Mark Attanasio

[shefcanary 2,410]

28 minutes ago, GMF said:

He’s using a combination of equity and debt financing, so you have to look at it in the whole, but it’s certainly a huge financial commitment for MA. 

@GMF but is it really? Do you know how he financed his $223M acquisition of the Brewers, as that seems lost in the mist of time? His total gross outlay to date of £46M is "only" a fifth of what he laid out for the Brewers. Although I accept the Brewers investment may have been over a long period of time involving debt finance, whereas the current outlay may be from his own funds (although again I haven't delved too deeply how Norfolk got its funding). 

My view is that if he wanted to he could easily afford a fair price for the club immediately, its just his agreement with Delia and Michael and his "friendly" approach to takeovers (as with the Selig's before) that is holding him back. 

[GMF 747]

@shefcanary it’s certainly huge by the standards of anything that has proceeded it here at NCFC.

And, with reference to your final statement, I agree, of course he can afford it. But he’s a business man and, as @Parma Ham's gone mouldy alluded to in his very first post, this is a long term strategy, it’s all about the long term equity gain, which will only be realised when the time comes to sell. However, I suspect that might be some distance down the road.

[GMF 747]

@shefcanary I’ll hold my hand up, I don’t have any interest in the Brewers, so I can’t really comment on what happened there previously, other than stating the obvious, US sport franchises are hugely cash generative, unlike the football equivalent. Oh, for some similar financial regulations…

[BigFish 1,988]

1 hour ago, GMF said:

@shefcanary I’ll hold my hand up, I don’t have any interest in the Brewers, so I can’t really comment on what happened there previously, other than stating the obvious, US sport franchises are hugely cash generative, unlike the football equivalent. Oh, for some similar financial regulations…

Really @GMF? American sport franchising is designed top down, so the teams aren't rooted in a locality. It makes it easy just to pick up the teams and move to a totally different location. No sure that sits neatly in a UK/football perspective.

[Leedscanary 342]

2 hours ago, GMF said:

He’s using a combination of equity and debt financing, so you have to look at it in the whole, but it’s certainly a huge financial commitment for MA. 

@GMF is this similar (although on a much lower scale) to what The Glazers did at Manchester United? The amount they borrowed against the club appears to be holding them back from attracting a new buyer.

Also, what colour scarf will I need for the protests?

[GMF 747]

1 minute ago, BigFish said:

Really @GMF? American sport franchising is designed top down, so the teams aren't rooted in a locality. It makes it easy just to pick up the teams and move to a totally different location. No sure that sits neatly in a UK/football perspective.

I did specifically say financial.

There’s obviously aspects that aren’t desirable, but let’s not conflate that into anything I didn’t actually say. 

[GMF 747]

2 minutes ago, Leedscanary said:

@GMF is this similar (although on a much lower scale) to what The Glazers did at Manchester United? The amount they borrowed against the club appears to be holding them back from attracting a new buyer.

Also, what colour scarf will I need for the protests?

The Glazers didn’t use any of their own money for the initial purchase, so, no, not comparable. No need to hunt out your blue and white scarf, Kev (winks) 

[Leedscanary 342]

8 minutes ago, GMF said:

The Glazers didn’t use any of their own money for the initial purchase, so, no, not comparable. No need to hunt out your blue and white scarf, Kev (winks) 

Thanks Gary - I have been following this from afar, but still trying to make head or tail of it. Your insights (along with many other members of the GOFPA) have been excellent.

Definitely no blue and white scarfs around here my good man! 

[BigFish 1,988]

25 minutes ago, GMF said:

I did specifically say financial.

There’s obviously aspects that aren’t desirable, but let’s not conflate that into anything I didn’t actually say. 

The two are explicitly linked - if a franchise has financial problems they don't fix the problems they move the franchise,

[NewNestCarrow 192]

2 hours ago, shefcanary said:

@GMF but is it really? Do you know how he financed his $223M acquisition of the Brewers, as that seems lost in the mist of time? His total gross outlay to date of £46M is "only" a fifth of what he laid out for the Brewers. Although I accept the Brewers investment may have been over a long period of time involving debt finance, whereas the current outlay may be from his own funds (although again I haven't delved too deeply how Norfolk got its funding). 

