Attanasio = red herring

[duke63 542]

Could be the next details will be made public when the next accounts are published as it will probably have a significant impact on those accounts.

I see Companies House says Foulger is no longer a director from 30-06-2023.

 

[By Hook or Ian crook 917]

21 hours ago, NFN FC said:

I'd rather be where we are than run by Saudis. 

And we love it! 

Not comparing ownership just investment level plenty of other examples 

[essex canary 496]

2 hours ago, GMF said:

Has the accountancy profession started classifying shares as debt now? And, since when did NCFC have responsibility for the Takeover Code?

Come on, now. I know you like every opportunity to bash the Club, but, maybe, just maybe, the delay is down to what the executive officers are trying to do and, if so, the Takeover panel would certainly be justified in pushing back against those proposals, unless, of course, you’re now saying that you are happy to write off your investment in the club? 

It is equity share that isn't suitable for the current environment so would be good to see it settled honourably as indeed the Club did with its bondholders. Maybe the Takeover Code will provide a fair settlement but Burnley seemed to manage without it. A danger that it becomes carte blanche for lawyers to earn at the expense of fans.

[wcorkcanary 4,334]

18 minutes ago, essex canary said:

It is equity share that isn't suitable for the current environment so would be good to see it settled honourably as indeed the Club did with its bondholders. Maybe the Takeover Code will provide a fair settlement but Burnley seemed to manage without it. A danger that it becomes carte blanche for lawyers to earn at the expense of fans.

Your concern is touching.... but smacks of fakeness.  

We can all see right through you.

[GMF 744]

27 minutes ago, essex canary said:

It is equity share that isn't suitable for the current environment so would be good to see it settled honourably as indeed the Club did with its bondholders. Maybe the Takeover Code will provide a fair settlement but Burnley seemed to manage without it. A danger that it becomes carte blanche for lawyers to earn at the expense of fans.

So, you’re advocating that the Club should return money to its shareholders, thereby weakening the balance sheet in the process, because, in your opinion, it’s not suitable for the current environment?

Burnley, like most other football clubs, are a private company, and, whilst it is still possible for fans to own shares in their club, it’s not covered by the Takeover Code, so your reference to them is irrelevant. They chose to return equity, but were under no legal obligation to do so.

[wcorkcanary 4,334]

1 hour ago, GMF said:

So, you’re advocating that the Club should return money to its shareholders, thereby weakening the balance sheet in the process, because, in your opinion, it’s not suitable for the current environment?

Burnley, like most other football clubs, are a private company, and, whilst it is still possible for fans to own shares in their club, it’s not covered by the Takeover Code, so your reference to them is irrelevant. They chose to return equity, but were under no legal obligation to do so.

Thankyou Effo. It's time he was slapped down with some actual facts from someone who knows  about these  things. 

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

4 hours ago, Indy said:

The reality is NO ONE KNOWS, it's all every ones supposition, it's just a debate and reality is it could be any one of the above that's causing the time, indeed if there ever will be more movement......might just be that the club has fallen back to a point where MA has been advised not to buy anymore shares at a max set value.....who knows? Only those in the process and that's even if the process is still ongoing.

You mean YOU don't know, Indy...🥰😍🤩

[Indy 3,300]

26 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

You mean YOU don't know, Indy...🥰😍🤩

I certainly don’t!😉

[essex canary 496]

2 hours ago, GMF said:

So, you’re advocating that the Club should return money to its shareholders, thereby weakening the balance sheet in the process, because, in your opinion, it’s not suitable for the current environment?

Burnley, like most other football clubs, are a private company, and, whilst it is still possible for fans to own shares in their club, it’s not covered by the Takeover Code, so your reference to them is irrelevant. They chose to return equity, but were under no legal obligation to do so.

What has weakened our Balance Sheet is paying excess salaries to mediocre footballers and administrators plus lawyers and consultants. An upper middle class conspiracy acting against the interests of loyal supporters underpinned by weak supporter consultation mechanisms which would otherwise challenge it.

