Club financial analysis

[wcorkcanary 4,774]

36 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

"Just one more thing..." actually. 😉

 

He gets pretty much everything  wrong. Mr Muddle. 

[wcorkcanary 4,774]

31 minutes ago, GMF said:

Discussions of this nature aren’t going to be discussed on a forum like this. It’s simply not how business is handled. 

And that Ladies and gentlemen is why Essex is persona non grata. No class, discretion or it seems sense of decorum. He thinks of himself as a ' disruptor, ' that asks the ' tough questions'. everyone else thinks he's an inappropriate, shoite stirring , bitter, petty ، money grabbing Charlatan. 

In my life ,I've come across a few Kevs,  their keenness to point out perceived wrong is often an attempt to hide their own incompetence,  in kevs case, thinking he could change a contract after signing...oh and failing the basics to secure training ground bond issue. This has left him bereft,.... it can't be kevs fault. But it is. And so we end up with this...a fool obsessed  with money and a senior officer at the,club who happens to be female.  All a bid sad and  weird. She doesn't fancy you kev and guess what,  neither does anybody else. Have you ever considered how petty and shallow you look? Of course not. Have a look , a proper one, no one is unsaveable, but you are beginning to look  beyond economical repair. 

 

Edited November 5 by wcorkcanary

[essex canary 621]

36 minutes ago, GMF said:

Discussions of this nature aren’t going to be discussed on a forum like this. It’s simply not how business is handled. 

Perhaps the Trust's Treasurer and SP member  communicating on here without clarifying whether viewpoints are personal or organisational is itself not conducive to resolving the Kafkaeesque Labyrinth snail paced club business model as it relates to fans? 

Edited November 5 by essex canary

[wcorkcanary 4,774]

5 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Perhaps the Trust's Treasurer and SP member  communicating on here without clarifying whether viewpoints are personal or organisational is itself not conducive to resolving the Kafkaeesque Labyrinth snail paced club business model as it relates to fans? 

Perhaps the above poster( thats you kev) should get a life.... enjoy it while it's there kid. Wise up, go for a walk, tell someone you love that you do, before it's too late. The good ship Dack is sinking. Bon Voyage. 

[essex canary 621]

14 minutes ago, wcorkcanary said:

Perhaps the above poster( thats you kev) should get a life.... enjoy it while it's there kid. Wise up, go for a walk, tell someone you love that you do, before it's too late. The good ship Dack is sinking. Bon Voyage. 

Anyone who wants to extol the virtues of today's Governance within the UK relative to 50 years ago needs to explain the Horizon scandal and our polluted rivers. On yer bike!

[GMF 1,007]

21 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Perhaps the Trust's Treasurer and SP member  communicating on here without clarifying whether viewpoints are personal or organisational is itself not conducive to resolving the Kafkaeesque Labyrinth snail paced club business model as it relates to fans? 

The Trust has its own account on here. It really shouldn’t need explaining every time in what capacity I’m posting on here.

[TIL 1010 5,242]

1 hour ago, GMF said:

Discussions of this nature aren’t going to be discussed on a forum like this. It’s simply not how business is handled. 

This is the only outlet left for him to vent his agenda but surely that is no surprise based on past antics. He seems to have gone quiet these days on his exchange of correspondence with his local MP who he viewed  as someone who would entertain him.

[essex canary 621]

37 minutes ago, GMF said:

The Trust has its own account on here. It really shouldn’t need explaining every time in what capacity I’m posting on here.

It is far from clear about what is funnelled into any supporter meetings or the feeder mechanisms for doing so. It is one month since the Club celebrated it's Mental Health Day and a the EDP ran a story concerning a supporter with accessibility issues - a Doctor no less - had been on the season ticket waiting list for 21 years with the matter finally solved by Jake Humphrey no less and no comment from any Club official.

The Trust should celebrate Guy Fawkes day by strategically placing a Rocket up the Club's rear end. Then again it may need to service it's own rear end first. Of course the same should be said of the issues relating to shareholding and the AGM and the financial abuse connected with same which have in no way been revised in 21 years. 

Can the Trust inspire Attanasio to solve Norforkin Good? Happy to discuss tonight in Sheffield.

[essex canary 621]

13 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

This is the only outlet left for him to vent his agenda but surely that is no surprise based on past antics. He seems to have gone quiet these days on his exchange of correspondence with his local MP who he viewed  as someone who would entertain him.

That local MP seemed to solve his mortgage problems of earlier this year, ironically raised  by Starmer at PMQs, by becoming a part time MP and earning an extra £200k a year from other jobs. 

Despite all the heart rending communications he gave me about compensation for local flooding and the postmasters, the victims or at least many of them are still waiting. I will mark his card shortly.

