ChezGiven

I seriously can't believe there's no interested parties. Whether there are any willing to pay anything like what Ashley is after is another matter. I was talking about this yesterday and I've come to the conclusion he doesn't even want to sell, it's a smokescreen to spend sweet fuck all this window and he's learnt nothing from last season and believes he can get the club promoted on the cheap (in terms of players and management). I think he would sell if someone was stupid enough to pay him more than its worth. That is still possible but we'd be very lucky to find someone willing to pay him what he wants and invest in the squad/manager. With him holding out for more than its worth, its akin to him saying 'i dont want to sell'.

Dont be stupid Ferp.

Keegan would be great.

There are one or two posters who come out of the woodwork on NO when the .com thread gets bumped.

Because you know the tournament is rigged in favour of the cunts. And your a lazy bastard.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ex-2LIyS6YI

What a retard. The comments below the video are a giggle too. Apparently the lefties are hypocrites because they called him thick and lefties shouldnt be prejudiced against people with learning disabilities. Or something. Fuck me, this world.

I have to say, i'm a bit of a fanny man myself.

He's a lifelong fan of the club.

The most likely scenario is that they did put a bid in which was below the asking price. As we suspect the real asking price is 100m + debt, and the likely bid from anyone is likely to be 100m flat, then Ashley will have to lie about this unless he wants to admit that someone bid 100m for his shit-tip of a club and he turned that offer down. Most fans would be apoplectic if they thought he could have got rid for this price but decided to hold on to it. Thats the most logical explanation from a business perspective. "Shysters playing PR" is mongishly simplistic as it ignores the very clear issue around the differences in club valuation between buyer and seller which are clearly at play. IMO. As a disclaimer, i've got no desire to see a what would essentially be a hedge fund take us over, i.e. a conglomerate of anonymous financial backers. I am more interested in understanding the 'offer / valuation' dynamic. This announcement certainly backs up those who wish to see this group as just publicity hungry though tbf. My experience of business and marketing however says that is the wrong way to look at this. As JawD said, the truth is probably somewhere in between.

Makes sense.

I've thought this too and i dont get it either.

I dont think we are going to be sold anymore. If Ashley was prepared to drop his price, i reckon he would have done it by now. I think he'll say 'no-one wanted to buy at the price, so you're stuck with me". If the buyers wont match the asking price, then there will be no sale, which is how i see it going. In all of this, i wonder what would have happened had he just appointed Shearer full time and said 'there is limited funds, we need to sell but lets get on with it' instead of announcing a sale? Its funny but i didnt have the impression that militant action was about to be mounted against him after we got relegated. He did the right thing in bringing shearer in and every fan could see that it was the players not putting the effort in. Obviously he was going to get it in the neck but what else would you expect after overseeing relegation? If he wanted rid, he should be cutting his losses but he isnt. According to his accounts, he is losing money the longer he stays, there must be a reason why he isnt cutting his losses. Fuck knows tbh.

Chins up lads.

42m of debt had a clause, the rest didnt. He therefore unnecessarily tied his capital up 'moving' debt (apprarently) to save on interest payments.

Hang on, the counter to his argument (which is backed by Allardyce at Blackburn) requires a crystal ball to have seen what would have happened had Allardyce stayed. So his opinion about what would have happened is different but he's a cunt for saying it? I was at the Pompey and Liverpool home debacles under Allardyce and even i've got to say, since none of us had crystal balls, that the opinion we would have stayed up has some credibility.

Confirms Parky's fears.

No.

See page 15. It's a myth that pharaceutical companies only earn a fair profit on their investment if the vast majority of the investment is being pumped into research by private companies from the taxpayer. "Before its patent ran out, for example, the price of Schering-Plough's top-selling allergy pill, Claritin, was raised thirteen times over five years, for a cumulative increase of more than 50 percent—over four times the rate of general inflation.[2] As a spokeswoman for one company explained, "Price increases are not uncommon in the industry and this allows us to be able to invest in R&D."[3] In 2002, the average price of the fifty drugs most used by senior citizens was nearly $1,500 for a year's supply. (Pricing varies greatly, but this refers to what the companies call the average wholesale price, which is usually pretty close to what an individual without insurance pays at the pharmacy.)" You couldn't make it up basically. The average smoker spends more than $1500 a year on his recreational drug.

We did this, the profit of a big pharma company is the same percentage of revenue as Google's revenue/profit. Thats the proportion they retain. Got a problem with the profit retained for shareholders, then point the finger at everyone, not just pharma. My company also spends more on R&D than any other organisation on the planet. $7bn last year alone, this will rise to over $10bn next year. The focus is on 6 areas; Cancer, Alzheimers, inflammation/immunology, pain, psychosis and diabetes. Still a bunch of cunts though, US focused corporations are full of utter wankers.

JWHQNAMA.

HF/Parky, The point about extremes and the use of extreme cases and examples is to 'reveal preferences' i.e. to reveal people's 'values'. Economists and pschologists use extreme cases in empirical research to show people that they do have values and that they can differentiate between 'cases' on the basis of some sort of logic. People like Parky are very common, 'there is no way we should use cost as the basis of choice' is a common concern. The thing is, the experts have been thinking about this most of their lives, so they give you an extreme example as they know at some point logic will dictate that a choice should be made. The very act of choice reveals a value or a preference (the underlying logic to the choice). Once you have revealed that value, you can research it further to place explicit parameters around decision-making.

Pretty much as long as you want, if you're cunning, and play the system correctly.

The Pharmaceutical market in the US is worth $200bn. The tax break for the rich (employed with a health insurance plan) costs the federal government $250bn in lost tax revenue. Thats just one small part of the system. I'm not going to laugh at Parky of Ferp for thinking what they do, as it's not easy to wade through all the arguments. To suggest that the healthcare funding problem in the US is because of the high price of drugs is nonsense though, as these figures demonstrate. The EU spends about $100bn on drugs so there is clearly some room for savings tbf.