Why Attanasio wants to buy Norwich (and Delia must sell)

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,221]

2 hours ago, GMF said:

I have never had an issue with her personal position on this, however, there’s a big BUT.

If, at some point in the not too distant future, she effectively “gives away” (as in a discounted / low price) her shares, she’s got to be mindful of the remaining 20% of shareholders, those who stood by her, and the Club, when she needed them most, following the collapse of ITV Digital.

On the wider issue of US investment, it seems a logical step. The US sports market is highly regulated, with nearly all franchises money making. In comparison, European football is very light touch. US investors have referred to here being “like the Wild West!” Therefore, with a growing trend towards greater regulation, and a greater emphasis on cost control, the opportunity for making money, and asset appreciation, is obvious.

I think Delia is disillusioned with the position she has found herself in and the decision she has had to make. 

Parma 

[hogesar 9,704]

A cynical person might say the timing of all this from MA is now perfect for deflecting future ambition / spend with:

"Well, I'd love to put more of my own money into the club, but FFP means I can't!"

[Soldier on 160]

4 minutes ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

I think Delia is disillusioned with the position she has found herself in and the decision she has had to make. 

Parma 

She is 83 . Presumably she never intended to hold on to the club forever .  Club in urgent need of a bit of a revamp isn’t it ??!

[shefcanary 2,426]

1 minute ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

I think Delia is disillusioned with the position she has found herself in and the decision she has had to make. 

Parma 

Interesting view Parma. As I have discussed on here before, I think before she hands over, she will want to find a form of "community block" to prevent Attanasio theoretically being in a position to completely strip every asset that would be available to him. As time ticks on however, does this become harder for her to achieve, thus leading to her disillusionment? 

I don't see asset stripping as Attanasio's MO by the way, but still have concern over the backers that form the 17%. Are they bothered or just helping out a friend?

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,221]

2 hours ago, GMF said:

I have never had an issue with her personal position on this, however, there’s a big BUT.

If, at some point in the not too distant future, she effectively “gives away” (as in a discounted / low price) her shares, she’s got to be mindful of the remaining 20% of shareholders, those who stood by her, and the Club, when she needed them most, following the collapse of ITV Digital.

On the wider issue of US investment, it seems a logical step. The US sports market is highly regulated, with nearly all franchises money making. In comparison, European football is very light touch. US investors have referred to here being “like the Wild West!” Therefore, with a growing trend towards greater regulation, and a greater emphasis on cost control, the opportunity for making money, and asset appreciation, is obvious.

This is the ‘favouring’ option of minority shareholders that I have previously referred.

This is a Sine non qua for Delia.  

It is a relatively-contextually cheap ‘throw in the pot’ for Attanasio as well. Basically for him a credit note off the £43m equity gain that slips into his back pocket.

Even Financiers know when to lose a small battle.

Parma  

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,221]

1 minute ago, shefcanary said:

Interesting view Parma. As I have discussed on here before, I think before she hands over, she will want to find a form of "community block" to prevent Attanasio theoretically being in a position to completely strip every asset that would be available to him. As time ticks on however, does this become harder for her to achieve, thus leading to her disillusionment? 

I don't see asset stripping as Attanasio's MO by the way, but still have concern over the backers that form the 17%. Are they bothered or just helping out a friend?

I wouldn’t express it if I didn’t have some idea. 

Parma 

Edited January 23 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[shefcanary 2,426]

14 hours ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

Parma's questions

To answer your obvious (?!) questions (apologies for the delay):

1. Given the lack of supply and high demand, was there no previous interest?

I just don't see that there was no interest, just no-one who appealed to Smith & Jones. However, I'm still not certain what prompted them to give the okay to the Webber's to send out that email. Up to that point it was all going to be Nepo Tom's! Did he 'fess up and say he didn't have the "balls" for it, or did Smith & jones suddenly allow a window of "wake up and smell the coffee" to change their view. Tom has stayed on acting as Chair, so it is difficult to conclude - one for the (auto)biographies to answer in due course.

2. There are 92 football clubs, 35 of which are now owned predominantly by Americans. If you could buy one cheap, could you sell it?

Definitely, but would you get a return, there's the rub. Those hovering outside now are more predatorial than the first wave, with ever more complicated backing but increasing expertise in matters of football. We know how global the EPL is, but the EFL doesn't do too badly in terms of broadcasting and the money that follows it. For instance our US colleagues on here seem to have no problem picking up coverage of our games so the interest and the money is there. The demand is there, and as explained for those halfbillionaires an EFL club would make a good plaything to feed their ego. 

3. If you own a Baseball Team in America why do you want a Football team in England?

This is down to the advent of the multi-sport groups that are currently in vouge at the moment. Attanasio is at the vanguard of this, now with MLB, EFL and PGA interests. Spreading the risk of investment whilst getting the excitement and media exposure that comes from being "emotionally" as well as "financially" involved is a big draw.

