Four ordinary NCFC shares for sale

[The Canaries Trust 36]

An existing NCFC shareholder has just listed four ordinary shares for sale on our website.

The vendor is seeking offers at £80.00 per share.

To make an offer, you will first need to register as a buyer using the below link.

https://www.canariestrust.org/ncfc-shares

The offer period closes at 5.00 pm (GMT) Wednesday, 20th March.

[Canario 205]

Surprised Essex hasn't jumped at the chance 

[TIL 1010 4,748]

Is this not the second shareholder in recent weeks who is trying to sell for £80 a share via The Trust ? Rather ambitious and unlikely  to be successful in my book.

[The Canaries Trust 36]

This is the ninth listing of ordinary shares for sale to appear on our website in the past year, all but one has so far successfully been completed. 

Quoting prices are always chosen by the seller and have ranged from £20.00 to £80.00 per share.

Potential buyers are free to offer whatever they like and each listing to date has received a number of offers; ranging from below, at, or above the quoting price.

February’s listing is now under offer and the transfer is ongoing.

The bid period for this listing is open for seven days from today’s date and is already receiving bids.

As these are private transactions we’re not able to disclose the final price information.

[shefcanary 2,409]

So Tilly, given Attanasio bought at £25, he really has got a bargain, if now shares are regularly selling at £80 a pop. That would value the club at £65m should Attanasio's share allocation receive EFL approval, he'll effectively hold c.£27m of the club, which strangely is very close to his line of credit with the club. Hmmm 🤔.

Whatever £80 a pop is much more realistic value of the club than the artificial deal struck between Delia, Michael x2, the Gt Yarmouth mob & Attanasio; but its still at an undervalue - exceedingly so if we win the play-offs.

[GMF 746]

5 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

So Tilly, given Attanasio bought at £25, he really has got a bargain, if now shares are regularly selling at £80 a pop. That would value the club at £65m should Attanasio's share allocation receive EFL approval, he'll effectively hold c.£27m of the club, which strangely is very close to his line of credit with the club. Hmmm 🤔.

Whatever £80 a pop is much more realistic value of the club than the artificial deal struck between Delia, Michael x2, the Gt Yarmouth mob & Attanasio; but its still at an undervalue - exceedingly so if we win the play-offs.

Here’s the conundrum @shefcanary.

I would suggest that theres a significant difference between a fan, who wants to own a few shares, in order to feel as if they own a small part of the club, and someone who’s after a significant stake in the club, who can make a “take it, or leave it” offer to smaller shareholders.

As someone of this parish frequently mentions, there’s no reason why someone would be willing to pay a premium for, say, 1,000 shares, if all that shareholding offers is a seat for life, which would be lost on transfer of the shares to a third party, related, or not! 

[shefcanary 2,409]

1 minute ago, GMF said:

Here’s the conundrum @shefcanary.

I would suggest that theres a significant difference between a fan, who wants to own a few shares, in order to feel as if they own a small part of the club, and someone who’s after a significant stake in the club, who can make a “take it, or leave it” offer to smaller shareholders.

As someone of this parish frequently mentions, there’s no reason why someone would be willing to pay a premium for, say, 1,000 shares, if all that shareholding offers is a seat for life, which would be lost on transfer of the shares to a third party, related, or not! 

I don't disagree, but as I've shared many times, Burnley and Sheffield United were both valued between £100m to £150m before they had earned promotion to the fable (if somewhat short-lived) land. A valuation arrived at by the cabal I mentioned at only £25m does seem somewhat contrived, if only to allow two of that cabal a "quieter" way out. As mentioned on another thread, at least the Australians should receive a good return eventually. But the difference is frighteningly stark!

[GMF 746]

2 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

I don't disagree, but as I've shared many times, Burnley and Sheffield United were both valued between £100m to £150m before they had earned promotion to the fable (if somewhat short-lived) land. A valuation arrived at by the cabal I mentioned at only £25m does seem somewhat contrived, if only to allow two of that cabal a "quieter" way out. As mentioned on another thread, at least the Australians should receive a good return eventually. But the difference is frighteningly stark!

If they decide to sell for a “not for profit” price, surely that’s their prerogative, though.