[GMF 744]

29 minutes ago, essex canary said:

What has weakened our Balance Sheet is paying excess salaries to mediocre footballers and administrators plus lawyers and consultants. An upper middle class conspiracy acting against the interests of loyal supporters underpinned by weak supporter consultation mechanisms which would otherwise challenge it.

I’ll be the first to admit that I’m not an accounting expert, however, don’t wages for players and staff, plus fees for lawyers and consultants, appear as operational expenses in the P&L, rather than the balance sheet? 

[BigFish 1,987]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

An upper middle class conspiracy acting against the interests of loyal supporters underpinned by weak supporter consultation mechanisms which would otherwise challenge it.

Lets be frank this is paranoid nonsense. Outside of any ownership framework, there is no club anywhere with supporter consultation mechanisms that have any meaningful say in the financial and economic management of clubs that are predominately privately held companies, owned and controlled by those with the money. You are a (small) part owner of NCFC so you have a financial interest, but it is wrong to link that to the interests of the wider fan base.

[duke63 542]

4 hours ago, essex canary said:

What has weakened our Balance Sheet is paying excess salaries to mediocre footballers and administrators plus lawyers and consultants. An upper middle class conspiracy acting against the interests of loyal supporters underpinned by weak supporter consultation mechanisms which would otherwise challenge it.

I presume you have renewed your season ticket for Poorman Road! Whinge whinge moan moan.

Edited July 6, 2023 by duke63

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

4 hours ago, Indy said:

I certainly don’t!😉

Indy, for what it's worth I will tell what I think the plan is, or at least was at the start. Since it is possible part of the plan has been or will be dropped or amended to get approval from the Takever Panel.

The point being that I do not believe the delay has been caused - as the club keeps publicly indicating - simply by the bureaucracy involved in dealing with the Takeover Code and the Takeover Panel.

The club has outside advisers and so does Attanasio. Pretty high-powered ones quite used to the Code and the Panel. And the club told shareholders back on February 13, when they voted to create the nearly 200,000 new shares, that it expected everything to be sorted out in two weeks or so.

We are now in the twentieth week. If the the plan was straightforward and uncontroversial then there should not have been anything like such a delay. As to the plan (and this is nothing I haven't posted before, or at least hinted at) I believe it is the following:

That Attanasio's purchase of the new shares, added to private transactions, will for now (not necesarily later on) take him to 40 per cent. Which will - deliberately - make virtually exact parity with S&J, whose holding will reduce to that figure.

Passing the 30 per cent mark means Attanasio has to offer to buy out all the remaining shareholders. But since  the aim is to have this 40 per cent parity he doen't want to do that. There is also the point that if enough shareholders decided to sell he could accidentally go past 50 per cent and become the owner, and seemingly that is for now even less the plan than simply having a slightly higher percentage than S&J.

So he wants a Takeover Code Rule 9 whitewash waiver. But before he can put that to a vote of the shareholders he has to get approval from the Panel. Which  is not a given, since one of its remits is to safeguard the interests of those shareholders. And a waiver deprives them of the chance to sell up, potentially at a healthy profit, when many might want to.

But if Attanasio has some kind of particular condition he wants added to the motion to be put to shareholders that raises even more strongly concerns about the rights of the those shareholders then approval by the Panel would be even less of a given. And would certainly explain this delay.

If there is such a particular condition and it is indeed the cause then one solution might be to withdraw or water it down to enough of an extent that the Panel was happy to approve.

[Big Vince 318]

On 05/07/2023 at 10:51, Bomber said:

And coming straight back down mostly being an embarrassment 

And roundly ridiculed by the national media.

[Big Vince 318]

The arrival of Attanasio is not going to change anything. The self funding will continue. There will be no big cash injection. I am struggling at this point to see anything to be gained by having Attanasio. Everyone knows football is all about money, so if there is none, what is the point? Attanasio is just another attempt by Delia to reinvent the wheel. A PR, branding, marketing exercise with no substance.

