"Let's be 'avin you" revisited

[Pudd 1]

who cares! it''s no worse behaviour than most of us at the ground any other saturday - it''s just more interesting when it''s Delia maybe it was cringeworthy, but I thought it was just amusing at the time.... and certainly doesn''t take any gloss off the vistories against Man U or Newcastle.....as we in the barclay told chelsea next time out..... we''ve got a super cook.... you''ve a russian crook

[YankeeCanary 0]

Lappinitup wrote: "The incident does seem to have annoyed women more than men. Wonder why? Hmm."

Lapp, the originator of the thread has referred to me in the past as a misogynist. I wonder what the word is for a woman who apparently can''t stop looking for ways to criticise another woman and, in this instance, for something that occurred almost five years ago. The criticism has been so incessant from Cherub over the years it almost leads one to believe that, at one point, threre was a close relationship but she''s since been thrown over for another.

With respect to Delia, whether or not one believes she was under the influence or not, whether or not one feels strongly about her behaviour or not, I think the more interesting question is whether or not her underlying comment was valid or not, i.e. did we indeed need a twelfth man? Particularly since that question appears to have arisen again recently despite Norwich being top of the table.

[Mello Yello 2,279]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2vblMxSh7I   Evidence....

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="canary cherub "]

[quote user="Andy Larkin"][quote user="nutty nigel"]Or are you saying it overshadowed the goal in the media? [/quote]

Yes, that bit. Should have been playing on all outlets (as it would have done had it been Giggs, Ronaldo etc)… sadly we the tiddly rant got the headlines instead.

I would have a lot more respect for her if she just admitted she had bladdered a few Pinots and was well up for it… we all KNOW she was pissed so please don''t patronise Delia. We can handle the news that you like a swig… who doesn''t?


[/quote]

Nail on the head.  Once she puts to bed the "was she pissed or wasn''t she?" angle it will help the whole thing to die a long overdue death.

 

[/quote]

So now the rant doesn''t matter anymore. Everyone will be happy if she admits she was pissed as a parrot[:O]

Somebody must''ve seen her "on it" that night. Unless of course she had a bottle of sherry in her handbag for secret bog drinking[:-*]

So come on you Delia binge drinking witnesses[D][D][D]... "Let''s be ''avin'' you"[:^)]

 

[/quote]

But then you would not believe them if they said so.

[ca 1]

[quote user="Mello Yello"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2vblMxSh7I   Evidence....[/quote]

 

You only need to look at her eyes/face and how unsteady she is on her feet to know she was 100% pissed.

[DDD In The Fine City 1]

Chelsea have Abramovic and Norwich have the pi$$ed up bitch

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="canary cherub "]

nutty . . . straight answer to a straight question just for once please.

Do you think she was under the influence or not?

 

[/quote]

I''m all for this. I''m a great believer in honesty being the best policy and confession is good for the soul ''n''all.

I''m glad you''re asking me for what I think because I don''t know whether she was or not. But I have an opinion on this and what I think is that she wasn''t pissed. She may well have had a drink, she probably was a bit emotional but I doubt she was pissed. I doubt she really is a "drunken old trout" just like I doubt she ever was a scum season ticket holder.And I''ll tell you why.

If she was always on the cooking sherry or had been a scum season ticket holder the evidence of such things would be worth too much to keep quiet. In a country where 3 million people each week thrive on scandal it would be impossible to keep these things out of the papers. You would have "Boardroom Boris" hot on the phone to tell how he saw Delia "pissed as a handcart" before she invaded the pitch that night. Or you would have some simple scummy herbert gagging to tell the world how he and his fifteen brothers and sisters used to have a season ticket at the portaloo two rows behind Delia.

But none of this evidence ever comes to light. These remain accusations only made by Norwich fans for some reason that I can''t fathom. But cherub, I like your style and I''m being honest in return. So maybe those who continually perpetuate such myths on here could do likewise and take this oppurtunity to enter your confessional and explain to us why they do it.

