Mark Attanasio

[Ren 75]

2 minutes ago, hogesar said:

My only...reservation, I guess (look, now I'm going to be the one complaining) is that giving Attanassio such a favourable deal is great for the club on the face of it but is putting an awful lot of trust in someone who ultimately is businessman. Let's say Delia & Michael have relinquished their shares to him in 2 years time - he could stand to make a very tidy sum selling the club onto whoever is the highest bidder. 

And one fair criticism of the board is that they have been too trusting in the past of certain individuals. I guess it's the best we can hope for in reality but still a slight concern.

I think this is all fair but I have a feeling that MA may not ever fully own the whole club and I wouldn't be surprised to see D&M's holding held in a trust for a length of time to stop that from happening. 

Hopefully the board have taken the time to get to know MA well enough to know that he is in it for the longer game.  Time will tell I guess but D&M are not getting any younger and at some stage they will have to call time on the ownership of our great club.   

[shefcanary 2,504]

3 minutes ago, hogesar said:

My only...reservation, I guess (look, now I'm going to be the one complaining) is that giving Attanassio such a favourable deal is great for the club on the face of it but is putting an awful lot of trust in someone who ultimately is businessman. Let's say Delia & Michael have relinquished their shares to him in 2 years time - he could stand to make a very tidy sum selling the club onto whoever is the highest bidder. 

And one fair criticism of the board is that they have been too trusting in the past of certain individuals. I guess it's the best we can hope for in reality but still a slight concern.

Yes, that is the main reservation, if Smith Jones and Foulger have not benefitted there is only one person who has. They must be happy that his future plans are underpinned with integrity, history at the Brewers seems to demonstrate that his word can be trusted.

At some point I will take more time to try and unpick the Norfolk investment vehicle that has been used to get us to the current situation - there are a lot of names associated with that corporate structure that if you were cynical leaves a back door to significant profit taking by Attanasio possible. However I think most of these characters are what Attanasio would call friends rather than fellow businessmen?

[yellowrider120 798]

43 minutes ago, Ren said:

Lots of people saying that Delia and Michael have sold the club to MA at a cheap price of £25 per share and congratulating them.  Just one question though, they still have 40% of the club and there is no guarantees that I can see that they will sell the remaining 40% at £25 per share or have I missed something? 

They have not 'sold the club' to MA at all. He now owns 40% as do The Stowmarket Two. That is not 'control'. Such 'control' may come further down the line either via another share issue or by him buying their shares. He certainly now has a strong influence but that is a world away from 'control'.

[Leedscanary 352]

So when Delia and Michael shuffle off and leave their shares to Neppo Tom he'll become King with a majority shareholding given he has 104 currently? 

[Ren 75]

3 minutes ago, Leedscanary said:

So when Delia and Michael shuffle off and leave their shares to Neppo Tom he'll become King with a majority shareholding given he has 104 currently? 

Probably not because MA will be able to start buying up shares from the 6000 plus minority shareholders if he so wishes.  

[Davidlingfield 65]

29 minutes ago, yellowrider120 said:

They have not 'sold the club' to MA at all. He now owns 40% as do The Stowmarket Two. That is not 'control'. Such 'control' may come further down the line either via another share issue or by him buying their shares. He certainly now has a strong influence but that is a world away from 'control'.

Hopefully the long term plan is for control to rest somewhere - with MA I guess - as entities (including football clubs) with no overall control can get into sticky situations. 
Despite the good intentions at the outset, if disagreements set in at a later date, you don’t want one c40% owner arguing with the other c40% owner. The result is potential deadlock, and no progress.

[ncfcstar 296]

Some of the posts here are ridiculous in their conspiratorial tone.  If Delia decided to hand over her shares to MA for 1p someone somewhere would find something suspicious about it.  Maybe, just maybe, Delia has tried her best and just wants the best outcome for the club and the supporters?  I know that might be hard for some to swallow.

I hope shareholders vote for the waiver, and I look forward to seeing what MA brings to the table once he has a 'dual control' of the club alongside Delia and Michael.

[GenerationA47 768]

5 minutes ago, ncfcstar said:

Some of the posts here are ridiculous in their conspiratorial tone.  If Delia decided to hand over her shares to MA for 1p someone somewhere would find something suspicious about it.  Maybe, just maybe, Delia has tried her best and just wants the best outcome for the club and the supporters?  I know that might be hard for some to swallow.

