Club financial analysis

[essex canary 621]

8 minutes ago, Davidlingfield said:

Of course not - only after the fact.

Good stuff. It is the facts we like - at least some of us - rather than the hype.

[GMF 1,007]

2 hours ago, Davidlingfield said:

What actually happened is that MF actively touted his shares around, and a result MA was introduced to the Smiths by the advisors, Carteret Capital, who then acted for MA in MF’s share acquisition.

That’s a new name, and not one I’ve seen referenced before. Both MA’s US legal counsel, together with their UK legal counsel team, made no reference to that at the time of the initial share acquisition, so I’m interested in where you sourced it from?

Carteret Group were stated in both waiver documents as acting exclusively for the Company (NCFC) through its Independent Director (Zoe) and no one else in connection with the waiver.

This seems to contradict your comment?

[essex canary 621]

8 minutes ago, GMF said:

That’s a new name, and not one I’ve seen referenced before. Both MA’s US legal counsel, together with their UK legal counsel team, made no reference to that at the time of the initial share acquisition, so I’m interested in where you sourced it from?

Carteret Group were stated in both waiver documents as acting exclusively for the Company (NCFC) through its Independent Director (Zoe) and no one else in connection with the waiver.

This seems to contradict your comment?

Presumably Carteret could have has a relationship with MA initially then, after the introduction, Zoe got involved with Carteret to negotiate the waiver. That would seem to fit both.

Whether that qualifies as 'independent' and/or 'introductory', which would appear as contradictory in themselves, would then be a matter of conjecture. 

Transparency or Opaqueness?

[essex canary 621]

One puzzling thing is that if Preference Share Interest can't be paid until the P&L is back in surplus from £47million in the red that could take some time. The amount accrued could them be substantial by the time the Club are back in the PL such that it couldn't be paid then without undermining the PL investment needed. How will this conundrum be solved?

[GMF 1,007]

@essex canary Carteret Capital doesn’t seem to show up in a Google search, only Carteret Group. The  suggestion in your first post therefore seems unlikely, due to the potential conflict of interest, and given the expressed claim of independence from any other party in the subsequent documents.

As for your subsequent comment regarding the preference share dividend, it’s factually incorrect to reference a P&L profit.

A company has to have positive distributable reserves in its balance sheet to be able to pay dividends. A company can therefore have made an annual loss in its P&L but still have positive distributable reserves, thereby enabling it to pay dividends. The opposite is also true; a company may have made a small annual profit, but still have negative distributable reserves, which would prevent it from paying dividends.

Basic accounting principles 🙄

Edited November 3 by GMF

[essex canary 621]

43 minutes ago, GMF said:

@essex canary Carteret Capital doesn’t seem to show up in a Google search, only Carteret Group. The  suggestion in your first post therefore seems unlikely, due to the potential conflict of interest, and given the expressed claim of independence from any other party in the subsequent documents.

As for your subsequent comment regarding the preference share dividend, it’s factually incorrect to reference a P&L profit.

A company has to have positive distributable reserves in its balance sheet to be able to pay dividends. A company can therefore have made an annual loss in its P&L but still have positive distributable reserves, thereby enabling it to pay dividends. The opposite is also true; a company may have made a small annual profit, but still have negative distributable reserves, which would prevent it from paying dividends.

Basic accounting principles 🙄

The potential conflict of interest - the waiver document is in the authorship of somebody who claims within it that 'the Independent Director welcomes Norfolk's intentions in particular to observe the existing contractual and statutory employment rights of the Company.' I bet she does!

Thank you for the Accounting lecture which I can confirm is correct. Our negative cumulative distributable reserve is currently £47 million  it looks like it takes a further hit of roughly £7 million each year in 'Interest Payable' notwithstanding everything else. In your financial planning model, how do you propose that the distributable reserves are rendered 'positive' at any point in time to facilitate the Interest to be 'paid' (Other than perhaps upon dissolution of the Company)?

The suggestion you shared of the Interest never being paid could be true (at least whilst the Company is a Going Concern).

Edited November 3 by essex canary

[TIL 1010 5,243]

[GMF 1,007]

@essex canary you won’t have any arguments from me about the concept of an Independent Director in this context. My eyebrows headed upwards when I first read it and nothing since then has changed my opinion on it.

