Mark Attanasio

[king canary 7,653]

3 minutes ago, Darth Vadis said:

What's this?

Seconded- what?

[Soldier on 160]

31 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

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!

 

31 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

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!

We don’t know that Sara’s contract status is any more than idle speculation though do we ?

caveat that with Attanasio has spoken about raising capital for knapper recruits in the past.

[Bobzilla 151]

1 hour ago, shefcanary said:

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).

The MA loan was basically converting nasty third party debt into safer shareholder debt, which reduced the risk of it being called in or converted into equity in an uncontrolled way - we don't want to be the next West Ham, and i'm not aware of any Norfolk based billionaire smut-brokers...

Point being I'm not sure that we can dismiss the MA shareholder loan in quite the same way that we can the DS shareholder loan.  It's a real liability.

[GMF 756]

39 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

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!   

Ultimately, it’s not about the size of the debt / liabilities, it’s about the ability to repay, or refinance them, when they become due.

It’s perfectly feasible, although maybe not desirable, to have £100m of debt, with a £35m annual revenue stream, and still be able to trade on. 

[Bobzilla 151]

4 minutes ago, GMF said:

Ultimately, it’s not about the size of the debt / liabilities, it’s about the ability to repay, or refinance them, when they become due.

It’s perfectly feasible, although maybe not desirable, to have £100m of debt, with a £35m annual revenue stream, and still be able to trade on. 

Unless salaries on long term contracts are £36m...

[shefcanary 2,440]

19 minutes ago, Darth Vadis said:

What's this?

@MC_NCFC conveyed higher up the thread how Attanasio and his backers had an interest in Sara's contract. Some of us fear it may be bordering on third party ownership but they seem initially to have found a way around the rules governing this. In theory if repeated it should allow Norwich to attract more players of Sara's quality to the club even with a limited budget. 

[Bobzilla 151]

4 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

@MC_NCFC conveyed higher up the thread how Attanasio and his backers had an interest in Sara's contract. Some of us fear it may be bordering on third party ownership but they seem initially to have found a way around the rules governing this. In theory if repeated it should allow Norwich to attract more players of Sara's quality to the club even with a limited budget. 

It possibly turns us from a football club to a footballer factory, but 1 - we always were a selling club and 2 - it possibly turns us into a buying club as well.  It seems not dissimilar to part of the Manchester United model, just bringing in rather than bringing up, and using our first team as the shop window rather than passing on those that don't meet our ridiculously high standards.

[GMF 756]

9 minutes ago, Bobzilla said:

Unless salaries on long term contracts are £36m...

Are you including the executive director’s bonus in that? 😜

[Bobzilla 151]

1 minute ago, GMF said:

Are you including the executive director’s bonus in that? 😜

What's left for the playing staff?

[essex canary 504]

Another interesting reference point is WBA's recent sale for apparently £20 million plus debt repayment. Assuming S&J only want the same £25 per share as Foulger that leaves headroom for at least something of a return settlement to minority shareholders.

That said in many ways it may be good to see the minority shareholding of 19.2% carried forward but only if it is modernised rather than being a generation behind it's time. Maybe our newly unified Board could work on that?

[essex canary 504]

33 minutes ago, GMF said:

Are you including the executive director’s bonus in that? 😜

Based on the last OSP meeting that shouldn't be anymore than a halfpenny.

[TIL 1010 4,779]

10 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Based on the last OSP meeting that shouldn't be anymore than a halfpenny.

Bingo ! the mere mention of Zoe and up he pops as sure as night follows day @GMF

[GMF 756]

6 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

Bingo ! the mere mention of Zoe and up he pops as sure as night follows day @GMF

It’s just too easy and predictable…

[Soldier on 160]

1 hour ago, shefcanary said:

@MC_NCFC conveyed higher up the thread how Attanasio and his backers had an interest in Sara's contract. Some of us fear it may be bordering on third party ownership but they seem initially to have found a way around the rules governing this. In theory if repeated it should allow Norwich to attract more players of Sara's quality to the club even with a limited budget. 

 

1 hour ago, shefcanary said:

@MC_NCFC conveyed higher up the thread how Attanasio and his backers had an interest in Sara's contract. Some of us fear it may be bordering on third party ownership but they seem initially to have found a way around the rules governing this. In theory if repeated it should allow Norwich to attract more players of Sara's quality to the club even with a limited budget. 

This is just speculation though isn’t it or is it based on something more concrete ?

I know MA has referred to raising capital to secure targets for Knapper in the future.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,227]

18 hours ago, MC_NCFC said:

He also has some unusual arrangement with individual investor player ownership.

