Mark Attanasio

[PurpleCanary 5,587]

2 minutes ago, GMF said:

The share issue was over 21 years ago, the bond issue was over five years ago. As I’ve said before, it’s an apples and pears comparison between the two and you really need to let it go and move on.

Oh innocent you...😍

[GMF 757]

16 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Oh innocent you...😍

Sunday mornings are made for relaxing and enjoying, plus the occasional giggles 🤭 

[Indy 3,323]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

Are these other shareholders to be offered 7% return on Preference Shares?

Will they be asking their ex Board Member non-shareholder pandemic attendee, ex Associate Director, ex Chairman of the Audit Committee, ace joint Bond investor to make a contribution? His and his partners Bond profits reinvested could kick start it.

I think this ship has sailed. Bailing the Club out of the ITV Digital crisis is a little different from bailing it out of the Webber vanity project the deterioration of which is now clearly defined by 2 visits from Leeds 2 years apart.

The 7% only applies in certain conditions, but bailing out a club you allegedly support and get a free season ticket for life isn’t enough for you? You want a massive profit too! It’s wrong on so many levels and I’m glad you’re one of the few and not the majority. You’ve had your 10k back in season ticket value so quit whining!

[The Real Buh 3,486]

Seriously, I’m not clued up on these incredibly tedious financial matters but does all of this need to be reported to some sort of independent financial authority? It must be some sort of massive fix, surely?

[GMF 757]

32 minutes ago, Indy said:

The 7% only applies in certain conditions, but bailing out a club you allegedly support and get a free season ticket for life isn’t enough for you? You want a massive profit too! It’s wrong on so many levels and I’m glad you’re one of the few and not the majority. You’ve had your 10k back in season ticket value so quit whining!

Imagine a scenario where MA makes an offer to minorities, and someone starts a campaign for “seat for life”. 

[Leedscanary 351]

[nutty nigel 7,645]

On 22/10/2023 at 12:06, The Real Buh said:

Seriously, I’m not clued up on these incredibly tedious financial matters but does all of this need to be reported to some sort of independent financial authority? It must be some sort of massive fix, surely?

This all needs to be distilled down into something we understand Buh. I'm still not sure what the eventual plan is.

As far as I can make out the great Norwich City sickandmore tree is going to become a money tree in the good old USA. Like the sycamore gap tree it's not going to be uprooted before moving. It's going to be chopped down leaving its roots in Norwich with nothing to feed. Let's just hope the dollars keep it alive because there'll be no going back...

[GMF 757]

40 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

This all needs to be distilled down into something we understand Buh. I'm still not sure what the eventual plan is.

As far as I can make out the great Norwich City sickandmore tree is going to become a money tree in the good old USA. Like the sycamore gap tree it's not going to be uprooted before moving. It's going to be chopped down leaving its roots in Norwich with nothing to feed. Let's just hope the dollars keep it alive because there'll be no going back...

One interesting take from the High Performance podcast, Delia’s utterances about, If they don’t like cut of Attanasio’s jib in six years time, they’re going to have to pay him his loan back. With what, exactly will be interesting, because it seems highly unlikely that she’ll be able to write out a cheque. 

[shefcanary 2,468]

Just now, GMF said:

One interesting take from the High Performance podcast, Delia’s utterances about, If they don’t like cut of Attanasio’s jib in six years time, they’re going to have to pay him his loan back. With what, exactly will be interesting, because it seems highly unlikely that she’ll be able to write out a cheque. 

And this is one reason that her statement about taking time to see if Attanasio is going to be the right man for the club is just words. In practise we are currently on the hook to him for £38m (unless things have changed since the last GM papers were issued - oh for a look at the financial statements).

Now for some clubs that is mere petty cash, but for Norwich that is a significant sum. Any loan taken on would have to be supported by the value of a squad that is losing value every game. I struggle to see how Attanasio will not continue to increase his lending to the club, given the fact that every other championship club makes a loss and this is our last season with parachute payments (I've written off promotion this season now).

