Mark Attanasio

[GMF 757]

51 minutes ago, Soldier on said:

On receipt of parachute payments loans to MA can be repaid ?

Clubs effectively assign their future receivables rights (parachute payments) due from the Premier League’s Central Funds, in order to commit to future transfer instalments.

Its a relatively secure form of funding, considered low risk, so the rates of interest are modest compared to elsewhere.

The last accounts confirmed NCFC had ££43m outstanding (£13m due in 2022-23) the balance by March 24.

There were also £22m on future transfer receipts (£8m due in 2022-23, Emi Buendia receipts) due in September 2024.

The tricky bit, as @shefcanary highlighted is separating these from loans from MA, probably used to fund day-to-day cash flow shortfalls, arising from players wages.

[shefcanary 2,454]

A nice explainer posted by Paddy on Pink'Un +. I think it important enough to reproduce here below in full. It is well written, I'd suggest not by Paddy himself, but hey, what do I know. It is well focussed and now reads almost as if the current GM was always the intention in the first place. No criticism of the lack of a definitive position on Attanasio's financial investment at this moment in time however. (Apologies for the formatting)!

The clock is ticking for Norwich City shareholders to cast their vote ahead of Monday’s upcoming general meeting, that could signal the end of the club’s majority ownership.

US businessman Mark Attanasio’s group, Norfolk Holdings, have provided a £33m package of debt refinancing for the Canaries that also includes ratifying a share allotment process from earlier this year.

Should the approximately 6,500 independent shareholders pass the five resolutions listed Attanasio’s group will increase their shareholding to just over 40pc.

That will dilute the shares held by Delia Smith and Michael Wynn Jones to a matching 40pc, with 20pc held by smaller shareholders.

But the deadline for postal votes to be received and verified by an external party is Thursday (September 28) at 6pm. Any postal votes or proxy forms received after this point will not be counted.

The proposed increase in shares to Attanasio’s Norfolk Holdings group has triggered a takeover code process that applies to public limited companies. Key to this is the Canaries’ independent shareholders are being asked to approve the waiver, granted by the Takeover Panel, to their right to a mandatory offer for their share(s).

Should this pass then the previous share allotment process will be authorised, and Mark Attanasio’s group will increase their shareholding to 40pc.

Both the American’s group, along with the club’s current majority shareholders, are not permitted to vote in this process as they are viewed as acting ‘in concert’.

The club have now also updated part of the original documentation, listed on their official web site, and published in line with the initial announcement of the general meeting, with guidance director Tom Smith is no longer deemed an independent director in this process and is unable to vote on the resolutions.

Smith ‘has a conflict of interest’ as the nephew of Delia Smith. Fellow director Zoe Webber is treated as an ‘independent’ director.   

The general meeting is scheduled for Carrow Road on Monday October 2 at 6pm. The club’s documentation, sent to shareholders, makes it clear there will be no question and answer session, or facility to speak to directors or senior staff members either before or after the meeting.  

What is happening in simple terms?

Shareholders will be asked to approve the waiver granted by the Takeover Panel to their right to a mandatory offer for their share(s), which was triggered by the share allotment process voted on previously earlier this year.

That process, voted through earlier this year, would take Mark Attanasio’s group (referred to in the legal documentation as Norfolk Holdings) above a 30pc threshold that triggers the Takeover Code procedure applicable to public limited companies in the United Kingdom.

This will be a simple majority vote put to the approximately 6,500 smaller shareholders. Should this pass then the previous share allotment process will be authorised, and Mark Attanasio’s group will increase their shareholding to 40pc.

That will dilute the shares held by Delia Smith and Michael Wynn Jones to a matching 40pc, with 20pc held by smaller shareholders. In effect, signalling the end of majority ownership of the football club but renewing a commitment to fans retaining a share presence as a key stakeholder.

An external party will be used to count and verify the votes cast.

What is a takeover code?

