| "MOORE'S THE PETTY" 22:42 - Dec 14 with 25276 views | Chiswickjack4 |
Another home game, another banner in the East Stand with a message to the Americans.
I very much hope the club take their time on deciding on new/additional investment.
The value of our club is going to go through the roof once the new TV deal is announced in March... |  | | |  |
| (No subject) on 12:12 - Dec 17 with 1577 views | dobjack2 |
| (No subject) on 09:08 - Dec 17 by Phil_S |
With the appropriate fire safety certificate of course...  |
Exactly. It would be tragic if health and safety became a reason to ban banners.  | | | |
| (No subject) on 12:18 - Dec 17 with 1566 views | Uxbridge |
| (No subject) on 09:50 - Dec 17 by Shaky |
My posts are textbook perfect but bear no resemblance to reality?
That's a masterpiece of logic even by your standards, but since you jokers are all engaged in an all out Shaky offensive following my most recent rout of Lisa, I believe it is important to acknowledge the movement that statement represents; not only for education, but importantly also for entertainment purposes.
Remember when I first came to these forums and the subject of finance emerged? You and Uxbridge were adamant I was Dimi, a position you maintained for at least 6 months longer than your chum until - what?- early this year.
Now the thing is that I only have to read a few remarks of Dimi/Parlay's to know he doesn't have any other relevant experience except from maybe reading the business section.
By contrast my first discussions with you involved me preparing a valuation of the club, normalising the profits to take out non-recurring items than applying a textbook PE multiple and contrasting it to prevailing market pricing.
Anybody with a genuine professional understanding of finance would have nodded, and said yup, this guy knows what he is doing.
You on the other hand in a piece of in farcical schoolboy maths error misplaced the decimal point by 3 places going from the valuation of a 5% stake to a 100% of the value, you pretentious little f*cking dunce, while steadfastly maintaining I was dimi.
Then we gradually moved into the Google/Wikipedia phase. Everything I knew about finance I learnt from Google and Wikipedia was the universal retort, but everything I could back up with those sources - obviously being the most easily accessible - was wrong.
This is a line of argument not unlike the conspiracy theory of society, which posits that all outcomes no matter whether they are seemingly consistent or not consistent with the purported aims of the conspiracy are its direct result. Seemingly a comprehensive line of argument, but unfortunately one that is easily dismissed as nonsense.
Now that we have conclusively established I have a specialist library on finance, strategy, and M&A, the argument has once again moved on.
Yes, I may have a lot of niche books on a fairly broad range of topics, but I have had the grave misfortune to spend several thousand pounds on books that are all wrong.
And who are the bunch of people so expert in the fields of finance and mergers and acquisitions that they are able to tell me and the authors of these specialist books they are completely clueless? Why a bunch of bookkeepers I have maintained don't know their collective arses from their elbows since first making your acquaintances on this forum.
Darren, this guy is no Warren Buffet, you f*cking moron. |
Great stuff.
Just a point of order really, but I don't remember accusing you of being Dimi, although somebody did tell me you were. Might have done though but can't remember. Anyway I've always been more of the impression you're a 2nd year undergrad, and seen little to change my mind. |  |
| |
| "MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 12:54 - Dec 17 with 1490 views | perchrockjack |
Ive just read.-and I paraphrase here, back to the old boys network of 70 s 80s.
Now ,for our younger viewers, this was when we had a leading solicitor and other Swansea luminaries drawing up a business plan- which was fine- but one that killed our club stone dead.
THIS compared with what we have NOW ? Its beyond fantastic and it really does ask the question, just what the fook goes on in some people s heads".
SADLY the internet has given a mouthpiece and succour to those with a warped sense of importance, when in fact ,like me and you, we r e nothing compared with our beloved club.
"We" are creating problems that might not just be there. | |
| |
| (No subject) on 13:09 - Dec 17 with 1469 views | londonlisa2001 |
| (No subject) on 09:50 - Dec 17 by Shaky |
My posts are textbook perfect but bear no resemblance to reality?
That's a masterpiece of logic even by your standards, but since you jokers are all engaged in an all out Shaky offensive following my most recent rout of Lisa, I believe it is important to acknowledge the movement that statement represents; not only for education, but importantly also for entertainment purposes.
Remember when I first came to these forums and the subject of finance emerged? You and Uxbridge were adamant I was Dimi, a position you maintained for at least 6 months longer than your chum until - what?- early this year.
Now the thing is that I only have to read a few remarks of Dimi/Parlay's to know he doesn't have any other relevant experience except from maybe reading the business section.
