Alex Neil

[Mello Yello 2,306]

[quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="Mello Yello"] Tom is to be supposedly shoe-horned in - as the future head at the club which baffles and concerns me. I don''t think he has the required financial nous, has very little experience in serious business.[/quote]I take it Mello that you are not a member of the having a fan on the Board brigade ? [/quote]

Aren''t they all actually NCFC fans on the board? I suppose that if the CEO moves on he''ll probably change his allegiance to his new employers. Now, what does Nephew Tom ''Canary Fan'' ex civil servant, REALLY/ACTUALLY bring to the board/club? Apart from the fact his close relative is a majority shareholder?.....As if the board would really take a blind bit o'' notice, of fans who are of the likes of you and me sitting around the table at board meetings (or any supporter for that matter) that haven''t any real experience in the business of serious finance - or are successful in having business acumen and are fairly affluent and own a business/company.....As I said in previous threads......It''s all about control......and no deviation whatsoever from that mantra.....and, I think you know that.....

[TIL 1010 4,815]

I think you also know where i was coming from Mello. [:D]

[93vintage 16]

[quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="Mello Yello"] Tom is to be supposedly shoe-horned in - as the future head at the club which baffles and concerns me. I don''t think he has the required financial nous, has very little experience in serious business.[/quote]I take it Mello that you are not a member of the having a fan on the Board brigade ? [/quote]

Aren''t they all actually NCFC fans on the board? I suppose that if the CEO moves on he''ll probably change his allegiance to his new employers. Now, what does Nephew Tom ''Canary Fan'' ex civil servant, REALLY/ACTUALLY bring to the board/club? Apart from the fact his close relative is a majority shareholder?.....As if the board would really take a blind bit o'' notice, of fans who are of the likes of you and me sitting around the table at board meetings (or any supporter for that matter) that haven''t any real experience in the business of serious finance - or are successful in having business acumen and are fairly affluent and own a business/company.....As I said in previous threads......It''s all about control......and no deviation whatsoever from that mantra.....and, I think you know that.....[/quote]The other side of the coin is that successful business persons aren''t necessarily successful in running football clubs.At present we have a successful publisher and his celebrity cook wife running the show, having employed all kinds of business brains over the years. Yet we don''t seem to have gone much further than when the local builder ran the club.We''ve followed all sorts of magic formulas and heard many bold mantras (eg "prudence with ambition"), but the stated aim of becoming an established PL club remains a mirage in the distance.We perpetually slip back from promising positions because our strategy is flawed and we''re slow to adapt to the changing environment, ie a lack of leadership and direction which ultimately comes from the owners and senior management.Our club''s owners have said to the effect that Norwich City is all about the fans, the owners just being custodians who run the club like a mutual organisation. At the end of the day ''mutual'' seems to apply only to the Smith/Jones family.

[Mello Yello 2,306]

As I said......It''s all about control.....And I don''t personally think that the majority shareholders are actively pursuing ''outside investment''.......

Has nephew Tom got the qualities to take over the dynasty?......Well, we''ll just have to wait and see.....

[PurpleCanary 5,592]

[quote user="93vintage"][quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="Mello Yello"] Tom is to be supposedly shoe-horned in - as the future head at the club which baffles and concerns me. I don''t think he has the required financial nous, has very little experience in serious business.[/quote]I take it Mello that you are not a member of the having a fan on the Board brigade ? [/quote]

Aren''t they all actually NCFC fans on the board? I suppose that if the CEO moves on he''ll probably change his allegiance to his new employers. Now, what does Nephew Tom ''Canary Fan'' ex civil servant, REALLY/ACTUALLY bring to the board/club? Apart from the fact his close relative is a majority shareholder?.....As if the board would really take a blind bit o'' notice, of fans who are of the likes of you and me sitting around the table at board meetings (or any supporter for that matter) that haven''t any real experience in the business of serious finance - or are successful in having business acumen and are fairly affluent and own a business/company.....As I said in previous threads......It''s all about control......and no deviation whatsoever from that mantra.....and, I think you know that.....[/quote]The other side of the coin is that successful business persons aren''t necessarily successful in running football clubs.At present we have a successful publisher and his celebrity cook wife running the show, having employed all kinds of business brains over the years. Yet we don''t seem to have gone much further than when the local builder ran the club.We''ve followed all sorts of magic formulas and heard many bold mantras (eg "prudence with ambition"), but the stated aim of becoming an established PL club remains a mirage in the distance.We perpetually slip back from promising positions because our strategy is flawed and we''re slow to adapt to the changing environment, ie a lack of leadership and direction which ultimately comes from the owners and senior management.Our club''s owners have said to the effect that Norwich City is all about the fans, the owners just being custodians who run the club like a mutual organisation. At the end of the day ''mutual'' seems to apply only to the Smith/Jones family.[/quote]This is nonsense, of course. Your frequently expressed "strategy" for consolidating or improving on promising league positions is not to sign proven players who would give us the best chance of achieving those aims but to get in a load of youngsters, the predictable results of which would be exactly what you claim to be so anxious to avoid. There was a more innocent time, quite some decades ago, when that kind of policy had some merit. Now it is simply suicidal. Luckily for Norwich City, Smith and Jones know that.

