Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Parma Ham's gone mouldy

Mark Attanasio

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

My friend and i used to sit in ' premium ' seats but when we became eligible for coffin dodger rate we moved literally 10 seats across a gangway and saved £230 each. Every little helps. 😜

You did well to get two together and at least you weren’t blocked by the ‘seat for life’ brigade! 😜

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TIL 1010 said:

My friend and i used to sit in ' premium ' seats but when we became eligible for coffin dodger rate we moved literally 10 seats across a gangway and saved £230 each. Every little helps. 😜

Had exactly the same issue. 👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how much money they'd have if they'd been unsuccessful owners. Say like the binners. Or Covuntray...

🙃

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/11/2022 at 12:29, Petriix said:

Borrowing against equity to purchase a non-depreciating asset is often a profitable thing, especially in times of low interest rates (sadly now behind us). For example, taking a second mortgage to build that extension probably adds more value to the property than the overall cost of the borrowing. The same was probably true of building a new City Stand (in 2016 when building costs and borrowing costs were much lower). 

In any case, the (potential) equity in the majority shareholding has no particular relevance to the club itself unless/until the shareholders decide to take out that mortgage and use it to buy assets for the club.

Maybe people are hoping for an act of generosity where the equity is somehow gifted to the club, but it's hard to imagine how that would work in practice. Say Attanasio puts up that £50m price tag, how would Delia inject that back into the club? 

The club is entitled to create new shares. If it does that, then the money he exchanges for equity in the club goes into the club.

The C preference shares he has already purchased either mature for 7%APR in 7 years or they become new ordinary shares in 7 years at the price he has already paid, so it looks like this is the way it's going ahead, with what has already happened a likely model for further investment.

In a way, you can look at his C preference investment as a bet that he can add value to the club, with a carrot of real equity at todays club price in 7 years time in exchange for the efforts and a safeguard of more or less breaking even on his money in real terms after 7 years if it doesn't work out, while for the club this effectively works out as a cheap loan in real terms if it doesn't work out and a competent stakeholder with demonstrable ability to add value to the club if it does.

In the end, Delia and Michael will still have their equity stake, just a lower proportion of the total equity.

Edited by littleyellowbirdie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, GMF said:

The Club still classifies them as premium seats @TIL 1010 and charges higher prices, with no concessions (although not as high as the lounges) than in comparison to other stands, either behind the goals and corners.

Most Clubs seem to offer concessions for all 'general admission' seats. The City Stand Lounges appear to qualify as that albeit that the prices are 50% higher than non lounge Centre Block South Stand seats (also non concession) albeit that the latter are far better in terms of viewing aspect and legroom. The padded seats in the South Stand are classified as Commercial and charged in excess of £1500 per season without a meal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, GMF said:

You did well to get two together and at least you weren’t blocked by the ‘seat for life’ brigade! 😜

My proposal to Kensell was that I would surrender £400 of my seat value as part of myself being treated equally to another holder of 1,000 shares. He took the first half of the deal but reneged on the second half. Assuming the commercial seat is sold that solves the bulk of Tilly's shortfall probably more when sold casually that is aside from the Club's  windfall from tragic circumstances whilst still having the 1,000 shares in issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

The club is entitled to create new shares. If it does that, then the money he exchanges for equity in the club goes into the club.

The C preference shares he has already purchased either mature for 7%APR in 7 years or they become new ordinary shares in 7 years at the price he has already paid, so it looks like this is the way it's going ahead, with what has already happened a likely model for further investment.

In a way, you can look at his C preference investment as a bet that he can add value to the club, with a carrot of real equity at todays club price in 7 years time in exchange for the efforts and a safeguard of more or less breaking even on his money in real terms after 7 years if it doesn't work out, while for the club this effectively works out as a cheap loan in real terms if it doesn't work out and a competent stakeholder with demonstrable ability to add value to the club if it does.

In the end, Delia and Michael will still have their equity stake, just a lower proportion of the total equity.

....and presumably you are 100 per cent confident that the Club can afford £17 million in 7 years time?

Will 10 per cent equity be a good carrot relative to £17 million?

Besides how does any of it constitute equitable treatment of shareholders? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, essex canary said:

....and presumably you are 100 per cent confident that the Club can afford £17 million in 7 years time?

Will 10 per cent equity be a good carrot relative to £17 million?

Besides how does any of it constitute equitable treatment of shareholders? 

I doubt most people who buy unlisted shares in a football club are particularly bothered about supposedly unfair treatment or any changes - theoretical or actual - in the price. But any who are unhappy can always invite offers for their holdings. Especially since it looks like a seller's market just at the moment, but might not continue to be so.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, shefcanary said:

Plus theor non-Norwich fortune which was put at £17m in the Times Fortune list a few years back. So is that c.£70m now, sort of 10% of Attanasio?

