Wooing the super-rich (from BT)
-
M13, no offence, if you have incapable of understanding what you are actually doing, it is the best that you dont do it at all, because that is embarrassing and also waste of time. Do you have reason to believe that the real world is as simple as what you learn from the text book?Originally posted by maurizio13:a) Whether real world or exams, it provides a basis for us to form an opinion on our data, if it is of no relevance, I think the schools should stop teaching it altogether. When you calculate the parabolic motion of an object in the real world and in an exam, there are slight differences, but doesn't mean that the exam based method is wrong, else we won't be learning it.
b) You provided the data, I computed the data. You said I should use current price instead of 2000 price, I keyed in the data again, but the results do not match your erroneous view, so now you want to discredit it and use another method.
c-d) Fine. Since it's your method and you suggested it, please show us your calculation and results. I don't know how to use ARIMA.
Atobe has provided a data source from Ministry of Trade and Information which coincides with his/her observation and my calculations.
You are just a sore loser not willing to accept defeat despite all the facts presented. Everybody who has read this thread will know the kind of person you
are.
What is the point of using elememtary formula to question the numbers that were derived from more complex and comprehensive formula used by governments around the world. -
Nah, if I want to defend the regime, I dont have to do it here because you guys are just a bunch of computer hero.Originally posted by maurizio13:Their sole purpose is to defend the regime at all cost, even at the cost of looking stupid.
Sometimes I'd admire them, they have very thick skin, don't know what is paiseh.
My sole purpose here see how much BS can you post before someone catches you. -
You can't even understand simple logic. I am not the least bother by a fool calling me incapable. HeheheOriginally posted by Gazelle:M13, no offence, if you have incapable of understanding what you are actually doing, it is the best that you dont do it at all, because that is embarrassing and also waste of time. Do you have reason to believe that the real world is as simple as what you learn from the text book?
What is the point of using elememtary formula to question the numbers that were derived from more complex and comprehensive formula used by governments around the world.
So I suppose the figures provided by Atobe from the Ministry of Trade and Industry is correct?
I showed you regression analysis, if you think you got some other method more profound, show it to me, else....., what is the point of talking about something which you cannot prove. You are making baseless arguments like always.
If you have those seasonal adjustments done by the authorities, show it to us then. If you don't have talk so much for what.
It's like I have a Honda, I showed my car to you, you say you have a Mercedes, but you can't show to me. Then what's the point of bringing up the Mercedes into the discussion.
You ever play poker? You say you have royal flush, show us your royal flush instead of showing us your poker face.
You didn't even rebut all my earlier post regarding the 70/30 allocation. All you ever do when you lose a discussion is to bring up new topics and hope that the topics which you lost in would just be buried under.
Be a man, don't be coward and keep running away. You make your claims, stand and fight for it. -
You showed me the formula, but you havent been able to convince me that your numbers are any useful to be discussed. Since you talk like an expert in this field, could you be kind enough to comment if what our government is doing is correct?Originally posted by maurizio13:You can't even understand simple logic. I am not the least bother by a fool calling me incapable. Hehehe
So I suppose the figures provided by Atobe from the Ministry of Trade and Industry is correct?
I showed you regression analysis, if you think you got some other method more profound, show it to me, else....., what is the point of talking about something which you cannot prove. You are making baseless arguments like always.
If you have those seasonal adjustments done by the authorities, show it to us then. If you don't have talk so much for what.
It's like I have a Honda, I showed my car to you, you say you have a Mercedes, but you can't show to me. Then what's the point of bringing up the Mercedes into the discussion.
You ever play poker? You say you have royal flush, show us your royal flush instead of showing us your poker face.
You didn't even rebut all my earlier post regarding the 70/30 allocation. All you ever do when you lose a discussion is to bring up new topics and hope that the topics which you lost in would just be buried under.
Be a man, don't be coward and keep running away. You make your claims, stand and fight for it.
http://www.singstat.gov.sg/papers/op/ip-e32.pdf
nah, your analogy is wrong, It is more like you keep telling us that your honda is fast but you dont even know how to drive.
nah, I perfer not to waste my time with talking to people who dont even knojw what they are talking about. -
In most circumstances, acquiring a football club has got nothing to do with price money or TV revenue indeed.Originally posted by Gazelle:acquiring a club has got nothing to do with the price money or TV revenue. Would appreaciate if you do some more reading about how TV revenue is being distributed in EPL, and where does the top price money actually comes from.
However, if the prospective buyer were making an offer for the most marketable club (at least, in financial terms) in its bid to leverage on its position in the bargaining stakes to secure an advantage in brokering subsequent TV deals for the Premier League - which would have no trouble coming across as a direct conflict of interest to any sane and rational mind - that's quite another matter, isn't it?
