Mark Attanasio

[shefcanary 2,503]

2 minutes ago, essex canary said:

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

TBF we would only get the "politicians" answer within the additional information - "who knows what may change between here and February 2026, you will have to trust us that we will do the right thing when that time comes".

[essex canary 515]

48 minutes ago, Indy said:

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.

The process which has been going on for 2 years has doubtless led to many other charges against shareholder funds which would not have occurred at other Clubs which are not set up as Public Companies which in our case was apparently to protect minority shareholders.

[essex canary 515]

3 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

TBF we would only get the "politicians" answer within the additional information - "who knows what may change between here and February 2026, you will have to trust us that we will do the right thing when that time comes".

If we vote NO to that Resolution only then perhaps a wider discussion at the AGM?

[Google Bot 3,356]

31 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

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 ...

Oh I agree  Particularly after first hand experience of 'very friendly',  'clever' Americans coming in to business to make it better, only to see it ripped apart and all sense of what made the business great to start with gone.

(IMO) This will be a project for his son, and they're in this for other reasons than having a love for the club.  And not to **** on every American in the world, but those I've come across in business are very selfish, and major narcissists behind the smile.  So I'm very much wary of what's coming in, but hopefully they prove otherwise.

Of course the other side of the coin is that Delia/MWJ cannot go on forever, and there doesn't seem to be any other suitable takers outside of MA, who does have access to a certain pot of money.

So you've just got to go with it, I guess.  The concern is if in 5 years supporters hate how sterile the club has become and how out of touch the owners are?  They are never going to throw the money in to get us competing in the prem league, and do they have the stomach if we're floating mid-table championship unable to make ends meet without them pumping money in?

I'm not a shareholder, but if I was, I wouldn't even overthink this vote.  I'd strip it down and take at face value the question being asked and vote on that basis.  i.e. Do you want MA to give you £25 for each share you hold?

As the vote will be a majority count, then surely the shares that Delia/MWJ hold will swamp the figures in favour of what's waivering anyway? 

Edited September 7, 2023 by Google Bot

[shefcanary 2,503]

4 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

(IMO) This will be a project for his son, and they're in this for other reasons than having a love for the club.

This is ultimately my view too! 🙂 

[Soldier on 171]

18 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

Oh I agree  Particularly after first hand experience of 'very friendly',  'clever' Americans coming in to business to make it better, only to see it ripped apart and all sense of what made the business great to start with gone.

(IMO) This will be a project for his son, and they're in this for other reasons than having a love for the club.  And not to **** on every American in the world, but those I've come across in business are very selfish, and major narcissists behind the smile.  So I'm very much wary of what's coming in, but hopefully they prove otherwise.

Of course the other side of the coin is that Delia/MWJ cannot go on forever, and there doesn't seem to be any other suitable takers outside of MA, who does have access to a certain pot of money.

So you've just got to go with it, I guess.  The concern is if in 5 years supporters hate how sterile the club has become and how out of touch the owners are?  They are never going to throw the money in to get us competing in the prem league, and do they have the stomach if we're floating mid-table championship unable to make ends meet without them pumping money in?

I'm not a shareholder, but if I was, I wouldn't even overthink this vote.  I'd strip it down and take at face value the question being asked and vote on that basis.  i.e. Do you want MA to give you £25 for each share you hold?

As the vote will be a majority count, then surely the shares that Delia/MWJ hold will swamp the figures in favour of what's waivering anyway? 

Delia and Michael and Mark Attanassio are unable to vote as they are directly involved.

18 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

Oh I agree  Particularly after first hand experience of 'very friendly',  'clever' Americans coming in to business to make it better, only to see it ripped apart and all sense of what made the business great to start with gone.

(IMO) This will be a project for his son, and they're in this for other reasons than having a love for the club.  And not to **** on every American in the world, but those I've come across in business are very selfish, and major narcissists behind the smile.  So I'm very much wary of what's coming in, but hopefully they prove otherwise.

Of course the other side of the coin is that Delia/MWJ cannot go on forever, and there doesn't seem to be any other suitable takers outside of MA, who does have access to a certain pot of money.

So you've just got to go with it, I guess.  The concern is if in 5 years supporters hate how sterile the club has become and how out of touch the owners are?  They are never going to throw the money in to get us competing in the prem league, and do they have the stomach if we're floating mid-table championship unable to make ends meet without them pumping money in?

