Mark Attanasio

[essex canary 507]

6 minutes ago, Big Vince said:

The last bit is of course a euphemism for money associated with kidnappings, beheadings, stonings and murderous activities generally by authoritarian regimes.

Which is why we need self funding to work right and to believe that Norfolk Group can bring greater financial discipline to the equation a la Brentford rather than what we have seen with the most recent go for broke failed experiment. 

Agreed that the egg boiling lesson can be skipped.

Edited September 15, 2023 by essex canary

[Big Vince 319]

4 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Which is why we need self funding to work right and to believe that Norfolk Group can bring greater financial discipline to the equation a la Brentford rather than what we have seen with the most recent go for broke failed experiment. 

Agreed that the egg boiling lesson can be skipped.

That experiment failed because they went for too many players in the £8-9m bracket which was never going to work in the EPL. 

Unless you are going to spend £250m on genuine quality with wages to match, then we should all stop kidding ourselves that promotion is a good idea.

Unless there is a radical restructuring of English football, clubs like Norwich will always be playing on an uphill pitch.

[Rivvo 257]

40 minutes ago, Big Vince said:

A club record six relegations later, did it ever go right?

I mean if you’re only going to post half the facts then no one will really listen to you.

[essex canary 507]

10 minutes ago, Big Vince said:

That experiment failed because they went for too many players in the £8-9m bracket which was never going to work in the EPL. 

Unless you are going to spend £250m on genuine quality with wages to match, then we should all stop kidding ourselves that promotion is a good idea.

Unless there is a radical restructuring of English football, clubs like Norwich will always be playing on an uphill pitch.

The PL is depressing in many ways but we still need to aspire to it albeit that perfecting the moneyball approach a la Brentford is really the only way that may work coupled with other challenges that may impact such as the rise of other foreign leagues etc.

[Big Vince 319]

5 minutes ago, Rivvo said:

I mean if you’re only going to post half the facts then no one will really listen to you.

But Watling had two promotions and no relegations; going from the bottom of Division Three South to the First Division.

Delia winds up at square one each time.

[Rivvo 257]

So we’re only counting the promotions that suit your agenda? Same old same old…..🤣

[Jack Flash 13]

14 minutes ago, Big Vince said:

But Watling had two promotions and no relegations; going from the bottom of Division Three South to the First Division.

Delia winds up at square one each time.

But wasn't able to keep us there apart from a 3rd bottom finish for one year followed by bottom of the top division and some more years of mediocrity to follow. So, in truth, nothing changes.

[Big Vince 319]

18 minutes ago, Jack Flash said:

But wasn't able to keep us there apart from a 3rd bottom finish for one year followed by bottom of the top division and some more years of mediocrity to follow. So, in truth, nothing changes.

Sir Arthur had taken over by the time of that relegation season, then had six seasons back in the top flight after one season down, then three seasons back after one season down, then we had nine glorious years with Chase after promotion in 86, so hardly mediocrity.

Amongst all this, John Bond revolutionised the way the club was run; introducing a youth scheme for the first time and playing a brand of football that was carried on by managers that followed.

[GMF 757]

3 hours ago, GMF said:

Even though the information is within the public domain, I don’t think it’s appropriate to name specific shareholders.

Nevertheless, attached is a breakdown by size of shareholdings, for amusement.

Here's the latest shareholding 

[Badger 2,412]

3 hours ago, duke63 said:

As i just posted in another thread, the Everton owner's statement on why he is selling is very pertinent. Unless you are owned by one of those stated, any other clubs will ultimately be left behind and struggle to survive.

 

Moshiri said in a statement: "The nature of ownership and financing of top football clubs has changed immeasurably since I first invested in Everton over seven years ago.

"The days of an owner/benefactor are seemingly out of reach for most, and the biggest clubs are now typically owned by well-resourced private equity firms, specialist sports investors or state-backed companies and funds."

Thank you.

I lost count of the times we have been told that "football has changed" and then referenced the old-fashioned "benefactor system" as what we should be aiming for. Even with multi-billionaires it rarely works.

[Badger 2,412]

Is there anyone who would vote for the motions if it were a professional decision - one that you would have to justify to stakeholders/ other investors etc.

There is so much unknown, I don't see how I possibly could 😢 You would be reduced to saying that you hope it's going to be ok.

There are some straws to grab at, but so much is unclear and some things that don't look at all good.

[Indy 3,322]

14 minutes ago, Badger said:

Is there anyone who would vote for the motions if it were a professional decision - one that you would have to justify to stakeholders/ other investors etc.

There is so much unknown, I don't see how I possibly could 😢 You would be reduced to saying that you hope it's going to be ok.

There are some straws to grab at, but so much is unclear and some things that don't look at all good.

That’s very true, but the same could be said for voting and hoping we get promoted….as the money does appear to be an issue! 
The club has backed itself into a position where this really needs to happen and then we just sit and wait to see where the ride takes us.