The situation on distributable reserves should be enhanced through the combination of player sales this summer and the ongoing debt to equity conversion, always presuming that we haven’t gone bat**** crazy on the expenditure side this season.

[essex canary 621]

9 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

Morning Columbo.

[TIL 1010 5,243]

2 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Morning Columbo.

[essex canary 621]

8 minutes ago, GMF said:

@essex canary you won’t have any arguments from me about the concept of an Independent Director in this context. My eyebrows headed upwards when I first read it and nothing since then has changed my opinion on it.

The situation on distributable reserves should be enhanced through the combination of player sales this summer and the ongoing debt to equity conversion, always presuming that we haven’t gone bat**** crazy on the expenditure side this season.

'Should be enhanced'?

Going back to that other thread I had the thought of asking whether me and my inheritor friend could convert our £25,000 to B Preference Shares. I would be slightly worse off, she would be considerably better off. 

My second thought is though that B Preference Share Interest is now history.

At least I have a season ticket I pay for in the intellectual City of Cambridge.

[essex canary 621]

1 hour ago, TIL 1010 said:

Indeed. Colombo used to be quite good on a Sunday Afternoon. This edition won't be.

[essex canary 621]

Have put in a call to **** Dastardly to ask if Muttley can 'do something'.

Now off to the King's Head for Lunch. Not that it is his head we need on a plate.

[essex canary 621]

On 03/11/2024 at 09:42, GMF said:

 

The situation on distributable reserves should be enhanced through the combination of player sales this summer and the ongoing debt to equity conversion, always presuming that we haven’t gone bat**** crazy on the expenditure side this season.

The debt to equity conversion will only save around £130,000 per month. That is trivial in context.

The 64,000 dollar question could be (given the identified Cash Flow Statement 2023/24 problems) whether the Cash Flow forward projections have been undertaken correctly. Based on explanations I would anticipate for 2025/26, Interest Payable (£6.8 million), Interest Paid (NIL).

That isn't helpful and if that is reality could be a 64,000 dollar question for senior staff too. My calculations maybe slightly adrift on that last statement.

 

[TIL 1010 5,243]

10 minutes ago, essex canary said:

 My calculations maybe slightly adrift on that last statement.

 

You are usually adrift on most things you say but thankfully there is always someone who comes along to correct your many errors.

[essex canary 621]

17 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

You are usually adrift on most things you say but thankfully there is always someone who comes along to correct your many errors.

Let us see who steps up to the plate. It won't be the Lieutenant.

[Google Bot 3,922]

On 02/11/2024 at 20:40, Davidlingfield said:

What actually happened is that MF actively touted his shares around, and a result MA was introduced to the Smiths by the advisors, Carteret Capital, who then acted for MA in MF’s share acquisition.

I thought the Webber's went out to find potential investors? Is it that as part of that process they contacted Carteret, who are based in the UK, who then got them into contact with Attanasio's? :-

"Carteret is an independent advisory firm identifying opportunities for clients worldwide across M&A, capital raising and operational efficiency projects. Our work is underpinned by leading-edge quantitative analysis and data modelling, providing unique insights and competitive advantages for our clients within the sports, professional services, retail, financial and public service sectors."

[Davidlingfield 72]

12 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

I thought the Webber's went out to find potential investors? Is it that as part of that process they contacted Carteret, who are based in the UK, who then got them into contact with Attanasio's? :-

"Carteret is an independent advisory firm identifying opportunities for clients worldwide across M&A, capital raising and operational efficiency projects. Our work is underpinned by leading-edge quantitative analysis and data modelling, providing unique insights and competitive advantages for our clients within the sports, professional services, retail, financial and public service sectors."

Carteret were made aware from MF’s side, not the Webbers.

[essex canary 621]

19 minutes ago, Davidlingfield said:

Carteret were made aware from MF’s side, not the Webbers.

Clearly Zoe was waylaid with the accounting calculations.

[shefcanary 2,943]

It's been said many times by Attanasio that he picked up on the opportunity via a cold call email a US Sports VC house circulated around their "interested" US clientele. Carteret were I'd suggest responsible for sending the information to that US Sports VC House, but I guess Zoe and even Stu may have had that email address in their own contacts.

