Mark Attanasio

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

20 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

That would still be regarded as acting in concert. The PurpleCanary helpline is now closed for the day but anyone needing advice on totally lawful ways to avoid paying any tax at all are welcome to consult his "Is your island far enough offshore?" website.

PurpleCanary is of course far too self-effacing to make this point, but to emphasise how his acumen can boost sporting as well as financial fortunes, since he put one of his tax-haven-island 🏝️penthouse apartments on the market on January 29 Norwich City have won six, drawn two and suffered one referee-induced loss.🤩

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

No two football clubs are alike. No two buyers are alike. And it is not unheard of for buyers to go in with one plan and attitude that doesn't survive contact with reality. Say, purely theoretically, being all "Greed is good" and getting seduced into avuncular philanthropy, or, equally theoretically, being brutally disillusioned from the latter into the former.

[Google Bot 3,299]

I've decided to 'like' every @PurpleCanary post where i've not had to google a word i'm unsure of.

[shefcanary 2,446]

1 hour ago, PurpleCanary said:

one of his tax-haven-island 🏝️penthouse apartments

If you put one up for sale next August after we have navigated promotion via the play-offs, will it help us stay in the EPL next season? 😉 

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

15 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

If you put one up for sale next August after we have navigated promotion via the play-offs, will it help us stay in the EPL next season? 😉 

My property portfolio is extensive but not THAT extensive!

[GMF 756]

1 hour ago, PurpleCanary said:

PurpleCanary is of course far too self-effacing to make this point, but to emphasise how his acumen can boost sporting as well as financial fortunes, since he put one of his tax-haven-island 🏝️penthouse apartments on the market on January 29 Norwich City have won six, drawn two and suffered one referee-induced loss.🤩

Are you shuffling along the Riviera to Monaco… 😉

[essex canary 505]

3 hours ago, GMF said:

If you were to actually read the waiver documents properly, you would have noted that the Club are of the opinion that a trigger event is highly unlikely. Therefore, why would provision be made for it in the cash flow forecast for the next couple of seasons? 

The Accounting profession doesn't make a habit of suggesting that organisations make accruals where there is no purpose. 'Highly unlikely' clearly wasn't highly unlikely enough for purpose.It shouldn't be easy to shake that off lightly.

[GMF 756]

5 minutes ago, essex canary said:

The Accounting profession doesn't make a habit of suggesting that organisations make accruals where there is no purpose. 'Highly unlikely' clearly wasn't highly unlikely enough for purpose.It shouldn't be easy to shake that off lightly.

Is that the same accounting profession whose member failed to spot that the Club rolled direct debit payments from season ticket holders, received during 2020-21, into receipts in advance as creditors falling due within one year in the following accounts? 

* Asking on behalf of one very, very misinformed person.

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

32 minutes ago, GMF said:

Are you shuffling along the Riviera to Monaco… 😉

Monaco is not offshore enough for me!😎

[essex canary 505]

1 hour ago, GMF said:

Is that the same accounting profession whose member failed to spot that the Club rolled direct debit payments from season ticket holders, received during 2020-21, into receipts in advance as creditors falling due within one year in the following accounts? 

* Asking on behalf of one very, very misinformed person.

Yes whilst many other Clubs credited such receipts to the Income and Expenditure Account in 20/21 instead then did so again with another set of receipts in 21/22 which is exactly why the creative statements emanating from Carrow Road often create a distortion of reality.

Let's ask again how likely is 'highly unlikely'? Even if you can't or don't want to answer perhaps best to concede that any robust process conducted on behalf of the EFL ought to address the issue.

Edited March 20 by essex canary

[Indy 3,315]

1 hour ago, PurpleCanary said:

Monaco is not offshore enough for me!😎

I worked on Piper B that’s quite a way offshore! Is that offshore enough?😂

[Bobzilla 163]

2 hours ago, essex canary said:

The Accounting profession doesn't make a habit of suggesting that organisations make accruals where there is no purpose. 'Highly unlikely' clearly wasn't highly unlikely enough for purpose.It shouldn't be easy to shake that off lightly.

Actually, on some things, they do.  Redeemable cumulative preference shares being one.  The question for recognition and classification is ‘is the redemption event within the control of the company’.  The answer is no.  Therefore, the shares must be treated as debt, and must be measured at the amount that would become payable if the redemption conditions were met.  You cannot fair value your own capital instruments, and therefore the likelihood of a redemption event simply does not come into the equation.  The only questions are ‘can the company control redemption’ and ‘how much is redemption going to cost’. No other questions are necessary or permitted.  For the company accounts.