The panel on Takeovers and Mergers, or more commonly the ‘Takeover Panel’, is the United Kingdom’s regulatory body charged with the administration of the takeover code. Its role is to ensure that all shareholders are treated equally during takeover bids.

Now the legal bit. Rule 9 of the takeover code requires a general offer to be made to the holders of any class of equity share capital, and also to the holders of any other class of transferable securities, carrying voting rights in a company which is subject to the takeover code, when any person(s) acquires an interest in shares which, together with shares in which persons acting in concert with that person are interested, carry 30pc or more of the voting rights of the company. 

The club’s official statement on September 4 confirmed the Takeover Panel has agreed to waive the obligation under Rule 9 of the Takeover Code for ‘Norfolk Holdings’ to make a mandatory financial offer to existing shareholders to purchase their shares. Now ‘ordinary shareholders’ are being asked to approve the waiver granted by the Takeover Panel at next month’s general meeting.

Click here for a full legal explanation of the takeover code in practical terms.

Who gets to vote and what is the offer price per share?

Applying the above legal terminology to Norwich City, the Mark Attanasio group, along with Delia Smith and Michael Wynn Jones, are viewed as being ‘in concert’ and must take themselves out of the voting process. Tom Smith is also unable to vote as he is deemed to have a ‘conflict of interest’ as Smith’s nephew. Zoe Webber is classed as an independent director and can vote. This is in addition to ‘ordinary shareholders’.

In terms of the share price the Mark Attanasio group are mandated to offer, this is set as the highest price the Mark Attanasio group have previously paid for a share. Which is £25 per share. This information is publicly available via Companies House.

If the resolution(s) is passed and shareholders agree to approve the waiver to their right to a mandatory offer what does this mean moving forward?

The Mark Attanasio group will get another seat on the board. This would be triggered at the point his group increase their shareholding above 30pc.

Mark Attanasio (Norfolk Holdings) has made a commitment to Delia Smith and Michael Wynn Jones, contained in the documentation sent to shareholders, they will remain in control for a minimum of three years. A timeframe which commenced in January 2023, during the previous share allotment process.

In practical terms, this means he will vote his shares in lock step with the wishes of Delia Smith and Michael Wynn Jones on shareholder matters eg. appointing directors, selling the club, infrastructure projects etc. This is distinct from board voting matters eg. appointing head coaches, sporting directors, etc. That remains one person, one vote.

Background to the share allotment process from earlier this year

The club’s last set of published accounts mapped out clearly the scale of loans taken out against future revenue streams. But higher interest rates within the United Kingdom in the past 12 months have made debt repayment more expensive generally. The club approached Mark Attanasio, who has a background in finance, with the aim of obtaining access to financing at a cheaper rate.

Mark Attanasio was willing to assist, but wanted to increase his shareholding, which at that point towards the end of 2022 was around 20pc. Delia Smith and Michael Wynn Jones agreed to that process.

Hence the creation of the specific 195,012 ordinary shares to ensure parity at 40pc. Mark Attanasio’s group have agreed to pay in the region of $6m for those ordinary shares. February’s general meeting was the mechanism to allow the club to create those shares. But in doing so Mark Attanasio’s proposed overall total number of shares triggered the takeover ode.

Background to the involvement of the Mark Attanasio group

The US businessman and owner of the Milwaukee Brewers joined the Norwich City board in September 2022. That came after his group had purchased 22pc of shares from Michael Foulger’s shareholding in a private transaction, and other smaller buy ups.

The club also issued £10m worth of ‘C-preference’ shares, which can convert upon certain trigger events, within a seven year timescale, to 10pc of ordinary shares. This process was agreed to give Mark Attanasio’s group a route to purchasing more shares in the future.

 

[nutty nigel 7,620]

6 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

Afraid so, nutty. If diehard supporter you of all people are sceptical then investor confidence worldwide not just in NCFC but in the global economy will plummet.

Wow, I'm the man!

