Mark Attanasio

[essex canary 504]

11 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

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.

It will certainly be the most interesting thing to look for in November. Without the premium on these his total equity outlay would be around £3.5 million for his 40.4% probably roughly equivalent to what the minorities paid in broadly quarter of a century old money for their 19.2% and we would know where the season ticket increase is destined. 

[GMF 756]

23 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

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.

That’s not right @shefcanary on two accounts. First, look at any other club that’s issued shares recently, and you will see that they are usually allotted for a premium, which is specified on the SH01 form. Second, I’ve checked with the club and another form will be available shortly. 

[shefcanary 2,446]

Just now, GMF said:

That’s not right @shefcanary on two accounts. First, look at any other club that’s issued shares recently, and you will see that they are usually allotted for a premium, which is specified on the SH01 form. Second, I’ve checked with the club and another form will be available shortly. 

Fair enough, happy to be corrected! 🙂 So, by "another form" are you saying the form was filed incorrectly by the club (again)?

[Bobzilla 163]

1 hour ago, Soldier on said:

As Bethnal has posted what has been suggested is a breach of regulations. 

Not necessarily.  Not one of us knows the detail of his investment structure (or if they do would be able to give us the details), and I very much doubt any one of us knows the detail behind the TPO rules and what they precisely ban.  

I very much doubt that we will have individual investors picking and choosing players to be investing in, i.e. Building a team where we are merely borrowing players who are owned by different investors, as that does look like TPO.  However an innovative finance model where return to investors is based on something other than total club results?

The big thing around TPO isn't about the concept of TPO.  It's about the ability to use that ownership to fix matches, to pull the rug out from under a football club for specific games, and the fact that it possibly skirts too close to looking like slavery.

I suspect that if MA is interested in TPO, he's had to buy a football club to do it.  The interesting bit will be how Norfolk provides financing to NCFC going forward, and the terms that is on.

Edited April 26 by Bobzilla

[GMF 756]

14 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

Fair enough, happy to be corrected! 🙂 So, by "another form" are you saying the form was filed incorrectly by the club (again)?

Or their representatives… 😉

[essex canary 504]

2 hours ago, GMF said:

Or their representatives… 😉

Poor commissioning and/or checking if the latter therefore still down to the Club.

[GMF 756]

12 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Poor commissioning and/or checking if the latter therefore still down to the Club.

Quelle surprise 😮 

[Nik Vawn 148]

7 hours 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. 

 

Thank you for your input, I have been getting more and more worried about the way it's suggested this may unfold and as someone who holds your posts in high regard I am consoled that regulation may prevent the imagined model ever being a reality.

[essex canary 504]

1 hour ago, GMF said:

Quelle surprise 😮 

As in responsibility cannot be delegated.

[MC_NCFC 67]

6 hours 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. 

 

The thing is BYG. This is not your typical player ownership model that you will see in South America etc. The investors utilise the investment vehicle. The investment vehicle put in funds to Norwich city to purchase players. Those funds are similar to a directors loan. You can take them back out under an agreement and can recover dividends based on profit. 
 

I’m not a finance man but understand the business environment at a high level. This is completely innovative and a first of its kind mechanism from my understanding. There are technicalities I don’t know and even if I did I’d find difficult to explain. 
 

It is my understand significant due diligence has been done and the Norwich player finance model has been approved by the correct authorities and is one of the reasons for the lengthy time it has taken for the announcement. One thing I would say is look back at interviews most of it has been mentioned one way another and this news isn’t new. Just hasn’t been explained or brought together in a few messages on this thread as has been done over the last few days.

[MC_NCFC 67]

Just to alleviate some worries about investors and ‘third party owership’ which this is not. Think back to when we needed to buy Huckerby and others, wasn’t it the turners that provided us with a ‘loan’ to purchase him. We then a few years later paid off the turners plus interest. Whilst this is different it is fundamentally the same in terms of legalities. 
 

Hope that puts some minds at rest, it isn’t third party ownership but a platform for investors to invest in player sales through NCFC. 

[Mengo 825]

5 hours ago, shefcanary said:

Fair enough, happy to be corrected! 🙂 So, by "another form" are you saying the form was filed incorrectly by the club (again)?

(AGAIN), who's the official Filer for filing official documents.  Is there any control; governance around NCFC. Or do we just "Wing it ".🤔

[GMF 756]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

As in responsibility cannot be delegated.