My view is that if he wanted to he could easily afford a fair price for the club immediately, its just his agreement with Delia and Michael and his "friendly" approach to takeovers (as with the Selig's before) that is holding him back. 

The phrase "Delia Smith owns NCFC" was never completely accurate, but was widely used & accepted as a reasonable interpretation of the situation . 

I believe the same applies to Attanasio.

The Milwaukee Brewers were sold to a group headed by Mark Attanasio. The group included locals who had been part of the previous ownership, as well as Mates of Mark. The Brewers ownership group is said be around sixteen.

Reports from 2005 suggest that Attanasio's individual ownership slice was just "45%". And, if new investors have been brought in, then that figure may now be even lower.

And, closer to home, even 'Norfolk' (the investment vehicle) isn't just Attanasio. 27.9% is owned by Richard Ressler - who is prob part-owner of the Brewers - with a further 16% owned by other minor parties

So can we please stop thinking that Attanasio is our Abramovich or Jack Walker.

[norfolkngood 1,087]

6 minutes ago, NewNestCarrow said:

The phrase "Delia Smith owns NCFC" was never completely accurate, but was widely used & accepted as a reasonable interpretation of the situation . 

I believe the same applies to Attanasio.

The Milwaukee Brewers were sold to a group headed by Mark Attanasio. The group included locals who had been part of the previous ownership, as well as Mates of Mark. The Brewers ownership group is said be around sixteen.

Reports from 2005 suggest that Attanasio's individual ownership slice was just "45%". And, if new investors have been brought in, then that figure may now be even lower.

And, closer to home, even 'Norfolk' (the investment vehicle) isn't just Attanasio. 27.9% is owned by Richard Ressler - who is prob part-owner of the Brewers - with a further 16% owned by other minor parties

So can we please stop thinking that Attanasio is our Abramovich or Jack Walker.

Thanks for that 

i thought it was just MA & family ,

i thought his son might get involved with us a bit more 

[shefcanary 2,410]

22 minutes ago, NewNestCarrow said:

The phrase "Delia Smith owns NCFC" was never completely accurate, but was widely used & accepted as a reasonable interpretation of the situation . 

I believe the same applies to Attanasio.

The Milwaukee Brewers were sold to a group headed by Mark Attanasio. The group included locals who had been part of the previous ownership, as well as Mates of Mark. The Brewers ownership group is said be around sixteen.

Reports from 2005 suggest that Attanasio's individual ownership slice was just "45%". And, if new investors have been brought in, then that figure may now be even lower.

And, closer to home, even 'Norfolk' (the investment vehicle) isn't just Attanasio. 27.9% is owned by Richard Ressler - who is prob part-owner of the Brewers - with a further 16% owned by other minor parties

So can we please stop thinking that Attanasio is our Abramovich or Jack Walker.

Cheers NNC, this is the first time I've seen with any clarity what sort of "ownership" of the Brewers Attanasio possessed.

In the light of what you portray it underlines that Monday's vote will not change anything substantially.

The ownership of the "Norfolk" corporate vehicle had worried me somewhat due to its convoluted nature. Your description of his interest in the Brewers explains why "he" has chosen this route. Perhaps we stop talking about Attanasio and talk about Norfolk a little bit more. Sure, Attanasio is the public face, probably the main driver of the interest, but he is a long way from being in a position to make big decisions off his own back.

Steady as you were ...

Edited October 5, 2023 by shefcanary

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,220]

9 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

Cheers NNC, this is the first time I've seen with any clarity what sort of "ownership" of the Brewers Attanasio possessed.

In the light of what you portray it underlines that Monday's vote will not change anything substantially.

The ownership of the "Norfolk" corporate vehicle had worried me somewhat due to its convoluted nature. Your description of his interest in the Brewers explains why "he" has chosen this route. Perhaps we stop talking about Attanasio and talk about Norfolk a little bit more. Sure, Attanasio is the public face, probably the main driver of the interest, but he is a long way from being in a position to make big decisions off his own back.

Steady as you were ...

…so not just another Cowboy Delia who loves a’ cookin’ and a’ family and a’ community and just wants to give it on to his loving son then?

You mean that there is a team of sports franchise investors beside his avuncular front-of-house visage who might spy an equity gain and a somewhat sportingly distressed asset?

