love food…family…community… so many similarities…perfect fit in so many ways…’

Oh yes. 

And the equity gain. 

And the exit strategy.

Parma 

 

Edited September 28, 2023 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[TIL 1010 4,748]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

So Mrs. Smith in her latest statement is delighted with 20% fans representation. In 2002 there was another Trust with more shares that has taken 21 more years to put to bed. Bailed out by the fans then, bailed out by Bowkett's nous in 2009. This time Foulger clearly saw that the Home Economic's ship was headed for the Northern Rock but the fans haven't had the opportunity. At least I was the noisiest as it unfolded and voted the right way even if it turns out to be in vain.

The Trust to which i refer in my post is the existing one and not that recently ' acquired ' by MA.

[GMF 746]

12 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

The Trust to which i refer in my post is the existing one and not that recently ' acquired ' by MA.

And, no doubt they will disclose where the proceeds went?