Mark Attanasio

[Midlands Yellow 4,079]

6 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Perhaps it's code for something else entirely...

No. I say it how I'm feeling it.

That’s cleared that up, many thanks. 

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

2 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

First I heard of that. It gets worse!

Funny thing is when he was chairman he had a lot of detractors on here.

Nutty, I can think of a reason why that’s the first time you’ve heard that…

[GMF 757]

4 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

GMF, thanks for that detailed reply/explanation. It seems to me there are a few different issues here, which are in danger of getting entangled.

Firstly, and I think we agree on this, there was a distinct amateurism in the club’s approach to/dealings with the Takeover Code/Panel.

Secondly, and again I suspect we are as one, unless there are some secret and binding protocols that I certainly don’t know about then the Takeover Panel has gone directly against its main remit, of protecting minority shareholders in a takeover.

Thirdly, that advisers advise but the club takes the decisions, and I know you have said before that McCormicks is experienced in football matters and has a good reputation. I wasn’t suggesting it was culprit in all this.

Fourthly, that the club had got itself into a financial mess, and Attanasio may well have taken advantage of that.

I can understand voting against the waiver as a protest against the club’s amateurism and/or against the Takeover Panel’s abdication of its duty towards minorities. And ditto as a protest against the club having messed up its finances and in doing so giving the minorities a raw deal.

But, and this is perhaps me being a non-accountant,  what I don’t see is how voting down the waiver ameliorates the club’s financial position. In fact, on the face of it, it worsens it.

If the club doesn’t sell the new shares then it loses out on £5m of income. I get that it may be refinanced in some way but instead of being income it will still be a debt that has to be repaid eventually.

And apparently if Attanasio plays hardball and calls in the debt there is also what amounts to a penalty payment of another £5m.

 

Whilst I have always questioned the thought process and decision making, I have also been clear that I have never had any issue with the proposed end destination, the allotment of new shares, I have always been concerned about the route being taken to get there.

So, you might be thinking, what’s the issue.

This has never been about punishing the Club, or about the rest of the noise around the issue.

This for me, has always been about the basic tenet, often championed continuously by the club, going back to 2002, being owned by the fans. 

This is the first occasion where someone is required to make an offer to minority shareholders, but they have made every effort to avoid doing exactly that.

The waiver should only be used if there is a compelling reason to do so, but no one has made any effort to do so. It seems that the basic principle is being ignored and very few fans seem to give a to55 about it.

[Indy 3,315]

6 minutes ago, GMF said:

Whilst I have always questioned the thought process and decision making, I have also been clear that I have never had any issue with the proposed end destination, the allotment of new shares, I have always been concerned about the route being taken to get there.

So, you might be thinking, what’s the issue.

This has never been about punishing the Club, or about the rest of the noise around the issue.

This for me, has always been about the basic tenet, often championed continuously by the club, going back to 2002, being owned by the fans. 

This is the first occasion where someone is required to make an offer to minority shareholders, but they have made every effort to avoid doing exactly that.

The waiver should only be used if there is a compelling reason to do so, but no one has made any effort to do so. It seems that the basic principle is being ignored and very few fans seem to give a to55 about it.

GMF sorry I have question for you regarding the waiver being to protect the minority share holders, so what is the value of these shares being purchased by MA to get to 40% is it £25 per share? More or Less? I’m not invested as I said and I don’t know, but if the share value of this purchase is less than £25 and Delia & MWJ are happy to sell their allocation if needed for less than £25 then if the club is valued at far less than some fan-shareholders think then the waiver will protect from a really small offer being made for the time being? Or am I totally missing the value and my understanding? 

[GMF 757]

3 minutes ago, Indy said:

GMF sorry I have question for you regarding the waiver being to protect the minority share holders, so what is the value of these shares being purchased by MA to get to 40% is it £25 per share? More or Less? I’m not invested as I said and I don’t know, but if the share value of this purchase is less than £25 and Delia & MWJ are happy to sell their allocation if needed for less than £25 then if the club is valued at far less than some fan-shareholders think then the waiver will protect from a really small offer being made for the time being? Or am I totally missing the value and my understanding? 

