Search results

Just the relevant data pertaining to buying something but usually subject to an NDA

You pick yours, she's a relatively irrelevant MP

Chin up mate, I don't know you but the internet persona is sound as a pound

Indeed, during the pitch debacle it was loud and clear that they knew what the Wasps financial position was. What have they been doing?

Yes, he didn't present the 3 pager after all

Been listening again to the brilliant PJ Harvey album Let England Shake, a few years old but a modern classic imo

I know what you're saying but you're talking about a party in government with known links to private health insurance. If it isn't nailed down or even if it is they will try to sell it.

I suppose though it doesn't really fit the sort of investment they'd usually make, it's a long game and they are not in it for the long game generally.

I agree with shmmeee - SISU are so wrapped up in their own image as these cut-throat business people that they just cannot see the wood for the trees and play the game - the club's image and reputation is miles away from where it was 8-10 years ago and there would be a lot of momentum behind a...

Don't get all bashful now Rupes

Why do you keep calling him "big" Mike?

Any decent cafe will only sell tea by the pot anyway not a bag in a cup

Fucking hell I only came on to the thread to have another laugh at the Martin Reeves gif and there have been 247 posts since

PPI is a consumer law issue isn't it?

Why is it on the cheap? The administrator is only collecting VAT on behalf of the government - the payment to them is £1m.

there is a big subject to in it though:

No, the valuation was done in accordance with the RICS codes of practice, part of it included some cashflow forecasts from WH but the valuers would take that in good faith I suspect.

I know you might point to an independent valuation but you'd surely need to have a look at the basis of it? Why did it conclude the arena to be valued at £51m? What assumptions was the valuation based on?

The problem the bondholders have is that they invested on the basis of a valuation of the assets which has been shown to be inaccurate or based on too many optimistic assumptions. Its valuation now is different. Not sure what they're expecting legally?

We've got fuck all to talk about for a month