Mark Attanasio

[GMF 747]

2 hours ago, essex canary said:

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

Meaning what, exactly? Are you saying that they didn’t do their job properly because they didn’t make MA pay you a huge amount of money for your shares, like Burnley? 

[NewNestCarrow 193]

Slightly tangential, admittedly, but one of the Attanasio 'boarding party' of May 2022 has moved on to pastures new.

David Stearns, previously President of Business Ops at the Brewers, has taken that role at the NY Mets.

So I doubt he'll be taking that second seat on the NCFC Board.

[GMF 747]

1 minute ago, NewNestCarrow said:

Slightly tangential, admittedly, but one of the Attanasio 'boarding party' of May 2022 has moved on to pastures new.

David Stearns, previously President of Business Ops at the Brewers, has taken that role at the NY Mets.

So I doubt he'll be taking that second seat on the NCFC Board.

Richard Ressler seems the most likely candidate. 

[essex canary 497]

38 minutes ago, GMF said:

Meaning what, exactly? Are you saying that they didn’t do their job properly because they didn’t make MA pay you a huge amount of money for your shares, like Burnley? 

Meaning that a process that doesn't provide for the scores on the doors to be announced doesn't promote any transparency.

 

[essex canary 497]

3 hours 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.

 

Perhaps a more efficient way of operating going forward can deliver results. Ipswich may offer inspiration in that regard.

On the other hand feels a bit like locking the stable door after the horse has bolted.

[GMF 747]

8 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Meaning that a process that doesn't provide for the scores on the doors to be announced doesn't promote any transparency.

 

You’re blaming the TP for this? 

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

Meaning that a process that doesn't provide for the scores on the doors to be announced doesn't promote any transparency.

 

The solution is for you to email the Takeover Panel to ask why the voting figures have not been released. Bearing in mind that the answer might be that the Panel is quite happy for the figures to be published and that it is the club which has decided not to do that. Or that the club will say it is quite happy to release the figures, but as yet nobody has asked, so it seemed as if no-one was interested.

[wcorkcanary 4,334]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

Meaning that a process that doesn't provide for the scores on the doors to be announced doesn't promote any transparency.

 

Says the biggest bluffer on here.

[king canary 7,609]

23 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,

Yes and no.

Generally most franchises don't run into financial problems. The revenue sharing policies (34% of ticket revenue in the NFL is shared between teams), salary caps and lack of promotion/relegation means most sports franchises in America are constantly profitable. Usually they move because they feel they either can generate more revenue elsewhere OR they can do that weird thing that happens in America and get taxpayers to pay for a new stadium for them. But you still need a vote of 75% of owners to relocate a franchise.

GMF is right though- you could easily bring in the sorts of financial regulation common in America without having to legitimise the moving of football clubs locations.

Edited October 6, 2023 by king canary

[king canary 7,609]

7 minutes ago, king canary said:

Yes and no.

Generally most franchises don't run into financial problems. The revenue sharing policies (34% of ticket revenue in the NFL is shared between teams), salary caps and lack of promotion/relegation means most sports franchises in America are constantly profitable. Usually they move because they feel they either can generate more revenue elsewhere OR they can do that weird thing that happens in America and get taxpayers to pay for a new stadium for them. But you still need a vote of 75% of owners to relocate a franchise.

GMF is right though- you could easily bring in the sorts of financial regulation common in America without having to legitimise the moving of football clubs locations.

Just to clarify- I'm not saying it would be easy to bring in that sort of regulation- just that if we somehow got to that place it was happening you could easily make sure if didn't lead to moving clubs.

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

On 03/10/2023 at 09:51, PurpleCanary said:

Shef, I have only quckly looked through but I can't find an answer to that. There are rules on information beforehand and during, such as on equality of information for all shareholders, but I couldn't see anything on afterwards. I really don't want to belabour this point, but it is another case of the club telling the EDP reporters something and it just not being questioned by them, so readers don't have an explanation for these bald statements.

An obvious question is what were the voting figures. Why were they not in last night's report? Were they not released last night because of Takeover Code rules, but can be in a few days' time?  No idea.

But more generally, I can see that Code rules will still apply. They did so here even though  this isn't - yet - actually a takeover, but only the acquisition of 30 per cent of the shares. Albeit that is correctly seen as a likely step towards a takeover. And the rules will apply if - as seems probable - Attanasio eventually acquires more shares to become the owner.

Re paragraph two there, I can find nothing in the relevant sections of the Takeover Code that says the voting figures cannot be published. 

[GMF 747]

11 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

Re paragraph two there, I can find nothing in the relevant sections of the Takeover Code that says the voting figures cannot be published. 

You can just imagine the reasoning being that they don’t normally announce the voting numbers for resolutions at AGM’s or other general meetings as to why they haven’t done so in this instance…

[nutty nigel 7,539]

If the voting numbers are individuals I wouldn't be surprised if abstained won. Obviously if it's shareholdings then that wouldn't be the case. 

[GMF 747]

11 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

If the voting numbers are individuals I wouldn't be surprised if abstained won. Obviously if it's shareholdings then that wouldn't be the case. 

