The Gooner Forum

QuartzGooner wrote:USM

The bulk of the club's shares are held by a small number of investors.

So share price does not change with the volatility of many publically listed companies.

It changes much more regarding demand, and how many shares are actually available especially if a shareholder puts a large chunk of shares up for sale.

That is partially correct but not entirely correct. There are severable variaibles affecting share prices, other wise our share price would not have spiked along with the rest of the stock market in 2007, because that was a market-wide correction which could not happen if prices were solely determined by the factors you suggest.

If the circumstances behind shre price increases were solely down to the factors you suggest just look at the remarkable shift in our share price from 2004 to 2005, before Stan Kreonke or Alisher Usmanow (nice correction btw ) were even linked with Arsenal - the sahre rpice went from 1600 a share to over 4000 a share. Who was buying enough shares at high enough prices to cause that?On 9 June 2004 the share price was 1757 GBP. On 9 June 2005 it was 4352 GBP. Can you explain that as there was little major movement of shares on the Board at that time and the Board contolled about 90% of the club then?

USMartin wrote:One of the problems here is some of you won't believe anything you don't want to. If you found Peter Hill-Wood standing alone in an alley with a bloody knife over a corpse stabbed ten times and overheard him say "I should have done you ten more" you would find some way to tell yourself that since you did not actually see it as it happened that it cannot have been Mr. Hill-Wood who did the stabbing.

The fact is for you your loyalty and faith in the Arsenal Way and the Arsenal Board as its protectors is so great you uincapable of objectively assessing anything.

So while I suspect the evidence I present will have some positive impact it will rejected without being read by many of you because you don't want to know anything beyond what you want to believe and you can't even prove what you believe nor do want to try even. You just want to believe what you want to believe and ignore what you might actually know.

Be honest now.....your a Miss Marples fan aren't you ;)

Go Marty Go Marty Go Marty Go.......here he is bless him, just after his dinner of 14 burgers and a gallon of pepsi.



His therapist told him to concentrate on something other than his weight.....hence the board obsession....

TeeCee wrote:Go Marty Go Marty Go Marty Go.......here he is bless him, just after his dinner of 14 burgers and a gallon of pepsi.

Never Pepsi - Coke is it - still

Oh I didn't see that you twisted pervo

Guess its easier than debating the facts for you, especially in your case...

Im going to go to bed now and i reckon when i log back on tomorrow evening after work there still wont be the slightest bit of evidence or proof that i have been asking for for the last 2 days from our friend because he has none.All talk no substance

mcdowell42 wrote:Im going to go to bed now and i reckon when i log back on tomorrow evening after work there still wont be the slightest bit of evidence or proof that i have been asking for for the last 2 days from our friend because he has none.All talk no substance

Like I say you will get your proof, and Ignore it...like you did when you fiund Mr. Hill-Wood over the dead body in the alley since you didn't actually see the crime it couldn't have happened.

But when it isproven beyond nay sort of doubt you will say nothing then even because you won't want resposnibility for your unwillingness to try and fight to prevent it. You'll come up with some new rationalization or say nothing at all then.

USMartin wrote:One of the problems here is some of you won't believe anything you don't want to. If you found Peter Hill-Wood standing alone in an alley with a bloody knife over a corpse stabbed ten times and overheard him say "I should have done you ten more" you would find some way to tell yourself that since you did not actually see it as it happened that it cannot have been Mr. Hill-Wood who did the stabbing.

The fact is for you your loyalty and faith in the Arsenal Way and the Arsenal Board as its protectors is so great you uincapable of objectively assessing anything.

So while I suspect the evidence I present will have some positive impact it will rejected without being read by many of you because you don't want to know anything beyond what you want to believe and you can't even prove what you believe nor do want to try even. You just want to believe what you want to believe and ignore what you might actually know.

Marty.....yet more wild accusation, incorrect assumption, and flawed judgement!

It's hardly surprising that no creedance is given to your grand conspiracy theory.

It doesnt need dressing up or dumbing down You lose more credibility every day Marty

You're a cock, you're a cock, you're a cock!

redstevo wrote:You're a cock, you're a cock, you're a cock!

Ahhh I love the office

USMartin wrote:

QuartzGooner wrote:USM

The bulk of the club's shares are held by a small number of investors.

So share price does not change with the volatility of many publically listed companies.

It changes much more regarding demand, and how many shares are actually available especially if a shareholder puts a large chunk of shares up for sale.

That is partially correct but not entirely correct. There are severable variaibles affecting share prices, other wise our share price would not have spiked along with the rest of the stock market in 2007, because that was a market-wide correction which could not happen if prices were solely determined by the factors you suggest.

If the circumstances behind shre price increases were solely down to the factors you suggest just look at the remarkable shift in our share price from 2004 to 2005, before Stan Kreonke or Alisher Usmanow (nice correction btw ) were even linked with Arsenal - the sahre rpice went from 1600 a share to over 4000 a share. Who was buying enough shares at high enough prices to cause that?On 9 June 2004 the share price was 1757 GBP. On 9 June 2005 it was 4352 GBP. Can you explain that as there was little major movement of shares on the Board at that time and the Board contolled about 90% of the club then?

Source? What your explanation then for the value of the club rising by 150% no doubt its backed up by proof

everyone here hates Hill-Wood you delusional crackpot. the reason we don't agree with you isn't because we place our trust in the board its because you have FA evidence

Deise Gooner wrote:

USMartin wrote:

QuartzGooner wrote:USM

The bulk of the club's shares are held by a small number of investors.

So share price does not change with the volatility of many publically listed companies.

It changes much more regarding demand, and how many shares are actually available especially if a shareholder puts a large chunk of shares up for sale.

That is partially correct but not entirely correct. There are severable variaibles affecting share prices, other wise our share price would not have spiked along with the rest of the stock market in 2007, because that was a market-wide correction which could not happen if prices were solely determined by the factors you suggest.

If the circumstances behind shre price increases were solely down to the factors you suggest just look at the remarkable shift in our share price from 2004 to 2005, before Stan Kreonke or Alisher Usmanow (nice correction btw ) were even linked with Arsenal - the sahre rpice went from 1600 a share to over 4000 a share. Who was buying enough shares at high enough prices to cause that?On 9 June 2004 the share price was 1757 GBP. On 9 June 2005 it was 4352 GBP. Can you explain that as there was little major movement of shares on the Board at that time and the Board contolled about 90% of the club then?

Source? What your explanation then for the value of the club rising by 150% no doubt its backed up by proof

http://www.plusquoted.com/chart?code=AF ... PERIOD_10Y

Oh and actually it was 1575 GBP a share not 1757 - my bad

MM99 wrote:

What a fascinating couple you two make...