Teasy Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 “It's just not an option,” one said. Quite possible one of the greatest source-quotes in the history of journalism The Times and Shields Gazette are just taking a wild stab in the dark. They know as fuck all much as we do. Caulkin is the only journalist I have any respect for, I have much more faith in his articles then the usual tabloid drivel. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 quayside is back to ease all our worries (or hopes...). Good post by Jimmyc84. If you think Jimmyc84 is me under another name - no sorry. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jimmyc84 Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 quayside is back to ease all our worries (or hopes...). Good post by Jimmyc84. If you think Jimmyc84 is me under another name - no sorry. and thinking about it even more, even if he sells it for 60 million he'll still get a capital loss of 170 ish million (the cost was about 230 m was it?). so potential tax relief at 18% of 35 million odd (don't have a calculator). i.e. relief of 35 million + actual proceeds on sale of 60+ million straight into his pocket with a sale to an investor versus relief of 45 million and proceeds equal to whatever an administrator can sell assets for. the more i think, the less plausible it is that tax savings would be valid reasoning for administration. right, bed time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 “It's just not an option,” one said. Quite possible one of the greatest source-quotes in the history of journalism The Times and Shields Gazette are just taking a wild stab in the dark. They know as f*** all much as we do. Caulkin is the only journalist I have any respect for, I have much more faith in his articles then the usual tabloid drivel. The first thing I was taught at Uni las year was that 99% of the time when a print journalist has a story that they want to run, but no quotes, they make up a 'source'. Caulkin's article stinks of it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 “It's just not an option,” one said. Quite possible one of the greatest source-quotes in the history of journalism The Times and Shields Gazette are just taking a wild stab in the dark. They know as f*** all much as we do. Caulkin is the only journalist I have any respect for, I have much more faith in his articles then the usual tabloid drivel. The first thing I was taught at Uni las year was that 99% of the time when a print journalist has a story that they want to run, but no quotes, they make up a 'source'. Caulkin's article stinks of it. even when there may be something in the story they quite often haven't got the experience of the subject to understand it properly. i work in a business which sometimes hits the headlines when the shit hits and you can always tell when the journo hasn't actually got a clue what he/she is having to report on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 “It's just not an option,” one said. Quite possible one of the greatest source-quotes in the history of journalism The Times and Shields Gazette are just taking a wild stab in the dark. They know as f*** all much as we do. Caulkin is the only journalist I have any respect for, I have much more faith in his articles then the usual tabloid drivel. The first thing I was taught at Uni las year was that 99% of the time when a print journalist has a story that they want to run, but no quotes, they make up a 'source'. Caulkin's article stinks of it. Absolutely its a staple of the tabloid journalist, its probably only one rare occasions when these "sources" are actually real. Just saying I usually give him the benefit of the doubt because he's the only 'journalist' I trust in the slightest. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustynrg Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 “It's just not an option,” one said. Quite possible one of the greatest source-quotes in the history of journalism The Times and Shields Gazette are just taking a wild stab in the dark. They know as f*** all much as we do. Caulkin is the only journalist I have any respect for, I have much more faith in his articles then the usual tabloid drivel. And he's proved to be right more often than not. He's the only one I trust as well. The rest are clueless. The first thing I was taught at Uni las year was that 99% of the time when a print journalist has a story that they want to run, but no quotes, they make up a 'source'. Caulkin's article stinks of it. Absolutely its a staple of the tabloid journalist, its probably only one rare occasions when these "sources" are actually real. Just saying I usually give him the benefit of the doubt because he's the only 'journalist' I trust in the slightest. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 “It's just not an option,” one said. Quite possible one of the greatest source-quotes in the history of journalism The Times and Shields Gazette are just taking a wild stab in the dark. They know as f*** all much as we do. Caulkin is the only journalist I have any respect for, I have much more faith in his articles then the usual tabloid drivel. The first thing I was taught at Uni las year was that 99% of the time when a print journalist has a story that they want to run, but no quotes, they make up a 'source'. Caulkin's article stinks of it. You needed Uni to work that out? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Phil K Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 As the bast*rds have lied constantly - a "denial" worries me. The bas*rd won't sell, but will destroy us instead Sums up the sh*tbag. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 quayside is back to ease all our worries (or hopes...). Good post by Jimmyc84. If you think Jimmyc84 is me under another name - no sorry. and thinking about it even more, even if he sells it for 60 million he'll still get a capital loss of 170 ish million (the cost was about 230 m was it?). so potential tax relief at 18% of 35 million odd (don't have a calculator). i.e. relief of 35 million + actual proceeds on sale of 60+ million straight into his pocket with a sale to an investor versus relief of 45 million and proceeds equal to whatever an administrator can sell assets for. the more i think, the less plausible it is that tax savings would be valid reasoning for administration. right, bed time. Wish you had of posted that yesterday morning, been trying to explain it to a Spurs fan on another forum and you just condensed about 30 mins of posts into your 3 posts Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bealios Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 Another important point: - one of the main reasons for entering administration is that it gives a company a bit of breathing space, since during the administration none of your creditors can generally take any legal action against you, landlords can't kick you out etc. Given that Ashley is the main and perhaps only major creditor, then this is just going to make repayment of this loan even harder, and outside of his control. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 quayside is back to ease all our worries (or hopes...). Good post by Jimmyc84. If you think Jimmyc84 is me under another name - no sorry. and thinking about it even more, even if he sells it for 60 million he'll still get a capital loss of 170 ish million (the cost was about 230 m was it?). so potential tax relief at 18% of 35 million odd (don't have a calculator). i.e. relief of 35 million + actual proceeds on sale of 60+ million straight into his pocket with a sale to an investor versus relief of 45 million and proceeds equal to whatever an administrator can sell assets for. the more i think, the less plausible it is that tax savings would be valid reasoning for administration. right, bed time. Well admin seems highly unlikely and seemed even more obscure when I started the thread a month ago, but you can never put your mind at rest with MA in charge. 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