Typically around the 5% mark for proxy and attendees at general meetings.

No doubt that will result in the usual stick waving from certain section of the fan base. (Winks) 

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,220]

1 hour ago, GMF said:

Typically around the 5% mark for proxy and attendees at general meetings.

No doubt that will result in the usual stick waving from certain section of the fan base. (Winks) 

Quorums are not an unreasonable principle….arguably underused (winks back)…

Parma 

Edited October 7, 2023 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy
🤗

[GMF 747]

4 minutes ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

Quorums are not an unreasonable principle….arguably underused (winks back)…

Parma 

I’ve not checked to see what’s required in this situation? 

[essex canary 497]

4 hours ago, GMF said:

I’ve not checked to see what’s required in this situation? 

I contacted the Takeover Panel who advised that there was no requirement to publish the detail of the outcome.

Nonetheless the Club did report the show of hands vote with a very low outturn of 7% at the previous meeting so why not now?

Whilst understanding that the Trust may have good reason for voting for the motion in a more general sense their reasons for doing so in a strict Rule 9 waiver sense are controversial because they appear to be undermining their own opinion.

The lack of a sensible Quorum to what should otherwise be a default outcome gives rise to a very opaque result in relation to the waiver process.

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

On 07/10/2023 at 18:13, essex canary said:

I contacted the Takeover Panel who advised that there was no requirement to publish the detail of the outcome.

Nonetheless the Club did report the show of hands vote with a very low outturn of 7% at the previous meeting so why not now?

Whilst understanding that the Trust may have good reason for voting for the motion in a more general sense their reasons for doing so in a strict Rule 9 waiver sense are controversial because they appear to be undermining their own opinion.

The lack of a sensible Quorum to what should otherwise be a default outcome gives rise to a very opaque result in relation to the waiver process.

No, there is no requirement. That was not the issue. The point is that there is no ban on the voting figures being published, so no reason why the club cannot publicly be asked exactly what the result was.

Edited October 9, 2023 by PurpleCanary

[GMF 747]

43 minutes ago, essex canary said:

I contacted the Takeover Panel who advised that there was no requirement to publish the detail of the outcome.

Nonetheless the Club did report the show of hands vote with a very low outturn of 7% at the previous meeting so why not now?

Whilst understanding that the Trust may have good reason for voting for the motion in a more general sense their reasons for doing so in a strict Rule 9 waiver sense are controversial because they appear to be undermining their own opinion.

The lack of a sensible Quorum to what should otherwise be a default outcome gives rise to a very opaque result in relation to the waiver process.

The decision was made to ask members to vote on the resolutions and the overwhelming majority voted in favour.

I have expressed my personal opinion beforehand on the proposals, so we move on.

The Companies Act 2006 expresses a Quorum as follows 

318Quorum at meetings

(1)In the case of a company limited by shares or guarantee and having only one member, one qualifying person present at a meeting is a quorum.

(2)In any other case, subject to the provisions of the company's articles, two qualifying persons present at a meeting are a quorum, unless—

(a)each is a qualifying person only because he is authorised under section 323 to act as the representative of a corporation in relation to the meeting, and they are representatives of the same corporation; or

(b)each is a qualifying person only because he is appointed as proxy of a member in relation to the meeting, and they are proxies of the same member.

(3)For the purposes of this section a “qualifying person” means—

(a)an individual who is a member of the company,

(b)a person authorised under section 323 (representation of corporations at meetings) to act as the representative of a corporation in relation to the meeting, or

(c)a person appointed as proxy of a member in relation to the meeting.

[essex canary 497]

14 hours ago, GMF said:

The decision was made to ask members to vote on the resolutions and the overwhelming majority voted in favour.

I have expressed my personal opinion beforehand on the proposals, so we move on.

The Companies Act 2006 expresses a Quorum as follows 

318Quorum at meetings

(1)In the case of a company limited by shares or guarantee and having only one member, one qualifying person present at a meeting is a quorum.

(2)In any other case, subject to the provisions of the company's articles, two qualifying persons present at a meeting are a quorum, unless—

(a)each is a qualifying person only because he is authorised under section 323 to act as the representative of a corporation in relation to the meeting, and they are representatives of the same corporation; or

(b)each is a qualifying person only because he is appointed as proxy of a member in relation to the meeting, and they are proxies of the same member.

(3)For the purposes of this section a “qualifying person” means—

(a)an individual who is a member of the company,

(b)a person authorised under section 323 (representation of corporations at meetings) to act as the representative of a corporation in relation to the meeting, or

(c)a person appointed as proxy of a member in relation to the meeting.

Thanks.

In practical terms though and in both cases it could be deemed that neither the Trust nor the Club have been very sensitive to their own circumstances. In the case of the Trust it maybe that the minority who voted against tend to be  those who hold shares in their own right. It could equally be asked as to why the votes shouldn't be split pro rata?  In the case of the Club a Quorum of 2 hardly makes sense in terms of having 6,860,shareholders so perhaps ought to have been specified in the Articles for such a vote albeit that it hasn't been.

