Mark Attanasio

[essex canary 516]

11 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

I don't even know where to start with asking questions. If we're supposed to make a considered choice and understand all the implications then I will never get there. I couldn't get there with Brexit either. I'm not ever going to understand these things. Tempted to abstain because by voting I could get it wrong. It doesn't help to learn that what the press are telling us is just them trying to stay in our club's good books. 

My gut says that if our club is owned on another continent it's not good. But we're not even voting for that are we? It seems it's just a vote on the waver that may or may not be to our advantage.

One thought is why not vote for all the resolutions aside from resolution 2 with a vote against?

In a sense there is a case for 40:40 given his arrangement with S&J and in a sense overall control doesn't change. This is in a sense purely a technical matter to meet the requirements of the Takeover Code.

46:36 is in layman's terms a different issue entirely. He will be in effective control. Fan influence will be very hard to bring to the Table in the event of any dispute with say Tom and this could go on for another generation with no benefit to fan shareholders based on what we know at the moment.

I wouldn’t think he would walk away but it would be a shot across the boughs.

[nutty nigel 7,667]

32 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

I thought the piece Paddy done explained it quite simply, if you've not read it yet:

https://www.pinkun.com/sport/norwich-city/23768785.norwich-city-mark-attanasio-investment-plan-mapped/

Thanks I hadn't seen that.

I guess this brings me back to my original thought which is to trust our club and allow this to progress in the way they want. A future that would suit me would be a club with a certain amount of fan ownership and involvement even if not the majority.  

But of course Davitt's gone and said the W word and aren't we supposed to want him on gardening leave?

Edited September 6, 2023 by nutty nigel
to clarify

[Duncan Edwards 2,274]

I’m too thick to understand all the nuances here.

As far as I can see, surely the one thing that we all want is for the club to have the best chance to progress and push.

The current incumbents have been battered from pillar to post for apparently not welcoming or accepting new investment. When they’ve sought external investment via the bond, that’s been hammered too.

They haven’t accepted any old offer (has there been one since the Cullum interest?) and have now seen an opportunity to welcome investment. They’ve also, sensibly it seems to me, to have put in a now established bedding in period. This will allow the fresh investment/investors to see and learn what football club ownership means both in terms of financial implication and relative time commitment.

I own a few shares and I’m not really @rsed what that means to me, it’s far more important that with the current owners getting late in life that they’ve found someone that they apparently trust to take it forward. That’s surely better than what happened with the Turners where their root and branch inspection ended up with Glenn Roeder and them withdrawing quickly when they saw the kind of money required to push the club forward.

So, what I’m asking, I guess, is what is the issue? Were you all expecting a return on your investment? Were you buying shares to help the club? Or is it now all down to personal gain?

It seems like the people set to, potentially, make the most personal gain have foregone it as they see it in the best interests of the club moving forward. For me, that’s enough. I’d rather see us, together, being capable of an attempt at sustained efforts at success than I would a return that might fund a holiday?

Delia and Michael have had a right good go at it, have developed revenue streams, overseen improvements to infrastructure and player development that stand us in far better stead than before.

As I said, I’m thicker than school custard but why would we go against this?

If someone could explain in “thick Norfolk” for me, I’d appreciate it.

 

[essex canary 516]

6 hours ago, Duncan Edwards said:

I’m too thick to understand all the nuances here.

As far as I can see, surely the one thing that we all want is for the club to have the best chance to progress and push.

The current incumbents have been battered from pillar to post for apparently not welcoming or accepting new investment. When they’ve sought external investment via the bond, that’s been hammered too.

They haven’t accepted any old offer (has there been one since the Cullum interest?) and have now seen an opportunity to welcome investment. They’ve also, sensibly it seems to me, to have put in a now established bedding in period. This will allow the fresh investment/investors to see and learn what football club ownership means both in terms of financial implication and relative time commitment.

I own a few shares and I’m not really @rsed what that means to me, it’s far more important that with the current owners getting late in life that they’ve found someone that they apparently trust to take it forward. That’s surely better than what happened with the Turners where their root and branch inspection ended up with Glenn Roeder and them withdrawing quickly when they saw the kind of money required to push the club forward.

