Forum at the Forum

[Midlands Yellow 4,101]

A great exchange leading up to lunch lads. A few days off for me now so will indulge in alcoholic treats later and post some words of wisdom 

[Soldier on 168]

New zoe Webber interview here touching on the main points.

 

[Mello Yello 2,303]

13 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

A great exchange leading up to lunch lads. A few days off for me now so will indulge in alcoholic treats later and post some words of wisdom 

Yeah bye bye all....I've things to do, places to go....My mansion extension needs re-pointing, Servant's an' staff need shovin' through the sheep dip...My Bugatti needs a rinse and my current well fit lady friend needs taking out for lunch....then....maybe a game o' tennis....

As if eh?....We can be anyone we want to be on t'internet....I'm actually taking my alopecia sufferin' one eyed, one eared, stump tailed and three legged terrier called 'Lucky' out for a wander....If you happen to see us out....throw us an insult.... 😉 

Or maybe save them later for on here....

[wcorkcanary 4,346]

4 minutes ago, Mello Yello said:

Yeah bye bye all....I've things to do, places to go....My mansion extension needs re-pointing, Servant's an' staff need shovin' through the sheep dip...My Bugatti needs a rinse and my current well fit lady friend needs taking out for lunch....then....maybe a game o' tennis....

As if eh?....We can be anyone we want to be on t'internet....I'm actually taking my alopecia sufferin' one eyed, one eared, stump tailed and three legged terrier called 'Lucky' out for a wander....If you happen to see us out....throw us an insult.... 😉 

Or maybe save them later for on here....

 

[The Real Buh 3,486]

26 minutes ago, Soldier on said:

New zoe Webber interview here touching on the main points.

 

Somebody get the sugar lumps 

[Danke bitte 967]

1 hour ago, vos said:

I came away from this meeting with the distinct impression that the Club desperately needs an experienced leader with business acumen in the style of Alan Bowkett. Zoe seems very much of the modern breed with plenty of corporate talk but seems to be building an ineffective  "administrative empire" with no concrete results. A bit like our local councils !!! Rather concerning,  she states that Mark is having some useful input at Board meetings yet at the same time is spending time learning from others as to how the game should be run.

Yep. Exactly. The classic vague lip service. But what would we expect her to say?! This is why I rarely pay attention to these kind of events. 

I would hope Attanasio is no fool though and has some kind of infrastructure understanding and improvement plans.

Might be a case of him getting to grips with the league and seeing how he gets on before trying to implement any major changes (should he take over) 

[Google Bot 3,329]

3 hours ago, wcorkcanary said:

Or is a dry levy a good thing? Wont it lead to chaffing? 

I think it leads to some serious Whiskey in Rye sessions.  Mark's probably trashed the Chevy and snorting coke from the thighs of virgins, perhaps we should send out a search party for him?

In fact....I'll go!  

[wcorkcanary 4,346]

54 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

I think it leads to some serious Whiskey in Rye sessions.  Mark's probably trashed the Chevy and snorting coke from the thighs of virgins, perhaps we should send out a search party for him?

In fact....I'll go!  

It's a dirty job but someone's got to do It! 

Take a bow , brave Sir.

[PurpleCanary 5,587]

10 hours ago, essex canary said:

That would imply that they are going to run the Club 40:40:20 or that Attanasio will acquire a majoritty from hoovering up minorities.

Are either of those reality?

As GMF has said, both are perfectly realistic and the former perhaps the more likely. Certainly in the short- to medium-term. In fact the logic of the creation of just under 200,000 new shares for Attanasio to buy - as opposed to a much larger control-producing number - is that he and S&J will at least for now form a duumvirate with about 40 per cent each.

But the logic goes further. If the initial aim is not for Attanasio to get a controlling majority then he pretty much has to want to be allowed a Rule 9 whitewash waiver, so he doesn't have to offer to buy up the minorities and accidentally reach 51 per cent. 

If that is the case then it would be a very plausible explanation for the fact that instead of the legalities concerning these shares being wrapped up in a fortnight or so after February 13, as the club predicted, we are now into the 19th week, with apparently nothing more than hopes of progress in the weeks ahead.

Wanting such a waiver and getting one by successfully navigating a two-stage process, of approval from the Takeover Panel and then approval in a shareholder vote, are not the same thing.