Who are you blaming for this one then?

[Badger 2,412]

On 24/04/2024 at 22:12, chicken said:

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'm sure we'd agree that the true value of the shares is greater than the nominal financial value: it's an important part of our identity.

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

2 hours ago, MC_NCFC said:

Just to alleviate some worries about investors and ‘third party owership’ which this is not. Think back to when we needed to buy Huckerby and others, wasn’t it the turners that provided us with a ‘loan’ to purchase him. We then a few years later paid off the turners plus interest. Whilst this is different it is fundamentally the same in terms of legalities. 
 

Hope that puts some minds at rest, it isn’t third party ownership but a platform for investors to invest in player sales through NCFC. 

It doesn’t strike me as remotely similar. The Turners lent us money to boost the coffers generally because in crude terms we were skint, and it was repaid when they resigned. What you have confirmed you are talking about is specific investors having a stake in specific players from which they will benefit financially if and when those players are sold. Which is really quite different.

[essex canary 504]

1 hour ago, GMF said:

Who are you blaming for this one then?

The Board collectively. Then again the handsomely remunerated member should be in the forefront. The Post Office is a great example of what can happen when this principle isn't followed.

[essex canary 504]

20 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

It doesn’t strike me as remotely similar. The Turners lent us money to boost the coffers generally because in crude terms we were skint, and it was repaid when they resigned. What you have confirmed you are talking about is specific investors having a stake in specific players from which they will benefit financially if and when those players are sold. Which is really quite different.

Not sure exactly what is being suggested here? The fact is that NCFC has balanced its transfer cash within the year. Surely we are moving away from this to a concept of speculate to accumulate? Is there any news beyond that?

[GMF 756]

9 minutes ago, essex canary said:

The Board collectively. Then again the handsomely remunerated member should be in the forefront. The Post Office is a great example of what can happen when this principle isn't followed.

Put the stick down. The Board didn’t complete the form…

[essex canary 504]

24 minutes ago, GMF said:

Put the stick down. The Board didn’t complete the form…

But ultimately they must be responsible for it and it should be done correctly first time. Why not ask for a copy before it is sent? No checks and balances is exactly the problem as the Post Office clearly demonstrates with horrendous consequences.

[GMF 756]

9 hours ago, essex canary said:

But ultimately they must be responsible for it and it should be done correctly first time. Why not ask for a copy before it is sent? No checks and balances is exactly the problem as the Post Office clearly demonstrates with horrendous consequences.

Beyond comparison, but you’re obsessed with your Post Office references. Do you think you’re the NCFC equivalent of Alan Bates? 

Edited April 27 by GMF

[MC_NCFC 67]

10 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

It doesn’t strike me as remotely similar. The Turners lent us money to boost the coffers generally because in crude terms we were skint, and it was repaid when they resigned. What you have confirmed you are talking about is specific investors having a stake in specific players from which they will benefit financially if and when those players are sold. Which is really quite different.

I’m not saying it is but what I was trying to highlight perhaps badly that there are lots of ways to fund a club and that it doesn’t always mean third party ownership of players. What is happening now is unique to any FC in world football. It’s not been done before so no you can’t compare but what I’m trying to say is people who are worried it’s in conflict with the rules is that this has gone through significant due diligence and has sign off from the needed football associations. 

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

13 minutes ago, MC_NCFC said:

I’m not saying it is but what I was trying to highlight perhaps badly that there are lots of ways to fund a club and that it doesn’t always mean third party ownership of players. What is happening now is unique to any FC in world football. It’s not been done before so no you can’t compare but what I’m trying to say is people who are worried it’s in conflict with the rules is that this has gone through significant due diligence and has sign off from the needed football associations. 

I don't want to belabour the point, but if the plan has got approval then it is unlikely to be as you have described it, since that seemed a clear breach of third-party ownership rules. That Attanasio aims to get in investors is hardly new. One of the people in the Norfolk Group, Ressler, is on paper worth markedly more than Attanasio, who has previously I think mentioned Australia as a source of investment.

I don't have the time to talk about this now but I have posted at length in the past about how over the decades football finance has changed, and with one exception to the detriment of Norwich City. It always appeared likely that Attanasio, who seems no fool, would understand  that the club would need to adapt and do things differently, and possibly very differently.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,589]

FIFA rules are clear. The only parties allowed to have a financial interest in a player are the player (and his reps), his current club and any club he has previous been registered. 