Who’d ever have thunk it….

Parma 

Edited October 5, 2023 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,220]

1 hour ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

…so not just another Cowboy Delia who loves a’ cookin’ and a’ family and a’ community and just wants to give it on to his loving son then?

You mean that there is a team of sports franchise investors beside his avuncular front-of-house visage who might spy an equity gain and a somewhat sportingly distressed asset?

Who’d ever have thunk it….

Parma 

The minority shareholders will eventually get a sweetheart deal as I indicated from the outset, calming my friend @essex canary though only really serving to indicate how much Delia discounted her own potential equity gain. 

The essence of this thread from the outset.

Delia will end up being remarkably generous with her potential gain  which - absolutely not hypothetically - will eventually be held and one day realized by Attanasio and friends. 

We can say thank you. The move is generous. But - and this is relevant to the waiver - Delia is deciding who inherits. She is backing Attanasio. They are now acting in concert.

You wait decades for another Delia, then none  come along all at once. Mr Right or Mr Right Now. You decide. Or rather you don’t. Delia - uncomfortably - has for you. 

His price - and her legacy -  will be the sweetheart deal for minority shareholders. She really isn’t going ‘to take a penny out’. 

The rest is a financial commitment on paper, though quite a free hit on grass vid the inherent equity gain. Re-financing in my world is joyous brokerage money. Your finance partners always say yes if you’re on the inside.

As before with self-sustaining model - if it succeeds you can keep, if it fails for too long a period, or if you get ‘an offer too good to turn down’ …you can sell to a wider-brimmed hat (who you just happen to know…) and who is a’ collectin’ for his ‘multi-sport franchise’. 

There’s money in them thar’ hills……

…it just always looked flat from Delia’s perspective…she wanted to be a benefactor. Football clubs were not-for-profit community assets.

And then they weren’t. 
 

Who understands and believes what? How does it affect their perspective? How does it change their actions? What does this lead to?

In being so benign, Delia has ended up in exactly the kind of kingmaker, history-and-future-key-holder -of-everything that she tried so hard not to be, to avoid, to ignore. 

That equity can is a buggr isn’t it?

Parma 

Edited October 5, 2023 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[GMF 747]

1 hour ago, NewNestCarrow said:

So can we please stop thinking that Attanasio is our Abramovich or Jack Walker.

Always knew that he had other investors, although further details have only just emerged, and I never therefore thought he would be like them.

[GMF 747]

As it stands @Parma Ham's gone mouldy, both MA and D&M had pre-existing legacy provisions, so the shareholders agreement plays second fiddle to those.

There’s two possible options therefore. Either D&M’s beneficiaries subsequently decide to deal, or, alternatively, D&M make a decision beforehand to similar effect. And, before anyone else suggests the third option, D&M’s beneficiaries being unable to sell, my personal opinion is MA wouldn’t have proceeded with the deal if such restrictions existed.

[wcorkcanary 4,334]

3 hours ago, BigFish said:

The two are explicitly linked - if a franchise has financial problems they don't fix the problems they move the franchise,

So  not exactly  " build it and they will come " then ? 

Don't believe they don't try to fix the financial problems though, just move the franchise to a more profitable location as well.

[Soldier on 160]

2 hours ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

The minority shareholders will eventually get a sweetheart deal as I indicated from the outset, calming my friend @essex canary though only really serving to indicate how much Delia discounted her own potential equity gain. 

The essence of this thread from the outset.

Delia will end up being remarkably generous with her potential gain  which - absolutely not hypothetically - will eventually be held and one day realized by Attanasio and friends. 

We can say thank you. The move is generous. But - and this is relevant to the waiver - Delia is deciding who inherits. She is backing Attanasio. They are now acting in concert.

You wait decades for another Delia, then none  come along all at once. Mr Right or Mr Right Now. You decide. Or rather you don’t. Delia - uncomfortably - has for you. 

His price - and her legacy -  will be the sweetheart deal for minority shareholders. She really isn’t going ‘to take a penny out’. 

The rest is a financial commitment on paper, though quite a free hit on grass vid the inherent equity gain. Re-financing in my world is joyous brokerage money. Your finance partners always say yes if you’re on the inside.