For cashflow purposes, the question is about what do you expect the cash outflows to be during the horizon of the cashflow forecast.  If the club consider the redemption condition to be highly unlikely to be met within the period of the cashflow forecast, you don’t recognise the cashflow.  The obligation still exists, but is highly unlikely to crystalise before the end of the cashflow forecast period.

The accounting standards question I will concede is difficult.  Otherwise I wouldn’t have previously been able to charge out at £800 per hour to answer such questions for big companies.  The cashflow one really isn’t difficult though.

[essex canary 505]

15 minutes ago, Bobzilla said:

Actually, on some things, they do.  Redeemable cumulative preference shares being one.  The question for recognition and classification is ‘is the redemption event within the control of the company’.  The answer is no.  Therefore, the shares must be treated as debt, and must be measured at the amount that would become payable if the redemption conditions were met.  You cannot fair value your own capital instruments, and therefore the likelihood of a redemption event simply does not come into the equation.  The only questions are ‘can the company control redemption’ and ‘how much is redemption going to cost’. No other questions are necessary or permitted.  For the company accounts.

For cashflow purposes, the question is about what do you expect the cash outflows to be during the horizon of the cashflow forecast.  If the club consider the redemption condition to be highly unlikely to be met within the period of the cashflow forecast, you don’t recognise the cashflow.  The obligation still exists, but is highly unlikely to crystalise before the end of the cashflow forecast period.

The accounting standards question I will concede is difficult.  Otherwise I wouldn’t have previously been able to charge out at £800 per hour to answer such questions for big companies.  The cashflow one really isn’t difficult though.

Are you overall happy with the treatment of this matter?

Just an overall belief that a potential golden exit handshake for someone claiming to be an owner going forward doesn't come across well.

[Bobzilla 163]

12 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Are you overall happy with the treatment of this matter?

Just an overall belief that a potential golden exit handshake for someone claiming to be an owner going forward doesn't come across well.

Yes, I am.  We have reduced our external debt and external interest payments and replaced them with something where repayment is conditional, and highly unlikely in the current environment.  So we’ve replaced a cash cost, and an expensive one at that, with an accounting accrual cost.  The owner of that debt has an interest in taking control of the club at which point the prefs will have little difference to the existing shareholder loans from D&M.  So am I happy that we’re not giving money to a third party and instead we’re racking up a future liability that isn’t expected to become repayable in the near to medium term?  Yes I bloody am.

You’re old enough to remember Geoffrey Watling stepping up in 1996 and saving the club from bankruptcy, no?  Do you remember the biggest issue there?  It was an external overdraft that we were reliant on for working capital that was VERY expensive.  This situation is no different.  No MA, no preference shares likely means no NCFC.  I’ve been a chartered accountant for 17 years and I know how to read a set of group accounts.  And ours look horrendous for this year.  So am I happy that someone has stepped in and saved us?  Yes, absolutely.  As happy as I was in 1996 to see Chase gone and Watling in.

[essex canary 505]

43 minutes ago, Bobzilla said:

Yes, I am.  We have reduced our external debt and external interest payments and replaced them with something where repayment is conditional, and highly unlikely in the current environment.  So we’ve replaced a cash cost, and an expensive one at that, with an accounting accrual cost.  The owner of that debt has an interest in taking control of the club at which point the prefs will have little difference to the existing shareholder loans from D&M.  So am I happy that we’re not giving money to a third party and instead we’re racking up a future liability that isn’t expected to become repayable in the near to medium term?  Yes I bloody am.

You’re old enough to remember Geoffrey Watling stepping up in 1996 and saving the club from bankruptcy, no?  Do you remember the biggest issue there?  It was an external overdraft that we were reliant on for working capital that was VERY expensive.  This situation is no different.  No MA, no preference shares likely means no NCFC.  I’ve been a chartered accountant for 17 years and I know how to read a set of group accounts.  And ours look horrendous for this year.  So am I happy that someone has stepped in and saved us?  Yes, absolutely.  As happy as I was in 1996 to see Chase gone and Watling in.

OK. A great viewpoint. That still leaves the accountability for the 'horrendous'.

[GMF 756]

3 hours ago, essex canary said:

Yes whilst many other Clubs credited such receipts to the Income and Expenditure Account in 20/21 instead then did so again with another set of receipts in 21/22 which is exactly why the creative statements emanating from Carrow Road often create a distortion of reality.