Indy - yes, it’s £25.00 x 195,012 = £4,875,000 to acquire the shares.

MA has paid the same amount for the minorities acquired last September.

The waiver excludes the need to make a similar offer to minority shareholders here and now.

No one knows what price D&M may be willing to sell their shares for in the future, if at all.

 

[Duncan Edwards 2,264]

59 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Can anyone decipher the above? 

I’ve looked at that post and yours and the only conclusion I can come to is that you are a ****. 

[shefcanary 2,453]

24 minutes ago, GMF said:

 It seems that the basic principle is being ignored and very few fans seem to give a to55 about it.

It's a certainty that few shareholding fans give a toss because they have no intention of selling anyway, but at the same time no intention (or means) of increasing their stake. Perhaps the parties acting in concert are relying on that?

[nutty nigel 7,620]

49 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

That’s cleared that up, many thanks. 

Not in the mood for your nonsense tonight.

I'm distraught. These recent revelations have cut me down like a sycamore tree. I'm totally stumped. Gonna watch Question Time in hope of finding answers...

Ed Balls! Perhaps he was the perfect cousin after all.

[Indy 3,315]

5 minutes ago, GMF said:

Indy - yes, it’s £25.00 x 195,012 = £4,875,000 to acquire the shares.

MA has paid the same amount for the minorities acquired last September.

The waiver excludes the need to make a similar offer to minority shareholders here and now.

No one knows what price D&M may be willing to sell their shares for in the future, if at all.

 

Thanks, so in theory if the club carries on accruing debt over the next two years then MA could offer far less per share to buy out Delia & MWJ in the future.

[Duncan Edwards 2,264]

1 minute ago, nutty nigel said:

Not in the mood for your nonsense tonight.

I'm distraught. These recent revelations have cut me down like a sycamore tree. I'm totally stumped. Gonna watch Question Time in hope of finding answers...

Ed Balls! Perhaps he was the perfect cousin after all.

That poor Sycamore.

TREE.B.H or Treevous Bodily Harm. 

 

[GMF 757]

9 hours ago, shefcanary said:

It's a certainty that few shareholding fans give a toss because they have no intention of selling anyway, but at the same time no intention (or means) of increasing their stake. Perhaps the parties acting in concert are relying on that?

I don’t have any intention of selling my shares, but that doesn’t mean that I would automatically vote in favour of the waiver, simply because I don’t think they should deprive the few that might to sell.

Unlike some shareholders, it not all about me, me and me… 

Edited September 29, 2023 by GMF
Typo

[GMF 757]

6 minutes ago, Indy said:

Thanks, so in theory if the club carries on accruing debt over the next two years then MA could offer far less per share to buy out Delia & MWJ in the future.

Crystal ball gazing, but not really relevant in the context of the current proposals being voted on.

[shefcanary 2,453]

2 minutes ago, Indy said:

Thanks, so in theory if the club carries on accruing debt over the next two years then MA could offer far less per share to buy out Delia & MWJ in the future.

Depends who the debt is with. Key here though is I'd argue if anything the current value of shares is being artificially suppressed, so that Attanasio pays no more per share than Smith & Jones orogonally did, as an unwritten part of their Shareholder Agreement. The assumption from here is that Attanasio continues to be the source of any new debt, so any future share dealings between him and Smith & Jones will continue to be at this undervalue. However another lender getting involved and the price will increase to a higher, I'd argue more appropriate, market value (the impact of leverage). So don't expect any new lenders emerging until Attanasio has taken full control.

[Duncan Edwards 2,264]

6 hours ago, TIL 1010 said:

I was going to submit that as a question at the AGM.

That’s reassuring, to me at least, that some traditions will continue.

I’m sure the late and missed Mr Wolsey will be delighted you’ve picked up the baton.

Remember - no painting pictures, just asking questions. 

[Midlands Yellow 4,079]

23 minutes ago, Duncan Edwards said:

I’ve looked at that post and yours and the only conclusion I can come to is that you are a ****. 

Can’t argue with that. 

[Soldier on 166]

Not long until the outcome of the vote is announced !!

