Mark Attanasio

[Bobzilla 141]

Just now, shefcanary said:

It won't bankrupt us, but we won't have the full amount of future parachute payments to "splurge" on new players. 

As for what the players are remunerated by, I have read several times that performance bonuses for positive results / goals scored etc. have disappeared now (except for promotion) for a basic salary with the only bonuses for 10, 20, 30 etc. appearances. I think as you slip further down the league the old performance bonuses may still figure, but at the top level football is such a selfish game nowadays who in their right mind would sign a contract where you were reliant on other people for much of your salary.

Was more the transfer fees rather than payments to players, which is very small in comparison - £4m at most I think.

[essex canary 496]

2 hours ago, Bobzilla said:

No, the £96m (actually about £90m as at end of fy23) debt is not of itself horrendous.  The accounts are horrendous.  That's all of it taken together.  Wage bill (plus associated expenses) being more than gate receipts and ticket sales, and 79% of total income.  £22m deficit on shareholders funds, so club survival is being funded by debt at this point, albeit that there's £37.5m of shareholder debt.  40% of our assets being unrealisable by any means other than a sale and leaseback arrangement.  £70m of continent liabilities on player signings.

I'm not worried about the debt. I'm worried about the ongoing financial performance of the club, and additional fees becoming payable for using our players or success. Ironic - promotion could possibly bankrupt us because of additional player fees and signing bonuses. 

To be clear, I don't know whether it will because I don't know how much of the £70m relates to players appearances or success bonuses.

To be really clear, this isn't mismanagement. This is modern football and pushing for top end of championship, bottom end of prem, and not having rich enough owners.  

So Stoke have. Their gate receipts are half ours though with a much more modest wage bill of £28 million and doubtless no minority shareholders therefore a much lower burden on their supporters in general. Perhaps because of their owners wealth  they didn't need to extract more money from supporters in 2020/21 with the Income entry for that year very similar to ourselves.

[essex canary 496]

2 hours ago, GMF said:

For clarity, this is your retrospective take on what the Club should have done, increasing the financial burden for season tickets holders (very noble of you, as one of the handful who wouldn’t have been caught by this, had it been implemented) during the time of a global pandemic, having also asked for a rebate from your seat for life payment.

Talk about lacking self awareness and not having any empathy for those less fortunate than yourself. 

I met one supporter who had the same investment in bonds as I had in shares. His response was he would never be a shareholder of a football club because the sport's corporate governance is so poor and heralding his easy money on the bond which will fund his season ticket for several years. Fair enough in that he completed his application form before the unexpected guillotine. He isn't less fortunate than me though in context.

[GMF 744]

41 minutes ago, essex canary said:

I met one supporter who had the same investment in bonds as I had in shares. His response was he would never be a shareholder of a football club because the sport's corporate governance is so poor and heralding his easy money on the bond which will fund his season ticket for several years. Fair enough in that he completed his application form before the unexpected guillotine. He isn't less fortunate than me though in context.

As interesting as that anecdote is, the share and bond offers were completely different, both carrying risk, one of which proved far more profitable than the other, which seems to be the cause of your angst.

Although you’ve mentioned the lack of capital growth in your shares, plus the comparative difficulty in disinvesting, should you so choose, let’s not forget that you have had use of your seat for 22 years, and counting. 

[TIL 1010 4,748]

11 minutes ago, GMF said:

 let’s not forget that you have had use of your seat for 22 years, and counting. 

I believe i am right in saying that when our friend had his fallout with the ADs he traded his plush seat in and downgraded to another part of the then Jarrold Stand and has in fact got two seats to equate in value.

I could be wrong of course.

[essex canary 496]

5 hours ago, wcorkcanary said:

You not getting your snout in the training ground  funding/divvy up has cut deep hasnt it?  I savour  these moments when your desperation to form an argument leaks, and lets out the real reasons you are sour. You are not as smart as you think you are .

Oh really! At his rate of pay @Bobzilla earns more than twice as much as the Club ED. Is it VFM?  I am not sure but at least he adds quality to the debate which is far more than a couple of other people, more than a couple. The worst exponent of which spends time discussing the rear ends of donkeys.

