Mark Attanasio

[GMF 977]

4 hours ago, Besthorpe-48 said:

This is the 1409 post on this topic since Parma started it. 1394 is roughly the square root of 194512. 

So you have passed a milestone. I can't help thinking all these words are "full of sound and fury signifying nothing." Why don't you all just wait and see what happens. One day it will. Meanwhile enjoy  the football that should be why we are here.

 

Given that the Attanasio story is probably the biggest single issue in the Club’s recent history, certainly since this message board started, perhaps we should all be grateful, that @Parma Ham's gone mouldy actually started a new thread, rather than it simply being a continuation of the original breaking news tread, by @Pete Raven, “EXCLUSIVE: US tycoons in Norwich City investment talks”, which resulted in 1,466 replies. Otherwise, the 8th and 9th threads with the most replies, would have long since passed Fabio Quagliarella thread, and be the second biggest of all time. 

 

Edited August 25, 2023 by GMF
Typo

[chicken 3,045]

6 hours ago, GMF said:

Wake me up when September ends 

To the sound of 21 guns? 

[chicken 3,045]

I think the club should have sent out a letter, warning about the lack of another letter for some time to come, just to pre-warn against people who think letters, that aren't needed, were needed, and should have been sent out.

That way, you'd get a letter before a letter about not getting that letter, until a later date.

Capitalised in all of the right places of course.

With a complimentary season ticket with a further complimentary season ticket for poor little nephew Tim who happens to be rather poor. 

[wcorkcanary 4,681]

4 hours ago, chicken said:

I think the club should have sent out a letter, warning about the lack of another letter for some time to come, just to pre-warn against people who think letters, that aren't needed, were needed, and should have been sent out.

That way, you'd get a letter before a letter about not getting that letter, until a later date.

Capitalised in all of the right places of course.

With a complimentary season ticket with a further complimentary season ticket for poor little nephew Tim who happens to be rather poor. 

Which is the logical conclusion to Ethics whiney circular arguments as all this unnecessary  paper would cost the Club and therefore the fans, money. Which would set him off again, a sort of   WhinEyConT perPetuaL MotioN.

[essex canary 601]

On 25/08/2023 at 15:30, Soldier on said:

Not really a wish just good to have some transparency 

Quite. Short to the point communications sent to the right people at the right time.

Should the vote take place, how many would actually vote? Only around 500 last time. Could be more in this instance. It would be surprising though if it equated to the 2,000 figure that will be supporting the Club at Ipswich. I wonder how many people will be common to both? 

[GMF 977]

24 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Quite. Short to the point communications sent to the right people at the right time.

Should the vote take place, how many would actually vote? Only around 500 last time. Could be more in this instance. It would be surprising though if it equated to the 2,000 figure that will be supporting the Club at Ipswich. I wonder how many people will be common to both? 

Shareholders are just one subset of a much larger fan base. Exclusivity, or preferential treatment for a specific game shouldn’t be a topic of conversation. It’s just a vote on a specific issue (a very significant one, in my opinion) that shouldn’t be conflated with a footballing matter.

[TIL 1010 5,159]

32 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Short to the point communications sent to the right people at the right time.

 

A bit like your emails you liberally litter around then ?

[essex canary 601]

40 minutes ago, GMF said:

Shareholders are just one subset of a much larger fan base. Exclusivity, or preferential treatment for a specific game shouldn’t be a topic of conversation. It’s just a vote on a specific issue (a very significant one, in my opinion) that shouldn’t be conflated with a footballing matter.

Shareholders are not a very representative subset it terms of age range because the Club hasn't made a concerted effort to refresh the initiative over the past 20 years. Such a significant issue ought therefore in principle to be subject to more appropriate and up to date participation albeit that can't be facilitated for aforesaid reason.

[TIL 1010 5,159]

8 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Shareholders are not a very representative subset it terms of age range because the Club hasn't made a concerted effort to refresh the initiative over the past 20 years.

How do you propose they ' refresh the intiative ' which you keep banging on about is difficult and expensive to administer because it is over 6,000 in number ?

[essex canary 601]

2 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

How do you propose they ' refresh the intiative ' which you keep banging on about is difficult and expensive to administer because it is over 6,000 in number ?

In other words they have rendered it 'difficult and expensive.'

If the concept of membership was kept simple like that of a Cricket Club rather than a myriad of membership schemes it would be straightforward.