I was sceptical about Brexit too. On the thread, which is long gone, people tried to help me understand. But I was the perennial last boy at school and so was unable to grasp what was being told. However despite me being sceptical the will of the people came to pass. The people are cleverer than me as my teachers always told me.

Now it seems to me that many of the same people who were parochial about Europe are intercontinental about our football club. Other people's money rules and they have no qualms about ownership leaving the city, county, country and continent. It must be good because of an American's money. That lovely money that hopefully will buy us better shinier drains than the ones we can afford now.

I'm abstaining. Safe in the knowledge that if it ends badly we can reform as FC Norwich City, find a bit of grass on Newmarket Road, join the Anglian Combination, call ourselves the Citizens and start buying up blue and white scarves...

BTW when did the threat of administration start hanging over this vote?

Edited September 26, 2023 by nutty nigel

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

24 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

A nice explainer posted by Paddy on Pink'Un +. I think it important enough to reproduce here below in full. It is well written, I'd suggest not by Paddy himself, but hey, what do I know. It is well focussed and now reads almost as if the current GM was always the intention in the first place. No criticism of the lack of a definitive position on Attanasio's financial investment at this moment in time however. (Apologies for the formatting)!

The clock is ticking for Norwich City shareholders to cast their vote ahead of Monday’s upcoming general meeting, that could signal the end of the club’s majority ownership.

US businessman Mark Attanasio’s group, Norfolk Holdings, have provided a £33m package of debt refinancing for the Canaries that also includes ratifying a share allotment process from earlier this year.

Should the approximately 6,500 independent shareholders pass the five resolutions listed Attanasio’s group will increase their shareholding to just over 40pc.

That will dilute the shares held by Delia Smith and Michael Wynn Jones to a matching 40pc, with 20pc held by smaller shareholders.

But the deadline for postal votes to be received and verified by an external party is Thursday (September 28) at 6pm. Any postal votes or proxy forms received after this point will not be counted.

The proposed increase in shares to Attanasio’s Norfolk Holdings group has triggered a takeover code process that applies to public limited companies. Key to this is the Canaries’ independent shareholders are being asked to approve the waiver, granted by the Takeover Panel, to their right to a mandatory offer for their share(s).

Should this pass then the previous share allotment process will be authorised, and Mark Attanasio’s group will increase their shareholding to 40pc.

Both the American’s group, along with the club’s current majority shareholders, are not permitted to vote in this process as they are viewed as acting ‘in concert’.

The club have now also updated part of the original documentation, listed on their official web site, and published in line with the initial announcement of the general meeting, with guidance director Tom Smith is no longer deemed an independent director in this process and is unable to vote on the resolutions.

Smith ‘has a conflict of interest’ as the nephew of Delia Smith. Fellow director Zoe Webber is treated as an ‘independent’ director.   

The general meeting is scheduled for Carrow Road on Monday October 2 at 6pm. The club’s documentation, sent to shareholders, makes it clear there will be no question and answer session, or facility to speak to directors or senior staff members either before or after the meeting.  

What is happening in simple terms?

Shareholders will be asked to approve the waiver granted by the Takeover Panel to their right to a mandatory offer for their share(s), which was triggered by the share allotment process voted on previously earlier this year.

That process, voted through earlier this year, would take Mark Attanasio’s group (referred to in the legal documentation as Norfolk Holdings) above a 30pc threshold that triggers the Takeover Code procedure applicable to public limited companies in the United Kingdom.

This will be a simple majority vote put to the approximately 6,500 smaller shareholders. Should this pass then the previous share allotment process will be authorised, and Mark Attanasio’s group will increase their shareholding to 40pc.

That will dilute the shares held by Delia Smith and Michael Wynn Jones to a matching 40pc, with 20pc held by smaller shareholders. In effect, signalling the end of majority ownership of the football club but renewing a commitment to fans retaining a share presence as a key stakeholder.

An external party will be used to count and verify the votes cast.

What is a takeover code?

