Mark Attanasio

[Soldier on 162]

Any gag locket calculations on what that takes MA holding to ?

[Yobocop 1,105]

8 minutes ago, Soldier on said:

Any gag locket calculations on what that takes MA holding to ?

Gag locket…sounds a little bit sexual mate 

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

32 minutes ago, Soldier on said:

Any gag locket calculations on what that takes MA holding to ?

If it is Attanasio and he also bought all of almost all of the Foulger family holdings of 98,200, and he buys the 194,512 shares approved back in February then that would take him to just under 316,000.

Throw in a few more thousand from the one or two of the other minority holdings and - voila! - he has close to or even exactly the same percentage as S&J and perhaps even exactly the same number of 327,109. Which seemed the point all along of that absurdly precise and unrounded number of 194,512.

Edited July 27, 2023 by PurpleCanary

[Soldier on 162]

23 minutes ago, Yobocop said:

Gag locket…sounds a little bit sexual mate 

Ha ha was supposed to read fag packet lol 

[essex canary 505]

1 hour 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?

99 per cent certain that it isn't coincidence. Pity that information arises from sources such as this rather than the Club just telling us. Absolutely fine by me if Foulger took the same and would therefore see no reason why anyone should be offered more than £30 per share other than that achieving Burnley's level of performance and organic growth strategy could have delivered much  better and of course an absolute conviction that any 2 or more people in the same share category should always receive the same benefits.

Still a suspected profit for Pleasure and Leisure as they almost certainly paid less than £30. Why should it then be believed that £100 plus is likely in 6 years time unless we do a Burnley?

[Canary Pie 25]

£30 per share values the club at around £20m which seems ok for when the shares were bought a year ago. It is £5 more than most people paid for them. My guess is that with the poor performance since then especially at the end of the season MA and his advisors may have decided that £20 or less per share is a more sensible price, if that is the case I could see that leading to a stalemate as I expect DS and MWJ would feel uncomfortable with that level for a whole number of reasons. 

But, since then:

The team performance has been terrible.

The sporting director has quit.

The true sale value of the squad has been shown to be less than the book value.

The company has likely suffered further balance sheet decline.

MA has the upper hand here he can hold out until the club becomes desperate for cash which is unlikely to be far away.

The most recent accounts must be nearly ready for him to see as a board member.

 

[Canary Pie 25]

@essex you keep equating the preference shares in the future with ordinary shares now. This is incorredt because the preference shares have certain rights including 7% per annum interest. We all know you lnow this full well but keep on going on and on and on and on about this and your fcuknig 1000 odd shares. Those shares are almost certainly worth less than you paid for them so why dont you use your ample spare time to sell them a few at a time. The going rate for a few seems to be way higher and as those shares clearly give you such joy why not let others participate in the joy and make yourself some money at the same time.

Be careful though - there is a risk that you might get too much money from your sales. This quote springs to mind when thinking of that risk you face: " For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows."

OT F BC

[essex canary 505]

43 minutes ago, Canary Pie said:

£30 per share values the club at around £20m which seems ok for when the shares were bought a year ago. It is £5 more than most people paid for them. My guess is that with the poor performance since then especially at the end of the season MA and his advisors may have decided that £20 or less per share is a more sensible price, if that is the case I could see that leading to a stalemate as I expect DS and MWJ would feel uncomfortable with that level for a whole number of reasons. 

But, since then:

The team performance has been terrible.

The sporting director has quit.

The true sale value of the squad has been shown to be less than the book value.

The company has likely suffered further balance sheet decline.

MA has the upper hand here he can hold out until the club becomes desperate for cash which is unlikely to be far away.

The most recent accounts must be nearly ready for him to see as a board member.

 

The shares rose by more than £5 between 2001 and 2002 when the wage bill rose from just under £7 million to just over £8 million. Pity the balance between employees and shareholders couldn't be maintained a little bit better then with a  wage bill rising to £118 million. Perhaps just a different way of expressing your observations?