[93vintage 16]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="93vintage"][quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="Mello Yello"] Tom is to be supposedly shoe-horned in - as the future head at the club which baffles and concerns me. I don''t think he has the required financial nous, has very little experience in serious business.[/quote]I take it Mello that you are not a member of the having a fan on the Board brigade ? [/quote]

Aren''t they all actually NCFC fans on the board? I suppose that if the CEO moves on he''ll probably change his allegiance to his new employers. Now, what does Nephew Tom ''Canary Fan'' ex civil servant, REALLY/ACTUALLY bring to the board/club? Apart from the fact his close relative is a majority shareholder?.....As if the board would really take a blind bit o'' notice, of fans who are of the likes of you and me sitting around the table at board meetings (or any supporter for that matter) that haven''t any real experience in the business of serious finance - or are successful in having business acumen and are fairly affluent and own a business/company.....As I said in previous threads......It''s all about control......and no deviation whatsoever from that mantra.....and, I think you know that.....[/quote]The other side of the coin is that successful business persons aren''t necessarily successful in running football clubs.At present we have a successful publisher and his celebrity cook wife running the show, having employed all kinds of business brains over the years. Yet we don''t seem to have gone much further than when the local builder ran the club.We''ve followed all sorts of magic formulas and heard many bold mantras (eg "prudence with ambition"), but the stated aim of becoming an established PL club remains a mirage in the distance.We perpetually slip back from promising positions because our strategy is flawed and we''re slow to adapt to the changing environment, ie a lack of leadership and direction which ultimately comes from the owners and senior management.Our club''s owners have said to the effect that Norwich City is all about the fans, the owners just being custodians who run the club like a mutual organisation. At the end of the day ''mutual'' seems to apply only to the Smith/Jones family.[/quote]This is nonsense, of course. Your frequently expressed "strategy" for consolidating or improving on promising league positions is not to sign proven players who would give us the best chance of achieving those aims but to get in a load of youngsters, the predictable results of which would be exactly what you claim to be so anxious to avoid. There was a more innocent time, quite some decades ago, when that kind of policy had some merit. Now it is simply suicidal. Luckily for Norwich City, Smith and Jones know that.[/quote]I''d appreciate it if you were a little less hostile and rude when replying, there''s absolutely no need to be aggressive or insulting (as you have frequently been in the past). If you don''t take heed then I won''t reply in future.How are we going to compete against bigger clubs or clubs with rich owners? What you seem to be suggesting is that we try and match them as far as possible in the transfer market, buying in to a much greater extent than developing. Note that I never said that we shouldn''t buy any older players, just far