So, what I’m asking, I guess, is what is the issue? Were you all expecting a return on your investment? Were you buying shares to help the club? Or is it now all down to personal gain?

It seems like the people set to, potentially, make the most personal gain have foregone it as they see it in the best interests of the club moving forward. For me, that’s enough. I’d rather see us, together, being capable of an attempt at sustained efforts at success than I would a return that might fund a holiday?

Delia and Michael have had a right good go at it, have developed revenue streams, overseen improvements to infrastructure and player development that stand us in far better stead than before.

As I said, I’m thicker than school custard but why would we go against this?

If someone could explain in “thick Norfolk” for me, I’d appreciate it.

 

What you have written is fair enough as far as it goes. Is it the full story though? In this mornings EDP there is a story about 3 top professional jobs at the City Council costing £100,000 each. The inference is these are expensive. They are not given the remit involved. The papers for the EM suggest that Zoe Webber could well have been earning £1 million a year as we were sitting at Carrow Road or abandoning it at half time with successive 0-3, 0-4 and 0-5 defeats. Not to mention the penny pinching attitudes directed at ordinary supporters now supported by a share price back to the levels of 25 years ago. 

More competent management required please but equally ought to make sure that a foreign millionaire doesn't milk the local shareholder investment to his disproportionate advantage.

[The Raptor 1,260]

You should get your voting forms today. I've got a load to deliver. 

Time to decide people. It encourages you to vote by proxy and not turn up.

[essex canary 516]

7 minutes ago, The Raptor said:

You should get your voting forms today. I've got a load to deliver. 

Time to decide people. It encourages you to vote by proxy and not turn up.

NO to Resolution 2.  YES to the rest.

[wcorkcanary 4,355]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

What you have written is fair enough as far as it goes. Is it the full story though? In this mornings EDP there is a story about 3 top professional jobs at the City Council costing £100,000 each. The inference is these are expensive. They are not given the remit involved. The papers for the EM suggest that Zoe Webber could well have been earning £1 million a year as we were sitting at Carrow Road or abandoning it at half time with successive 0-3, 0-4 and 0-5 defeats. Not to mention the penny pinching attitudes directed at ordinary supporters now supported by a share price back to the levels of 25 years ago. 

More competent management required please but equally ought to make sure that a foreign millionaire doesn't milk the local shareholder investment to his disproportionate advantage.

How many forks can a Snake have in its tongue... I thought one, but it seems there may be more.

[essex canary 516]

2 minutes ago, wcorkcanary said:

How many forks can a Snake have in its tongue... I thought one, but it seems there may be more.

There is no end to the human race ability to underestimate.

[Capt. Pants 4,329]

If you set aside whether or not you are going to lose or gain on your NCFC shares, then to me as a non shareholder supporter, it's simply a vote of confidence on the Attanasio regime.

D&M and her team seem as sure as they can be that the Attanasios are the right people to take the club forward and I feel substantially more comfortable with this than the alternative of a single person inheriting it further down the line.

I really hope supporting shareholders get this over the line.

 

[PurpleCanary 5,603]

On a long flight an idea came to me about how the unpleasantness of a gun being put to the heads of minority shareholders might have been avoided. This is using round figures, and there may be some legal problems, but anyway…

Attanasio buys Foulger’s 100,000 Ordinary shares, at £25 a share.

The PLAN to achieve parity with S&J is announced, and permission is got from the Takeover Panel to put to a vote a future waiver. Which is voted for.

Attanasio then offers to buy out all the minorities at £25 a share, but points out that the more that want him to buy the fewer he will end up buying from the club.

Holders of, say, 35,000 shares take up the offer, taking his holding to 135,000.

Attanasio then buys 185,000 Ordinaries from the club, taking his total/percentage to parity with that of S&J. In doing so he has broken the 30 per cent mark, but the future waiver agreed by shareholders means he doesn’t then have to offer to buy out the rest.

The net result is that the total he buys from the club is only 10,000 down on the actual figure, and those minorities who wanted to sell up have been able to, as opposed the odd and not terribly good looking from the optics point of view situation now when however the minorities vote they will not be able to have Attanasio buy their shares.