Let's ask again how likely is 'highly unlikely'? Even if you can't or don't want to answer perhaps best to concede that any robust process conducted on behalf of the EFL ought to address the issue.

As I’ve mentioned before, the vast majority of clubs hadn’t even commenced their season ticket sales for the 2020/21 season when the pandemic started in March 2020, so the observation you’re making isn’t relevant here - your comment simply doesn’t stand up to close scrutiny.

The handful who did subsequently start their season ticket sales when the 20/21 season started, probably took the view that it was appropriate to account for those receipts in that year’s accounts, even though the majority of the season subsequently turned out to be behind closed doors.

Arguably, there’s merit in both approaches, but the auditors were prepared to sign off NCFC’s approach, so why you’re looking to make such an issue about it seems odd.

With specific to the treatment of the C-preference shares, we can only work on what’s in the waiver document, which is explicit - the Club doesn’t expect there to be a trigger event.

By the way, the EFL is primarily concerned with the funding position for the next two seasons after the takeover, and the C-preference shares aren’t due for redemption until 2029, unless there’s a trigger event. What’s more likely in 2029, redemption or a refinancing of that element? I know where my money is.

[norfolkngood 1,087]

2 hours ago, Bobzilla said:

Yes, I am.  We have reduced our external debt and external interest payments and replaced them with something where repayment is conditional, and highly unlikely in the current environment.  So we’ve replaced a cash cost, and an expensive one at that, with an accounting accrual cost.  The owner of that debt has an interest in taking control of the club at which point the prefs will have little difference to the existing shareholder loans from D&M.  So am I happy that we’re not giving money to a third party and instead we’re racking up a future liability that isn’t expected to become repayable in the near to medium term?  Yes I bloody am.

You’re old enough to remember Geoffrey Watling stepping up in 1996 and saving the club from bankruptcy, no?  Do you remember the biggest issue there?  It was an external overdraft that we were reliant on for working capital that was VERY expensive.  This situation is no different.  No MA, no preference shares likely means no NCFC.  I’ve been a chartered accountant for 17 years and I know how to read a set of group accounts.  And ours look horrendous for this year.  So am I happy that someone has stepped in and saved us?  Yes, absolutely.  As happy as I was in 1996 to see Chase gone and Watling in.

Great post and very interesting 

Also very informative if a chartered Accountant says your accounts look Horrendous someone was doing a very bad job at the club somewhere !

 

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,241]

On 22/11/2022 at 11:26, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

 

Parma Ham's gone mouldy     1,265

•  
  •  

Posted just now

   On 11/11/2022 at 18:45,  Parma Ham's gone mouldysaid: 

We talk about ‘corporate leverage’. Who has it, when and why. 

Timing when you ‘exercise your leverage’ is an art. I would bet good money that Attanasio is a master. 

In that sense the tables are not turning, they have already turned.

Parma 

 

 

   On 11/11/2022 at 18:41,  ricardo said: 

Attanasio struck me as a man who is unlikely to countenance mediocrity or drift. I suspect we will quickly see sparks fly if we fail to move forward.

Just further to this @ricardo from your AGM thread. 

Attanasio’s primary source of wealth and access to possible further funding comes from Crescent Capital Group.

It probably hasn’t escaped the attentions of @PurpleCanary @shefcanary @essex canary and others that Crescent Capital Group typically focuses its operations on the less traditional, higher-risk, higher yielding forms of alternative investments. 

To simplify they go into companies and places that more traditional scale lenders would not touch, investments or funding that these traditional lenders may wish to exit, or areas of finance excluding stocks, bonds and cash.

There are areas of operation including distressed securities -lending from other institutions that they-are consider(ed) distressed and-or at risk of bankruptcy. Or lending where collateral may be weak or even unsecured financial products (‘lending on belief’). 

That Attanasio used the term ‘win…winning …winner’ several times in his short AGM speech might well be indicative. His business approach seems to rather vault over ‘prudence with ambition’ or ‘self-sustainability’ into a wilder jungle whereby forensic homework, granular market knowledge and a huge belief in the superior skills, knowledge and judgment of yourself and your team over the market is used to drive decision-making. 

His jovial appearance, accommodating nature and laid-back approach is no doubt genuine. Though his business acts and operates at the high risk sharp end. His skills are hiding in plain sight. 

