West Ham Fans

You seem to be talking as an academic and not someone who has strong commercial experience or who is an authority in economics. The best time to invest is when the market is down, that way you can get bargains. Brown sold for £85m and he made a cool £32m when the club was valued at £85m 2 years ago. We were recently valued at £115m , but because of the Sheff U compo bill hanging over us are now worth circa £100m. That is chicken feed compared to prices being sought for Newcastle, Everton and S***s and what the Dubai group paid for City who came with major debt. A London club especially one that has our sort of history and profile can be a more attractive proposition and that is why even Charlton have just been snapped up by Arabs for £50m.

The best time to invest is on the way up, after the bottom has been reached, not on the way down when you have no idea where the bottom is. It is commercially unwise to invest in a company when so much unceratinty shrouds both it and the market. I thought Barclays were a great buy three months ago; thank God I didn't back my "judgement" then! Yes, we may be a great buy in January, or April. Right now? ONLY if money is no object. And if money is no object, why have Whitechapel if you can afford Mayfair? So, if you offer on West Ham, you offer low. And if you own West Ham and receive a low offer? Well you only sell if desperate. Business is best done in a rising market, when the seller realises a profit and the buyer anticipates one. In a falling market, the seller crystilizes his losses and a buyer is second guessing his! Fixing a price then is very difficult indeed!

Utter nonsense. the best time to invest is when the market is going down and when you perceive it to be near the bottom, as you still have the best negotation tactic of valuing a stock that hasn't reached bottom and therefore being able to grab a deal below market price. But this obviously depends on how good you are at forecasting futures. Obviously a dangerous game. If you are buying when the market is on the way up the seller holds the trump card of suggesting a lot higher price that it is potentially worth. Stick to physics dear boy, and i'll stick to economics and knowlegde on how to play football. Thanks

Fanno is trying to wind us up by portraying himself as knowledgeable on investments and economics. He is probably a low paid English Literature teacher hence his knowledge of Shakespear and command of grammar and spelling. I guess he might have an A level in physics too, but I agree Wrighty he certainly is not commercially adept as demonstrated by his naive comments!

An e on Shakespeare please Del! As for my knowledge in economics, I have had articles published in The Times on the the demutualisation of building societies and the issues surrounding the failure of Standard Life to demutualise sooner. I won't talk about my personal wealth but I will confess to being very considerably poorer this weekend than I was a year ago. My financial bollocks have been crunched too - and not only because I own three properties in the UK. My comments are very far from naive as most successful investors will confirm. Don't try to predict the top or the bottom, you will very probably get it wrong. Buy at 20% and sell at 80% of the way UP the curve and you will rarely be caught out. It is the old 80:20 ratio. It applies to almost everything. 80% of women are plain, 20% are good looking to stunning. Hold out for Miss World and you are likely to be celibate. The secret is to find the one who is just on the right side of the good looking line - she compares herself to the stunners and thinks she is plain! Now that one shags for England to make up for her perceived deficiencies!

I love it when people try and wind other people up when they don't have a clue about that field of speciality. I would never try and touch on Rocket Engineering (;)) with Fanny. Makes peole look a little silly me thinks. DOnt try him with stats though Del... he will look it up on the wesbsite that provides it, probably quicker than you ;)

The irony is, and I don't know this for sure, that I am probably "Considerably richer than you!" Suffice to say, my degree includes Economics so I might just know a little bit about the theories, for what they are worth at the moment. Have you had an article published in The Times business section? If so, we are on a level playing field there.

Fanny, i had a lot of respect for you until you just mentioned that. It says so much about yourself. I bet my child is clever than yours!!! Pathetic, pathetic pathetic. You will obviously remember the famous person who quoted three times. I pity you, althouogh i shouldn't waste my time.

How am I expected to establish my credibility when you imply I do not know what I am talking about? Your response now is churlish. Want to debate economics in detail, I'm up for it! Want to discuss the reasons for the present crisis? I'm up for it. Want to discuss where it will go from here? I'll give it a go but I'm not stupid enough to think I know. I would not presume to know what you are an expert on; the way that you and Del presumed to assume me ignorant of economics, something in which I have some level of understanding and expertise, was somewhat insulting.