I trust someone as shallow-minded as you wouldn't possibly see the point anyway. Perhaps, you might be interested in knowing why the Office of Fair Trading intervened to prevent that takeover from being completed.
Failing which, you could always stick to just watching football and give the discussion of the business implications a miss...
Are you sure you're even a football fan? Just analysing English Premier League clubs without clouding an already-convoluted picture for your simple mind, do you know the difference between a Premier League match from a Champions League/UEFA Cup (for the top clubs), FA Cup and a League Cup match? Or are you trying to tell me the Champions League/UEFA Cup, FA Cup, League Cup and Premier League are one and the same?Originally posted by Gazelle:All clubs in EPL get an equal cut of the TV money?
If what you say is true, then i am wondering why team be spending so much money of players just to get to the top of the table.
In the link I furnished in an earlier post, I've already highlighted the irrefutable fact that Premier League clubs get an equal basic cut of Sky's TV deal with the Premier League. I didn't say every club in the Premiership generates the same gate receipts, merchandising sales, Gate Receipts/Prize Money/TV money from other competitions (FA Cup, League Cup, European competitions), did I?
So what does your simple mind preclude you from understanding now? -
Obviously you don't know how to read, the link you provided does not contain the 3rd quarter figures for 2005 and 2006. What's the point of putting a useless link in your post? Since when I claim to be an expert in the field, I just did a simple regression analysis, you made that claim on your own accord. In fact, I told you in all my earlier post that I don't know how to do ARIMA, since you mentioned it, I asked that you provide me the figures to make better comparison with my figures.Originally posted by Gazelle:You showed me the formula, but you havent been able to convince me that your numbers are any useful to be discussed. Since you talk like an expert in this field, could you be kind enough to comment if what our government is doing is correct?
http://www.singstat.gov.sg/papers/op/ip-e32.pdf
nah, your analogy is wrong, It is more like you keep telling us that your honda is fast but you dont even know how to drive.
nah, I perfer not to waste my time with talking to people who dont even knojw what they are talking about.
If you can quote ARIMA, don't tell me you don't know simple linear regression and it's used in analysing the data you provided. I showed you the courtesy of providing you the current market price calculation for the regression, I think it's only proper that you do likewise and give me the figures for you ARIMA calculation.
Can't win your arguments now and claim that I don't know what I am talking about. Hehehe...... -
To Walsea & Atobe:
I think we all face the same problem with Gazelle, he only sees what he wants to see, it's like 2 permanent blinkers at the side of his face. If you straddle him, all you have to do is tug at the leash and he'll turn wherever you want him to. -
Have you ever wondered where the bulk of the income difference between the clubs of different standings in the Premier League come from?Originally posted by Gazelle:isnt that obvious that the top teams are earning more money than the smaller ones? Have you ever wonder how they decide which matches will be telecast live and which one not?
Obviously, you haven't seen this given your naivety. Would you like to take a look at the "Premiership" column?
For simplicity, let's compare Manchester United and Chelsea to dispel your drivel that "the winner of the season will get the biggest pie of the TV renevnue". Should you conveniently decide to put some spin to your tale, you might wish to note we're only considering the income from Premier League matches since you so conveniently claimed that for the EPL, "the winner of the season will get the biggest pie of the TV revenue".
Manchester United's income for 2006/2007 stands at £30.58m, but their total income from TV is £16.86m (include the £8.9m plus further revenue through PPV and live games). Chelsea's income for 2006/2007 stands at £30.97m, but their total income from TV is £17.45m (include the £8.9m plus further revenue through PPV and live games). So, if your theory that "winner of the season will get the biggest pie of the TV revenue" held true, would you like to explain how is it possible that Chelsea have actually raked in more money than Manchester United in 2006/2007?
If you're running out of arguments, you may wish to enlighten me that it was Chelsea, and not Manchester United, that actually won the 2006/2007 Premier League...
-
Later he will claim that you know nothing and he doesn't see any point in talking to someone who doesn't know anything.
Hehehe...... -
It's not a problem, mate - it's a plague that confronts all the self-effacing sycophants around here...Originally posted by maurizio13:To Walsea & Atobe:
I think we all face the same problem with Gazelle, he only sees what he wants to see, it's like 2 permanent blinkers at the side of his face. If you straddle him, all you have to do is tug at the leash and he'll turn wherever you want him to.
Their logic, while outrageously illogical, make for comical reading nonetheless. Don't you think so? -
Yah, no doubt about it, interesting.Originally posted by walesa:It's not a problem, mate - it's a plague that confronts all the self-effacing sycophants around here...