Your statement is - I think - prescient. And not far into the future either. Now is the time to exercise that corporate leverage. 
 

 

Parma 

Forgive me for re-quoting the original opening post again above - after all this time - following @Bobzilla’s view.

‘You wait 20 years for another Delia, then none come along all at once’

Parma 

[essex canary 505]

22 minutes ago, GMF said:

As I’ve mentioned before, the vast majority of clubs hadn’t even commenced their season ticket sales for the 2020/21 season when the pandemic started in March 2020, so the observation you’re making isn’t relevant here - your comment simply doesn’t stand up to close scrutiny.

The handful who did subsequently start their season ticket sales when the 20/21 season started, probably took the view that it was appropriate to account for those receipts in that year’s accounts, even though the majority of the season subsequently turned out to be behind closed doors.

Arguably, there’s merit in both approaches, but the auditors were prepared to sign off NCFC’s approach, so why you’re looking to make such an issue about it seems odd.

With specific to the treatment of the C-preference shares, we can only work on what’s in the waiver document, which is explicit - the Club doesn’t expect there to be a trigger event.

By the way, the EFL is primarily concerned with the funding position for the next two seasons after the takeover, and the C-preference shares aren’t due for redemption until 2029, unless there’s a trigger event. What’s more likely in 2029, redemption or a refinancing of that element? I know where my money is.

I don't think we will better @Bobzilla "s explanation re the C Preference Shares so I guess we have concluded that one.

I take the point re the first paragraph as clearly NCFC seem to start the process early and also have a high proportion of STH's relative to capacity.

The second and third paragraphs aren't just about elective decisions though. To justify a posting to Income Account rather than Receipts in Advance the service supplied needs to be utilised in the year. Thus the likes of Hull and Swansea who recorded figures of £1 million plus in that season must gave got their supporters to surrender the value against ifollow or similar which we didn't do. Those same supporters, albeit with a lower ST ratio than NCFC must reasonably have paid again the next season.

[chicken 2,642]

11 hours ago, Google Bot said:

Demand refunds on free tickets?

[Bobzilla 163]

2 hours ago, norfolkngood said:

Great post and very interesting 

Also very informative if a chartered Accountant says your accounts look Horrendous someone was doing a very bad job at the club somewhere !

 

There's an old joke. How do you make a small fortune out of owning a football club? Well, you start with a very large one...

The 'doing a very bad job' is simply trying to be competitive without mega millionaire owners.  Look at Stoke. The Coates family are orders of magnitude richer than Delia, but they're at the wrong end of the table and looking at relegation.  Quite frankly it is amazing that we are where we are, which is, at time of writing, 6th, without the backing of owners with hundreds of millions lying around.  Without MA stepping in, I reckon we could have gone into administration last year.  Possibly.

[GMF 756]

13 hours ago, essex canary said:

The second and third paragraphs aren't just about elective decisions though. To justify a posting to Income Account rather than Receipts in Advance the service supplied needs to be utilised in the year. Thus the likes of Hull and Swansea who recorded figures of £1 million plus in that season must gave got their supporters to surrender the value against ifollow or similar which we didn't do. Those same supporters, albeit with a lower ST ratio than NCFC must reasonably have paid again the next season.

What’s highlighted makes perfect sense, but is this another example of you complaining about the Club not doing the same as others, thereby implying we acted badly?

To me it just seems like a different way to treat revenue streams, both of which have their merits.

[essex canary 505]

1 hour ago, GMF said:

What’s highlighted makes perfect sense, but is this another example of you complaining about the Club not doing the same as others, thereby implying we acted badly?

To me it just seems like a different way to treat revenue streams, both of which have their merits.

No. @Bobzillastated that the £96 million debt was 'horrendous'. Following the same logic as Hull or Swansea with our ST base would have mitigated £3 to £4 million of it. Perhaps a good approach would have been to have written to ST holders and suggest that 50% of their money was carried over to next season and 50% levied as an in season charge for ifollow with the log in details.

Other than the pandemic the 2 major contributory items to our 'horrendous' financial position were the 2018/19 season which whilst wonderful the P&L demonstrates we cannot afford and additions to Long Term Assets both players and training ground which have not been satisfactorily financed.

[wcorkcanary 4,337]

14 minutes ago, essex canary said:

No. @Bobzillastated that the £96 million debt was 'horrendous'. Following the same logic as Hull or Swansea with our ST base would have mitigated £3 to £4 million of it. Perhaps a good approach would have been to have written to ST holders and suggest that 50% of their money was carried over to next season and 50% levied as an in season charge for ifollow with the log in details.