Presumably that estimate excludes any gains they have made since on resources they didn't invest in the Football Club around the turn of the century but topped up from minority shareholders. If they have had a half decent financial adviser that has probably added a few million since.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

I doubt most people who buy unlisted shares in a football club are particularly bothered about supposedly unfair treatment or any changes - theoretical or actual - in the price. But any who are unhappy can always invite offers for their holdings. Especially since it looks like a seller's market just at the moment, but might not continue to be so.

Some people didn't actively buy them but simply acquired them on less favourable terms than their predecessors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Some people didn't actively buy them but simply acquired them on less favourable terms than their predecessors.

Even less reason to complain then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, essex canary said:

Some people didn't actively buy them but simply acquired them on less favourable terms than their predecessors.

If they didn’t buy the shares, ie pay out money for them, but instead got them for nothing I fail to see how their acquisition could possibly have been on less favourable terms than those who did have to stump up cash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, essex canary said:

....and presumably you are 100 per cent confident that the Club can afford £17 million in 7 years time?

Will 10 per cent equity be a good carrot relative to £17 million?

Besides how does any of it constitute equitable treatment of shareholders? 

16 million (10*1.07^7), but at the end of the day it's a loan for a lower rate than inflation at the moment, so if you have to borrow money, it's the best way of doing it; I'd happily bet he'll finish up converting them to ordinary shares anyway, based on nothing other than my feelings about it.

Edited by littleyellowbirdie
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, essex canary said:

....and presumably you are 100 per cent confident that the Club can afford £17 million in 7 years time?

Will 10 per cent equity be a good carrot relative to £17 million?

Besides how does any of it constitute equitable treatment of shareholders? 

The repayment option is the fallback provision, the option of last resort, but only if everybody can’t work together.

Would repayment be relatively expensive for the Club? Yes, certainly if we were in the Championship. However, is that the real intention for MA and his team - it certainly doesn’t sound that way from what we’ve heard so far.

And, the flip side, if repayment is expensive for the Club, the conversion rate into ordinary shares is equally expensive for MA - the increased 10% shareholding is far more expensive, at well North of £100.00 per share,  than anything paid by existing shareholders. How’s this inequitable to existing shareholders?

So, in the round, the real questions to existing shareholders are, are they more concerned about the potential dilution in value of their existing shares in the Club, or do they welcome the potential increase in equity (investment) in the Club on what’s (by historical standards) relatively expensive terms.

Personally, I know where I am with this. OTBC.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, essex canary said:

....and presumably you are 100 per cent confident that the Club can afford £17 million in 7 years time?

 

They most certainly would not if there was a smattering of seats in the ground that get passed down from generation to generation without any further payment to the club.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, GMF said:

The repayment option is the fallback provision, the option of last resort, but only if everybody can’t work together.

Would repayment be relatively expensive for the Club? Yes, certainly if we were in the Championship. However, is that the real intention for MA and his team - it certainly doesn’t sound that way from what we’ve heard so far.

And, the flip side, if repayment is expensive for the Club, the conversion rate into ordinary shares is equally expensive for MA - the increased 10% shareholding is far more expensive, at well North of £100.00 per share,  than anything paid by existing shareholders. How’s this inequitable to existing shareholders?

So, in the round, the real questions to existing shareholders are, are they more concerned about the potential dilution in value of their existing shares in the Club, or do they welcome the potential increase in equity (investment) in the Club on what’s (by historical standards) relatively expensive terms.

Personally, I know where I am with this. OTBC.

I don't know the answer to this, but if that well above £100 a share conversion rate counts as a specific - and probably highest - price paid by Attanasio to achieve 30 per cent or 90 per cent of the Ordinaries then presumably he would have to offer it to the remaining shareholders. But it may not so count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PurpleCanary said:

I don't know the answer to this, but if that well above £100 a share conversion rate counts as a specific - and probably highest - price paid by Attanasio to achieve 30 per cent or 90 per cent of the Ordinaries then presumably he would have to offer it to the remaining shareholders. But it may not so count.

With just the MF shares and the conversion of C-preference shares, MA would have a maximum of 26%. The real question is how many other minority shareholdings have already been acquired? Probably not enough to break the 30% threshold just yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Attanasio won't be bothered by minority shares now. He just needs the majority of Smith & Jones 51% (49% takes them past the 75% effective total control level). Only if the minority shares coalesce in some kind of vocal opposition to him will he need to buy them out. The questions remain how much do Smith & Jones want for their shares and when do they sell?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, shefcanary said:

Attanasio won't be bothered by minority shares now. He just needs the majority of Smith & Jones 51% (49% takes them past the 75% effective total control level). Only if the minority shares coalesce in some kind of vocal opposition to him will he need to buy them out. The questions remain how much do Smith & Jones want for their shares and when do they sell?

