Mark Attanasio

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,246]

…and here is the answer to Question 1:

————-

Attanasio joins forces with Liverpool owner in PGA golf talks

Paddy Davitt|11 Dec 2023, 19:01

Norwich City director Mark Attanasio has joined forces with Liverpool owner John Henry and other US sports tycoons to hold investment talks with the US PGA golf tour.

Attanasio, who was recently in England to attend City’s annual meeting and will be confirmed as a joint minority shareholder pending Football League approval, was one of the names listed in the Strategic Sports Group (SSG) now in advanced discussions with professional golf’s leading tour. 

The PGA tour’s policy board released a statement to their players on Sunday outlining SSG are the preferred partner to enter into advanced negotiations over potential future investment. 

No details on the state of the negotiations or the amount of money that might be involved were released, but the announcement comes ahead of a December 31 deadline to reach agreement with the Saudi-backed LIV Golf tour over the future of the elite end of the professional game. 

Attanasio, who in addition to his City involvement, is a long time principal owner of the Milwaukee Brewers baseball club, an investor in the Milwaukee Admirals and a member of the committee who helped secure the 2028 Summer Olympics for Los Angeles. 

The successful businessman is joined in the SSG by Henry and Tom Werner, who as the Fenway Sports Group own the Boston Red Sox, Liverpool and the NHL’s Pittsburgh Penguins. 

In Attanasio’s first club interview after he became a Norwich director, in September 2022, the New Yorker cited the Werner family as a key factor in facilitating his initial discussions with the Canaries. 

Other members of Strategic Sports Group (SSG) include Gerry Cardinale, whose RedBird Capital Partners owns AC Milan, Tom Ricketts, owner of the Chicago Cubs and Marc Lasry, former owner of the NBA’s Milwaukee Bucks. 

SSG was the PGA tour board’s unanimous choice to negotiate a potential partnership in the new PGA Tour Enterprises. 

The new for-profit company was at the heart of a framework agreement announced in the summer among the PGA Tour, DP World Tour and the Public Investment Fund, the Saudi financial backer of LIV Golf. 

The latest news comes as US PGA tour commissioner, Jay Monahan, is scheduled to meet Yasir Al-Rumayyan, the head of Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment fund, in the coming days as the sides attempt to finalize that initial preliminary agreement from June this year. 

The split at the top of professional golf has seen the likes of Phil Mickleson, Brooks Koepka and European stalwarts Lee Westwood and Ian Poulter join forces with the LIV Golf tour, while Ryder Cup star Jon Rahm is the latest high profile golfer to recently sign up in a reported £450m deal

————

Parma 

[Midlands Yellow 4,118]

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

…and here is the answer to Question 1:

————-

Attanasio joins forces with Liverpool owner in PGA golf talks

Paddy Davitt|11 Dec 2023, 19:01

Norwich City director Mark Attanasio has joined forces with Liverpool owner John Henry and other US sports tycoons to hold investment talks with the US PGA golf tour.

Attanasio, who was recently in England to attend City’s annual meeting and will be confirmed as a joint minority shareholder pending Football League approval, was one of the names listed in the Strategic Sports Group (SSG) now in advanced discussions with professional golf’s leading tour. 

The PGA tour’s policy board released a statement to their players on Sunday outlining SSG are the preferred partner to enter into advanced negotiations over potential future investment. 

No details on the state of the negotiations or the amount of money that might be involved were released, but the announcement comes ahead of a December 31 deadline to reach agreement with the Saudi-backed LIV Golf tour over the future of the elite end of the professional game. 

Attanasio, who in addition to his City involvement, is a long time principal owner of the Milwaukee Brewers baseball club, an investor in the Milwaukee Admirals and a member of the committee who helped secure the 2028 Summer Olympics for Los Angeles. 

The successful businessman is joined in the SSG by Henry and Tom Werner, who as the Fenway Sports Group own the Boston Red Sox, Liverpool and the NHL’s Pittsburgh Penguins. 

In Attanasio’s first club interview after he became a Norwich director, in September 2022, the New Yorker cited the Werner family as a key factor in facilitating his initial discussions with the Canaries. 

Other members of Strategic Sports Group (SSG) include Gerry Cardinale, whose RedBird Capital Partners owns AC Milan, Tom Ricketts, owner of the Chicago Cubs and Marc Lasry, former owner of the NBA’s Milwaukee Bucks. 