You make a comment "the best time to invest is when the market is on the way up". I, correctly advised you it wasn't. Therefore, as you like to put it, ipso facto, you are incorrect. A basic mistake made by someone who doesn't have a clue about economics. I would love to hear it from you that you made a mistake in that comment, otherwise it proves you don't have a lot of knowledge in the field of economics. PS, i read articles every day in the Times, Telegraph, etc etc that are complete rubbish. There were so many experts recently who said oil prices would hit 200usd per barrel before they hit 100usd. I completly disagreed. therefore does it make your article in the Times as falable at there's? Now theres a quesiton. PS, word of advice, don't sit behind a computer screen and judge if you are richer than others, it doesn't become you and you will never be able to prove it, and only make yourslef look stupid to others. pps would love you to send me the link to your article in the Times.

I didn't, I said i didn't know, just that I might be. Again I did not assume. As for being published in The Times, what you write as a forecast might be wrong, most forecasts are, but you do have to display some expertise in your field to get it past the editor. As for my comment about buying in a rising market, it is correct. You certainly should not buy in a falling market! Unless you have a crystal ball and know for sure that the bottom has been reached, you buy early on the upward curve. See the trend established, then buy with risk minimised and growth almost assured. All investment involves assessent of risk. You cannot assess the risk of any plunge until you know where the bottom is!

Ok, firstly, please don't say, "certainly should not buy in a falling market", there are so many markets that invlove falling markets that are predicted to rise on/at a certain time. Most markets around the world would never exist if this didn't happen. You are getting it incorrect again, your eample is being prudent and establishing higher percentage of success. My way is, what is desriced as the best way, more profitable if correct, and what i try, and succesfully advise my clients to do. ps, again i ask for the link of your article in the Times. Plse provide.

Are you a broker? If so, you are giving a broker's advice, designed to suit the broker, not the investor. Of course you want people to buy on the down curve because if nobody buys then the market continues down, as the present situation is illustrating perfectly. It is therefore in your interest to persuade people to buy, to create a market in the first place. There is no commission for you if shares are not traded! The trouble is, you are peddling lies! Simple example. The price starts at 100 and falls, eventually to 10. Why do I want to buy at 30 in a falling market? By the time it reaches 10, I have lost 20 points! However, if the market touches ten and starts to climb, by the time it reaches 30 I feel secure. If I buy at 30 and sell at 80, I turn myself a safe profit. So what if it then climbs to 100? I now move my money to another stock on the up curve and invest safely, and as it appreciates from 30 to 80, my former stock has gone up to 100 and slid back to 90. Now I accept that I may hedge and with a small percentage of my holdings, it might be sensible to try to predict the very bottom, buying at 10, 11, 12 or 13 but the bulk of my investment should always be committed to a rising stock. That's what makes it an investment as opposed to a gamble! Now, apart from my example of an accontancy firm specialising in insolvency, ca you recommend another recession proof company?

Firstly, i am not a broker. Therefore, 95% of your last post is irrelevent. Yet again, we are discussing most prudent and best. My previous arguments wins. Anyhow, your theory about companies being recession proof doesn't match up, as, although there is no actual defintion for recession, companies specialising in insolvency would have the same loss curve in "early" recession stages as any other company, before catch up, therefore potentially making them non recession proof. Unfortunely this can never be substantiated. A good example of a non recssion proof company would be an entrepreunrial company that has just invented something that has never been suggested before, ie nuclear fusion, something you should have mentioined previously. AGAIN plse provide your TImes article

You want my Times articles? Not sure how to find them on line. You could see if there is a "history" on the Times site and search "Demutualisation" and "Standard Life". My Mum has copies framed - good East End girl proud of her son but I've no idea where my copies are. In the loft I expect. I aint making it up, I would come up with something much sexier like, "Why the banking bubble will burst in 2008!" Good call about the new invention by the way, any ideas which one? Insolvency companies are recession proof but they struggle in the boom. That's why a broader based accountancy firm is a better long term investment. How about somebody installng safes in homes given we can't trust banks. Of course, gold was the right answer.

Hmmmmmmmm, love to know a floated home safe providing compamy, merely theoretical. Insolvency companies aren't actually recession proof due to actual stock buying, but as you say better long term investments. WOuld love to know what you mean about Gold, do you mean Gold miners, gold reserve companies, as both are inffalable to recession. When was your article publsied, cant find it on the site. Have lots of stocks that are doing well in the adverstity of recession, but obvioulsy you would have to pay me....;)

But you aint a broker! The recession isn't here yet so don't get cocky. I want a stock that has plummeted already but will bounce back as the market realises that it has been pulled down in the quicksand but is actually sound as a business. Why not share your expertise? The more people who want to buy it, the higher the stock will rise - basic economics! Just imagine all the Klansmen pooling together their fivers and "going in large". Fifteen shares, 'ave it! When were my articles published? I think 98 and 2001 but I can't swear to it. Haven't submitted any since.