But, I nominate The Butler to join you in the little box. It''s my turn to ask the question now.

Butler & cherub . . . straight answer to a straight question just for once please.

Do you think McNally was telling the truth about the exceptional catering income at the AGM? Or do you think he was using Doncaster style spin to hide what you''ve always believed?

I like this game, takes me back to the days of saying three Hail Mary''s in return for my guilty secrets[:O]

 

[Squire 0]

I''m not certain what it is that Butler and cherub have "always believed" but I for one do believe McNally. Heaven forbid that we have another spin doctor. But I have been accused of naivety in the past, so what do I know. I reiterate what I said at the start of this thread; I also do not think Delia was drunk.

I maybe doing cherub a disservice but does she think that to show passion you have to be drunk.

[ron obvious 1,499]

OK here goes.Having watched the last Delia episode (recorded from Monday) I''m pretty sure she wasn''t drunk - fortified by  a bit of Dutch courage perhaps, but would probably (just) have passed a breathalyzer test. Thing is, she''s an interesting woman; comes across as demure, a bit twee, mumsy & old fashioned, very safe & ''nice'', yet somehow she''s managed - with no education - to sustain a highly successful career for 40 years. You don''t do that without strength & resilience. And sheer bloody-mindedness.In fact she has a strong masculine streak. That''s what we saw on that fateful day, & nobody was expecting it. The crowd reaction was priceless; it reminded me of the audience in (the original 1968) The Producers when they saw ''Springtime For Hitler''. A collective jaw drop.People generally want other people to behave according to their expectations. When they don''t, they find them either funny or threatening (2 sides of the same coin). Delia confounded a lot of expectations that day & many will never forgive her for it. Me? I like people with more to them than meets the eye.God bless her.

[macdougalls perm 0]

[quote user="ron obvious"]
OK here goes.

Having watched the last Delia episode (recorded from Monday) I''m pretty sure she wasn''t drunk - fortified by  a bit of Dutch courage perhaps, but would probably (just) have passed a breathalyzer test.
Thing is, she''s an interesting woman; comes across as demure, a bit twee, mumsy & old fashioned, very safe & ''nice'', yet somehow she''s managed - with no education - to sustain a highly successful career for 40 years. You don''t do that without strength & resilience. And sheer bloody-mindedness.
In fact she has a strong masculine streak. That''s what we saw on that fateful day, & nobody was expecting it. The crowd reaction was priceless; it reminded me of the audience in (the original 1968) The Producers when they saw ''Springtime For Hitler''. A collective jaw drop.
People generally want other people to behave according to their expectations. When they don''t, they find them either funny or threatening (2 sides of the same coin). Delia confounded a lot of expectations that day & many will never forgive her for it. Me? I like people with more to them than meets the eye.

God bless her.
[/quote]

Well said, I find the amount of indignation and shock at this incident mind-boggling. But then , if we were all the same the world would be a pretty boring place [:)]  

[InLambertWeTrust! 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="canary cherub "]

nutty . . . straight answer to a straight question just for once please.

Do you think she was under the influence or not?

 

[/quote]

I''m all for this. I''m a great believer in honesty being the best policy and confession is good for the soul ''n''all.

I''m glad you''re asking me for what I think because I don''t know whether she was or not. But I have an opinion on this and what I think is that she wasn''t pissed. She may well have had a drink, she probably was a bit emotional but I doubt she was pissed. I doubt she really is a "drunken old trout" just like I doubt she ever was a scum season ticket holder.And I''ll tell you why.

If she was always on the cooking sherry or had been a scum season ticket holder the evidence of such things would be worth too much to keep quiet. In a country where 3 million people each week thrive on scandal it would be impossible to keep these things out of the papers. You would have "Boardroom Boris" hot on the phone to tell how he saw Delia "pissed as a handcart" before she invaded the pitch that night. Or you would have some simple scummy herbert gagging to tell the world how he and his fifteen brothers and sisters used to have a season ticket at the portaloo two rows behind Delia.