[Bobzilla 141]

50 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Oh really! At his rate of pay @Bobzilla earns more than twice as much as the Club ED. Is it VFM?  I am not sure but at least he adds quality to the debate which is far more than a couple of other people, more than a couple. The worst exponent of which spends time discussing the rear ends of donkeys.

I’m not sure what you think I’m paid, but thanks for the compliment.

[Nuff Said 5,141]

51 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Oh really! At his rate of pay @Bobzilla earns more than twice as much as the Club ED. Is it VFM?  I am not sure but at least he adds quality to the debate which is far more than a couple of other people, more than a couple. The worst exponent of which spends time discussing the rear ends of donkeys.

The lack of self-awareness would be staggering if we hadn’t been reading this drivel for months.

[norfolkngood 1,087]

21 hours ago, Bobzilla said:

There's an old joke. How do you make a small fortune out of owning a football club? Well, you start with a very large one...

The 'doing a very bad job' is simply trying to be competitive without mega millionaire owners.  Look at Stoke. The Coates family are orders of magnitude richer than Delia, but they're at the wrong end of the table and looking at relegation.  Quite frankly it is amazing that we are where we are, which is, at time of writing, 6th, without the backing of owners with hundreds of millions lying around.  Without MA stepping in, I reckon we could have gone into administration last year.  Possibly.

i understand your point and you are far more educated on the matter ,

my point was to go from self funded and never put club in danger to horrendous accounts that might of or could put us in Administration is quite a big jump,

i am not saying we could compete or we were going to be successful anymore under the self funding model ,

But someone said right lets go for it and push the boat out a little bit more because without the MA safety net like you said we could be facing a different outcome

 

 

[Soldier on 160]

Hopefully some progress made on this transaction soon. Be good to hear more on strategic aims for next few seasons . Are we still looking at acquiring a club in another European league etc ?!

[Bobzilla 141]

46 minutes ago, norfolkngood said:

i understand your point and you are far more educated on the matter ,

my point was to go from self funded and never put club in danger to horrendous accounts that might of or could put us in Administration is quite a big jump,

i am not saying we could compete or we were going to be successful anymore under the self funding model ,

But someone said right lets go for it and push the boat out a little bit more because without the MA safety net like you said we could be facing a different outcome

I'd need to do a bit more work on the accounts to work out when and how it went wrong but my suspicion is that the seeds were shown in our last year in the prem. We needed signings to survive, but we needed to survive to make the signings make sense and not cause us any financial issues.  Pandemic also didn't help there. 

At the beginning of last financial year we had shareholders funds of about £5m.  They're now negative £20m, more than.  I suspect the answer is in player wages but the accounts don't break down into detail by player. We don't know where the dead wood risk is, and we don't know who the additional £65m contingent fees are payable on.  It would not surprise me if it was no more than 5 players creating the majority of this risk.

I don't think that realistically we could have avoided this position without avoiding going up last time around.  It's expensive being a yoyo club without totally embarrassing yourself and not even trying.

[wcorkcanary 4,334]

3 hours ago, essex canary said:

Oh really

yes, now ferkoff.

[Duncan Edwards 2,237]

7 hours ago, essex canary said:

I met one supporter who had the same investment in bonds as I had in shares. His response was he would never be a shareholder of a football club because the sport's corporate governance is so poor and heralding his easy money on the bond which will fund his season ticket for several years. Fair enough in that he completed his application form before the unexpected guillotine. He isn't less fortunate than me though in context.

Why didn’t you invest in the bond again…? Were you dithering while others did or did you not fancy it or were you so disillusioned with your previous entanglements that it was never on the cards?

Did it really get your goat at the time or was it only after it provided a dividend?

[essex canary 496]

10 hours ago, Bobzilla said:

I’m not sure what you think I’m paid, but thanks for the compliment.

Depends on an hourly to annual conversion. Acknowledged that it doesn't mean you work full time. 

Analysis of the last 5 years accounts clearly shows how the £96 million has arisen with £60 million net movement on P&L and £36 million net movement on Long Term Assets.

