Mark Attanasio

[MC_NCFC 67]

4 minutes ago, Bobzilla said:

Very curious.  I'm wondering whether it has something to do with his investment vehicle - it's not a third party acquiring control, it's an owner and director exercising their proper powers.  Perhaps.

Which is perhaps why everyone needed ownership approval.

I believe so. The investment vehicle has been mentioned a few times in interviews and I believe this is the mechanism behind the concept.

It also explains why it has taken so god long to get approved. It’s recognised as different and I expect there has been some nervousness. You even saw it from MA when Delia said he was onboard already and it was a wry ‘there’s still work to do, to get me there’ from MA 

[norfolkngood 1,087]

1 minute ago, MC_NCFC said:

Yeah I’m not sure of the exact technical aspects but the club remain as owners of players it’s nearer to speculation than anything and MA investment vehicle as the poster above mentioned is the mechanism to enable this. 

yes i am sure MA and businessmen have the legal eagles will be all over it what they can and cannot do ,

i have a feeling since this Started i do not know how long MA will stick around no evidence but if he is buying into the club fairly cheaply then he may flip to a investor who is in the group ? 

[Bobzilla 150]

Just now, norfolkngood said:

yes i am sure MA and businessmen have the legal eagles will be all over it what they can and cannot do ,

i have a feeling since this Started i do not know how long MA will stick around no evidence but if he is buying into the club fairly cheaply then he may flip to a investor who is in the group ? 

He's not buying.  He's the front man for the investment group, hence the issues we've had getting him/them through the EFL due dil process.

If anything, movement will be at Norfolk investor level.

[Midlands Yellow 4,025]

Just imagine a future with nephew Tom at the helm! That was the only option not so long ago and would be a fcuking disaster. 

[norfolkngood 1,087]

Just now, Midlands Yellow said:

Just imagine a future with nephew Tom at the helm! That was the only option not so long ago and would be a fcuking disaster. 

that would have been a total nightmare ! 

unless he  really was James bond and won 150 million in a poker game and ploughed it into the club 

[MC_NCFC 67]

1 minute ago, norfolkngood said:

yes i am sure MA and businessmen have the legal eagles will be all over it what they can and cannot do ,

i have a feeling since this Started i do not know how long MA will stick around no evidence but if he is buying into the club fairly cheaply then he may flip to a investor who is in the group ? 

Not sure, the model I have mentioned highlights a long term approach. Brining in lots of investment opportunities over time to make quick returns. Football careers are short and good Norwich players are even shorter in terms of a Norwich career. This is great for investors because no good player wants to stay at Norwich longer than 2 years. That means they get sold/moved on and the investors get their returns quicker. This model wouldn’t work at a bigger club.

Would MA build the concept get it working, bringing in serious returns for him and the investors and then sell the whole concept? Perhaps but I think that’ll take some time - 10 years or so and we’ll be in a better place for it.

[Midlands Yellow 4,025]

Just now, norfolkngood said:

that would have been a total nightmare ! 

unless he  really was James bond and won 150 million in a poker game and ploughed it into the club 

Is he a photographer by profession or am I pi$$ed again? I can’t wait for MA to takeover fully, improve the stadium and make us bigger. 

[norfolkngood 1,087]

1 minute ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Is he a photographer by profession or am I pi$$ed again? I can’t wait for MA to takeover fully, improve the stadium and make us bigger. 

i thought he worked for government before the photography ,have you ever seen the those cameras in the bond films ha ! 

[Midlands Yellow 4,025]

1 minute ago, norfolkngood said:

i thought he worked for government before the photography ,have you ever seen the those cameras in the bond films ha ! 

Can’t wait for the full Takeover and a move on from S&J. Some people can’t take change but this one is so needed. Will save on the bar bill too which shouldn’t be underestimated. 

[norfolkngood 1,087]

4 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Can’t wait for the full Takeover and a move on from S&J. Some people can’t take change but this one is so needed. Will save on the bar bill too which shouldn’t be underestimated. 

i agree ownership has moved on in the modern game 

[essex canary 504]

15 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Can’t wait for the full Takeover and a move on from S&J. Some people can’t take change but this one is so needed. Will save on the bar bill too which shouldn’t be underestimated. 

If we become Brighton or Brentford Mark 2 then fine. Could be Watford Mark 2 though.