I hope shareholders vote for the waiver, and I look forward to seeing what MA brings to the table once he has a 'dual control' of the club alongside Delia and Michael.

Well said - onwards and upwards

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Isn't this what even the most ardent anti foreign owner wants? Its not necessarily who, although he does appear to have integrity, buys shares at the moment. Its the moving on from the present. We all have to accept change. I am not a total fan of modern football and many of its changes but I have to accept them while retaining the right to question and even moan.

 

[Yelloow Since 72 54]

Mark Attanasio is a businessman and, as such, wants his investment to increase in value over the long term. Unlike other foreign owners, however, he seems to have a vision of where he wants the club to go. An advocate of the Moneyball approach, where recruitment focuses on undervalued players who represent good value rather than high priced players, he could well have had a hand in this window's transfers.

The only fee paid was £1.7m on Fassnacht while we sold Mumba, Aarons, Rashica and Omobamidele for fees that could rise to £37.5m. To balance the older players recruited we brought in 7 young players with considerable potential. Kellen Fisher has already broken into the first team and others could do the same as the season goes on. That's moneyball at its best.

Edited September 5, 2023 by Yelloow Since 72

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,252]

18 hours ago, hogesar said:

My only...reservation, I guess (look, now I'm going to be the one complaining) is that giving Attanassio such a favourable deal is great for the club on the face of it but is putting an awful lot of trust in someone who ultimately is businessman. Let's say Delia & Michael have relinquished their shares to him in 2 years time - he could stand to make a very tidy sum selling the club onto whoever is the highest bidder. 

And one fair criticism of the board is that they have been too trusting in the past of certain individuals. I guess it's the best we can hope for in reality but still a slight concern.

Bingo. My concern from the outset if you read back through this thread. 

And it is not just who you sell to. It’s who they sell to.

A Crescent Capital project without a backstop exit strategy?

I am glad that time is being used to some degree as disinfectant, though I would also be pretty patient for  £43m equity gain…

…particularly if allowed me a fairly free ride for a while in a Ferrari that I can now own outright, that someone else paid for, for really only the ongoing cost of petrol and servicing - plus my brokerage company gets a commission for switch-selling the recent finance package taken out on the company credit card to pay for a new gearbox? …

…the Ferrari is a bit battered of course, though old sports cars are more desirable than they were, their values are going up, there aren’t many of them around and they are much, much easier to export than they once were…people buy them from all over the world now….

In England there are 92 of them left, but maybe only 40 you’d want. Maybe only 20 of them are available, maybe only 10 in your budget range…

…but if you did it up a bit?

Not a bad deal. A fair bit of the Unrealised equity gain in your back pocket, Lots of fun, bit of glamour, pretty low buy-in vs inherent assets values, quite liquid in terms playing assets, Possible high upside, exit at a price if needed, multi-sports conglomeration all the rage back home….

He looks, sounds, feels, acts, plays like another Delia…though…but…wait…is he? ….
 

…What does he do again?

Parma 

Edited September 6, 2023 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[Soldier on 172]

11 minutes ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

Bingo. My concern from the outset if you read back through this thread. 

And it is not just who you sell to. It’s who they sell to.

A Crescent Capital project without a backstop exit strategy?

I am glad that time is being used to some degree as disinfectant, though I would also be pretty patient for  £43m equity gain…

…particularly if allowed me a fairly free ride for a while in a Ferrari that I can now own outright, that someone else paid for, for really only the ongoing cost of petrol and servicing - plus my brokerage company gets a commission for switch-selling the recent finance package taken out on the company credit card to pay for a new gearbox? …

…the Ferrari is a bit battered of course, though old sports cars are more desirable than they were, their values are going up, there aren’t many of them around and they are much, much easier to export than they once were…people buy them from all over the world now….

In England there are 92 of them left, but maybe only 40 you’d want. Maybe only 20 of them are available, maybe only 10 in your budget range…

…but if you did it up a bit?

Not a bad deal. A fair bit of the Unrealised equity gain in your back pocket, Lots of fun, bit of glamour, pretty low buy vs inherent assets values, quite liquid in terms playing assets, Possible high upside, exit at a price if needed, multi-sports conglomeration all the rage back home….

He looks, sounds, feels, acts, plays like another Delia…though…but…wait…is he? ….
 

…What does he do again?