I'm not a shareholder, but if I was, I wouldn't even overthink this vote.  I'd strip it down and take at face value the question being asked and vote on that basis.  i.e. Do you want MA to give you £25 for each share you hold?

As the vote will be a majority count, then surely the shares that Delia/MWJ hold will swamp the figures in favour of what's waivering anyway? 

 

[Ren 75]

19 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

As the vote will be a majority count, then surely the shares that Delia/MWJ hold will swamp the figures in favour of what's waivering anyway? 

This won't be the case here as Delia and MWJ wont be intitled to vote. 

[essex canary 515]

1 hour ago, Indy said:

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!

I wonder if our ED for Vision and Strategy had a role in appointing Dean Smith? Otherwise she seems to have a non-football remit, I wonder if the other such staff get a similar income boost within the Premier League?

Which other areas of Income? There was the abandonment of Ben Kensell's and apparently the Boards previous commitment to maintain home PL casual prices to £30 and raising them to an average £44. That must have been a nice little earner at supporters expense. Also the continuation of Ben's concert policy.  Most other incomes are contract driven.

What value has been truly added by our ED?

[essex canary 515]

6 minutes ago, Ren said:

This won't be the case here as Delia and MWJ wont be intitled to vote. 

Exactly which is why we have some power for once. Resolution number 2 effectively asks the question 'are you all sheep'?

We should resoundingly respond  'NO'.  

[Google Bot 3,356]

3 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Exactly which is why we have some power for once. Resolution number 2 effectively asks the question 'are you all sheep'?

We should resoundingly respond  'NO'.  

Personally, It's this kind of thinking that threw the country into turmoil with Brexit though, so you need to be answering a better question than "Are you all sheep?".

Why can't you just answer it honesty with the question being posed - Do you want MA to offer you £25 for each of your shares?

Once MA gets in power is the time for questions when it comes to the supporters input in to the club, at that period he will be at his most open to suggestions as wanting to appease fans.

Dragging heels and making this a rollercoaster just prolongs the process as I see it?

Edited September 7, 2023 by Google Bot

[BroadstairsR 2,224]

11 minutes ago, essex canary said:

I wonder if our ED for Vision and Strategy had a role in appointing Dean Smith? Otherwise she seems to have a non-football remit, I wonder if the other such staff get a similar income boost within the Premier League?

Which other areas of Income? There was the abandonment of Ben Kensell's and apparently the Boards previous commitment to maintain home PL casual prices to £30 and raising them to an average £44. That must have been a nice little earner at supporters expense. Also the continuation of Ben's concert policy.  Most other incomes are contract driven.

What value has been truly added by our ED?

It's a monstrous wage with no real repercussions for failure.

These people are becoming multi-millionaires within a few years. Thank goodness the tax burden is heavy, although they can usually employ good accountants.

Why do we all so readily speak of millions of pounds when discussing matters football when most of us by far probably only deal in thousands ourselves? It's almost become like monopoly money. A million here, a million there, I should be so lucky.

 

Edited September 7, 2023 by BroadstairsR

[essex canary 515]

2 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

Personally, It's this kind of thinking that threw the country into turmoil with Brexit though, so you need to be answering a better question than "Are you all sheep?".

Why can't you just answer it honesty with the question being posed - Do you want MA to offer you £25 for each of your shares?

In answer to the last question whilst I think it should be tabled I would turn down the offer.

Whatever I personally think of Brexit, many people did feel motivated to respond 'NO' to the question of 'are you all sheep'. Do it in this case too. It is called 'democracy'.

[Google Bot 3,356]

7 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Whatever I personally think of Brexit, many people did feel motivated to respond 'NO' to the question of 'are you all sheep'. Do it in this case too. It is called 'democracy'.

It's not democracy though, as you're ignoring the question being asked and substituting it for another that is self-antagonising.  It's strategic/tactical voting fuelled through a degree of anger.

Like I said, if you care for supporters and shareholders views being better listened to then the time to do it is when a new owner takes the reins.  The easier and more support they see from that audience then the more open to suggestions they'd be surely?

Making yourself a deliberate obstacle is not going to create a good relationship.

Edited September 7, 2023 by Google Bot

[PurpleCanary 5,599]

57 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

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. 

 

Shef I obviously cannot say how many shares Attanasio would have to buy under my scheme. But bear in mind he bought more than 30,000 privately AFTER he bought out Foulger but before the announcement of the Plan. 

The result is that no minorities who want to be bought out have that chance. 

With mine they do, by in effect replacing those extra private deals with a public offer to buy. 