None of it gives an overall feeling of professionalism. Perhaps it is for that reason the Club haven’t announced it albeit that the TC in no way prevents them from doing so?

NOTE : Trust did contact all members but unclear how the votes were allocated.

Edited October 8, 2023 by essex canary

[GMF 747]

23 hours ago, essex canary said:

Thanks.

In practical terms though and in both cases it could be deemed that neither the Trust nor the Club have been very sensitive to their own circumstances. In the case of the Trust it maybe that the minority who voted against tend to be  those who hold shares in their own right. It could equally be asked as to why the votes shouldn't be split pro rata?  In the case of the Club a Quorum of 2 hardly makes sense in terms of having 6,860,shareholders so perhaps ought to have been specified in the Articles for such a vote albeit that it hasn't been.

None of it gives an overall feeling of professionalism. Perhaps it is for that reason the Club haven’t announced it albeit that the TC in no way prevents them from doing so?

NOTE : Trust did contact all members but unclear how the votes were allocated.

The trust is a member based organisation. There’s no requirement to be a shareholder in the club and there’s absolutely no reason why any voting should be weighted in favour of those who are shareholders. It’s one member, one vote.

If this, in your opinion, means that we’ve been in any way insensitive to our circumstances, or lacking professionalism, so be it. I will share your thoughts with the committee.

In the meantime, let’s focus on the far more important issues, the ongoing challenges being faced by Mark Attanasio and the Club.

Edited October 8, 2023 by GMF
Typo

[essex canary 497]

1 hour ago, GMF said:

The trust is a member based organisation. There’s no requirement to be a shareholder in the club and there’s absolutely no reason why any voting should be weighted in favour of those who are shareholders. It’s one member, one vote.

If this, in your opinion, means that we’ve been in and way insensitive to our circumstances, or lacking professionalism, so be it. I will share your thoughts with the committee.

In the meantime, let’s focus on the far more important issues, the ongoing challenges being faced by Mark Attanasio and the Club.

Just a point of clarification. To my knowledge the Trust has around 8,000 shares and around 1,000 members (please substitute more precise figures if available). Therefore in placing my vote against the resolutions, I would have expected that 8 Trust votes on my behalf would be placed 'against' the resolutions. Did that happen? If not the Trust Committee should certainly address why not. Ditto of course for other members therefore it would be 8 votes x however many voted against.

The wider Club context is that the Trust placing a 100% block vote in this manner, if that is indeed what happened, would probably have given it disproportionate influence in the context of the overall vote. That could only be proved either way by the Club disclosing the voting statistics. Such disproportionate influence, if it existed, would then have undermined the stated principle of the Rule 9 waiver which should be a legitimate concern of both the Trust and the Club.

[GMF 747]

@essex canary if we’d followed your suggestion of some sort of weighting of our shares in accordance with share ownership, then the whole process would have been decided by the vote of one person, who happens to be a top ten shareholder in the club.

Irrespective of how they voted, I personally struggle to see how this could be considered fair on the rest of the members.

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

Leaving the Trust aside, one certainty is that the way the process was constructed left many shareholders in a real quandary as to which way to vote. 

[GMF 747]

1 hour ago, PurpleCanary said:

Leaving the Trust aside, one certainty is that the way the process was constructed left many shareholders in a real quandary as to which way to vote. 

The whole process should never have taken as long as it did, and that’s because of the route the club chose. That shouldn’t have been put on shareholders either, in my opinion.

[essex canary 497]

3 hours ago, GMF said:

@essex canary if we’d followed your suggestion of some sort of weighting of our shares in accordance with share ownership, then the whole process would have been decided by the vote of one person, who happens to be a top ten shareholder in the club.

Irrespective of how they voted, I personally struggle to see how this could be considered fair on the rest of the members.

Perhaps that means the turnout was so low that RG Carter would have had the decisive vote?

Edited October 8, 2023 by essex canary

[repman 635]

On 06/10/2023 at 13:39, NewNestCarrow said:

Slightly tangential, admittedly, but one of the Attanasio 'boarding party' of May 2022 has moved on to pastures new.

David Stearns, previously President of Business Ops at the Brewers, has taken that role at the NY Mets.

So I doubt he'll be taking that second seat on the NCFC Board.

Stearns was President of baseball ops, I don't think there was ever any chance of him being involved.

There are a few parallels between him and Webber really, came in as a new fresh face and brought success pretty quickly and left after a disappointing year. They both improved the off field infrastructure and processes of their clubs which should leave them in good stead for years to come.

 

[GMF 747]

15 hours ago, essex canary said:

Perhaps that means the turnout was so low that RG Carter would have had the decisive vote?

Supposition on both counts.

[chicken 2,627]

On 06/10/2023 at 15:39, wcorkcanary said:

Says the biggest guffer on here.

Corrected for you. 

[essex canary 497]

1 hour ago, GMF said:

Supposition on both counts.

So how otherwise would 'the whole process have been decided by the vote of one person who happens to be a top 10 shareholder in the Club?' (your quote)