So, will Delia just turn around to Attanasio and say sorry my friend here is your, say, £70m back; thanks, but no thanks? The practical position here is that Attanasio has cornered Delia and Michael, he is the only game in town.

When we don't get promotion this season, time for Delia to accept the inevitable in my mind.    

[GMF 757]

12 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

And this is one reason that her statement about taking time to see if Attanasio is going to be the right man for the club is just words. In practise we are currently on the hook to him for £38m (unless things have changed since the last GM papers were issued - oh for a look at the financial statements).

Now for some clubs that is mere petty cash, but for Norwich that is a significant sum. Any loan taken on would have to be supported by the value of a squad that is losing value every game. I struggle to see how Attanasio will not continue to increase his lending to the club, given the fact that every other championship club makes a loss and this is our last season with parachute payments (I've written off promotion this season now).

So, will Delia just turn around to Attanasio and say sorry my friend here is your, say, £70m back; thanks, but no thanks? The practical position here is that Attanasio has cornered Delia and Michael, he is the only game in town.

When we don't get promotion this season, time for Delia to accept the inevitable in my mind.    

Ever wondered if Michael F saw the cash flow projections and thought, “oh, f**k, I’m out of here? Needs someone with deeper pockets than me!” 

[GMF 757]

That’s me when I’m feeling uncharitable, btw….

[NewNestCarrow 203]

17 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

And this is one reason that her statement about taking time to see if Attanasio is going to be the right man for the club is just words. In practise we are currently on the hook to him for £38m (unless things have changed since the last GM papers were issued - oh for a look at the financial statements).

Now for some clubs that is mere petty cash, but for Norwich that is a significant sum. Any loan taken on would have to be supported by the value of a squad that is losing value every game. I struggle to see how Attanasio will not continue to increase his lending to the club, given the fact that every other championship club makes a loss and this is our last season with parachute payments (I've written off promotion this season now).

So, will Delia just turn around to Attanasio and say sorry my friend here is your, say, £70m back; thanks, but no thanks? The practical position here is that Attanasio has cornered Delia and Michael, he is the only game in town.

When we don't get promotion this season, time for Delia to accept the inevitable in my mind.    

I think "cornered" is really unfair, as it implies that D&M have been suckered.

They know how rare a decent owner is, and they know that a decent owner with an emotional / local connection is even rarer.

I suspect that D&M have been overly cautious about new investment because they know would be blamed if it went wrong (see Chase) They think that the Attanasio regime will be a continuation but will never be 110% sure.

[nutty nigel 7,645]

It sounds like in a couple of years there’ll be nothing left for the minor shareholders as Foulger got the last of the sterling…

[GMF 757]

4 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

It sounds like in a couple of years there’ll be nothing left for the minor shareholders as Foulger got the last of the sterling…

Nah, said all along, it wouldn’t surprise me if MA wants to take the club. I’d be very surprised if he didn’t make an offer in due course, even if he knows there’ll be an incoming, “but why isn’t it worth the same as Burnley?” 

[sgncfc 1,259]

By the time he makes his offer, the way the club is going £25 a share will look like he's overpaying.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,243]

3 hours ago, GMF said:

Nah, said all along, it wouldn’t surprise me if MA wants to take the club. I’d be very surprised if he didn’t make an offer in due course, even if he knows there’ll be an incoming, “but why isn’t it worth the same as Burnley?” 

One reason it may not now be worth what Burnley was worth was touched on by the Player Values thread. 

This thread and the State of the Nation thread converge if we take the nexus point identified in that thread - namely summer ‘21 having achieved promotion - and compare the theoretical-demonstrated-agreed-fair value of that squad versus what we have now.

If we clumsily call the ‘player roster’ non-fixed assets and everything else fixed (stadium, training ground, stuff), then we could likely reasonably assume there isn’t a vast change in the fixed, but there certainly could be quite a fluctuation in the non-fixed ‘player roster’.

The sporting-operationally-strategic ‘holding pattern’ that we see now - with aging safe hands instead of the younger appreciating assets of yesterday - may well have had a material effect on that number.

It would be quite interesting to do an FPA calculation of the relative asset values of players vs bricks. In a good year your ‘stock’ might well exceed the value of everything else. 