[Soldier on 273]

11 minutes ago, essex canary said:

In other words they have rendered it 'difficult and expensive.'

If the concept of membership was kept simple like that of a Cricket Club rather than a myriad of membership schemes it would be straightforward.

As a self funding club we are reliant on revenue streams from memberships. This is why like other clubs we have monetised this area.

[essex canary 601]

22 minutes ago, Soldier on said:

As a self funding club we are reliant on revenue streams from memberships. This is why like other clubs we have monetised this area.

Indeed. Football Clubs principles are not of the same order as Cricket Clubs.

With substantial revenue streams from TV and better commercial streams than most Clubs of our standing it isnt the case that the minimal net revenues of the Away Membership Sheme are of great value and many other Clubs including those with far less revenues still prioritise Season Ticket holders at least to a degree. 

I bought a ticket for the Sandringham concert today at the last minute through a ticket swap arrangement. The seller gets two thirds of his money back and I save a quarter of the price. Why not do that for those season ticket holder vacant seats at Carrow Road? Even if the Clubs immediate return is NIL it creates customer goodwill which pays further down the line.

Too much short term thinking not enough long term thinking.

[TIL 1010 5,159]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

In other words they have rendered it 'difficult and expensive.'

If the concept of membership was kept simple like that of a Cricket Club rather than a myriad of membership schemes it would be straightforward.

My post was in relation to you mentioning shareholders but you have turned it towards membership .

[chicken 3,045]

36 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Indeed. Football Clubs principles are not of the same order as Cricket Clubs.

With substantial revenue streams from TV and better commercial streams than most Clubs of our standing it isnt the case that the minimal net revenues of the Away Membership Sheme are of great value and many other Clubs including those with far less revenues still prioritise Season Ticket holders at least to a degree. 

I bought a ticket for the Sandringham concert today at the last minute through a ticket swap arrangement. The seller gets two thirds of his money back and I save a quarter of the price. Why not do that for those season ticket holder vacant seats at Carrow Road? Even if the Clubs immediate return is NIL it creates customer goodwill which pays further down the line.

Too much short term thinking not enough long term thinking.

You just said about simplifying systems and now you are talking about complicating them - which is it to be?

You want the club to facilitate something that only benefits the fans but will cost them to operate... yet you criticise the club at every turn for not being financially well run enough... 

And yet you have the audacity to suggest other people are out of their depth... yet another example of you wanting something for nothing. 

[GMF 977]

4 hours ago, essex canary said:

Shareholders are not a very representative subset it terms of age range because the Club hasn't made a concerted effort to refresh the initiative over the past 20 years. Such a significant issue ought therefore in principle to be subject to more appropriate and up to date participation albeit that can't be facilitated for aforesaid reason.

You’ve previously stated that the club’s shareholder base is antiquated, now you seem to be advocating the exact opposite.

I’ve previously said that it’s a product of history, primarily because ITV Digital went bust in the early 2000’s, with many fans stepping up during the club’s hour of need, just like they did in the late 1950’s, and, more recently, with the bond issue.

It isn’t the Club’s responsibility to refresh an initiative from over 20 years ago, however, if ever a situation arises where a single person has, or was about to cross the 30% ownership threshold, they could make sure that that person follows the recognised rules and makes an offer to existing minority shareholders…

Edited August 28, 2023 by GMF
Typo

[essex canary 601]

22 hours ago, TIL 1010 said:

My post was in relation to you mentioning shareholders but you have turned it towards membership .

A Shareholder is a Member for many organisations. Think Nationwide Building Society or County Cricket Clubs. That is the way to keep it simple and ultimately cheaper.

By introducing Away Members to add to Home Members to add to Season Ticket Holders to add to Shareholders, NCFC have gone in the opposite direction. How many more layers of Members could they possibly add?

To answer @chicken and @GMFs questions it can't possibly be cheap to run. How much does it cost to constantly update a separate database for 6,800 shareholders for changes of address, longevity etc? Which is surely why some modernisation focussed proactivity is required.

Self financing has become a high expense high charge model. That may be a very good reason for voting for Attanasio as he hopefully he won't just feel sorry for supporters as per the 2016 Times interview but actively do something about it.

