Jump to content
Soldier on

Attanasio investing in Benfica ….

Recommended Posts

Not sure about anyone else but personally I don’t really approve of or like multi club ownership. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Under S&J we did get a vote on Attanasio, only with a financial gun to our head which tells the story both in terms of financial management and fan involvement.

 

 

This is absolute rubbish. No one put a gun against anyone’s head. You were more than entitled not to vote in favour of the waiver. That others chose to is how democracy works even in shareholding . 
 

The cause of the need to vote was Takeover rules . There for a very good reason- to protect minority shareholders . As a body the minority  shareholders agreed to the waiver. The fact others didn’t want to was up to them but the majority won the day. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being connected with Benfica will bring many benefits, considering just how good their academy is.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Graham Paddons Beard said:

This is absolute rubbish. No one put a gun against anyone’s head. You were more than entitled not to vote in favour of the waiver. That others chose to is how democracy works even in shareholding . 
 

The cause of the need to vote was Takeover rules . There for a very good reason- to protect minority shareholders . As a body the minority  shareholders agreed to the waiver. The fact others didn’t want to was up to them but the majority won the day. 

I don't often disagree with you, GPB, but Essex is right about this. And, yes, I don't often say that. If you voted for the waiver then Attanasio didn't have to make an offer to buy out the minority shareholders. And if you voted against the waiver then Attanasio scrapped the whole deal and minority shareholders lost any chance of him having to make that offer.

For any minority shareholder who wanted to have that offer made which ever way they voted ensured the opposite result.That was plainly not fair, which was a point, among others, I not only made here but in a lengthy submission to the Takeover Panel, whose primary role is to protect the rights of minority shareholders. I had success with one of my arguments but not with that most important one.

Edited by PurpleCanary
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

I don't often disagree with you, GPB, but Essex is right about this. And, yes, I don't often say that. If you voted for the waiver then Attanasio didn't have to make an offer to buy out the minority shareholders. And if you voted against the waiver then Attanasio scrapped the whole deal and minority shareholders lost any chance of him having to make that offer.

For any minority shareholder who wanted to have that offer made which ever way they voted ensured the opposite result.That was plainly not fair, which was a point, among others, I not only made here but in a lengthy submission to the Takeover Panel, whose primary role is to protect the rights of minority shareholders. I had success with one of my arguments but not with that most imporrtant one.

Any chance of elaborating on what was successful and what wasn’t ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

Benfica have the most profitable academy in the world.

This makes me seriously fear for our future on two fronts.

Firstly, he may have realised that we're essentially going to be a money pit and that trying to fund a promotion and establishing ourselves in the Premier League is going to require substantial investment with a high risk of no return, whereas Benfica is a safer bet.

Secondly, as Bethnal points out, if he ends up the majority shareholder in both clubs, it is more likely that Benfica will acquire our best academy products than us acquiring theirs, even if we end up establishing ourselves as a club that can cling on to 16th in the Premier League for a few seasons.

As mentioned on a previous thread. MA has created a method for external investors to invest in players and then gain dividends on their profits when sold. Benfica is a perfect fit for his group. He now has several options for those investors - low risk, medium risk, high risk wi the different stakes attached. I wouldn’t be surprised if he has a multi club investment opportunity I.e provide £50m for players and guaranteed return within 2 year, 5 year etc and that could be paid back from all clubs under his ownership. It’s a money maker where he is spreading the risk and guaranteeing odds for those looking to make money.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

You can't see our best 16 year olds wanting to go to worlds most profitable football academy?

Not sure why the 16 year olds care how profitable the academy is? Making it at Norwich would be as swift a route to the EPL if we follow through on the Knapper vision and they’d be better off jumping ship to be number 40 youth player at Chelsea or Citeh etc. if they want personal wealth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Commonsense said:

The Portuguese league is considerably stronger than the Scottish one. It is though dominated by 3 clubs , with 2 others who often participate in the Europa or Conference league.

I’m not sure considerably is justified but it’s very subjective.

Regardless the Championship is wealthier.

Edited by Monty13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MC_NCFC said:

MA has created a method for external investors to invest in players and then gain dividends on their profits when sold.

I thought third party ownership of players is banned in football?

Are you saying that he does this in Baseball, or that he has a legal method of doing this in football?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

I thought third party ownership of players is banned in football?

Are you saying that he does this in Baseball, or that he has a legal method of doing this in football?

I’ll copy you into an old thread with some explanation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

Not sure why the 16 year olds care how profitable the academy is? Making it at Norwich would be as swift a route to the EPL if we follow through on the Knapper vision and they’d be better off jumping ship to be number 40 youth player at Chelsea or Citeh etc. if they want personal wealth.

Most profitable because they are producing the best talent. 

About half the spine of the current Man City team came through at Benfica, and our best academy success stories in the past decade are Jacob Murphy getting a few minutes in the Champions League and Max Aarons sometimes being picked ahead of Adam Smith for Bournemouth? 

Come off it. There is wearing yellow tinted glasses, which I'm sure we can all be guilty of, and then there is being completely delusional. 