The likelihood is as you say that

very few small holdings would want to sell, so you would probably  end up with the 30,000 there actually were plus a very few more. 

Yes, the club might lose a very few thousands, but it would be a far better look and a far better way of treating the minorities. It would also eliminate

the small but actual risk that the waiver is voted down and the deal collapses! 

[GMF 757]

2 hours 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.  

@Ren the matched bargain share selling arrangement was actually the idea of David McNally and was agreed back in 2014 / 2015. Yes, the online process has recently been refined, but it’s been around for some time.

[Canaries north 151]

I am no financial expert as my bank balance will attest l, but here is my outlook. 

Most people who have shares don't really care about the price of shares as it was more of a fan purchase than a financial decision. 

And,

Some people seem to believe that the Americans won't rip us off because it's chicken feed to them.

For me it's frightening to leave ourselves as open as it looks like we will be. £8 million for 40% of the club is the possible outcome. At that value £20 million for the whole club. You could buy the club, sell Sara and have the rest of the club for free. 

I can't see Delia or should I say her advisors allowing this deal to go through without some legal binding agreements in place to safeguard against the Americans taking the 40% for £8 million and taking back all the loans. 

If these legal agreements are in place then I guess they can't be put in the public domain but surely must be shared with any shareholders who are being asked to vote this through. 

Also if this amount of money is chicken feed to the Americans why don't they just buy the whole club even with a hostile takeover. Give Delia equal voting rights as a non shareholding board member for the next 3/4 years and show their commitment. 

On all the evidence I have seen the worst case scenario is £8 million for 40% and then we have to trust the Americans. I don't like this. 

 

[GMF 757]

1 hour 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?

This is almost certainly true, but, in reality, unless you make that offer to all minority shareholders, you won’t know for sure. Are minorities being treated equally, as per the requirement of the code? Clearly not. As I’ve said before, this is more about the principle than the price being offered (not offered in this instance).

[essex canary 515]

7 minutes ago, GMF said:

This is almost certainly true, but, in reality, unless you make that offer to all minority shareholders, you won’t know for sure. Are minorities being treated equally, as per the requirement of the code? Clearly not. As I’ve said before, this is more about the principle than the price being offered (not offered in this instance).

In terms of Code compliance true but that is not the only issue. Minorities are not being treated equally according to Club policies either.

@Canaries north above makes a perfectly valid point.

Relative to season ticket prices, shares valued at £25 twenty one years ago ought to be worth £60 today.

[GMF 757]

21 minutes ago, Canaries north said:

I am no financial expert as my bank balance will attest l, but here is my outlook. 

Most people who have shares don't really care about the price of shares as it was more of a fan purchase than a financial decision. 

And,

Some people seem to believe that the Americans won't rip us off because it's chicken feed to them.

For me it's frightening to leave ourselves as open as it looks like we will be. £8 million for 40% of the club is the possible outcome. At that value £20 million for the whole club. You could buy the club, sell Sara and have the rest of the club for free. 

I can't see Delia or should I say her advisors allowing this deal to go through without some legal binding agreements in place to safeguard against the Americans taking the 40% for £8 million and taking back all the loans. 

If these legal agreements are in place then I guess they can't be put in the public domain but surely must be shared with any shareholders who are being asked to vote this through. 

Also if this amount of money is chicken feed to the Americans why don't they just buy the whole club even with a hostile takeover. Give Delia equal voting rights as a non shareholding board member for the next 3/4 years and show their commitment. 

On all the evidence I have seen the worst case scenario is £8 million for 40% and then we have to trust the Americans. I don't like this. 

 

This is covered within the 60 page Shareholder Agreement provided within the bundle of papers released by the Club.

[GMF 757]

5 minutes ago, essex canary said:

In terms of Code compliance true but that is not the only issue. Minorities are not being treated equally according to Club policies either.

@Canaries north above makes a perfectly valid point.

Relative to season ticket prices, shares valued at £25 twenty one years ago ought to be worth £60 today.

This has been covered previously. In essence, the Takeover Panel is concerned with the proposal before it, not what’s happened in the past. They are not concerned with the pricing proposal, just whether minority shareholders are being treated equally and, if not, then it’s a matter that shareholders have to be able to vote upon. This is exactly where we are at this point.

[Indy 3,333]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

The process which has been going on for 2 years has doubtless led to many other charges against shareholder funds which would not have occurred at other Clubs which are not set up as Public Companies which in our case was apparently to protect minority shareholders.