Edited June 27, 2023 by PurpleCanary

[FenwayFrank 2,469]

6 hours ago, The Real Buh said:

Somebody get the sugar lumps 

Is sugar lumps Zoe's pet name for Stu?

[GMF 757]

38 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

As GMF has said, both are perfectly realistic and the former perhaps the more likely. Certainly in the short- to medium-term. In fact the logic of the creation of just under 200,000 new shares for Attanasio to buy - as opposed to a much larger control-producing number - is that he and S&J will at least for now form a duumvirate with about 40 per cent each.

But the logic goes further. If the initial aim is not for Attanasio to get a controlling majority then he pretty much has to want to be allowed a Rule 9 whitewash waiver, so he doesn't have to offer to buy up the minorities and accidentally reach 51 per cent. 

If that is the case then it would be a very plausible explanation for the fact that instead of the legalities concerning these shares being wrapped up in a fortnight or so after February 13, as the club predicted, we are now into the 19th week, with apparently nothing more than hopes of progress in the weeks ahead.

Wanting such a waiver and getting one by successfully navigating a two-stage process, of approval from the Takeover Panel and then approval in a shareholder vote, are not the same thing.

One other factor to consider is the possible (I’d suggest highly likely) conversion of the C-preference shares into the equivalent of 10%, fully diluted, ordinary shares in 2029. By implication, this would then take MA to circa 50%, with the consequence, if (and “if” is doing some heavy lifting here) there’s a subsequent acquisition of D&M shares, the 90% threshold would also be exceeded. 

[essex canary 508]

3 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

As GMF has said, both are perfectly realistic and the former perhaps the more likely. Certainly in the short- to medium-term. In fact the logic of the creation of just under 200,000 new shares for Attanasio to buy - as opposed to a much larger control-producing number - is that he and S&J will at least for now form a duumvirate with about 40 per cent each.

But the logic goes further. If the initial aim is not for Attanasio to get a controlling majority then he pretty much has to want to be allowed a Rule 9 whitewash waiver, so he doesn't have to offer to buy up the minorities and accidentally reach 51 per cent. 

If that is the case then it would be a very plausible explanation for the fact that instead of the legalities concerning these shares being wrapped up in a fortnight or so after February 13, as the club predicted, we are now into the 19th week, with apparently nothing more than hopes of progress in the weeks ahead.

Wanting such a waiver and getting one by successfully navigating a two-stage process, of approval from the Takeover Panel and then approval in a shareholder vote, are not the same thing.

Thanks. Very interesting.

Given the shareholder structure it is challenging to see how such a vote could be seen to be constructed in a fair way.

Even if it could would we then know whether it was on account of the new money introduction rather than what he paid Foulger and the others as the first reason comes across as far more justifiable.

[essex canary 508]

2 hours ago, GMF said:

One other factor to consider is the possible (I’d suggest highly likely) conversion of the C-preference shares into the equivalent of 10%, fully diluted, ordinary shares in 2029. By implication, this would then take MA to circa 50%, with the consequence, if (and “if” is doing some heavy lifting here) there’s a subsequent acquisition of D&M shares, the 90% threshold would also be exceeded. 

Isn't it 'by 2029' rather than 'in 2029'?

[GMF 757]

7 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Isn't it 'by 2029' rather than 'in 2029'?

If you’re going to be pedantic, it could be neither, as MA has the option to insist upon having his £10m back…

[Google Bot 3,329]

Just now, GMF said:

If you’re going to be pedantic, it could be neither, as MA has the option to insist upon having his £10m back…

Jim Bowen: "Now Mark, you've got the chance of converting what you have into 10% ordinary shares, or you can go home with £17m in your back pocket.  What will it be?"

Mark: "We've had a lovely time Jim, but we're not daft, we'll be walking away with the cash and let someone else have a try..".

[GMF 757]

10 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

Jim Bowen: "Now Mark, you've got the chance of converting what you have into 10% ordinary shares, or you can go home with £17m in your back pocket.  What will it be?"

Mark: "We've had a lovely time Jim, but we're not daft, we'll be walking away with the cash and let someone else have a try..".

There seems to be a widely held assumption that the interest is going automatically to be rolled up.

Whilst, in theory, that is possible, my understanding is that’s not the case - it’s only if interest remains unpaid, then there’s provision for it to be added to the pot for the purpose of calculating the total 10% undiluted amount. That’s not quite the same thing. 