Their logic, while outrageously illogical, make for comical reading nonetheless. Don't you think so?
Wonder where is horsey? -
Bravo! Finally a hint of some insight remainingOriginally posted by maurizio13:Later he will claim that you know nothing and he doesn't see any point in talking to someone who doesn't know anything.
Hehehe...... -
Looks like someone has a severe case of anal pruritis tonight.
Hehehe...... -
Originally posted by walesa:
Am I a football fan? Do you need to be a football fan to know how TV revenue are being distributed in the EPL?
Are you sure you're even a football fan? Just analysing English Premier League clubs without clouding an already-convoluted picture for your simple mind, do you know the difference between a Premier League match from a Champions League/UEFA Cup (for the top clubs), FA Cup and a League Cup match? Or are you trying to tell me the Champions League/UEFA Cup, FA Cup, League Cup and Premier League are one and the same?
In the link I furnished in an earlier post, I've already highlighted the irrefutable fact that Premier League clubs get an [b]equal basic cut of Sky's TV deal with the Premier League. I didn't say every club in the Premiership generates the same gate receipts, merchandising sales, Gate Receipts/Prize Money/TV money from other competitions (FA Cup, League Cup, European competitions), did I?
So what does your simple mind preclude you from understanding now?[/b]
Referring to your link http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2007/05/14/ufncas14.xml
a) Did you realise the Chelsea earning from EPL is actually more than ManU, despite the fact that ManU is crowned the champion and they are the most profitable club in EPL?
b) If you rank the earning of the top 5 teams, did you realise that it is actually similar their table standing in 2005/6 season?
c) Did you realise the the earning mentioned in the website does NOT include gate collection?
"Premier League earnings: Prize money (max £9.7m, min £487,000); TV cash (£8.9million per club plus £340,000 or £250,000 for each live Sky game, depending on timing and whether PPV game); Overseas TV, sponsorship and licensing money (£4.02m per club)"
d) Did you realise that clubs are being paid £340,000 or £250,000 for each live Sky game, depending on timing and whether PPV game? Is this not TV revenue? do you think every club get equal no. of live matches?
e) If what you say is true, then why Watford only make £17.m while chelsea makes about £40m from EPL earning? Could you be kind enough to explain why there is such a big gap? -
Originally posted by walesa:
Like I mentioned please rank this year's top 5 teams earnings and compare to how these top 5 teams finish last season.
Have you ever wondered where the bulk of the income difference between the clubs of different standings in the Premier League come from?
Obviously, you haven't seen this given your naivety. Would you like to take a look at the "Premiership" column?
For simplicity, let's compare Manchester United and Chelsea to dispel your drivel that [b]"the winner of the season will get the biggest pie of the TV renevnue". Should you conveniently decide to put some spin to your tale, you might wish to note we're only considering the income from Premier League matches since you so conveniently claimed that for the EPL, "the winner of the season will get the biggest pie of the TV revenue".
Manchester United's income for 2006/2007 stands at £30.58m, but their total income from TV is £16.86m (include the £8.9m plus further revenue through PPV and live games). Chelsea's income for 2006/2007 stands at £30.97m, but their total income from TV is £17.45m (include the £8.9m plus further revenue through PPV and live games). So, if your theory that "winner of the season will get the biggest pie of the TV revenue" held true, would you like to explain how is it possible that Chelsea have actually raked in more money than Manchester United in 2006/2007?
If you're running out of arguments, you may wish to enlighten me that it was Chelsea, and not Manchester United, that actually won the 2006/2007 Premier League... [/b]
Running out of argument? nah...there is no need to argue, just stating facts is enough to bring out all your BS. -
Hey dude, since you are the expert in time series regression analysis, I believe you should be the one that is in the best position to give us an insight into W-11 or W-12 ARIMA work because ultimately they are trying to analysis the same thing.Originally posted by maurizio13:Obviously you don't know how to read, the link you provided does not contain the 3rd quarter figures for 2005 and 2006. What's the point of putting a useless link in your post? Since when I claim to be an expert in the field, I just did a simple regression analysis, you made that claim on your own accord. In fact, I told you in all my earlier post that I don't know how to do ARIMA, since you mentioned it, I asked that you provide me the figures to make better comparison with my figures.
If you can quote ARIMA, don't tell me you don't know simple linear regression and it's used in analysing the data you provided. I showed you the courtesy of providing you the current market price calculation for the regression, I think it's only proper that you do likewise and give me the figures for you ARIMA calculation.
Can't win your arguments now and claim that I don't know what I am talking about. Hehehe......