4. Do brokers and traders create the market or follow the market?

The ones with foresight create, the herd follows and exploits? Your piece above draws this out. In future, the life of the market depends on not being seen to exploit too much, not over promising but also by delivering regularly. That becomes tricky as there are far more variables in Europe than in the US, the Wild West is still some way off being tamed, so there remains room for exploitation for now.

5. If an owners ‘wants out’ after 25 years and promised ‘to never take a penny out’, what happens to the equity gain? Who gets it? How?

This is the great problem that Smith & Jones face. I've answered this in another rumination of yours, but up to now Attanasio has played ball with their view on equity gain. There isn't much sense of any disagreement on Smith and Jones stance on this from Attanasio (he has discussed before his takeover of the Brewers was driven at the pace of the selling family, not his), but can Smith & Jones find a way to allow Attanasio to take control without "controlling" his equity gain? I doubt it, but also does the equity roll over to Attanasio and then he himself is faced with a similar dilemma? Or does he in turn roll over that gain to his son Mike, which is my view of what the next step will be?

6. If somebody hasn’t engaged with the marketplace identified in the article above, then they suddenly decide it’s time to sell, do they ‘know the game’? 

Depends on the reasons for the sale. As I've said I still struggle with Smith & Jones decision to suddenly market the club more vigorously. Was it pressure from the Webber's, or did Tom make it clear he did not want the "problem" after they had gone? Elsewhere, I doubt anyone decides to sell for reasons of "knowing the game" for the club but of their own changing circumstances. 

7. What would you do for an unrealised £43m equity gain if you had knowledge of a market elsewhere, plus a contacts book of buyers, that others didn’t understand? 

The 17% question? Who are they? Do they "know the game" or just know their friend?

8. isn’t that what middle men have done for centuries?

Yes, but Attanasio doesn't strike me as a typical middle man, he does seem to enjoy full involvement in a project. Can he maintain his full interest in  the Brewers and the Canaries at the same time? Or is the Canaries for Mike?

[king canary 7,623]

12 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

Did he 'fess up and say he didn't have the "balls" for it, or did Smith & jones suddenly allow a window of "wake up and smell the coffee" to change their view. Tom has stayed on acting as Chair, so it is difficult to conclude - one for the (auto)biographies to answer in due course.

I've speculated before that I think the second season in the Premier League under Farke was a huge wake up call for them. They seemed fully to believe that under the stewardship of their boy genius Webber that we could defy gravity and when it failed maybe they realised that it couldn't be done.

I can't imagine leaving the club to Tom would have done him many favours either- to be honest would you want to own the club knowing you didn't have the money to make a difference and that you'd likely be deeply unpopular with the fans pretty quickly.

[BigFish 1,988]

52 minutes ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

I think Delia is disillusioned with the position she has found herself in and the decision she has had to make. 

Parma 

This is the key. Elite football has changed significantly since she first stepped in. Small incremental changes have left the game, and the club, in a position that few would have chosen. Add to that a certain unpleasant entitlement amongst some of the fan base and she is really left between the devil and the deep blue sea.

[BigFish 1,988]

58 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

As I have discussed on here before, I think before she hands over, she will want to find a form of "community block" to prevent Attanasio theoretically being in a position to completely strip every asset that would be available to him. As time ticks on however, does this become harder for her to achieve, thus leading to her disillusionment?

Is this even possible, or practical these days? Looks very much like a poison pill that would prevent what this thread is about and end the club's chance of being in, let alone competing in, top level football. Is there an example of this working, long term - there seems to be more of it not working.

[Robert N. LiM 4,421]

28 minutes ago, king canary said:

I've speculated before that I think the second season in the Premier League under Farke was a huge wake up call for them. They seemed fully to believe that under the stewardship of their boy genius Webber that we could defy gravity and when it failed maybe they realised that it couldn't be done.

I'm sure this is true.

And I think it's at the heart of the malaise amongst the fanbase at the moment. We were so near and yet so far from achieving something pretty extraordinary - and now we're left with the knowledge it's not really possible. Couldn't beat 'em - have now got to join 'em. But, as is dawning on people, even someone like Attanasio isn't really rich enough to get us where some would like us to be. Top-level football in this country is insane - as the original piece, and the Liew piece I shared today make painfully clear. But still we go, because of course we do.

[Old Shuck 185]

Something I read ages ago comes to mind about a new club owner who took his place in the directors box for a game some time into his tenure and was miffed, to the point of having a near tantrum, that his clubs fans chanted the name of the club, their favourite players and even the coach...but not him! He felt he should have had the same adulation expressed for him.