[wcorkcanary 4,774]

18 minutes ago, essex canary said:

That local MP seemed to solve his mortgage problems of earlier this year, ironically raised  by Starmer at PMQs, by becoming a part time MP and earning an extra £200k a year from other jobs. 

Despite all the heart rending communications he gave me about compensation for local flooding and the postmasters, the victims or at least many of them are still waiting. I will mark his card shortly.

Which in plain language translates to..... he saw me for what I was and has now decided to ignore me, but being a petty, childish cont, I'll try and drag his reputation through the mud along with anyone else who doesn't give me what I want.  As usual, Kevin Dack. 

[essex canary 621]

37 minutes ago, wcorkcanary said:

Which in plain language translates to..... he saw me for what I was and has now decided to ignore me, but being a petty, childish cont, I'll try and drag his reputation through the mud along with anyone else who doesn't give me what I want.  As usual, Kevin Dack. 

It means he has nothing to say until his new leader gets into her stride at which point he will do his best parrot and nodding dog impression.

And don't use my name on here without revealing your own CRETIN.

Edited November 5 by essex canary

[wcorkcanary 4,774]

3 minutes ago, essex canary said:

It means he has nothing to say until his new leader gets into her stride at which point he will do his best parrot and nodding dog impression.

And don't use my name on here without revealing your own CRETIN.

Dear Kev, go swivel. Ps you're my very  own pet Cretin. How can I have the same name as you.  Been calling you kev  for ages, does it bother you only now because you're being nailed left,  right and center, even bloodsucking MPs can't be bothered with you. 

I believe you outed yourself on some paperwork you photographed  and  then posted on here. Silly boy.  How else would I know your name? You're so obsessed you don't clear up after yourself...not my fault that youre as sloppy in your security as you are in you're posting....  Now THAT IS CRETINOUS.  

Anyone I have pmed on here knows my name..... because they have showed Class, discretion and trustworthiness.  Hence Wolfo,Diane and Greavsyo  oh and  Nuttyo Nigelisimus., could all divulge, but I bet they won't. There are reasons you aren't privy to much anymore, you've shoite your own bed kev. Dack to basics boy. !!  Learn to clean up your own mess. Dack to basics. Or is it Dack to the Future Part zzzzzzzz. 

 

[A Load of Squit 6,260]

Dackety Dack (don't talk back).

 

[PurpleCanary 6,369]

4 hours ago, essex canary said:

What would you call that which @PurpleCanary described?

I don't regard what I described as "financial abuse."

[GMF 1,007]

11 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

I don't regard what I described as "financial abuse."

It’s not financial abuse at all, unless you’re stretching the definition of, stealing their identity, adding your name to their bank accounts, controlling their access to their money, or stealing their assets.

Is that the russell of straws being clutched, I hear? 

[Google Bot 3,922]

3 hours ago, GMF said:

The Trust has its own account on here. It really shouldn’t need explaining every time in what capacity I’m posting on here.

Is it not more about representation than capacity?  If Zoe came on and said she didn't think Knapper was up to the job, is that unrelated to her capacity as an exec at the club?

[essex canary 621]

49 minutes ago, GMF said:

It’s not financial abuse at all, unless you’re stretching the definition of, stealing their identity, adding your name to their bank accounts, controlling their access to their money, or stealing their assets.

Is that the russell of straws being clutched, I hear? 

According to the attached 'Economic Abuse' may be more appropriate in the context of inheritor AD's in that the money is suddenly earning nothing and there is no exit strategy that can be completed quickly and efficiently alongside never having had like others any feasible Preference Share options.

[GMF 1,007]

Change the record @essex canary. You repeatedly saying that isn’t going to alter the outcome. You’re trying to renegotiate the terms of the original share offer document for your own personal benefit, however you try to dress it up.

[essex canary 621]

27 minutes ago, GMF said:

Change the record @essex canary. You repeatedly saying that isn’t going to alter the outcome. You’re trying to renegotiate the terms of the original share offer document for your own personal benefit, however you try to dress it up.

You are avoiding the main issue. @PurpleCanary states that "minority shareholders have been done down'. You appear to be agreeing with him. What are you agreeing to exactly? It doesn’t create a huge problem for those with single figure shareholders because the Match Bargaining Facility is clearly adequate for purpose though you could argue that it may depress prices offered though no obvious sign at present.

What is crystal clear though is that with 1,000 shares the Match Bargaining Facility isn't adequate for purpose therefore it is 'Economic Abuse' because timely and best settlement are not facilitated by what is on offer.