The Sara purchase was financed by him and some investors into his group. It’s a complex arrangement but essential to simplify it, a few people own Sara’s commercials. Any money made on a sale to another club provides them in dividends. MA’s plan is to create several of these deals going forward, he/his investors will finance future prospects to provide a return in a certain timeframe. It’s a new way for investors to make money in a quicker timeframe than stocks/shares/funds in which they are tied in for significant periods before being able to redraw any increase in value.

My understanding is we are the first club of our kind to create this innovative model. It should fund significant signings but we won’t see them for long before they are shipped off for a profit to please the investors. Furthermore, the plan I believe is after proving the concept is to then create a fund/group several players into an investment. They plan to buy another club in Europe to do something similar but also to allow them to move players around that aren’t quite working out in the UK. 
 

Overall I think it brings us benefits but changes the playground sufficiently for us and European football. I can’t remember which football association/group he’s applying to become president for but he’s trying to move the goal post diffidently at the top.

its also interesting in how he’s trying to reshape golf with the PGA. As well as what he’s done in Baseball. He’s a big character with huge ambition in sport but there is no doubt about it, this is about making money out of money for MA. I think it’ll be good for us for where we are as a club and allows us to step up as a significant player in shaping finances in football.

Some of the realpolitik sees the light of day.

Parma 

[essex canary 504]

23 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

Bingo ! the mere mention of Zoe and up he pops as sure as night follows day @GMF

The Good Friday Notes from the Boardroom was certainly a classic.

[shefcanary 2,440]

Look, I am not selling my shares to anyone! Unless I have no choice, okay!

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

57 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Another interesting reference point is WBA's recent sale for apparently £20 million plus debt repayment. Assuming S&J only want the same £25 per share as Foulger that leaves headroom for at least something of a return settlement to minority shareholders.

That said in many ways it may be good to see the minority shareholding of 19.2% carried forward but only if it is modernised rather than being a generation behind it's time. Maybe our newly unified Board could work on that?

Not a chance in Hell. Your money is well and truly gone

[TIL 1010 4,779]

14 minutes ago, essex canary said:

The Good Friday Notes from the Boardroom was certainly a classic.

We have had two home games since Plymouth so wasn't there anything in those programmes that attracted your ultra critical mind to impose on us ?

[chicken 2,640]

6 hours ago, shefcanary said:

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 ..... 😉 

The issue of value is subjective and I do think can be boiled down further.

The Burnley comparison is more complex, I haven't looked at their accounts so this is based purely on face value.

The argument you put forward is about potential. Essentially that we 'could' have potentially a bigger fanbase more locally as the majority of clubs within 100miles or so are at best, on a similar footing. However, historically, and especially in the modern market, as others have said elsewhere, this means very little in terms of gate receipts and has more to do with how much that support base is worth financially in all areas of business.

Now, this is where Burnley may have an advantage, and again, I'm not in a position to know. They have had prolonged exposure in the premier league in more recent years. This means they are undoubtedly ahead of us in some areas such as overseas business.

It doesn't even have to be the value of that business but that the links and structure is already there.

Our area of influence may well be larger, but it's A) pretty sparsely populated, B) has a greater age population than a great deal of other places. Catchment matters less than size of your market.

I really don't think it's as straight forward as it looks on the face of it. Although similar 'stature' I don't think it can be argued that we are worth 'as much' as Burnley at this juncture.

Equally, when Burnley were purchased they had more assets in their more PL experienced squad than we did/do.

[chicken 2,640]

5 hours ago, Bobzilla said:

What's left for the playing staff?

Is it any wonder they can't afford to refund free tickets?!! 

[MC_NCFC 67]

I’ve done a bit more digging and going over old conversations. I think another piece which is all so important is the revolutions of data management. How MA is introducing his data capture to investors will be the most important thing here. Could we get in a situation where the data says sign Joe Bloggs from ABC FC in Romania because of the % chance of 50% increase in value over two years. We then experience investor pressure to sign players because they see the likelihood of a quick return?

We will need a masterful coach to deal with the drive to sign, coach, up their value to the market place and replace. Appreciate Knapper is there to align needs of a playing team and the ownership need to drive revenue to investors. It would be wonderful to see what % the club retain in these transactions. I’m not sure this will ever become entirely clear as it’s our USP and allows us to differentiate from traditional player financing. 
 

I do agree with an earlier post that this should encourage some better players to join. It stands us out in a competitive market place.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,227]

2 hours ago, MC_NCFC said:

I’ve done a bit more digging and going over old conversations. I think another piece which is all so important is the revolutions of data management. How MA is introducing his data capture to investors will be the most important thing here. Could we get in a situation where the data says sign Joe Bloggs from ABC FC in Romania because of the % chance of 50% increase in value over two years. We then experience investor pressure to sign players because they see the likelihood of a quick return?