Of course this is dependent on not that many minorities wanting to sell, but the price of £25 is hardly attractive, so I suspect my guesstimate of 35,000 shares is not  on the low side. It takes into account that Attanasio did buy several thousands, including I think the old Jimmy Jones holding, of around 23,000. So under this plan the number he buys privately would probably not be dissimilar to the number he actually has.

 

Edited September 7, 2023 by PurpleCanary

[Indy 3,344]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

What you have written is fair enough as far as it goes. Is it the full story though? In this mornings EDP there is a story about 3 top professional jobs at the City Council costing £100,000 each. The inference is these are expensive. They are not given the remit involved. The papers for the EM suggest that Zoe Webber could well have been earning £1 million a year as we were sitting at Carrow Road or abandoning it at half time with successive 0-3, 0-4 and 0-5 defeats. Not to mention the penny pinching attitudes directed at ordinary supporters now supported by a share price back to the levels of 25 years ago. 

More competent management required please but equally ought to make sure that a foreign millionaire doesn't milk the local shareholder investment to his disproportionate advantage.

Yea ur first point on Zoe is a total guesswork and in reality multimillion pound companies will pay over the odds for good high level executives. Zoe is highly thought of and payed so by the club.

Secondly you’re limited shares are only worth what someone is willing to pay for them, the worth of this football club in real terms isn’t in football but in selling off all the clubs land turning into residential and taking the maximum profit! The Stadium & training/ youth facilities and status cost more than the real worth.

Even promotion to the top flight brings massive burden to any small clubs not many will run to profit, most appear to build up massive debt!

I would say to you be very careful with your constant bleating about the clubs way it’s been ran, I’m critical of our current majority owners for being too slow on selling up in the late 90’s into 2000 when there were massive amounts of money being thrown at clubs smaller than ours Leicester, Southampton, Man City etc some have certainly gained by this.

But now this deal the current owners best interest and MA team are knowledgeable in what is required to gain control over this club, what they will buy for in 2026 is up to them and their team’s valuation of the club come that time, you won’t have to sell as I understand it unless the shares the own hit 90%. But one thing you can do is stop being so critical of the process and buy into what’s best for the club you supposedly support, because unless Delia & MWJ demands a hefty fee for their remaining 40% in 2026 they’ve delivered on one of their core pledges and that’s to not make huge profits from the sale, but to see NCFC in its strongest possible position to move forwards.

PS you can still sell your shares to someone else at a price you’re happy with! If you can find that someone?

Edited September 7, 2023 by Indy

[wcorkcanary 4,355]

16 minutes ago, essex canary said:

There is no end to the human races ability to obfuscate  . 

Sorted.  

[Ren 75]

Purple - I think that would have been a fair way to have treated the fans who bought shares back in 2002 and at a slightly later date that I cant recall. 

The issue I think has griped with some share holders is that they bought the shares under the impression that there would always be a way of selling them and until the Trusts recent set up there really hasn't been an easy way of selling.  The club could and probably should have offered to buy them back and cancel them when they were in the premier league or they should have at least offered to run a "market".  I have often felt like its a "well we have your money, so we don't really care about you any more" attitude.  That's not really how issuing shares works, but I guess football clubs don't run like normal organisations.  

[Badger 2,415]

10 minutes ago, Capt. Pants said:

If you set aside whether or not you are going to lose or gain on your NCFC shares, then to me as a non shareholder supporter, it's simply a vote of confidence on the Attanasio regime.

D&M and her team seem as sure as they can be that the Attanasios are the right people to take the club forward and I feel substantially more comfortable with this than the alternative of a single person inheriting it further down the line.

I really hope supporting shareholders get this over the line.

 

It's the vote of confidence thing that has me worried. Unless there are legal assurances that he will set at purchase price (minus costs) Attanasio  stands to make a great deal of money if he walks away. 

As a general rule when things don't look right and the salesman says "just trust me," my defence  mechanisms are alerted. As far as I can see, Attansio has a one-way bet without any real financial commitment. 

I don't like to be suspicious of people, but I can't see how I would accept a deal on a similar basis in my own life.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,246]

On 06/09/2023 at 10:18, Badger said:

If I understand you correctly, we are being asked to put a lot of faith in Attanasio's good will. He may have pumped £50 million into the club, but as far as we know the vast majority of this is as a loan at a commercial rate of interest, albeit at the lower end of the scale. Being dispassionate, the loan could be seen as leverage to get equity at a very cheap price.