As I’ve said before, it wouldn’t surprise me if MA made an offer to minority shareholders, after three years. I’d expect his offer to be at a not too dissimilar price. 

[shefcanary 2,409]

4 minutes ago, GMF said:

If they decide to sell for a “not for profit” price, surely that’s their prerogative, though.

Oh, again agreed, but eventually someone has to own the total equity of the club and gain from it (as Parma always reminds us). Those selling at £80 a pop are enjoying their equity gain, some high profile shareholders are desperately trying to avoid too much of an equity gain. In the long run however, the new kids on the block are going to enjoy full value of the equity gain to £150m.

Let's hope that the wider community of supporters and people of Norfolk also get to enjoy some of that gain in some form. My fear is that the longer this "takeover" takes, the more difficult this will get which would be a shame. Now watch a rabbit being pulled out of the hat to totally blow away my fears.

[The Canaries Trust 36]

6 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

Oh, again agreed, but eventually someone has to own the total equity of the club and gain from it (as Parma always reminds us). Those selling at £80 a pop are enjoying their equity gain, some high profile shareholders are desperately trying to avoid too much of an equity gain. In the long run however, the new kids on the block are going to enjoy full value of the equity gain to £150m.

Let's hope that the wider community of supporters and people of Norfolk also get to enjoy some of that gain in some form. My fear is that the longer this "takeover" takes, the more difficult this will get which would be a shame. Now watch a rabbit being pulled out of the hat to totally blow away my fears.

 

Edited March 13 by The Canaries Trust

[GMF 746]

The moment you realise you’re in the wrong account 🤭

[GMF 746]

Playing devils advocate, let’s assume the shares are allotted, MA subsequently acquires D&M’s shares at a similar price, then MA makes an offer to existing minorities, and in order to cross the 90% threshold, converts further debt into equity for a similar amount.

In this scenario the buy out would be at the same level, meaning no such gain for minorities. 

Edited March 14 by GMF
Typo

[shefcanary 2,409]

2 minutes ago, GMF said:

Playing devils advocate, let’s assume the shares are allotted, MA subsequently acquires D&M’s shares at a similar price, then MA makes an offer to existing minorities, and in order to cross the 90% threshold, converts further debt into equity for a similar amount.

In this scenario the but out would be at the same level, meaning no such gain for minorities. 

@repman has just linked a post to an interview Attanasio has done with a local Milwaukee sports journalist in the Overhaul thread. Within that and from @Nuff Said's contribution, although Attanasio is the figurehead he does seem to not actually own 100% of the Brewers although is the driving force behind them. The interview also mentions a charitable organisation attached to the Brewers, the BCF, which probably is very close to the one at Norwich. This probably as much as anything lays out a way forward for the future. I maybe am not so certain Attanasio will ever take 100% control by shares of the club, but let's hope he is able to follow a similar path to the one he has taken at the Brewers. 

[GMF 746]

18 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

@repman has just linked a post to an interview Attanasio has done with a local Milwaukee sports journalist in the Overhaul thread. Within that and from @Nuff Said's contribution, although Attanasio is the figurehead he does seem to not actually own 100% of the Brewers although is the driving force behind them. The interview also mentions a charitable organisation attached to the Brewers, the BCF, which probably is very close to the one at Norwich. This probably as much as anything lays out a way forward for the future. I maybe am not so certain Attanasio will ever take 100% control by shares of the club, but let's hope he is able to follow a similar path to the one he has taken at the Brewers. 

MA doesn’t own 100% of Norfolk either, so there’s a correlation there.

The point I’m trying to make is that there’s the possibility to take the Club private, which I’d expect to happen, not least because it would remove those pesky shareholder questions at AGM’s, but also make any potential exit route far easier at any point in the future. 

[essex canary 496]

1 hour ago, GMF said:

If they decide to sell for a “not for profit” price, surely that’s their prerogative, though.

As I’ve said before, it wouldn’t surprise me if MA made an offer to minority shareholders, after three years. I’d expect his offer to be at a not too dissimilar price. 