By contrast my first discussions with you involved me preparing a valuation of the club, normalising the profits to take out non-recurring items than applying a textbook PE multiple and contrasting it to prevailing market pricing.
Anybody with a genuine professional understanding of finance would have nodded, and said yup, this guy knows what he is doing.
You on the other hand in a piece of in farcical schoolboy maths error misplaced the decimal point by 3 places going from the valuation of a 5% stake to a 100% of the value, you pretentious little f*cking dunce, while steadfastly maintaining I was dimi.
Then we gradually moved into the Google/Wikipedia phase. Everything I knew about finance I learnt from Google and Wikipedia was the universal retort, but everything I could back up with those sources - obviously being the most easily accessible - was wrong.
This is a line of argument not unlike the conspiracy theory of society, which posits that all outcomes no matter whether they are seemingly consistent or not consistent with the purported aims of the conspiracy are its direct result. Seemingly a comprehensive line of argument, but unfortunately one that is easily dismissed as nonsense.
Now that we have conclusively established I have a specialist library on finance, strategy, and M&A, the argument has once again moved on.
Yes, I may have a lot of niche books on a fairly broad range of topics, but I have had the grave misfortune to spend several thousand pounds on books that are all wrong.
And who are the bunch of people so expert in the fields of finance and mergers and acquisitions that they are able to tell me and the authors of these specialist books they are completely clueless? Why a bunch of bookkeepers I have maintained don't know their collective arses from their elbows since first making your acquaintances on this forum.
Darren, this guy is no Warren Buffet, you f*cking moron. |
Rout?
Which bit? The bit where you were wrong on shareholders not being to hold secured debt or the bit where you were wrong on the difference between preference shares and debt? Oh yeah -you didn't read the bit which proved you to be clueless did you - it was 'too long'.
The problem with your books Shaky is you don't understand them, so can't put them into context. That's why you use examples of someone talking about ratio analysis to justify comments on risk.
Another problem is that you genuinely seem to believe that 'normalising the profits to take out non-recurring items than applying a textbook PE multiple and contrasting it to prevailing market pricing" - in other words multiplying 2 numbers together and comparing the total with another number shows that you know what you're doing !!
You just don't know enough to realise how obvious it is that you don't know enough I'm afraid. | | | |
| "MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 13:12 - Dec 17 with 1456 views | jackonicko |
I'm still trying to decide whether to change my avatar from a calculator to a dunce's hat. I do enjoy his little tirades. |  | | |
| (No subject) on 13:14 - Dec 17 with 1444 views | Shaky |
| (No subject) on 12:18 - Dec 17 by Uxbridge |
Great stuff.
Just a point of order really, but I don't remember accusing you of being Dimi, although somebody did tell me you were. Might have done though but can't remember. Anyway I've always been more of the impression you're a 2nd year undergrad, and seen little to change my mind. |
What I think is great about your post there, is that people will be able to look at it and say hmmm, Uxbridge is lying through his teeth. |  |
| |
| (No subject) on 13:20 - Dec 17 with 1434 views | Shaky |
| (No subject) on 13:09 - Dec 17 by londonlisa2001 |
Rout?
Which bit? The bit where you were wrong on shareholders not being to hold secured debt or the bit where you were wrong on the difference between preference shares and debt? Oh yeah -you didn't read the bit which proved you to be clueless did you - it was 'too long'.
The problem with your books Shaky is you don't understand them, so can't put them into context. That's why you use examples of someone talking about ratio analysis to justify comments on risk.
Another problem is that you genuinely seem to believe that 'normalising the profits to take out non-recurring items than applying a textbook PE multiple and contrasting it to prevailing market pricing" - in other words multiplying 2 numbers together and comparing the total with another number shows that you know what you're doing !!
You just don't know enough to realise how obvious it is that you don't know enough I'm afraid. |
"redeemable equity (preference shares). . .irredeemable debt. . . subordinated. . .; whether these are debt or equity is debatable"
"ordinary shareholders would probably regard the preference shares as another form of subordinated debt"
Professor Keith Ward, author of Corporate Financial Strategy
@13:16 - But for you to understand, debt isn't redeemable preference shares. Redeemable preference shares aren't debt. They are two completely different things.
@13:19 - Cardiff have spent the past two years talking about Tan doing a debt to equity conversion - don't know why they are bothering - wikipedia (and Shaky) say that it's the same thing
@13:37 - Shaky - it's more important that people understand that this will be debt than you trying to defend your indefensible statement. And wikipedia doesn't count as 'people who know what they're talking about'.
