The Idiots Guide to the Annatasio 'Takeover.'

[nutty nigel 7,649]

Just now, norfolkngood said:

you might have been at the back of the class Nutty , i was outside i was so far back !! 

Often outside it. On occasion dragged to the middle of the playing field and told to stand there.

[Capt. Pants 4,298]

Basically the club will be controlled and ran by minority shareholders. Which one will do the most work?

Roll on January 2026. Tick tock.

[PurpleCanary 5,587]

37 minutes ago, komakino said:

That is something I've feared for a while. How would that play out with MA? Could administration benefit him or not? 

We haven't got close to administration, let alone actually going into it, once in the 25 years of having pauper owners (and supposedly incompetent ones to boot) so quite why you say it might happen now, with an influx of money and financial know-how, ought to be beyond me. Except that it isn't at all a mystery.

[Duncan Edwards 2,271]

Administration could be the way forward. Ipswich did it and look at them now! Winning leagues and cups in September and the envy of the PinkUn board. Following their example must seem like the way to go for plenty of you. 

[shefcanary 2,492]

1 hour ago, komakino said:

That is something I've feared for a while. How would that play out with MA? Could administration benefit him or not? 

Don't take frit anyone, read to the end!

It is perfectly possible now he has the club so far on the hook, for him to engineer a potential liquidation of the club and lo be the only party around to agree a "pre-pack" offer to buy the assets of the club from the liquidator. He wouldn't would he? Extremely unlikely unless relationships really break down between him and others.

At Milwaukee Brewers he was honourable and respectful to the outgoing owner / family, and has continued to be so, after the takeover there. I see him repeating this with Delia and Michael.

[shefcanary 2,492]

54 minutes ago, norfolkngood said:

when he reaches a threshold example 80 mill then Delia and MWJ give him their shares and he writes off the loans 

so Nobody benefits other than club  and MA has paid a fair price

as i said i have no idea if that could work but as MA is loaning instead of Giving it is important to get this right 

Not a bad way for things to play out actually. 

[shefcanary 2,492]

49 minutes ago, It's Character Forming said:

Thanks, so I guess it's really a leap in the dark for us as fans ?  We're basically taking it on trust that MA will be a good custodian of the club going forward.

You have it in a nutshell. You either trust Attanasio, or you don't. If you do, vote for, if not vote against. Voting against just increases the uncertainty of the club's future, but doesn't mean it doesn't have one!

You can also mix up your votes as others (well one) have suggested and make what you hope is some grand statement, but I expect that is a very one-eyed view.

[Indy 3,323]

2 hours ago, Branston Pickle said:

Me too - I studied some of this many moons ago but some of the discussions seems way over the top of what’s relevant.

 

Exactly, unfortunately I get the impression of some of the shareholders self importance like they are making sure the board do things legally to involve them rather than what is actually good for the club! Back in the day my wife bought our shares to help the club the transferred them to a friend as she wanted them as a present to her grandchildren for their future as both loved Norwich City!

We never on thought of using them for any gain!

Now for me I just want what’s best for the club moving forwards and to me if the current majority owner are happy to go the way they are and we have a potential new board member with experience of running a small sports club on a budget successfully then I’m happy to see them come on board to freshen things up!

[essex canary 508]

2 hours ago, shefcanary said:

You have it in a nutshell. You either trust Attanasio, or you don't. If you do, vote for, if not vote against. Voting against just increases the uncertainty of the club's future, but doesn't mean it doesn't have one!

You can also mix up your votes as others (well one) have suggested and make what you hope is some grand statement, but I expect that is a very one-eyed view.

If any Club of our standing wants to achieve anything in the PL the very highest standards will be required. That hasn't been the case with the planning for this vote so why not vote against? Can't see MA walking away whilst the message would be drive Corporate Governance and other practices in an upward direction.

[Samwam27 532]

I thought it's so complicated even NCFC don't understand the rules, hence them only recently updating documents to remove nephew Tom as an Independent Director, or something like that and inserting money grabber Zoe instead  😆

[TIL 1010 4,813]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

If any Club of our standing wants to achieve anything in the PL the very highest standards will be required. That hasn't been the case with the planning for this vote so why not vote against? Can't see MA walking away whilst the message would be drive Corporate Governance and other practices in an upward direction.

