Mark Attanasio

[komakino 275]

26 minutes ago, Soldier on said:

Alan Nixon released something on his Patreon relating to Webber exit. Must be leaving sooner than expected ?

Let's hope so, but the fact he was and still is here shows how badly the club is run. 

I'm in business and being close friends with somebody in your organisation who has a significant amount of power is a very bad idea indeed. One thing Delia and Michael have not appeared to have learned is how to be 'hands off' with employees,. but I suppose they would argue that they prefer a close knit organisation.

The latter is fine in theory until things go wrong and therefore actions are not taken because of the close friendships and the organisation suffers as a result. 

The future can't come soon enough. 

Edited October 29, 2023 by komakino

[GMF 757]

@komakino and @essex canary it was never a 50:50 pick between the two, though. One was the CEO, involved with the day to day running of the club, the other a part time role, with the objective of trying to make sure that the ship stayed on course.

 If you were faced with the stark choice between one or the other, which would you choose?

There’s also an element of revisionism with McNally, who was far from all bad, especially in his early years, but is harshly judged because of the January 2016 transfer window. Had those players performed better, the opinion would have been different.

[PurpleCanary 5,606]

1 hour ago, GMF said:

The South Stand loans were rescheduled after relegation to League One, but there was a repayment condition if we survived one season in the Premier League, which we did under Lambert.

Moving forward to the summer of 2015, following immediate promotion back to the Premier League, and we saw the big money spend on RVW.

The departure of Bowkett in December 2015 was followed by the January 2016 window that saw the biggest transfer splurge on Naismith, Klose and Pinto, not forgetting the permanent signing of Matt Jarvis.

There’s widespread speculation that the fall out between the chair and CEO was closely related to the subsequent transfer splurge.

Indeed, GMF, and then from memory because we stayed up the next season we had to pay it back straight away. If we'd never got promoted I believe we would have had until May of last year! I think, though, that Delia is also including money owed to her and Michael finally being repayed.

[GMF 757]

1 minute ago, PurpleCanary said:

Indeed, GMF, and then from memory because we stayed up the next season we had to pay it back straight away. If we'd never got promoted I believe we would have had until May of last year! I think, though, that Delia is also including money owed to her and Michael finally being repayed.

Delia wanted the club to be debt free at the time. Apparently, they discussed another debt for equity swap, but D&M didn’t like that idea either, hence why they, and MF, subsequently had some loans, which had been outstanding for some time, repaid.

Those who complained at the time would, undoubtedly, been equally unimpressed with the alternative option of more shares.

Of course, there was a third option, writing off the loans, but that didn’t happen.

[essex canary 516]

2 hours ago, GMF said:

@komakino and @essex canary it was never a 50:50 pick between the two, though. One was the CEO, involved with the day to day running of the club, the other a part time role, with the objective of trying to make sure that the ship stayed on course.

 If you were faced with the stark choice between one or the other, which would you choose?

There’s also an element of revisionism with McNally, who was far from all bad, especially in his early years, but is harshly judged because of the January 2016 transfer window. Had those players performed better, the opinion would have been different.

McNally was getting involved in altercations all over the place. All staff should he treated equally for disciplinary purposes whether the CEO or the Janitor or anything in between.

One thing he probably wouldn't do and neither would the likes of Shankly and Clough is discuss personal Mental Health issues in public.

These are the kind of things we have done wrong and need resolved under new ownership.

[GMF 757]

25 minutes ago, essex canary said:

All staff should he treated equally for disciplinary purposes whether the CEO or the Janitor or anything in between.

Agreed, but do you have any evidence to suggest that this wasn’t the case? 

[essex canary 516]

1 hour ago, GMF said:

Agreed, but do you have any evidence to suggest that this wasn’t the case? 

He should have been disciplined for a verbal assault upon myself as far as I am concerned. There were rumours of such issues with others including Michael Foulger.

[GMF 757]

39 minutes ago, essex canary said:

He should have been disciplined for a verbal assault upon myself as far as I am concerned. There were rumours of such issues with others including Michael Foulger.

Did you do anything about it? 

[essex canary 516]

1 hour ago, GMF said:

Did you do anything about it? 

I felt rather shell-shocked about it and it wasn't as though other people weren't there.