You suggest that he has (will have) attained his 40% for £8 million, which values the club at only £20 million which is a bargain basement valuation. If at the end of his "trial period" he feels City are not for him, he could almost certainly make a very healthy profit on his equity even if we were in the championship and if were in the premier league, he might see a gain of 8 or 9 times his original investment in equity + still demand repayment of the loan. It is an extremely low risk gamble for him!

I'm sure that there are "assurances" in place but don't know whether they would be legally enforceable, so it does seem to me that we are basically being asked to "just trust me, I'm a good guy." I'm not saying he isn't, but in my personal life, I wouldn't enter into such a deal with someone I've only known for a couple of years.

Well done @badger that has been the essence of what I have said from the opening of this thread.
 

This is indeed a hugely salient point  and - however one dresses it up - this responsibility, decision and belief ultimately is in Delia’s hands.  

Thus it really is her call. 
 

This is why shareholdings, meetings, votes, AGMs, EGMs and warm words all do matter - all along the way. 

‘Events, dear boy, events’ so often lead to the unintended consequences , and opportunities, and weaknesses, and historical changes, and scavengers, and slick financiers, and..and…modern-day Delias?

Or as I said early on ‘do you wait 25 years for another Delia and then none come along at once’?

Chefs, Camels, cowboys….who is coming down Carrow Road?

Delia waited for Mrs Right. Has she settled for Mr Right Now because of circumstances?

Mr Right Now has money, does that make him marriage material?

Like it or not, Delia is deciding the future history of the club. It also defines her legacy, so she must do everything to get it right….

….…..but back in my world…🌎

Parma 

@MrBunce

@PurpleCanary

@essex canary

@shefcanary

@GMF

@badger

@BigFish

@Don J Demorr

@nutty nigel

@TIL 1010

@Robert N. LiM

@BroadstairsR

@Soldier on

@king canary

@Ren

Edited September 7, 2023 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[Indy 3,344]

5 minutes ago, Ren said:

Purple - I think that would have been a fair way to have treated the fans who bought shares back in 2002 and at a slightly later date that I cant recall. 

The issue I think has griped with some share holders is that they bought the shares under the impression that there would always be a way of selling them and until the Trusts recent set up there really hasn't been an easy way of selling.  The club could and probably should have offered to buy them back and cancel them when they were in the premier league or they should have at least offered to run a "market".  I have often felt like its a "well we have your money, so we don't really care about you any more" attitude.  That's not really how issuing shares works, but I guess football clubs don't run like normal organisations.  

Your last comment is very relevant here, I made a comment earlier I bought £200 of Millwall Holdings PLC in around 1997 as they were penny shares, in the top of their value previously they were I’ve £1.30 each and as they were pushing for promotion to the top flight that year I bought in! I lost the lot and Millwall Holdings went down the pan years later and I lost the lot!

Going back to now, how the club have structured it and going about it has been set up by a team a damn site more qualified than us on the forum, it has no doubt been scrutinised and agreed by both parties and I’m sure all options available have been discussed around the table as they have been here! 
As always dome people aren’t happy with the wording  of the explanations or the way it’s done but I reckon it’s this way as advised by the experts!

[essex canary 516]

30 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

On a long flight an idea came to me about how the unpleasantness of a gun being put to the heads of minority shareholders might have been avoided. This is using round figures, and there may be some legal problems, but anyway…

Attanasio buys Foulger’s 100,000 Ordinary shares, at £25 a share.

The PLAN to achieve parity with S&J is announced, and permission is got from the Takeover Panel to put to a vote a future waiver. Which is voted for.

Attanasio then offers to buy out all the minorities at £25 a share, but points out that the more that want him to buy the fewer he will end up buying from the club.

Holders of, say, 35,000 shares take up the offer, taking his holding to 135,000.

Attanasio then buys 185,000 Ordinaries from the club, taking his total/percentage to parity with that of S&J. In doing so he has broken the 30 per cent mark, but the future waiver agreed by shareholders means he doesn’t then have to offer to buy out the rest.