less of them in general.If we continue with the current transfer strategy then I don''t think we''re going to ''win'' over the longer term, because it relies more on having deep pockets than the strategy that I have advocated. It''s generally a pretty dumb way to compete as we''re not playing to an advantage. There are also much bigger risks in the event that we get relegated as we have a bigger liability to service with less income.What you''re defending is spending more on our assets, getting back less from their resale and having to replace them more often. For most other businesses trying to compete against bigger players in a fiercely competetive market, this kind of strategy would normally be suicidal. More money would be needed just to maintain the existing asset base, and the question then becomes whether the extra spending would be worth it.I''m looking at the longer term, versus your looking at the short term, and I think you''re misrepresenting my position when you say that my solution is to buy younger players in order to stay in the Premier League.I agree that right now we need experience to stay in the PL. But as I''ve clearly stated before, we''re in this position because we''ve not taken action earlier. We''re in a vicious circle, like getting into debt it''s more difficult to get out of the deeper you get into it.We''d have a better mix of ages now if we''d maintained the age balance we had under Lambert. We''ve raised the number of older players since then, yet have not seen any tangible benefit accrue from having done so. The extra money spent hasn''t seen us improve our overall position.Under Lambert we had a younger side but did very well in the Championship and Premier League. Arsenal in previous years tended to buy younger players and integrate them into their first team without it significantly affecting their league position. Chase sold many of our best players, yet we were able to build a winning side because we tended to buy more younger players who played together over a long period.I honestly think the idea that we couldn''t compete in the PL if we had a less ''top-heavy'' team in terms of age is false. At present we''re trying to fight a battle that we''re unlikely to win due to our relatively small budget. Other sides with deeper pockets are better able to compete on this kind of footing, but I''m afraid that we can''t.At the moment we''re getting a lot less back from resale and are ending up spending a lot more on average (albeit more experienced) players, seldom being able to buy genuine quality because we''re having to fill gaps in the squad due to higher player turnover. Indeed there are some similarities to when we had all those loans under Roeder, where there were many questionable transfers, a high turnover of players and hence little continuity.We need to buy more players in their mid-twenties than late-twenties,

and do it over a period of time. There''s obviously a tradeoff involved,

but that doesn''t necessarily suggest that the current age balance is

optimal.More experience doesn''t always mean more success, particularly over the longer term for clubs with little financial clout.

[lharman7 39]

Vintage, just reading through and there is no hostility or rudeness in what Purple has commented. Maybe you are just feeling a little emotional.

I have nothing to add to this topic but it''s an interesting read which has slightly gone off headline topic.

[Tumbleweed 106]

You make some interesting points 93v.

One problem these days is that managerial tenures seem to be so short and the need for achievement so immediate that there is not the time any more to have much of a long term clear strategy and generate that healthy mix of youth, experience and mid age players with a view on the pipeline of talent. It is probably why Hughton rarely tried out the youngsters and why few of Adams'' FA Cup youth team even featured in his line ups.

Do you remember a player called Korey Smith? I seem to recall that he was brought in by Lambert and did amazingly well, but he seemed to lose form and disappear. It often seems to happen with the youngsters, they seem fresh and energetic then get weighed down by responsibility and the weekly need to perform at a high level- the slack is not there anymore (witness Redmond who now appears to have lost confidence and each lost ball is greeted by loud groans).

Too often the need is to get someone in who can hit the ground running, and either push for promotion or battle relegation since with City there always seems to be something to push for. There might be more of a chance should we get established in that middle tier of the Prem but even that is a small niche and can be home to only a few clubs. I hope that AN can stabilise things and start to build for that longer term, but it may pass by this currently maturing youth squad.

[PurpleCanary 5,592]

[quote user="93vintage"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="93vintage"][quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="Mello Yello"] Tom is to be supposedly shoe-horned in - as the future head at the club which baffles and concerns me. I don''t think he has the required financial nous, has very little experience in serious business.[/quote]I take it Mello that you are not a member of the having a fan on the Board brigade ? [/quote]

Aren''t they all actually NCFC fans on the board? I suppose that if the CEO moves on he''ll probably change his allegiance to his new employers. Now, what does Nephew Tom ''Canary Fan'' ex civil servant, REALLY/ACTUALLY bring to the board/club? Apart from the fact his close relative is a majority shareholder?.....As if the board would really take a blind bit o'' notice, of fans who are of the likes of you and me sitting around the table at board meetings (or any supporter for that matter) that haven''t any real experience in the business of serious finance - or are successful in having business acumen and are fairly affluent and own a business/company.....As I said in previous threads......It''s all about control......and no deviation whatsoever from that mantra.....and, I think you know that.....[/quote]The other side of the coin is that successful business persons aren''t necessarily successful in running football clubs.At present we have a successful publisher and his celebrity cook wife running the show, having employed all kinds of business brains over the years. Yet we don''t seem to have gone much further than when the local builder ran the club.We''ve followed all sorts of magic formulas and heard many bold mantras (eg "prudence with ambition"), but the stated aim of becoming an established PL club remains a mirage in the distance.We perpetually slip back from promising positions because our strategy is flawed and we''re slow to adapt to the changing environment, ie a lack of leadership and direction which ultimately comes from the owners and senior management.Our club''s owners have said to the effect that Norwich City is all about the fans, the owners just being custodians who run the club like a mutual organisation. At the end of the day ''mutual'' seems to apply only to the Smith/Jones family.[/quote]This is nonsense, of course. Your frequently expressed "strategy" for consolidating or improving on promising league positions is not to sign proven players who would give us the best chance of achieving those aims but to get in a load of youngsters, the predictable results of which would be exactly what you claim to be so anxious to avoid. There was a more innocent time, quite some decades ago, when that kind of policy had some merit. Now it is simply suicidal. Luckily for Norwich City, Smith and Jones know that.[/quote]I''d appreciate it if you were a little less hostile and rude when replying, there''s absolutely no need to be aggressive or insulting (as you have frequently been in the past). If you don''t take heed then I won''t reply in future.How are we going to compete against bigger clubs or clubs with rich owners? What you seem to be suggesting is that we try and match them as far as possible in the transfer market, buying in to a much greater extent than developing. Note that I never said that we shouldn''t buy any older players, just far