The panel on Takeovers and Mergers, or more commonly the ‘Takeover Panel’, is the United Kingdom’s regulatory body charged with the administration of the takeover code. Its role is to ensure that all shareholders are treated equally during takeover bids.

Now the legal bit. Rule 9 of the takeover code requires a general offer to be made to the holders of any class of equity share capital, and also to the holders of any other class of transferable securities, carrying voting rights in a company which is subject to the takeover code, when any person(s) acquires an interest in shares which, together with shares in which persons acting in concert with that person are interested, carry 30pc or more of the voting rights of the company. 

The club’s official statement on September 4 confirmed the Takeover Panel has agreed to waive the obligation under Rule 9 of the Takeover Code for ‘Norfolk Holdings’ to make a mandatory financial offer to existing shareholders to purchase their shares. Now ‘ordinary shareholders’ are being asked to approve the waiver granted by the Takeover Panel at next month’s general meeting.

Click here for a full legal explanation of the takeover code in practical terms.

Who gets to vote and what is the offer price per share?

Applying the above legal terminology to Norwich City, the Mark Attanasio group, along with Delia Smith and Michael Wynn Jones, are viewed as being ‘in concert’ and must take themselves out of the voting process. Tom Smith is also unable to vote as he is deemed to have a ‘conflict of interest’ as Smith’s nephew. Zoe Webber is classed as an independent director and can vote. This is in addition to ‘ordinary shareholders’.

In terms of the share price the Mark Attanasio group are mandated to offer, this is set as the highest price the Mark Attanasio group have previously paid for a share. Which is £25 per share. This information is publicly available via Companies House.

If the resolution(s) is passed and shareholders agree to approve the waiver to their right to a mandatory offer what does this mean moving forward?

The Mark Attanasio group will get another seat on the board. This would be triggered at the point his group increase their shareholding above 30pc.

Mark Attanasio (Norfolk Holdings) has made a commitment to Delia Smith and Michael Wynn Jones, contained in the documentation sent to shareholders, they will remain in control for a minimum of three years. A timeframe which commenced in January 2023, during the previous share allotment process.

In practical terms, this means he will vote his shares in lock step with the wishes of Delia Smith and Michael Wynn Jones on shareholder matters eg. appointing directors, selling the club, infrastructure projects etc. This is distinct from board voting matters eg. appointing head coaches, sporting directors, etc. That remains one person, one vote.

Background to the share allotment process from earlier this year

The club’s last set of published accounts mapped out clearly the scale of loans taken out against future revenue streams. But higher interest rates within the United Kingdom in the past 12 months have made debt repayment more expensive generally. The club approached Mark Attanasio, who has a background in finance, with the aim of obtaining access to financing at a cheaper rate.

Mark Attanasio was willing to assist, but wanted to increase his shareholding, which at that point towards the end of 2022 was around 20pc. Delia Smith and Michael Wynn Jones agreed to that process.

Hence the creation of the specific 195,012 ordinary shares to ensure parity at 40pc. Mark Attanasio’s group have agreed to pay in the region of $6m for those ordinary shares. February’s general meeting was the mechanism to allow the club to create those shares. But in doing so Mark Attanasio’s proposed overall total number of shares triggered the takeover ode.

Background to the involvement of the Mark Attanasio group

The US businessman and owner of the Milwaukee Brewers joined the Norwich City board in September 2022. That came after his group had purchased 22pc of shares from Michael Foulger’s shareholding in a private transaction, and other smaller buy ups.

The club also issued £10m worth of ‘C-preference’ shares, which can convert upon certain trigger events, within a seven year timescale, to 10pc of ordinary shares. This process was agreed to give Mark Attanasio’s group a route to purchasing more shares in the future.

 

Because it is Davitt is is clearly written, and a helpful run-through as the vote looms. One semantic point which is more than just that is that I don't think the Takeover Panel has granted a waiver, for approval. It has given permission for a shareholder vote on whether or not there should be a waiver and if the vote is for a waiver then it will be granted. The panel is totally neutral on the issue.