@13:41 - It's a shame he didn't have wikipedia to fall back on - he could have saved himself the money by simply announcing that the debt wasn't really debt, it was 'quasi equity'.
@13:55 - But genuinely, it is really important that false information doesn't get people thinking 'ah well, it's not really debt'. That will be a vey dangerous place for the supporters to be.
@13:59 - it says (incorrectly) it should be treated as equity
@14:55 - It WILL be debt and I am annoyed at the suggestion (incorrectly) that it will not be from someone that doesn't know what they are talking about. Such a suggestion is dangerous as it will lead to supporters thinking 'ah well, it doesn't really matter'.
@15:18 - the last thing anyone wants is for some sort of spin being put on to any debt that the US investors may or may not inject. And the line that is being adopted by Shaky of it 'not really being debt' is simply wrong here
LyingLisa, desperate attention seeker [Post edited 17 Dec 2014 13:22]
| |
| |
| (No subject) on 13:27 - Dec 17 with 1414 views | Shaky |
One thing I have to do though is thank you Lisa for saying my explanations are simple.
As a student of zen that is the ultimate compliment you can pay me, showing my complete mastery of the subject. [Post edited 17 Dec 2014 13:30]
| |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| (No subject) on 13:34 - Dec 17 with 1395 views | Uxbridge |
| (No subject) on 13:14 - Dec 17 by Shaky |
What I think is great about your post there, is that people will be able to look at it and say hmmm, Uxbridge is lying through his teeth. |
That is indeed one possible view. Others are indeed available though. Anyway, I look forward to reading more, as I assume Wednesday afternoon's are still kept free? | |
| |
| (No subject) on 13:35 - Dec 17 with 1394 views | londonlisa2001 |
| (No subject) on 13:20 - Dec 17 by Shaky |
"redeemable equity (preference shares). . .irredeemable debt. . . subordinated. . .; whether these are debt or equity is debatable"
"ordinary shareholders would probably regard the preference shares as another form of subordinated debt"
Professor Keith Ward, author of Corporate Financial Strategy
@13:16 - But for you to understand, debt isn't redeemable preference shares. Redeemable preference shares aren't debt. They are two completely different things.
@13:19 - Cardiff have spent the past two years talking about Tan doing a debt to equity conversion - don't know why they are bothering - wikipedia (and Shaky) say that it's the same thing
@13:37 - Shaky - it's more important that people understand that this will be debt than you trying to defend your indefensible statement. And wikipedia doesn't count as 'people who know what they're talking about'.
@13:41 - It's a shame he didn't have wikipedia to fall back on - he could have saved himself the money by simply announcing that the debt wasn't really debt, it was 'quasi equity'.
@13:55 - But genuinely, it is really important that false information doesn't get people thinking 'ah well, it's not really debt'. That will be a vey dangerous place for the supporters to be.
@13:59 - it says (incorrectly) it should be treated as equity
@14:55 - It WILL be debt and I am annoyed at the suggestion (incorrectly) that it will not be from someone that doesn't know what they are talking about. Such a suggestion is dangerous as it will lead to supporters thinking 'ah well, it doesn't really matter'.
@15:18 - the last thing anyone wants is for some sort of spin being put on to any debt that the US investors may or may not inject. And the line that is being adopted by Shaky of it 'not really being debt' is simply wrong here
LyingLisa, desperate attention seeker [Post edited 17 Dec 2014 13:22]
|
it's all context you imbecile.
He was talking about ratio analysis (have a look - go on, it's in black and white in that little paragraph you took a picture of because you didn't understand what it said).
Now I've already summarised why preference shares are not debt in the context of the discussion that we were having and you have ignored it (because it proves you wrong and possibly because you don't understand it).
And the other 'clippings' - well they're from the part of the discussion where you categorically stated that shareholders couldn't hold non subordinated debt until you were proved WRONG.
You really are a clown. Thankfully, anyone that remotely knows what they are talking about can see within 2 seconds that you are a clown.
And ooh, look, the 'lyinglisa' rears its head - always does when you've been proved wrong again. | | | |
| "MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 13:35 - Dec 17 with 1392 views | Shaky |
And which one of you jokers was it again who accused me of having thrown my toys out of the pram, no more than a few hours after Lisa went in to a huff of exasperation threatening to leave because I had been beastly to her?
Hahahahahahaahahahahahaahaha.
