Attanasio = red herring

[wcorkcanary 4,337]

7 hours ago, essex canary said:

8 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

 

So if Foulger or his daughter represented the first transaction and got twice the second best settlement and the offer to remaining  minorities was made after 364 days we would then be offered twice the settlement than we otherwise would if it went to 366 days. 

I believe  that is how timescales and deadlines  work. 

Just like the Bond issue  that you missed out on.

 

Moneycont!!

[essex canary 505]

8 hours ago, essex canary said:

So if Foulger or his daughter represented the first transaction and got twice the second best settlement and the offer to remaining  minorities was made after 364 days we would then be offered twice the settlement than we otherwise would if it went to 366 days. 

Seems to be an inbuilt incentive to ensure it drags out beyond 365 days and therefore not at sll robust.

It would be academic anyway if they intended to go for the waiver.

Nonetheless if their waiver application is deemed illegitimate and the original intention was to complete by the end of February 2023 any effective system would oblige them to go back to that point in time and bring back the earlier transactions into the ambit. Any other verdict means that minority shareholders are disadvantaged by administrative process.

[wcorkcanary 4,337]

7 minutes ago, essex canary said:

It would be academic anyway if they intended to go for the waiver.

Nonetheless if their waiver application is deemed illegitimate and the original intention was to complete by the end of February 2023 any effective system would oblige them to go back to that point in time and bring back the earlier transactions into the ambit. Any other verdict means that minority shareholders are disadvantaged by administrative process.

More ifs, buts and possiblys. Do you actually know what you are talking about....or just clutching at straws. ?

[GMF 756]

8 hours ago, essex canary said:

So if Foulger or his daughter represented the first transaction and got twice the second best settlement and the offer to remaining  minorities was made after 364 days we would then be offered twice the settlement than we otherwise would if it went to 366 days. 

Seems to be an inbuilt incentive to ensure it drags out beyond 365 days and therefore not at sll robust.

There’s nothing like a good conspiracy theory to start off the week, is there?

Bottom line here has always been the intention, as detailed within the resolution put before shareholders back in February, to allot the new shares, assuming that the resolution was approved, within two weeks of approval.

With the benefit of hindsight, this timeline was overly optimistic, but, in my opinion, the intention was, and always has been, to issue these shares as soon as possible. 

[essex canary 505]

5 minutes ago, GMF said:

There’s nothing like a good conspiracy theory to start off the week, is there?

Bottom line here has always been the intention, as detailed within the resolution put before shareholders back in February, to allot the new shares, assuming that the resolution was approved, within two weeks of approval.

With the benefit of hindsight, this timeline was overly optimistic, but, in my opinion, the intention was, and always has been, to issue these shares as soon as possible. 

My most recent posting refers to the implications for minorities.

[essex canary 505]

8 minutes ago, wcorkcanary said:

More ifs, buts and possiblys. Do you actually know what you are talking about....or just clutching at straws. ?

Coming from a man who thinks he can acquire my seat rights which are based on my longetivity.

 

[GMF 756]

12 minutes ago, essex canary said:

My most recent posting refers to the implications for minorities.

Your previous post makes little sense. Granting the waiver would disadvantage minorities more, as it would mean no offer to buy them out, whereas not granting it would reinforce the obligation to make them an offer. 

[Indy 3,315]

What I don’t get is that the shares aren’t frozen, why don’t you sell now Essex? See if you can sell for a profit and you can stop moaning about the process, contact MA and see if he wants to buy them like he did Foulger!

Edited July 24, 2023 by Indy

[wcorkcanary 4,337]

49 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Coming from a man who thinks he can acquire my seat rights which are based on my longetivity.

 

What on earth are you on about now, twaddle. 

[essex canary 505]

4 minutes ago, wcorkcanary said:

What on earth are you on about now, twaddle. 

Check your posting history.

[essex canary 505]

36 minutes ago, GMF said:

Your previous post makes little sense. Granting the waiver would disadvantage minorities more, as it would mean no offer to buy them out, whereas not granting it would reinforce the obligation to make them an offer. 

