Page 1 of 1
Would you like to invest in allegedly and Sports Network?
Posted: 07 Jul 2004, 12:21
by My T Sharp
It now seems very possible...
100% investment in Sports Network?
http://mwprices.ft.com/custom/ft-com/st ... D2B19DA%7D
December 2002 results
http://moneyextra.uk-wire.com/cgi-bin/a ... 1310H.html
Hatton Vs Witter, Calazghe Vs Hopkins?
http://moneyextra.uk-wire.com/cgi-bin/a ... 3581G.html
Very long offer (but worth reading, shows that people want to invest in boxing)
http://moneyextra.uk-wire.com/cgi-bin/a ... 5743T.html
Sorry about all the stock exchange nonsense...but there are some interesting facts and figures in there. 8)
Posted: 07 Jul 2004, 12:31
by DavidPayne
Some fascinating stuff in here.
There is a mention of three fights;
Hatton v Witter
Harrison v McCullough
Calzaghe v Hopkins
These were hoped to happen in 2003.
Posted: 07 Jul 2004, 12:51
by TheRiverCityHippy
how many shares can you get for ten bob?
Posted: 07 Jul 2004, 13:00
by DG.
headhunter wrote:how many shares can you get for ten bob?
How many shares would I get for a big bag of shit because that is all you will get back !!.
Posted: 07 Jul 2004, 13:45
by nickd
Definitely not, I'd rather die.
Posted: 07 Jul 2004, 13:54
by knockout artist
Sports & Leisure Group plc is not stock I would invest in for the following reasons.
1). The stock appears to me to be fairly illiquid.
2). The dividends appear fairly low, when compared to other forms of investment such as gilts and property.
3). The shares have, IMO, a low NAV. (Net Asset Value)
Posted: 07 Jul 2004, 14:19
by kevo
knockout artist wrote:Sports & Leisure Group plc is not stock I would invest in for the following reasons.
1). The stock appears to me to be fairly illiquid.
2). The dividends appear fairly low, when compared to other forms of investment such as gilts and property.
3). The shares have, IMO, a low NAV. (Net Asset Value)
Just what I was abpout to say.
Posted: 07 Jul 2004, 14:20
by neil r
knockout artist wrote:Sports & Leisure Group plc is not stock I would invest in for the following reasons.
1). The stock appears to me to be fairly illiquid.
2). The dividends appear fairly low, when compared to other forms of investment such as gilts and property.
3). The shares have, IMO, a low NAV. (Net Asset Value)
this is all away above my head.
Posted: 07 Jul 2004, 14:29
by Matchfixer
neil r wrote:knockout artist wrote:Sports & Leisure Group plc is not stock I would invest in for the following reasons.
1). The stock appears to me to be fairly illiquid.
2). The dividends appear fairly low, when compared to other forms of investment such as gilts and property.
3). The shares have, IMO, a low NAV. (Net Asset Value)
this is all away above my head.
1- In short it means they would be hard to sell to someone if (when) you wanted to get rid of them.
2 - Lots of companies shares pay a dividend (a payment from their profits to you) for investing in their company. A small company is less likely to pay a dividend and if it does it is likely to be small.
3 - He means the company has a low Net Asset Value. NAV = the sum of all assets minus all liabilities (money owing to other people)
Posted: 07 Jul 2004, 14:30
by Matchfixer
DG. wrote:headhunter wrote:how many shares can you get for ten bob?
How many shares would I get for a big bag of shit because that is all you will get back !!.
If your lucky
Re: Would you like to invest in allegedly and Sports Netw
Posted: 08 Jul 2004, 07:08
by steve richards
I did'nt know Warren was a sole trader, with a compant turning over anything more than £500,000, he will be caining that for a fair few quid, if you've not got heavy creditors etc you only fill out a self assesment
, form
Posted: 08 Jul 2004, 07:20
by tcwilliams
Posted: 08 Jul 2004, 08:15
by silkov
What is this? a Frankie lovers sit in???....... 8)
Posted: 08 Jul 2004, 09:17
by steve richards
silkov wrote:What is this? a Frankie lovers sit in???....... 8)
just pointing out the guy is a crafty fornicator, Frankie has enough people lickin his ring without all off us doing it
, the guy must have the cleanest arse south ov watford
Posted: 08 Jul 2004, 09:26
by knockout artist
steve richards wrote:silkov wrote:What is this? a Frankie lovers sit in???....... 8)
just pointing out the guy is a crafty fornicator, Frankie has enough people lickin his ring without all off us doing it
, the guy must have the cleanest arse south ov watford
Frankie's is north of Watford, these days.
Posted: 08 Jul 2004, 09:31
by steve richards
knockout artist wrote:steve richards wrote:silkov wrote:What is this? a Frankie lovers sit in???....... 8)
just pointing out the guy is a crafty fornicator, Frankie has enough people lickin his ring without all off us doing it
, the guy must have the cleanest arse south ov watford
Frankie's is north of Watford, these days.
Its all south from up here mate
