Mark Attanasio

[GMF 756]

55 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

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.

 

Is it 2016 revisited, the Ed and Tom show? @essex canary will have something to say, if it’s true…

[Nuff Said 5,173]

10 hours 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.

And - was this plan clearly stated during the negotiations with the majority owners when Attanasio proposed investing in the club?

And and, now I think about it, we’re all aware of the problems with third party ownership of players in the past. What happens if the cunning plan is ruled invalid for whatever reason? Will Attanasio lose interest in NCFC.

[Nuff Said 5,173]

10 hours 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.

And - was this plan clearly stated during the negotiations with the majority owners when Attanasio proposed investing in the club?

And and, now I think about it, we’re all aware of the problems with third party ownership of players in the past. What happens if the cunning plan is ruled invalid for whatever reason? Will Attanasio lose interest in NCFC?

Edited April 26 by Nuff Said

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

46 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

And - was this plan clearly stated during the negotiations with the majority owners when Attanasio proposed investing in the club?

And and, now I think about it, we’re all aware of the problems with third party ownership of players in the past. What happens if the cunning plan is ruled invalid for whatever reason? Will Attanasio lose interest in NCFC?

I do not know. But unless I am mistaken this specific aspect of investment in the club outlined by MC, has never been spoken of publicly or even hinted at. As far as I am aware this, if true, is entirely new as far as fans are concerned..

And my initial reaction, further up the thread, was not only that there was this potential conflict of interest but that it might - only might- infringe thrd-party ownership rules.

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

1 hour ago, GMF said:

Is it 2016 revisited, the Ed and Tom show? @essex canary will have something to say, if it’s true…

If true? There in black and white in the Companies House listing, GMF. Nominal price £1; actual price paid £1. Are you suggesting CH has got it wrong?!

[GMF 756]

5 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

If true? There in black and white in the Companies House listing, GMF. Nominal price £1; actual price paid £1. Are you suggesting CH has got it wrong?!

No, CH receives the documentation, it doesn’t draft them. That’s the responsibility of the company, or its representatives.

Either the form is drafted correctly, or it’s an administrative c0ck up. 

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,570]

The model of investors having some sort of financial gain directly from player sales would be a clear breach of FIFA and EPL's third part ownership rules. Punishment for other clubs that have tried overly clever TPO stuff have seen them handed transfer bans and hefty fines. FC Twente were almost booted out of the Dutch Football League due to it.

Most likely Attanasio has sold the idea to his group that Norwich can make money by being smarter in the transfer market than other teams, thus increasing the clubs position and thus increasing the clubs valuation. Basically do a Brighton/Brentford. He can't use his money to directly sign players, but can loan money to the club so they sign them. 

If the investors have any direct financial gains from player trading, formal or informal as per FIFA rules, then Norwich will be in deep trouble pretty quickly. 

 

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

37 minutes ago, GMF said:

No, CH receives the documentation, it doesn’t draft them. That’s the responsibility of the company, or its representatives.

Either the form is drafted correctly, or it’s an administrative c0ck up. 

Hard to believe it has been the latter, given how flawlessly everything else was handled...

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

2 minutes ago, Bethnal Yellow and Green said:

The model of investors having some sort of financial gain directly from player sales would be a clear breach of FIFA and EPL's third part ownership rules. Punishment for other clubs that have tried overly clever TPO stuff have seen them handed transfer bans and hefty fines. FC Twente were almost booted out of the Dutch Football League due to it.

Most likely Attanasio has sold the idea to his group that Norwich can make money by being smarter in the transfer market than other teams, thus increasing the clubs position and thus increasing the clubs valuation. Basically do a Brighton/Brentford. He can't use his money to directly sign players, but can loan money to the club so they sign them. 

If the investors have any direct financial gains from player trading, formal or informal as per FIFA rules, then Norwich will be in deep trouble pretty quickly. 

 

Thanks, Bethnal. I was not sure in terms of the detail of the rules but generally what is being claimed to be the plan did seem legally very dubious.