Indeed but still distinctly possible that some previous sellers have received say £650 for 4 shares whereas if these are discounted under the 12 month rule may convert to say only £240 for 4 shares now. Had the offer taken place at 28 February 2023 the obligation may well have been £650 for 4 by bringing previous sales into the ambit of 12 months.

[Indy 3,315]

3 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Indeed but still distinctly possible that some previous sellers have received say £650 for 4 shares whereas if these are discounted under the 12 month rule may convert to say only £240 for 4 shares now. Had the offer taken place at 28 February 2023 the obligation may well have been £650 for 4 by bringing previous sales into the ambit of 12 months.

And your point is? Shares in all companies fluctuate, transfer and purchase is up to the shareholders! Why hold out now? If you believe the price might be set very low why not try and offload them personally now?

[BigFish 1,988]

37 minutes ago, GMF said:

Your previous post makes little sense. Granting the waiver would disadvantage minorities more, as it would mean no offer to buy them out, whereas not granting it would reinforce the obligation to make them an offer. 

This is the key.

The Takeover Code provides protections for minorities. Whenever someone builds a significant stake they are given a right to sell their shares at the equivalent value. This is defined as the highest price paid building that stake in the last twelve months. A waiver is the minority shareholders surrendering this right. That is why it requires a majority vote in a poll of uninvolved shareholders.

Nothing in this forces shareholders to sell at this point, if they don't want too. The rolling twelve month window is a fair and reasonable time window. Otherwise, how long would this floor in the share price exist? 3 years, 5 years or forever. It is worth noting that this price only applies to the shareholder building the stake, other shareholders can offer more or less.

[essex canary 505]

13 minutes ago, Indy said:

And your point is? Shares in all companies fluctuate, transfer and purchase is up to the shareholders! Why hold out now? If you believe the price might be set very low why not try and offload them personally now?

The point being that in principle it is exactly what the Takeover Code should guard against and probably also explains why I would gain unsatisfactory benefit from approaching Attanasio much as I would otherwise like to be released from their Orwellian stranglehold of monitoring my longevity.

[essex canary 505]

7 minutes ago, BigFish said:

This is the key.

The Takeover Code provides protections for minorities. Whenever someone builds a significant stake they are given a right to sell their shares at the equivalent value. This is defined as the highest price paid building that stake in the last twelve months. A waiver is the minority shareholders surrendering this right. That is why it requires a majority vote in a poll of uninvolved shareholders.

Nothing in this forces shareholders to sell at this point, if they don't want too. The rolling twelve month window is a fair and reasonable time window. Otherwise, how long would this floor in the share price exist? 3 years, 5 years or forever. It is worth noting that this price only applies to the shareholder building the stake, other shareholders can offer more or less.

In some respects of course a time cut off is reasonable. If MA had come in  and simply bought MF's shares to be effectively MF version 2 and then something further had developed 2 years down the line then clearly the earlier events wouldn't be relevant.

That is not what has happened here though is it? I recall an much earlier posting concerning 'intent' in the context of the TC appeared to address that subject. 

[Indy 3,315]

2 minutes ago, essex canary said:

The point being that in principle it is exactly what the Takeover Code should guard against and probably also explains why I would gain unsatisfactory benefit from approaching Attanasio much as I would otherwise like to be released from their Orwellian stranglehold of monitoring my longevity.

Not really, the code is there to ensure that the best price set at a takeover protects all shareholders, the issue is that the 1 year timeline isn’t a given to a takeover and as I said everyone has the right to negotiate and sell at any time. Foulger sold his shareholding well before any talk of further share issue to generate more money into the club.

As everyone has been talking on this thread for the past six months, there are a number of reasons that could be holding this up, such as the share number might have been mistaken by the club and in reality if they didn’t want to trigger a takeover then needing a waver then the number of shares generated should have been to take MA to 29% thus negating any waver! It might just have been a genuine number’s mistake! As trying to generate more funds into the clubs coffers was probably the first idea for these new shares!

Now we have had a trigger point and one which might not suit any parties thus nothing might happen, MA might only buy another 100,000 of the new shares or it might go all the way to a full takeover, point being you can still sell your shares, so stop moaning about what Foulger got as a precedent as it’s irrelevant.

