Mark Attanasio

[essex canary 506]

58 minutes ago, GMF said:

A buyer purchased just one share for £200, yet you’ve ignored all the other transactions listed at lower prices.

One swallow doesn’t make a summer and, if you think that MA will base his valuation on a single transaction, you’ll be disappointed.

Perhaps wise to note given your higher level of inclusiveness.

[essex canary 506]

32 minutes ago, GMF said:

You would have to ask them,  always presuming that clarity is ever given on the actual numbers, but don’t hold your breath…

Given the average holding is 22 perhaps best easier to ask the Canaries Trust whose vote will have been equivalent to 360 individual shareholders though their own vote was doubtless based on far less in terms of numbers expressing an opinion?

[essex canary 506]

11 minutes ago, Big Vince said:

In your talks with the girl Zoe has she intimated by how much they are going to increase the stadium capacity? I hope you have pointed out that the financial outlay will not be worth it unless they get the capacity up to at least 35,000 if they harbour ambitions of being in the EPL. It makes no sense at all spending money to increase the capacity by only 3,000 to 5,000.

The underlying issue is whether the club has any realistic chance of staying in the EPL for any sustained period in order to justify a new stand. 

It is ironic that supporters who are calling for ground improvements are the very same people who are holding the club back by keeping Delia in situ with all that that entails in terms lack of ambition on the pitch and running a player manufacturing business instead of a football club.

Indeed. From Zoe's perspective do you go with head in the clouds or feet on the ground. The demand won't he there without either the Premier League or affordable football.

 

[GMF 757]

49 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Perhaps wise to note given your higher level of inclusiveness.

I’m not sure I understand what your point is here.

[GMF 757]

47 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Given the average holding is 22 perhaps best easier to ask the Canaries Trust whose vote will have been equivalent to 360 individual shareholders though their own vote was doubtless based on far less in terms of numbers expressing an opinion?

Are you complaining about how many shares we have, or is it that the outcome of the members poll didn’t match up to your expectations?

[essex canary 506]

33 minutes ago, GMF said:

I’m not sure I understand what your point is here.

That you are clearly much more included in the loop than many other people who have bought shares directly because the Club is not pursuing the same inclusive policies of the latter as it did initially.

[essex canary 506]

33 minutes ago, GMF said:

Are you complaining about how many shares we have, or is it that the outcome of the members poll didn’t match up to your expectations?

How many of the Trust’s questionnaires on the poll were completed by Trust members?

I am guessing that it is far less than 360 which on average is broadly the number of individual Club shareholders it would have required to match the Trust's voting strength.

[Duncan Edwards 2,271]

When this thread reaches its “century” it will be the most boring, laborious ton since the days of Geoffrey Boycott. 

[Soldier on 168]

Essex why don’t you just try and sell your shares privately at an offer price you are happy to accept ?

[GMF 757]

34 minutes ago, essex canary said:

That you are clearly much more included in the loop than many other people who have bought shares directly because the Club is not pursuing the same inclusive policies of the latter as it did initially.

My situation is as a result of my position with the Trust, which is clearly my personal choice. If that’s going to result in you levelling criticism in my direction, then there’s no point in engaging further with you.

Needless to say, I have very little influence on how the club chooses to engage with its shareholders.

[GMF 757]

32 minutes ago, essex canary said:

How many of the Trust’s questionnaires on the poll were completed by Trust members?

I am guessing that it is far less than 360 which on average is broadly the number of individual Club shareholders it would have required to match the Trust's voting strength.

Guess and surmise as much as you want, but, as sure as night follows day, any disclosure on specific voting numbers would result in more stick waving, so, what’s the point?

[GMF 757]

16 minutes ago, Duncan Edwards said:

When this thread reaches its “century” it will be the most boring, laborious ton since the days of Geoffrey Boycott. 

And Delia still won’t have sold…. (Winks) 

[GMF 757]

15 minutes ago, Soldier on said:

Essex why don’t you just try and sell your shares privately at an offer price you are happy to accept ?

The offer of assistance has always been there, although I suspect that would result in yet more stick waving….

[Big Vince 319]

12 minutes ago, Duncan Edwards said:

When this thread reaches its “century” it will be the most boring, laborious ton since the days of Geoffrey Boycott. 

I should remind you that Sir Geoffrey was one of the greatest opening batsmen of all time. His first class record speaks for itself and when he played his last test he was the leading run scorer in test history. In his 108 tests I believe England only lost about twenty. On so many occasions he was the mainstay of the innings.

[essex canary 506]

1 hour ago, Soldier on said:

Essex why don’t you just try and sell your shares privately at an offer price you are happy to accept ?

And risk someone else making 500% profit in 3 years?

[essex canary 506]

55 minutes ago, Big Vince said:

I should remind you that Sir Geoffrey was one of the greatest opening batsmen of all time. His first class record speaks for itself and when he played his last test he was the leading run scorer in test history. In his 108 tests I believe England only lost about twenty. On so many occasions he was the mainstay of the innings.

Indeed. Many on here, rightly or wrongly,  regard Delia as legendary for similar reasons.

[Corbs1 90]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

Indeed. Many on here, rightly or wrongly,  regard Delia as legendary for similar reasons.

Indeedi, and it was great to see Boycott run out by Botham famously. Unlike the aforementioned, Boycott was a selfish sod, admittedly a great opening batsmen. 

[Soldier on 168]

3 hours ago, essex canary said:

And risk someone else making 500% profit in 3 years?

I did say at an offer price you are happy to accept 

[GMF 757]

16 hours ago, essex canary said:

And risk someone else making 500% profit in 3 years?