[essex canary 505]

39 minutes ago, Canary Pie said:

@essex you keep equating the preference shares in the future with ordinary shares now. This is incorrect because the preference shares have certain rights including 7% per annum interest. We all know you know this full well but keep on going on and on and on and on about this and your 1000 odd shares. 

 

When I bought my shares I had the rights to buy Preference Shares up to but not beyond the same value. I would suspect that a certain Board Director has been offered a better deal than that whilst fan inheritors have correspondingly had a worse deal because they have not had the opportunity to split their investment. One rule for one and another for another.    

[hogesar 9,742]

8 minutes ago, essex canary said:

When I bought my shares I had the rights to buy Preference Shares up to but not beyond the same value. I would suspect that a certain Board Director has been offered a better deal than that whilst fan inheritors have correspondingly had a worse deal because they have not had the opportunity to split their investment. One rule for one and another for another.    

Good.

[essex canary 505]

1 minute ago, hogesar said:

Good.

On what principle?

[essex canary 505]

1 hour ago, PurpleCanary said:

If it is Attanasio and he also bought all of almost all of the Foulger family holdings of 98,200, and he buys the 194,512 shares approved back in February then that would take him to just under 316,000.

Throw in a few more thousand from the one or two of the other minority holdings and - voila! - he has close to or even exactly the same percentage as S&J and perhaps even exactly the same number of 327,109. Which seemed the point all along of that absurdly precise and unrounded number of 194,512.

My partially informed guess:

S&J = 327,109 jointly + 100 (D) + 100 (M) - 100 (ZW) = 327,209

MA = 98,200 (MF) + 23,278 (P&L) + 10,219 (Old Trust)  + 194,512 (New Issue) + 1,000 (Unknown) = 327,209

[wcorkcanary 4,337]

43 minutes ago, essex canary said:

On what principle?

I should imagine the principle  being that the lower the share price, the more MA would have spare to invest. 

Oh, there's also the factor of dismay and disappointment in the Ethics Moneycont Camp.... .. I'd pi55  my pants if your  " helping the Club" had a second knock on effect. ... in that you'd helped the Club ....Twice. After all its what you signed up for......not profit ( apparently). 

[essex canary 505]

54 minutes ago, wcorkcanary said:

I should imagine the principle  being that the lower the share price, the more MA would have spare to invest. 

Oh, there's also the factor of dismay and disappointment in the Ethics Moneycont Camp.... .. I'd pi55  my pants if your  " helping the Club" had a second knock on effect. ... in that you'd helped the Club ....Twice. After all its what you signed up for......not profit ( apparently). 

Did I? The Prospectus stated that the share price could go up or down. Also no soecific mention of successors having inferior T's and C's.

Purchase price per share in 2002 was around 10% of average Carrow Road season ticket price. Perhaps that would be a sensible price base with which to update the current shareholder cohort to something representing the current supporter demographic. On that basis I would be quite happy to take on board @Canary Pie proposal. The Club need to do something to make it happen though including perhaps a shareholder voucher scheme similar to that they applied to Bondholders. That way they would develop an ongoing going dynamic and update in the shareholder initiative.

.

[TIL 1010 4,791]

@GMF we forgot to include mention of Bondholders in our bingo game now that i see they have been mentioned.

[wcorkcanary 4,337]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

Also no soecific mention of successors having inferior T's and C's.

We've covered this and the wording was something like ...Season ticket for life of the investor. Plain and simple. If you can't understand that , then i pity you more than I did before. You tried to bend the rules,  Not the Club, and now you snivel and whinge like  Gollum  , all the while pretending you actually care. You fool no one, except maybe yourself....and again, if you believe yourself them more fool you.   

[shefcanary 2,448]

Thanks @GMF your extract shows that all shares originally bought at £30 each were disposed. But at what price? Unfortunately the accounts filed do not show the detailed P&L because of small companies exemption, but if you look at the P&L reserve it has grown by over £2m in the year, most of which is probably due to the profit on the disposal. Cash however hasn't increased by this amount, so looking further at the balance sheet, Other debtors has increased by exactly £2,300,000. Working on this also not being a coincidence, if this increase is the price paid for the shares, this equates to £98.81 per share giving a club valuation of c.£60m.