[essex canary 497]

34 minutes ago, BigFish said:

Is this even possible, or practical these days? Looks very much like a poison pill that would prevent what this thread is about and end the club's chance of being in, let alone competing in, top level football. Is there an example of this working, long term - there seems to be more of it not working.

Seems to be working OK for Luton. Maybe they won't survive but are making far more of a fist of it than we have done in recent times.

[BigFish 1,988]

7 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Seems to be working OK for Luton. Maybe they won't survive but are making far more of a fist of it than we have done in recent times.

Not really the case @Essex Canary

[GMF 754]

1 hour ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

I think Delia is disillusioned with the position she has found herself in and the decision she has had to make. 

Parma 

Let’s not forget that we are only where we are because Michael Foulger decided to sell his shares.

Whether that was because he simply thought he’d had enough, or, because it became apparent that additional outside investment was needed (hence the £31m debt financing subsequently loaned by MA) only those inside the Club will know.

Either way, it was the directors who originally approved the budget and gave authorisation for SW to spend so much money in the Premier League last time around. 

[essex canary 497]

13 minutes ago, GMF said:

Let’s not forget that we are only where we are because Michael Foulger decided to sell his shares.

Whether that was because he simply thought he’d had enough, or, because it became apparent that additional outside investment was needed (hence the £31m debt financing subsequently loaned by MA) only those inside the Club will know.

Either way, it was the directors who originally approved the budget and gave authorisation for SW to spend so much money in the Premier League last time around. 

Interesting to note too that at the start of the pandemic when S&J stated that they would stay away from matches in sympathy with supporters MF was attending. Lack of teamwork all round.

[shefcanary 2,426]

1 hour ago, BigFish said:

Is this even possible, or practical these days? Looks very much like a poison pill that would prevent what this thread is about and end the club's chance of being in, let alone competing in, top level football. Is there an example of this working, long term - there seems to be more of it not working.

If Attanasio truly gets his way I'm sure it is not. In the end I think they will have no real choice other than to trust Attanasio. I'm not saying he is being duplicitous, but he is playing the long game, like with his acquisition of the Brewers (which took more than three years to complete). Smith & Jones just have to figure out a way they can be seen not to profit whilst ensuring Attanasio doesn't get the club on the cheap and benefit from the current equity gain enjoyed from their tenure. Some form of long term tie up between the club and an independent charitable community organisation will emerge I'm sure.

[GMF 754]

29 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Interesting to note too that at the start of the pandemic when S&J stated that they would stay away from matches in sympathy with supporters MF was attending. Lack of teamwork all round.

Or they were simply self-isolating? 

[BigFish 1,988]

1 hour ago, shefcanary said:

If Attanasio truly gets his way I'm sure it is not. In the end I think they will have no real choice other than to trust Attanasio. I'm not saying he is being duplicitous, but he is playing the long game, like with his acquisition of the Brewers (which took more than three years to complete). Smith & Jones just have to figure out a way they can be seen not to profit whilst ensuring Attanasio doesn't get the club on the cheap and benefit from the current equity gain enjoyed from their tenure. Some form of long term tie up between the club and an independent charitable community organisation will emerge I'm sure.

Thanks @shefcanary, wasn't being message board belligerent, just didn't know if I had missed something. Agree with this entirely.

Edited January 23 by BigFish

[essex canary 497]

Something that bolsters the ambitions of the CSF to fill the void left by the Social Services Department is likely to be forthcoming.

[The Raptor 1,218]

20 hours ago, Northluck C said:

Until someone quotes it again in a minute!

Even I won't be that annoying...

Both articles linked are great.  Cheers.

[nutty nigel 7,554]

2 hours ago, GMF said:

Let’s not forget that we are only where we are because Michael Foulger decided to sell his shares.

Whether that was because he simply thought he’d had enough, or, because it became apparent that additional outside investment was needed (hence the £31m debt financing subsequently loaned by MA) only those inside the Club will know.

Either way, it was the directors who originally approved the budget and gave authorisation for SW to spend so much money in the Premier League last time around. 

For me it starts with one of Parma's black swans...

Covid, promotion, transfer window gamble, manager change gamble, relegation still looking to be the only outcome, loans with huge implications further down the track, Foulger wants out, a short list of potential investors is quickly whittled down to just Attanasio, Foulger and some minor shareholders in the know sell to Attanasio. 

I think that's fair from what we know to be true. But then I get a bit hazy. Buying what amounted to 16% of our club is of no use to Attanasio because it's not an investment. It's just putting money into people's pockets. There has to be something else and there was. Various investments with his money going into the club saw him arrive at 40% joint majority shareholder and being trusted to call the shots on how the money is spent.