SSG was the PGA tour board’s unanimous choice to negotiate a potential partnership in the new PGA Tour Enterprises. 

The new for-profit company was at the heart of a framework agreement announced in the summer among the PGA Tour, DP World Tour and the Public Investment Fund, the Saudi financial backer of LIV Golf. 

The latest news comes as US PGA tour commissioner, Jay Monahan, is scheduled to meet Yasir Al-Rumayyan, the head of Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment fund, in the coming days as the sides attempt to finalize that initial preliminary agreement from June this year. 

The split at the top of professional golf has seen the likes of Phil Mickleson, Brooks Koepka and European stalwarts Lee Westwood and Ian Poulter join forces with the LIV Golf tour, while Ryder Cup star Jon Rahm is the latest high profile golfer to recently sign up in a reported £450m deal

————

Parma 

Reading between the essays you’ll be relieved as any when Delia and hubby finally go. 

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,246]

2 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Reading between the essays you’ll be relieved as any when Delia and hubby finally go. 

Read again.

Parma 

[Midlands Yellow 4,118]

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

Read again.

Parma 

I haven’t got time. 
Midlands. 

Edited December 11, 2023 by Midlands Yellow

[GMF 757]

So, 2023 has been quite a year, two general meetings, an AGM, with some feisty post-meeting interviews (1/3rd good, 2/3rds awful) and yet we still await the final regulatory approvals.

When will it finally be done? As someone infamously said, “I have no idea, no idea whatsoever!”

OTBC

 

[Soldier on 172]

5 hours ago, GMF said:

So, 2023 has been quite a year, two general meetings, an AGM, with some feisty post-meeting interviews (1/3rd good, 2/3rds awful) and yet we still await the final regulatory approvals.

When will it finally be done? As someone infamously said, “I have no idea, no idea whatsoever!”

OTBC

 

Why are the FA taking so long over this ? Other clubs proposals seem to get through without so much time lag

[PurpleCanary 5,603]

5 hours ago, GMF said:

So, 2023 has been quite a year, two general meetings, an AGM, with some feisty post-meeting interviews (1/3rd good, 2/3rds awful) and yet we still await the final regulatory approvals.

When will it finally be done? As someone infamously said, “I have no idea, no idea whatsoever!”

OTBC

 

Yes, GMF, what a fascinating year it has been for we FPAs!

[dylanisabaddog 5,061]

14 minutes ago, Soldier on said:

Why are the FA taking so long over this ? Other clubs proposals seem to get through without so much time lag

Perhaps someone wrote to them saying it was unethical? 

[GMF 757]

2 hours ago, Soldier on said:

Why are the FA taking so long over this ? Other clubs proposals seem to get through without so much time lag

It’s either the EFL, or the Takeover Committee, or both, possibly, but I don’t have any idea.

[essex canary 516]

2 hours ago, GMF said:

It’s either the EFL, or the Takeover Committee, or both, possibly, but I don’t have any idea.

If the authorities would like to question the logic of the whole financing basis of the Club being changed with no effective ongoing representation of the 20% minority holding other than a complicated one off voting process with at best a 22% turnout then that ought to be applauded.

[shefcanary 2,503]

5 hours ago, Soldier on said:

Why are the FA taking so long over this ? Other clubs proposals seem to get through without so much time lag

I think Delia has intercepted the mail to the EFL, she's hid the letter in a lovely Victoria Sponge, to be sliced open on 26 January 2025!

[Midlands Yellow 4,118]

6 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

I think Delia has intercepted the mail to the EFL, she's hid the letter in a lovely Victoria Sponge, to be sliced open on 26 January 2025!

In her thong perhaps?  

Edited December 25, 2023 by Midlands Yellow

[shefcanary 2,503]

Just now, Midlands Yellow said:

In her thong perhaps?  

Eurrgh! No, let's move on.

[Midlands Yellow 4,118]

14 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

Eurrgh! No, let's move on.

You’ve pictured it in your mind though. 

Edited December 25, 2023 by Midlands Yellow

[GMF 757]

12 hours ago, essex canary said:

If the authorities would like to question the logic of the whole financing basis of the Club being changed with no effective ongoing representation of the 20% minority holding other than a complicated one off voting process with at best a 22% turnout then that ought to be applauded.