From where we are we I guess we have to take the risk. The problem with S&J has been their volte-face from the inclusive responsible finance Football Club to the secrecy surrounding the Webber gamble.

[Midlands Yellow 4,025]

3 minutes ago, essex canary said:

If we become Brighton or Brentford Mark 2 then fine. Could be Watford Mark 2 though.

From where we are we I guess we have to take the risk. The problem with S&J has been their volte-face from the inclusive responsible finance Football Club to the secrecy surrounding the Webber gamble.

It could become Charlton too, but the handover plan S&J had in mind would have been as bad. 

[chicken 2,640]

5 hours ago, shefcanary said:

That £33m debt package (or letter of credit) also included the £5m for the share allotment, so now it has been reduced in theory to £28m, although until we see the next financial statements whether the full letter of credit is still being utilised I don't know. We have discussed earlier in this thread that the existing majority shareholders were keen that this transaction was based on the same figure as the majority of other shares were originally paid for, which was £25 (from the public issue of shares in early 2000's that lead to the current corporate structure of the club), rather than a true market value (the Canaries Trust are advertising asking prices of £70-80 per share as evidence of this).

This isn't particularly true is it? On a few counts. First of all, the Canaries Trust doesn't set the prices, the owners do, and for the main part, they have been smaller lots. As people have pointed out, were these shares in a company that had no emotional value as such, it's doubtful people would pay as much for small numbers of shares. The issue is that people who might be interested in "owning a piece of their club" would pay that much for a couple of shares or so just to say that they do own a piece of their club.

The best comparison I can think of is that you can have your name on a brick at Carrow Road. It costs £50. A brick is not worth £50. Nor is the engraving. The price is because of the emotional meaning to the person having their name on a brick at Carrow Road. It's not an accurate true market value of the brick.

The true market value of shares is what the majority of shares are being sold for. Unfortunately for the smaller shareholders - it doesn't really matter what they pay for their shares, it's not really what matters. Realistically, big investors don't value emotional connections. They can put their names on bigger things than a brick... so it has less value to them. That's the reality.

What is the true market value of shares? Probably a bit north of what MA has paid for them, but then, realising the true value of shares is another discussion isn't it? I was left some by my late father, and whilst they have a value, I have been advised that it is incredibly unlikely that I would achieve their valuation.

[GMF 756]

14 minutes ago, chicken said:

This isn't particularly true is it? On a few counts. First of all, the Canaries Trust doesn't set the prices, the owners do, and for the main part, they have been smaller lots. As people have pointed out, were these shares in a company that had no emotional value as such, it's doubtful people would pay as much for small numbers of shares. The issue is that people who might be interested in "owning a piece of their club" would pay that much for a couple of shares or so just to say that they do own a piece of their club.

As you suggest, it’s the existing share owners who set the asking prices. Of course, potential buyers are free to choose their own offer price, which may be lower, at the asking price, or above the asking price. Ultimately, however, the sellers decide which offer to accept.

[shefcanary 2,437]

1 minute ago, chicken said:

This isn't particularly true is it? On a few counts. First of all, the Canaries Trust doesn't set the prices, the owners do, and for the main part, they have been smaller lots. As people have pointed out, were these shares in a company that had no emotional value as such, it's doubtful people would pay as much for small numbers of shares. The issue is that people who might be interested in "owning a piece of their club" would pay that much for a couple of shares or so just to say that they do own a piece of their club.

The best comparison I can think of is that you can have your name on a brick at Carrow Road. It costs £50. A brick is not worth £50. Nor is the engraving. The price is because of the emotional meaning to the person having their name on a brick at Carrow Road. It's not an accurate true market value of the brick.

The true market value of shares is what the majority of shares are being sold for. Unfortunately for the smaller shareholders - it doesn't really matter what they pay for their shares, it's not really what matters. Realistically, big investors don't value emotional connections. They can put their names on bigger things than a brick... so it has less value to them. That's the reality.

What is the true market value of shares? Probably a bit north of what MA has paid for them, but then, realising the true value of shares is another discussion isn't it? I was left some by my late father, and whilst they have a value, I have been advised that it is incredibly unlikely that I would achieve their valuation.

I recognise that Canaries Trust don't set the price, I said they advertise the price that someone is asking for.