In the first place, what is your intention of bringing out this regression analysis? to question the capability and the numbers published by our government?
Yes, I have no doubt I know you know the formula about regression analysis, from text book, but my question to you is, are you capable of applying this formula in a real world situation like this? -
For the benefits of those who have problem looking for statistic, here is a report card on sep 2006 hotel industry.
-
And for those idiot who trying to accuse the government of manipulating no. on tourists arrival and doing it for the sake of adding shi.t on top of their BS.
Tourist Arrival :
Refers to all the visitors who go through immigration clearance regardless of their length of stay. It excludes:
- All Malaysian citizens arriving by land
- Returning Singapore citizens residing abroad
- Non-resident air and sea crew (except for sea crew flying in to join a ship)
- All visitors arriving and leaving Singapore on the same ship/vessel, staying in Singapore for less than 24 hours and who are not required to complete the Disembarkation/Embarkation Card, if a passenger manifest is submitted
- All organised tour groups leaving Singapore for Johor Bahru, Batam and Bintan that are returning on the same day and are not required to fill up another Disembarkation / Embarkation card, if a passenger manifest is submitted
- Air transit passengers -
Hahaha......Originally posted by Gazelle:Hey dude, since you are the expert in time series regression analysis, I believe you should be the one that is in the best position to give us an insight into W-11 or W-12 ARIMA work because ultimately they are trying to analysis the same thing.
In the first place, what is your intention of bringing out this regression analysis? to question the capability and the numbers published by our government?
Yes, I have no doubt I know you know the formula about regression analysis, from text book, but my question to you is, are you capable of applying this formula in a real world situation like this?
The logic is, I showed you some simple regression analysis (you tell me I am an expert), then you profess to know more by bringing in ARIMA, I said I don't know how to use ARIMA, but you insist that I do the calculation because you can't do it.
Hahaha.....
If you can bring up ARIMA, you should be able to provide me with the figures, I don't know ARIMA, but I know regression analysis, so I provided the figures for regression analysis.
Lamer!!!
I guess you are the only sucker that believes everything he reads.
Already told you before, in any case, your memory failed you again. If you do calculation for simple parabolic motion in classroom, you do might not take into account the air resistance, but overall, the calculation shouldn't deviate too much from the real world.
You are just squirming your way out because you have run out of points to argue. -
Obviously you don't understand the meaning of the word estimated.Originally posted by Gazelle:For the benefits of those who have problem looking for statistic, here is a report card on sep 2006 hotel industry.
Hahaha.... -
To maurizio13 and Walesa, great stuff that you guys have presented.Originally posted by maurizio13:To Walsea & Atobe:
I think we all face the same problem with Gazelle, he only sees what he wants to see, it's like 2 permanent blinkers at the side of his face. If you straddle him, all you have to do is tug at the leash and he'll turn wherever you want him to.
If you have watched Discovery or Animal Planet, you will note that the frisky Gazelle is always on edge, nervous of losing his life, and will zip to the left at a high speed, and then to right with a flick of his uncanny thin legs that shows little muscle - all in the hope of escaping a mauling and final death.
Unfortunately, against a pack of Lions, or just a lone leopard that is similarly sharp and speed provided a sinewy muscled legs, the Gazelle cannot but end up as a delicious meal after a purposeful chase to the end; and the final 'coup de grace' being administered slowly in choked to death in the jaws of the Gazelle's nemesis.
Sadly, the Gazelle could have lived, had the Gazelle simply been more cautious and circumspect of its own precarious standing, instead of strutting co*ckily and stubbornly to tempt death in the face of obvious warning signs already continuously given. -
If you need only 'Facts' without the need of having any 'Ideas' - as according to your posted claim - how can you expect to understand the 'Facts' that are presented ?Originally posted by Gazelle:For the benefits of those who have problem looking for statistic, here is a report card on sep 2006 hotel industry.
Do you have any 'Idea' in the methods of comparison used according to the purpose of the 'Facts' being presented ?
What is the purpose of presenting Hotel Room Revenue that is estimated and based on 'Average Room Rate {ARR}' charged, and comparing the estimated 'Average' for 2006 over 2005 ?
It seems that the Hotel Room Revenue results were based on Average Room Rate compared to the Average Occupancy Rate - and not based on Actual Audited Results.
Obviously this method is for the consumption of less discerning audience, who are easily impressed with numbers, and have 'O IDEA' about statistic methods, and simply accept figures presented as 'FACTS'.
So much for your acclaimed tertiary education and stated beliefs.
You may wish to educate yourself further by trying to understand from the following reference site dealing with Measuring Changes.