Edited by JonnyJonnyRowe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some Benfica fans are livid, they think that investments they made over 20 years ago (future performance isn't guaranteed, when the fun stops, stop) will be worthless and have vowed to write negative posts about the club on a daily basis.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

I don't often disagree with you, GPB, but Essex is right about this. And, yes, I don't often say that. If you voted for the waiver then Attanasio didn't have to make an offer to buy out the minority shareholders. And if you voted against the waiver then Attanasio scrapped the whole deal and minority shareholders lost any chance of him having to make that offer.

For any minority shareholder who wanted to have that offer made which ever way they voted ensured the opposite result.That was plainly not fair, which was a point, among others, I not only made here but in a lengthy submission to the Takeover Panel, whose primary role is to protect the rights of minority shareholders. I had success with one of my arguments but not with that most imporrtant one.

As you say PC we don’t often disagree but as a minority shareholder I didn’t feel a gun was at my head. 
 

I had an opportunity to vote against it. Obviously it was unlikely to have much affect but I had  that option. The fact that Atanasio would not have offered me the £25 or whatever the undisclosed value was it doesn’t  alter that fact. Should I want to sell my shares other avenues exist . 
 

We may have to agree to disagree on the phrase “gun to your head”. I dont think it was one . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
40 minutes ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

Most profitable because they are producing the best talent. 

About half the spine of the current Man City team came through at Benfica, and our best academy success stories in the past decade are Jacob Murphy getting a few minutes in the Champions League and Max Aarons sometimes being picked ahead of Adam Smith for Bournemouth? 

Come off it. There is wearing yellow tinted glasses, which I'm sure we can all be guilty of, and then there is being completely delusional. 

I’m aware but the point is they are the equivalent of Man City in Portugal. The best young Portuguese players go there and before U.K. rules relaxed on South America it was good stepping stone for talent into the PL who couldn’t qualify direct.

The way I see it any English player playing for Norwich who’s good enough will get snapped up by a bigger English fish. Any Norwich youth who isn’t of interest to them probably isn’t going to start at Benfica so is probably just as well off personally both financially and progressing in the Norwich first team if there’s a pathway.

I just don’t see many obvious scenarios where someone is too good for Norwich but chooses Benfica over a big English club?

Edited by Monty13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Graham Paddons Beard said:

As you say PC we don’t often disagree but as a minority shareholder I didn’t feel a gun was at my head. 
 

I had an opportunity to vote against it. Obviously it was unlikely to have much affect but I had  that option. The fact that Atanasio would not have offered me the £25 or whatever the undisclosed value was it doesn’t  alter that fact. Should I want to sell my shares other avenues exist . 
 

We may have to agree to disagree on the phrase “gun to your head”. I dont think it was one . 

Leaving aside the issue of our own shares surely it was a gun to our head in the more general sense that with the finances shot to pieces, Attanasio was at that stage a no brainer.

I am still firmly of the opinion that the Waiver should not have been rolled up in the issue. It wouldn't have been material to Attanasio's thought processes, it was offered to the majority of those holding 1,000 shares anyway (none of them took it because of lack of information on true share value). Some smaller holders may have wanted exit and/or the Club may have secured more information to clean up the shareholder base and have provided the opportunity for Attanasio to state clearly his longer term intentions on the near 20% minority holding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ulfotto said:

Not sure about anyone else but personally I don’t really approve of or like multi club ownership. 

We would all love to go back 30 years . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

The worst possible news. If there was anyone still out there who thought Attanasio was doing us a favour I'm afraid they've woken up to a reality check. 

200w.gif.185e95d9ce681cd2f1636e2113ef0614.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Leaving aside the issue of our own shares surely it was a gun to our head in the more general sense that with the finances shot to pieces, Attanasio was at that stage a no brainer.

I am still firmly of the opinion that the Waiver should not have been rolled up in the issue. It wouldn't have been material to Attanasio's thought processes, it was offered to the majority of those holding 1,000 shares anyway (none of them took it because of lack of information on true share value). Some smaller holders may have wanted exit and/or the Club may have secured more information to clean up the shareholder base and have provided the opportunity for Attanasio to state clearly his longer term intentions on the near 20% minority holding.

If Attanasio was a no brainer , how is that a gun to the head? 
 

Don’t forget the reason it was thus was the then majority shareholders wanting parity so a precise number of new shares were created. 
 

Cleaning up the shareholder base was not the intention. Our shares remain in the club and value in them was practically unchanged . Your shares in a non publicly traded company are only what someone else will give you in a private sale . 
 

The intention was a mechanism to obtain much needed finance . 
 

The waiver was , apparently , not expected by the club. Thats a bit hard to fathom. But the it was never the idea that we all got the same offer , and therefore parity went out the window  because other shares were unwittingly acquired by Attanasio 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Up and Away said:

English/European football clubs are attractive to US investors who want to invest in sport, as they are a lot cheaper than US alternatives - you need billions to invest in American football/baseball/basketball franchises.

The exit strategy, unless you own one of the biggest English clubs, will almost certainly be capital appreciation. You can buy into a decent sized English club for tens of millions, and if you are established in the PL, then you can sell for 5-10x what you have invested.