[wcorkcanary 4,681]

5 minutes ago, essex canary said:

A Shareholder is a Member for many organisations. Think Nationwide Building Society or County Cricket Clubs. That is the way to keep it simple and ultimately cheaper.

By introducing Away Members to add to Home Members to add to Season Ticket Holders to add to Shareholders, NCFC have gone in the opposite direction. How many more layers of Members could they possibly add?

To answer @chicken and @GMFs questions it can't possibly be cheap to run. How much does it cost to constantly update a separate database for 6,800 shareholders for changes of address, longevity etc? Which is surely why some modernisation focussed proactivity is required.

Self financing has become a high expense high charge model. That may be a very good reason for voting for Attanasio as he hopefully he won't just feel sorry for supporters as per the 2016 Times interview but actively do something about it.

Ha ha Fackin  Ha.  You're twisting yourself into knots now kid.  

[PurpleCanary 6,276]

50 minutes ago, essex canary said:

A Shareholder is a Member for many organisations. Think Nationwide Building Society or County Cricket Clubs. That is the way to keep it simple and ultimately cheaper.

By introducing Away Members to add to Home Members to add to Season Ticket Holders to add to Shareholders, NCFC have gone in the opposite direction. How many more layers of Members could they possibly add?

To answer @chicken and @GMFs questions it can't possibly be cheap to run. How much does it cost to constantly update a separate database for 6,800 shareholders for changes of address, longevity etc? Which is surely why some modernisation focussed proactivity is required.

Self financing has become a high expense high charge model. That may be a very good reason for voting for Attanasio as he hopefully he won't just feel sorry for supporters as per the 2016 Times interview but actively do something about it.

Well, within a month or so you will get a chance to vote on Attanasio's plans for shareholders at least.

[GMF 977]

55 minutes ago, essex canary said:

 

To answer @chicken and @GMFs questions it can't possibly be cheap to run. How much does it cost to constantly update a separate database for 6,800 shareholders for changes of address, longevity etc? Which is surely why some modernisation focussed proactivity is required.

 

The Club is no different to many PLC’s in this regard, many of whom have tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of shareholders to manage. 

[BigFish 2,257]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

A Shareholder is a Member for many organisations. Think Nationwide Building Society or County Cricket Clubs. That is the way to keep it simple and ultimately cheaper.

By introducing Away Members to add to Home Members to add to Season Ticket Holders to add to Shareholders, NCFC have gone in the opposite direction. How many more layers of Members could they possibly add?

To answer @chicken and @GMFs questions it can't possibly be cheap to run. How much does it cost to constantly update a separate database for 6,800 shareholders for changes of address, longevity etc? Which is surely why some modernisation focussed proactivity is required.

Self financing has become a high expense high charge model. That may be a very good reason for voting for Attanasio as he hopefully he won't just feel sorry for supporters as per the 2016 Times interview but actively do something about it.

I shareholder is a part owner, not a member. Nationwide is a mutual, not a company, and different legal constraints apply. A member is a part of a greater whole, and the use of the term by the club to raise money from home and away supporters is only marketing, they/we are not part of the football club but customers/consumers/stakeholders. The day to day cost of managing the shareholders is probably negligible. A few moves and changes and a bit of postage. Where it does become a problem is when you want to make structural changes and diverse shareholder interests/legal protections need to be accounted for. Things take longer and cost more as we have found.

[essex canary 601]

32 minutes ago, GMF said:

The Club is no different to many PLC’s in this regard, many of whom have tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of shareholders to manage. 

In general not Football Clubs. Perhaps there are with larger PLC's but surely not at  predominantly £100 original investment?

Just consider yesterday's scenario. The King's Lynn owner wants the Government to do a debt to equity conversion on the Club's half a million Covid loan in favour of the fans Golden Share to a representative supporters group. To be fair National League Club's did get stitched up on this matter and, as he states, it hits King's Lynn harder as they have been relegated since. The money represents about a season and a half gate money for them.

If it happened perhaps King's Lynn supporters can look forward to much higher proportionate collective ownership of their Club than the slightly over 1% that the Canaries Trust hold in NCFC? 

Then at half time the owner is talking to Stu. The Sports Minister will doubtless be delighted they have met as the problem clearly ought to be resolvable without getting the taxpayer involved.