[Google Bot 3,329]

Just now, GMF said:

Whilst, in theory, that is possible, my understanding is that’s not the case - it’s only if interest remains unpaid, then there’s provision for it to be added to the pot for the purpose of calculating the total 10% undiluted amount. That’s not quite the same thing. 

Whatever it is, it'll be generating £1m/year and that's either back into his personal wealth, or into the value of the club he may eventually own.

Not a clue if that's a good or bad thing, as I don't follow all this financial gubbins.

The biggest aspect to this is that we've probably pissed most of £10m away already with the sacking of Smith and hiring of Wagner.  Not to mention the loss in value of players like Cantwell, Dowell and Aarons.  

It's a shame that wasn't put into a stadium expansion fund or something really.  That's about as far as my knowledge goes on the subject though.

[PurpleCanary 5,587]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

Thanks. Very interesting.

Given the shareholder structure it is challenging to see how such a vote could be seen to be constructed in a fair way.

Even if it could would we then know whether it was on account of the new money introduction rather than what he paid Foulger and the others as the first reason comes across as far more justifiable.

I should say not everyone who has taken an interest in this believes that Attanasio wants a waiver. In part because they doubt he wants for now to get only to around 40 per cent. But if that is the plan, and I am not alone in thinking this, then pretty much by definition he has to want a waiver.

As to any shareholder vote on that, it would be limited to those not directly involved. I suspect that would rule out not just Attanasio but also S&J, but that may not be the case.

The other question, and again I don’t know the answer, is whether those entitled to vote would be voting the number of their shares or it would be one shareholding one vote. If the latter then it wouldn’t much matter if S&J could take part, since they would have one vote rather than 320,000 votes.

[essex canary 508]

10 hours ago, Google Bot said:

Jim Bowen: "Now Mark, you've got the chance of converting what you have into 10% ordinary shares, or you can go home with £17m in your back pocket.  What will it be?"

Mark: "We've had a lovely time Jim, but we're not daft, we'll be walking away with the cash and let someone else have a try..".

That is why I was 1 of the 15 or so people who voted against it.

How would that be paid for? Doubling or trebling season ticket prices?

[wcorkcanary 4,346]

4 minutes ago, essex canary said:

That is why I was 1 of the 15 or so people who voted against it.

How would that be paid for? Doubling or trebling season ticket prices?

Out of share profits i'd imagine.

[essex canary 508]

8 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

I should say not everyone who has taken an interest in this believes that Attanasio wants a waiver. In part because they doubt he wants for now to get only to around 40 per cent. But if that is the plan, and I am not alone in thinking this, then pretty much by definition he has to want a waiver.

As to any shareholder vote on that, it would be limited to those not directly involved. I suspect that would rule out not just Attanasio but also S&J, but that may not be the case.

The other question, and again I don’t know the answer, is whether those entitled to vote would be voting the number of their shares or it would be one shareholding one vote. If the latter then it wouldn’t much matter if S&J could take part, since they would have one vote rather than 320,000 votes.

Perhaps whether S&J are directly involved is the key issue?

In some senses they could argue that they haven't moved position in any way and that it is other parties who have created the change. Equally though maybe the Panel would retort that they have been directly involved in terms of the votes for the new share issue and the C Preference share plan.

[PurpleCanary 5,587]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

Perhaps whether S&J are directly involved is the key issue?

In some senses they could argue that they haven't moved position in any way and that it is other parties who have created the change. Equally though maybe the Panel would retort that they have been directly involved in terms of the votes for the new share issue and the C Preference share plan.

It might become a key issue, and as I say I don't know what the answer is - it is arguable either way -  or how many votes they would have if they were allowed to participate.

But before that I believe the more general question that has to be resolved, and is the cause of the hold-up, is that of having a whitewash waiver in the first place.

About which I may be completely wrong. It is possible Attanasio doesn't want a waiver. After all, Zoe Webber is saying this delay is simply because of the extra bureaucracy involved in being a plc.

But the club has outside advisers and Attanasio has a top firm of outside advisers precisely to deal with the predictable bureaucracy and to warn of any potential problems or hold-ups. Despite that the club still envisaged this all being sorted out by the end of February or very early in March. And we are nearly in July, with apparently only hopes of some progress in the weeks to come.

Edited June 28, 2023 by PurpleCanary

[BroadstairsR 2,213]

I actually thought that the update was quite positive. It mentioned quite a lot about Annatasio's involvement already and even the enthusiasm from America.