So presumably that means 3 more years of differential treatment for holders of 1,000 shares with the lucky ones like myself getting the seat concession and the inheritors who were never part of the original agreement being denied. None of us can sell for £80 per share then we face settlement at perhaps £25 per share. What a charade!  Given the Club were apparently prepared to settle for holders of 1,000 shares it seems farcical that they didn't look to settle for holders of 4 shares with all the attendant administration of all these ongoing transfers and rather than having sent polite communications to all addresses just bombarded us with the doubtless ridiculously costly Rule 9 waiver legalese. How is any of this approach logical?

Shefs' comments don't take into account the latest WBA deal which perhaps suggest that something like £50 to £60 per share maybe more appropriate.

Robust fan consultation should take place to raise these concerns and protect the interests of fan shareholders 

 

  

[GMF 746]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

So presumably that means 3 more years of differential treatment for holders of 1,000 shares with the lucky ones like myself getting the seat concession and the inheritors who were never part of the original agreement being denied. None of us can sell for £80 per share then we face settlement at perhaps £25 per share. What a charade!  Given the Club were apparently prepared to settle for holders of 1,000 shares it seems farcical that they didn't look to settle for holders of 4 shares with all the attendant administration of all these ongoing transfers and rather than having sent polite communications to all addresses just bombarded us with the doubtless ridiculously costly Rule 9 waiver legalese. How is any of this approach logical?

Shefs' comments don't take into account the latest WBA deal which perhaps suggest that something like £50 to £60 per share maybe more appropriate.

Robust fan consultation should take place to raise these concerns and protect the interests of fan shareholders 

 

  

Leaving aside the fact that we’re now into year two of the three-year shareholder agreement, I’m going to presume that the arithmetic in your opening comment can be interpreted as, in accountants speak, a rounding error!

Your reference to differential treatment is, of course, complete nonsense, however you choose to spin it now. The offer documents were explicit, “seat for life” meant exactly what it said on the tin. That benefit would be lost upon the passing of the original shareholder.

The beneficiaries are, just like any other shareholder, entitled to sell the shares at any point, at any price of their choosing. Yes, it’s a challenge, especially given the context of the company’s shareholding structure, but not impossible.

I’m certainly not here to justify the decisions taken by the company directors, back in 2022 / 2023. I have expressed my views about this previously, and have no intention of repeating them again here.

Given the genesis of this deal, together with the subsequent agreement between the principle shareholders, consultation of the type you’re suggesting was never a realistic option. 

[essex canary 496]

1 hour ago, GMF said:

 

Your reference to differential treatment is, of course, complete nonsense, however you choose to spin it now. The offer documents were explicit, “seat for life” meant exactly what it said on the tin. That benefit would be lost upon the passing of the original shareholder.

 

Clearly if that was the case they wouldn't have had a need to go back to it in 2011. Given that the 2002 document stated fans are 'encouraged to retain' it implied that for 1,000 an 'encouragement to retain' would be offered at all times. Creativity on McNally's part and ultimately to his personal benefit in terms of his bonus at fans  expense would be my conclusion. Clearly differential in regards to where we are now and both ageist and sexist in impact. 

It offends the Club ethos of being "family" in nature too with the subsequent inheritor having no say in the matter and simply being expected to pick up the pieces for no benefit. Now the Club adds insult to injury to female supporters in this situation by claiming misogyny within the AD Group.

 

 

Edited March 13 by essex canary

[Duncan Edwards 2,237]

Ffs. Let it go.

Alive: Ticket

Dead: No ticket

Inheritor: No ticket. The person who had a ticket “for life” has expired. 
 

Further Explanation (again): It wasn’t a ticket “forever”. It was for the person’s life. Sadly, he died. And so did the right to the free ticket. 🐦

 

Edited March 14 by Duncan Edwards
Well that didn’t work..

[JonnyJonnyRowe 446]

7 hours ago, shefcanary said:

So Tilly, given Attanasio bought at £25, he really has got a bargain, if now shares are regularly selling at £80 a pop.

Its not really a great comparison though is it.

Between somebody wanting to buy 4 shares for their husbands 60th birthday, or so they can attend AGMs and get a glossy annual report through the post once a year, and somebody who is taking on the weight of expectation associated with a significant or majority shareholding, and essentially all current and future financial liabilities.