The Takeover Panel provisionally approved the waiver, but that was subject to shareholder approval of the proposal. Given that was achieved, the extent of voting is almost irrelevant, especially since the process was subject to independent scrutiny.

The EFL approval, as has been mentioned by others previously, is the more rigorous Owners’ approval. Unfortunately, the relevant circumstances in every case, thereby making comparisons between clubs almost meaningless.

The initial expectations was that the whole process would be concluded by the AGM. This obviously didn’t happen.

[GMF 757]

18 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

Yes, GMF, what a fascinating year it has been for we FPAs!

For all the bemusement, in some quarters, for the guild’s number crunching accuracy, the levels of analysis for this particular matter has been both informative and interesting, at least for the most part.

[essex canary 516]

28 minutes ago, GMF said:

The Takeover Panel provisionally approved the waiver, but that was subject to shareholder approval of the proposal. Given that was achieved, the extent of voting is almost irrelevant, especially since the process was subject to independent scrutiny.

The EFL approval, as has been mentioned by others previously, is the more rigorous Owners’ approval. Unfortunately, the relevant circumstances in every case, thereby making comparisons between clubs almost meaningless.

The initial expectations was that the whole process would be concluded by the AGM. This obviously didn’t happen.

What ought to be more relevant is how the Club's 20% minority shareholding complies with the Golden Share concept of the fan-led review. To all practical and intents and purposes, it can hardly be deemed an example of good practice.

[GMF 757]

6 minutes ago, essex canary said:

What ought to be more relevant is how the Club's 20% minority shareholding complies with the Golden Share concept of the fan-led review. To all practical and intents and purposes, it can hardly be deemed an example of good practice.

The golden share concept isn’t linked specifically to the ownership structure of clubs, which, as I’m sure you are well aware, varies from club to club. It’s to offer greater protection for fans, giving the power of veto on certain rights, such as the club’s stadium, badge, location and colours. 

[wcorkcanary 4,355]

13 minutes ago, essex canary said:

What ought to be more relevant is how the Club's 20% minority shareholding complies with the Golden Share concept of the fan-led review. To all practical and intents and purposes, it can hardly be deemed an example of good practice.

Nowhere near as reprehensible  as agreeing to something and then trying to chisel yourself ( and your progeny) extra benefits. 

[essex canary 516]

6 minutes ago, GMF said:

The golden share concept isn’t linked specifically to the ownership structure of clubs, which, as I’m sure you are well aware, varies from club to club. It’s to offer greater protection for fans, giving the power of veto on certain rights, such as the club’s stadium, badge, location and colours. 

Indeed. Then again it isn't then logical for Clubs that do have fan shareholdings for the right of veto to lie there rather than elsewhere? What is the mechanism for defining 'the fans'? NCFC laid this out clearly in 1998 but haven’t maintained it.

[GMF 757]

16 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Indeed. Then again it isn't then logical for Clubs that do have fan shareholdings for the right of veto to lie there rather than elsewhere? What is the mechanism for defining 'the fans'? NCFC laid this out clearly in 1998 but haven’t maintained it.

Shareholders are just a subset of a much larger fan base, so, no, there’s no logic for it resting there.

Fan engagement has moved on since 1998, and so should you, otherwise someone less charitable than me might accuse you of displaying binner like tendencies in terms of ancient history.

[essex canary 516]

7 minutes ago, GMF said:

Shareholders are just a subset of a much larger fan base, so, no, there’s no logic for it resting there.

Fan engagement has moved on since 1998, and so should you, otherwise someone less charitable than me might accuse you of displaying binner like tendencies in terms of ancient history.

Cambridge United's fan engagement for its recent badge change, given that it hasn't got fan shareholders, consisted of ensuring that all of their season ticket holders were consulted in a clear hierarchical approach worthy of one of the top ranked clubs in the country in this regard.

How did NCFC's approach to the same issue compare?

[GMF 757]

3 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Cambridge United's fan engagement for its recent badge change, given that it hasn't got fan shareholders, consisted of ensuring that all of their season ticket holders were consulted in a clear hierarchical approach worthy of one of the top ranked clubs in the country in this regard.

How did NCFC's approach to the same issue compare?

How representative is Cambridge United’s total number of season ticket holders in comparison to its total fan base? I ask because I don’t know, but if that percentage is relatively low in comparison to total supporters, then it doesn’t seem overly representative.

