Club financial analysis

[Google Bot 3,922]

4 minutes ago, Robert N. LiM said:

It's change to him, less than half a Crnac.

He's not a money thrower though, the only way he'd put that kind of money into something political would be if there was a serious kickback for himself, or something massively important to his heart. 

I don't know what the campaign is for, but I just fail to believe it's true, and if it is then he's not the character I thought he was.

Edited November 6 by Google Bot

[PurpleCanary 6,369]

10 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 is common in the US. For example, Miriam Adelson, owner of the Dallas Mavericks, made more than 50 contributions, all to the Republicans. And 95 per cent of the contributions were to that party.

[PurpleCanary 6,369]

5 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

It is common in the US. For example, Miriam Adelson, owner of the Dallas Mavericks, made more than 50 contributions, all to the Republicans. And 95 per cent of the contributions were to that party.

Apologies. I misread the figure. it was only $5000!

Edited November 6 by PurpleCanary

[Robert N. LiM 6,233]

7 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Apologies. I misread the figure. it was only $5000!

Ha, so your instincts were right @Google Bot. Fair play.

[essex canary 621]

3 hours ago, GMF said:

@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.

 

It is only 4 years since the SP was set up apparently to engage/consult with supporters on all non-footballing issues. That is 4 years in which that disabled supporter could have had his issue resolved without needing to resort to Jake Humphrey. 

One minute you take your hat off to those who became AD'S, the next minute you suggest we should be guinea pigs through the MBF system. Sorry the supporter engagement/consultation structure should have dealt with that too including ensuring all families received equal treatment at the end of a 22 year life span.

Whatever the priority issues, Attanasio has had the same duty of care requirements as any other Director.

Edited November 6 by essex canary

[Soldier on 289]

24 minutes ago, essex canary said:

It is only 4 years since the SP was set up apparently to engage/consult with supporters on all non-footballing issues. That is 4 years in which that disabled supporter could have had his issue resolved without needing to resort to Jake Humphrey. 

One minute you take your hat off to those who became AD'S, the next minute you suggest we should be guinea pigs through the MBF system. Sorry the supporter engagement/consultation structure should have dealt with that too including ensuring all families received equal treatment at the end of a 22 year life span.

Whatever the priority issues, Attanasio has had the same duty of care requirements as any other Director.

Attanasio is attending next weeks AGM if you want to voice your concerns .

[essex canary 621]

15 minutes ago, Soldier on said:

Attanasio is attending next weeks AGM if you want to voice your concerns .

Absolutely! The fact that he and Zoe Webber are both up for re-election affords that opportunity. The latter is the one I would be most critical of though. It appears she was party to both breaking Humpty Dumpty then putting it back together again for which she expects credit whilst her leadership of the Fan Engagement function has been dire beyond belief.

Whether she has put Humpty Dumpty back together again is also a moot point. She appears to want to be the World's Mental Health Director but that hasn't gone too well either.

Edited November 6 by essex canary

[GMF 1,007]

@essex canary the hat tip is because of the significant amount contributed by the AD’s to the original share offer. It does, however, have to be viewed in the context of your free seat-for-life benefit that it enjoys.

Ultimately, all acquisitions, irrespective of their size, are in unlisted securities, with a high risk factor, which makes them potentially difficult to sell. Scapegoat the MBF all you like, but you’re failing to acknowledge the club’s shareholding breakdown which has far greater impact on the saleability of your shares.

[PurpleCanary 6,369]

2 hours ago, Soldier on said:

Attanasio is attending next weeks AGM if you want to voice your concerns .

If Attanasio is at the AGM then the obvious question to ask, which goes well beyond any particular questions about openness and accountability etc, is whether he intends to take the club/company private.

[shefcanary 2,943]

6 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

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 $5m to the Democrat-linked Getting Stuff Done PAC.

BBC also reporting that Trump has vowed to ensure PGA and LIV deal is done very quickly. I assume that Attanasio's investment in PGA will therefore pay off handsomely and relatively quickly.  

[GMF 1,007]

8 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

If Attanasio is at the AGM then the obvious question to ask, which goes well beyond any particular questions about openness and accountability etc, is whether he intends to take the club/company private.