There are two omissions.  There is no explanation or even questions raised as to why Tom Smith met the criteria for being an Independent Director three weeks ago and now suddenly does not. A certain lack of curiosity there. And while Davitt explains what will happen if a waiver is agreed there is nothing on the consequences of a waiver being rejected.

Edited September 26, 2023 by PurpleCanary

[shefcanary 2,454]

5 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

There are two omissions.  There is no explanation or even questions raised as to why Tom Smith met the criteria for being an Independent Director three weeks ago and now suddenly does not. A certain lack of curiosity there. And while Davitt explains what will happen if a waiver is agreed there is nothing on the consequences of a waiver being rejected.

Very good points Purps.

But I respectfully suggest this briefing was shared with Paddy by the club's advisers, with Paddy simply running it by Newsquest's litigation desk before running it. No investigative journalism required as too costly after getting the litigation desk involved. 

On the consequences, he could have asked the question, but I doubt there is a really well defined answer at the moment. That probably resides deep within Attanasio's sub-conscious.

Edited September 26, 2023 by shefcanary

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

14 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

Very good points Purps.

But I respectfully suggest this briefing was shared with Paddy by the club's advisers, with Paddy simply running it by Newsquest's litigation desk before running it. No investigative journalism required as too costly after getting the litigation desk involved. 

On the consequences, he could have asked the question, but I doubt there is a really well defined answer at the moment. That probably resides deep within Attanasio's sub-conscious.

That is tremendously cynical and betrays what looks like a deep knowledge of journalism and its dark practices, shef. Have you misled us all these years about your working background?!

[shefcanary 2,454]

7 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

That is tremendously cynical and betrays what looks like a deep knowledge of journalism and its dark practices, shef. Have you misled us all these years about your working background?!

I have to admit to having worked on a newspaper briefly after Uni (on the sports desk natch!). I also got to know very well many members of the team who worked on The Sheffield Star (all desks - for all aspects of some of my "real" work initially of course), one who still works there today as Sub-Editor; the tales to tell from our late night drinking sessions! 😉  

[GMF 757]

38 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Because it is Davitt is is clearly written, and a helpful run-through as the vote looms. One semantic point which is more than just that is that I don't think the Takeover Panel has granted a waiver, for approval. It has given permission for a shareholder vote on whether or not there should be a waiver and if the vote is for a waiver then it will be granted. The panel is totally neutral on the issue.

There are two omissions.  There is no explanation or even questions raised as to why Tom Smith met the criteria for being an Independent Director three weeks ago and now suddenly does not. A certain lack of curiosity there. And while Davitt explains what will happen if a waiver is agreed there is nothing on the consequences of a waiver being rejected.

The answer here is very simple, this debt will be refinanced, along with the balance of the £33m, which is seemingly overdue from the 1st September.

Strangely, the waiver document, dated 4th September, is completely silent on this issue, whilst asking minority shareholders to forgo their automatic offer rights…

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,450]

Very helpful @shefcanary and @PurpleCanary . Faith restored in the message board . The 3 year lock step is an interesting one. Imagine D and M coming up with a bonkers idea and MA and his cohorts having to go along with it? 
Doing up an old lounge and calling it a pub for 7 figures might have been one of those ! 

[essex canary 506]

2 hours ago, GMF said:

The answer here is very simple, this debt will be refinanced, along with the balance of the £33m, which is seemingly overdue from the 1st September.

Strangely, the waiver document, dated 4th September, is completely silent on this issue, whilst asking minority shareholders to forgo their automatic offer rights…

No declaration of his interest rate for refinancing the Club following the Webber's binge which continues with a clear vested interest on the part of the 'Independent Director' whilst the 'you matter' team sit it out on the issue of the  same share price as the ITV Digital bailout of 21 years ago.

