Mark Attanasio

[essex canary 505]

5 minutes ago, Soldier on said:

Presuming he is buying these shares though that takes him over 30% doesn’t it?

Certainly if he does buy the Sarah Foulger shares plus the new issue and some others - yes. 

To avoid buying the Sarah Foulger shares could be a good plan besides if the shares are truly hers why should she get any exit preference over any other minority holder? Perhaps selling them later also impacts Takeover Code timing thresholds?

[GMF 757]

25 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Michael Foulger 13%. Isnt that Sarah Foulger?

That would explain MF's £3 milion as per Michael Bailey and as @shefcanary and I have always maintained.

Is SF interest to be sold? Perhaps what they are aiming for is 40:30:20:10? 

if MA is maintained slightly under 30 they could park the Takeover Code. Still need a Protocol and plan of action as to where they take it from there.

It really doesn’t matter what name was actually on the share certificates, they’ve been transferred to MA, and, no, it certainly doesn’t make MB’s figure correct.

 If all the proposed new shares are allocated, the Club’s share capital increases by approximately 24% and, with the shares already acquired, MA would exceed 30% by some margin, thereby making your final two paragraphs completely incorrect, I’m afraid.

[essex canary 505]

14 minutes ago, GMF said:

It really doesn’t matter what name was actually on the share certificates, they’ve been transferred to MA, and, no, it certainly doesn’t make MB’s figure correct.

 If all the proposed new shares are allocated, the Club’s share capital increases by approximately 24% and, with the shares already acquired, MA would exceed 30% by some margin, thereby making your final two paragraphs completely incorrect, I’m afraid.

Thanks. I guess you were reflecting then that simply the website isn't up to date as it should be. Typical slackness that arises through no checks, balances and accountability. 

[GMF 757]

11 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Thanks. I guess you were reflecting then that simply the website isn't up to date as it should be. Typical slackness that arises through no checks, balances and accountability. 

It’s hardly the crime of the century, more an irritant to be honest, but, if they’re going to make a claim about being open and transparent, then, I’d suggest, they really should be capable of backing it up with some basic housekeeping.

[essex canary 505]

5 minutes ago, GMF said:

It’s hardly the crime of the century, more an irritant to be honest, but, if they’re going to make a claim about being open and transparent, then, I’d suggest, they really should be capable of backing it up with some basic housekeeping.

It's persistent that they fail to make stuff easily accessible on the Internet and to ensure that the accurate language is used and fully up to date. As you say basis housekeeping but still a component of good management.

[The Real Buh 3,480]

I can’t stress to you all more empathically how boring this all is.

[Soldier on 162]

4 minutes ago, The Real Buh said:

I can’t stress to you all more empathically how boring this all is.

Just ignore the thread then surely ?

[The Real Buh 3,480]

3 minutes ago, Soldier on said:

Just ignore the thread then surely ?

But I need to know the dividends on the sub prime FTSE or something?

[norfolkngood 1,087]

9 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

I suspect it is now being looked at from a regulatory point of view rather than a strictly legal one, and whether it is going through, in the sense of moving forward, is a serious question.

The club told shareholders at their meeting on February 13 that it expected everything to be sorted out in two weeks or so. We are about the enter the twentieth week, with Zoe Webber saying only that the hope is for some progress in the weeks to come.

Such a delay, with that uncertain prediction as to when there will be a resolution, looks more likely to be caused by perhaps unforeseen regulatory questions than predictable legal ones.

My maths suggests that the aim in the short- to medium-term is for Attanasio and Smith and Jones to have very close to equality at 40 per cent rather 45 per cent. For S&J to get to 45 per cent of the increased total they would have to acquire some more shares, and while that is possible I would be very surprised if it is the intention.

As it stands, unless there are more share dealings and/or the creation of extra new shares, it is mathematically impossible for both to get to 45 per cent. Further on, though, the smart money is that the end result is Attanasio becoming the owner.

So as a Layman ( a thick one at that ! )

it looks to me as if Delia and Michael do not want to sell their shares ?  

why do they not just say we will sell all to AM at say 50 mil ? 

or is this Delia and MWJ easing AM into the club ?

i think if AM wants the whole club they should sell they have not got the money to invest the club needs investment .

or is this the plan with AM buying Delia's and MWJ shares but the club gets the money instead of Delia and MWJ ? 

[essex canary 505]

9 minutes ago, The Real Buh said:

But I need to know the dividends on the sub prime FTSE or something?

No FT no comment.

 

[The Real Buh 3,480]

[essex canary 505]

4 hours ago, Taiwan Canary said:

For those interested, an excellent article about ownership with several points which are particularly pertinent to Norwich fans. https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2023/jul/01/football-clubs-communities-fans-owners?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

Interesting. Note the Club they credit is Luton rather than the one with the most shareholders in the land. Probably just as well they didn't mention the latter with their Directors emoluments, financial returns and exits for Board shareholders on a more favourable basis than the small ones, highest admission prices in EFL, extra away match charges whilst Directors fly to matches. 

Perhaps the Guardian can do an article on Johnsonian socialism then they can mention NCFC.

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

49 minutes ago, norfolkngood said:

So as a Layman ( a thick one at that ! )

it looks to me as if Delia and Michael do not want to sell their shares ?  

why do they not just say we will sell all to AM at say 50 mil ? 

or is this Delia and MWJ easing AM into the club ?

i think if AM wants the whole club they should sell they have not got the money to invest the club needs investment .

or is this the plan with AM buying Delia's and MWJ shares but the club gets the money instead of Delia and MWJ ? 

Norfolkngood, there is a difference between the short-term/medium-term plan and the long-term plan!  The first aim is for S&J and Attanasio each to have 40 per cent of the club, with S&J keeping their shares for now. Roughly speaking easing Attanasio into a strong but not controlling position.