If you were a buyer, I wonder if you might mention it?

Equally if you were the seller - and if there is a significant drop by our FPA maths - might you then revisit the job that executives have been lauded for?

As with the previously falsely-nominated hypothetical equity gain, might this ‘theoretical’ asset loss actually now be rather more concrete too?

Parma

@Sufyellow

@TheBaldOne66

@shefcanary

@GMF

@nutty nigel

@PurpleCanary

@BigFish

@Petriix

@king canary

@TIL 1010

@ badger

@Don J Demorr

Edited October 23, 2023 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy
I am of course making the assumption that MA was already eyeing buy-in circa summer ‘21

[nutty nigel 7,645]

So when is the 2022 financial report due? I believe we had 2021 by this time last year.

[norfolkngood 1,092]

4 hours ago, shefcanary said:

And this is one reason that her statement about taking time to see if Attanasio is going to be the right man for the club is just words. In practise we are currently on the hook to him for £38m (unless things have changed since the last GM papers were issued - oh for a look at the financial statements).

Now for some clubs that is mere petty cash, but for Norwich that is a significant sum. Any loan taken on would have to be supported by the value of a squad that is losing value every game. I struggle to see how Attanasio will not continue to increase his lending to the club, given the fact that every other championship club makes a loss and this is our last season with parachute payments (I've written off promotion this season now).

So, will Delia just turn around to Attanasio and say sorry my friend here is your, say, £70m back; thanks, but no thanks? The practical position here is that Attanasio has cornered Delia and Michael, he is the only game in town.

When we don't get promotion this season, time for Delia to accept the inevitable in my mind.    

Direction comes from the Top we need fresh ideas and MA needs to get in the hot seat and steady the ship ,

will he wont he , loan here and there , Delia and Mwj staying for 3 years , this new 6 year thing ,

will he want his money back  /will Delia and Mwj trust him ,

 the whole thing is turning into a mess we need clear leadership nothing hanging over the club .

 

 

[essex canary 507]

4 hours ago, GMF said:

Nah, said all along, it wouldn’t surprise me if MA wants to take the club. I’d be very surprised if he didn’t make an offer in due course, even if he knows there’ll be an incoming, “but why isn’t it worth the same as Burnley?” 

In fairness to Michael Foulger, based on what we now know,  if the Club starts going North again selling his shares based on a Club valuation of less than £20 million will show him in a good light.

On the other hand with this level of debt maybe there is scope to go further South in which case why have 150,000 shares been denied the same exit strategy as 132,000 and how could that be consistent with Equalities principles?

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,042]

51 minutes ago, essex canary said:

In fairness to Michael Foulger, based on what we now know,  if the Club starts going North again selling his shares based on a Club valuation of less than £20 million will show him in a good light.

On the other hand with this level of debt maybe there is scope to go further South in which case why have 150,000 shares been denied the same exit strategy as 132,000 and how could that be consistent with Equalities principles?

Do us all a favour and contact MA directly and tell him that you will sell your shares to him for the price he paid Foulger but only on the condition that you and your direct descendants get a free seat for the next 25 years or the end of the world (as we know it), whichever comes first..........

[BigFish 1,988]

12 hours ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

One reason it may not now be worth what Burnley was worth was touched on by the Player Values thread. 

This thread and the State of the Nation thread converge if we take the nexus point identified in that thread - namely summer ‘21 having achieved promotion - and compare the theoretical-demonstrated-agreed-fair value of that squad versus what we have now.

If we clumsily call the ‘player roster’ non-fixed assets and everything else fixed (stadium, training ground, stuff), then we could likely reasonably assume there isn’t a vast change in the fixed, but there certainly could be quite a fluctuation in the non-fixed ‘player roster’.

The sporting-operationally-strategic ‘holding pattern’ that we see now - with aging safe hands instead of the younger appreciating assets of yesterday - may well have had a material effect on that number.

It would be quite interesting to do an FPA calculation of the relative asset values of players vs bricks. In a good year your ‘stock’ might well exceed the value of everything else. 