@Barham Blitz BINGO !

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

When clubs take out loans does anyone know what the usual terms are? High interest or lower for short term? What about MA? its partly his club. Would he be charging high interest or mates rates. His day to day business involves buying debt.

Edited September 27, 2023 by keelansgrandad

[Davidlingfield 63]

1 hour ago, Samwam27 said:

I thought it's so complicated even NCFC don't understand the rules, hence them only recently updating documents to remove nephew Tom as an Independent Director, or something like that and inserting money grabber Zoe instead  😆

It’s certainly too complicated for our £425k (minimum) a year only Executive Director to grasp.

[The Real Buh 3,486]

You know when a lorry pulls out to take over another lorry but then realised it doesn’t have enough power to take over that lorry and has to slow down and pull in behind the original lorry and all the cars behind wonder what was the point in the first place?

that.

[Nexus_Canary 1,028]

8 hours ago, Wings of a Sparrow said:

I'm a (albeit small) shareholder and I haven't got a clue what's going on either.

Things I have taken from the thread.

1: What was once seen as a good move (MA takeover) may not be as good as we first  thought.

2: Could it really be 3 years before we see any significant change coming in to the club? 

3: What's going to happen in the interim?

Can you explain this one for me?
Not trolling, just want to know how the perception has shifted to this might not be as good as we thought.

[It's Character Forming 1,167]

On 27/09/2023 at 14:36, shefcanary said:

You have it in a nutshell. You either trust Attanasio, or you don't. If you do, vote for, if not vote against. Voting against just increases the uncertainty of the club's future, but doesn't mean it doesn't have one!

You can also mix up your votes as others (well one) have suggested and make what you hope is some grand statement, but I expect that is a very one-eyed view.

Thanks @shefcanary, I thought that was it, but I really struggled to follow the discussion on the other thread !

[Besthorpe-48 103]

So this is the moment. It is clear that the current model will not make us a regular PLclub. Many have argued we need more funding well here it is. We may end up like Brighton or we may end up like  ,Bolton. It's going to be interesting finding out.

[GenerationA47 762]

13 hours ago, Besthorpe-48 said:

So this is the moment. It is clear that the current model will not make us a regular PLclub. Many have argued we need more funding well here it is. We may end up like Brighton or we may end up like  ,Bolton. It's going to be interesting finding out.

That’s about the size of it.

 I’d add, of all the signs M&D have shown over the decades - both good and less good choices- effectively in the run-up to this moment - these have never included self-interest over the club’s interests. You’d have to be a card-carrying Truther/Pizzagater type to claim that (of which there are some).

 So, for me although most of us fans have no say nor prescience, at least it comes down to the new version of HMS Canary being launched over 3+ years by the most well-meaning available pairs of hands.

[norfolkngood 1,092]

I Wonder who wants to keep the 40 % each for 3 years ?

is it D & M who will not let go so wants the clause in so they can not be bought out ? 

is it MA who wants to see how things go for 3 years ?

or is it both D&M want a staged buyout so MA pumps money into club so only club gains and money does not go to them directly but back into club ? 

[komakino 275]

21 minutes ago, GenerationA47 said:

That’s about the size of it.

 I’d add, of all the signs M&D have shown over the decades - both good and less good choices- effectively in the run-up to this moment - these have never included self-interest over the club’s interests. You’d have to be a card-carrying Truther/Pizzagater type to claim that (of which there are some).

 So, for me although most of us fans have no say nor prescience, at least it comes down to the new version of HMS Canary being launched over 3+ years by the most well-meaning available pairs of hands.

That is debatable. 

While D&M have never been in it for the money, hanging on to their position when they have been out of their depth for many years could be classed as self interest. 

As for the HMS Canary, it currently has a few holes that have been patched up by MA, as Captain Webber is AWOL and nobody yet to take his place. 