You’re going to be hugely disappointed if the offer is £25.00, just the same as all his other purchases…

[TIL 1010 4,799]

2 hours ago, GMF said:

You’re going to be hugely disappointed if the offer is £25.00, just the same as all his other purchases…

If that is the case his seat for life will be blown out of the water surely ?

[GMF 757]

11 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

If that is the case his seat for life will be blown out of the water surely ?

The presumption would be that the benefits would also disappear, and, no doubt, whilst all the moaning would be about the price, there would be silence in relation to the use of the seat, for 21 years… 

[hogesar 9,760]

19 hours ago, essex canary said:

And risk someone else making 500% profit in 3 years?

To be honest the absolute perfect solution is:

1) The club confirm an administrative error, and you actually own 0 shares.

2) The club issues debt collectors to chase payment for the free season-ticket you've had for however many years.

 

[essex canary 506]

31 minutes ago, GMF said:

The presumption would be that the benefits would also disappear, and, no doubt, whilst all the moaning would be about the price, there would be silence in relation to the use of the seat, for 21 years… 

No need to hide it at all. The Board signed up for it as they did for the complimentary memberships which were doubtless costing them far more at the outset than now. The fact the Club didn't offer more generous solutions for intermediate categories at the time almost certainly cost them dearly in terms of finance they needed to raise at the time. The latter is doubtless why they wanted a way out of the season ticket commitment and got it unfairly by putting the burden on inheritors.

[norfolkngood 1,091]

7 minutes ago, essex canary said:

No need to hide it at all. The Board signed up for it as they did for the complimentary memberships which were doubtless costing them far more at the outset than now. The fact the Club didn't offer more generous solutions for intermediate categories at the time almost certainly cost them dearly in terms of finance they needed to raise at the time. The latter is doubtless why they wanted a way out of the season ticket commitment and got it unfairly by putting the burden on inheritors.

Just Curious if your seat or season ticket is free are you in front or behind on money if you had bought one every year instead of shares ?

if you are nearly even then you have had your money's worth , if you are way behind then i understand you want to make money out of your shares , if you are in front then does it matter 

[GMF 757]

6 hours ago, essex canary said:

No need to hide it at all. The Board signed up for it as they did for the complimentary memberships which were doubtless costing them far more at the outset than now. The fact the Club didn't offer more generous solutions for intermediate categories at the time almost certainly cost them dearly in terms of finance they needed to raise at the time. The latter is doubtless why they wanted a way out of the season ticket commitment and got it unfairly by putting the burden on inheritors.

The exercise raised sufficient money to cover the ITV Digital disaster, yet you seem to think it wasn’t a success.

As for the season ticket commitment, the original document states that they were for life, so quite why you expected them to be used by inheritors is puzzling, but unsurprising…

[The Real Buh 3,482]

I think we actually need to call the police now over this deal. 

[Indy 3,322]

On 19/10/2023 at 13:17, hogesar said:

To be honest the absolute perfect solution is:

1) The club confirm an administrative error, and you actually own 0 shares.

2) The club issues debt collectors to chase payment for the free season-ticket you've had for however many years.

 

Or as we have big debt shored up by one owner, surely it should be that all shareholders should cough up more money to help in terms of % so if MA puts in 10 million for his 40% it should be matched by MWJ & Delia and the other 20% of shareholder’s put in the equivalent to their own number of shares! It’s the duty apparently of Football club owners to finance their clubs and as such should be putting their hands in their pockets! It’s only fair as Essex wants equality!

[essex canary 506]

On 19/10/2023 at 18:32, GMF said:

The exercise raised sufficient money to cover the ITV Digital disaster, yet you seem to think it wasn’t a success.

As for the season ticket commitment, the original document states that they were for life, so quite why you expected them to be used by inheritors is puzzling, but unsurprising…

I don't recall the Club proclaiming it's success in quite the way they did with the Bond scheme. The fact that the AD contribution was around 40% of the amount raised shows how undercooked it was in the middle. If you Sunday Lunch was that raw you would send it back.

The original intention was reasonably the life of the shares in minority hands. Imagine if you passed away the day after buying them. At least a handful of bondholders would have passed away before promotion was achieved. I wonder if they got denied their promotion bonuses? By the same logic they should have done. Bet they didn't though which proves they make it up as they go along.

[essex canary 506]

2 hours ago, Indy said:

Or as we have big debt shored up by one owner, surely it should be that all shareholders should cough up more money to help in terms of % so if MA puts in 10 million for his 40% it should be matched by MWJ & Delia and the other 20% of shareholder’s put in the equivalent to their own number of shares! It’s the duty apparently of Football club owners to finance their clubs and as such should be putting their hands in their pockets! It’s only fair as Essex wants equality!

Are these other shareholders to be offered 7% return on Preference Shares?

Will they be asking their ex Board Member non-shareholder pandemic attendee, ex Associate Director, ex Chairman of the Audit Committee, ace joint Bond investor to make a contribution? His and his partners Bond profits reinvested could kick start it.

I think this ship has sailed. Bailing the Club out of the ITV Digital crisis is a little different from bailing it out of the Webber vanity project the deterioration of which is now clearly defined by 2 visits from Leeds 2 years apart.

[GMF 757]

30 minutes ago, essex canary said:

I don't recall the Club proclaiming it's success in quite the way they did with the Bond scheme. The fact that the AD contribution was around 40% of the amount raised shows how undercooked it was in the middle. If you Sunday Lunch was that raw you would send it back.

The original intention was reasonably the life of the shares in minority hands. Imagine if you passed away the day after buying them. At least a handful of bondholders would have passed away before promotion was achieved. I wonder if they got denied their promotion bonuses? By the same logic they should have done. Bet they didn't though which proves they make it up as they go along.

The share issue was over 21 years ago, the bond issue was over five years ago. As I’ve said before, it’s an apples and pears comparison between the two and you really need to let it go and move on.