Derek Chapman has a swipe at DK

[Acker79]

On that basis you have 142 people with a non-financial background running 100 companies (100%) !!!!!

Aren't stats wonderful?

 

[sparkie]

Is anyone else losing the will to live?

Aye, the 'laugh at Palace' thread is much more fun today.

 

[drew]

On that basis you have 142 people with a non-financial background running 100 companies (100%) !!!!!

Not necessarily! It could be that both CEO and the Chairman at the same company both have a financial background but the company still only counts as 1 of the 58%!!!

 

[Acker79]

Not necessarily! It could be that both CEO and the Chairman at the same company both have a financial background but the company still only counts as 1 of the 58%!!!

No, creaky was right. In that hypothetical only 58 people have the background leaving 142 without it.. If two of them work for the same company, that would make it 57% of companies being run by someone with a financial background.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

To the tune of being able to repay £120 million? Yes I have no faith in that.

Even if we are promoted to the Premier League, 16 clubs out of 20 made losses, 21 clubs in the Championship out of 24 lost money. I think Paul Barber and his team can reduce the losses, but not turn it into a viable profitable business that will generate enough to repay all the loans.

Maybe when the surrounding land has been developed he will see a return?

 

[Creaky]

Aye, the 'laugh at Palace' thread is much more fun today.

It's all your's now

Sorry if I bored you by attempting to get it clear in my own mind exactly what happened with the share issue once this had been brought up - EP's 'bucket of poo' seems to have answered that!

I don't know whether to love or hate accountants.

 

[drew]

No, creaky was right. In that hypothetical only 58 people have the background leaving 142 without it.. If two of them work for the same company, that would make it 57% of companies being run by someone with a financial background.

Not that I was talking about the hypothetical situation but as you mention it, does that state that only one of the two incumbents at each company can be from a financial background. As I read it, it could be one or both. Still, the report states that 58% of FTSE companies are run by someone from a financial background and that was the crux of the argument.

 

[Acker79]

Not that I was talking about the hypothetical situation but as you mention it, does that state that only one of the two incumbents at each company can be from a financial background. As I read it, it could be one or both. Still, the report states that 58% of FTSE companies are run by someone from a financial background and that was the crux of the argument.

Only for my hypothetical, which I wrote to explain how they can say "58% of companies are run by people with financial backgrounds" even if less than 58% of people running a company have said experience. I'm pretty sure Creaky was referring to that hypothetical only (remarking on how in that hypothetical "58% of companies run by someone with a financial background" is accurate even when 142 of 200 people do not have that experience).


I would imagine there may well be more than two roles that could be considered "running" a business. For "58% of companies run by someone with a financial background" to be true, 58 of one hundred companies need at least one person in a role that can be considered to "run the company", but if a company has 9 roles that count as "running the company" (co-owners, etc) all 9 of them could have a financial background, but it would still only be one company.

I was just trying to keep the numbers simple to illiustrate the point.

 

[Questions]

Maybe when the surrounding land has been developed he will see a return?

Very cynical........