Mark Attanasio

[BigFish 1,988]

13 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Perhaps surprisingly I have had a quick response from the Club. One clarification is that the vote is on the basis of number of shares held.

It appears our good friend @PurpleCanary was mistaken on this one. I could never fathom how it could be different so unsurprising.

[PurpleCanary 5,587]

9 minutes ago, BigFish said:

It appears our good friend @PurpleCanary was mistaken on this one. I could never fathom how it could be different so unsurprising.

That does go directly against my understanding. If I have got it wrong I apologise.

[BigFish 1,988]

Just now, PurpleCanary said:

That does go directly against my understanding. If I have got it wrong I apologise.

Np, and no need 🙂

[Robert N. LiM 4,570]

27 minutes ago, BigFish said:

It appears our good friend @PurpleCanary was mistaken on this one. I could never fathom how it could be different so unsurprising.

Presumably neither Nephew Tom nor Zoe own so many shares as to make the result of the vote a formality?...

[Jim Smith 2,349]

What is striking is if you read the “terms” document which seems to summarise all this, much of it has already happened. As I read it it’s a case of pass the resolution and convert a number of loans into shares (plus possibly some new purchases to) or don’t pass it and they are likely to have to be repaid? Am I misunderstanding that? It talks about payments and loans having been made in January 2023. 

[TIL 1010 4,812]

MA has acquired the old Trust shares (10,216 in total ) i notice.

[The Bristol Nest 518]

Some terms please. What has just happened? 

[BigFish 1,988]

13 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

What is striking is if you read the “terms” document which seems to summarise all this, much of it has already happened. As I read it it’s a case of pass the resolution and convert a number of loans into shares (plus possibly some new purchases to) or don’t pass it and they are likely to have to be repaid? Am I misunderstanding that? It talks about payments and loans having been made in January 2023. 

Ultimately, shareholders would be foolish to vote against this. It is the only game in town and yes there would be repercussions should the motions be unsuccessful, while on the otherhand their actual financial position remains unchanged.

[The Raptor 1,249]

All this stuff is going way over my head!

I'm probably being dumb so apologies if I've missed something but this voting appears to be about ordinary shares.

I have preference shares. Some A and some B I think. 

Are they part of this? They don't appear to be. Anyone know what happens to them? Are they protected by this takeover code?

 

 

 

P

[Ren 75]

12 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

MA has acquired the old Trust shares (10,216 in total ) i notice.

Where does that leave the trust then?  Irrelevant without a share holding? 

[BigFish 1,988]

8 minutes ago, Ren said:

Where does that leave the trust then?  Irrelevant without a share holding? 

Different Trusts

[Capt. Pants 4,298]

1 hour ago, Robert N. LiM said:

I'm sure the experts on this thread will be able to point out anywhere Connor and Paddy went wrong here, but I thought this was a very clear explanation of the process as it stands. Not always impressed by the standards of the PinkUn's journalism, but this was exactly what I was after - a measured explanation in layperson's terms. Worth a watch if, like me, you're quite ignorant of this stuff. Will also repeat my thanks to the many knowledgeable posters on this thread who've aided my understanding. OTBC

Agreed. I think (hope) this is a decent summary and is enough for non shareholder supporters to at least understand.

I can't be bothered to watch again but when is the 3 year period backdated to?

 

[Soldier on 169]

January of this year I believe 

[Capt. Pants 4,298]

2 minutes ago, Soldier on said:

January of this year I believe 

That's what I thought. So Jan 2026 then, although Paddy seemed to hint that could change should we remain outside the Premier League and the club’s finances take an inevitable hit.

I don't understand these things and no such thing as a stupid question, but does the valuation of the club limit the amount of debt we can carry in anyway?

[TIL 1010 4,812]

48 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

MA has acquired the old Trust shares (10,216 in total ) i notice.

To think i was accused of posting ' guff ' a year ago when i said MA was in talks with Barry Skipper who was the old Trust administrator following the death of its trustee Peter Sharman and as i am here basking in my info being spot on i also said MA was in the process of buying the Jones family shares to which i was told i was putting all my eggs in one basket.

You know who you were.

[Mutley 79]

Many thanks to all on here that have helped me to understand more fully what is actually going on. 
 

I inherited some ordinary shares from my father who purchased when ITV digital went bust and the club needed help from the fans to keep them afloat. A figure of £25 is being mentioned per share for this issue. Was it the same amount per share as well then? 

[Badger 2,413]

I am most certainly not a conspiracy theorist but as I understand it, we are being asked to put a very great deal of trust in Attanasio's good faith. Based mostly on the Pink In podcast, which I thought was good in the time available, it seems that he has bought a 40% stake in the club for very little.

The new equity issued has raised only a small amount as far as I can tell, and seems to value the club very cheaply? I haven't seen any of the documents but I feel a little concerned ATM - perhaps without justification.

Am I missing something?

 

[TIL 1010 4,812]

4 minutes ago, Mutley said:

Many thanks to all on here that have helped me to understand more fully what is actually going on. 
 

I inherited some ordinary shares from my father who purchased when ITV digital went bust and the club needed help from the fans to keep them afloat. A figure of £25 is being mentioned per share for this issue. Was it the same amount per share as well then? 

Yes.

[Jim Smith 2,349]

Just now, Badger said:

I am most certainly not a conspiracy theorist but as I understand it, we are being asked to put a very great deal of trust in Attanasio's good faith. Based mostly on the Pink In podcast, which I thought was good in the time available, it seems that he has bought a 40% stake in the club for very little.

The new equity issued has raised only a small amount as far as I can tell, and seems to value the club very cheaply? I haven't seen any of the documents but I feel a little concerned ATM - perhaps without justification.