[BigFish 1,988]

31 minutes ago, essex canary said:

In some respects of course a time cut off is reasonable. If MA had come in  and simply bought MF's shares to be effectively MF version 2 and then something further had developed 2 years down the line then clearly the earlier events wouldn't be relevant.

That is not what has happened here though is it? I recall an much earlier posting concerning 'intent' in the context of the TC appeared to address that subject. 

We know MA has no firm intention of making an offer for the club.

We know this is true because if he did the TC requires he announces such.

What his long term intentions are are unknowable and have no legal standing. You are clutching at straws and have misunderstood what is happening. It would seem that the protagonists want:

1) To increase the equity of the club;

2) To do so, in such a way that MA and S&J have equivalent minority stakes;

3) To avoid making a formal offer to all shareholders for their shares.

The problem would appear to be with achieving 3 legally. This does not prevent you selling your shares at the highest available price or in anyway infringe your rights.

 

 

 

Edited July 24, 2023 by BigFish

[essex canary 505]

9 minutes ago, BigFish said:

We know MA has no firm intention of making an offer for the club.

We know this is true because if he did the TC requires he announces such.

What his long term intentions are are unknowable and have no legal standing. You are clutching at straws and have misunderstood what is happening. It would seem that the protagonists want:

1) To increase the equity of the club;

2) So so, in such a way that MA and S&J have equivalent minority stakes;

3) Avoid making a formal offer to all shareholders for their shares.

The problem would appear to be with achieving 3 legally. This does not prevent you selling your shares at the highest available price or in anyway infringe your rights.

 

 

 

Quite neatly put. In other words is point number 3 actually legal avoidance or illegal evasion? I think that any price I am able to sell my shares for to a private individual without the transferability of my seat rights are likely to be only a small proportion of what maybe achievable through the best outcome of this process.

Perhaps a good idea to maintain a degree of cynicism about any and all bureaucratic processes. At the same time hope can still be maintained that it is still possible that one day such a process will prove to be what it is cracked up to be and blow this nonsense of Orwellian distortion very firmly out of the water. I sincerely hope the Club suffers no collateral damage as a result but if it does there should be accountability.   

[shefcanary 2,447]

I like BF's summary. I don't think the club or MA were trying to do anything illegal, as I've said S&J do not want to be seen to profit from any transaction, but they also do not want to give the club away. This exercise of introducing some further capital and MA arriving at an equal, but relatively large shareholding, with S&J was seen as a relatively straightforward exercise. Someone, somewhere, gave the three parties (the club, MA, S&J) some duff information, now they are probably gaining from this situation with loads of fees for further professional advice. Meanwhile another season dawns ...

Edited July 24, 2023 by shefcanary
Layout issues- will try again.

[essex canary 505]

1 hour ago, shefcanary said:

I like BF's summary. I don't think the club or MA were trying to do anything illegal, as I've said S&J do not want to be seen to profit from any transaction, but they also do not want to give the club away. This exercise of introducing some further capital and MA arriving at an equal, but relatively large shareholding, with S&J was seen as a relatively straightforward exercise. Someone, somewhere, gave the three parties (the club, MA, S&J) some duff information, now they are probably gaining from this situation with loads of fees for further professional advice. Meanwhile another season dawns ...

indeed. Your previously expressed belief like mine was that MF's settlement was based on a Club valuation of £100 million. So the gainers are always those at the top of the tree including those providing duff financial advice and those commissioning same. They certainly aren't those who may in some instances be suffering from the cost of living crisis at the moment who are faced with the highest ticket prices in the EFL or say at best £240 for shares that ought to be worth £650. Such is Delia's commitment to Orwellian socialism or otherwise. We will probably still be waiting when the AGM comes around.    

[wcorkcanary 4,337]

4 hours ago, essex canary said:

Check your posting history.

Bit rich.  Oh yeah, you're probably  not.  Why else would you be whining so much?.