less of them in general.If we continue with the current transfer strategy then I don''t think we''re going to ''win'' over the longer term, because it relies more on having deep pockets than the strategy that I have advocated. It''s generally a pretty dumb way to compete as we''re not playing to an advantage. There are also much bigger risks in the event that we get relegated as we have a bigger liability to service with less income.What you''re defending is spending more on our assets, getting back less from their resale and having to replace them more often. For most other businesses trying to compete against bigger players in a fiercely competetive market, this kind of strategy would normally be suicidal. More money would be needed just to maintain the existing asset base, and the question then becomes whether the extra spending would be worth it.I''m looking at the longer term, versus your looking at the short term, and I think you''re misrepresenting my position when you say that my solution is to buy younger players in order to stay in the Premier League.I agree that right now we need experience to stay in the PL. But as I''ve clearly stated before, we''re in this position because we''ve not taken action earlier. We''re in a vicious circle, like getting into debt it''s more difficult to get out of the deeper you get into it.We''d have a better mix of ages now if we''d maintained the age balance we had under Lambert. We''ve raised the number of older players since then, yet have not seen any tangible benefit accrue from having done so. The extra money spent hasn''t seen us improve our overall position.Under Lambert we had a younger side but did very well in the Championship and Premier League. Arsenal in previous years tended to buy younger players and integrate them into their first team without it significantly affecting their league position. Chase sold many of our best players, yet we were able to build a winning side because we tended to buy more younger players who played together over a long period.I honestly think the idea that we couldn''t compete in the PL if we had a less ''top-heavy'' team in terms of age is false. At present we''re trying to fight a battle that we''re unlikely to win due to our relatively small budget. Other sides with deeper pockets are better able to compete on this kind of footing, but I''m afraid that we can''t.At the moment we''re getting a lot less back from resale and are ending up spending a lot more on average (albeit more experienced) players, seldom being able to buy genuine quality because we''re having to fill gaps in the squad due to higher player turnover. Indeed there are some similarities to when we had all those loans under Roeder, where there were many questionable transfers, a high turnover of players and hence little continuity.We need to buy more players in their mid-twenties than late-twenties,

and do it over a period of time. There''s obviously a tradeoff involved,

but that doesn''t necessarily suggest that the current age balance is

optimal.More experience doesn''t always mean more success, particularly over the longer term for clubs with little financial clout.[/quote]Rude? No. Rude would be if I had attacked you personally. I limited myself to attacking your ideas. I am not hostile to you; only to your flawed thinking. As evidence of that I should point out that you had posted the same argument two or three times recently and I let it pass on each occasion. You are right on one point, that I am looking to the short-term, but that is inevitable. Unless football finance in England changes dramatically and/or our financial position greatly improves we are destined to remain a club that is either struggling to stay in the Premier League or fighting to get back there. And our transfer policy has to be shaped by those imperatives.You quoted what happened under Lambert to back your argument, but the reality supports my case. In the summer of 2011 we bought six players, listed here with ages and starting league appearances that season:Vaughan (22; 0), Morison (27; 21), Elliott Bennett (22; 12), Johnson (24; 21), Pilkington (23; 21) and Ayala (20; 6). In the winter window we bought Howson (23; 11) and Ryan Bennett (21; 8).The only player there who might conceivably be regarded as having been bought at least partly for the future was Ayala. The rest (apart from the permanently injured Vaughan) went straight into the first-team squads and stayed there. It is true that the average age of those eight players is - roughly - a bit over 23 but that was as much as anything because, with our financial limits on transfer fees and wages, those were the kinds of players we could attract. If we could then have afforded to spend £8.5m on a 29-year-old we would have done. And there is noticeably not one signing there of an 18- or 19-year-old prospect who really could be regarded as being part of future planning. Of the six who have since been sold, only Johnson went for decent money, and not one of them is playing in the Premier League. The only two who are are Ryan Bennett and Howson. In practice Lambert''s transfer dealings were at least as short-termist as those you criticise.