Other than the pandemic the 2 major contributory items to our 'horrendous' financial position were the 2018/19 season which whilst wonderful the P&L demonstrates we cannot afford and additions to Long Term Assets both players and training ground which have not been satisfactorily financed.

You not getting your snout in the training ground  funding/divvy up has cut deep hasnt it?  I savour  these moments when your desperation to form an argument leaks, and lets out the real reasons you are sour. You are not as smart as you think you are .

[Bobzilla 163]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

No. @Bobzillastated that the £96 million debt was 'horrendous'. Following the same logic as Hull or Swansea with our ST base would have mitigated £3 to £4 million of it. Perhaps a good approach would have been to have written to ST holders and suggest that 50% of their money was carried over to next season and 50% levied as an in season charge for ifollow with the log in details.

Other than the pandemic the 2 major contributory items to our 'horrendous' financial position were the 2018/19 season which whilst wonderful the P&L demonstrates we cannot afford and additions to Long Term Assets both players and training ground which have not been satisfactorily financed.

No, the £96m (actually about £90m as at end of fy23) debt is not of itself horrendous.  The accounts are horrendous.  That's all of it taken together.  Wage bill (plus associated expenses) being more than gate receipts and ticket sales, and 79% of total income.  £22m deficit on shareholders funds, so club survival is being funded by debt at this point, albeit that there's £37.5m of shareholder debt.  40% of our assets being unrealisable by any means other than a sale and leaseback arrangement.  £70m of continent liabilities on player signings.

I'm not worried about the debt. I'm worried about the ongoing financial performance of the club, and additional fees becoming payable for using our players or success. Ironic - promotion could possibly bankrupt us because of additional player fees and signing bonuses. 

To be clear, I don't know whether it will because I don't know how much of the £70m relates to players appearances or success bonuses.

To be really clear, this isn't mismanagement. This is modern football and pushing for top end of championship, bottom end of prem, and not having rich enough owners.  

[GMF 756]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

No. @Bobzillastated that the £96 million debt was 'horrendous'. Following the same logic as Hull or Swansea with our ST base would have mitigated £3 to £4 million of it. Perhaps a good approach would have been to have written to ST holders and suggest that 50% of their money was carried over to next season and 50% levied as an in season charge for ifollow with the log in details.

Other than the pandemic the 2 major contributory items to our 'horrendous' financial position were the 2018/19 season which whilst wonderful the P&L demonstrates we cannot afford and additions to Long Term Assets both players and training ground which have not been satisfactorily financed.

For clarity, this is your retrospective take on what the Club should have done, increasing the financial burden for season tickets holders (very noble of you, as one of the handful who wouldn’t have been caught by this, had it been implemented) during the time of a global pandemic, having also asked for a rebate from your seat for life payment.

Talk about lacking self awareness and not having any empathy for those less fortunate than yourself. 

[GMF 756]

@Bobzilla although the debt looks high in absolute terms, the critical element with any debt is the ability to repay it / refinance it, when it falls due for repayment.

Part of the debt is loans taken out against both future parachute payments, or future player receivables, and will be covered by future receipts. The timeline for these being cleared is this year. The B-pref and C-pref shares are longer term liabilities, but the contingent player liabilities definitely give cause for concern.

[Midlands Yellow 4,070]

No news is good news, let’s all be a little more patient.

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

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

Forgive me for re-quoting the original opening post again above - after all this time - following @Bobzilla’s view.

‘You wait 20 years for another Delia, then none come along all at once’

Parma 

But it seems perhaps  that even Delia has accepted - no matter how much through gritted teeth - that another Delia is not the answer?

[shefcanary 2,446]

1 hour ago, Bobzilla said:

Ironic - promotion could possibly bankrupt us because of additional player fees and signing bonuses. 

It won't bankrupt us, but we won't have the full amount of future parachute payments to "splurge" on new players. 

As for what the players are remunerated by, I have read several times that performance bonuses for positive results / goals scored etc. have disappeared now (except for promotion) for a basic salary with the only bonuses for 10, 20, 30 etc. appearances. I think as you slip further down the league the old performance bonuses may still figure, but at the top level football is such a selfish game nowadays who in their right mind would sign a contract where you were reliant on other people for much of your salary.