dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
As I say would be very shocked if they don't and just try and argue that the golden share is not in admin and Mr Haskell can buy a pointless company if he wants
Duly edited for the word 'speculation'
Les Reid @Lesreidpolitics. Yes. I suspect we'll hear today #Sisu/holdings/Arvo will have bid to buy #CCFC Ltd. & they are major creditors
Rumours abound now that the administrator will have the option to reject both the Haskell and SISU bids and instead open a mystery box.
Rumours abound now that the administrator will have the option to reject both the Haskell and SISU bids and instead open a mystery box.
The post I quoted said discussions with ACL.
You'd think ACL would offer the same discussions for SISU wouldn't you, if they were being fair? SISU are prospective owners of the club too, after all.
Were those people actually foreign on that show or did they just get locals to do comedy accents for the sake of the gimmick? Henry Kelly was definitely putting it on, the cockney swine.
Whenever Henry Kelly started a question with 'who am I?' I wished someone would buzz in and say 'You're Henry Kelly'
I thought they did when they got as far as heads of terms and Due diligence
Who knows what happened afterwards?
That was for the Higgs share not the whole of ACL.might it not have occurred to you that ACL have had many talks in the past with sisu including having drawn up a terms of agreement of 50% of ownership for sisu , only for sisu not to take it any further.
Also Might ACL be a little reluctant to deal with a company that owed them £1.3 million in rent then went into admin to avoid paying? Why would they be 'fair' to sisu?
I read something that in Deal or No Deal if you're offered a swap statistically speaking you should take it. I assume it made sense but it was too mathematical and it was beyond me. I prefer Pointless anyway. The Chase too.
The picture appears to be that any voice not toeing the line completely is a secret SISU ninja or somehow not a real supporter. It's a very paranoid picture that helps nobody.
What if SISU did get someone to register and talk them up (which he's not actually doing, but let's ignore that vital nugget for now) - you'd just have people calling the person a dickhead and a bumlicker anyway, so there would be literally no point to it.
As I say would be very shocked if they don't and just try and argue that the golden share is not in admin and Mr Haskell can buy a pointless company if he wants
I think it's somewhere along the lines of, you're reducing the odds to 2/1, although I can't remember what you're reducing them from as all the other boxes have been opened anyway - surely that leaves you at 2/1...
A few years ago you were called a Leicester supporter if you didn't back Sisu!
How times(and people) change.
Maybe because people knew nothing about them back then or that they'd turn out to be complete arseholes, I wasnt aware people can predict the future. So your saying you didnt trust them at the start when they'd done nothing wrong, but now they've royally fucked up you want them to stay? Very odd.
While I've never watched a full episode of deal or no deal I don't think what you are talking about applies to that show.
What you are talking about is a game show where there are 3 doors and behind one of them is something great like a car. You chose a door, the gameshow host opens one of the doors that doesn't have the car and gives you the option to switch. Most people when put in this situation belive that the odds of the car being behind each door is 50% and so it doesn't matter if they switch or not, this combined with the fact that people don't like to change means the majority of people who don't understand the game fully will chose to stick. This is wrong.
Switching is the best option by a very significant margin. Most people think that the 2 doors have a 50% chance of having the car, that is incorrect, the door you originally picked has a 33% chance of having the car, the other door has a 66% chance of having the car. It's a little hard to explain. but I'm sure you will agree that at the start each door has a 33% chance of having a car. So you chose one, you have a 33% chance of winning, now the gameshow host will open one of the other doors, he will always open a losing one whatever you picked. Him opening this door has not increased your chance of winning to 50% you are still at 33%, there is always at least one losing door to open and he will always open a losing door, your odds have not changed.
Now if you chose to switch you will have a 66% chance of winning, because in essence then instead of your original choice being to try and pick the winner you are trying to pick the one without the car (and there is 2 of those thus 66%), then you will get both other doors. one the gameshow host will open and one you will switch too.
I hope that makes sence.
While I've never watched a full episode of deal or no deal I don't think what you are talking about applies to that show.
What you are talking about is a game show where there are 3 doors and behind one of them is something great like a car. You chose a door, the gameshow host opens one of the doors that doesn't have the car and gives you the option to switch. Most people when put in this situation belive that the odds of the car being behind each door is 50% and so it doesn't matter if they switch or not, this combined with the fact that people don't like to change means the majority of people who don't understand the game fully will chose to stick. This is wrong.