Stop, take a deep breath, and reflect for a moment on how f*cking stupid you all look. | |
| |
| "MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 13:38 - Dec 17 with 1389 views | londonlisa2001 |
| "MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 13:35 - Dec 17 by Shaky |
And which one of you jokers was it again who accused me of having thrown my toys out of the pram, no more than a few hours after Lisa went in to a huff of exasperation threatening to leave because I had been beastly to her?
Hahahahahahaahahahahahaahaha.
Stop, take a deep breath, and reflect for a moment on how f*cking stupid you all look. |
I didn't remotely threaten to leave - I said that I wondered if it was worth the effort talking about this subject.
I know English is not your mother tongue, but honestly, you really should stop making stuff up. If you don't understand what's been said, just ask. | | | |
| (No subject) on 13:39 - Dec 17 with 1384 views | Shaky |
| (No subject) on 13:35 - Dec 17 by londonlisa2001 |
it's all context you imbecile.
He was talking about ratio analysis (have a look - go on, it's in black and white in that little paragraph you took a picture of because you didn't understand what it said).
Now I've already summarised why preference shares are not debt in the context of the discussion that we were having and you have ignored it (because it proves you wrong and possibly because you don't understand it).
And the other 'clippings' - well they're from the part of the discussion where you categorically stated that shareholders couldn't hold non subordinated debt until you were proved WRONG.
You really are a clown. Thankfully, anyone that remotely knows what they are talking about can see within 2 seconds that you are a clown.
And ooh, look, the 'lyinglisa' rears its head - always does when you've been proved wrong again. |
You are the one that is clueless about any sort of context.
He wasn't talking about ratio analysis, he was talking about the difference between debt and equity.
Look at the heading on the page, dumbass.
 | |
| |
| (No subject) on 13:52 - Dec 17 with 1362 views | _ |
| (No subject) on 13:35 - Dec 17 by londonlisa2001 |
it's all context you imbecile.
He was talking about ratio analysis (have a look - go on, it's in black and white in that little paragraph you took a picture of because you didn't understand what it said).
Now I've already summarised why preference shares are not debt in the context of the discussion that we were having and you have ignored it (because it proves you wrong and possibly because you don't understand it).
And the other 'clippings' - well they're from the part of the discussion where you categorically stated that shareholders couldn't hold non subordinated debt until you were proved WRONG.
You really are a clown. Thankfully, anyone that remotely knows what they are talking about can see within 2 seconds that you are a clown.
And ooh, look, the 'lyinglisa' rears its head - always does when you've been proved wrong again. |
Here's "easy-going" Lisa again... |  |
| |
| (No subject) on 13:53 - Dec 17 with 1354 views | Shaky |
Let us for the sake of clarity define our respective areas of expertise.
As an accountant you are an absolute whizz at knowing where different things go on the balance sheet. You can tell me without blinking or referring to any books where ordinary shares, preferences shares, different types of debt go under their respective headings on the balance sheet.
What people like me do is look at the accounting information you have provided then manipulate it and move it around in a manner that makes sense for the purpose of strategic decision making.
I understand what you do because I need to, but what I do subsequently with the data and how I look at it is totally beyond your field of experience.
Accept it and don't keep exposing your ignorance all the time. It's really rather nauseating. | |
| |
| (No subject) on 13:54 - Dec 17 with 1350 views | _ |
| (No subject) on 13:53 - Dec 17 by Shaky |
Let us for the sake of clarity define our respective areas of expertise.
As an accountant you are an absolute whizz at knowing where different things go on the balance sheet. You can tell me without blinking or referring to any books where ordinary shares, preferences shares, different types of debt go under their respective headings on the balance sheet.
What people like me do is look at the accounting information you have provided then manipulate it and move it around in a manner that makes sense for the purpose of strategic decision making.
I understand what you do because I need to, but what I do subsequently with the data and how I look at it is totally beyond your field of experience.
Accept it and don't keep exposing your ignorance all the time. It's really rather nauseating. |
This is true Lisa... | |
| |
| (No subject) on 13:55 - Dec 17 with 1342 views | Shaky |
| (No subject) on 13:52 - Dec 17 by _ |
Here's "easy-going" Lisa again... |
Steady now, having told herself in the past 48 hours over and over that the quotes I pulled demolishing her position were something to do with "ratio analysis", she is now having to deal with a major cognitive shock.
Let's not tease her right now -- she might leave! | |
| |
| (No subject) on 14:07 - Dec 17 with 1308 views | londonlisa2001 |
| (No subject) on 13:39 - Dec 17 by Shaky |
You are the one that is clueless about any sort of context.