If you were a buyer, I wonder if you might mention it?

Equally if you were the seller - and if there is a significant drop by our FPA maths - might you then revisit the job that executives have been lauded for?

As with the previously falsely-nominated hypothetical equity gain, might this ‘theoretical’ asset loss actually now be rather more concrete too?

Parma

@Sufyellow

@TheBaldOne66

@shefcanary

@GMF

@nutty nigel

@PurpleCanary

@BigFish

@Petriix

@king canary

@TIL 1010

@ badger

@Don J Demorr

As I understand it, Burnley wasn't worth what was paid for it. The arrangement was classic asset stripping - they borrowed the cash to buy the club, and they made the club borrow the cash to pay off that debt. Pretty much like the Glaziers and Man U.

The fundamentals of clubs at our size don't really change. As you said @Parma Ham's gone mouldy, to put words in your mouth, if a club has saleable player assets, a place in the EPL, facilities and good will any prospective purchaser would need to pay for that. If it didn't have the first three the purchaser would need to buy these and that reduces the "value" of the club e.g. what shareholders can expect. The overall "investment" remains the same.

With football though, player assets can depreciate really quickly, relegation is always a reality and fixed assets are a bit of a white elephant without sporting success. Someone is always at risk of holding the baby. Villa are doing well this season, but it can't be said that they are getting much VFM from Buendia.

[Indy 3,323]

15 minutes ago, BigFish said:

As I understand it, Burnley wasn't worth what was paid for it. The arrangement was classic asset stripping - they borrowed the cash to buy the club, and they made the club borrow the cash to pay off that debt. Pretty much like the Glaziers and Man U.

The fundamentals of clubs at our size don't really change. As you said @Parma Ham's gone mouldy, to put words in your mouth, if a club has saleable player assets, a place in the EPL, facilities and good will any prospective purchaser would need to pay for that. If it didn't have the first three the purchaser would need to buy these and that reduces the "value" of the club e.g. what shareholders can expect. The overall "investment" remains the same.

With football though, player assets can depreciate really quickly, relegation is always a reality and fixed assets are a bit of a white elephant without sporting success. Someone is always at risk of holding the baby. Villa are doing well this season, but it can't be said that they are getting much VFM from Buendia.

I’ve been saying this from last May, as the value drops the debt rises there’s only one scenario left! To say MA has played a blinder as some are saying on this thread is a little condescending to MA and his team, Delia & M WJ have allowed the Webbers free run of this club and they have with their fantastic skill set put us in this crap financial position which MA has now helped ****e the club up financially! Without his 66 million I wonder where we would be today?

Edited October 24, 2023 by Indy

[GMF 757]

36 minutes ago, BigFish said:

As I understand it, Burnley wasn't worth what was paid for it. The arrangement was classic asset stripping - they borrowed the cash to buy the club, and they made the club borrow the cash to pay off that debt. Pretty much like the Glaziers and Man U.

The fundamentals of clubs at our size don't really change. As you said @Parma Ham's gone mouldy, to put words in your mouth, if a club has saleable player assets, a place in the EPL, facilities and good will any prospective purchaser would need to pay for that. If it didn't have the first three the purchaser would need to buy these and that reduces the "value" of the club e.g. what shareholders can expect. The overall "investment" remains the same.

With football though, player assets can depreciate really quickly, relegation is always a reality and fixed assets are a bit of a white elephant without sporting success. Someone is always at risk of holding the baby. Villa are doing well this season, but it can't be said that they are getting much VFM from Buendia.

Don’t underestimate (I’m sure you’re not) the debt element, which will have change of control clauses associated with it. Effectively, if there’s a change of ownership, those who have lent money will have a provision requiring immediate repayment, potentially. That’s not such an issue if most of it is from Attanasio, but it certainly strengthens his position if someone else came into play.

[GMF 757]

26 minutes ago, Indy said:

I’ve been saying this from last May, as the value drops the debt rises there’s only one scenario left! To say MA has played a blinder as some are saying on this thread is a little condescending to MA and his team, Delia & M WJ have allowed the Webbers free run of this club and they have with their fantastic skill set put us in this crap financial position which MA has now helped ****e the club up financially! Without his 66 million I wonder where we would be today?