Then again can we count on your strong belief of not needing any 'Idea' to understand what 'Facts' are to be handled ? -
Hey muppet, for your convenience, let's analyse your original stance and how you've done a stupendous 360-degree turn to contradict yourself and shoot yourself in the foot.Originally posted by Gazelle:Am I a football fan? Do you need to be a football fan to know how TV revenue are being distributed in the EPL?
Referring to your link http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2007/05/14/ufncas14.xml
a) Did you realise the Chelsea earning from EPL is actually more than ManU, despite the fact that ManU is crowned the champion and they are the most profitable club in EPL?
b) If you rank the earning of the top 5 teams, did you realise that it is actually similar their table standing in 2005/6 season?
Are you talking sense? Are you still sober? Have you realised, in your over-zealous attempt to discredit me, point b) actually contradicts point a) ?Originally posted by Gazelle:
e) F1 and EPL are the same in terms of how the make money, they sell merchadize, the winner of the season will get the biggest pie of the TV renevnue, only major difference is instead of F1 team having their own circuit, they let host nation manage the circuit.
[/quote]
Ignoring the fact you can't spell "revenue" , you sensationally claimed that the winner of the season will get the biggest pie of the TV revenue. So how would you like to explain Chelsea has actually the bigger pie of the TV revenue for 2006/2007 despite them not being champions? By your logic, the winner should receive the largest share of TV money, shouldn't it? Originally posted by Gazelle:
b) If you rank the earning of the top 5 teams, did you realise that it is actually similar their table standing in 2005/6 season?
c) : I never said it did, did I? I was merely rebutting your foolish statement that goes the winner of the season will get the biggest pie of the TV revenue and I've yet to be credibly discredited, have I?Originally posted by Gazelle:c) Did you realise the the earning mentioned in the website does NOT include gate collection?
"Premier League earnings: Prize money (max £9.7m, min £487,000); TV cash (£8.9million per club plus £340,000 or £250,000 for each live Sky game, depending on timing and whether PPV game); Overseas TV, sponsorship and licensing money (£4.02m per club)"
d) Did you realise that clubs are being paid £340,000 or £250,000 for each live Sky game, depending on timing and whether PPV game? Is this not TV revenue? do you think every club get equal no. of live matches?
e) If what you say is true, then why Watford only make £17.m while chelsea makes about £40m from EPL earning? Could you be kind enough to explain why there is such a big gap?
d) and e) : What do you not understand? For the record, this was what I said :
[quote]Originally posted by walesa:
In the link I furnished in an earlier post, I've already highlighted the irrefutable fact that Premier League clubs get an equal basic cut of Sky's TV deal with the Premier League. I didn't say every club in the Premiership generates the same gate receipts, merchandising sales, Gate Receipts/Prize Money/TV money from other competitions (FA Cup, League Cup, European competitions), did I?
So is the fact that every club in the Premiership getting a basic £8.9million for TV money factually wrong?
Taking your stupidity further, and bearing in mind that your shallow intellect has little trouble taking in the fact the figures quoted do not consider gate receipts (or so you claim), you tried contrasting Manchester United's £30.58m income with Watford's £17.02m.
To qualify your stupidity, Manchester United's additional income from live matches is £7.96m while Watford's income from live matches stands at £3.613m. Now, before your stupidity dictates you jump to conclude Manchester United actually commanded 2.2 times the income of Watford's from live matches (in fact, if you consider the basic £8.9m each club gets and consider total TV money as a whole, Manchester United's TV revenue is only 1.347 times of Watford's!) and that is the chief catalyst for the income disparity between the top and bottom club, you may wish to note that Manchester United actually commanded a prize money that was 19.92 times of Watford's?
So what's the greater source - the TV money or the prize money - that accounts for the disparity in income from the Premier League TV and prize money? -
Well done on shooting yourself in your foot yet again...and enjoy remaining self-delusional.Originally posted by Gazelle:Like I mentioned please rank this year's top 5 teams earnings and compare to how these top 5 teams finish last season.
Running out of argument? nah...there is no need to argue, just stating facts is enough to bring out all your BS.Originally posted by Gazelle:
With reference to the above, so which season should we use? This season, last season's or how about next season's?
e) F1 and EPL are the same in terms of how the make money, they sell merchadize, the winner of the season will get the biggest pie of the TV renevnue, only major difference is instead of F1 team having their own circuit, they let host nation manage the circuit. You seem to have trouble deciding on what your argument should be founded on. Make up your mind and we can have another discussion... -
The bigger question is, can you accept the facts of the "real world situation"?Originally posted by Gazelle:Yes, I have no doubt I know you know the formula about regression analysis, from text book, but my question to you is, are you capable of applying this formula in a real world situation like this?