Switching is the best option by a very significant margin. Most people think that the 2 doors have a 50% chance of having the car, that is incorrect, the door you originally picked has a 33% chance of having the car, the other door has a 66% chance of having the car. It's a little hard to explain. but I'm sure you will agree that at the start each door has a 33% chance of having a car. So you chose one, you have a 33% chance of winning, now the gameshow host will open one of the other doors, he will always open a losing one whatever you picked. Him opening this door has not increased your chance of winning to 50% you are still at 33%, there is always at least one losing door to open and he will always open a losing door, your odds have not changed.
Now if you chose to switch you will have a 66% chance of winning, because in essence then instead of your original choice being to try and pick the winner you are trying to pick the one without the car (and there is 2 of those thus 66%), then you will get both other doors. one the gameshow host will open and one you will switch too.
I hope that makes sence.
Maybe because people knew nothing about them back then or that they'd turn out to be complete arseholes, I wasnt aware people can predict the future. So your saying you didnt trust them at the start when they'd done nothing wrong, but now they've royally fucked up you want them to stay? Very odd.
so do you knowwhat the percentage of where the golden share is? LTD or Holdings which door should we open ?:thinking about::thinking about:
Maybe because people knew nothing about them back then or that they'd turn out to be complete arseholes, I wasnt aware people can predict the future. So your saying you didnt trust them at the start when they'd done nothing wrong, but now they've royally fucked up you want them to stay? Very odd.
I turned against them after they sold fox and dann, it was obvious what their plan was after that. Why have i got a selective memory? How would you know about me shouting people down if you only joined this forum recently?Or that fools like you shouted down anyone who showed things about them.
Selective memory to hide your own shame eh.
While I've never watched a full episode of deal or no deal I don't think what you are talking about applies to that show.
What you are talking about is a game show where there are 3 doors and behind one of them is something great like a car. You chose a door, the gameshow host opens one of the doors that doesn't have the car and gives you the option to switch. Most people when put in this situation belive that the odds of the car being behind each door is 50% and so it doesn't matter if they switch or not, this combined with the fact that people don't like to change means the majority of people who don't understand the game fully will chose to stick. This is wrong.
Switching is the best option by a very significant margin. Most people think that the 2 doors have a 50% chance of having the car, that is incorrect, the door you originally picked has a 33% chance of having the car, the other door has a 66% chance of having the car. It's a little hard to explain. but I'm sure you will agree that at the start each door has a 33% chance of having a car. So you chose one, you have a 33% chance of winning, now the gameshow host will open one of the other doors, he will always open a losing one whatever you picked. Him opening this door has not increased your chance of winning to 50% you are still at 33%, there is always at least one losing door to open and he will always open a losing door, your odds have not changed.
Now if you chose to switch you will have a 66% chance of winning, because in essence then instead of your original choice being to try and pick the winner you are trying to pick the one without the car (and there is 2 of those thus 66%), then you will get both other doors. one the gameshow host will open and one you will switch too.
I hope that makes sence.
Inconclusive interim report? What's that all about?
I'm saying I predicted that they would be no good for us, never wanted them in the first place, and don't want them now.
Didn't need to be fucking Nostradamus to predict the behaviour of a hedge-fund with previous against them being led by a bloke who had been turned down by more punters than an 88 year old aids ridden whore.
We know nothing about PH4 either really, could be good, but very little real information on him out there, but will be lauded for a bit I expect.
Give you three years though Valiant if things not going well before you're calling him "a property developing c**t, HIV, Aids boy".
I turned against them after they sold fox and dann, it was obvious what their plan was after that. Why have i got a selective memory? How would you know about me shouting people down if you only joined this forum recently?
I turned against them after they sold fox and dann, it was obvious what their plan was after that. Why have i got a selective memory? How would you know about me shouting people down if you only joined this forum recently?
I'm saying I predicted that they would be no good for us, never wanted them in the first place, and don't want them now.
Didn't need to be fucking Nostradamus to predict the behaviour of a hedge-fund with previous against them being led by a bloke who had been turned down by more punters than an 88 year old aids ridden whore.
We know nothing about PH4 either really, could be good, but very little real information on him out there, but will be lauded for a bit I expect.
Give you three years though Valiant if things not going well before you're calling him "a property developing c**t, HIV, Aids boy".
zzzzzzzzzzzz.the concept of reading really is beyond you isn't it?
Still, from someone who just spouts foul-mouthed gibberish i'm not surprised.
You really are the kind of 'fan' who doesn't deserve a club.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?