[NFN FC 1,123]

4 minutes ago, Big Vince said:

The arrival of Attanasio is not going to change anything. The self funding will continue. There will be no big cash injection. I am struggling at this point to see anything to be gained by having Attanasio. Everyone knows football is all about money, so if there is none, what is the point? Attanasio is just another attempt by Delia to reinvent the wheel. A PR, branding, marketing exercise with no substance.

Binner

[Indy 3,300]

1 hour ago, PurpleCanary said:

Indy, for what it's worth I will tell what I think the plan is, or at least was at the start. Since it is possible part of the plan has been or will be dropped or amended to get approval from the Takever Panel.

The point being that I do not believe the delay has been caused - as the club keeps publicly indicating - simply by the bureaucracy involved in dealing with the Takeover Code and the Takeover Panel.

The club has outside advisers and so does Attanasio. Pretty high-powered ones quite used to the Code and the Panel. And the club told shareholders back on February 13, when they voted to create the nearly 200,000 new shares, that it expected everything to be sorted out in two weeks or so.

We are now in the twentieth week. If the the plan was straightforward and uncontroversial then there should not have been anything like such a delay. As to the plan (and this is nothing I haven't posted before, or at least hinted at) I believe it is the following:

That Attanasio's purchase of the new shares, added to private transactions, will for now (not necesarily later on) take him to 40 per cent. Which will - deliberately - make virtually exact parity with S&J, whose holding will reduce to that figure.

Passing the 30 per cent mark means Attanasio has to offer to buy out all the remaining shareholders. But since  the aim is to have this 40 per cent parity he doen't want to do that. There is also the point that if enough shareholders decided to sell he could accidentally go past 50 per cent and become the owner, and seemingly that is for now even less the plan than simply having a slightly higher percentage than S&J.

So he wants a Takeover Code Rule 9 whitewash waiver. But before he can put that to a vote of the shareholders he has to get approval from the Panel. Which  is not a given, since one of its remits is to safeguard the interests of those shareholders. And a waiver deprives them of the chance to sell up, potentially at a healthy profit, when many might want to.

But if Attanasio has some kind of particular condition he wants added to the motion to be put to shareholders that raises even more strongly concerns about the rights of the those shareholders then approval by the Panel would be even less of a given. And would certainly explain this delay.

If there is such a particular condition and it is indeed the cause then one solution might be to withdraw or water it down to enough of an extent that the Panel was happy to approve.

Thanks Purple, it's probably the most likely scenario, my comments are still my opinion, we can all sommise from the info we have, some will no doubt have more contacts inside knowledge who might gain more info, but in general we are all a little in the dark until it's all formally announced as to where things are going......but as always thanks and I fully agree with your post. Cheers....

[BigFish 1,987]

14 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

Indy, for what it's worth I will tell what I think the plan is, or at least was at the start. Since it is possible part of the plan has been or will be dropped or amended to get approval from the Takever Panel.

The point being that I do not believe the delay has been caused - as the club keeps publicly indicating - simply by the bureaucracy involved in dealing with the Takeover Code and the Takeover Panel.

The club has outside advisers and so does Attanasio. Pretty high-powered ones quite used to the Code and the Panel. And the club told shareholders back on February 13, when they voted to create the nearly 200,000 new shares, that it expected everything to be sorted out in two weeks or so.

We are now in the twentieth week. If the the plan was straightforward and uncontroversial then there should not have been anything like such a delay. As to the plan (and this is nothing I haven't posted before, or at least hinted at) I believe it is the following:

That Attanasio's purchase of the new shares, added to private transactions, will for now (not necesarily later on) take him to 40 per cent. Which will - deliberately - make virtually exact parity with S&J, whose holding will reduce to that figure.