[wcorkcanary 4,355]

21 hours ago, essex canary said:

I felt rather shell-shocked about it and it wasn't as though other people weren't there.

suddenly you became a wilting wallflower and expected other people to stand up for you? anyone presented with your normal forked tongue, insinuating, doubletalk divisve gobbledegook could not be blamed for treating you with disdain. The fact that no  one defended you speaks volumes. Perhaps you once again failed to read the room , or consider anyone elses position except your own. 

 

Never was that much of a fan of McNally, but he's growing in my estimation.

[wcorkcanary 4,355]

On 29/10/2023 at 12:38, GMF said:

Agreed, but do you have any evidence to suggest that this wasn’t the case? 

 

22 hours ago, GMF said:

Did you do anything about it? 

Two very reasonable questions, that you @essex canary of course, have swerved.

Edited October 30, 2023 by wcorkcanary

[essex canary 516]

3 minutes ago, wcorkcanary said:

 

Two very reasonable questions, that you @essex canary of course, have swerved.

That £367,000 bonus for Catering and Commercial performance in a relegation season was a sign of things to come. How many millions extra could we have got if he had spent his time keeping us up.

[wcorkcanary 4,355]

10 minutes ago, essex canary said:

That £367,000 bonus for Catering and Commercial performance in a relegation season was a sign of things to come. How many millions extra could we have got if he had spent his time keeping us up.

 

On 29/10/2023 at 12:38, GMF said:

Agreed, but do you have any evidence to suggest that this wasn’t the case? 

 

22 hours ago, GMF said:

Did you do anything about it? 

Your response doesnt answer those questions, just more divisve carp from you.

[essex canary 516]

28 minutes ago, wcorkcanary said:

 

 

Your response doesnt answer those questions, just more divisve carp from you.

McNally was the sole Club representative at the meeting. His vitriolic response included the statement that he couldn't answer the question for reasons of Corporate Governance. The latter being quite right. Nonetheless no reason for the vitriol and the Chairman of the Group penning an apology the next day is all the evidence needed of the appeasement culture at Carrow Road. 

[GMF 757]

42 minutes ago, essex canary said:

McNally was the sole Club representative at the meeting. His vitriolic response included the statement that he couldn't answer the question for reasons of Corporate Governance. The latter being quite right. Nonetheless no reason for the vitriol and the Chairman of the Group penning an apology the next day is all the evidence needed of the appeasement culture at Carrow Road. 

I am confused, not difficult, I know. If McNally was the only representative of the Club there, are you saying that the Chair apologised to you for something that he didn’t hear? 

[essex canary 516]

58 minutes ago, GMF said:

I am confused, not difficult, I know. If McNally was the only representative of the Club there, are you saying that the Chair apologised to you for something that he didn’t hear? 

He apologised to McNally for the question being asked.

[wcorkcanary 4,355]

32 minutes ago, essex canary said:

He apologised to McNally for the question being asked.

So, it was one of your barely concealed snidey  sniping  slimy insinuation questions then? You do realise that its not so much what you say as the way that you say it that provokes people into snapping at you.  You think you are clever, most of the evidence points otherwise.  

[GMF 757]

54 minutes ago, essex canary said:

He apologised to McNally for the question being asked.

He shouldn’t have to apologise if the question asked reasonable…

[essex canary 516]

3 minutes ago, GMF said:

He shouldn’t have to apologise if the question asked reasonable…

Exactly. Appeasement. Why should a CEO get a £367,000 bonus in a relegation season? It is potty and attracted exactly that kind of response in a national football finance survey. Whilst the Catering and Commercial Income increased by £1.2 million that season, it inevitably went down by £1.8 million rhe next season. 

[nutty nigel 7,669]

On 29/10/2023 at 09:39, GMF said:

@komakino and @essex canary it was never a 50:50 pick between the two, though. One was the CEO, involved with the day to day running of the club, the other a part time role, with the objective of trying to make sure that the ship stayed on course.

 If you were faced with the stark choice between one or the other, which would you choose?

 

Definitely Essex for me

[GMF 757]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

Exactly. Appeasement. Why should a CEO get a £367,000 bonus in a relegation season? It is potty and attracted exactly that kind of response in a national football finance survey. Whilst the Catering and Commercial Income increased by £1.2 million that season, it inevitably went down by £1.8 million rhe next season. 

So, you actually asked him why he got a bonus because we were relegated? 

[essex canary 516]

14 hours ago, GMF said:

So, you actually asked him why he got a bonus because we were relegated? 