Parma 

I get what you are saying and the what does he do line but that neglects to mention what else he does.

He has been principal owner of The Brewers for 18 years ? Doesn’t seem desperate to sell off for quick or even slow time to line his back pocket in dollars.

[GMF 757]

19 hours ago, TIL 1010 said:

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.

Just a little thought, these shares were purchased by the old Trust from monies raised from the Appeal Fund, effectively fan’s money, back in the day.

It has now realised a significant amount as a result of the sale, but no indication what the Trustees have done with this? Donated it to the CSF, perhaps? 

[The Raptor 1,260]

17 hours ago, shefcanary said:

They aren't I'm afraid. Only those with Ordinary shares are party to this shindig!

Cheers. That's how I read it. Me and many others have irrelevant shares!

I wander if they'll be dealt with at a later date if the club is ever fully taken over. Try and save a few quid on dividends. The differences between share types will get a 46 page thread of their own at some point I reckon.

 

[The Raptor 1,260]

34 minutes ago, GMF said:

Just a little thought, these shares were purchased by the old Trust from monies raised from the Appeal Fund, effectively fan’s money, back in the day.

It has now realised a significant amount as a result of the sale, but no indication what the Trustees have done with this? Donated it to the CSF, perhaps? 

I heard they spent it on a really loud drum

[GMF 757]

6 minutes ago, The Raptor said:

I heard they spent it on a really loud drum

You’d expect a whole percussion section with that amount of dosh 💰 🥁 

[Kathy 747]

12 minutes ago, The Raptor said:

I heard they spent it on a really loud drum

That would have repercussions.

[Robert N. LiM 4,667]

1 hour ago, Soldier on said:

I get what you are saying and the what does he do line but that neglects to mention what else he does.

He has been principal owner of The Brewers for 18 years ? Doesn’t seem desperate to sell off for quick or even slow time to line his back pocket in dollars.

Maybe he's just been playing a very long game all this time...

Edited September 5, 2023 by Robert N. LiM
This is a joke

[Robert N. LiM 4,667]

20 minutes ago, Kathy said:

That would have repercussions.

Ba-doom tish

[TIL 1010 4,826]

1 hour ago, GMF said:

Just a little thought, these shares were purchased by the old Trust from monies raised from the Appeal Fund, effectively fan’s money, back in the day.

It has now realised a significant amount as a result of the sale, but no indication what the Trustees have done with this? Donated it to the CSF, perhaps? 

That thought regarding the proceeds from the sale to MA had crossed my mind Gary. A good question for Barry Skipper to answer.

Edited September 5, 2023 by TIL 1010

[GMF 757]

17 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

That thought regarding the proceeds from the sale to MA had crossed my mind Gary. A good question for Barry Skipper to answer.

Given the general tendency to ignore correspondence, we’ll probably never know. 

[TIL 1010 4,826]

1 hour ago, GMF said:

Given the general tendency to ignore correspondence, we’ll probably never know. 

Are you essex canary and if so i will claim my £5 ?

[Petriix 2,858]

4 hours ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

He looks, sounds, feels, acts, plays like another Delia…though…but…wait…is he? …

Here's the thing @Parma Ham's gone mouldy: it's not necessarily one or the other. The best way to achieve a bigger return on your investment is to increase the value of the asset. Property developers buy up cheap houses and invest by increasing the quality and appeal through renovation before selling on at a profit...

What we absolutely have to avoid is a new owner who will strip the assets and extract the cash leaving just a shell. I think the slow process of the takeover is ruling that out. It's absolutely fine for MA to profit from the deal as long as the club benefits too. I think it's fair to say that we already have as we wouldn't have signed Sara without the cash injection.

It's a non-zero-sum-game. 

[nutty nigel 7,670]

My Posty must still be off sick as no post again today. 

Not sure which way to vote but there's nobody involved I would trust more than Michael and Delia so I guess if they're for it then I am.

As for the future, I listened to Paddy and he seemed to be saying that Attanasio was for supporter ownership and the current way of doing things was likely to remain moving forwards even if he was Majority Shareholder. Or perhaps I misunderstood.

As for the old Trust, surely where the money went should be more widely known? 

[GMF 757]

44 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

As for the old Trust, surely where the money went should be more widely known? 

You would have thought so.