Opportunistic is probably more apt @Indy

[BigFish 1,988]

52 minutes ago, Indy said:

I’ve been saying this from last May, as the value drops the debt rises there’s only one scenario left! To say MA has played a blinder as some are saying on this thread is a little condescending to MA and his team, Delia & M WJ have allowed the Webbers free run of this club and they have with their fantastic skill set put us in this crap financial position which MA has now helped ****e the club up financially! Without his 66 million I wonder where we would be today?

Bit premature to say he has played a blinder @Indy, if he ever gets his money back will be the point to judge. At the moment it looks a bit of a money pit just existing in the Chumps. The best way to make a small fortune from football if you are not a player, is to start with a big one.

Edited October 24, 2023 by BigFish

[shefcanary 2,468]

Parma's leading question over club valuations has got me thinking. I've already posited elsewhere that the value of the squad could achieve the Transfrmrkt value of £70m, but there is no guarantee those players would still be around, especially if Attanasio refused to support further future operating losses out of his (and his mates) pocket.  I'd previously stated there was no way Attanasio would not take over the club, irrespective of Delia's view of him as a community facing owner, because of the difficulty of the club having enough cash to pay off the debt owed to him.

However thinknig again, there is a potential way Attanasio doesn't complete his takeover and the club is still able to pay him off irrespective of success on the pitch. It could be achieved by the dreaded "Tom Cavendish" option. I know, preposterous, but hear me out ....

When looking at the value of the club, the land at Carrow Road and Colney are now probably the only asset that won't be affected by footballing success or otherwise, indeed in recent times the value of both are appreciating despite the onging cost of living crisis. The development around the N&NH has been phenomenal over the past decade; this must make the Colney land highly prized now. Similarly with government policy currently focussed on making the most of brown field sites within cities, the Carrow Road and Carrow Park land has similarly appreciated in value in recent years. And does the club still hold the freehold of the land that the apartment blocks there are built on as well? Is the value of both pieces of land worth £40m plus? Not living in Norwich now, I'm not aware of where land prices are at the moment.

The sale of both pieces of land to developers could generate enough money to pay off Attanasio. The club would have to have access to alternative land for both a ground and training facility, probably leased. It might not be at Tom's previous preferred site the UEA any more (although that institution does seem to be struggling financially nowadays); I hear a club at Plantation Park is having a little local difficulty too. Or, although there is a charitable issue, the Nest could provide a solution. 

I wouldn't want this to happen, I'm sure no-one in the club would either. The club would effectively be starting again from scratch at a venue miles out of the city with very poor connections (but plenty of clubs have done likewise in recent years). 

I'm just putting it out there, as the end game for Attanasio is approaching.

PS: People keep talking about 3 years of the shareholder agreement, but we are already down to just 2 years 3 months remaining. Time moves on. 

[GMF 757]

@shefcanary the critical issue for both Carrow Road and Colney is how it’s land use is zoned in the adopted Local Plan. 

I’ve not checked, but I suspect that neither are currently zoned for residential use, although both could be changed in due course.

Any changes would be some way off, and several years down the line. 

[Soldier on 168]

13 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

Parma's leading question over club valuations has got me thinking. I've already posited elsewhere that the value of the squad could achieve the Transfrmrkt value of £70m, but there is no guarantee those players would still be around, especially if Attanasio refused to support further future operating losses out of his (and his mates) pocket.  I'd previously stated there was no way Attanasio would not take over the club, irrespective of Delia's view of him as a community facing owner, because of the difficulty of the club having enough cash to pay off the debt owed to him.

However thinknig again, there is a potential way Attanasio doesn't complete his takeover and the club is still able to pay him off irrespective of success on the pitch. It could be achieved by the dreaded "Tom Cavendish" option. I know, preposterous, but hear me out ....

