Mark Attanasio

[nutty nigel 7,620]

5 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

She did indeed, and that is where me and others on here were shocked, not that she had experienced those difficulties, but that she had not anticipated them given our club's unique circumstances (which I have recognised for a very long time). This is where I certainly (through that old governance element again) would have expected the Board and the Executive to have had this in the forefront of their mind from the start. I appreciate they may not have come across such circumstances in their business lives before, but that is when you need the ear of an independent person on the Board who may well have done!

Quite possibly but I've been 'different' both in business and personally and first hand found how difficult this is in this day and age. The model has to fit the predefined criteria. If it doesn't no amount of forward planning can help you. But this is just my guesswork on it.

[Nuff Said 5,177]

1 hour ago, nutty nigel said:

I commented because a poster seemed to claim that the FPAs on here knew better than Michael and Delia. That would be a preposterous claim. 

I thought the same as you Nutty. There seemed to be an implication that Delia and Michael were like a couple of pensioners who were being hoodwinked into having their drive retarmaced for £15,000.

[Robert N. LiM 4,486]

24 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

I thought the same as you Nutty. There seemed to be an implication that Delia and Michael were like a couple of pensioners who were being hoodwinked into having their drive retarmaced for £15,000.

That implication is rife on this forum as a whole, and I do admire @nutty nigel for defending D&M against it - rightly, in my view. But I don't think it's especially rife on this thread, which has been full of thoughtful, interesting posts from informed and clearly intelligent posters. The criticisms aimed at D&M from those posters have been reasonable - and presumably NN wouldn't claim that D&M are above any kind of criticism.

[nutty nigel 7,620]

15 minutes ago, Robert N. LiM said:

That implication is rife on this forum as a whole, and I do admire @nutty nigel for defending D&M against it - rightly, in my view. But I don't think it's especially rife on this thread, which has been full of thoughtful, interesting posts from informed and clearly intelligent posters. The criticisms aimed at D&M from those posters have been reasonable - and presumably NN wouldn't claim that D&M are above any kind of criticism.

That's fair.

But I did quote the post.

[GMF 757]

3 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

Back to a more general point. At the forum in the Forum Zoe explained why there were difficulties getting this done. My view on what she was saying is that our football club doesn't fit with the norm. I can understand this.

 

Being candid, this was a misleading statement, as NCFC is a public limited company and therefore the Takeover Code applies. There are no exemptions, just because it’s a football club.

For sure, there were difficulties, not least because the shares are not traded on any authorised stock exchange, but to imply that the rules somehow didn’t apply is wrong. It might suit the narrative, to garner support for the waiver, but this doesn’t alter the basic principle.

[GMF 757]

3 hours ago, shefcanary said:

She did indeed, and that is where me and others on here were shocked, not that she had experienced those difficulties, but that she had not anticipated them given our club's unique circumstances (which I have recognised for a very long time).

I would suggest that the difficulties were not as a result “unique circumstances”, but rather they were the result of the proposed course of action, which fundamentally went against the tenet of the code. 

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

21 minutes ago, GMF said:

I would suggest that the difficulties were not as a result “unique circumstances”, but rather they were the result of the proposed course of action, which fundamentally went against the tenet of the code. 

Yes.

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,450]

There really does appear to have been surprise that the Takeover Code applied. At best , poor advice . 

[GMF 757]

Just now, Graham Paddons Beard said:

There really does appear to have been surprise that the Takeover Code applied. At best , poor advice . 

Knowing the advisors involved, personally, I wouldn’t question the advice given. Whether it was ignored, or accepted as a challenge, who knows, but I don’t think the advice could be questioned. Personal opinion, of course.

[nutty nigel 7,620]

40 minutes ago, GMF said:

Being candid, this was a misleading statement, as NCFC is a public limited company and therefore the Takeover Code applies. There are no exemptions, just because it’s a football club.

For sure, there were difficulties, not least because the shares are not traded on any authorised stock exchange, but to imply that the rules somehow didn’t apply is wrong. It might suit the narrative, to garner support for the waiver, but this doesn’t alter the basic principle.