But now there seems to be an assumption that Attanasio will in the future buy Delia and Michael's 40%. Will he? If so what's in it for him? Putting money in Michael's wallet and Delia's hambag can't be appealing. From just an interested non qualified point of view I'm pretty sure the current arrangement suits him quite well. 

 

 

[RobJames 881]

1 hour ago, nutty nigel said:

But now there seems to be an assumption that Attanasio will in the future buy Delia and Michael's 40%. Will he? If so what's in it for him? Putting money in Michael's wallet and Delia's hambag can't be appealing. From just an interested non qualified point of view I'm pretty sure the current arrangement suits him quite well.

"Delia's hambag"

 

[essex canary 497]

1 hour ago, nutty nigel said:

For me it starts with one of Parma's black swans...

Covid, promotion, transfer window gamble, manager change gamble, relegation still looking to be the only outcome, loans with huge implications further down the track, Foulger wants out, a short list of potential investors is quickly whittled down to just Attanasio, Foulger and some minor shareholders in the know sell to Attanasio. 

I think that's fair from what we know to be true. But then I get a bit hazy. Buying what amounted to 16% of our club is of no use to Attanasio because it's not an investment. It's just putting money into people's pockets. There has to be something else and there was. Various investments with his money going into the club saw him arrive at 40% joint majority shareholder and being trusted to call the shots on how the money is spent.

But now there seems to be an assumption that Attanasio will in the future buy Delia and Michael's 40%. Will he? If so what's in it for him? Putting money in Michael's wallet and Delia's hambag can't be appealing. From just an interested non qualified point of view I'm pretty sure the current arrangement suits him quite well. 

 

 

Yes. Comfortable income for his loans business and if the Club's player wage bill regresses to the Championship average, about half our current level, to facilitate him being paid several million in supporters money in Interest why should he care? 

[RobJames 881]

4 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Yes. Comfortable income for his loans business and if the Club's player wage bill regresses to the Championship average, about half our current level, to facilitate him being paid several million in supporters money in Interest why should he care? 

If interest is due, then why should supporters care who it is paid to ?

[Wings of a Sparrow 1,423]

3 hours ago, shefcanary said:

If Attanasio truly gets his way I'm sure it is not. In the end I think they will have no real choice other than to trust Attanasio. I'm not saying he is being duplicitous, but he is playing the long game, like with his acquisition of the Brewers (which took more than three years to complete). Smith & Jones just have to figure out a way they can be seen not to profit whilst ensuring Attanasio doesn't get the club on the cheap and benefit from the current equity gain enjoyed from their tenure. Some form of long term tie up between the club and an independent charitable community organisation will emerge I'm sure.

This. 

Could we get to scenario where Delia and MWJ 'sell' the club on the cheap with little recompense for them, only for MA to make a substantial return somewhere down the line?

[BroadstairsR 2,184]

We can question Annatosio's intentions until the cows come home, but we have no alternative other than to accept it all.

The Delia reign is heading for the buffers, most of our peers have succumbed to the lure of bigger financial backing (even ITFC,) and besides he seems genuinely interested in involvement in the club, has a decent pedigree in sporting affairs and appears to have a firm grip upon the financial complexities of big business.

 

Edited January 23 by BroadstairsR

[Big Vince 318]

On 22/01/2024 at 15:16, FenwayFrank said:

Wouldn't it be great if someone could sum up the whole thing in one sentence 😄

Sports teams around the world are now pawns that are traded in the world of big business and the mega-wealthy.

Very uncomfortable reading for the likes of Delia and anyone else who clings on to the notion of having a club rooted in the local community and being self-funded.

[Monty13 2,235]

1 hour ago, Wings of a Sparrow said:

This. 

Could we get to scenario where Delia and MWJ 'sell' the club on the cheap with little recompense for them, only for MA to make a substantial return somewhere down the line?

Depending on what they do with their share holding, yes 100%.

If I was them and wanted to protect the club’s future let Attanasio take a controlling stake by buying extra shares then give Tom theirs in a trust.

No one was going to accept Tom as majority shareholder, but acting as guardian of a large minority shareholding he could act as a voice on behalf of supporters against any of the worst fears of Attanasio ownership.

Basically giving Attanasio any equity gain from their shares seems like daylight robbery to me.

[BigFish 1,988]

27 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

Depending on what they do with their share holding, yes 100%.

If I was them and wanted to protect the club’s future let Attanasio take a controlling stake by buying extra shares then give Tom theirs in a trust.

No one was going to accept Tom as majority shareholder, but acting as guardian of a large minority shareholding he could act as a voice on behalf of supporters against any of the worst fears of Attanasio ownership.

Basically giving Attanasio any equity gain from their shares seems like daylight robbery to me.

This is a total non-starter. For MA to make the equity gain possible he needs total control, and he needs to take the club private. The choice is the club remains self-funding or it takes the sugar daddy support. There is no middle ground.