[PurpleCanary 5,606]

23 hours ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

Couple of questions for you that might help @PurpleCanary cugino mio:

1. Why would the Takeover Panel agree to the waiver?

2. Why is it expected that the EGM will be short?

3. Why is there such confidence that the vote will pass (when a fair amount hangs on it?)

4. Why is Delia allowing MA to so deepen his involvement?

For Delia the club is the fans and the fans are the club. 

6,800 of the fans are shareholders. 

There is a single connection connection all of the above: 

Answer: 

Documents are in place that show that minority shareholders (fans) will be positively favoured not discriminated against.

This will be made clear from the outset at the EGM. 

In fact minority shareholders would have been discriminated against without the waiver as Delia and Michael Foulger have agreed lowball deals to achieve a cash injection into the club and improve its future odds of success. 

Both Delia and Michael Foulger have de facto foregone their own personal equity gain for the good of the club. 
 

Michael Foulger may have triggered the process for some other reasons also, though this provided an opportunity for reciprocal ‘live and on-site’ Due Diligence for all parties. Since that point Delia has also played for time - and provided some financial incentives and possible soft exits for Attanasio to really ensure that he is what he purports to be.

Should we arrive at full takeover - as Attanasio has always eyed - I would expect the price Delia received per share to be significantly discounted versus minority shareholders . 

An incredibly generous legacy from a true custodian. 

Parma

@nutty nigel

@GMF

@BigFish

@shefcanary

@essexcanary

@MrBunce

 

Parma, this will undoubtedly run on, but I hope has some general interest.

One. The takeover Panel has has not agreed to the waiver. It has agreed to allow the proposal to go forward to a shareholder vote. And that is not a distinction without a difference. It is  impossible to know why it has done that, given that the club has not published the correspondence with the panel. It certainly cannot be assumed that the panel endorses the proposal.*

Two. Short? I would imagine so, since in effect there is only one proposal to consider, and the club is strongly recommending that shareholders vote beforehand and so don’t need to turn up.

Three. As I understand it, the notion that some might vote against the proposal, for example on principle, that it goes against the rights of minority shareholders, came as a complete surprise to senior executives. Just hadn’t been considered that there might be a principle at stake, or that some shareholders would prioritise their interests over those of the club.

As it happens I imagine the waiver will be agreed, since anyone who wants Attanasio to have to make an offer to buy their shares is going to be disappointed either way.

If the waiver is approved he doesn’t have to make an offer and if it is voted down then he won’t buy the new shares so doesn’t hit 30 per cent and doesn’t have to offer anyway.

I had no intention of selling but I was considering voting against on principle. However if by some chance I was on the “winning side” all it would do would be to deprive the club of some extra millions without protecting the rights of the minorities.

On to the main point. I am intrigued by your reference to documents “in place” that show the minorities will be positively favoured rather than discriminated against, and this will be made clear at the start of the EGM.

All sorts of questions arise. By “in place” do you mean documents published by the club on Monday (if so please do point me in their direction) or new documents to be revealed – or even explained for the first time – at the EGM? The obvious point is that the club certainly should not produce new stuff – or even come up with new explanations, or even answer questions, as that might change minds – at the EGM since it does want shareholders to vote beforehand. You cannot have some voters privy to extra information.

And I am afraid “positively favoured” is too vague for me, as it stands. I have read through the documents but I am not professionally qualified to understand anything like all of it. And there has been no independent analysis or advice to go on. The EDP piece, though useful, was clearly based on a briefing by the club.

And the club has not published an independent report. It has played with words to describe Tom Smith and Zoe Webber as independent directors, because they are not deemed to be in concert as far as the deal goes.

We both know they are nothing of the kind. Real independent directors tend to be the great and the good with no previous links to a company brought in to provide disinterested oversight. If your company board included (perhaps it does!) a nephew or niece who is a potential inheritor and your paid full-time CEO you would not dream of calling them independent. The reality is Smith and Webber are not even independent of the board, let alone the club.

Given that, I have to rely on a few hard facts. One is, and here I am trusting to the likes of shef and others, that if Attanasio did have to make me an offer it would be in the region of £25 (valuing the club at around £27m) and so taking inflation into account, since I bought at £25, I would in effect be selling at a loss. The other hard fact, as gone through above, is that however I vote and however the vote goes, the minorities who want to sell won’t get the chance. That is clearly to their detriment.

Shef, whose input has been invaluable, did some calculations that if various things happened in the future then arguably the club could be valued at £200m, and perhaps that is what you are referring to, but he was not saying that was a certainty, or that as a result the share price would definitely soar accordingly.