[norfolkngood 1,087]

11 hours ago, shefcanary said:

Depends who the debt is with. Key here though is I'd argue if anything the current value of shares is being artificially suppressed, so that Attanasio pays no more per share than Smith & Jones orogonally did, as an unwritten part of their Shareholder Agreement. The assumption from here is that Attanasio continues to be the source of any new debt, so any future share dealings between him and Smith & Jones will continue to be at this undervalue. However another lender getting involved and the price will increase to a higher, I'd argue more appropriate, market value (the impact of leverage). So don't expect any new lenders emerging until Attanasio has taken full control.

That's how i see it, 

MA supplies the money ,

D & M then give him shares meaning they do not get money the club does ,

Once MA has put in a fair price amount into club he gets full control ,

so what MA pays for the club has gone into the club instead of to D & M ,

That i do not mind and i think that would be good if it was not worded LOAN ,

maybe that's a Tax or business thing , i do not know ,

but a loan always has a threat of being withdrawn / recalled etc ( that's the bit i do not like ) 

 

[essex canary 506]

16 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

GMF, thanks for that detailed reply/explanation. It seems to me there are a few different issues here, which are in danger of getting entangled.

Firstly, and I think we agree on this, there was a distinct amateurism in the club’s approach to/dealings with the Takeover Code/Panel.

Secondly, and again I suspect we are as one, unless there are some secret and binding protocols that I certainly don’t know about then the Takeover Panel has gone directly against its main remit, of protecting minority shareholders in a takeover.

Thirdly, that advisers advise but the club takes the decisions, and I know you have said before that McCormicks is experienced in football matters and has a good reputation. I wasn’t suggesting it was culprit in all this.

Fourthly, that the club had got itself into a financial mess, and Attanasio may well have taken advantage of that.

I can understand voting against the waiver as a protest against the club’s amateurism and/or against the Takeover Panel’s abdication of its duty towards minorities. And ditto as a protest against the club having messed up its finances and in doing so giving the minorities a raw deal.

But, and this is perhaps me being a non-accountant,  what I don’t see is how voting down the waiver ameliorates the club’s financial position. In fact, on the face of it, it worsens it.

If the club doesn’t sell the new shares then it loses out on £5m of income. I get that it may be refinanced in some way but instead of being income it will still be a debt that has to be repaid eventually.

And apparently if Attanasio plays hardball and calls in the debt there is also what amounts to a penalty payment of another £5m.

 

Did Foulger need his £2.5 million then? MA could have got a foothold with only Jimmie Jones shares then Foulger, or more accurately his daughter, could have led on the Rule 9 waiver. No need for minority shareholders to feel guilty. We were supposed to be all in it together when they wanted money in 2002. Why not now?

[TIL 1010 4,793]

16 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

So is it because Ed Balls left?

There have been posts going back a considerable time regarding the club deciding to no longer have a CEO or chairperson and that has raised its head yet again on this thread but along you come and attempt to turn it all about a person rather than the position as your obsession with Ed Balls shows in numerous posts.

Ben Kensell left as CEO a couple of years after Ed Balls as chairperson but i wonder why you have not been banging on about him ?

One would almost think you are mischief making.

Edited September 29, 2023 by TIL 1010

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,243]

12 hours ago, GMF said:

Whilst I have always questioned the thought process and decision making, I have also been clear that I have never had any issue with the proposed end destination, the allotment of new shares, I have always been concerned about the route being taken to get there.

So, you might be thinking, what’s the issue.

This has never been about punishing the Club, or about the rest of the noise around the issue.

This for me, has always been about the basic tenet, often championed continuously by the club, going back to 2002, being owned by the fans. 

This is the first occasion where someone is required to make an offer to minority shareholders, but they have made every effort to avoid doing exactly that.

The waiver should only be used if there is a compelling reason to do so, but no one has made any effort to do so. It seems that the basic principle is being ignored and very few fans seem to give a to55 about it.

In the end, that’s not what will happen.

Parma 

[GMF 757]

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

In the end, that’s not what will happen.

Parma 

You’ve confused me with your reply, @Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

31 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Did Foulger need his £2.5 million then? MA could have got a foothold with only Jimmie Jones shares then Foulger, or more accurately his daughter, could have led on the Rule 9 waiver. No need for minority shareholders to feel guilty. We were supposed to be all in it together when they wanted money in 2002. Why not now?

