Play Off Race - Top 4

[ouch 1,191]

Yep. Same old same old. Utter trolling nonsense.

How Fred falls for it is beyond me.

Back in your box.

[BWitcher 12,453]

Yep. Same old same old. Utter trolling nonsense.

How Fred falls for it is beyond me.

Back in your box.

 

It's called being right.

[orion 7,615]

Is it round 2 or 3 or 4 of trying to justify the same viewpoint that fails each time?

Each time it's the same argument rehashed (to be wrong again).

The one man band continues.

Yea he made a fool of himself again . fair play to him for keep coming back after getting crushed in every debate ,,,no sense no feeling I guess

Edited September 9, 2016 by orion

[Shale Searcher 1,264]

Fair enough, can't argue with that.

 

So let's look at the crowds after the play offs were introduced.

 

From 2005 - 2007 the crowds dropped by over 5%, that's an almost -6% swing compared to the pre play off period you chose to use. Had the crowds still been increasing at 1% as they were in the proper championship in the period you chose, an extra 31,000 fans would have watched the qualifiers in 2007!

 

That was the run up to the recession, it did hit mainland Europe before we got it...

[BWitcher 12,453]

You can get abusive again if you like but the fact is the only 'manipulation' is you insisting the 'abnornal' figures aren't included, otherwise they are exactly as presented, aren't they?

 

It doesn't matter what 'figures' you include.

 

Include them all it makes absolutely no difference.

 

Average attendance in the six years prior to the playoffs: 1223

 

Average crowd in the next six years after playoffs introduced: 2743

 

The two years after that to include the years you whitter on about there being a negative impact? 2672.

 

Crowds post playoffs on the figures given well over double. Continue to make an utter fool of yourself and claim they had a negative impact to your hearts content..

 

To paraphrase you... hahaha

Edited September 9, 2016 by BWitcher

[Crazy robin 2,963]

Not at poole they don't we always have good attendances, and they just get bigger in the play off's..

No good attendances at Poole when they finished bottom as the glory hangers were nowhere to be seen.

[Steve0 5,517]

Obtuse? Pot, kettle, black!

 

4000 IS a good crowd for speedway these days because after years of poor administration, changing rules and a watering down of the product year on year, the sport is dying on its @rse and is more and more dependent on the dwindling hardcore supporters who turn up week on week no matter what sh!te is dished up!

[waiheke1 4,295]

Unbelievable!

 

If you were being paid £100,000 a year you would accept a f5grand payrise for the next 5 years instead of 4% every year wouldn't you?

 

It's that sort of obtuse thinking that has contributed to a 4000 crowd at speedway being considered 'packed out'!

If I had the option of being paid 100k a year with a 4% annual pay increase.

Or 150k a year with a 2% annual pay increase, and a 20% performance bonus. I would choose the latter.

Nice analogy flange, illustrates the point perfectly.

[foreverblue 6,096]

I can't understand why this is so difficult to grasp?

 

At the risk of being accused of wittering on I'll try this analogy, it's probably futile but who knows.

 

 

You put your money in a fund called 'proper league championship fund' and it pays 4% a year. Five years later you get a nice windfall so you pay it into the fund.

 

Someone then suggests there is a better fund so you switch to the 'qualifier and knockout cup bit fund', you also receive another nice windfall and pay that in, the same windfall happens again for the 3rd year on the trot so that is paid in as well.

 

The new fund isn't performing as well as the old one was but you don't notice because you've been paying your windfalls in.

 

The windfalls stop and then the dismal performance of the fund becomes apparent, 2% a year! In the meantime your mate, who prefers football to speedway, is still in the 'proper league championship fund' and that is still doing nicely, but you look around and see that 'everyone' swapped into the new fund so you stick with it because 'everyone' is probably right.

 

The poor 2% continues but then there is a dramatic drop! You look around and 'everyone' apart from your football friend, are still sticking with it. There is a decent recovery but it looks like a 'dead cat bounce' and overall the new fund just hasn't performed as well as the old one.

 

You decide to call your fund manager and ask him why your investments have only been going up by 2% instead of 4% and why was there a dramatic drop and when will the fund at least get back to its previous peak? He basically rants dementedly down the phone at you and says....

 

It doesn't matter what 'figures' you include. Include them all it makes absolutely no difference. The average value of your investments in the six years prior to moving to my fund: £1223

 

The average value of your investments in the next six years after moving to my fund: £2743

 

The two years after that to include the years you whitter on about there being a negative impact? £2672. Fund value since you switched to my fund on the figures given well over double. Continue to make an utter fool of yourself and claim my fund had a negative impact to your hearts content..

 

To paraphrase you... hahaha

 

Then he hangs up!

 

I don't know if that little story will help or not but as an aside you would do a lot worse than stick your money in this little beauty 'CF Woodford Equity Income Class Z - Accumulation (GBP)'. I needed to move some money around to take advantage of some changes to pension taxation and my brothers father-in-law tipped me off about it and it has done really well, especially since brexit

 

http://www.hl.co.uk/funds/fund-discounts,-prices--and--factsheets/search-results/c/cf-woodford-equity-income-accumulation

 

I'm confident Mr Woodford isn't as stupid as the 'qualifier and knockout cup bit' fund manager but don't forget, all investments involve a degree of risk of some kind. Investments and the income from them may go down as well as up and you may get back less than the amount you invested. Past performance is not a guide to future performance.