Cue answer along the lines of Takeover Panel restrictions…. 😉

[TIL 1010 5,242]

3 hours ago, essex canary said:

It is only 4 years since the SP was set up apparently to engage/consult with supporters on all non-footballing issues. That is 4 years in which that disabled supporter could have had his issue resolved without needing to resort to Jake Humphrey. 

One minute you take your hat off to those who became AD'S, the next minute you suggest we should be guinea pigs through the MBF system. Sorry the supporter engagement/consultation structure should have dealt with that too including ensuring all families received equal treatment at the end of a 22 year life span.

Whatever the priority issues, Attanasio has had the same duty of care requirements as any other Director.

[GMF 1,007]

@TIL 1010 it’s all the SP’s fault that someone had been on the ST waiting list for a while.

Let’s ignore the real reason why that was so, as it’s more fun to stick wave instead….

Let’s also ignore GDPR, ask the Club for details of the full waiting list and, maybe suggest that there could be a purge of existing problematical STH’s to free up some more seats for those who’ve been waiting a while? 

[NewNestCarrow 290]

5 hours ago, Google Bot said:

He's not a money thrower though, the only way he'd put that kind of money into something political would be if there was a serious kickback for himself, or something massively important to his heart. 

I don't know what the campaign is for, but I just fail to believe it's true, and if it is then he's not the character I thought he was.

Why did (at least) five Milwaukee Brewers executives donate the maximum-allowed amount to the Speaker of the State Legislature? 

Why did Milwaukee Brewers spent over USD 1.5m on lobbying the State legislature?

Note: in 2023 the Brewers were awarded USD 365m of public funds for stadium renovation costs

[essex canary 621]

4 hours ago, GMF said:

@essex canary the hat tip is because of the significant amount contributed by the AD’s to the original share offer. It does, however, have to be viewed in the context of your free seat-for-life benefit that it enjoys.

Ultimately, all acquisitions, irrespective of their size, are in unlisted securities, with a high risk factor, which makes them potentially difficult to sell. Scapegoat the MBF all you like, but you’re failing to acknowledge the club’s shareholding breakdown which has far greater impact on the saleability of your shares.

I guess I should have realised in 2002 that their 3 middle categories were dead ducks that would never attract enough demand.

Had they offered a free ordinary seat for 400 shares being a Keir Starmer kind of guy (leaving aside the free clothing) I would have gone for that. Overall they would have done better in terms of fundraising and shareholder mix and there would have been more pressure on the inheritance issue.

Always the supporters fault isn't it, never theirs.

Edited November 6 by essex canary

[essex canary 621]

3 hours ago, GMF said:

@TIL 1010 it’s all the SP’s fault that someone had been on the ST waiting list for a while.

Let’s ignore the real reason why that was so, as it’s more fun to stick wave instead….

Let’s also ignore GDPR, ask the Club for details of the full waiting list and, maybe suggest that there could be a purge of existing problematical STH’s to free up some more seats for those who’ve been waiting a while? 

The real problem is the 'sounding board' for individual fans should take priority over the Club's sounding board for monetisation purposes.

[wcorkcanary 4,774]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

The real problem is the 'sounding board' for individual fans should take priority over the Club's sounding board for monetisation purposes.

Your poor tortured pathetic soul, all this good work you would do if only you weren't thought of as a liability,  pariah and all round self absorbed clown,  you can try to throw as much muck as you like and it'll have no effect you impotent little pest.   

[essex canary 621]

2 hours ago, wcorkcanary said:

Your poor tortured pathetic soul, all this good work you would do if only you weren't thought of as a liability,  pariah and all round self absorbed clown,  you can try to throw as much muck as you like and it'll have no effect you impotent little pest.   

Just trying to correct the distorted facts. @GMF  who has previously claimed that complementary seats were underpriced in the offer could tell me how much more than £10,000 he would have been prepared for a South Stand seat priced at £230 in 2002. Also what guarantees he would have wanted.

Please feel free to join in the game. 

I am now suspecting that only around half the 150,000 shares in private hands were acquired with a Premium. If so around 40% of those were AD'S some of whom were multi millionaires. He should doff his cap a little bit more than he has done to the others especially those who only signed up later through force of tragic circumstance.

Edited November 6 by essex canary

[GMF 1,007]

10 hours ago, essex canary said:

Just trying to correct the distorted facts. @GMF  who has previously claimed that complementary seats were underpriced in the offer

If that’s your intention, how about referring to what I actually said, rather than distorting it?