All this is pure conjecture however without seeing the detailed P&L, so please take this information with a very strong health warning.

[essex canary 505]

16 hours ago, wcorkcanary said:

We've covered this and the wording was something like ...Season ticket for life of the investor. Plain and simple. If you can't understand that , then i pity you more than I did before. You tried to bend the rules,  Not the Club, and now you snivel and whinge like  Gollum  , all the while pretending you actually care. You fool no one, except maybe yourself....and again, if you believe yourself them more fool you.   

I understand one member recently asked if they could sell the shares back to the Club and retain the seat. After all it is perfectly possible to buy a magazine with a free gift and separate them for ownership purposes. Seems illogical to me if they go back to the Board but still a reasonable question. The life of the shares outside Board hands is a much more reasonable interpretation.

[essex canary 505]

16 hours ago, shefcanary said:

Thanks @GMF your extract shows that all shares originally bought at £30 each were disposed. But at what price? Unfortunately the accounts filed do not show the detailed P&L because of small companies exemption, but if you look at the P&L reserve it has grown by over £2m in the year, most of which is probably due to the profit on the disposal. Cash however hasn't increased by this amount, so looking further at the balance sheet, Other debtors has increased by exactly £2,300,000. Working on this also not being a coincidence, if this increase is the price paid for the shares, this equates to £98.81 per share giving a club valuation of c.£60m.

All this is pure conjecture however without seeing the detailed P&L, so please take this information with a very strong health warning.

These shares are surely last century and the highest price they are likely to have been acquired at is £18.50 possibly lower. I think they had revalued upward to £30 in some previous year probably around 2010 or thereabouts. Interesting that they ignored the £100 valuation around 2015 which McNally apparently set as a deterrent albeit that some shares were transacted at that price.

[essex canary 505]

16 hours ago, shefcanary said:

Thanks @GMF your extract shows that all shares originally bought at £30 each were disposed. But at what price? Unfortunately the accounts filed do not show the detailed P&L because of small companies exemption, but if you look at the P&L reserve it has grown by over £2m in the year, most of which is probably due to the profit on the disposal. Cash however hasn't increased by this amount, so looking further at the balance sheet, Other debtors has increased by exactly £2,300,000. Working on this also not being a coincidence, if this increase is the price paid for the shares, this equates to £98.81 per share giving a club valuation of c.£60m.

All this is pure conjecture however without seeing the detailed P&L, so please take this information with a very strong health warning.

Following on from my last response 2008 seems to be the relevant year of revaluation to £30. Presumably P&L would have received an official notification from NCFC. Then again that was during Neil Doncaster's tenure which had higher Corporate Governance standards than what has followed.  

[TIL 1010 4,791]

22 hours ago, TIL 1010 said:

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

Not too far off the mark i notice this morning. 9 posts and counting is helping my guess reach the target.

[GMF 757]

17 hours ago, TIL 1010 said:

@GMF we forgot to include mention of Bondholders in our bingo game now that i see they have been mentioned.

We also missed out vouchers for shareholders, otherwise we’d have got a full house! 

[GMF 757]

16 hours ago, shefcanary said:

Thanks @GMF your extract shows that all shares originally bought at £30 each were disposed. But at what price? Unfortunately the accounts filed do not show the detailed P&L because of small companies exemption, but if you look at the P&L reserve it has grown by over £2m in the year, most of which is probably due to the profit on the disposal. Cash however hasn't increased by this amount, so looking further at the balance sheet, Other debtors has increased by exactly £2,300,000. Working on this also not being a coincidence, if this increase is the price paid for the shares, this equates to £98.81 per share giving a club valuation of c.£60m.

All this is pure conjecture however without seeing the detailed P&L, so please take this information with a very strong health warning.

The notes on the accounting policies show the investments in shares showing at fair value, which seems reasonable, as they are an asset, rather than at cost. 