As I said good luck to you guys voting, tough choices to made but it’s time as a club we move on.

Edited September 15, 2023 by Indy

[GMF 757]

6 minutes ago, Indy said:

The club has backed itself into a position where this really needs to happen and then we just sit and wait to see where the ride takes us.

As I said good luck to you guys voting, tough choices to made but it’s time as a club we move on.

I honestly don’t think this is strictly true. For sure, it’s their preferred choice, but this is an pre-existing loan that they are proposing to convert into equity.

There are hints in the documentation that if approval isn’t forthcoming, then they would have to revisit the issue. As no guidance has yet to been provided, we’re left to speculate what form that might take.

[essex canary 507]

3 minutes ago, GMF said:

I honestly don’t think this is strictly true. For sure, it’s their preferred choice, but this is an pre-existing loan that they are proposing to convert into equity.

There are hints in the documentation that if approval isn’t forthcoming, then they would have to revisit the issue. As no guidance has yet to been provided, we’re left to speculate what form that might take.

That seems to imply it is in essence a Rule 9 waiver vote rather than a future of the Club vote. 

[Badger 2,412]

11 minutes ago, Indy said:

That’s very true, but the same could be said for voting and hoping we get promoted….as the money does appear to be an issue! 
The club has backed itself into a position where this really needs to happen and then we just sit and wait to see where the ride takes us.

As I said good luck to you guys voting, tough choices to made but it’s time as a club we move on.

I'm not quite sure about this even - we have not been able to establish how much debt we have - whether MA's loans replaced the ones that were in the last account or whether they are additional to it (which seems hard to believe).

If it is the former, we may be ok, especially with recent sales and wage reductions. It would be reckless for the club to put itself in the position where we we would be in deep trouble if a shareholders vote went against it, and I don't really believe that this is the case.

[GMF 757]

8 minutes ago, essex canary said:

That seems to imply it is in essence a Rule 9 waiver vote rather than a future of the Club vote. 

Correct, but that’s just my personal opinion.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,243]

Why are 777 Partners buying Everton?

Parma 

[hogesar 9,760]

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

Why are 777 Partners buying Everton?

Parma 

- Keep team in Prem

- Finish new stadium

- Flip club quick profit?

Although this assumes they have the capital to do so, they seem to have a very bad rep for not being who they claim to be...

Edited September 19, 2023 by hogesar

[PurpleCanary 5,586]

On 15/09/2023 at 19:17, essex canary said:

That seems to imply it is in essence a Rule 9 waiver vote rather than a future of the Club vote. 

Yes, in essence. But the vote, which ever way it goes, has significant implications for the future. It is part of a plan which, as Parma has indicated over several months, is potentially life-changing for the club. For good or ill.

The world of football has changed, and this is our reponse. You can argue it is belated and/or not enough of a change, or even too much. That we should keep our pure pauperism. And that the future beyond the plan is unknown. Which is scary. But the one certainty is that there are momentous times, with momentous decisions.

[Wings of a Sparrow 1,438]

Eye watering...

'But when you are looking at a business (Everton) that has lost at least £430million ($532m) since 2018 and still has more than £200m to find for its posh new home, you have to ask how long tens of millions is going to last and what happens when it’s gone?'

[GMF 757]

Closer to home, all the focus for the forthcoming general meeting seems to be on the repayment of the Relevant Loan by way of capitalisation into 195,012 ordinary shares. This is, of course, just £4.8m, out of £33,637,200 provided by Norfolk.

The term sheet (11) confirms that the first and second promissory loans had a maturity date on 1st September, the same as the Loan Agreement £1,634,700, not forgetting also the £21m line of credit.

That’s quite a commitment from MA! 

[dylanisabaddog 5,014]

On 15/09/2023 at 17:47, Badger said:

Is there anyone who would vote for the motions if it were a professional decision - one that you would have to justify to stakeholders/ other investors etc.

There is so much unknown, I don't see how I possibly could 😢 You would be reduced to saying that you hope it's going to be ok.

There are some straws to grab at, but so much is unclear and some things that don't look at all good.

I'm looking at it as better the devil you don't know very well than the devil you don't know at all.  Perhaps what is happening at Everton supports that view. 

The club is in a mess financially, due in a large part to Covid as well as one very poor transfer window. I'm very unhappy about the opaque way that MA has gone about this but my instinct is that Smith and Jones have looked around and decided he's the best of a bad bunch. In the circumstances that's probably the best we can ask for.

My only criticism of Smith and Jones is their apparent desire to stretch it out for another 3 years. I fail to understand why they just don't get it over and done with. Or have I missed something in the small print? 

My vote is a somewhat reluctant 'yes'. 

 

[yellowrider120 791]

23 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

I'm looking at it as better the devil you don't know very well than the devil you don't know at all.  Perhaps what is happening at Everton supports that view. 

The club is in a mess financially, due in a large part to Covid as well as one very poor transfer window. I'm very unhappy about the opaque way that MA has gone about this but my instinct is that Smith and Jones have looked around and decided he's the best of a bad bunch. In the circumstances that's probably the best we can ask for.