But none of this evidence ever comes to light. These remain accusations only made by Norwich fans for some reason that I can''t fathom. But cherub, I like your style and I''m being honest in return. So maybe those who continually perpetuate such myths on here could do likewise and take this oppurtunity to enter your confessional and explain to us why they do it.

But, I nominate The Butler to join you in the little box. It''s my turn to ask the question now.

Butler & cherub . . . straight answer to a straight question just for once please.

Do you think McNally was telling the truth about the exceptional catering income at the AGM? Or do you think he was using Doncaster style spin to hide what you''ve always believed?

I like this game, takes me back to the days of saying three Hail Mary''s in return for my guilty secrets[:O]

 

[/quote]

Fantastic quote there Nutty [Y]. I disagree with you on Delia but you''re a top top poster in my eyes, for all the good thats worth [;)]

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="canary cherub "]

nutty . . . straight answer to a straight question just for once please.

Do you think she was under the influence or not?

 

[/quote]

I''m all for this. I''m a great believer in honesty being the best policy and confession is good for the soul ''n''all.

I''m glad you''re asking me for what I think because I don''t know whether she was or not. But I have an opinion on this and what I think is that she wasn''t pissed. She may well have had a drink, she probably was a bit emotional but I doubt she was pissed. I doubt she really is a "drunken old trout" just like I doubt she ever was a scum season ticket holder.And I''ll tell you why.

If she was always on the cooking sherry or had been a scum season ticket holder the evidence of such things would be worth too much to keep quiet. In a country where 3 million people each week thrive on scandal it would be impossible to keep these things out of the papers. You would have "Boardroom Boris" hot on the phone to tell how he saw Delia "pissed as a handcart" before she invaded the pitch that night. Or you would have some simple scummy herbert gagging to tell the world how he and his fifteen brothers and sisters used to have a season ticket at the portaloo two rows behind Delia.

But none of this evidence ever comes to light. These remain accusations only made by Norwich fans for some reason that I can''t fathom. But cherub, I like your style and I''m being honest in return. So maybe those who continually perpetuate such myths on here could do likewise and take this oppurtunity to enter your confessional and explain to us why they do it.

But, I nominate The Butler to join you in the little box. It''s my turn to ask the question now.

Butler & cherub . . . straight answer to a straight question just for once please.

Do you think McNally was telling the truth about the exceptional catering income at the AGM? Or do you think he was using Doncaster style spin to hide what you''ve always believed?

I like this game, takes me back to the days of saying three Hail Mary''s in return for my guilty secrets[:O]

 

[/quote]

As I have already,twice, indicated my belief of McNally, why ask the question?

You questioned this before and it took weeks to finish that thread!! What have I always believed?

I don''t doubt we have recieved income totalling that amount over a given period of time.

Income does not equal profit as you well know and NO mention was made of profit.(although if you can''t make money in catering to a captive audience you want shooting!)

Also no mention was made of how that "income" figure was achieved. Match day ticket split etc.

So yes I think he spoke the truth "as far as it went"

As for drunken rants, No she wasn''t drunk, heaven forbid Delia would be! A few too many is very easy in the corporate section and her old hormones may have been playing up.Alcohol can effect differently on different days (as you know from your occupation) Embarrasing most certainly, I squirmed for her as much as the club. Stupid ill advised action, but that is typical of many decisions that she has made in her tenure as majority share holder.

That action didn''t cost us as much financialy as several she has made.

 

[nutty nigel 7,509]

Your answer to my question indicates that you believe McNally is a "Spin Doctor of Doomcaster proportions" Butler. You see at the AGM, and I know this for a fact, McNally said that "the catering income at this club was truly remarkable". He said this in his report, not prompted in any way by questions from the floor. Now if this income doesn''t equal profit, and a decent profit, then in my opinion he was deliberately misleading the Shareholders. McNally also spoke about not supporting loss making ventures (which I took as a direct reference to evening reserve fixtures amongst other things) and surely if something with an income of over 3m a year over 6 years is a loss making venture then it would be top of his list to stop. So you can''t have your cake and eat it Butler. Catering is either very profitable for this club or McNally is deliberately misleading us and spinning it in other ways, including match tickets etc to boost the figure.