As before with self-sustaining model - if it succeeds you can keep, if it fails for too long a period, or if you get ‘an offer too good to turn down’ …you can sell to a wider-brimmed hat (who you just happen to know…) and who is a’ collectin’ for his ‘multi-sport franchise’. 

There’s money in them thar’ hills……

…it just always looked flat from Delia’s perspective…she wanted to be a benefactor. Football clubs were not-for-profit community assets.

And then they weren’t. 
 

Who understands and believes what? How does it affect their perspective? How does it change their actions? What does this lead to?

In being so benign, Delia has ended up in exactly the kind of kingmaker, history-and-future-key-holder -of-everything that she tried so hard not to be, to avoid, to ignore. 

That equity can is a buggr isn’t it?

Parma 

Is this based on any prior knowledge or just a hypothesis on what you believe will transpire ??

[essex canary 496]

53 minutes ago, wcorkcanary said:

So  not exactly  " build it and they will come " then ? 

Don't believe they don't try to fix the financial problems though, just move the franchise to a more profitable location as well.

Cork?

[wcorkcanary 4,334]

8 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Cork?

Idiot. 

[mastoola 183]

5 hours ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

The minority shareholders will eventually get a sweetheart deal as I indicated from the outset, calming my friend @essex canary though only really serving to indicate how much Delia discounted her own potential equity gain. 

The essence of this thread from the outset.

Delia will end up being remarkably generous with her potential gain  which - absolutely not hypothetically - will eventually be held and one day realized by Attanasio and friends. 

We can say thank you. The move is generous. But - and this is relevant to the waiver - Delia is deciding who inherits. She is backing Attanasio. They are now acting in concert.

You wait decades for another Delia, then none  come along all at once. Mr Right or Mr Right Now. You decide. Or rather you don’t. Delia - uncomfortably - has for you. 

His price - and her legacy -  will be the sweetheart deal for minority shareholders. She really isn’t going ‘to take a penny out’. 

The rest is a financial commitment on paper, though quite a free hit on grass vid the inherent equity gain. Re-financing in my world is joyous brokerage money. Your finance partners always say yes if you’re on the inside.

As before with self-sustaining model - if it succeeds you can keep, if it fails for too long a period, or if you get ‘an offer too good to turn down’ …you can sell to a wider-brimmed hat (who you just happen to know…) and who is a’ collectin’ for his ‘multi-sport franchise’. 

There’s money in them thar’ hills……

…it just always looked flat from Delia’s perspective…she wanted to be a benefactor. Football clubs were not-for-profit community assets.

And then they weren’t. 
 

Who understands and believes what? How does it affect their perspective? How does it change their actions? What does this lead to?

In being so benign, Delia has ended up in exactly the kind of kingmaker, history-and-future-key-holder -of-everything that she tried so hard not to be, to avoid, to ignore. 

That equity can is a buggr isn’t it?

Parma 

The way you write kinda reminds me of when you you buy a cheap Chinese product!!!  Do you think you can rewrite in an English matter? I an interested in what you have to say but your post are not understandable.  

btw ive just passed it by my daughter who is studying at cambridge and she she says it doesnt make sense

Edited October 5, 2023 by mastoola

[nutty nigel 7,539]

At least my buddy Parma got a Cambridge appraisal. My posts go to Wellesley First School for marking...

[GMF 747]

12 hours ago, wcorkcanary said:

So  not exactly  " build it and they will come " then ? 

Don't believe they don't try to fix the financial problems though, just move the franchise to a more profitable location as well.

Exactly that. The inference that location is the primary reason for financial shortcomings of a franchise doesn’t sit well with me, but that wasn’t my point anyway.

The regulatory framework within US sports is generally streets ahead of their UK equivalents, with the consequence that the vast majority of extremely profitable. In comparison the vast majority of English football teams are technically insolvent and hugely dependent upon their owners for financial support. This is okay until the owners support is reduced or ceases altogether. 