[GMF 744]

7 hours ago, Duncan Edwards said:

Why didn’t you invest in the bond again…? Were you dithering while others did or did you not fancy it or were you so disillusioned with your previous entanglements that it was never on the cards?

Did it really get your goat at the time or was it only after it provided a dividend?

You’re naughty, Duncan, but well done for not mentioning freebie 100 shares man, Stephan… 😉

[hogesar 9,674]

4 hours ago, essex canary said:

Depends on an hourly to annual conversion. Acknowledged that it doesn't mean you work full time. 

Analysis of the last 5 years accounts clearly shows how the £96 million has arisen with £60 million net movement on P&L and £36 million net movement on Long Term Assets.

Some teach this genius about the bl**dy "Print Screen" button for crying out loud

[king canary 7,607]

8 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Some teach this genius about the bl**dy "Print Screen" button for crying out loud

Even the snipping tool! It's free!

Won't ever top the politician who had their team print out a tweet so they could take a photo of it to post back to social media though.

[Bobzilla 141]

4 hours ago, essex canary said:

Depends on an hourly to annual conversion. Acknowledged that it doesn't mean you work full time. 

Analysis of the last 5 years accounts clearly shows how the £96 million has arisen with £60 million net movement on P&L and £36 million net movement on Long Term Assets.

What my employers charged me out at is a significant multiple of the salary they were paying me.  I’ll comment on the figures later, when I’m not working.

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

44 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Some teach this genius about the bl**dy "Print Screen" button for crying out loud

No! Bad idea!!

[GMF 744]

16 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

No! Bad idea!!

Save pics of the 1980’s sofa, mind! 😜

[essex canary 496]

6 hours ago, GMF said:

You’re naughty, Duncan, but well done for not mentioning freebie 100 shares man, Stephan… 😉

At least with the latter as First Officer and a married couple in the cockpit, the accident investigation should be cheap. Bobzilla could sign it off within the hour.

Perhaps Duncan could offer some advice too. Whenever I play golf with my bondholder friend I always struggle on the 18th hole. Any thoughts as to why?

[GMF 744]

Let’s see how long it takes the EFL to approve the latest investment in “that lot”. 

[GMF 744]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

Whenever I play golf with my bondholder friend I always struggle on the 18th hole. Any thoughts as to why?

Does he keep reminding you how many years membership has been covered by the money he made? 

[wcorkcanary 4,334]

26 minutes ago, GMF said:

Does he keep reminding you how many years membership has been covered by the money he made? 

I do hope so, maybe he mentions it on the approach to the 18th, hence Gollums difficulties, must be hard to hide his annoyance and play decent golf, after all , he cant make a coherent argument on here , just the same old whiney tripe rehashed and served up without humour or irony to ease the tedium of his self serving bleats.

[essex canary 496]

Revised last 5 years financial  

 

Edited March 22 by essex canary
upload revised

[CANARYKING 638]

Another month nearly gone, how long has it been now ?

[GMF 744]

35 minutes ago, CANARYKING said:

Another month nearly gone, how long has it been now ?

January 2023 was the first general meeting to give shareholder approval to the club to allot the extra shares.

September 2023 was the second general meeting, giving approval for the waiver option so the issue could proceed, thereby resolving the regulatory issues.

Now we just need the EFL approval…

[shefcanary 2,409]

Actually the EFL should have started the process when Attanasio was appointed a director - back on 3 October 2022. That's 18 months ago. 

[GMF 744]

1 minute ago, shefcanary said:

Actually the EFL should have started the process when Attanasio was appointed a director - back on 3 October 2022. That's 18 months ago. 

I agree with that. I guess the real question is what information was actually reported, and when?

I’m still unclear as to why it was thought necessary to have two general meetings? Could this not be dealt with by more resolutions at the first meeting? I’m asking because I genuinely don’t know the corporate law aspects.

Unless it was legally not possible, which I doubt, I just seems to have made more sense to have dealt with it in a single meeting.

[Mason 47 1,379]

I'm trying to work out if I'd feel better off having the slightest understanding any of these things.

Is the kit still going to be yellow?