Maybe we can still hope MA comes through eventually but a firm 'No" is the Corporate Governance answer to the question.

[mastoola 185]

My question  very simplistic I'm sure but if d and m are diluting their shares then do they get the money that is generated from it?

[nutty nigel 7,620]

2 minutes ago, mastoola said:

My question  very simplistic I'm sure but if d and m are diluting their shares then do they get the money that is generated from it?

Tell us what you think..

[mastoola 185]

Just now, nutty nigel said:

Tell us what you think..

i genuinely have no idea.  if someone is selling off part of something then do the get the money?  

[nutty nigel 7,620]

Just now, mastoola said:

i genuinely have no idea.  if someone is selling off part of something then do the get the money?  

They're not selling anything. They've selfishly agreed to create something for our club to sell that diluted their shareholding.

I'm sure if that's wrong someone will correct me.

[mastoola 185]

Just now, nutty nigel said:

They're not selling anything. They've selfishly agreed to create something for our club to sell that diluted their shareholding.

I'm sure if that's wrong someone will correct me.

so all the money is going into ncfc?

 

[norfolkngood 1,087]

1 minute ago, nutty nigel said:

They're not selling anything. They've selfishly agreed to create something for our club to sell that diluted their shareholding.

I'm sure if that's wrong someone will correct me.

How Much has MA Paid for his 40 % if the 40 million loan will be repaid when we get last of sky money 

[nutty nigel 7,620]

1 minute ago, mastoola said:

so all the money is going into ncfc?

 

I think that's the general idea. 

[nutty nigel 7,620]

Just now, norfolkngood said:

How Much has MA Paid for his 40 % if the 40 million loan will be repaid when we get last of sky money 

I'm afraid you'll have to ask the FPAs

 

[mastoola 185]

3 minutes ago, norfolkngood said:

How Much has MA Paid for his 40 % if the 40 million loan will be repaid when we get last of sky money 

will it have to be repaid if we go up?

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

2 minutes ago, mastoola said:

so all the money is going into ncfc?

 

Yes, in essence. If the waiver is agreed Attanasio will use a current loan to the club of £5m to buy nearly 200,000 new shares. So the club gets to keep that £5m rather than having one day to pay it back.

S&J's percentage holding will not be going down because they are selling shares. They are keeping all their shares, at least for now. It is just that the overall number of shares will increase by nearly 200,000.

[nutty nigel 7,620]

1 minute ago, mastoola said:

will it have to be repaid if we go up?

You need one of the FPAs

They're like busses. You wait for ages for one then two or three turn up at once

[mastoola 185]

5 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Yes, in essence. If the waiver is agreed Attanasio will use a current loan to the club of £5m to buy nearly 200,000 new shares. So the club gets to keep that £5m rather than having one day to pay it back.

S&J's percentage holding will not be going down because they are selling shares. They are keeping all their shares, at least for now. It is just that the overall number of shares will increase by nearly 200,000.

so if you watch dragons den and they talk about another round of funding in the future to raise capital and their percentage will be diluted this is the same situation?

Edited September 26, 2023 by mastoola

[Duncan Edwards 2,264]

23 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

You need one of the FPAs

They're like busses. You wait for ages for one then two or three turn up at once

Like the closet Binners. Barely see one for ages and then a couple of crap results and it’s like flying ant day. 

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

21 minutes ago, mastoola said:

so if you watch dragons den and they talk about another round of funding in the future to raise capital and their percentage will be diluted this is the same situation?

I haven't seen the programme, but it sounds like it. if a company wants to expand but needs money to do that it might take out a big loan. But if it doesn't fancy getting into debt like that it can issue a load of new shares. And they can be bought, as in our case, by a single rich investor, or a handful of such, or by the general public.

The latter is in effect what we did 11 years ago after the collapse of ITV Digital. Either way, yes, although the number of shares owned by the founders of the company stays the same the percentage of their holding is reduced, or diluted.