We will need a masterful coach to deal with the drive to sign, coach, up their value to the market place and replace. Appreciate Knapper is there to align needs of a playing team and the ownership need to drive revenue to investors. It would be wonderful to see what % the club retain in these transactions. I’m not sure this will ever become entirely clear as it’s our USP and allows us to differentiate from traditional player financing. 
 

I do agree with an earlier post that this should encourage some better players to join. It stands us out in a competitive market place.

We’ll done again MC.

Now go back to the beginning….….why is a Baseball-loving American Financier from Milwaukee here again @nutty nigel?

…’….ah ….but….food, family.,..similarities’….oh yes. 

It’s not just the equity gain, the cheap buy in, the thrill ride, the son purpose, the flavour-of-the-month trend, the international sports conglomeration…it’s also the vehicle. 
 

Go back to the start of this thread and read again. Hiding in plain sight. 
 

Parma

 

[MC_NCFC 67]

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

We’ll done again MC.

Now go back to the beginning….….why is a Baseball-loving American Financier from Milwaukee here again @nutty nigel?

…’….ah ….but….food, family.,..similarities’….oh yes. 

It’s not just the equity gain, the cheap buy in, the thrill ride, the son purpose, the flavour-of-the-month trend, the international sports conglomeration…it’s also the vehicle. 
 

Go back to the start of this thread and read again. Hiding in plain sight. 
 

Parma

 

Why does a business man buy a business?

[PurpleCanary 5,578]

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

We’ll done again MC.

Now go back to the beginning….….why is a Baseball-loving American Financier from Milwaukee here again @nutty nigel?

…’….ah ….but….food, family.,..similarities’….oh yes. 

It’s not just the equity gain, the cheap buy in, the thrill ride, the son purpose, the flavour-of-the-month trend, the international sports conglomeration…it’s also the vehicle. 
 

Go back to the start of this thread and read again. Hiding in plain sight. 
 

Parma

 

I think many people understood that general aim and attitude from the start. But if I have understood what MC is saying then the specific plan is to have certain unaccountable investors having a specific beneficial financial interest in the sale of players. With the obvious potential conflict of interest between their bank balance and the club’s footballing interests. That, assuming it is correct, is new.

[MC_NCFC 67]

3 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

I think many people understood that general aim and attitude from the start. But if I have understood what MC is saying then the specific plan is to have certain unaccountable investors having a specific beneficial financial interest in the sale of players. With the obvious potential conflict of interest between their bank balance and the club’s footballing interests. That, assuming it is correct, is new.

Yes in essence. However of course there is a need for MA to have a club performing because that attracts the players which attract the investors. It will need some shrewd operating to make it work but it might be the only way to make Norwich City work in the modern football environment. As with anything, only time will tell. I’m overall a supporter of the plan and I am pretty excited by it. 

[Soldier on 160]

17 minutes ago, MC_NCFC said:

Yes in essence. However of course there is a need for MA to have a club performing because that attracts the players which attract the investors. It will need some shrewd operating to make it work but it might be the only way to make Norwich City work in the modern football environment. As with anything, only time will tell. I’m overall a supporter of the plan and I am pretty excited by it. 

Is this factual ? Not aware of this reporting/interpretation of the Sara deal prior to your post ?! Nunez as well ??

[MC_NCFC 67]

8 minutes ago, Soldier on said:

Is this factual ? Not aware of this reporting/interpretation of the Sara deal prior to your post ?! Nunez as well ??

Sara has been mentioned in the press. I believe he was the trial one to prove the concept. It probably means he’s off either way this summer to provide the return. Nunez no idea but it may just be Sara at this point whilst MA waiting to be approved on his takeover.

[PurpleCanary 5,578]

34 minutes ago, MC_NCFC said:

Yes in essence. However of course there is a need for MA to have a club performing because that attracts the players which attract the investors. It will need some shrewd operating to make it work but it might be the only way to make Norwich City work in the modern football environment. As with anything, only time will tell. I’m overall a supporter of the plan and I am pretty excited by it. 

For now I will temper excitement with a touch of sceptical concern.

[PurpleCanary 5,578]

On 24/04/2024 at 16:03, Satriales said:

Finally

 

 

 

I notice that a figure of £25 per share (as opposed to the purely nominal price of £1) is being mentioned as the price Attanasio has paid for the tranche that takes him to 40 per cent. In fact the official Companies House listing gives him as having paid only £1 a share. Shef and others may need as a matter of extreme urgency to factor this into their discussions on the overall value of the club.

 

Edited April 26 by PurpleCanary