Somebody buying 4 shares for £320 isn't really going to give a great deal of consideration to the value of the business, they are just willing to pay that £80 so that they get those 4 shares and not some other Tom, Richard or Harry. There are plenty of people who like the idea of owning 4 shares, and with enough money to buy those 4 shares. There are much fewer people who have the money to buy 40% of the shares in issue, and a tiny fraction of those the slightest bit interested in doing so.

Edited March 14 by JonnyJonnyRowe

[JonnyJonnyRowe 446]

5 hours ago, essex canary said:

None of us can sell for £80 per share then we face settlement at perhaps £25 per share.

Why can't you sell for £80 per share?

What is stopping you listing your 1000 shares at £80 per share on the Canaries Trust website, and seeing if you get an offer?

Or, perhaps, listing 10 lots of 100 shares at £80 per share. Or even 100 lots of 10 shares at £80 per share.

Forgive me if I've missed something here, but what part of the agreement when you purchased your shares prohibits you from seeking to sell at that price, or obliges you at this point in your ownership to sell at £25?

[wcorkcanary 4,334]

6 hours ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

Why can't you sell for £80 per share?

What is stopping you listing your 1000 shares at £80 per share on the Canaries Trust website, and seeing if you get an offer?

Or, perhaps, listing 10 lots of 100 shares at £80 per share. Or even 100 lots of 10 shares at £80 per share.

Forgive me if I've missed something here, but what part of the agreement when you purchased your shares prohibits you from seeking to sell at that price, or obliges you at this point in your ownership to sell at £25?

His answer to this will be an Ethics masterclass in wriggle and squeak. If he doesnt ignore such a direct and difficult(for him) to answer, question. As Duncano so kindly reminded us, this is the man who refuses to grasp the meaning of 'for life'......which is the root of all his anti club whining. He's transparent, disingenuous and frankly a fackin dull boor who would be the first to be asked to leave an overcrowded lifeboat.

[Greavsy 2,415]

1 hour ago, wcorkcanary said:

His answer to this will be an Ethics masterclass in wriggle and squeak. If he doesnt ignore such a direct and difficult(for him) to answer, question. As Duncano so kindly reminded us, this is the man who refuses to grasp the meaning of 'for life'......which is the root of all his anti club whining. He's transparent, disingenuous and frankly a fackin dull boor who would be the first to be asked to leave an overcrowded lifeboat.

Morning corkio, hope you are well! 

[wcorkcanary 4,334]

4 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

Morning corkio, hope you are well! 

Good Morning  Greavsyo,thankyou for asking, i am indeed well  and rested, after an extended jaunt in the east (no, not yarmouth). i made a little pact with myself to read but not post while im away, despite having excellent wifi in my beach house ,  on an island close to the Cambodian border with Thailand. I trust you and yours are also in fine fettle , and enjoying our recent resurgence. i must say it was very odd to be watching city kick off at 10pm local time on a saturday night.

I see Ethics has kept up his ridiculous campaign , like a spurned lover , bitter but needy, jealous and snide, lookng for negativity where none exists ....except in his gollumesque fantasy world. He is now a figure of ridicule , not the respected shareholder he sees when he looks in his untruthful mirror. a laughing stock (and shares).

[essex canary 496]

9 hours ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

Why can't you sell for £80 per share?

What is stopping you listing your 1000 shares at £80 per share on the Canaries Trust website, and seeing if you get an offer?

Or, perhaps, listing 10 lots of 100 shares at £80 per share. Or even 100 lots of 10 shares at £80 per share.

Forgive me if I've missed something here, but what part of the agreement when you purchased your shares prohibits you from seeking to sell at that price, or obliges you at this point in your ownership to sell at £25?

Because I would saturate the market, likely to take 10 years or so and lose my ongoing benefit as soon as selling the first tranche.

[Kathy 733]

1 hour ago, wcorkcanary said:

Good Morning  Greavsyo,thankyou for asking, i am indeed well  and rested, after an extended jaunt in the east (no, not yarmouth). i made a little pact with myself to read but not post while im away, despite having excellent wifi in my beach house ,  on an island close to the Cambodian border with Thailand. I trust you and yours are also in fine fettle , and enjoying our recent resurgence. i must say it was very odd to be watching city kick off at 10pm local time on a saturday night.