My only criticism of Smith and Jones is their apparent desire to stretch it out for another 3 years. I fail to understand why they just don't get it over and done with. Or have I missed something in the small print? 

My vote is a somewhat reluctant 'yes'. 

 

Surely not! In my most humble of opinions, S&J have had more than enough time to 'vet' MA (and likewise to be fair). This whole saga has been going on for probably the best part of two years now.   

[essex canary 507]

1 hour ago, PurpleCanary said:

Yes, in essence. But the vote, which ever way it goes, has significant implications for the future. It is part of a plan which, as Parma has indicated over several months, is potentially life-changing for the club. For good or ill.

The world of football has changed, and this is our reponse. You can argue it is belated and/or not enough of a change, or even too much. That we should keep our pure pauperism. And that the future beyond the plan is unknown. Which is scary. But the one certainty is that there are momentous times, with momentous decisions.

The Rule 9 waiver issue ought to have been detached from the future of the Club issue. As it stands the voting power of the top 30 shareholders will be almost as much as the bottom 6,600 with only around 200 people occupying the middle ground. This is correct from a Rule 9 perspective but not from a future of the Club perspective. Besides the shareholder initiative isn't enfranchising young people in the way that it should. A vote against the voting system and ballot paper design therefore seems the logical response.

Edited September 19, 2023 by essex canary

[Robert N. LiM 4,513]

38 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

My only criticism of Smith and Jones is their apparent desire to stretch it out for another 3 years. I fail to understand why they just don't get it over and done with

I was struck by Connor and Paddy repeatedly saying in their video that it was MA who wanted to stick at 40% for now. Obviously that may well be club spin designed to head off criticism like yours there, but I guess there's a small chance that it's also true. He seemed to play the long game at the Brewers and may well want an extended handover while he and his team get used to the (very weird) realities of English football. All this totally speculation on my part.

[Indy 3,322]

5 minutes ago, Robert N. LiM said:

I was struck by Connor and Paddy repeatedly saying in their video that it was MA who wanted to stick at 40% for now. Obviously that may well be club spin designed to head off criticism like yours there, but I guess there's a small chance that it's also true. He seemed to play the long game at the Brewers and may well want an extended handover while he and his team get used to the (very weird) realities of English football. All this totally speculation on my part.

My view is that it gives MA and his backers, time to review where the club is and what the offer will be, I know everyone keeps going on about the £25 share price but if this club doesn’t go up and doesn’t sell players to cover future debt then it could be worth a lot less to MA than it currently is!

Is it what’s best for the club? Who knows but there’s a lot of time between now and January 2026.

As for Everton they deserve everything they get, ****ty little club trying to get out of the shadow of Liverpool.

[GMF 757]

15 minutes ago, Robert N. LiM said:

I was struck by Connor and Paddy repeatedly saying in their video that it was MA who wanted to stick at 40% for now.

Personally, I think this 40% point is being overplayed by some, as it’s probably nothing more sinister than showing respect for D&M. 

[GMF 757]

44 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Besides the shareholder initiative isn't enfranchising young people in the way that it should. A vote against the voting system and ballot paper design therefore seems the logical response.

The vast majority of share transfers each year are to family members, or friends, typically as a result of the passing of the previous shareholder (aka, to the inheritors).

Quiet how you propose to enfranchise young people otherwise, unless it’s going to cost the club more money, I don’t know.

[essex canary 507]

1 hour ago, GMF said:

The vast majority of share transfers each year are to family members, or friends, typically as a result of the passing of the previous shareholder (aka, to the inheritors).

Quiet how you propose to enfranchise young people otherwise, unless it’s going to cost the club more money, I don’t know.

A glance around the room at the AGM doesn't suggest a balanced age range. Sometimes football runs in families, other times it doesn't so it is the latter than aren't being catered for. Even when there is an inheritor being treated as a second class citizen is the experience I have observed.

On the future of the Club,  even accepting that perhaps a Brentford solution isn't available to us, there are a wide range of opinions on here. The author of the Delaware issue will be voting for the motion. Nonetheless others with seemingly more modest concerns appear to wish to vote against on the grounds that the case hasn't been made convincingly enough.

Assuming there are such a wide range of views amongst the Canaries Trust membership, the allocation of the Trust’s vote must be a huge challenge?

[GMF 757]

@essex canary given that the last significant share offering was over 20 years ago, the age profile of shareholders is understandable, in my opinion.

I’m afraid I really don’t understand your second paragraph and, as for the third, as a result of MA’s recent acquisitions, yes, by default almost, the Trust is now the third largest shareholder, or largest independent shareholder, in the Club.

There’s still over 6,800 shareholders owning the 156,000 independent shares, so it’s going to be interesting to see just how many people vote and the number of shares they have.

If only you were still pally with the AD’s you could give us the inside track on their likely voting intentions! (winks)