[Mello Yello 2,306]

Well, it''s been over 25 years since our majority shareholding duo took over the reins of Carriage Road.......I don''t recall since the advent of their tenure, that there''s been any real serious outside investment....? Of course we''ve had decent development of the stadium. The Jarrold replacing the South Stand, and other seating infrastructure installed - including expansion and improvements of the food outlets and restaurants etc. We''ve had the ''Turner Two'' who arrived, chipped in with a few bob - then suddenly left under a cloud......Then Cullumgate came - which caused a collective catcalling controversy between fanfolk......Then Mr Mac keenly showing Mr Air Asia around the club, and the CEO ensuring the media were present......But whether good, bad or indifferent, that didn''t develop or come to fruition......Mr AA went to lego stadium in the smoke, instead.....

The Boardroom Bastion is reluctant (and has for over quarter of a century) refused to lower the drawbridge, raise the portcullis - and allow interested entrepreneurs, rich merchants and the affluent, the access to trade produce, ideas and finance......Because, the club says, no viable interest, as we aren''t an attractive proposition, those who show an inkling of interest are probably just a business bunch of charlatans and time wasters......Bowkett bows out.... But, a former Director and close celebrity friend is made ambassador, an ex politician with the same political views and ideals as the owners, closely followed by a ''relatively unknown relative'' of the Dynasty of Smith.......are appointed and anointed......and welcomed aboard.......But anyway, it''s surely for the better......Isn''t it?

Anyone buy a Proton Jumbuck?

[TIL 1010 4,815]

Just a point of order Mello with you mentioning " over 25 years " and then " over a quarter of a century " please take note that it is not quite 20 years.

[Ray 111]

Purple,

Just to play devil''s advocate and by the way I agree with the thrust of your words but you also said;

"Rude would be if I had attacked you personally. I limited myself to attacking your ideas. I am not hostile to you; only to your flawed thinking."

Maybe some people would consider someone calling their thinking ''flawed'' a personal attack!

Made me a giggle any way.

[Mello Yello 2,306]

[quote user="TIL 1010"]Just a point of order Mello with you mentioning " over 25 years " and then " over a quarter of a century " please take note that it is not quite 20 years.[/quote]

Sorry, my bad......I just got so excited whilst typing - but it feels like a quarter of a century......possibly longer......Thanks for the correction. Because of my mathematical misdemeanour, I''m now off to self flagellate myself with my inflatable canary.....THWACK! NORTY ! THWACK! NORTY! THWACK! MELLO!....THWACK! THWACK!.....

.....and THWACK!......

[TIL 1010 4,815]

[quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="TIL 1010"]Just a point of order Mello with you mentioning " over 25 years " and then " over a quarter of a century " please take note that it is not quite 20 years.[/quote]

Sorry, my bad......I just got so excited whilst typing - but it feels like a quarter of a century......possibly longer......Thanks for the correction. Because of my mathematical misdemeanour, I''m now off to self flagellate myself with my inflatable canary.....THWACK! NORTY ! THWACK! NORTY! THWACK! MELLO!....THWACK! THWACK!.....

.....and THWACK!......[/quote]Would it be possible to post a couple of selfies ? [:D]

[Fuzzar 1,705]

Strictly speaking it''s just "self flagellate" - you don''t need the "myself". Give yourself another whack.

[Feedthewolf 4,901]

[quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="TIL 1010"]Just a point of order Mello with you mentioning " over 25 years " and then " over a quarter of a century " please take note that it is not quite 20 years.[/quote]

Sorry, my bad......I just got so excited whilst typing - but it feels like a quarter of a century......possibly longer......Thanks for the correction. Because of my mathematical misdemeanour, I''m now off to self flagellate myself with my inflatable canary.....THWACK! NORTY ! THWACK! NORTY! THWACK! MELLO!....THWACK! THWACK!.....