And who says Teaching doesn't pay!!

I do! Do you know what a teacher earns? Not enough to buy a cross dresser's wardrobe!

Never mind Fanno at least with all those holidays it gives you plenty of time to write your articles!

I'm having one published next week in Cross Dressing Vogue - What the best dressed North East West Ham fan should wear when on the terraces! Avoid the stockings, you get a nasty chill in the privates!

LOL I look foward to reading it!

That is the point, it is dangerous. Good business men manage risk. It is far better to forgo some profit rather than gamble on unknown losses. If you bought the Bouncing Dead Cat on Monday, you were well f8cked by Friday. Now might be the time to buy but you would be brave to do so. Can the market go lower still? Who knows? My tip is to find a company that is recession proof and buy big because the whole market is undervalued and will recover. But would I buy a bank? No! That bank might not exist by next Friday! So, a recession proof business / company? What do you suggest? (Football clubs are certainly not recession proof!!!!!)

Can a company be recession proof Fanny, A level Economics will answer that question?

Yes. An accountancy firm specialising in insolvency. Next question.

Chelsea were bought by Abromvich when they were on the brink of administration. The Dubai people bought City when Shenawatra was beleaguered so your argument doesn't stack up. Beauty is always in the eye of the beholder and as such it doesn't always follow that potential buyers are only in the market for the bigger clubs. Some want to buy into the potential and we have that in abundance at West Ham. For example Bernie Ecclestine bought QPR and Arabs have just bought Charlton, when they could have easily afforded S***s and Arsenal.

And all those clubs are now toys Del, playthings which may be tossed aside at any point. Money was no object. Do we want that? Do we want to be at the whim of a billionaire? Do Chelsea's trophies mean anything? Not in my book. I agree with Platini, there is no point in supporting a club if it is completely divorced from its roots. give me the old West Ham, playing football the right way and just about holding our own thanks. I don't want to be a Chelsea or a City and I sure as hell don't want to be a Leeds United, although, to be fair to Leeds, they blew their own money, it wasn't a foreign fat cat playing train sets with them. This has moved the argument. I am talking about a business decision. I started by saying that a "money no object" purchase is possible but is that desirable in the medium to long run? Who would have thought that BG would be in these difficulties now when he bought the club? As the world changes, what happens to Chelsea if the Russians don't only suspend their stock market but nationalise all their oil companies. If we can part nationalise the banks and America can abandon free market economics under a Republican President, it aint such a big step for Russia to order the arrest or assassination of Abromovitch and take back into state ownership all his assets.

You're missing the point. We are not discussing the merits of Russian tycoons, but why now can be the right time to buy clubs. Also you seemed to miss the point in our other debate. The tribunal was not convened to judge West Ham's guilt, we admitted our guilt and were duly punished with a fine. The Griffith's tribunal was simply asked to determine if West Ham were to blame for Sheff U being relegated and they said we were because Tevez was worth 3 extra points. How can anyone make such a determination and for West Ham to allow to be bound by the verdict of a panel who know nothing about football, beggars belief!

No, you are sidestepping Del. I said at the outset that a "money is no object" buy is possible. Is it a good time to buy? Only if BG HAS to sell. Any offer would have to be a lower offer because of uncetainty in the market in general and surrounding West Ham in particular. If BG doesn't have to sell, he won't just because it is the "decent thing" to do. As for the other argument, if Tevez wasn't worth three points, why did we play him? If you didn't mean to kill him, why did you put the loaded gun to his temple and pull the trigger?

Your point was lost by going off at tangents and pontificating on economoics and this not being the right to buy. As far as I'm concerned, I don't care, I want BG to sell up right now (as long as it's someone as astute as Randy Lerner) as his ownership has been nothing but a disaster and under his regime we are always in the press for the wrong reasons. So far as Tevez is concerned, he initially struggled and only came good from March that season after he found his fitness and form. Of course if he was eligible, we had to play him as he was in the form of his life and was the difference in those last matches but in my opinion that only made up for when he was being carried in the earlier part of the season.

But the dispute is over the last three games when he was in the form of his life. And he wasn't eligible. M' Lord, Sheffield United rest their case!

The dispute was over the whole season, but Sheff U based their final appeal on "new evidence" that Tevez should not have been allowed to play in the final 3 games.

Yes we know that Del. We were caught with our hands in the till for the first offence and were duly punished. We then claimed to own the till and dipped our fingers in again, only for it to transpire that we were lying. Take him down!