The net result is that the total he buys from the club is only 10,000 down on the actual figure, and those minorities who wanted to sell up have been able to, as opposed the odd and not terribly good looking from the optics point of view situation now when however the minorities vote they will not be able to have Attanasio buy their shares.

Of course this is dependent on not that many minorities wanting to sell, but the price of £25 is hardly attractive, so I suspect my guesstimate of 35,000 shares is not  on the low side. It takes into account that Attanasio did buy several thousands, including I think the old Jimmy Jones holding, of around 23,000. So under this plan the number he buys privately would probably not be dissimilar to the number he actually has.

 

Sounds the logical thing to do. So why didn't they get there?  

[Ren 75]

1 minute ago, Indy said:

Your last comment is very relevant here, I made a comment earlier I bought £200 of Millwall Holdings PLC in around 1997 as they were penny shares, in the top of their value previously they were I’ve £1.30 each and as they were pushing for promotion to the top flight that year I bought in! I lost the lot and Millwall Holdings went down the pan years later and I lost the lot!

Going back to now, how the club have structured it and going about it has been set up by a team a damn site more qualified than us on the forum, it has no doubt been scrutinised and agreed by both parties and I’m sure all options available have been discussed around the table as they have been here! 
As always dome people aren’t happy with the wording  of the explanations or the way it’s done but I reckon it’s this way as advised by the experts!

Indy Just to clarify I think the deal is the right one for the club going forward, although I don't necessarily agree with the "isn't Delia wonderful for selling at £25 a share" comment, she hasn't sold, she has placed the unissued capital into the hands of MA for that price, maybe she should have been looking to obtain more per share to maximise revenue.  As I have said on may occasions I feel its tricky for us minority shareholders to vote for something that is not clear and to not offer a chance to ask questions is frankly unfair.  I think as a shareholder we have a right to understand what D, M and MA are trying to achieve long term.  

[Indy 3,344]

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

Well done @badger that has been the essence of what I have said from the opening of this thread.
 

This is indeed a hugely salient point  and - however one dresses it up - this responsibility, decision and belief ultimately is in Delia’s hands.  

Thus it really is her call. 
 

This is why shareholdings, meetings, votes, AGMs, EGMs and warm words all do matter - all along the way. 

‘Events, dear boy, events’ so often lead to the unintended consequences , and opportunities, and weaknesses, and historical changes, and scavengers, and slick financiers, and..and…modern-day Delias?

Or as I said early on ‘do you wait 25 years for another Delia and then none come along at once’?

Chefs, Camels, cowboys….who is coming down Carrow Road?

Delia waited for Mrs Right. Has she settled for Mr Right Now because of circumstances?

Mr Right Now has money, does that make him marriage material?

Like it or not, Delia is decided the future history of the club. It also defines her legacy, so she must do everything to get it right….

….…..but back in my world…🌎

Parma 

@MrBunce

@PurpleCanary

@essex canary

@shefcanary

@GMF

@badger

@BigFish

@Don J Demorr

@nutty nigel

@TIL 1010

@Robert N. LiM

@BroadstairsR

@Soldier on

@king canary

@Ren

There are always two sides to any negotiation, in these two sides are set two teams and they’ve no doubt talked over every point we have on here Parma! 
 

Fully appreciate your concern and of course MA could be said to be in pole position in all eventuality, the deal has certainly made things look very attractive to him! But let’s be honest in his world a few million profit on a quick turnover is pretty irrelevant in him multimillionaire world really?

His intentions are at question here by our supporters, the question is also do you trust the current set up as they’re happy to hand over, they’ve had first hand dealings for two years now and I think it’s fair to say we should trust Delia and her team too. They’ve done and continue to do their due diligence until it’s over!

But let’s be honest here as far as I can tell MA when he bought Foulgers shares at £25 each, could have forced through the additional share at that price and then triggered the 30% clause and the price set would have been £25, as I understand it and made an aggressive bid to buy the club on the cheap? Might be wrong!