I'm going to go over old ground once again here, but here is my view.

For share valuation, that is ultimately determined in a non-stock exchange managed environment by what someone wants to pay for outright control of the club, its corporate value. All we can do is compare what other clubs have been valued at in such "takeovers" or even prospective "takeovers" which indeed picks up on your "small number of shares versus controlling interests versus complete control". I don't think you can argue on the evidence from say Burnley (an equivalent yo-yo EPL / Champs club) of a sale price of £90m, perhaps a bit more aegument by the Princes' asking price for Sheffield United (again a similar yo-yo club) of £150m.

To date Attanasio has bought a stake of 40.4% for c. £8m, inputting a value on the club of only c.£20m, that is definitely alt of kilter with the values placed on similar clubs. Is the value of a potential EPL club based in Norwich really only worth a fifth of one based in Burnley?

If you take Attanasio's other investment (okay loans, but will he ever see them repaid?) that "enabled" the acquisition of his 40% stake (the £10m pref shares and the letter of credit of £28m), it totals £46m. That grossed up equates to £115m which I'd argue is more like the true value of the club. That takes the share price to c. £140 per share.

But I accept Attanasio seems destined to achieve ultimate control of the club for very much less than £115m. Will he ever buy out the minority interests to test a wider market? Maybe, maybe not.

And people dealing in small groups of shares at the moment don't seem persuaded to hang out for anything higher than £80. 

This one is a very different football club takeover than any other. One for the pedants to review for years to come! 

[essex canary 504]

22 minutes ago, chicken said:

The best comparison I can think of is that you can have your name on a brick at Carrow Road. It costs £50. A brick is not worth £50. Nor is the engraving. The price is because of the emotional meaning to the person having their name on a brick at Carrow Road. It's not an accurate true market value of the brick.

What is the true market value of shares? Probably a bit north of what MA has paid for them, but then, realising the true value of shares is another discussion isn't it? I was left some by my late father, and whilst they have a value, I have been advised that it is incredibly unlikely that I would achieve their valuation.

If the shares you are referring to were quoted shares you would know what their value was at any point in time. Of course the position with NCFC is they are unquoted. Nonetheless it still must logically reflect the value of an underlying business which is a little different from the brick in the wall analogy which can never confer any value on any prospective purchaser.

[GMF 756]

8 hours ago, essex canary said:

If the shares you are referring to were quoted shares you would know what their value was at any point in time. Of course the position with NCFC is they are unquoted. Nonetheless it still must logically reflect the value of an underlying business which is a little different from the brick in the wall analogy which can never confer any value on any prospective purchaser.

Similar to a seat for life then? 

[chicken 2,640]

9 hours ago, essex canary said:

If the shares you are referring to were quoted shares you would know what their value was at any point in time. Of course the position with NCFC is they are unquoted. Nonetheless it still must logically reflect the value of an underlying business which is a little different from the brick in the wall analogy which can never confer any value on any prospective purchaser.

Well, you make the point, but incorrectly.

As you have just identified, the selling of a handful of shares for a higher amount and suggesting that is the 'true market value' when it is steeped in the emotional connection that involves people paying £50 for a brick with their name on it.

At that price, for many, it's affordable. £25 a share for 1000 of them... less so. £25 a share for 50,000 of them... even less so.

That's the reality. So the true market value isn't close to the £70-85 a share we have seen a tiny proportion of shares sold for. I'm a bit surprised Shef even suggested it to be honest.

Are shares 'worth' more than £25? Probably. Is the 'true market value' £70-85 a pop? Highly doubtful. But £70-85 is a nice unique birthday present, a token... a bit like buying someone a square foot of the moon surface.

So the reality is, if you have the time, and you have a small, but substantial stack of shares  you are best off selling them slowly, in small numbers at an inflated price to fans wanting, for want of a better word, memorobilia(sp) than you are selling them as a lump and getting far less - or the truer market value.

Edited April 25 by chicken

[essex canary 504]

1 hour ago, GMF said:

Similar to a seat for life then? 

The bricks will also start to look a little outmoded eventually. At least mine has got my son's name on it too.

[JonnyJonnyRowe 451]

3 minutes ago, essex canary said:

The bricks will also start to look a little outmoded eventually. At least mine has got my son's name on it too.