[GMF 756]

18 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Hard to believe it has been the latter, given how flawlessly everything else was handled...

Did you waiver before posting this? That’s relatable… 😆

[essex canary 504]

3 hours ago, GMF said:

Is it 2016 revisited, the Ed and Tom show? @essex canary will have something to say, if it’s true…

Is this modernisation or the Victorian Age?

Never ignore the thin end of the wedge.

[essex canary 504]

1 hour ago, GMF said:

No, CH receives the documentation, it doesn’t draft them. That’s the responsibility of the company, or its representatives.

Either the form is drafted correctly, or it’s an administrative c0ck up. 

Even money each option. Par for the course.

[Bobzilla 160]

12 hours 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.

MA is essentially a hedge fund/private equity guy.  They don't have specific targets in that way.  They review A LOT of opportunities, and pick a number that have the best chance of success.  For every 10 opportunities they back, it doesn't matter if 9 turn out to be turds so long as 1 turns to gold.  And by turd i mean a 6/7 figure player instead of a £30m gold guy.

I don't see a conflict of interest here in any way that we haven't seen for the past 30 years.  We've always been an implicit selling club.  Now we have an invester who seemingly wants us to be an explicitly selling club.  I can live with that.

[essex canary 504]

20 hours ago, TIL 1010 said:

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 ?

None of them are riveting but the Good Friday ones stand out as a variation on John Cleese's don't mention the war theme. 

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

31 minutes ago, GMF said:

Did you waiver before posting this? That’s relatable… 😆

This seems to be a red-tape case of not waiving but drowning...

[GMF 756]

25 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Is this modernisation or the Victorian Age?

Never ignore the thin end of the wedge.

Someone’s going for maximum capital appreciation…. 😉

[essex canary 504]

17 hours ago, chicken said:

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.

If you looked at Burnley's Accounts for the last 10 years under their previous ownership you would see a highly efficient and effective business. Whether they remain that under their new American ownership is open to question. Whether we would be going down that road had we been so successful under our domestic ownership is also open to question and I would argue probably not.

As for wider reach nationally and internationally by all means go down that road if desired but eventually it creates franchise football as distinct from we support our local team.  Teams like Burnley, West Brom, Leicester even probably Leeds with far greater reach are still pricing in their local supporters.

[Soldier on 160]

13 hours ago, MC_NCFC said:

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.

Can’t say I remember reading this in the press. Can anyone else verify this and / or provide link. So far as I am aware MC_NCFC you are the first to mention it ???

[Bobzilla 160]

4 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

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.

 

Not sure you're reading the filings correctly.  The 'amount paid' I think refers to the amount of the nominal value paid, i.e. Recording whether any of the shares were partly paid.  I don't think it records share premium payable on allotment of shares. We'll find out by the end of this year though when annual accounts are published.

[GMF 756]

2 minutes ago, Bobzilla said:

Not sure you're reading the filings correctly.  The 'amount paid' I think refers to the amount of the nominal value paid, i.e. Recording whether any of the shares were partly paid.  I don't think it records share premium payable on allotment of shares. We'll find out by the end of this year though when annual accounts are published.

The SH01 form has to show the nominal value, in this case £1.00, and the amount paid, again £1.00, together with any amount unpaid, in this instance £0.00.

It’s either correct, or an administrative c0ck up. I suspect it is the latter and a revised form will be sent in shortly.

[Bobzilla 160]

5 minutes ago, GMF said:

The SH01 form has to show the nominal value, in this case £1.00, and the amount paid, again £1.00, together with any amount unpaid, in this instance £0.00.

It’s either correct, or an administrative c0ck up. I suspect it is the latter and a revised form will be sent in shortly.

Possibly a c0ck up then.  The old SH01 form was clear that the amount paid included premium in the amount paid.  Not sure what the new online admin hub shows.