 

I was always told that once they get to 30% they were obliged to make an offer to other shareholders for their shares. Of course, it’s then up to the shareholders whether they accept or not and that’s most likely to be dependent upon the price offered.

Based on the numbers, in my opinion, it’s unlikely that the 30% threshold would be reached until such time as D&M decide to sell some, or all of their shares - always presuming that there’s not another C-preference issue, mark II.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, shefcanary said:

Attanasio won't be bothered by minority shares now. He just needs the majority of Smith & Jones 51% (49% takes them past the 75% effective total control level). Only if the minority shares coalesce in some kind of vocal opposition to him will he need to buy them out. The questions remain how much do Smith & Jones want for their shares and when do they sell?

 

And the wheel is come full circle. 

Who gains from the equity gain at that point?

’Give’ it to Attanasio as a thanks, sweetener, on trust?**

Keep it? 

Find some kind of ratcheted agreement committing the buyer to certain actions (now or in the future)?*
 

Parma 

*legally quite tricky

**a buyer might also insert a reverse clause to cover in case  of equity gain value dropping. This might be a cute move if the seller has a nice asset, but no recourse to scale cash. 

Either way eventually a number has to be put on it. The equity gain. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/11/2022 at 17:34, shefcanary said:

I am somewhat bemused (nay, frustrated especially with regard to City Stand) however that they haven't leveraged this holding in the past to accelerate improvements both on and off the pitch. I still feel as long as they keep on good talking terms, Attanasio will buy out Smith & Jones at full value (they may retain a small residual holding for them and nephew), sooner rather than later. And then the action will begin. 

Shef, you are so right about this. I remember having a meal with Delia in a bistro in Lyon🇫🇷 a decade ago and telling her she would eventually roux the day she didn’t use her shares as a sauce of mornay to fund expansion. That she could say tartare to her credibility as a caring owner. All I got from her was a very tarte response and a blanquette refusal to listen to raisin. She actually threw a bit of a confit, saying I wanted her to take too big a bisque!

Edited by PurpleCanary
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GMF said:

I was always told that once they get to 30% they were obliged to make an offer to other shareholders for their shares. Of course, it’s then up to the shareholders whether they accept or not and that’s most likely to be dependent upon the price offered.

Based on the numbers, in my opinion, it’s unlikely that the 30% threshold would be reached until such time as D&M decide to sell some, or all of their shares - always presuming that there’s not another C-preference issue, mark II.

Yes, correct and Attanasio may well buy up any shares offered, but I can't see him chasing down every last share out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

Yes, correct and Attanasio may well buy up any shares offered, but I can't see him chasing down every last share out there.

You’re probably right with your reference to “chasing”. Far more likely, in my opinion, is him circumventing a situation to get to 90% plus, thereby making it compulsory, but let’s wait and see. 😉

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

Yes, correct and Attanasio may well buy up any shares offered, but I can't see him chasing down every last share out there.

 

31 minutes ago, GMF said:

You’re probably right with your reference to “chasing”. Far more likely, in my opinion, is him circumventing a situation to get to 90% plus, thereby making it compulsory, but let’s wait and see. 😉

Pretty much this. As @Essex Canary seems to have dicovered holding a minority stake in a non-dividend paying company where the major shareholders have majority control does not really come iwth any great advantages. Same goes for MA.  The decision rests between S&J and MA, which may be a slow burn. But when, or even if, it happens the next steps will be quick and decisive e.g. he will get to 90% and pay out the remaining shareholders whether they like it or not.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always assumed the deal as set up is simply an escape route for either party. If A does not prove to suit the current owners and the Board then he will in due course have his investment returned plus interest - full stop. But if the "marriage" goes well he will convert the pref shares, Delia and Michael will hand over enough shares for him to have full control and Tom will have the remainder. In the meantime hopefully the Club will survive the chaotic world of football finance and provide some decent entertainment. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, vos said:

I have always assumed the deal as set up is simply an escape route for either party. If A does not prove to suit the current owners and the Board then he will in due course have his investment returned plus interest - full stop. But if the "marriage" goes well he will convert the pref shares, Delia and Michael will hand over enough shares for him to have full control and Tom will have the remainder. In the meantime hopefully the Club will survive the chaotic world of football finance and provide some decent entertainment. 

Yes, that’s not bad @vos

Parma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vos said:

I have always assumed the deal as set up is simply an escape route for either party. If A does not prove to suit the current owners and the Board then he will in due course have his investment returned plus interest - full stop. But if the "marriage" goes well he will convert the pref shares, Delia and Michael will hand over enough shares for him to have full control and Tom will have the remainder. In the meantime hopefully the Club will survive the chaotic world of football finance and provide some decent entertainment. 