As for Delia and that rant on the pitch. I have always believed it was prompted by what happened a month before at the home game against ''Boro. Probably the most remarkable 15 minutes I have ever witnessed at Carrow Road. 12 minutes remaining and Jimmy Floyd put the visitors 4-1 up. There was now way back. The sound of vacated seats crashing echoed around the ground as our fans left in their droves. Those that remained began a chant of "loyal supporters" in solidarity with their team but I doubt anyone on the pitch or off it truely believed.  But as this happened Ashton reacted quickest to a loose ball in the box and made it 4-2. The Boro fans joined us with mock celebrations of the goal but the atmosphere created by the Norwich fans left in the ground started to instill belief. On 90 minutes Hucks again crossed and McKenzie scored. Once more there were some Boro fans joining in mock celebrations but not so many because the belief of our players and fans had taken over the stadium. Then in added time Hucks corner found Drury unmarked near the penalty spot and it was 4-4. The team, along with their 12th man, had achieved something quite remarkable and I have no doubt that had their been two more minutes added on we would have won the game. No mock celebrations from the Boro fans this time and it was their turn to angrily vacate their seats and leave the ground.

There was a different atmosphere on the night of the Delia rant. It was us that had thrown away the lead and consequently it was our fans that were frustrated. If Delia was wrong about anything she was wrong in the belief that she could influence the crowd because the two games were "chalk & cheese". In the Boro game we had gained the momentum but in the Man. City game we had lost the momentum. And that''s football. But what I find incredible is how often the Delia rant is brought up on here and how rarely that remarkable 15 minutes against Boro gets a mention. But I suppose the fact that the Man City game was on TV goes a long way explaining it.

 

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Your answer to my question indicates that you believe McNally is a "Spin Doctor of Doomcaster proportions" Butler. You see at the AGM, and I know this for a fact, McNally said that "the catering income at this club was truly remarkable". He said this in his report, not prompted in any way by questions from the floor. Now if this income doesn''t equal profit, and a decent profit, then in my opinion he was deliberately misleading the Shareholders. McNally also spoke about not supporting loss making ventures (which I took as a direct reference to evening reserve fixtures amongst other things) and surely if something with an income of over 3m a year over 6 years is a loss making venture then it would be top of his list to stop. So you can''t have your cake and eat it Butler. Catering is either very profitable for this club or McNally is deliberately misleading us and spinning it in other ways, including match tickets etc to boost the figure.

As for Delia and that rant on the pitch. I have always believed it was prompted by what happened a month before at the home game against ''Boro. Probably the most remarkable 15 minutes I have ever witnessed at Carrow Road. 12 minutes remaining and Jimmy Floyd put the visitors 4-1 up. There was now way back. The sound of vacated seats crashing echoed around the ground as our fans left in their droves. Those that remained began a chant of "loyal supporters" in solidarity with their team but I doubt anyone on the pitch or off it truely believed.  But as this happened Ashton reacted quickest to a loose ball in the box and made it 4-2. The Boro fans joined us with mock celebrations of the goal but the atmosphere created by the Norwich fans left in the ground started to instill belief. On 90 minutes Hucks again crossed and McKenzie scored. Once more there were some Boro fans joining in mock celebrations but not so many because the belief of our players and fans had taken over the stadium. Then in added time Hucks corner found Drury unmarked near the penalty spot and it was 4-4. The team, along with their 12th man, had achieved something quite remarkable and I have no doubt that had their been two more minutes added on we would have won the game. No mock celebrations from the Boro fans this time and it was their turn to angrily vacate their seats and leave the ground.