Am I missing something?

 

I’m with you. Feel uneasy about being asked to vote for something I once again don’t fully understand. It almost feels to me as though he’s (possibly not deliberately) got everyone over a bit of a barrel with these debts to him having been accrued and no obvious way of paying them off without handing him the club. I’m not adverse to him taking over at all but I was hoping for a decent injection of capital in the process. 

[essex canary 508]

3 minutes ago, Mutley said:

Many thanks to all on here that have helped me to understand more fully what is actually going on. 
 

I inherited some ordinary shares from my father who purchased when ITV digital went bust and the club needed help from the fans to keep them afloat. A figure of £25 is being mentioned per share for this issue. Was it the same amount per share as well then? 

Yes. No inflation for 20 years in this orbit unlike many others in the football world. **** Dastardly made sure of it.

[Mutley 79]

3 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

Yes.

Thank you for clarifying 

[Mutley 79]

2 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Yes. No inflation for 20 years in this orbit unlike many others in the football world. **** Dastardly made sure of it.

Thank you for clarifying.

[Badger 2,413]

1 minute ago, Jim Smith said:

I’m with you. Feel uneasy about being asked to vote for something I once again don’t fully understand. It almost feels to me as though he’s (possibly not deliberately) got everyone over a bit of a barrel with these debts to him having been accrued and no obvious way of paying them off without handing him the club. I’m not adverse to him taking over at all but I was hoping for a decent injection of capital in the process. 

I don't have any of the details available Jim, so could be wrong, but I thought he only lent £10 million, which is not really a problem as far as I can see.

Is this £10 million part of the deal (ie preference shares converted to ordinary shares) which would mean he has paid more than the £6 million, I thought that the podcast suggested?

[Jim Smith 2,349]

16 minutes ago, Badger said:

I don't have any of the details available Jim, so could be wrong, but I thought he only lent £10 million, which is not really a problem as far as I can see.

Is this £10 million part of the deal (ie preference shares converted to ordinary shares) which would mean he has paid more than the £6 million, I thought that the podcast suggested?

If you read the terms document it talks about him having made other payments and loans in January. 

[Badger 2,413]

2 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

If you read the terms document it talks about him having made other payments and loans in January. 

Presumably not specifying the amount. I think that may be the bit in the podcast about preferential interest rates. 

Looking at last year's accounts + anticipated revenues, including player sales, I suspect that this was just short term finance for cash flow.

Does the documentation give any indication as to whether the 40% includes conversion of the preference shares?

[shefcanary 2,492]

3 hours ago, Robert N. LiM said:

I thought it was interesting in this video that Paddy kept saying that the 40%/40% arrangement was because Attanasio didn't want to take sole control at this stage (rather than D&M being reluctant to relinquish control).

I assume this was editorialising on Paddy's part: has anyone seen any public statements from either party to this effect?

Presumably MA's reluctance (if it exists) is more likely to be because he doesn't want to pay any more than he has to for the remaining shares, rather than goodness-of-his-heart desire to move at D&M's chosen pace...

Technically, as the acquiring party, MA by asking for the waiver has shown a reluctance to acquire any further shares, Smith & Jones are not responsible for the waiver request. However I agree Paddy's view smacks of editorialising. I can't see a reason why Attanasio wouldn't progress more swiftly other than the fact Smith & Jones have offered such a bargain deal if he agrees to wait a bit.

[Indy 3,323]

Having now digested everything, many thanks to purple, GMF & Sheffield to mention a few there are others too! But it’s a brilliant deal all round, big credit to the current majority shareholders for structuring it so well, great to see MA and his team have certainly got the green light from our current majority shareholders as being fit for our club and a smooth transition over the next few years. Big thanks to MF for selling at a sensible price and big thanks to MA who has certainly helped pump in money to help stabilise this club. Credit all round and how refreshing to see a club move from one to another in the best possible way for all parties!

Lastly anyone still considering they should be making profit from the minority shares and not voting what is best for the club need to look at themselves!

I don’t often praise our current owners but they deserve our thanks today!

[Jim Smith 2,349]

21 minutes ago, Badger said:

Presumably not specifying the amount. I think that may be the bit in the podcast about preferential interest rates. 

Looking at last year's accounts + anticipated revenues, including player sales, I suspect that this was just short term finance for cash flow.

Does the documentation give any indication as to whether the 40% includes conversion of the preference shares?

No it does specify amounts. And talks about them being converted into ordinary shares as part of the allotment. 

[Sufyellow 225]

53 minutes ago, Badger said:

I am most certainly not a conspiracy theorist but as I understand it, we are being asked to put a very great deal of trust in Attanasio's good faith. Based mostly on the Pink In podcast, which I thought was good in the time available, it seems that he has bought a 40% stake in the club for very little.

The new equity issued has raised only a small amount as far as I can tell, and seems to value the club very cheaply? I haven't seen any of the documents but I feel a little concerned ATM - perhaps without justification.

Am I missing something?

 

Listening to it , it seems he is getting 20% for about 5 million,  so I presume it values club at 25 million. It seems low but do we know what the debt is. I can't see where he would put any money in until he has control and that's two and a half years away. I am not a share holder , but it seems a bit unfair to me that they can't offer the £25 per share and if people want to sell divide them equally.

Reading up on the 10 million loan the pinkun said at the time if the club was sold that would act as 10% of the club.

Please explain if I am totally wrong on this? 

[Soldier on 169]

He can’t pay out on minority shareholders as this is a phased takeover and the agreement allowing the shares to be allocated is based on 40/40 parity ownership.