I find it interesting that whilst there was so much discomfort about Michael and Delia's majority shareholding the idea of Attanasio having full control seems to be welcomed. The club changes hands away from Norwich and even out of the country for the first time but nobody bats an eyelid. Now I think Attanasio is a good guy and I'm not overly uncomfortable yet because there still seems to be caution. And there should be because we don't really know much about him or his plans. Just that he's considerably richer than yow. But even if he's Mr. Right for now I do have concerns that the control of any future changes of ownership will have left the building.

 

Edited by nutty nigel
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

I find it interesting that whilst there was so much discomfort about Michael and Delia's majority shareholding the idea of Attanasio having full control seems to be welcomed. The club changes hands away from Norwich and even out of the country for the first time but nobody bats an eyelid. Now I think Attanasio is a good guy and I'm not overly uncomfortable yet because there still seems to be caution. And there should be because we don't really know much about him or his plans. Just that he's considerably richer than yow. But even if he's Mr. Right for now I do have concerns that the control of any future changes of ownership will have left the building.

 

Of course this is right.

It is exactly why what happens to the equity gain is so important

Selling is also always about who the buyer sells to next.

So what incentives exist or are offered  - visible or not, recognised by others or not, spotted by professional market risk evaluators or not - matters massively. People may or may not say or do anything to get what they want. 

Delia is doing this though @nutty nigel, the ultimate call is hers. 

As I said earlier ‘You wait 25 years for another Delia, then none come along at once’.

They waited and waited for another Delia - maybe or maybe not rejecting ‘camels coming up Carrow Road’ and who knows? Maybe a cowboy or two. 

And now the whole Norwich world could be in a stateside pocket of the owner of an American finance firm with no great links to Norwich and only a fairly recent - and secondary - interest in the sport. 
 

I do not believe that this was the exit dream. I do not believe that this was the legacy vision. I do not believe this is the ideal plan.

As heard at the AGM: ‘Is Attanasio’s involvement and financial input a recognition that the top level sporting ceiling of the self-sustaining model has been reached?’

Zoe Webber: ‘Yes’

Parma 

Edited by Parma Ham's gone mouldy
See AGM thread for expanded Zoe Webber quotes
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

Of course this is right.

It is exactly why what happens to the equity gain is so important

Selling is also always about who the buyer sells to next.

So what incentives exist or are offered  - visible or not, recognised by others or not, spotted by professional market risk evaluators or not - matters massively. People may or may not say or do anything to get what they want. 

Delia is doing this though @nutty nigel, the ultimate call is hers. 

As I said earlier ‘You wait 25 years for another Delia, then none come along at once’.

They waited and waited for another Delia - maybe or maybe not rejecting ‘camels coming up Carrow Road’ and who knows? Maybe a cowboy or two. 

And now the whole Norwich world could be in a stateside pocket of the owner of an American finance firm with no great links to Norwich and only a fairly recent - and secondary - interest in the sport. 
 

I do not believe that this was the exit dream. I do not believe that this was the legacy vision. I do not believe this is the ideal plan.

As heard at the AGM: ‘Is Attanasio’s involvement and financial input a recognition that the top level sporting ceiling of the self-sustaining model has been reached?’

Zoe Webber: ‘Yes’

Parma 

 

8 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

I find it interesting that whilst there was so much discomfort about Michael and Delia's majority shareholding the idea of Attanasio having full control seems to be welcomed. The club changes hands away from Norwich and even out of the country for the first time but nobody bats an eyelid. Now I think Attanasio is a good guy and I'm not overly uncomfortable yet because there still seems to be caution. And there should be because we don't really know much about him or his plans. Just that he's considerably richer than yow. But even if he's Mr. Right for now I do have concerns that the control of any future changes of ownership will have left the building.

 

Top level football is the plaything of the super wealthy now. In contrast, our approach to try to become properly self-sustaining, with Delia behaving almost like a trustee rather than an owner, has been bordering on romantic as a struggle against the odds to do something differently.

With that said, even with the admission of defeat regarding making it to the next level without a major capital injection, it's clear that the club isn't selling out on principles in the pursuit of that capital injection; Attanasio and his kids seem like real sports enthusiasts who also happen to be incredibly good with money who have also jumped in with both feet as far as seeking to understand the club's culture and history and truly become part of it as they did at the Brewers.

Overall, in spite of the fact that I'm disappointed that progressing 'the right way' is almost conclusively proven impossible now, I'm happy that the club is still looking to progress in best way possible to get the extra resources while keeping the culture of the club rather than simply selling out to the highest bidder.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...