Passing the 30 per cent mark means Attanasio has to offer to buy out all the remaining shareholders. But since  the aim is to have this 40 per cent parity he doen't want to do that. There is also the point that if enough shareholders decided to sell he could accidentally go past 50 per cent and become the owner, and seemingly that is for now even less the plan than simply having a slightly higher percentage than S&J.

So he wants a Takeover Code Rule 9 whitewash waiver. But before he can put that to a vote of the shareholders he has to get approval from the Panel. Which  is not a given, since one of its remits is to safeguard the interests of those shareholders. And a waiver deprives them of the chance to sell up, potentially at a healthy profit, when many might want to.

But if Attanasio has some kind of particular condition he wants added to the motion to be put to shareholders that raises even more strongly concerns about the rights of the those shareholders then approval by the Panel would be even less of a given. And would certainly explain this delay.

If there is such a particular condition and it is indeed the cause then one solution might be to withdraw or water it down to enough of an extent that the Panel was happy to approve.

Any use of a waiver would require a successful vote of "uninvolved" shareholders. Anyone sensible would want to be pretty certain of the outcome before putting this to a vote. If, as I am led to believe, the waiver route is decided on that would imply that S&J have been deemed "involved" meaning the electorate is those shareholders not including MA, S & J. I don't think anyone would be able to guess how that vote would go. Perhaps this view has been a surprise and is causing the delay.

[ncfcstar 292]

20 hours ago, essex canary said:

What has weakened our Balance Sheet is paying excess salaries to mediocre footballers and administrators plus lawyers and consultants. An upper middle class conspiracy acting against the interests of loyal supporters underpinned by weak supporter consultation mechanisms which would otherwise challenge it.

Everything is a conspiracy nowadays isn't it.  The fact you can even post that with a straight face tells us all a lot about you.

[Soldier on 160]

Almost another couple of weeks on from that Fans forum and still we wait …..

[Google Bot 3,278]

16 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

There is also the point that if enough shareholders decided to sell he could accidentally go past 50 per cent and become the owner

I think he would jump at the chance to 'accidentally' become owner wouldn't he?  I expect the delay is more that (since March/April) Delia and MWJ have decided they want to step back and let a new era take shape and things are being worked out.

Hence why the club is getting some independent advisors to search for Webber's replacement.

Edited July 7, 2023 by Google Bot

[chicken 2,625]

On 04/07/2023 at 22:21, By Hook or Ian crook said:

Depends what you’re classing as serious investment these days. By top 24 clubs in the country standards their investment falls way short of some of the other owners around us. 
 

Newcastle for example were around us in the league when taken over by the Saudis. now we are light years apart 

Around us in the league doesn't relate to finances though. It's just league position. We have some of the least wealthy owners, bottom 5 in the championship iirc for the most recent seasons we have been in this league.

Mike Ashley is wealthier than Smith and Wyn-Jones.

[essex canary 496]

On 06/07/2023 at 15:11, GMF said:

I’ll be the first to admit that I’m not an accounting expert, however, don’t wages for players and staff, plus fees for lawyers and consultants, appear as operational expenses in the P&L, rather than the balance sheet? 

Yes whilst their cumulative impact suppresses the Profit and Loss Account and Shareholders Equity figures as shown on the Balance Sheet. Ditto for Net Assets which wouid otherwise be higher.

[essex canary 496]

On 07/07/2023 at 10:30, BigFish said:

Any use of a waiver would require a successful vote of "uninvolved" shareholders. Anyone sensible would want to be pretty certain of the outcome before putting this to a vote. If, as I am led to believe, the waiver route is decided on that would imply that S&J have been deemed "involved" meaning the electorate is those shareholders not including MA, S & J. I don't think anyone would be able to guess how that vote would go. Perhaps this view has been a surprise and is causing the delay.

No chance of Brexit style democracy.

[Mengo 822]

On 07/07/2023 at 08:09, Google Bot said:

I think he would jump at the chance to 'accidentally' become owner wouldn't he?  I expect the delay is more that (since March/April) Delia and MWJ have decided they want to step back and let a new era take shape and things are being worked out.