Besides the way to drive the situation in which I pay for my seat in future is for the Club to release the economic resources on the same basis that they did for Michael Foulger. The financial returns I then get elsewhere would then finance my seat. That is perfectly fair enough isn't it and should be an expectation if desired.Though I would defend the rights of inheritors ahead of myself for reasons that are obvious to me (young people with mortgages and young children) though seemingly not to you who appears to be more focussed on hair splitting.

 

Edited November 5 by essex canary

[wcorkcanary 4,774]

27 minutes ago, essex canary said:

According to the attached 'Economic Abuse' may be more appropriate in the context of inheritor AD's in that the money is suddenly earning nothing and there is no exit strategy that can be completed quickly and efficiently alongside never having had like others any feasible Preference Share options.

You do know that any idiot, even you ,can write a wiki entry don't you.  ? Go Dack and try again. Dack to the beginning, Dack to the days when you'd glibly post your own name.  Go Dack and have an old look yourself Kev. Then get Dack to me and tell me you didn't out yourself. Gonna go 'Angle the Dusk' now ,two Dicentrarchus Labrax required for tomorrow.  Be Dack later. X 

[Canario 268]

16 minutes ago, wcorkcanary said:

You do know that any idiot, even you ,can write a wiki entry don't you.  ? Go Dack and try again. Dack to the beginning, Dack to the days when you'd glibly post your own name.  Go Dack and have an old look yourself Kev. Then get Dack to me and tell me you didn't out yourself. Gonna go 'Angle the Dusk' now ,two Dicentrarchus Labrax required for tomorrow.  Be Dack later. X 

From polluted waters Corkio?!

[wcorkcanary 4,774]

1 hour ago, Canario said:

From polluted waters Corkio?!

Blue Flag beach, doesn't come much cleaner in these parts. 

[GMF 1,007]

@essex canary I haven’t avoided answering anything. If you’d been paying attention, and had a modest understanding of English, you would be capable of understanding my thoughts on this. I’m not going to repeat them again for your benefit.

Bitter experience tells me that answering your questions usually results in no acknowledgement of any answers given, and yet more questions and whataboutery from you.

I’ve answered your questions about the matched bargain trading facility previously. No one has ever tried selling 1,000 shares before, so quite how you can say it doesn’t work is beyond me. Nevertheless, I’ve also told you in private that the most shares previously sold was 350 in a single lot, although the buyer subsequently decided to split it up with two other friends.

As a wider observation, the problem isn’t with the matched bargain arrangement itself, it usually works fine, but it doesn’t have any influence on the physical shareholding split across the company. As much as you might like to blame us for your perceived inability to offload your shares quickly, that has far greater impact on the larger holdings. Arguably more so now following the recent allotments.

The Club had little influence on which parties NG approached initially during their acquisition of the minority shareholdings, so your reference to MF is wholly inappropriate in the circumstances.

The subsequent allotments were approved by shareholders, via supervision of the Takeover Panel. This cannot be set aside retrospectively, as you’ve previously stated.

Whether there’s a subsequent offer to minorities remains unclear.

[essex canary 621]

1 hour ago, wcorkcanary said:

You do know that any idiot, even you ,can write a wiki entry don't you.  ? Go Dack and try again. Dack to the beginning, Dack to the days when you'd glibly post your own name.  Go Dack and have an old look yourself Kev. Then get Dack to me and tell me you didn't out yourself. Gonna go 'Angle the Dusk' now ,two Dicentrarchus Labrax required for tomorrow.  Be Dack later. X 

 

3 minutes ago, GMF said:

@essex canary I haven’t avoided answering anything. If you’d been paying attention, and had a modest understanding of English, you would be capable of understanding my thoughts on this. I’m not going to repeat them again for your benefit.

Bitter experience tells me that answering your questions usually results in no acknowledgement of any answers given, and yet more questions and whataboutery from you.

I’ve answered your questions about the matched bargain trading facility previously. No one has ever tried selling 1,000 shares before, so quite how you can say it doesn’t work is beyond me. Nevertheless, I’ve also told you in private that the most shares previously sold was 350 in a single lot, although the buyer subsequently decided to split it up with two other friends.

As a wider observation, the problem isn’t with the matched bargain arrangement itself, it usually works fine, but it doesn’t have any influence on the physical shareholding split across the company. As much as you might like to blame us for your perceived inability to offload your shares quickly, that has far greater impact on the larger holdings. Arguably more so now following the recent allotments.

The Club had little influence on which parties NG approached initially during their acquisition of the minority shareholdings, so your reference to MF is wholly inappropriate in the circumstances.

The subsequent allotments were approved by shareholders, via supervision of the Takeover Panel. This cannot be set aside retrospectively, as you’ve previously stated.

Whether there’s a subsequent offer to minorities remains unclear.