You are such a cheery fella aren't you, does anything make you happy? Do you have any hobbies (thinking of things to complain about doesn't count).

[essex canary 504]

52 minutes ago, chicken said:

Well, you make the point, but incorrectly.

As you have just identified, the selling of a handful of shares for a higher amount and suggesting that is the 'true market value' when it is steeped in the emotional connection that involves people paying £50 for a brick with their name on it.

At that price, for many, it's affordable. £25 a share for 1000 of them... less so. £25 a share for 50,000 of them... even less so.

That's the reality. So the true market value isn't close to the £70-85 a share we have seen a tiny proportion of shares sold for. I'm a bit surprised Shef even suggested it to be honest.

Are shares 'worth' more than £25? Probably. Is the 'true market value' £70-85 a pop? Highly doubtful. But £70-85 is a nice unique birthday present, a token... a bit like buying someone a square foot of the moon surface.

So the reality is, if you have the time, and you have a small, but substantial stack of shares  you are best off selling them slowly, in small numbers at an inflated price to fans wanting, for want of a better word, memorobilia(sp) than you are selling them as a lump and getting far less - or the truer market value.

But Shef did suggest it and mentioned Burnley who settled honourably with their minority shareholders. 

What surprises me a little about Shef's reference points is the price he quotes since what must unfortunately matter in a sense is the failed Webberlution gamble which minority shareholders had no say in and which perhaps renders the price sought by trading shareholders as more realistic. That is assuming we can rely on S&J doing the right thing for minority shareholders who they relied upon for money they didn't have.

[JonnyJonnyRowe 451]

10 hours ago, essex canary said:

If the shares you are referring to were quoted shares you would know what their value was at any point in time. Of course the position with NCFC is they are unquoted. Nonetheless it still must logically reflect the value of an underlying business which is a little different from the brick in the wall analogy which can never confer any value on any prospective purchaser.

We had a net asset value of minus £21 million in the last set of accounts didn't we?

The club would essentially be worthless in any other sector if owning a football club hadn't at some stage become a popular status symbol for narcissistic rich people. 

[GMF 756]

1 hour ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

We had a net asset value of minus £21 million in the last set of accounts didn't we?

This is true, but the point to remember is that players are listed at cost, less depreciation on any transfer fees paid. It also means that academy players, such as Max and Andy O, had values attributed to them of zero. Their sales therefore represent 100% profit in this season’s accounts. 

[Bobzilla 150]

12 hours ago, essex canary said:

If the shares you are referring to were quoted shares you would know what their value was at any point in time. Of course the position with NCFC is they are unquoted. Nonetheless it still must logically reflect the value of an underlying business which is a little different from the brick in the wall analogy which can never confer any value on any prospective purchaser.

Here's the hard truth.  Our club as it stands is fundamentally worthless on a traditional valuation model.  It does not generate operating profit.  It has negative net assets and is reliant on funding from external owners.  It seems, from the above, that MA is not investing in the club but is instead investing in player trading.  To do that he needs a club.  Training facilities, development staff and a shop window.  So our club will survive and benefit from him keeping it afloat and successful, because that is what is needed to fund his investment model.

A non controlling stake is not worth a lot in that scenario.  It certainly isn't worth the £80 a share that seems to be the going rate for small blocks.  Small blocks of shares are absolutely an intangible investment in your own sentiment regarding owning a piece of the club, not an investment in the net assets or return, even longer term.

Much as you will never be able to sell your brick at a profit, your shares are similarly value locked.  That's not because of being unlisted.  The price would be much worse if the club were listed.  That's because the price isn't dictated by anything in the accounts or investor statements.  The value of a single share has nothing to the value of the club.

[Bobzilla 150]

30 minutes ago, GMF said:

This is true, but the point to remember is that players are listed at cost, less depreciation on any transfer fees paid. It also means that academy players, such as Max and Andy O, had values attributed to them of zero. Their sales therefore represent 100% profit in this season’s accounts. 

True, but that's like saying the value of your leasehold house is £x when the lease expires in 2 years.  The reason for that valuation model rather than, say, a market valuation model is that the club can only realise the value with player consent.  You can't sell an asset that doesn't want to be sold.  They're not slaves.  The player can let their contract run down and walk away for nothing.  The player could get injured and have their career ended overnight, with the resulting hit in value.  For player trading, cash is king.