If hidden away in one of the documents already published there is a cast-iron written-in-blood promise from Attanasio that in three years’ time or so he will revoke the waiver and offer the minorities £150 a share then fine. That would be something I would be prepared to rely on. But no-one has said there is such a promise.

And I don’t trust anything that requires various things to happen that might or might not, and I don’t trust warm words and even the very best intentions.

Attanasio may think he has bought a Ferrari that just needs a bit of tarting up to be sold at a very decent profit, but after he has really looked under the bonnet and then got properly behind the wheel he could decide it’s an Edsel.

-

In the latest full year the Takeover Panel dealt with 41 applications (up from 30 the year before) for a Rule 9 waiver vote. The report doesn’t say how many – if any - were refused.

Edited September 5, 2023 by PurpleCanary

[MrBunce 245]

1 hour ago, PurpleCanary said:

 

Parma, this will undoubtedly run on, but I hope has some general interest.

One. The takeover Panel has has not agreed to the waiver. It has agreed to allow the proposal to go forward to a shareholder vote. And that is not a distinction without a difference. It is  impossible to know why it has done that, given that the club has not published the correspondence with the panel. It certainly cannot be assumed that the panel endorses the proposal.*

Two. Short? I would imagine so, since in effect there is only one proposal to consider, and the club is strongly recommending that shareholders vote beforehand and so don’t need to turn up.

Three. As I understand the notion that some might vote against the proposal, for example on principle, that it goes against the rights of minority shareholders, came as a complete surprise to senior executives. Just hadn’t been considered that there might be a principle at stake, or that some shareholders would prioritise their interests over those of the club.

As it happens I imagine the waiver will be agreed, since anyone who wants Attanasio to have to make an offer to buy their shares is going to be disappointed either way.

If the waiver is approved he doesn’t have to make an offer and if it is voted down then he won’t buy the new shares so doesn’t hit 30 per cent and doesn’t have to offer anyway.

I had no intention of selling but I was considering voting against on principle. However if by some chance I was on the “winning side” all it would do would be to deprive the club of some extra millions without protecting the rights of the minorities.

On to the main point. I am intrigued by your reference to documents “in place” that show the minorities will be positively favoured rather than discriminated against, and this will be made clear at the start of the EGM.

All sorts of questions arise. By “in place” do you mean documents published by the club on Monday (if so please do point me in their direction) or new documents to be revealed – or even explained for the first time – at the EGM? The obvious point is that the club cannot produce new stuff – or even come up with new explanations, or even answer questions, as that might change minds – at the EGM since it does want shareholders to vote beforehand.

And I am afraid “positively favoured” is too vague for me, as it stands. I have read through the documents but I am not professionally qualified to understand anything like all of it. And there has been no independent analysis or advice to go on. The EDP piece, though useful, was clearly based on a briefing by the club.

And the club has not published an independent report. It has played with words to describe Tom Smith and Zoe Webber as independent directors, because they are not deemed to be in concert as far as the deal goes.

We both know they are nothing of the kind. Real independent directors tend to be the great and the good with no previous links to a company brought in to provide disinterested oversight. If your company board included (perhaps it does!) a nephew or niece who is a potential inheritor and your paid full-time CEO you would not call them independent. The reality is Smith and Webber are not even independent of the board, let alone the club.

Given that, I have to rely on a few hard facts. One is, and here I am trusting to the likes of shef and others, that if Attanasio did have to make me an offer it would be in the region of £25 (valuing the club at around £27m) and so taking inflation into account, since I bought at £25, I would in effect be selling at a loss. The other hard fact, as gone through above, is that however I vote and however the vote goes, the minorities who want to sell won’t get the chance. That is clearly to their detriment.

Shef, whose input has been invaluable, did some calculations that if various things happened in the future then arguably the club could be valued at £200m, and perhaps that is what you are referring to, but he was not saying that was a certainty, or that as a result the share price would definitely soar accordingly.

If hidden away in one of the documents already published there is a cast-iron written-in-blood promise from Attanasio that in three years’ time or so he will revoke the waiver and offer the minorities £150 a share then fine. That would be something I would be prepared to rely on. But I don’t trust anything that requires various things to happen that might or might not, and I don’t trust warm words and even the very best intentions.