[wcorkcanary 4,337]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

We will probably still be waiting when the AGM comes around

I sincerely  hope you are left with your shares unsold.... probably a good way to ' help the Club' as any money spent by  MA on your shares leaves less for the Club you 'love'. 

[essex canary 505]

22 minutes ago, wcorkcanary said:

I sincerely  hope you are left with your shares unsold.... probably a good way to ' help the Club' as any money spent by  MA on your shares leaves less for the Club you 'love'. 

Indeed you are right but the same applies to any ex-Directors who have masqueraded as supporters and clearly to a much greater extent.

[wcorkcanary 4,337]

31 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Indeed you are right but the same applies to any ex-Directors who have masqueraded as supporters and clearly to a much greater extent.

I see , can you name said ex directors that masqueraded? Or is it just more self justification  built on foundations of sand with little or no proof of your insinuations? 

Who was worse? Adolf or Pol Pot? If its Adolf , does that make Pol ok then by Ethics logic.

Sure I'm only a serial killer, but he's  a mass murderer so let me off 

Moneycont Twaddlefeck

 

Edited July 24, 2023 by wcorkcanary

[essex canary 505]

2 minutes ago, wcorkcanary said:

I see , can you name said ex directors that masqueraded? Or is it just more self justification  built on foundations of sand with little or no proof of your insinuations? 

Who was worse? Adolf or Pol Pot? If its Adolf , does that make Pol ok then by Ethics logic.

Sure I'm only a serial killer, but he's  a mass murderer so let me off 

Moneycont Twaddlefeck

 

I can certainly name one who hasn't been transparent. May not have anything to do with you anyway as I doubt you are a shareholder.

'Fodder for the Masses' was rhe way 1 prominent Irish musician expressed it on a recent album.

[Nexus_Canary 1,024]

So let me paint out what ACTUALLY happened.....

 

 

 

The club invites MA to take a look at us

We roll over and get tonked by Spurs

The local rag runs a story, MA (who already said, yeh nah) is front and centre and its egg on the face of the club

To save face the club works with MA to make it look like something will happen, in the mean time MA says that Webber and Smith are "The men" which actually means "Look at those two ****ing planks" in business talk.
MA never was and never will join the board

The fans wet themselves waiting for something to happen that the club and media bottled at the first step.

 

 

Although dramatised, I bet im right.

Edited July 24, 2023 by Nexus_Canary

[wcorkcanary 4,337]

22 minutes ago, essex canary said:

I can certainly name one who hasn't been transparent. May not have anything to do with you anyway as I doubt you are a shareholder.

'Fodder for the Masses' was rhe way 1 prominent Irish musician expressed it on a recent album.

So , 1  then , not ex Direactors, plural as you insinuated. Name them or shut up about it. Quite simple.   

It matters not whether or not I hold shares .  Motive is all...as you well know . Your   motive seems to have changed from Proclaimed Benevolence to Obvious Avarice in the time you've owned yours. I pity  You, I really do.  

Its a lovely day so  I'm gonna go enjoy it , and I'll leave you to whine, squeal, wriggle and squeak about any perceived  depreciation  in your  beloved nest egg. .....but you know what they say about counting chickens before the eggs have hatched. 

[GMF 756]

3 hours ago, essex canary said:

They certainly aren't those who may in some instances be suffering from the cost of living crisis at the moment who are faced with the highest ticket prices in the EFL or say at best £240 for shares that ought to be worth £650. Such is Delia's commitment to Orwellian socialism or otherwise. We will probably still be waiting when the AGM comes around.    

Where are you getting these numbers from? Is there any evidence to support this? 

[Feedthewolf 4,871]

11 hours ago, Indy said:

What I don’t get is that the shares aren’t frozen, why don’t you sell now Essex? See if you can sell for a profit and you can stop moaning about the process, contact MA and see if he wants to buy them like he did Foulger!

The reason he doesn't want to sell for a profit is because he doesn't want to stop moaning about the process.

[wcorkcanary 4,337]

15 hours ago, Feedthewolf said:

The reason he doesn't want to sell for a profit is because he doesn't want to stop moaning about the process.

Aye, that and the fact he wants more , more , more.