[mastoola 185]

@PurpleCanary whilst this approach may work for an expanding company that has the potential to grow in the future how does this work in a company that has already reached its ceiling? if i was to look at at it it sounds to me that the company is trying to fill a finance issue by trying to sell off to pay for what it cannot afford. eventually the owners of the company will end up with far less than if they sold the company? 

Edited September 26, 2023 by mastoola

[nutty nigel 7,620]

23 minutes ago, mastoola said:

@PurpleCanary whilst this approach may work for an expanding company that has the potential to grow in the future how does this work in a company that has already reached its ceiling? if i was to look at at it it sounds to me that the company is trying to fill a finance issue by trying to sell off to pay for what it cannot afford. eventually the owners of the company will end up with far less than if they sold the company? 

But what if the majority shareholders are not interested in personal gain? What if they'd prefer the finance to go into their company?

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

38 minutes ago, mastoola said:

@PurpleCanary whilst this approach may work for an expanding company that has the potential to grow in the future how does this work in a company that has already reached its ceiling? if i was to look at at it it sounds to me that the company is trying to fill a finance issue by trying to sell off to pay for what it cannot afford. eventually the owners of the company will end up with far less than if they sold the company? 

I think the hope with Norwich City is that extra funding will help it break through the ceiling it seems to have reached. And as nutty says, S&J are probably not bothered about losing out.

[essex canary 506]

9 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

But what if the majority shareholders are not interested in personal gain? What if they'd prefer the finance to go into their company?

Why should minority shareholders be bound by the logic that inflation and interest rates exist only in the world of the Webbers and Marky Mark? This is their fantasy.

Whether their Brexit or otherwise, a lower turnout is bound to result. Another irony is Monday night - we remember another one of those. Bring it on.

[GMF 757]

@nutty nigel ultimately it’s D&M’s money and they can sell, or not, at whatever price they want.

@essex canary these are unlisted securities, illiquid in terms of their ability to trade, therefore your normal investment logic is somewhat flawed.

On the face of it, it seems remarkable that approximately £8.3m will result in MA acquiring a 40% stake in the club. However, that’s akin to looking at just the headlines and ignoring the full picture.

Aside from the £10m c-preference shares, which will either have to be repaid in September 2029, or subject to a further refinancing exercise, MA has also provided £33m in debt financing, which will be reduced to circa £28m, assuming that the proposed capitalisation is approved next Monday.

This makes his total contribution so far to be in the region of £45m - £46m. And, whilst part of me is thinking, good on him, that’s a huge commitment, another part is thinking, “how the hell did it end up being like this, with so little to show for it where it really matters, on the pitch.

OTBC

[norfolkngood 1,087]

2 hours ago, GMF said:

@nutty nigel ultimately it’s D&M’s money and they can sell, or not, at whatever price they want.

@essex canary these are unlisted securities, illiquid in terms of their ability to trade, therefore your normal investment logic is somewhat flawed.

On the face of it, it seems remarkable that approximately £8.3m will result in MA acquiring a 40% stake in the club. However, that’s akin to looking at just the headlines and ignoring the full picture.

Aside from the £10m c-preference shares, which will either have to be repaid in September 2029, or subject to a further refinancing exercise, MA has also provided £33m in debt financing, which will be reduced to circa £28m, assuming that the proposed capitalisation is approved next Monday.

This makes his total contribution so far to be in the region of £45m - £46m. And, whilst part of me is thinking, good on him, that’s a huge commitment, another part is thinking, “how the hell did it end up being like this, with so little to show for it where it really matters, on the pitch.

OTBC

you seem to understand this better than most so i hope you don't mind answering ,

How Much did MA pay for his 40 % if his loans will be paid back when we get the last of Sky money ?,

is it possible that when we get the last of the sky money MA says i will write off loans and the club keep they last of the sky money meaning he has paid 45 million for his 40 % ??

it looks to me if we pay the loans back to him he has got his 40 % rather cheap