Later on, I believe, the plan is for Attanasio to take over control. But although he can do this by buying some or all of S&J's shares I am afraid that doesn't put money into the club. So he might gain control by ways that do benefit the club. But you shouldn't take the fact that S&J are not selling up now as a sign that they never intend to hand over control.

EDIT. Just to add, this question is always framed as whether or not S&J want to sell up, but my reading of the current situation is that Attanasio does not yet want to take over. 

Edited July 2, 2023 by PurpleCanary

[Mengo 825]

10 minutes ago, The Real Buh said:

What does stonks mean? In internet slang, stonks is a deliberate misspelling of stocks, as traded in the stock market. It is often used to refer to such stocks—and finance more generally—in a humorous or ironic way, especially to comment on financial lossesWhat does stonks mean? In internet slang, stonks is a deliberate misspelling of stocks, as traded in the stock market. It is often used to refer to such stocks—and finance more generally—in a humorous or ironic way, especially to comment on financial losses.

financial losses 📉  never . Best housekeeping and financial awareness 👏.  Thank you big Stu. Now on yer bike and let us move on . Murky MArk and spikey mike. Lets move this circus along , soon be time to start attempting to play football again.

[The Real Buh 3,480]

2 minutes ago, Mengo said:

What does stonks mean? In internet slang, stonks is a deliberate misspelling of stocks, as traded in the stock market. It is often used to refer to such stocks—and finance more generally—in a humorous or ironic way, especially to comment on financial lossesWhat does stonks mean? In internet slang, stonks is a deliberate misspelling of stocks, as traded in the stock market. It is often used to refer to such stocks—and finance more generally—in a humorous or ironic way, especially to comment on financial losses.

financial losses 📉  never . Best housekeeping and financial awareness 👏.  Thank you big Stu. Now on yer bike and let us move on . Murky MArk and spikey mike. Lets move this circus along , soon be time to start attempting to play football again.

[wcorkcanary 4,337]

2 hours ago, Mengo said:

What does stonks mean? In internet slang, stonks is a deliberate misspelling of stocks, as traded in the stock market. It is often used to refer to such stocks—and finance more generally—in a humorous or ironic way, especially to comment on financial lossesWhat does stonks mean? In internet slang, stonks is a deliberate misspelling of stocks, as traded in the stock market. It is often used to refer to such stocks—and finance more generally—in a humorous or ironic way, especially to comment on financial losses.

financial losses 📉  never . Best housekeeping and financial awareness 👏.  Thank you big Stu. Now on yer bike and let us move on . Murky MArk and spikey mike. Lets move this circus along , soon be time to start attempting to play football again.

Never had a ' Stonker' first thing  in the morning?  

😂

[Mengo 825]

1 hour ago, wcorkcanary said:

Never had a ' Stonker' first thing  in the morning?  

😂

Not as many as I used to have. But still happens now and then and I have to be ready to use it😂👌👍

[GMF 757]

The latest annual accounts for Pleasure & Leisure Corporation Ltd are just out.

During the last year the company disposed of investments at £698,340, as shown in the attached.

The Club's previous confirmation statements have indicated that the company held 23,278 shares in NCFC.

If the investments sold were shares in the Club, that would equate to £30.00 each.

Coincidence?

[Soldier on 162]

6 minutes ago, GMF said:

The latest annual accounts for Pleasure & Leisure Corporation Ltd are just out.

During the last year the company disposed of investments at £698,340, as shown in the attached.

The Club's previous confirmation statements have indicated that the company held 23,278 shares in NCFC.

If the investments sold were shares in the Club, that would equate to £30.00 each.

Coincidence?

Forgive my ignorance who is pleasure and leisure corporation attributed to ?

[GMF 757]

2 minutes ago, Soldier on said:

Forgive my ignorance who is pleasure and leisure corporation attributed to ?

Ex Jimmy Jones company, a former vice-chair of the Club back in the Chase era.

[Midlands Yellow 4,076]

On 02/07/2023 at 13:44, Mengo said:

Not as many as I used to have. But still happens now and then and I have to be ready to use it😂👌👍

That’s what hands are for! 

[TIL 1010 4,791]

This info must be good for at least 2 pages today once essex spots this.

[Soldier on 162]

12 minutes ago, GMF said:

Ex Jimmy Jones company, a former vice-chair of the Club back in the Chase era.

Thanks the assumption being that MA acquired these ?

[GMF 757]

2 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

This info must be good for at least 2 pages today once essex spots this.

Essex bingo incoming…

My hot picks, “why did they sell for only £30.00?” Or, “Based on Burnley…”

 

[TIL 1010 4,791]

2 minutes ago, Soldier on said:

Thanks the assumption being that MA acquired these ?

That is a very good assumption as these shares have been held in the Jones family business first by Jimmy and then his son Albert since the 1980's.

[GMF 757]

4 minutes ago, Soldier on said:

Thanks the assumption being that MA acquired these ?

Who else? 

[TIL 1010 4,791]

4 minutes ago, GMF said:

Essex bingo incoming…

My hot picks, “why did they sell for only £30.00?” Or, “Based on Burnley…”

 

I think minority shareholders should get a mention somewhere not forgetting of course Michael Foulger.

Edited July 27, 2023 by TIL 1010

[GMF 757]

2 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

I think minority shareholders should get a mention somewhere not forgetting of course Michael Foulger.

That’s the card’s four corners sorted. What’s the prize, a seat for life? 

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,039]

6 minutes ago, GMF said:

Who else? 

Essex? (no emojis so tongue firmly in cheek)...............

[TIL 1010 4,791]

10 minutes ago, GMF said:

That’s the card’s four corners sorted. What’s the prize, a seat for life? 

2nd prize free away membership for life.