Yes but you need to accept that The Club comes first and you the minority shareholder is part of the entire package! It’s not special treatment for you and then the club!

Personally I want what’s best for the club and my friend who has my shares now appears to be in the consensus of happy to along with the clubs outlined plan.

[Indy 3,333]

1 hour ago, BroadstairsR said:

It's a monstrous wage with no real repercussions for failure.

These people are becoming multi-millionaires within a few years. Thank goodness the tax burden is heavy, although they can usually employ good accountants.

Why do we all so readily speak of millions of pounds when discussing matters football when most of us by far probably only deal in thousands ourselves? It's almost become like monopoly money. A million here, a million there, I should be so lucky.

 

It’s only a monstrous wage if we gain promotion and stay up! When you consider the value of that to the club then that’s success which will be rewarded.

At present she’s not anywhere near that money and though I fully agree with your comment about footballing being an obscene paying industry given the only product from it is entertainment and gambling, it’s where it is!

Success is what the majority are crying for the gauge of which is only in each supporters view in their expectations!

[essex canary 515]

20 minutes ago, GMF said:

This has been covered previously. In essence, the Takeover Panel is concerned with the proposal before it, not what’s happened in the past. They are not concerned with the pricing proposal, just whether minority shareholders are being treated equally and, if not, then it’s a matter that shareholders have to be able to vote upon. This is exactly where we are at this point.

As Treasurer of the Canaries Trust are you only narrowly interested in bureaucratic compliance or perhaps more widely interested in the broader economics of the Club?

[BigFish 1,988]

43 minutes ago, GMF said:

Are minorities being treated equally, as per the requirement of the code? Clearly not.

Hey @GMF, I have lost track of the conversation down this rabbit hole but if this were true in would in practice make the entire process unlawful. Although, whether any minority shareholder had the wherewithal to challenge it in court is another matter. What is it about the process that is leading to unequal treatment of minorities?

[essex canary 515]

7 minutes ago, Indy said:

It’s only a monstrous wage if we gain promotion and stay up! When you consider the value of that to the club then that’s success which will be rewarded.

At present she’s not anywhere near that money and though I fully agree with your comment about footballing being an obscene paying industry given the only product from it is entertainment and gambling, it’s where it is!

Success is what the majority are crying for the gauge of which is only in each supporters view in their expectations!

The words I quoted earlier suggests she gets very high rewards for just being in the Premier League as distinct from staying up.

[Indy 3,333]

1 minute ago, essex canary said:

The words I quoted earlier suggests she gets very high rewards for just being in the Premier League as distinct from staying up.

We’re not in the premier league though! So it’s irrelevant unless we’re successful!

[Jim Smith 2,363]

19 minutes ago, Indy said:

It’s only a monstrous wage if we gain promotion and stay up! When you consider the value of that to the club then that’s success which will be rewarded.

At present she’s not anywhere near that money and though I fully agree with your comment about footballing being an obscene paying industry given the only product from it is entertainment and gambling, it’s where it is!

Success is what the majority are crying for the gauge of which is only in each supporters view in their expectations!

It’s £425k regardless plus bonuses isn’t it?. Many would think that excessive.

 

[GMF 757]

19 minutes ago, essex canary said:

As Treasurer of the Canaries Trust are you only narrowly interested in bureaucratic compliance or perhaps more widely interested in the broader economics of the Club?

If you wish to receive a response to recent email to the Trust, I would respectfully suggest that comments like these are not the best way to go about it.

[GMF 757]

16 minutes ago, BigFish said:

Hey @GMF, I have lost track of the conversation down this rabbit hole but if this were true in would in practice make the entire process unlawful. Although, whether any minority shareholder had the wherewithal to challenge it in court is another matter. What is it about the process that is leading to unequal treatment of minorities?

There are waiver provisions within the code, which are available in certain circumstances, so there’s nothing unlawful about the process.

That said, the core principle of the code is to ensure fairness to minorities, something that an exclusion of the offer to minorities would seem to go against.

[essex canary 515]

3 minutes ago, GMF said:

If you wish to receive a response to recent email to the Trust, I would respectfully suggest that comments like these are not the best way to go about it.

It wasn't me who raised the issue concerning being uncomfortable about an incomer acquiring 40% of the Club for £8 million. 

At the end of the day when S&J have suggested that they are guardians of the Club such concerns should be addressed whether or not the Trust is the appropriate vehicle for getting there. Just that nobody knows which vehicle to use or how.