I see Ethics has kept up his ridiculous campaign , like a spurned lover , bitter but needy, jealous and snide, lookng for negativity where none exists ....except in his gollumesque fantasy world. He is now a figure of ridicule , not the respected shareholder he sees when he looks in his untruthful mirror. a laughing stock (and shares).

Let's hope nobody on the board has a pet rabbit.

[GMF 746]

12 hours ago, essex canary said:

Clearly if that was the case they wouldn't have had a need to go back to it in 2011. Given that the 2002 document stated fans are 'encouraged to retain' it implied that for 1,000 an 'encouragement to retain' would be offered at all times. 

I’m deliberately ignoring your unsubstantiated rhetoric and concentrating on the first part of your reply.

Whatever happened in 2011 was a private matter between the Club and the AD’s. The fact that they collectively agreed to it, and signed papers to that effect, makes a nonsense of your suggestion.

Notwithstanding that, the share offer document was quite clear, the subscriber benefits were listed twice, and referred to in documents definitions as detailed on page 17 of the offer document, and, whilst you are perfectly correct in highlighting the specific reference to “the Board intends to encourage potential investors to subscribe and retain ordinary shares subscribed under the Offer”, you seem to have conveniently stopped reading at that point. The following sentence is quite clear, “Accordingly, the benefits are personal to the subscribers and may not be transferred.”

[GMF 746]

35 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Because I would saturate the market, likely to take 10 years or so and lose my ongoing benefit as soon as selling the first tranche.

Really?

Respectfully, I beg to differ….

[essex canary 496]

26 minutes ago, GMF said:

I’m deliberately ignoring your unsubstantiated rhetoric and concentrating on the first part of your reply.

Whatever happened in 2011 was a private matter between the Club and the AD’s. The fact that they collectively agreed to it, and signed papers to that effect, makes a nonsense of your suggestion.

Notwithstanding that, the share offer document was quite clear, the subscriber benefits were listed twice, and referred to in documents definitions as detailed on page 17 of the offer document, and, whilst you are perfectly correct in highlighting the specific reference to “the Board intends to encourage potential investors to subscribe and retain ordinary shares subscribed under the Offer”, you seem to have conveniently stopped reading at that point. The following sentence is quite clear, “Accordingly, the benefits are personal to the subscribers and may not be transferred.”

Would the last sentence reasonably be interpreted as applying upon death?  If so a sensible approach would have been to have spelt out that circumstance in more detail then rather than go back to it 9 years later with another ambiguous statement in a huge block of text referring to the commercial seat and adding the rider 'at full price'. Highly creative in favour of it's author who doubtless boosted his own bonus as a result.

[essex canary 496]

2 hours ago, wcorkcanary said:

Good Morning  Greavsyo,thankyou for asking, i am indeed well  and rested, after an extended jaunt in the east (no, not yarmouth). i made a little pact with myself to read but not post while im away, despite having excellent wifi in my beach house ,  on an island close to the Cambodian border with Thailand. I trust you and yours are also in fine fettle , and enjoying our recent resurgence. i must say it was very odd to be watching city kick off at 10pm local time on a saturday night.

I see Ethics has kept up his ridiculous campaign , like a spurned lover , bitter but needy, jealous and snide, lookng for negativity where none exists ....except in his gollumesque fantasy world. He is now a figure of ridicule , not the respected shareholder he sees when he looks in his untruthful mirror. a laughing stock (and shares).

I guess you can enlighten us on how a Group with 4 (16%) female members plus an ex- Club Chairman now Vice President could possibly be labelled as 'misogynistic' by the Club hierarchy?

[GMF 746]

8 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Would the last sentence reasonably be interpreted as applying upon death?  If so a sensible approach would have been to have spelt out that circumstance in more detail then rather than go back to it 9 years later with another ambiguous statement in a huge block of text referring to the commercial seat and adding the rider 'at full price'. Highly creative in favour of its author who doubtless boosted his own bonus as a result.

Clearly, yes, as the beneficiary was NOT the original subscriber to the shares.