Accepted that it isnt about blaming fan representatives exactly but it is about the fact they should be in a position to make relevant and supportive representations to the Club and be listened to seriously albeit that I also ought to be in a position to do that myself also. But they appear to have the greater influence whether rightly or wrongly.

The issues re your observations there are: 

1. Attanasio has been a Director of the Club for sometime now therefore he must have some responsibilities himself for equitable treatment of shareholders in that regard and act accordingly.

2. To use another word you used recently the MBF clearly hasn't the 'capacity' to handle 1 AD seeking exit let alone multiple AD's so again a different decision from the Club should have been / still be forthcoming. It doesn't take a practical case to demonstrate that. It is obvious already.

3. Aside from ridiculously low voter turnout, the Waivers appear to be supported by the ED displaying a Conflict of Interest Breach that should call into question the legitimacy of the process. 

4. The volatile nature of the Club's finances over the last 6 years reinforces the unfairness for an inheritor.

5. Kevin Rye of the Fan Engagement Network has today issued a submission to Government representatives on the issue of the definition of Consultation v Engagement in connection with the Football Governance Bill and suggested that standards for bigger clubs need to be far higher. 

A Club such with NCFC'S history should be able to listen to these issues from fan representatives in an appropriate way and act accordingly. Why is that so difficult?

[wcorkcanary 4,774]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

 

Accepted that it isnt about blaming fan representatives exactly but it is about the fact they should be in a position to make relevant and supportive representations to the Club and be listened to seriously albeit that I also ought to be in a position to do that myself also. But they appear to have the greater influence whether rightly or wrongly.

The issues re your observations there are: 

1. Attanasio has been a Director of the Club for sometime now therefore he must have some responsibilities himself for equitable treatment of shareholders in that regard and act accordingly.

2. To use another word you used recently the MBF clearly hasn't the 'capacity' to handle 1 AD seeking exit let alone multiple AD's so again a different decision from the Club should have been / still be forthcoming. It doesn't take a practical case to demonstrate that. It is obvious already.

3. Aside from ridiculously low voter turnout, the Waivers appear to be supported by the ED displaying a Conflict of Interest Breach that should call into question the legitimacy of the process. 

4. The volatile nature of the Club's finances over the last 6 years reinforces the unfairness for an inheritor.

5. Kevin Rye of the Fan Engagement Network has today issued a submission to Government representatives on the issue of the definition of Consultation v Engagement in connection with the Football Governance Bill and suggested that standards for bigger clubs need to be far higher. 

A Club such with NCFC'S history should be able to listen to these issues from fan representatives in an appropriate way and act accordingly. Why is that so difficult?

I'm  Dack Kev!!   my mission a partial success, how's yours going ? No movement, no concessions ? Same old stuff regurgitated? You need to get Dack to your natural self,  spend some time engaging with nature,  learn it's habits and harvest its fruits. Cast your net wider, take off the Blinkers  , get your 20/20 vision Dack. 

Walks like a Dack,  looks like a Dack , quacks like a Dack.  ......

PS starting  your above post by admitting yet again that your wrong  is par for the course.  Get your mojo Dack Kev. Cos you'll be waiting to get your money Dack. 

 

Edited November 5 by wcorkcanary

[GMF 1,007]

@essex canary there you go, again, yet more questions and whataboutery from you, as predicted, with much repetition of old comments.

The fundamental driver here was always the injection of new working capital. As a consequence, shareholders have been a distant second so far, whether you, or I, like it or not. Repeatedly venting about that on here isn’t going to change anything.

 

[PurpleCanary 6,369]

To go at a slight tangent, The Guardian has just published a list of all the political campaign contributions made by owners of the major league sports franchises in the US from November 2020 to October 2024. There was one by Mark Attanasio, of the Milwaukee Brewers, in June 2022, of $5K to the Democrat-linked Getting Stuff Done PAC.

Edited November 6 by PurpleCanary

[Robert N. LiM 6,234]

1 hour ago, PurpleCanary said:

There was one by Mark Attanasio, of the Milwaukee Brewers, in June 2022, of $5m to the Democrat-linked Getting Stuff Done PAC.

Money well spent

[Google Bot 3,922]

1 hour ago, PurpleCanary said:

There was one by Mark Attanasio, of the Milwaukee Brewers, in June 2022, of $5m to the Democrat-linked Getting Stuff Done PAC.

What's his driver to throw $5m into a political campaign then? Seems like a mad amount of money to me and I can't see why he'd do that, it can't be correct can it?!

[Robert N. LiM 6,234]

5 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

What's his driver to throw $5m into a political campaign then? Seems like a mad amount of money to me and I can't see why he'd do that, it can't be correct can it?!

It's change to him, less than half a Crnac. I guess it's the price of being an influential person in US society.