.....and THWACK!......[/quote]Would it be possible to post a couple of selfies ? [:D][/quote]Be careful what you wish for.

[PurpleCanary 5,592]

[quote user="Ray"]Purple,

Just to play devil''s advocate and by the way I agree with the thrust of your words but you also said;

"Rude would be if I had attacked you personally. I limited myself to attacking your ideas. I am not hostile to you; only to your flawed thinking."

Maybe some people would consider someone calling their thinking ''flawed'' a personal attack!

Made me a giggle any way.[/quote]Ray, I had to giggle at 93vintage''s accusation, given some of the foul-mouthed abuse and highly personal accusations that get bandied back and forth here! A couple of weeks back one poster (very much true to form) literally graphically told another exactly what they could do with their opinions by way of an explicit diagram on the proper way to insert a suppository...

[hogesar 9,776]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Ray"]Purple,

Just to play devil''s advocate and by the way I agree with the thrust of your words but you also said;

"Rude would be if I had attacked you personally. I limited myself to attacking your ideas. I am not hostile to you; only to your flawed thinking."

Maybe some people would consider someone calling their thinking ''flawed'' a personal attack!

Made me a giggle any way.[/quote]Ray, I had to giggle at 93vintage''s accusation, given some of the foul-mouthed abuse and highly personal accusations that get bandied back and forth here! A couple of weeks back one poster (very much true to form) literally graphically told another exactly what they could do with their opinions by way of an explicit diagram on the proper way to insert a suppository...[/quote]

I don''t remember doing that.

[westcoastcanary 173]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Ray"]Purple,

Just to play devil''s advocate and by the way I agree with the thrust of your words but you also said;

"Rude would be if I had attacked you personally. I limited myself to attacking your ideas. I am not hostile to you; only to your flawed thinking."

Maybe some people would consider someone calling their thinking ''flawed'' a personal attack!

Made me a giggle any way.[/quote]Ray, I had to giggle at 93vintage''s accusation, given some of the foul-mouthed abuse and highly personal accusations that get bandied back and forth here! A couple of weeks back one poster (very much true to form) literally graphically told another exactly what they could do with their opinions by way of an explicit diagram on the proper way to insert a suppository...[/quote]

No clearer way of acknowledging the loss of an argument I''d say, though hardly showing good grace ............. [;)]

[morty 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Ray"]Purple,

Just to play devil''s advocate and by the way I agree with the thrust of your words but you also said;

"Rude would be if I had attacked you personally. I limited myself to attacking your ideas. I am not hostile to you; only to your flawed thinking."

Maybe some people would consider someone calling their thinking ''flawed'' a personal attack!

Made me a giggle any way.[/quote]Ray, I had to giggle at 93vintage''s accusation, given some of the foul-mouthed abuse and highly personal accusations that get bandied back and forth here! A couple of weeks back one poster (very much true to form) literally graphically told another exactly what they could do with their opinions by way of an explicit diagram on the proper way to insert a suppository...[/quote]Waaaaah waaaaaah I''m not rude, that morty bloke is much ruder than me [:''(]

[It's Character Forming 1,167]

[quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="TIL 1010"]Just a point of order Mello with you mentioning " over 25 years " and then " over a quarter of a century " please take note that it is not quite 20 years.
[/quote] Sorry, my bad......I just got so excited whilst typing - but it feels like a quarter of a century......possibly longer......Thanks for the correction. Because of my mathematical misdemeanour, I''m now off to self flagellate myself with my inflatable canary.....THWACK! NORTY ! THWACK! NORTY! THWACK! MELLO!....THWACK! THWACK!..... .....and THWACK!......[/quote]

 

MY can I just say you seem to be enjoying yourself far too much here....

[Mello Yello 2,306]

[quote user="Fuzzar"]Strictly speaking it''s just "self flagellate" - you don''t need the "myself". Give yourself another whack.[/quote]

I myself, stand rigidly corrected......NORTY MELLO! THWACK! NORTY! THWACK!......NORTYYYYYY! THWACK! THWACK! FSSHHHHhhhhhh.........Oooh deary me........my canary inflatable........seems to have a puncture?

Anyone got a repair oufit?.......Anyone?......Anyone?........