I'm not sure what Zoe actually said as to whether it was misleading or not. My view about what she said can't really be misleading. Like everyone's view it an be wrong. Probably is!

However we don't really know what the original plan was. What we have now is what I assume has been agreed with the TP.

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,450]

13 minutes ago, GMF said:

Knowing the advisors involved, personally, I wouldn’t question the advice given. Whether it was ignored, or accepted as a challenge, who knows, but I don’t think the advice could be questioned. Personal opinion, of course.

Sorry,  wasn’t meaning to make comment on any professional advice. I should have finished the saying. At best , poor advice. At worst , completely ignoring it ! 

Edited September 27, 2023 by Graham Paddons Beard

[GMF 757]

7 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

What we have now is what I assume has been agreed with the TP.

What we have now is not the TP agreement to the waiver, it’s the TP agreeing that the proposal should be put to shareholders for a vote, which accords with the Code.

That’s not quite the same thing, however the Club wants you to believe it to be.

[nutty nigel 7,620]

Just now, GMF said:

What we have now is not the TP agreement to the waiver, it’s the TP agreeing that the proposal should be put to shareholders for a vote, which accords with the Code.

That’s not quite the same thing, however the Club wants you to believe it to be.

Yes I know what we have now. Just don't know what we wanted originally. If that's in the public domain I can't remember seeing it.

[GMF 757]

15 minutes ago, Graham Paddons Beard said:

Sorry,  wasn’t meaning to make comment on any professional advice. 

I didn’t actually interpreted it as such. I just wanted to make the observation that I believe the advice was almost certainly sound, but the course of action chosen was always going to be challenging. 

Edited September 27, 2023 by GMF
Typo

[GMF 757]

2 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Yes I know what we have now. Just don't know what we wanted originally. If that's in the public domain I can't remember seeing it.

I can hazard an opinion. There was a need for refinancing, MA said yes, with conditionality attached, namely parity, but that is contrary to the code.

I still maintain that parity could have been achieved, via a different method, but the route chosen is the primary cause for the delay.

[nutty nigel 7,620]

10 minutes ago, GMF said:

I can hazard an opinion. There was a need for refinancing, MA said yes, with conditionality attached, namely parity, but that is contrary to the code.

I still maintain that parity could have been achieved, via a different method, but the route chosen is the primary cause for the delay.

Could be. I wonder if we'll ever know. We also don't know where this was at when the forum in the Forum took place.

 

[The Real Buh 3,480]

Share parity is a financial concept that signifies the equality in value or price per unit of two or more securities, typically stocks or bonds. When securities exhibit share parity, it means they are trading at the same price, eliminating any relative advantage or disadvantage between them. This equilibrium in pricing is fundamental for market efficiency and is often sought after by investors and traders looking to make fair and informed investment decisions.

[GMF 757]

3 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Could be. I wonder if we'll ever know. We also don't know where this was at when the forum in the Forum took place.

 

Beforehand…

[GMF 757]

1 minute ago, The Real Buh said:

Share parity is a financial concept that signifies the equality in value or price per unit of two or more securities, typically stocks or bonds. When securities exhibit share parity, it means they are trading at the same price, eliminating any relative advantage or disadvantage between them. This equilibrium in pricing is fundamental for market efficiency and is often sought after by investors and traders looking to make fair and informed investment decisions.

This is about parity in absolute terms on the number of shares held. Pricing is therefore irrelevant in these circumstances.

[shefcanary 2,453]

Just now, GMF said:

This is about parity in absolute terms on the number of shares held. Pricing is therefore irrelevant in these circumstances.

Although it does seem that based on all recent shares Attanasio has bought and this allotment, all parties seem determined that Attanasio should pay no more for his shares than the other shareholders have paid! 

[The Real Buh 3,480]

2 minutes ago, GMF said:

This is about parity in absolute terms on the number of shares held. Pricing is therefore irrelevant in these circumstances.