That's not to say that squad value would never factor in to a valuation of the club, just that you would never pay the amount that you could possibly realise in the event the team was being liquidated, because that's not the hypothesis going forward after the deal.

Edited April 25 by Bobzilla

[shefcanary 2,437]

The net liabilities in last year's accounts when you boil it down was effectively created by the loan from Attanasio / Norfolk FBH. In practical terms was this a true liability? Add back the £33m (or so) loaned and the accounts look completely different again. The squad was probably worth £50m (on a cash basis of 50 or so players, not an accounting basis, as excellently put by GMF above), the latest value of the land at Carrow Road given its prime location (and wary of course of potential flooding issues) you could probably add another £20m minimum (also not in the accounts). I've got to assets of about £80m without trying! Sure there are liabilities as well, but if operations have been managed well in the current season, not anywhere near as great as last financial year-end.

If, hypothetically, a Norfolk born entrepreneur made an offer to buy the club that met the approval of both sets of majority shareholders, what would be their offer price to achieve this? That is the valuation of the club that really matters, which would then determine a share price (but only in this hypothetical situation - I'm trying not to excite Essex too much, but looking at this from a Corporate Financiers point of view).

I hear what Chicken says, the price should be only what someone is prepared to pay. But in my hypothetical situation you have a Burnley type sale - is the club worth more than the £90m paid for them? I'd say yet again yes, the potential for Norwich as the prime club in a geographical area spanning nearly a quarter of England is much greater than for Burnley who are destined to live in the shadow of the Mancunians and Scousers.

I agree all that is hypothetical and one only for the Corporate Financiers of this world, those trying to do deals etc. But that is why I brought up the £70-£80 share sales, because it is the only evidence of a market place at the moment. But even those prices are about half what the hypothetical friendly investor would have to pay to the existing majority shareholders now to gain complete control in corporate financial terms.

Meanwhile Attanasio seems to be on a "promise" eventually he can obtain 81% holding by only investing c. £50m (based on his investment and loans so far) which is around £50 per share (I'm looking here from his perspective, not an accounting one). He's definitely getting control of the club on the cheap from my perspective. Especially comparing it to the Burnley sale. That's my main point really. Even Chicken cannot deny that?

My other point is that the key from here is what checks and balances Smith & Jones build in to any disposal agreement that allows them to sell their shares to Attanasio. This is where things may drag on for another 10 years or so ..... 😉 

[GMF 756]

30 minutes ago, Bobzilla said:

True, but that's like saying the value of your leasehold house is £x when the lease expires in 2 years. 

Anyone who lets their leasehold title reduce to just two years unexpired is bonkers, but they also have statutory rights to an automatic extension, so probably not relevant in this context.

Nevertheless, the Club appears to be technically insolvent, based purely upon the accounts, and requires owner support, at least in the short term. In this context we’re now similar to the majority of other clubs.

Edited April 25 by GMF

[Mello Yello 2,298]

[shefcanary 2,437]

16 minutes ago, GMF said:

Nevertheless, the Club appears to be technically insolvent, based purely upon the accounts, and requires owner support, at least in the short term. In this context we’re now similar to the majority of other clubs.

And I know you know that the important word here is technically - but not in reality. I was FD at a company that had positive net assets until we had to incorporate the bloody FRS17 Defined Benefit Pension liability turning it into mass liabilities - it was not really a true liability but the projected cost of providing pensions over the rest of the pensioners lives (I could argue all day that this made accounts meaningless for years and wasted so much time trying to explain it to lay board members - I'll not even try on here). The company was always cash flow positive and financially sound. Grrrr .... Have any companies failed because the FRS17 Pension liability alone stopped them trading? In short, no!   

Until Sky funding (or whatever broadcast company succeeds them) and other foreign broadcasters decides Football is not the major subscription draw in the world, cash will be swimming around the football world negating any true concerns over financially managing clubs prudently. The trick is ensuring non-EPL teams get access to more of it!

Next season we will be just like any other club, more's the shame, but there we go. Norfolk FB Holdings will hopefully become a bit more transparent in time and we will understand a little more about their plans, like more detail on Sara's true contract ownership which was to me a bombshell dropped last night!

[Darth Vadis 151]

25 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

like more detail on Sara's true contract ownership which was to me a bombshell dropped last night!

What's this?