Yeah with him banging on about cutting the players bonuses. 

Besides that money could have financed 6 years of OAP concessions in Block M which he had previously removed. We need those concessions badly now so the Shadow Board can be formed with myself, @nutty nigel plus Nutty's old friend @Parma Ham's gone mouldy and his new one @Big Vince.

[PurpleCanary 5,606]

15 hours ago, essex canary said:

Exactly. Appeasement. Why should a CEO get a £367,000 bonus in a relegation season? It is potty and attracted exactly that kind of response in a national football finance survey. Whilst the Catering and Commercial Income increased by £1.2 million that season, it inevitably went down by £1.8 million rhe next season. 

It was a fair question, although really it should have been directed when feasible at the board for, if memory serves, a system that meant McNally got a bonus no matter what. If we stayed up he got a footballing bonus and if we were relegated it was a financial bonus, because that meant we didn't have to pay out player bonuses.

[GMF 757]

3 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

It was a fair question, although really it should have been directed when feasible at the board for, if memory serves, a system that meant McNally got a bonus no matter what. If we stayed up he got a footballing bonus and if we were relegated it was a financial bonus, because that meant we didn't have to pay out player bonuses.

Yes, it was a pre-agreed bonus structure and, whilst it might be fair to question the final level of the bonus, if the qualification criteria were met, it would have to be paid. 

[GMF 757]

43 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Yeah with him banging on about cutting the players bonuses. 

Besides that money could have financed 6 years of OAP concessions in Block M which he had previously removed.

I suspect that the bonuses weren’t due to players because they failed to meet the payment criteria, namely staying up in the Premier League! 

You want concessions in the best seats in the club? 

[essex canary 516]

59 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

It was a fair question, although really it should have been directed when feasible at the board for, if memory serves, a system that meant McNally got a bonus no matter what. If we stayed up he got a footballing bonus and if we were relegated it was a financial bonus, because that meant we didn't have to pay out player bonuses.

How ridiculous!

As for the feasibility of asking a question I don't see why I should have been required to undertake a 4 hour round trip twice, once for an AD meeting and once for the AGM. 

[yellowrider120 798]

On 29/10/2023 at 08:41, GMF said:

The South Stand loans were rescheduled after relegation to League One, but there was a repayment condition if we survived one season in the Premier League, which we did under Lambert.

Moving forward to the summer of 2015, following immediate promotion back to the Premier League, and we saw the big money spend on RVW.

The departure of Bowkett in December 2015 was followed by the January 2016 window that saw the biggest transfer splurge on Naismith, Klose and Pinto, not forgetting the permanent signing of Matt Jarvis.

There’s widespread speculation that the fall out between the chair and CEO was closely related to the subsequent transfer splurge.

Point of order - A Neil was manager in summer 2015. RVW was signed by C Hughton in 2013. 

[essex canary 516]

55 minutes ago, GMF said:

Yes, it was a pre-agreed bonus structure and, whilst it might be fair to question the final level of the bonus, if the qualification criteria were met, it would have to be paid. 

By the same token the season ticket rebate scheme for a similar sum  should have been paid to the fans 4 years earlier.

Typical Johnsonian one rule for the staff and one rule for the fans that our current regime employs. Same logic with share schemes and Webber wages. Maybe Norfolk Group can do better?

[king canary 7,705]

1 hour ago, PurpleCanary said:

It was a fair question, although really it should have been directed when feasible at the board for, if memory serves, a system that meant McNally got a bonus no matter what. If we stayed up he got a footballing bonus and if we were relegated it was a financial bonus, because that meant we didn't have to pay out player bonuses.

Yeah I know Essex clearly has some axes to grind but this feels like one his more reasonable questions.

[Big Vince 325]

On 29/10/2023 at 09:59, GMF said:

Delia wanted the club to be debt free at the time. Apparently, they discussed another debt for equity swap, but D&M didn’t like that idea either, hence why they, and MF, subsequently had some loans, which had been outstanding for some time, repaid.

Those who complained at the time would, undoubtedly, been equally unimpressed with the alternative option of more shares.

Of course, there was a third option, writing off the loans, but that didn’t happen.

Delia didn't write off the loans because she doesn't love the club as much as she makes out and that makes her a much lesser owner than the boy Abramovich who wrote off everything Chelsea owed him. Yet Norwich fans would rather her than he! Told you the fans are the problem here.