The ship is certainly heading for uncharted waters. 

[hogesar 9,773]

18 minutes ago, komakino said:

That is debatable. 

 

If you're an idiot, yes it is.

[It's Character Forming 1,167]

26 minutes ago, norfolkngood said:

I Wonder who wants to keep the 40 % each for 3 years ?

is it D & M who will not let go so wants the clause in so they can not be bought out ? 

is it MA who wants to see how things go for 3 years ?

or is it both D&M want a staged buyout so MA pumps money into club so only club gains and money does not go to them directly but back into club ? 

I guess there's no way to know from the outside, but reading the EDP article it seems plausible to me that both sides are comfortable taking the process in stages to allow MA to get up to speed on how things work in football compared to the US.  If you look at US owners who have come in and made a right hash of things, that makes a lot of sense to me.

[komakino 275]

1 hour ago, hogesar said:

If you're an idiot, yes it is.

On the contrary. It is reasonable to suggest that majority shareholders who neither invested (expect initially and have been paid back) or attracted outside investment for a very long period of time has been a negative factor and has held the club back. We'll never know of course, but if you pitched the idea to any compatible club that they should have individuals that are the same, I cannot imagine many fans who would get excited by the idea. 

[Capt. Pants 4,298]

1 hour ago, norfolkngood said:

I Wonder who wants to keep the 40 % each for 3 years ?

is it D & M who will not let go so wants the clause in so they can not be bought out ? 

is it MA who wants to see how things go for 3 years ?

or is it both D&M want a staged buyout so MA pumps money into club so only club gains and money does not go to them directly but back into club ? 

I'm worried about this try before you buy tbh. As it stands MA should get his loans repaid leaving the relative tiny amount he has paid in acquiring 40% of NCFC. He could sell to anyone if he decides he doesn't like what he sees, or feels running an English football club as a going concern is not for him. Would have been much cleaner, a clear commitment  to NCFC had the 30% rule been invoked.

On the plus side in the very short term I would hope the club is run better than the rather alarming stuff I'm reading on the other thread!

 

[norfolkngood 1,092]

3 hours ago, Capt. Pants said:

I'm worried about this try before you buy tbh. As it stands MA should get his loans repaid leaving the relative tiny amount he has paid in acquiring 40% of NCFC. He could sell to anyone if he decides he doesn't like what he sees, or feels running an English football club as a going concern is not for him. Would have been much cleaner, a clear commitment  to NCFC had the 30% rule been invoked.

On the plus side in the very short term I would hope the club is run better than the rather alarming stuff I'm reading on the other thread!

 

Good Point ,

i do not like all this messing around ,

i know people say it is because it is a different sport from what he is  used to but he is a smart business man ,

like you say unless it is signed and sealed about the loans that turn into shares ,

that would be a big red flag for me if i was getting into business with him ,

i would want some sort of security that he will not want his money back and keep 40 % 

 

[By Hook or Ian crook 917]

I can not think of another club who would make a take over such a long, protracted and needlessly difficult experience for all involved. The ridiculousness of clinging on to power for 3 years is baffling to me. They are like two toddlers who won’t let anyone else play with their ball. 

[Wings of a Sparrow 1,444]

So when and what do we find out today?

[Mr_Biff1961 11]

On 29/09/2023 at 16:56, By Hook or Ian crook said:

I can not think of another club who would make a take over such a long, protracted and needlessly difficult experience for all involved. The ridiculousness of clinging on to power for 3 years is baffling to me. They are like two toddlers who won’t let anyone else play with their ball. 

The three years is because The initial intention was to be a minor shareholder, the voting with D&M is only on shareholder issues, he will be entitled to another board member and so will be able to vote on other matters as a board member.

 

[essex canary 508]

1 hour ago, Mr_Biff1961 said:

The three years is because The initial intention was to be a minor shareholder, the voting with D&M is only on shareholder issues, he will be entitled to another board member and so will be able to vote on other matters as a board member.

 

That's alright then. Next time Delia nominates Tom as an Independent Director, MA won't be able to overrule her.