If the model is the members Norfolk Holdings would receive a direct cut of any player sold - which is how it was original seemingly described, then that is a breach of FIFA rules. I would also worry from a fan point of view as well if player sales was suddenly dictated by a group of investors who would happily see the club sell its best players for a quick buck.

If it is a case that investors receive a dividends at the end of the season based on profits (of which for a club for Norwich would be largely driven by player sales) that would be allowable - although not great for the club to see money skimmed off every year to go to a group of people we have no idea who is included. 

I feel pretty uncomfortable in general that there has been no public mention who is in Norfolk Holdings, while we are not entitled to know, it does feel a strange move for the club that has claimed the most important part of selling Foulger's shares was they went to the right person. 

[GMF 756]

2 minutes ago, Bethnal Yellow and Green said:

I feel pretty uncomfortable in general that there has been no public mention who is in Norfolk Holdings, while we are not entitled to know, it does feel a strange move for the club that has claimed the most important part of selling Foulger's shares was they went to the right person. 

Norfolk FB Holdings LLC is incorporated in Delaware, the US equivalent of the BVI or Bahamas, completely opaque from a corporate perspective.

One of Michael Foulger’s stated intentions was to find someone who could bring extra cash into NCFC. This has already happened in terms of new equity and debt financing, it just seems a pity that much of the initial investment was to keep the ship afloat, given the profligacy of our last Premier League adventure.

[Soldier on 161]

He has spoken about Norfolk holdings and raising capital for a player trading model. Not referenced any third party ownership though and not previously seen any discussion/speculation around the Sara purchase .

[essex canary 504]

2 hours ago, GMF said:

Beyond comparison, but you’re obsessed with your Post Office references. Do you think you’re the NCFC equivalent of Alan Bates? 

Something like that.

Profligacy has certainly been the major problem resulting in a beggars can't be choosers scenario and the kind of concern expressed by @Bethnal Yellow and Green. Not to mention that the whole localised supposedly transparent ethos of the Club is being turned on it's head.

[MC_NCFC 67]

1 minute ago, essex canary said:

Something like that.

Profligacy has certainly been the major problem resulting in a beggars can't be choosers scenario and the kind of concern expressed by @Bethnal Yellow and Green. Not to mention that the whole localised supposedly transparent ethos of the Club is being turned on it's head.

There is being transparent and then there is creating a competitive advantage that you may not want to share in its entirety. 
 

I’d also argue the club has never been transparent with its dealings and have always kept the inner runnings of the club quiet, mostly due to the fact Delia doesn’t know how it’s run. 

[GMF 756]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

Something like that.

Profligacy has certainly been the major problem resulting in a beggars can't be choosers scenario and the kind of concern expressed by @Bethnal Yellow and Green. Not to mention that the whole localised supposedly transparent ethos of the Club is being turned on it's head.

Can’t wait for part three…. 

[MC_NCFC 67]

2 hours ago, Soldier on said:

He has spoken about Norfolk holdings and raising capital for a player trading model. Not referenced any third party ownership though and not previously seen any discussion/speculation around the Sara purchase .

Exactly, the thing is it isn’t third part player ownership. It’s something different and unique utilising the investment vehicle. I did mention Sara as I believe from an interview with MA it was defences as he was trusting Webber on the purchase and the success of that player and Breedon touched on how he funded the purchase as part of the agreement to buy shares. 

[essex canary 504]

1 hour ago, MC_NCFC said:

There is being transparent and then there is creating a competitive advantage that you may not want to share in its entirety. 
 

I’d also argue the club has never been transparent with its dealings and have always kept the inner runnings of the club quiet, mostly due to the fact Delia doesn’t know how it’s run. 

I entirely agree.

The first paragraph is entirely sensible providing of course that whatever innovation is being proposed is within the rules. There appears to be good cause to challenge that with NCFC.

The second paragraph absolutely true. The technique seems to be loud one moment then quiet the next. The reason is because there are no overarching principles and that incoming senior staff are allowed to set their own rules regardless of what went on previously. There is then a tendency to beat up on fan groups that question the issues such that those that are left are pusillaminous in nature.