Hence why the club is getting some independent advisors to search for Webber's replacement.

No  No GB, the genius SD is probably  still got a couple of training climbs to complete and he can get these done while he's still at Norwich City. It's a bit confusing in reports . Some say Everest will be attempted in 2023  , some say 2024. Either way we have to accommodate his ambition of climbing Everest.  Aye, Aye. 🤔

 

 

 

[essex canary 496]

On 07/07/2023 at 10:30, BigFish said:

Any use of a waiver would require a successful vote of "uninvolved" shareholders. Anyone sensible would want to be pretty certain of the outcome before putting this to a vote. If, as I am led to believe, the waiver route is decided on that would imply that S&J have been deemed "involved" meaning the electorate is those shareholders not including MA, S & J. I don't think anyone would be able to guess how that vote would go. Perhaps this view has been a surprise and is causing the delay.

If that is the case it must be a surprise to you because you had previously implied that S&J would be deemed uninvolved which was very puzzling given their influence in the EGM motions.

Leaving aside S&J It is hard to see that a vote of uninvolved shareholders is practicable given that for example one group of 25 shareholders holds a broadly equivalent shareholding to another of 5,300 members. 

@PurpleCanary case may well be plausible but, if so, also comes across as naive on the Club's part.

 

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

If that is the case it must be a surprise to you because you had previously implied that S&J would be deemed uninvolved which was very puzzling given their influence in the EGM motions.

Leaving aside S&J It is hard to see that a vote of uninvolved shareholders is practicable given that for example one group of 25 shareholders holds a broadly equivalent shareholding to another of 5,300 members. 

@PurpleCanary case may well be plausible but, if so, also comes across as naive on the Club's part.

 

It is plausible because, for example, it explains the odd number of shares on offer for Attanasio to buy. It is very easy to make the figure for his shareholding then reach to 40 per cent. And if the aim is to have this symbolic parity with S&J then pretty much by definition Attanasio has to want a waiver.

Which means getting approval from the Takeover Panel and then the minority shareholders. And approval from the former certainly can explain why we are into the 22nd week after the vote on February 13 and no news.

But bear in mind there are two parties involved in this. If there is any naivety here then it applies to Attanasio, with his high-powered advisers, as much as S&J and arguably more so.

[BigFish 1,987]

6 hours ago, essex canary said:

If that is the case it must be a surprise to you because you had previously implied that S&J would be deemed uninvolved which was very puzzling given their influence in the EGM motions.

Leaving aside S&J It is hard to see that a vote of uninvolved shareholders is practicable given that for example one group of 25 shareholders holds a broadly equivalent shareholding to another of 5,300 members. 

@PurpleCanary case may well be plausible but, if so, also comes across as naive on the Club's part.

 

Not a surprise when you are playing with hypotheticals based on incomplete information. A vote is perfectly possible, but you seem to be under the misunderstanding that it would be one man (or woman) one vote when clearly it will be one share one vote. But until there can be some certainty about the outcome it is unlikely to progress. Clearly this is more complicated than the key players expected let alone the keyboard warriors on the PinkUn.

[GMF 744]

1 hour ago, BigFish said:

A vote is perfectly possible, but you seem to be under the misunderstanding that it would be one man (or woman) one vote when clearly it will be one share one vote. 

This point is absolutely key. Is it one shareholder, one vote, or one shareholder (hypothetically) with 1,000 shares, getting the equivalent of 1,000 votes?

Edited July 9, 2023 by GMF
Edit

[BigFish 1,987]

1 hour ago, GMF said:

This point is absolutely key. Is it one shareholder, one vote, or one shareholder (hypothetically) with 1,000 shares, getting the equivalent of 1,000 votes?

Indeed @GMF, and at this point we need a corporate lawyer. The code refers to having a poll and a majority of shareholders when talking about waivers. I assumed this was the majority of shares by voting rights, but it is not clear and I don't know the case law.