Attanasio may think he has bought a Ferrari that just needs to bit of tarting up to be sold at a very decent profit, but after he has really looked under the bonnet and then got properly behind the wheel he could decide it’s an Edsel.

-

In the latest full year the Takeover Panel dealt with 41 applications (up from 30 the year before) for a Rule 9 waiver vote. The report doesn’t say how many – if any - were refused.

I'm away at the moment, so I've not had the opportunity to digest all the information as I'd like. However, I would say that I'm in agreement with you Purple (and @shefcanary @Parma Ham's gone mouldy and others). 

Overall, I'm not sure what way I will vote. On the one hand, to vote against the proposal would be to cause financial harm to the club. It would be in the financial interests of the club to see this go through. On the other hand, removing shareholder rights and protections should be very difficult (for obvious reasons). 

I must say, I'm deeply unimpressed that this has been presented as an ultimatum. No matter what spin the club put on it through the media (more on the shortly) that is what it is. 

Fair play to the Attanasio consortium (we now know Ressler and unnamed others are also investing significant money into this) for their negotiating prowess. They've played a blinder in my opinion. 

Could the club have negotiated better than a 11% unsecured loan note? Possibly. The market has soured the past 12 months and I don't work in that area of finance. That the club's management, who have been so hostile to external debt have so suddenly and significantly changed their position on this is intriguing to me. 

My hope is that the Attanasio consortium have provided some private undertakings (perhaps to Mr Foulger and or Delia) that mean there are some 'strings attached'. I don't agree (yet) that Delia is leaving much on the table (except for being diluted, like us other shareholders). Mr Foulger, along with the others who have sold out at £25 a share, certainly have. 

The pink'un boys have kissed and made up with club in time to put out their explainer - perhaps conveniently. On the one hand, they've done a good job explaining things in layman's terms. But it is hopelessly partial towards selling the club's narrative. From a professional point of view (as someone who litigates these things for a living), it really does toe the line in what is legally acceptable. Legally, the club can't come out and make some of the statements that the pink'un boys have done and let's be honest they've basically taken what they've been told and repeated it. Some of it is laughably naive (one example, that Attanasio will want to keep having fan shareholders involved in the club - one need only look at a certain unnamed shareholder to see how much of a pain that can be). 

That was all rather rambling, which I apologise for. I think in my first comment on this transaction back in Feb was that this is the likely the beginning of the end to glorious Fag Packet Accountants guild. I have thought often since of the phrase: "you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube". Once fan ownership of the clubs goes, it won't come back. For better or worse (and for what it's worth, I definitely think for the better) it has defined the club's last twenty years. This transaction raises some fantastic opportunities but some threats (see @Parma Ham's gone mouldy 'ferrari' post). I honestly don't know whether it's a good thing or not. 

Edited September 5, 2023 by MrBunce

[PurpleCanary 5,606]

1 hour ago, MrBunce said:

I'm away at the moment, so I've not had the opportunity to digest all the information as I'd like. However, I would say that I'm in agreement with you Purple (and @shefcanary @Parma Ham's gone mouldy and others). 

Overall, I'm not sure what way I will vote. On the one hand, to vote against the proposal would be to cause financial harm to the club. It would be in the financial interests of the club to see this go through. On the other hand, removing shareholder rights and protections should be very difficult (for obvious reasons). 

I must say, I'm deeply unimpressed that this has been presented as an ultimatum. No matter what spin the club put on it through the media (more on the shortly) that is what it is. 

Fair play to the Attanasio consortium (we now know Ressler and unnamed others are also investing significant money into this) for their negotiating prowess. They've played a blinder in my opinion. 

Could the club have negotiated better than a 11% unsecured loan note? Possibly. The market has soured the past 12 months and I don't work in that area of finance. That the club's management, who have been so hostile to external debt have so suddenly and significantly changed their position on this is intriguing to me. 

My hope is that the Attanasio consortium have provided some private undertakings (perhaps to Mr Foulger and or Delia) that mean there are some 'strings attached'. I don't agree (yet) that Delia is leaving much on the table (except for being diluted, like us other shareholders). Mr Foulger, along with the others who have sold out at £25 a share, certainly have. 