He wasn't talking about ratio analysis, he was talking about the difference between debt and equity.
Look at the heading on the page, dumbass.
|
This is what he said prior to the bit you chose to copy -
‘this personalized debt:equity ratio”
“these ratios can only really be meaningfully calculated if the perspective used is stated”
“a very simple example can be given by the different classifications which would be made of preference shares by a secured term lender to the company and the ordinary shareholder in the company”
Sorry - he should have said he wasn't talking about ratio analysis, rather than saying 'these ratios" and talking about "personalised debt:equity ratio"
Thicko. | | | |
| (No subject) on 14:09 - Dec 17 with 1304 views | londonlisa2001 |
| (No subject) on 13:52 - Dec 17 by _ |
Here's "easy-going" Lisa again... |
there is nothing wrong in replying to him with considerably less rudeness than he has already used against me Chris.
If your head was not so far up his no nothing a*** you could see that. | | | |
| "MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 14:11 - Dec 17 with 1300 views | skippyjack |
I have genuine concerns with the irrelevant bollocks being spouted.. keep your 'expertise' away from the club on this issue. |  |
| The awkward moment when a Welsh Club become the Champions of England.. shh
The Swansea Way.. To upset the odds. | | Poll: | Best Swans Player |
| |
| (No subject) on 14:12 - Dec 17 with 1299 views | _ |
| (No subject) on 14:09 - Dec 17 by londonlisa2001 |
there is nothing wrong in replying to him with considerably less rudeness than he has already used against me Chris.
If your head was not so far up his no nothing a*** you could see that. |
Dear me....
I think you lose this one, sorry. | |
| |
| (No subject) on 14:13 - Dec 17 with 1296 views | Shaky |
| (No subject) on 14:07 - Dec 17 by londonlisa2001 |
This is what he said prior to the bit you chose to copy -
‘this personalized debt:equity ratio”
“these ratios can only really be meaningfully calculated if the perspective used is stated”
“a very simple example can be given by the different classifications which would be made of preference shares by a secured term lender to the company and the ordinary shareholder in the company”
Sorry - he should have said he wasn't talking about ratio analysis, rather than saying 'these ratios" and talking about "personalised debt:equity ratio"
Thicko. |
You have clearly read the passage several times but you have totally failed to grasp what he is talking about.
Too bad. | |
| |
| (No subject) on 14:15 - Dec 17 with 1294 views | londonlisa2001 |
| (No subject) on 13:53 - Dec 17 by Shaky |
Let us for the sake of clarity define our respective areas of expertise.
As an accountant you are an absolute whizz at knowing where different things go on the balance sheet. You can tell me without blinking or referring to any books where ordinary shares, preferences shares, different types of debt go under their respective headings on the balance sheet.
What people like me do is look at the accounting information you have provided then manipulate it and move it around in a manner that makes sense for the purpose of strategic decision making.
I understand what you do because I need to, but what I do subsequently with the data and how I look at it is totally beyond your field of experience.
Accept it and don't keep exposing your ignorance all the time. It's really rather nauseating. |
fot the sake of clarity, the only one saying that I am an accountant is you.
I have an accountancy qualification in much the same way as you once took that 3 hour multiple choice regi reps exam.
You have absolutely no idea what I do.
Thicko. | | | |
| (No subject) on 14:20 - Dec 17 with 1282 views | londonlisa2001 |
| (No subject) on 14:13 - Dec 17 by Shaky |
You have clearly read the passage several times but you have totally failed to grasp what he is talking about.
Too bad. |
nope I haven't.
He's pretty clear.
He is talking about the perspective changing of various forms of debt and equity depending on where you as an individual stand in relation to that. He even gives examples.
Irrelevant for any conversation whatsoever that is being had on this board on possible debt injections by US investors.
Tell me, because I explained this once, and you didn't get it, but hopefully you'll have looked it up now - what rights does a preference shareholder have if the coupon is unpaid? What rights does a debt holder have if interest is unpaid? Can you imagine why the difference in the two answers is the real reason why preference shares are not debt? Can you also imagine why we as a club would therefore be concerned by one and not by the other? | | | |
| (No subject) on 14:22 - Dec 17 with 1277 views | londonlisa2001 |
| (No subject) on 14:12 - Dec 17 by _ |
Dear me....
I think you lose this one, sorry. |
fine - as I said it's up to you.
But he doesn't know what he's talking about. You've been told that by others, not only by me. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