Share pricing, often referred to as stock pricing, represents the current market value of a company's shares or stocks. It's a crucial aspect of financial markets, indicating what investors are willing to pay for a piece of ownership in a company. Share pricing is influenced by a multitude of factors, including the company's financial performance, market sentiment, economic conditions, and investor expectations. It's constantly changing as buyers and sellers interact in the stock market, making it a dynamic and essential element of investment analysis and decision-making.

[nutty nigel 7,620]

3 minutes ago, GMF said:

Beforehand…

So what was misleading?

[GMF 757]

2 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

Although it does seem that based on all recent shares Attanasio has bought and this allotment, all parties seem determined that Attanasio should pay no more for his shares than the other shareholders have paid! 

This is correct.

[GMF 757]

1 minute ago, nutty nigel said:

So what was misleading?

The comment made at the Forum. They were already aware of the course of action being taken, together with the challenges faced by it. To suggest that the circumstances didn’t really apply, when it was well known that a waiver would be required, was clearly misleading. 

[nutty nigel 7,620]

1 minute ago, GMF said:

The comment made at the Forum. They were already aware of the course of action being taken, together with the challenges faced by it. To suggest that the circumstances didn’t really apply, when it was well known that a waiver would be required, was clearly misleading. 

Ok. I'm not privy to that information.

Thanks GMF.

[essex canary 506]

1 hour ago, GMF said:

What we have now is not the TP agreement to the waiver, it’s the TP agreeing that the proposal should be put to shareholders for a vote, which accords with the Code.

That’s not quite the same thing, however the Club wants you to believe it to be.

More misleading. Something of a trend.

[GMF 757]

9 minutes ago, essex canary said:

More misleading. Something of a trend.

What took you so long? I was expecting you to be all over this… 

[nutty nigel 7,620]

Any one voted?

I abstained.

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

On 25/09/2023 at 17:35, GMF said:

Can’t imagine that it would make any difference to the outcome of voting, but I’m bemused by this, especially since there was extensive scrutiny of the documents before they were approved for release.

GMF, it’s arguable that someone at the Takeover Panel should at least have wondered if Smith and Smith might be related, even if it is the commonest English surname.

But as  you’ve indicated, the club’s executives and presumably McCormicks, its outside professional advisers, apparently had months of talks with the Panel, which means ample opportunity to mention that Tom was Delia’s nephew, and potentially the inheritor of all those shares.

Hard to imagine how such a plain conflict of interest was not thought to be relevant when the question arose as to whether Smith could be categorised as independent and so able to make the supposedly unbiased recommendation to shareholders to approve a waiver.

In isolation, although embarrassing for the club, the Panel finding out it hadn’t been so informed and Smith’s consequent axing are not of major importance, since the outcome of the vote won’t change. But it is not the first example of amateurism at Carrow Road during this saga.

Presumably the club hired McCormicks to provide experienced guidance for our people, for whom this was their first real encounter with the Takeover Code/Panel. Parma has quietly wondered about a possible power mismatch between McCormicks and Linklaters, Attanasio’s heavy-hitting advisers, in terms of the deal. And yesterday there were posts here wondering whether S&J have been getting the best advice possible, from within the club and without.

Impossible to say from the outside, and I must stress that McCormicks may well have done a thoroughly professional job, and that within the club there are no doubt some capable executives. But it is hard to escape the conclusion that the club, which ultimately has to be responsible for its actions, significantly underestimated the challenges and the seriousness of dealing with the Code/Panel.

Certainly lessons need to be learned before the fun starts again, when Attanasio comes back with his proposal to storm past 50 per cent of the Ordinaries and we go once more through this palaver with the Code and the Panel!🤩

Edited September 28, 2023 by PurpleCanary

[essex canary 506]

9 hours ago, GMF said:

What took you so long? I was expecting you to be all over this… 

Otherwise engaged.

The basic problem seems to be lack of leadership in taking a contextual approach rather than the seemingly always preferred deterministic one.

That said the misleading problem has deeper roots back to 2002. Why endorse a Fans Trust approach but not embrace it? Wasn't a season ticket arrangement synonymous with owning 1,000 shares?