I don't think we can expect too much more given the legalities involved and all the other checks imposed by the footballing authorities in the UK, etc.

I'm just happy that it looks as if great changes are underway at Carrow Road, and perhaps they are overdue.

Webber will be on his bike and there is to be significant movement at the top. 

I'm even liking the current transfer strategy at the moment and haven't we been told to expect more signings?

There is every reason to be doubtful of the manager, so it would seem to be down to how the current new-look team works out. Otherwise he'll be gone by the New Year.

[essex canary 508]

17 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

I actually thought that the update was quite positive. It mentioned quite a lot about Annatasio's involvement already and even the enthusiasm from America.

I don't think we can expect too much more given the legalities involved and all the other checks imposed by the footballing authorities in the UK, etc.

I'm just happy that it looks as if great changes are underway at Carrow Road, and perhaps they are overdue.

Webber will be on his bike and there is to be significant movement at the top. 

I'm even liking the current transfer strategy at the moment and haven't we been told to expect more signings?

There is every reason to be doubtful of the manager, so it would seem to be down to how the current new-look team works out. Otherwise he'll be gone by the New Year.

That seems reasonable too. One thing to say about Wagner though on Monday he was able to speak clearly in the English Language without multiple 'you know' 'kind of / sort of'.  Perhaps give him a little chance to see whether he can get some form of robustness which is what we need to see running through the veins of the Club in general.

 

[Soldier on 168]

1 hour ago, PurpleCanary said:

It might become a key issue, and as I say I don't know what the answer is - it is arguable either way -  or how many votes they would have if they were allowed to participate.

But before that I believe the more general question that has to be resolved, and is the cause of the hold-up, is that of having a whitewash waiver in the first place.

About which I may be completely wrong. It is possible Attanasio doesn't want a waiver. After all, Zoe Webber is saying this delay is simply because of the extra bureaucracy involved in being a plc.

But the club has outside advisers and Attanasio has a top firm of outside advisers precisely to deal with the predictable bureaucracy and to warn of any potential problems or hold-ups. Despite that the club still envisaged this all being sorted out by the end of February or very early in March. And we are nearly in July, with apparently only hopes of some progress in the weeks to come.

To be fair Zoe Webber seemed quite confident that some kind of update would be forthcoming in a couple of weeks so they must be making progress.

[Mengo 825]

On 19/06/2023 at 13:37, nutty nigel said:

I'm in...

How many people turned up for the forum " Nutty". 600 spaces? How many supporters do you reckon . Did you learn anything from it? Thoughts? 

[Google Bot 3,329]

35 minutes ago, Mengo said:

How many people turned up for the forum " Nutty". 600 spaces? How many supporters do you reckon . Did you learn anything from it? Thoughts? 

Looks about 250 ish chairs based on the pic Radio Norfolk put out:

 

 

[AJ 1,232]

On 26/06/2023 at 23:05, Midlands Yellow said:

Started it and lasted 2 minutes. Zoe talking Stuart like she’s unclear regarding what’s happening. The epitome of a conflict of interests that’s just isn’t healthy for a big club like us. 

It is perhaps, but also isn't. Maybe Stuart doesn't actually have a plan in place, moreover maybe he had something in place that hasn't panned out. Either way still seems a bit bizarre to announce it randomly just as the transfer window opens with assumingly no replacement about to come in and Webber not imminently leaving

[essex canary 508]

4 hours ago, wcorkcanary said:

Out of share profits i'd imagine.

In an accounting technical sense, yes. Clearly most shareholders get nothing in return then this has to be found. 

If we reach the Premier League it may well be absorbed like the Covid losses though will doubtless attract far more negative comment.

Suppose we are like Middlesbrough are now in 2029? No return to PL in the interim but looking more likely. What then?

How many will be singing 'Que Sara, Sara' should it come to pass. (Not technically correct Spanish).

[wcorkcanary 4,346]

1 minute ago, essex canary said:

In an accounting technical sense, yes. Clearly most shareholders get nothing in return then this has to be found. 

If we reach the Premier League it may well be absorbed like the Covid losses though will doubtless attract far more negative comment.

Suppose we are like Middlesbrough are now in 2029? No return to PL in the interim but looking more likely. What then?

How many will be singing 'Que Sara, Sara' should it come to pass. (Not technically correct Spanish).

Go

For 

A

walk

Or

Do 

Something

That

Is

Healthy.