The pink'un boys have kissed and made up with club in time to put out their explainer - perhaps conveniently. On the one hand, they've done a good job explaining things in layman's terms. But it is hopelessly partial towards selling the club's narrative. From a professional point of view (as someone who litigates these things for a living), it really does toe the line in what is legally acceptable. Legally, the club can't come out and make some of the statements that the pink'un boys have done and let's be honest they've basically taken what they've been told and repeated it. Some of it is laughably naive (one example, that Attanasio will want to keep having fan shareholders involved in the club - one need only look at a certain unnamed shareholder to see how much of a pain that can be). 

That was all rather rambling, which I apologise for. I think in my first comment on this transaction back in Feb was that this is the likely the beginning of the end to glorious Fag Packet Accountants guild. I have thought often since of the phrase: "you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube". Once fan ownership of the clubs goes, it won't come back. For better or worse (and for what it's worth, I definitely think for the better) it has defined the club's last twenty years. This transaction raises some fantastic opportunities but some threats (see @Parma Ham's gone mouldy 'ferrari' post). I honestly don't know whether it's a good thing or not. 

Mr Bunce, I agree with all of that. One problem is that in the absence of any truly independent analysis (Smith and Webber are essentially cheerleading for the team) shareholders who are not professionally qualified probably have to rely on the EDP’s coverage, and your critical characterisation of it is unfortunately spot on.

The crucial news angle on Monday was that shareholders have been given a pretty brutal ultimatum to vote the way the club wants on the waiver, even if it might be against their own interests, but far  being the intro to Davitt’s main story, or at least being very prominent,  it wasn’t even mentioned.

[chicken 2,685]

Ok daft question number 1076.4...

Both our former joint majority shareholders and Mr A are at a balanced 40% each.

What would happen should they, I dunno, decide to sell some of their shares to another party, not Mr A, thus making him the biggest share holder? 

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,252]

7 hours ago, MrBunce said:

I'm away at the moment, so I've not had the opportunity to digest all the information as I'd like. However, I would say that I'm in agreement with you Purple (and @shefcanary @Parma Ham's gone mouldy and others). 

Overall, I'm not sure what way I will vote. On the one hand, to vote against the proposal would be to cause financial harm to the club. It would be in the financial interests of the club to see this go through. On the other hand, removing shareholder rights and protections should be very difficult (for obvious reasons). 

I must say, I'm deeply unimpressed that this has been presented as an ultimatum. No matter what spin the club put on it through the media (more on the shortly) that is what it is. 

Fair play to the Attanasio consortium (we now know Ressler and unnamed others are also investing significant money into this) for their negotiating prowess. They've played a blinder in my opinion. 

Could the club have negotiated better than a 11% unsecured loan note? Possibly. The market has soured the past 12 months and I don't work in that area of finance. That the club's management, who have been so hostile to external debt have so suddenly and significantly changed their position on this is intriguing to me. 

My hope is that the Attanasio consortium have provided some private undertakings (perhaps to Mr Foulger and or Delia) that mean there are some 'strings attached'. I don't agree (yet) that Delia is leaving much on the table (except for being diluted, like us other shareholders). Mr Foulger, along with the others who have sold out at £25 a share, certainly have. 

The pink'un boys have kissed and made up with club in time to put out their explainer - perhaps conveniently. On the one hand, they've done a good job explaining things in layman's terms. But it is hopelessly partial towards selling the club's narrative. From a professional point of view (as someone who litigates these things for a living), it really does toe the line in what is legally acceptable. Legally, the club can't come out and make some of the statements that the pink'un boys have done and let's be honest they've basically taken what they've been told and repeated it. Some of it is laughably naive (one example, that Attanasio will want to keep having fan shareholders involved in the club - one need only look at a certain unnamed shareholder to see how much of a pain that can be). 

That was all rather rambling, which I apologise for. I think in my first comment on this transaction back in Feb was that this is the likely the beginning of the end to glorious Fag Packet Accountants guild. I have thought often since of the phrase: "you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube". Once fan ownership of the clubs goes, it won't come back. For better or worse (and for what it's worth, I definitely think for the better) it has defined the club's last twenty years. This transaction raises some fantastic opportunities but some threats (see @Parma Ham's gone mouldy 'ferrari' post). I honestly don't know whether it's a good thing or not. 

‘Strings attached’ is indeed the key @MrBunce

Parma

@PurpleCanary

@shefcanary

@GMF

@essex canary

In HK, hard to tag more 🙏🏽

Edited September 6, 2023 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy
I have endeavored to show the ‘principled negotiating’ position throughout. Not opinion