Yes, the club and Attanasio could have done things differently, but the real villain here is the Takeover Panel for going against its prime directive and allowing a vote that in the here and now has presented shareholders with an impossible choice.

[norfolkngood 1,087]

3 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Yes, the club and Attanasio could have done things differently, but the real villain here is the Takeover Panel for going against its prime directive and allowing a vote that in the here and now has presented shareholders with an impossible choice.

Wonder why the takeover panel allowed that 

they could've just said sorry over 30 % like anyone else you have to takeover like anyone else would ? 

it would have been a much cleaner takeover and MA would gain control of a club that needs sorting out from top to bottom 

[GMF 757]

35 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Yes, the club and Attanasio could have done things differently, but the real villain here is the Takeover Panel for going against its prime directive and allowing a vote that in the here and now has presented shareholders with an impossible choice.

Are they really @PurpleCanary, all they are doing is insisting that shareholders are given the right to vote on the proposals, which is exactly what is happening. The bigger question is around the way it’s been pitched to shareholders by the club. All unnecessary, avoidable, and, in my opinion, contemptuous towards shareholders.

Edited September 29, 2023 by GMF
Typo

[Soldier on 166]

11 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Yes, the club and Attanasio could have done things differently, but the real villain here is the Takeover Panel for going against its prime directive and allowing a vote that in the here and now has presented shareholders with an impossible choice.

They could be privvy to additional information that means they have full confidence shareholders interests are being protected moving forwards.

[essex canary 506]

12 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

Not in the mood for your nonsense tonight.

I'm distraught. These recent revelations have cut me down like a sycamore tree. I'm totally stumped. Gonna watch Question Time in hope of finding answers...

Ed Balls! Perhaps he was the perfect cousin after all.

Has there been any real financial control since Bowkett left? Balls made one good decision being the COO. Other than that it has been masked by the 2 promotions.

Self finance rapidly became exploiting the fans for more and more. Then that wasn’t enough resulting in where we are.

Is it criminal? In a technical sense no. Just take a look at the number of Clubs reliant on one individual. If they encounter difficulties with their auditors they just change them same as we did. From the perspective of being the best club in the world maybe it is criminal.

As for.delegating the votes to the family, young people have become cynical about democracy. It is easy to see why. Still a chance to vote at Monday's meeting 

[nutty nigel 7,620]

2 hours ago, TIL 1010 said:

There have been posts going back a considerable time regarding the club deciding to no longer have a CEO or chairperson and that has raised its head yet again on this thread but along you come and attempt to turn it all about a person rather than the position as your obsession with Ed Balls shows in numerous posts.

Ben Kensell left as CEO a couple of years after Ed Balls as chairperson but i wonder why you have not been banging on about him ?

One would almost think you are mischief making.

That’s unkind!

I say what I mean and mean what I say. No secret codes where I actually mean the opposite.

Just to be clear Ive never seen any evidence from you that Robert Chase, Barry Lockwood, Bob Cooper, Roger Munby or Ed Balls were key to the success of our football club. Just Alan Bowkett. So I’d suggest it’s actually for you that it’s the person rather than the role. Would I be right?

Edited September 29, 2023 by nutty nigel

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,243]

2 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

Yes, the club and Attanasio could have done things differently, but the real villain here is the Takeover Panel for going against its prime directive and allowing a vote that in the here and now has presented shareholders with an impossible choice.

Things will become clear. Minority shareholders will be favoured in the end. 

Parma 

[nutty nigel 7,620]

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

Things will become clear. Minority shareholders will be favoured in the end. 

Parma 

That’s my feeling but it can only be taken on trust.

However I’ll hang on as long as possible. Even if we’re ecstatic about this future there will be an alternative future at some point down the line.

[nutty nigel 7,620]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

 

As for.delegating the votes to the family, young people have become cynical about democracy. It is easy to see why. Still a chance to vote at Monday's meeting 

To be truthful I’m probably more cynical than the young having lived it. Kindest thing I can say is it’s probably the best of a bad lot.