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

10 minutes ago, Bobzilla said:

Not sure you're reading the filings correctly.  The 'amount paid' I think refers to the amount of the nominal value paid, i.e. Recording whether any of the shares were partly paid.  I don't think it records share premium payable on allotment of shares. We'll find out by the end of this year though when annual accounts are published.

As GMF has posted, I believe I am reading the filing correctly.

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

51 minutes ago, Bobzilla said:

MA is essentially a hedge fund/private equity guy.  They don't have specific targets in that way.  They review A LOT of opportunities, and pick a number that have the best chance of success.  For every 10 opportunities they back, it doesn't matter if 9 turn out to be turds so long as 1 turns to gold.  And by turd i mean a 6/7 figure player instead of a £30m gold guy.

I don't see a conflict of interest here in any way that we haven't seen for the past 30 years.  We've always been an implicit selling club.  Now we have an invester who seemingly wants us to be an explicitly selling club.  I can live with that.

If this poster MC is correct, and they have confirmed this in reply to a direct question from me, then the plan involves something totally new and is nothing like what we have had for the last 30 years.

Edited April 26 by PurpleCanary

[essex canary 504]

28 minutes ago, GMF said:

The SH01 form has to show the nominal value, in this case £1.00, and the amount paid, again £1.00, together with any amount unpaid, in this instance £0.00.

It’s either correct, or an administrative c0ck up. I suspect it is the latter and a revised form will be sent in shortly.

I think I will change my odds slightly in favour of it being correct. After all it is £4.68 million on which MA could earn more Interest.

[Bobzilla 160]

13 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

If this poster MC is correct, and they have confirmed this in reply to a direct question from me, then the plan involves something totally new and is nothing like what we have had for the last 30 years.

I’m in two minds on my answer here.  Option 1 is ‘It’s exactly what we’ve had for the last 30 years - the playing side has always been funded by selling our star players’.  Option 2 is ‘you’re right.  This time we’ll actually be starting with the money to buy our player stock’.

The only new bit of this is the specific financing bit of it.  It’s the breadth of investors that we are courting through MA.  It’s acknowledgment that this is actually an important/vital part of the overall business model rather than simply something we can’t get away from because we need the sales to prop up the club.  

Yesterday, we had a club that survived because players were continually sold to fund the club.

Today we seemingly have a club that is continuously funded to provide a shop window to sell players.  The difference is that on the latter plan, you need a successful club to have a good shop window.  On the assumption that this is what we think it is, NCFC needs to be fighting at the top of the Championship or low/middle prem to have a suitable shop window.  Otherwise the model doesn’t work.  So the investors need to keep the storefront maintained.  On the pitch failure is not an option.

Under the last 30 year model, failure has sometimes been utterly unavoidable.

[kdncfc 27]

So does all this mean we are no longer paupers?

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,236]

15 hours 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.

 No. I’m not at all sure they did. I’m not at all sure Delia did either. 

Though now nobody is in any doubt. There was a huge unwillingness to see beyond, there was much ‘anyone but Delia!’.

This is going where it is going. Where it was always going. 
 

It was the very raison d’etre to start this thread. 

Parma. 

[Soldier on 160]

As Bethnal has posted what has been suggested is a breach of regulations. Why are we taking this information as gospel all of a sudden?

There is a difference between a player trading model (Brentford/brighton) to creaming off profits.

Attanasio could flip the brewers for colossal profit at this stage but as yet hasn’t been in a hurry to do so ??

[Nuff Said 5,173]

1 hour ago, kdncfc said:

So does all this mean we are no longer paupers?

Mind the gap?

[shefcanary 2,444]

7 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

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.

 

Purps, I've been trying to unravel that myself but I think there is nothing to see there. The amount paid per share is merely a reference to the amount paid in nominal terms and a check that it is fully paid up (as indicated by the other line saying unpaid share capital was zero). The share premium (that is the other £24) doesn't have to be disclosed on this return. All will be revealed in November when the financial statements are published and we can see the movement on the share premium account.