 

 

[essex canary 601]

55 minutes ago, BigFish said:

I shareholder is a part owner, not a member. Nationwide is a mutual, not a company, and different legal constraints apply. A member is a part of a greater whole, and the use of the term by the club to raise money from home and away supporters is only marketing, they/we are not part of the football club but customers/consumers/stakeholders. The day to day cost of managing the shareholders is probably negligible. A few moves and changes and a bit of postage. Where it does become a problem is when you want to make structural changes and diverse shareholder interests/legal protections need to be accounted for. Things take longer and cost more as we have found.

Take Essex County Cricket Club as an example. Spectators are either Members or Non Members. The latter can watch Cricket on a casual basis. A Member pays their annual fees (like football season ticket holders) and providing they do so they get 1 share and only 1 share allocated to them. They then get AGM participation and match ticket priority in all instances. A superior system to Football Clubs in general or NCFC in particular and for community oriented organisations? My vote is 'yes' for numerous reasons that I am sure we could list.

[TIL 1010 5,159]

22 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Take Essex County Cricket Club as an example. Spectators are either Members or Non Members. The latter can watch Cricket on a casual basis. A Member pays their annual fees (like football season ticket holders) and providing they do so they get 1 share and only 1 share allocated to them. They then get AGM participation and match ticket priority in all instances. A superior system to Football Clubs in general or NCFC in particular and for community oriented organisations? My vote is 'yes' for numerous reasons that I am sure we could list.

So you are now advocating people holding just the one share and all the administration to maintain the share register ?

Christ on a bike are you for real after all the bleating and moaning you have been doing on here about people holding just 4 shares in NCFC.

[wcorkcanary 4,681]

31 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Take Essex County Cricket Club as an example. Spectators are either Members or Non Members. The latter can watch Cricket on a casual basis. A Member pays their annual fees (like football season ticket holders) and providing they do so they get 1 share and only 1 share allocated to them. They then get AGM participation and match ticket priority in all instances. A superior system to Football Clubs in general or NCFC in particular and for community oriented organisations? My vote is 'yes' for numerous reasons that I am sure we could list.

You really dont know the difference between a Shoite , a Shave and a  Shampoo  do you? 

I commend @TIL 1010 for saying the same thing in a more refined manner.

Edited August 29, 2023 by wcorkcanary

[wcorkcanary 4,681]

7 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

So you are now advocating people holding just the one share and all the administration to maintain the share register ?

Christ on a bike are you for real after all the bleating and moaning you have been doing on here about people holding just 4 shares in NCFC.

Yup ...how many ST holders?     

I believe Ethics just makes it up as he goes along.... anything to try to keep it  going. Hardly gets past stage 1 whataboutery , childlike diversion and obfuscation.  Maybe we've  all been trolled by a 13 year old... in which case good work kid

 

 

[essex canary 601]

20 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

So you are now advocating people holding just the one share and all the administration to maintain the share register ?

Christ on a bike are you for real after all the bleating and moaning you have been doing on here about people holding just 4 shares in NCFC.

What did you think the bracketed section meant exactly in my last posting?  I don't think you have reflected upon it before jumping to conclusions.

Less administration required because all the season ticket holders or members (whatever you choose to call them) are already recorded on the one log in system that will be updated every season.

Edited August 29, 2023 by essex canary

[essex canary 601]

1 hour ago, wcorkcanary said:

You really dont know the difference between a Shoite , a Shave and a  Shampoo  do you? 

I commend @TIL 1010 for saying the same thing in a more refined manner.

All other posters with arguably one exception are more refined. I am awaiting a peck on the King's Lynn situation from the potential exception given his avowed sympathy, which I share, for smaller clubs but he still may manage to steal your crown.

As for @TIL 1010 missing the obvious clue is a little bit concerning.

 

[Kenny Foggo 1,175]

So when they taking over?

[GMF 977]

9 minutes ago, Kenny Foggo said:

So when they taking over?

Legally, for a public liability company, a takeover is when someone has 30% or more of the equity. That’s where we’re heading, but not a new majority owner, at least for the foreseeable future. 

[TIL 1010 5,159]

52 minutes ago, essex canary said:

 

As for @TIL 1010 missing the obvious clue is a little bit concerning.

 

However i have grasped the clue that every single poster on this forum has no time of day for you and that goes with past and present staff at NCFC .Attempting to gain favour with those who have the ear of NCFC in various guises has not got you very far either. What is concerning is your lack of self awareness.