Edited October 6, 2023 by GMF

[norfolkngood 1,087]

So i wonder what people's thoughts are now knowing we will be taken over by a Group instead of one super rich individual ?

of course like Hog points out dream world would be Norwich fan made multi billions and pumps money in ,

that's not happening so here we are ,

will the Americans put enough in to get the team up to PL ?,

couple of seasons ago we were not far away from being a PL team ( 3/4 players maybe )

,but every season since with sales and poor recruitment it is further away now ,

it will be interesting i have a feeling MA might not be here to long but that's a guess

[Capt. Pants 4,246]

14 minutes ago, norfolkngood said:

So i wonder what people's thoughts are now knowing we will be taken over by a Group instead of one super rich individual ?

of course like Hog points out dream world would be Norwich fan made multi billions and pumps money in ,

that's not happening so here we are ,

will the Americans put enough in to get the team up to PL ?,

couple of seasons ago we were not far away from being a PL team ( 3/4 players maybe )

,but every season since with sales and poor recruitment it is further away now ,

it will be interesting i have a feeling MA might not be here to long but that's a guess

That's my fear as I've already mentioned, but it's gut feel and not backed up by any evidence.

Our purple patch appears to be over and it would seem MA is going to have to pump in a fair few £ millions just to keep us within touching distance of the top 6. Unless of course we strip it right back, forget promotion for a few years and redevelop with young players.

Hopefully things may become a bit clearer once we have a new Dof.

 

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,432]

1 hour ago, GMF said:

Exactly that. The inference that location is the primary reason for financial shortcomings of a franchise doesn’t sit well with me, but that wasn’t my point anyway.

The regulatory framework within US sports is generally streets ahead of their UK equivalents, with the consequence that the vast majority of extremely profitable. 

NFL franchises are worth more than EPL teams . One significant reason is relegation . Another is control of broadcasting and brand value where all members benefit. The draft helps too. 
 

2023 per Forbes the avg value of NFL franchise is (a record) $5.1b . Avg EPL value is $1.5b . Highest EPL is Man Utd at $5.95b but it falls away quickly . Dallas Cowboys is $9b 

EPL is very different in significant aspects to NFL. Comparison is , I would say, fairly pointless . 

Edited October 6, 2023 by Graham Paddons Beard

[GMF 747]

22 minutes ago, Graham Paddons Beard said:

NFL franchises are worth more than EPL teams . One significant reason is relegation . Another is control of broadcasting and brand value where all members benefit. The draft helps too. 
 

2023 per Forbes the avg value of NFL franchise is (a record) $5.1b . Avg EPL value is $1.5b . Highest EPL is Man Utd at $5.95b but it falls away quickly . Dallas Cowboys is $9b 

EPL is very different in significant aspects to NFL. Comparison is , I would say, fairly pointless . 

You’re right GPB, there’s a number of reasons why US sports franchises are more valuable than the equivalent football teams here in the UK. My initial point wasn’t really about that, it was highlighting the fact that US sports tend to be far better regulated than here. 

[essex canary 496]

23 minutes ago, GMF said:

You’re right GPB, there’s a number of reasons why US sports franchises are more valuable than the equivalent football teams here in the UK. My initial point wasn’t really about that, it was highlighting the fact that US sports tend to be far better regulated than here. 

Perhaps much else besides is better in the USA if the Takeover Code is used as a guide?

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,432]

40 minutes ago, GMF said:

You’re right GPB, there’s a number of reasons why US sports franchises are more valuable than the equivalent football teams here in the UK. My initial point wasn’t really about that, it was highlighting the fact that US sports tend to be far better regulated than here. 

Agree GMF. 

[norfolkngood 1,087]

50 minutes ago, Capt. Pants said:

That's my fear as I've already mentioned, but it's gut feel and not backed up by any evidence.

Our purple patch appears to be over and it would seem MA is going to have to pump in a fair few £ millions just to keep us within touching distance of the top 6. Unless of course we strip it right back, forget promotion for a few years and redevelop with young players.

Hopefully things may become a bit clearer once we have a new Dof.

 

to be honest i think that is what is needed ,

A New DOF with his direction and plan ,

Just like when webber was here reduce the debt have some success and update Training ground etc ,

Webber did that Perfectly , paid off the debt with the help on the field by Farke ,

it really seems we have gone full circle ,of course we have better training centre now ,

but after farke and webbers era and team they built is the club better on the pitch now ? ,

and we are borrowing money again and maybe in Debt !

i think we need a New DOF to clear the decks and build again in the right direction

As long as the owners back a good DOF that all we can ask for