[Indy 3,344]

6 minutes ago, Ren said:

Indy Just to clarify I think the deal is the right one for the club going forward, although I don't necessarily agree with the "isn't Delia wonderful for selling at £25 a share" comment, she hasn't sold, she has placed the unissued capital into the hands of MA for that price, maybe she should have been looking to obtain more per share to maximise revenue.  As I have said on may occasions I feel its tricky for us minority shareholders to vote for something that is not clear and to not offer a chance to ask questions is frankly unfair.  I think as a shareholder we have a right to understand what D, M and MA are trying to achieve long term.  

Indeed that’s every shareholders right, I fully agree, but my other comment is relevant too, we’re a few people from different walks of life talking on a forum, this process has been on going for two years with teams of lawyers, accountants and third party advisors, I’m pretty sure they’ve gone through every scenario and this is the best way forwards for the two parties. I hate to say it but the minority share holder thought well thought of for supporting the club in times of need are really not that significant in the way we go forwards! Not saying we’re not important, but not significant how this goes forward.

You’re correct in that Dalia hasn’t test sold or valued the current 40% her and MJW own, who’s to say they won’t demand more and who’s to say MA won’t offer less in 2026, long way to go to get there.

[essex canary 516]

24 minutes ago, Indy said:

Yea ur first point on Zoe is a total guesswork

The quote from the supporting documents is:

'The ED's salary will increase to £525,000 per annum if the Company is promoted to the Premier League, and for every season they are a member of the Premier League. The ED is entitled to receive up to 100% of her gross basic salary as a bonus if agreed upon targets are met. This bonus is guaranteed in a season where the Company either regains or maintains its Premier League membership. The ED is also entitled to an additional discretionary bonus at such intervals and subject to such conditions as the Board may determine....'

Guesswork?

Her reputation would improve in my estimation with direct answers to questions rather than 'I think, you know.'

 

 

 

[Indy 3,344]

1 minute ago, essex canary said:

The quote from the supporting documents is:

'The ED's salary will increase to £525,000 per annum if the Company is promoted to the Premier League, and for every season they are a member of the Premier League. The ED is entitled to receive up to 100% of her gross basic salary as a bonus if agreed upon targets are met. This bonus is guaranteed in a season where the Company either regains or maintains its Premier League membership. The ED is also entitled to an additional discretionary bonus at such intervals and subject to such conditions as the Board may determine....'

Guesswork?

Her reputation would improve in my estimation with direct answers to questions rather than 'I think, you know.'

 

 

 

Again If the company is promoted will rise to £525k isn’t now £525k and will double. If she’s there and we go up, stay up does she not deserve that in her part of that service?

If her targets are met, no doubt she will oversee other areas of income which will increase the clubs wealth at top level! If the targets are met what’s your gripe with Zoe? She’ll deserve her money in my view. This can only come with success, unlike Dean Smith who probably got three time that for totally wrecking this club in half a season!

[shefcanary 2,503]

11 hours ago, Google Bot said:

I thought the piece Paddy done explained it quite simply, if you've not read it yet:

https://www.pinkun.com/sport/norwich-city/23768785.norwich-city-mark-attanasio-investment-plan-mapped/

GB, this piece was written by Paddy after an intensive briefing from the club, to journalists who as they admit are not financial experts. Paddy would not have had time to have done any truly investigative work on this, in fact this article should have been undertaken by the EDP's financial expert, it isn't really about football at all.

As Nutty says, the club is going to be controlled by a US outfit, whom nearly all supporters have no connection with at all. Nutty is fatalistic about what to do next, as am I. Whichever way we vote, afterwards it is inevitable the club will no longer be controlled by people that supporters can relate to. There is no third way here ...

[Soldier on 172]

7 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

GB, this piece was written by Paddy after an intensive briefing from the club, to journalists who as they admit are not financial experts. Paddy would not have had time to have done any truly investigative work on this, in fact this article should have been undertaken by the EDP's financial expert, it isn't really about football at all.

As Nutty says, the club is going to be controlled by a US outfit, whom nearly all supporters have no connection with at all. Nutty is fatalistic about what to do next, as am I. Whichever way we vote, afterwards it is inevitable the club will no longer be controlled by people that supporters can relate to. There is no third way here ...

 

7 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

GB, this piece was written by Paddy after an intensive briefing from the club, to journalists who as they admit are not financial experts. Paddy would not have had time to have done any truly investigative work on this, in fact this article should have been undertaken by the EDP's financial expert, it isn't really about football at all.