Attanasio now owns 40% of the ordinary shares of the club, for a total cash outlay of around £8m.  He has also invested £10m in preference shares, which is earning him £700k pa (7% interest rate).  

Using the £25/share price that Attanasio paid for his shares, this currently 'values' the club around £20m, which on the face of it is cheap. You would imagine a few years down the line, especially if PL status is regained, the club will be worth a lot more than Attanasio paid. 

It will be interesting to see if Attanasio brings in new investors or seeks to go it alone once Delia steps aside. The pension fund owning Ipswich have invested around £100m since the takeover, including around £20m per season to cover their overspend. The pension fund has not sold any of their shares to the new private equity investors. Instead, the PE investors have agreed to subscribe to £100m of new shares over the next five years. This means the pension fund will not need to increase their investment for some time. They have effectively de-risked their investment by bringing in other investors, in return for owning a smaller percentage of the club. Their exist strategy will be to sell on to someone else for a profit, same as I would expect it to be for Attanasio.  

I was agreeing with most of this until you started discussing the Binners. Can I please say yet again that the Pension Fund has not invested in the Binners, an Equity firm financed by the Pension Fund have. The Equity firm had to sell 40% of their Binners investment in order to meet the loan condition set by the Pension fund. 

Now as for Attanasio investing in Benfica, this is much more ambitious than I hoped. Excellent opportunity beckons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read more of this thread. IMO, sure the waiver was unconventional, but the former majority shareholders through poor governance had led to the situation. Minority shareholders should have called them out long before Attanasio came on the scene!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

I was agreeing with most of this until you started discussing the Binners. Can I please say yet again that the Pension Fund has not invested in the Binners, an Equity firm financed by the Pension Fund have. The Equity firm had to sell 40% of their Binners investment in order to meet the loan condition set by the Pension fund. 

Now as for Attanasio investing in Benfica, this is much more ambitious than I hoped. Excellent opportunity beckons.

Maybe a bad example. Was a more general point about whether Attanasio will look to bring in more investors. 

Benfica is certainly a bold move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

 

52 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

I was agreeing with most of this until you started discussing the Binners. Can I please say yet again that the Pension Fund has not invested in the Binners, an Equity firm financed by the Pension Fund have. The Equity firm had to sell 40% of their Binners investment in order to meet the loan condition set by the Pension fund. 

Now as for Attanasio investing in Benfica, this is much more ambitious than I hoped. Excellent opportunity beckons.

Correct . I used incorrect phraseology earlier in this thread but the point remains  Equity firm ORG ( who used Gamchanger 20 as a vehicle) have sold 40% to another PE firm . An exit strategy in operation. They bought low and sold higher in layman’s language. Buying off Evans was a distressed purchase which they have already made a return from .

Buying NCFC is anything but a distressed sale which makes it more complicated.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure why there's a bit of doom over this, surely an opportunity arises for us to take on a few promising Benfica youngsters, in the same way Watford have with Udinese? 

As stated they have one of the best academies in Europe, and would have been part of the thinking in bringing in Thorup.

We've moaned for years about 'little old Norwich' and our pauper owners, well this is how you progress in the modern game, people may not like that but you can't unring a bell.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Graham Paddons Beard said:

 

The waiver was , apparently , not expected by the club. Thats a bit hard to fathom. 

 

As the Club and the Board are surely one and the same it sure is hard to fathom. Just more NCFC gobbledegook.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, shefcanary said:

I've read more of this thread. IMO, sure the waiver was unconventional, but the former majority shareholders through poor governance had led to the situation. Minority shareholders should have called them out long before Attanasio came on the scene!

How on earth were minority shareholders supposed to do that?

The reason why I am no longer a member of the 1,000 share participation group is that you are not allowed to say boo to a goose where S&J are concerned.

How did your 4 share group get on? 

The problem is a little like suggesting to an elderly Aunt and Uncle that it may be advisable not to drive anymore but they carry on regardless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Soldier on said:

Any chance of elaborating on what was successful and what wasn’t ?

 

Edited by PurpleCanary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Soldier on said:

Any chance of elaborating on what was successful and what wasn’t ?

When the official documentation was published I emailed the Takeover Panel, saying I believed it had in two ways failed in its primary duty of protecting the interests of minority shareholders in a takeover.

Firstly, as explained above, by allowing the kind of Orwellian situation in which no matter which way you votoed on the issue of the waiver you were voting against having Attanasio being forced to offer to buy you out.

Secondly, that it was absurd of the Panel to categorise and accept Zoe Webber and Tom Smith as independent directors, able to give an unbiased view of the deal.

They are nothing of the kind. Webber was the CEO who negotiated the deal, so could under no circumstances be said to have a genuinely independent view. While Tom Smith was equally compromised not just by being Delia's nephew but also having been named as the likely inheritor of all her shares, and so potentially with a massive financial interest.

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Terminally Yellow said:

200w.gif.185e95d9ce681cd2f1636e2113ef0614.gif

There are some very intelligent, insightful comments on this thread. And this one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...