[BigFish 1,988]

16 hours ago, shefcanary said:

Thanks @GMF your extract shows that all shares originally bought at £30 each were disposed. But at what price? Unfortunately the accounts filed do not show the detailed P&L because of small companies exemption, but if you look at the P&L reserve it has grown by over £2m in the year, most of which is probably due to the profit on the disposal. Cash however hasn't increased by this amount, so looking further at the balance sheet, Other debtors has increased by exactly £2,300,000. Working on this also not being a coincidence, if this increase is the price paid for the shares, this equates to £98.81 per share giving a club valuation of c.£60m.

All this is pure conjecture however without seeing the detailed P&L, so please take this information with a very strong health warning.

Nice work @shefcanary, caveat noted

[GMF 757]

49 minutes ago, essex canary said:

These shares are surely last century and the highest price they are likely to have been acquired at is £18.50 possibly lower. I think they had revalued upward to £30 in some previous year probably around 2010 or thereabouts. Interesting that they ignored the £100 valuation around 2015 which McNally apparently set as a deterrent albeit that some shares were transacted at that price.

They last acquired shares back in 1998, and, like you say, they were being traded around the £17.50 to £18.50 range, (albeit that was a long time ago and the memory fades somewhat). Notwithstanding, acquiring at £30.00 each, whilst possible, would seem highly unlikely.

[essex canary 505]

11 minutes ago, GMF said:

They last acquired shares back in 1998, and, like you say, they were being traded around the £17.50 to £18.50 range, (albeit that was a long time ago and the memory fades somewhat). Notwithstanding, acquiring at £30.00 each, whilst possible, would seem highly unlikely.

Fair Value of an NCFC share was £18.50 in 1998 and £30 in 2008 with only one PL season in-between and little change in the financial standing of the Club other than inflation. In the last 15 years no change in Fair Value despite radical variations in the Club's finances arising from 6 PL seasons. How Fair is Fair according to the Club's definition?

[GMF 757]

27 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Fair Value of an NCFC share was £18.50 in 1998 and £30 in 2008 with only one PL season in-between and little change in the financial standing of the Club other than inflation. In the last 15 years no change in Fair Value despite radical variations in the Club's finances arising from 6 PL seasons. How Fair is Fair according to the Club's definition?

You’re conflating two different points here.

The Club doesn’t set the value of its own shares, that is usually set by the market. It’s also a matter for the individual companies who own the club’s shares, in conjunction with their own accountants, or external advisers, to determine what constitutes a fair value of their shares each year for inclusion in their accounts. The club has no involvement with that assessment.

 The exception to this general rule is when the company proposes to allots new shares and the allotment price is determined by the company’s directors. Should that actually happen in the not too distant future, I have a hunch you’re going to be extremely disappointed… 

[essex canary 505]

4 minutes ago, GMF said:

You’re conflating two different points here.

The Club doesn’t set the value of its own shares, that is usually set by the market. It’s also a matter for the individual companies who own the club’s shares, in conjunction with their own accountants, or external advisers, to determine what constitutes a fair value of their shares each year for inclusion in their accounts. The club has no involvement with that assessment.

 The exception to this general rule is when the company proposes to allots new shares and the allotment price is determined by the company’s directors. Should that actually happen in the not too distant future, I have a hunch you’re going to be extremely disappointed… 

One press suggestion was that the 194,512 shares would raise £24 million. If they are issued at £30 per share to raise under £6 million I don't think I will be the only one who will be disappointed especially in view of the amount of money that has been ditched in recent years.

[BigFish 1,988]

10 minutes ago, essex canary said:

One press suggestion was that the 194,512 shares would raise £24 million. If they are issued at £30 per share to raise under £6 million I don't think I will be the only one who will be disappointed especially in view of the amount of money that has been ditched in recent years.

What value would you be content with @Essex Canary?

[GMF 757]

21 minutes ago, essex canary said:

One press suggestion was that the 194,512 shares would raise £24 million. If they are issued at £30 per share to raise under £6 million I don't think I will be the only one who will be disappointed especially in view of the amount of money that has been ditched in recent years.

You are basing your expectations / dissatisfaction upon one press suggestion? Really!