I haven’t ever said that the ‘seats for life’ were underpriced. What I’ve actually suggested was that if the original intention had been for them to be capable of being transferable, then they would have been priced higher than they were.

That's not the same point as you’ve suggested.

[wcorkcanary 4,774]

14 hours ago, essex canary said:

would have been more pressure on the inheritance issue.

By you? Everyone else read what they signed, you are just greedy. 

PS you are the only one with an inheritance issue, even the person you wanted to act for said " err no thanks,Kev, I understand  the rules". 

[essex canary 621]

1 hour ago, GMF said:

If that’s your intention, how about referring to what I actually said, rather than distorting it?

I haven’t ever said that the ‘seats for life’ were underpriced. What I’ve actually suggested was that if the original intention had been for them to be capable of being transferable, then they would have been priced higher than they were.

That's not the same point as you’ve suggested.

My opinion is that there was no scope for charging anyone more than £25,000 for any seat in 2002 even if they were rendered transferable given that the capital sum requested is 35 times the then purchasable annual price. By all means disagree if you wish but the basis of your disagreement would be helpful. Alternatively concede that your implication is unsustainable in the context of being capable of attracting any demand. 

What there would have been scope for is to market ordinary seats on the same principle as they did for luxury ones which would probably have raised the £1.5 million shortfall they had at the time and led to a much more balanced shareholder spread. How they would have applied the transferability clauses in that situation is a moot point but in my opinion more generosity would have been required. 

More research reveals that around 60,000 of the outstanding 150,000 shares in private individual minority hands were issues at the £1 nominal rate in the Chase era leaving only 90,000 in the S&J era that were charged a significant Premium. This means the Associate Directors are responsible collectively for around 33% of total public contributions to the Share Premium Account and individually for around 1.2% apiece. Therefore I believe that the seat value should still be continuing now for all contributing families and still have a while to run and that it constitutes 'economic abuse' where that is not the case.  

 

 

[wcorkcanary 4,774]

11 minutes ago, essex canary said:

My opinion is that there was no scope for charging anyone more than £25,000 for any seat in 2002 even if they were rendered transferable given that the capital sum requested is 35 times the then purchasable annual price. By all means disagree if you wish but the basis of your disagreement would be helpful. Alternatively concede that your implication is unsustainable in the context of being capable of attracting any demand. 

What there would have been scope for is to market ordinary seats on the same principle as they did for luxury ones which would probably have raised the £1.5 million shortfall they had at the time and led to a much more balanced shareholder spread. How they would have applied the transferability clauses in that situation is a moot point but in my opinion more generosity would have been required. 

More research reveals that around 60,000 of the outstanding 150,000 shares in private individual minority hands were issues at the £1 nominal rate in the Chase era leaving only 90,000 in the S&J era that were charged a significant Premium. This means the Associate Directors are responsible collectively for around 33% of total public contributions to the Share Premium Account and individually for around 1.2% apiece. Therefore I believe that the seat value should still be continuing now for all contributing families and still have a while to run and that it constitutes 'economic abuse' where that is not the case.  

 

 

Sue them then, put up or shut up ffs,  this is a discussion board , not  a whiney ' my lifes so tough' ex accountants public regret counselling forum. You messed up, your fault no one else's. Unless of course you're  prepared to back up your accusations with actual action, not whining. 

 

[essex canary 621]

13 minutes ago, wcorkcanary said:

Sue them then, put up or shut up ffs,  this is a discussion board , not  a whiney ' my lifes so tough' ex accountants public regret counselling forum. You messed up, your fault no one else's. Unless of course you're  prepared to back up your accusations with actual action, not whining. 

 

The Club and @GMF are going to have a little bit of a problem if Connor removes the right to discuss the non-football side of the Club's business on here as they freeload on that to service the Supporters Panel. That could be a very good reason for telling them to make their own arrangements alongside ensuring that your representation is limited to streaming issues.

[wcorkcanary 4,774]

16 minutes ago, essex canary said:

alongside ensuring that your representation is limited to streaming issues.

What on earth are you on about now? Streaming issues? My streaming issues? I have none, once again failing to listen to the facts that you have been told  has made a fool of you. If that was not aimed at me , do not use ' your' when replying, quite easy really when you're not trying to outsmart the question...without reading it. 