 

DYOR.

 

Poole will still win the cup by the way.

Agree that you are wittering on and i hope Poole win the playoffs too!! As for the rest couldn't be bothered to read it!

[Starman2006 2,354]

I can't understand why this is so difficult to grasp?

 

At the risk of being accused of wittering on I'll try this analogy, it's probably futile but who knows.

 

 

You put your money in a fund called 'proper league championship fund' and it pays 4% a year. Five years later you get a nice windfall so you pay it into the fund.

 

Someone then suggests there is a better fund so you switch to the 'qualifier and knockout cup bit fund', you also receive another nice windfall and pay that in, the same windfall happens again for the 3rd year on the trot so that is paid in as well.

 

The new fund isn't performing as well as the old one was but you don't notice because you've been paying your windfalls in.

 

The windfalls stop and then the dismal performance of the fund becomes apparent, 2% a year! In the meantime your mate, who prefers football to speedway, is still in the 'proper league championship fund' and that is still doing nicely, but you look around and see that 'everyone' swapped into the new fund so you stick with it because 'everyone' is probably right.

 

The poor 2% continues but then there is a dramatic drop! You look around and 'everyone' apart from your football friend, are still sticking with it. There is a decent recovery but it looks like a 'dead cat bounce' and overall the new fund just hasn't performed as well as the old one.

 

You decide to call your fund manager and ask him why your investments have only been going up by 2% instead of 4% and why was there a dramatic drop and when will the fund at least get back to its previous peak? He basically rants dementedly down the phone at you and says....

 

It doesn't matter what 'figures' you include. Include them all it makes absolutely no difference. The average value of your investments in the six years prior to moving to my fund: £1223

 

The average value of your investments in the next six years after moving to my fund: £2743

 

The two years after that to include the years you whitter on about there being a negative impact? £2672. Fund value since you switched to my fund on the figures given well over double. Continue to make an utter fool of yourself and claim my fund had a negative impact to your hearts content..

 

To paraphrase you... hahaha

 

Then he hangs up!

 

I don't know if that little story will help or not but as an aside you would do a lot worse than stick your money in this little beauty 'CF Woodford Equity Income Class Z - Accumulation (GBP)'. I needed to move some money around to take advantage of some changes to pension taxation and my brothers father-in-law tipped me off about it and it has done really well, especially since brexit

 

http://www.hl.co.uk/funds/fund-discounts,-prices--and--factsheets/search-results/c/cf-woodford-equity-income-accumulation

 

I'm confident Mr Woodford isn't as stupid as the 'qualifier and knockout cup bit' fund manager but don't forget, all investments involve a degree of risk of some kind. Investments and the income from them may go down as well as up and you may get back less than the amount you invested. Past performance is not a guide to future performance.

 

DYOR.

 

Poole will still win the cup by the way.

I agree i hope we win the league, but how you can sit there and type this drivel i will never know. You must have plenty of time on your hands..

[Starman2006 2,354]

Although the investment analogy works beautifully I should have realised that there would be some people with no comprehension of proper investing and terms like 'fund manager' would just bamboozle them.

 

I'm guessing the nearest some on here get to investing in a fund is the tenner they throw in the ben fund collection bucket.

So you clearly think people are going to sit there and read all that drivel. 4 sentances would say it all. Not a book.

[Game On 1,117]

Although the investment analogy works beautifully I should have realised that there would be some people with no comprehension of proper investing and terms like 'fund manager' would just bamboozle them.

 

I'm guessing the nearest some on here get to investing in a fund is the tenner they throw in the ben fund collection bucket.

I'd invest in a fund to shut you up.

[foreverblue 6,096]

Although the investment analogy works beautifully I should have realised that there would be some people with no comprehension of proper investing and terms like 'fund manager' would just bamboozle them.

 

I'm guessing the nearest some on here get to investing in a fund is the tenner they throw in the ben fund collection bucket.

No your wrong i fully understand terms like fund manager i have several investments just bored with it and cant be bothered with reading your endless statistics to try to justify your point. Very rude to suggest i dont have the intelligence to understand but not out of character!

[stevebrum 6,823]

So you clearly think people are going to sit there and read all that drivel. 4 sentances would say it all. Not a book.

I think he believes people actually read or pay attention to the drivel.

Most seem to have given up after being proven wrong or trolling several times.

[BWitcher 12,453]

Fred Flange continuing to troll the thread I see....

 

Back on planet earth.

 

Crowds without playoffs in Sweden 1223.

Crowds with playoffs in Sweden 2743.

 

Something tells me that promoters area happier with crowds of 2743 than 1223... but then again I could be wrong, the promoters could be wrong.. the riders earning more money could be wrong.

 

Nah don't be silly. Fred Flange is wrong and everyone else on the planet, bar his aliases know that.