madras Posted March 31, 2008 Share Posted March 31, 2008 What I find funny about this whole thing is the massive deal the media have made of it. Ashley has taken a temporary loss of £129 (temporary because the stock can recover) and its on the back page of every f****** rag in the nation. Meanwhile the owner of Spuds makes a loss of £650 million and... not a f****** whisper (unless I missed the Mirror or Sun reporting this, which I doubt). teasy...how can i put this ? are you a simple minded mong ?.....no that would be wrong. i'm sorry! ,i'll put it this way. ashley wont get his £129mill back unless he has backed the shares some more cos he bcaked them at a bookies...he didn't buy the shares as such. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted March 31, 2008 Share Posted March 31, 2008 What I find funny about this whole thing is the massive deal the media have made of it. Ashley has taken a temporary loss of £129 (temporary because the stock can recover) and its on the back page of every f****** rag in the nation. Meanwhile the owner of Spuds makes a loss of £650 million and... not a f****** whisper (unless I missed the Mirror or Sun reporting this, which I doubt). teasy...how can i put this ? are you a simple minded mong ?.....no that would be wrong. i'm sorry! ,i'll put it this way. ashley wont get his £129mill back unless he has backed the shares some more cos he bcaked them at a bookies...he didn't buy the shares as such. You might not want to call someone simple minded when you can't even master the most basic grammar. Put it this way, I'd much rather be misinformed then have learning difficulties. As far as I read in the Sun and Mirror (the rags I referred to) he had bought shares. If that's incorrect then whatever, it doesn't really change my point, nor does it warrant that car crash of a post. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted March 31, 2008 Share Posted March 31, 2008 teasy...how can i put this ? are you a simple minded mong ?.....no that would be wrong. i'm sorry! ,i'll put it this way. ashley wont get his £129mill back unless he has backed the shares some more cos he bcaked them at a bookies...he didn't buy the shares as such. No, he backed them on IG index, so it depends if he still has a position open. Doubt he'll get his money back soon, but his losses have narrowed somewhat. Joe Lewis (Spurs guy) owned a slice of Bear Sterns that was worth about £600m and will get little more than his bus fare home in return. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PRL Posted March 31, 2008 Share Posted March 31, 2008 What I find funny about this whole thing is the massive deal the media have made of it. Ashley has taken a temporary loss of £129 (temporary because the stock can recover) and its on the back page of every f****** rag in the nation. Meanwhile the owner of Spuds makes a loss of £650 million and... not a f****** whisper (unless I missed the Mirror or Sun reporting this, which I doubt). teasy...how can i put this ? are you a simple minded mong ?.....no that would be wrong. i'm sorry! ,i'll put it this way. ashley wont get his £129mill back unless he has backed the shares some more cos he bcaked them at a bookies...he didn't buy the shares as such. Do you understand spread betting?! There is very little chance he would have closed down his position in the wake of those losses. The problem with associating the word 'bet' with this is that people think it's a bet with a fixed date that ends when a certain event occurs. The type of bet Ashley had on meant that every time the HBOS price moved one way or the other he won / lost an agreed amount. He has had this open since last year (who is to know how long before that as well) and these losses are an accumulation of the losses throughout that period. As stated, these will have narrowed somewhat, in fact at least 20% following on from last week's HBOS recovery. He would not have needed to place another bet, just keep the same one open as he has for a good few months. Balances will probably be paid on a daily, weekly or monthly basis so he will have lost the amount stated / gained but it will still only appear like a paper loss until the bet is closed and the final figure is realised. I think you should have maybe done a little research before the simple minded mong comment, rather backfired. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted March 31, 2008 Share Posted March 31, 2008 What I find funny about this whole thing is the massive deal the media have made of it. Ashley has taken a temporary loss of £129 (temporary because the stock can recover) and its on the back page of every f****** rag in the nation. Meanwhile the owner of Spuds makes a loss of £650 million and... not a f****** whisper (unless I missed the Mirror or Sun reporting this, which I doubt). teasy...how can i put this ? are you a simple minded mong ?.....no that would be wrong. i'm sorry! ,i'll put it this way. ashley wont get his £129mill back unless he has backed the shares some more cos he bcaked them at a bookies...he didn't buy the shares as such. Do you understand spread betting?! There is very little chance he would have closed down his position in the wake of those losses. The problem with associating the word 'bet' with this is that people think it's a bet with a fixed date that ends when a certain event occurs. The type of bet Ashley had on meant that every time the HBOS price moved one way or the other he won / lost an agreed amount. He has had this open since last year (who is to know how long before that as well) and these losses are an accumulation of the losses throughout that period. As stated, these will have narrowed somewhat, in fact at least 20% following on from last week's HBOS recovery. He would not have needed to place another bet, just keep the same one open as he has for a good few months. Balances will probably be paid on a daily, weekly or monthly basis so he will have lost the amount stated / gained but it will still only appear like a paper loss until the bet is closed and the final figure is realised. I think you should have maybe done a little research before the simple minded mong comment, rather backfired. in reply no. 80 on march 26 i say i've never played but i understand the premise.....however the way you describe it he could leave it open for years till it recovers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted June 8, 2008 Share Posted June 8, 2008 Stumbled across this, don't recall it getting the press Ashley's losses did http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/03/18/nmeltdown418.xml Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted June 8, 2008 Share Posted June 8, 2008 Stumbled across this, don't recall it getting the press Ashley's losses did http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/03/18/nmeltdown418.xml Honestly, Spurs have to out do us on fuking everything don't they? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Lol Posted June 8, 2008 Share Posted June 8, 2008 Stumbled across this, don't recall it getting the press Ashley's losses did http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/03/18/nmeltdown418.xml It was well reported at the time, it was mentioned 3 posts before yours in fact. As he's a multi-billionaire, losing half a billion must be annoying but I would guess that it's not a catastrophe. As I'm not a multi-billionaire, I'm unable to judge! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GM Posted June 8, 2008 Share Posted June 8, 2008 Stumbled across this, don't recall it getting the press Ashley's losses did http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/03/18/nmeltdown418.xml It was well reported at the time, it was mentioned 3 posts before yours in fact. As he's a multi-billionaire, losing half a billion must be annoying but I would guess that it's not a catastrophe. As I'm not a multi-billionaire, I'm unable to judge! Fuck me sideways. Are you still posting here you great big Spurs gobshite? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
relámpago blanco Posted June 9, 2008 Share Posted June 9, 2008 Stumbled across this, don't recall it getting the press Ashley's losses did http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/03/18/nmeltdown418.xml It was well reported at the time, it was mentioned 3 posts before yours in fact. As he's a multi-billionaire, losing half a billion must be annoying but I would guess that it's not a catastrophe. As I'm not a multi-billionaire, I'm unable to judge! Stumbled across this, don't recall it getting the press Ashley's losses did http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/03/18/nmeltdown418.xml It was well reported at the time, it was mentioned 3 posts before yours in fact. As he's a multi-billionaire, losing half a billion must be annoying but I would guess that it's not a catastrophe. As I'm not a multi-billionaire, I'm unable to judge! According to that his worth has gone down from 2.8B to 1.5B. I think it's safe to say he'd have been pissed off. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now