NCFC held a number of consultations with various supporters groups and general meetings. I’m surprised that you don’t recall these, given that it only happened relatively recently.

[A Load of Squit 5,244]

29 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Cambridge United's fan engagement for its recent badge change, given that it hasn't got fan shareholders, consisted of ensuring that all of their season ticket holders were consulted in a clear hierarchical approach worthy of one of the top ranked clubs in the country in this regard.

How did NCFC's approach to the same issue compare?

It was a billion times better.

[essex canary 516]

32 minutes ago, GMF said:

How representative is Cambridge United’s total number of season ticket holders in comparison to its total fan base? I ask because I don’t know, but if that percentage is relatively low in comparison to total supporters, then it doesn’t seem overly representative.

NCFC held a number of consultations with various supporters groups and general meetings. I’m surprised that you don’t recall these, given that it only happened relatively recently.

I didn't state that Cambridge United's consultation strategy was restricted to it's season ticket holders.

What I recall is NCFC stating that it had consulted 5,000 supporters though very few of them appeared to be aware of being consulted. 

Maybe it consulted some supporter groups, doubtless the one man and his dog variety that clearly form part of the echo chamber.

As one of the Clubs top 30 shareholders I do not recall receiving an invite to any such meeting.  

Not that senior officers of the Trust should have any problem understanding the issues given the Trusts Chairman's own recent comments 'that there seems to have been a shift in recent years towards a mindset where any criticism , however constructive, seems to be either rejected, ignored or met with punitive sanctions.' (EDP Pink Un 9 December).

[GMF 757]

I didn't state that Cambridge United's consultation strategy was restricted to it's season ticket holders. I didn't suggest that you did, but your referencing it suggests that you think it made their approach superior to that undertaken by NCFC.

What I recall is NCFC stating that it had consulted 5,000 supporters though very few of them appeared to be aware of being consulted. What evidence do you have to support your contention?

Maybe it consulted some supporter groups, doubtless the one man and his dog variety that clearly form part of the echo chamber. Not sure that this analogy offers anything to the debate.

As one of the Clubs top 30 shareholders I do not recall receiving an invite to any such meeting.  I'd be surprised if the AD's weren't included.

[PurpleCanary 5,603]

3 hours ago, GMF said:

For all the bemusement, in some quarters, for the guild’s number crunching accuracy, the levels of analysis for this particular matter has been both informative and interesting, at least for the most part.

At a tangent I notice Ratcliffe is acquiring 25 per cent of Man Utd's shares, and seemingly without having to make an offer for the rest. If so perhaps the rules are different in the US, where Man Utd is listed.

[GMF 757]

1 hour ago, PurpleCanary said:

At a tangent I notice Ratcliffe is acquiring 25 per cent of Man Utd's shares, and seemingly without having to make an offer for the rest. If so perhaps the rules are different in the US, where Man Utd is listed.

Interestingly, there’s been hints of a US class action by institutions if they don’t get similar treatment to the Glazers. Not sure how, if at all, this has been resolved. 

[essex canary 516]

2 hours ago, GMF said:

I didn't state that Cambridge United's consultation strategy was restricted to it's season ticket holders. I didn't suggest that you did, but your referencing it suggests that you think it made their approach superior to that undertaken by NCFC.

What I recall is NCFC stating that it had consulted 5,000 supporters though very few of them appeared to be aware of being consulted. What evidence do you have to support your contention?

Maybe it consulted some supporter groups, doubtless the one man and his dog variety that clearly form part of the echo chamber. Not sure that this analogy offers anything to the debate.

As one of the Clubs top 30 shareholders I do not recall receiving an invite to any such meeting.  I'd be surprised if the AD's weren't included.

Whether ADs were or were not included, I wasn't included therefore  a clear breach of principles of inclusion on the Club's part.

I, of course, have been prepared to stand up for principles of inclusion in terms of being unwilling to accept the inappropriate nature of some members of said group as being second class citizen relative to myself.

These issues don't arise at Clubs like Cambridge United. They shouldn't arise at NCFC either as Robin Santy's recent comments that I have quoted reflect. It is to be hoped that all Canaries Trust officers would be singing from the same hymn sheet on such issues and pursuing the issues with viguor at Supporter Consultation meetings.

Edited December 26, 2023 by essex canary

[TIL 1010 4,826]

Anybody know when Zoe Webber or Burnley will get a mention ?