 

Edited November 7 by wcorkcanary

[TIL 1010 5,242]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

My opinion is that there was no scope for charging anyone more than £25,000 for any seat in 2002 even if they were rendered transferable given that the capital sum requested is 35 times the then purchasable annual price. By all means disagree if you wish but the basis of your disagreement would be helpful. Alternatively concede that your implication is unsustainable in the context of being capable of attracting any demand. 

What there would have been scope for is to market ordinary seats on the same principle as they did for luxury ones which would probably have raised the £1.5 million shortfall they had at the time and led to a much more balanced shareholder spread. How they would have applied the transferability clauses in that situation is a moot point but in my opinion more generosity would have been required. 

More research reveals that around 60,000 of the outstanding 150,000 shares in private individual minority hands were issues at the £1 nominal rate in the Chase era leaving only 90,000 in the S&J era that were charged a significant Premium. This means the Associate Directors are responsible collectively for around 33% of total public contributions to the Share Premium Account and individually for around 1.2% apiece. Therefore I believe that the seat value should still be continuing now for all contributing families and still have a while to run and that it constitutes 'economic abuse' where that is not the case.  

 

 

[GMF 1,007]

@essex canary your opinion, or anyone else’s for that matter, on what should have been the appropriate charge rate back in 2002 is now completely irrelevant.

You took a view at the time that it was worthwhile for you and accepted the terms of the offer. You should have been clear about the terms of the offer, so moaning about it retrospectively is a waste of time.

[essex canary 621]

1 hour ago, GMF said:

@essex canary your opinion, or anyone else’s for that matter, on what should have been the appropriate charge rate back in 2002 is now completely irrelevant.

You took a view at the time that it was worthwhile for you and accepted the terms of the offer. You should have been clear about the terms of the offer, so moaning about it retrospectively is a waste of time.

Thanks for the info re the MBF history. I will append the following to my AGM question:

'The Club’s recent Waiver decision is materially unfair to myself as a holder of 1,000 shares because the Match Bargaining Facility is ‘inadequate for purpose’ for me having never previously dealt with a holding greater than 350.

This manifests itself even more in the context of an inheritor who doesn’t benefit from the seat concession and neither has an accessible and timely route of exit to divert their funds to productive sources elsewhere that must reasonably call into perspective the ‘Duty of Care’ of all Board Members in relation to that decision. It must also call into question decisions of previous Board members in respect of earlier decisions as ‘Economic Abuse’ is also potentially an issue in context.

As a matter of historical context, it was only under the Delia Smith and Micheal Wynn Jones phase up until 2009 that Share Premiums were charged to Shareholders. Only 90,000 shares or so were impacted in this way. The Claim made recently by Director Tom Smith that all individual Associate Directors have received full value for their £24,000 Premiums (when Tom himself has paid only £96) has not been objectively supported by the Club. I therefore wish to challenge the Club to provide this objective support. My recent letter to Tom, not responded to in detail, refers.

Can the Club please review all relevant matters and act accordingly?'   

 

[GMF 1,007]

@essex canary your synopsis is therefore, because no one has so far tried to sell more than 350 shares, it’s inadequate for your own purposes, even though you’ve never tried it yourself?

Bottom line here, as I’ve frequently suggested, is the existing shareholding breakdown for the Club is the primary reason why most people are only interested in acquiring a handful of shares, rather than any inadequacy of the MBF itself? 

Edited November 7 by GMF

[essex canary 621]

34 minutes ago, GMF said:

@essex canary your synopsis is therefore, because no one has so far tried to sell more than 350 shares, it’s inadequate for your own purposes, even though you’ve never tried it yourself?

Bottom line here, as I’ve frequently suggested, is the existing shareholding breakdown for the Club is the primary reason why most people are only interested in acquiring a handful of shares, rather than any inadequacy of the MBF itself? 

Put it this way NCFC could probably have sold 250 seats for 250 shares for the new South Stand in 2002 for implementation in 2004. Then again perhaps not if they wanted to discount anyone who passed away in-between.

[GMF 1,007]

@essex canary the primary driver at the time was to raise sufficient funds to cover the ITV Digital shortfall. They achieved that, albeit, with the benefit of hindsight, they probably would have done it differently. It is what it is and there’s no point in complaining about it now.