When looking at the value of the club, the land at Carrow Road and Colney are now probably the only asset that won't be affected by footballing success or otherwise, indeed in recent times the value of both are appreciating despite the onging cost of living crisis. The development around the N&NH has been phenomenal over the past decade; this must make the Colney land highly prized now. Similarly with government policy currently focussed on making the most of brown field sites within cities, the Carrow Road and Carrow Park land has similarly appreciated in value in recent years. And does the club still hold the freehold of the land that the apartment blocks there are built on as well? Is the value of both pieces of land worth £40m plus? Not living in Norwich now, I'm not aware of where land prices are at the moment.

The sale of both pieces of land to developers could generate enough money to pay off Attanasio. The club would have to have access to alternative land for both a ground and training facility, probably leased. It might not be at Tom's previous preferred site the UEA any more (although that institution does seem to be struggling financially nowadays); I hear a club at Plantation Park is having a little local difficulty too. Or, although there is a charitable issue, the Nest could provide a solution. 

I wouldn't want this to happen, I'm sure no-one in the club would either. The club would effectively be starting again from scratch at a venue miles out of the city with very poor connections (but plenty of clubs have done likewise in recent years). 

I'm just putting it out there, as the end game for Attanasio is approaching.

PS: People keep talking about 3 years of the shareholder agreement, but we are already down to just 2 years 3 months remaining. Time moves on. 

Indeed 2 years 3 months likely to be expedited if performances on the pitch unravel. From what’s being said next set of accounts aren’t pretty either

[shefcanary 2,468]

1 minute ago, GMF said:

@shefcanary the critical issue for both Carrow Road and Colney is how it’s land use is zoned in the adopted Local Plan. 

I’ve not checked, but I suspect that neither are currently zoned for residential use, although both could be changed in due course.

Any changes would be some way off, and several years down the line. 

There have been similar debates in Sheffield as far as the Local Plan is concerned. Controversially however, the Council seem to be able to ignore this as and when a developer shows any interest.

But agreed, my thought was probably a long shot at best, but thought I'd put it out there.

[Monty13 2,253]

15 hours ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

One reason it may not now be worth what Burnley was worth was touched on by the Player Values thread. 

This thread and the State of the Nation thread converge if we take the nexus point identified in that thread - namely summer ‘21 having achieved promotion - and compare the theoretical-demonstrated-agreed-fair value of that squad versus what we have now.

If we clumsily call the ‘player roster’ non-fixed assets and everything else fixed (stadium, training ground, stuff), then we could likely reasonably assume there isn’t a vast change in the fixed, but there certainly could be quite a fluctuation in the non-fixed ‘player roster’.

The sporting-operationally-strategic ‘holding pattern’ that we see now - with aging safe hands instead of the younger appreciating assets of yesterday - may well have had a material effect on that number.

It would be quite interesting to do an FPA calculation of the relative asset values of players vs bricks. In a good year your ‘stock’ might well exceed the value of everything else. 

If you were a buyer, I wonder if you might mention it?

Equally if you were the seller - and if there is a significant drop by our FPA maths - might you then revisit the job that executives have been lauded for?

As with the previously falsely-nominated hypothetical equity gain, might this ‘theoretical’ asset loss actually now be rather more concrete too?

Parma

@Sufyellow

@TheBaldOne66

@shefcanary

@GMF

@nutty nigel

@PurpleCanary

@BigFish

@Petriix

@king canary

@TIL 1010

@ badger

@Don J Demorr

I think Attanasio knows exactly what he’s getting Parma, and that’s why he’s paying what seems so little.

He is an extremely experienced businessman after all and having had experience with sports teams he must know how much the variables change.

The fixed assets are good for a club of our size and stature, there’s great potential there with the right handling, as has been shown in flashes.

You’re of course right the club isn’t worth much without a squad capable of promotion and possibility of actually staying there and the evidence is pretty clear we’ve struggled to get close to the latter.

He’s not a gambler he’s an extremely savvy businessman. I think he’s getting good value (as I’d expect him to) and I assume that’s based on the fact he sees enough building blocks to turn us into a club with the squad needed at some point.

It’s what has me optimistic. I couldn’t care less what the shares are worth personally.