As Nutty says, the club is going to be controlled by a US outfit, whom nearly all supporters have no connection with at all. Nutty is fatalistic about what to do next, as am I. Whichever way we vote, afterwards it is inevitable the club will no longer be controlled by people that supporters can relate to. There is no third way here ...

Voting any other way than in favour of these proposals will ultimately harm the club. What’s to be achieved by that ?

[shefcanary 2,503]

1 hour ago, PurpleCanary said:

On a long flight an idea came to me about how the unpleasantness of a gun being put to the heads of minority shareholders might have been avoided. This is using round figures, and there may be some legal problems, but anyway…

Attanasio buys Foulger’s 100,000 Ordinary shares, at £25 a share.

The PLAN to achieve parity with S&J is announced, and permission is got from the Takeover Panel to put to a vote a future waiver. Which is voted for.

Attanasio then offers to buy out all the minorities at £25 a share, but points out that the more that want him to buy the fewer he will end up buying from the club.

Holders of, say, 35,000 shares take up the offer, taking his holding to 135,000.

Attanasio then buys 185,000 Ordinaries from the club, taking his total/percentage to parity with that of S&J. In doing so he has broken the 30 per cent mark, but the future waiver agreed by shareholders means he doesn’t then have to offer to buy out the rest.

The net result is that the total he buys from the club is only 10,000 down on the actual figure, and those minorities who wanted to sell up have been able to, as opposed the odd and not terribly good looking from the optics point of view situation now when however the minorities vote they will not be able to have Attanasio buy their shares.

Of course this is dependent on not that many minorities wanting to sell, but the price of £25 is hardly attractive, so I suspect my guesstimate of 35,000 shares is not  on the low side. It takes into account that Attanasio did buy several thousands, including I think the old Jimmy Jones holding, of around 23,000. So under this plan the number he buys privately would probably not be dissimilar to the number he actually has.

 

A nice idea in theory Purps, but how many shareholders in practice actually want to sell? I'd wager very few,  it isn't that kind of investment. We know some might be tempted to sell but only if the price is right; in your proposal and in the current motion neither would achieve this. Even for those fans it is a case of sitting this out to see what Attanasio ultimately decides to do. As the Captain says, you either trust Attanasio (and by default Smith & Jones), or you risk bringing the whole house of cards down and therein lies more turmoil and uncertainty. Unless there is a white knight waiting in the wings for that latter situation but if so where have they been for the past 30 years?

[shefcanary 2,503]

50 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Sounds the logical thing to do. So why didn't they get there?  

Of course it sounds right to you, you are keen to sell, albeit at the right price. But, and I going on gut instinct here, most shareholders are not bothered about the value of the shares other than the connection it gives them with the team it supports. Purp's proposal may well have been considered by all parties, if they did I think they will have reached a similar conclusion as mine, that there wasn't the demand for the ad hoc sales to make it worthwhile.

[PurpleCanary 5,603]

4 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

A nice idea in theory Purps, but how many shareholders in practice actually want to sell? I'd wager very few,  it isn't that kind of investment. We know some might be tempted to sell but only if the price is right; in your proposal and in the current motion neither would achieve this. Even for those fans it is a case of sitting this out to see what Attanasio ultimately decides to do. As the Captain says, you either trust Attanasio (and by default Smith & Jones), or you risk bringing the whole house of cards down and therein lies more turmoil and uncertainty. Unless there is a white knight waiting in the wings for that latter situation but if so where have they been for the past 30 years?

 

Shef, the fewer the better! But for those few they would have the chance they don't now. 

[shefcanary 2,503]

53 minutes ago, Ren said:

I think as a shareholder we have a right to understand what D, M and MA are trying to achieve long term.  

This is the main information missing from this whole piece, in particular what happens in February 2026!

[essex canary 516]

2 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

This is the main information missing from this whole piece, in particular what happens in February 2026!

Yes. Which is why I propose voting NO to Resolution 2 only.

[shefcanary 2,503]

4 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Shef, the fewer the better! But for those few they would have the chance they don't now. 

I can't disagree, but would this have been beneficial to the club? It is a difficult balance between helping a "few" individuals, versus trying to maximise the financial support for the club.