[Soldier on 289]

Attanasio due to attend next weeks AGM. Curious to see if Ressler will be. Wonder if we will hear much about future direction or whether it will all be paying tribute to Delia and Michael .

[essex canary 621]

1 hour ago, Soldier on said:

Attanasio due to attend next weeks AGM. Curious to see if Ressler will be. Wonder if we will hear much about future direction or whether it will all be paying tribute to Delia and Michael .

No more than 80% on the latter.

[GMF 1,007]

2 hours ago, shefcanary said:

It's been said many times by Attanasio that he picked up on the opportunity via a cold call email a US Sports VC house circulated around their "interested" US clientele. Carteret were I'd suggest responsible for sending the information to that US Sports VC House, but I guess Zoe and even Stu may have had that email address in their own contacts.

Does it really matter who MF actually instructed to sell his shares? Ultimately, whoever it was, they would have approached a number of likeminded agents, who had clients across the globe.

The wider question for me, if Carteret were involved in the acquisition process, can they now be considered independent in terms of the waiver documents, as stated therein?

[Google Bot 3,922]

43 minutes ago, GMF said:

Does it really matter who MF actually instructed to sell his shares?

It does for me personally, I can't speak for anyone else.  But my concern with this is that we were told that MF approached the club and it was the Webber's who took it upon themselves to find investors, this all reported by media and various reports and interviews. 

If it turns out that MF was the one who went this route and then the likes of the Webber's jumped on it once there was a sniff of interest I think it's something that should be out there and known, as should this ownership be a success then it's MF that deserves the credit.

What does concern me is the breakdown between Archant and the club during this initial period of dealings, and whether they were going to report the 'real' route of these dealings vs what the club line which is that Foulger went to the club rather than seeking it himself.

Honestly, I think it's quite important as it's the trigger for a massive change at this club.

[PurpleCanary 6,369]

50 minutes ago, GMF said:

Does it really matter who MF actually instructed to sell his shares? Ultimately, whoever it was, they would have approached a number of likeminded agents, who had clients across the globe.

The wider question for me, if Carteret were involved in the acquisition process, can they now be considered independent in terms of the waiver documents, as stated therein?

If the Takeover Panel somehow manages to regard NCFC's lead negotiator throughout this whole affair as independent then I suspect it won't have a problem with Carteret...😍

[hogesar 10,733]

13 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

It does for me personally, I can't speak for anyone else.  But my concern with this is that we were told that MF approached the club and it was the Webber's who took it upon themselves to find investors, this all reported by media and various reports and interviews. 

If it turns out that MF was the one who went this route and then the likes of the Webber's jumped on it once there was a sniff of interest I think it's something that should be out there and known, as should this ownership be a success then it's MF that deserves the credit.

What does concern me is the breakdown between Archant and the club during this initial period of dealings, and whether they were going to report the 'real' route of these dealings vs what the club line which is that Foulger went to the club rather than seeking it himself.

Honestly, I think it's quite important as it's the trigger for a massive change at this club.

I really don't get the big deal. We know the Attanasio's + Delia & Michael have all thanked both Webber's for their work involved in this. Who sent the first f*cking email seems as irrelevant as everything else Essex whines on about for selfish reasons.

This will be another opportunity for him to have a sexist rant at Zoe's expense, I suspect

[GMF 1,007]

4 minutes ago, hogesar said:

I really don't get the big deal. We know the Attanasio's + Delia & Michael have all thanked both Webber's for their work involved in this. Who sent the first f*cking email seems as irrelevant

I’m inclined to agree. It was over two years ago, MA is now fully on board and has introduced significant working capital into the Club. Surely that’s more relevant than which party introduced him to MF in the first place? 

[NewNestCarrow 290]

10 minutes ago, GMF said:

I’m inclined to agree. It was over two years ago, MA is now fully on board and has introduced significant working capital into the Club. Surely that’s more relevant than which party introduced him to MF in the first place? 

If you have an agenda then 'who did what & when' is always important.

[TIL 1010 5,243]

5 hours ago, essex canary said:

Let us see who steps up to the plate. It won't be the Lieutenant.

Columbo deals in evidence and facts so that counts you out on most things.

[GMF 1,007]

3 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

Columbo deals in evidence and facts so that counts you out on most things.

He was also stuck in the 1970’s, a bit like someone else…