There was a different atmosphere on the night of the Delia rant. It was us that had thrown away the lead and consequently it was our fans that were frustrated. If Delia was wrong about anything she was wrong in the belief that she could influence the crowd because the two games were "chalk & cheese". In the Boro game we had gained the momentum but in the Man. City game we had lost the momentum. And that''s football. But what I find incredible is how often the Delia rant is brought up on here and how rarely that remarkable 15 minutes against Boro gets a mention. But I suppose the fact that the Man City game was on TV goes a long way explaining it.

 

[/quote]

Once again you deliberately misinterpret what I stated.

First paragraph first line "you think he is a spin doctor" NO I DON''T read again as you are fond of saying.

Why are you trying to stir something that IS NOT THERE?

The rest has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion and it seems to me just put in to show how much you remembered of the great 4-4 draw. (yes I was there and yes it was great)

Paragraph 3 then you think she has little understanding of football or the fans then or what a live sky audience would make of it!!

From somebody who has spent her life in front of camers that is very odd.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="The Butler"]

Once again you deliberately misinterpret what I stated.

First paragraph first line "you think he is a spin doctor" NO I DON''T read again as you are fond of saying.

Why are you trying to stir something that IS NOT THERE?

The rest has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion and it seems to me just put in to show how much you remembered of the great 4-4 draw. (yes I was there and yes it was great)

Paragraph 3 then you think she has little understanding of football or the fans then or what a live sky audience would make of it!!

From somebody who has spent her life in front of camers that is very odd.

[/quote]

No I haven''t mis-interpreted anything. Either there is a decent profit out of the 20m catering income or McNally is guilty of spin. Unless you have another interpretation.

I am not trying to stir anything, just trying to understand your point of view.

My point about the Boro game has everything to do with the discussion because, as I stated, I believe that is what fuelled Delia''s rant. I am entitled to believe that just as others are entitled to believe she was running on cooking sherry.

I thinkshe just wanted that atmosphere back because she felt the fans losing faith as we threw away that lead. And she was right we were. The atmosphere had gone flat.

 

 

[First Jedi 0]

NN - I''m with you on the boro game being the catalyst... I thought that at the time!

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="The Butler"]

Once again you deliberately misinterpret what I stated.

First paragraph first line "you think he is a spin doctor" NO I DON''T read again as you are fond of saying.

Why are you trying to stir something that IS NOT THERE?

The rest has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion and it seems to me just put in to show how much you remembered of the great 4-4 draw. (yes I was there and yes it was great)

Paragraph 3 then you think she has little understanding of football or the fans then or what a live sky audience would make of it!!

From somebody who has spent her life in front of camers that is very odd.

[/quote]

No I haven''t mis-interpreted anything. Either there is a decent profit out of the 20m catering income or McNally is guilty of spin. Unless you have another interpretation.

I am not trying to stir anything, just trying to understand your point of view.

My point about the Boro game has everything to do with the discussion because, as I stated, I believe that is what fuelled Delia''s rant. I am entitled to believe that just as others are entitled to believe she was running on cooking sherry.

I thinkshe just wanted that atmosphere back because she felt the fans losing faith as we threw away that lead. And she was right we were. The atmosphere had gone flat.

 

 

[/quote]

don''t doubt we have recieved income totalling that amount over a given period of time.

Income does not equal profit as you well know and NO mention was made of profit.(although if you can''t make money in catering to a captive audience you want shooting!)

From previous post

So what part of the above don''t you understand

[nutty nigel 7,509]

I understand it all fully.

But if McNally''s "the catering income at this club was truly remarkable" does not equate to decent profits then he is "Spin Doctor of Doomcaster proportions".

What part of that do you not understand[:^)]

(Now don''t forget to give Tangie his crayons back)

 

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

I understand it all fully.

But if McNally''s "the catering income at this club was truly remarkable" does not equate to decent profits then he is "Spin Doctor of Doomcaster proportions".

What part of that do you not understand[:^)]

(Now don''t forget to give Tangie his crayons back)

 

[/quote]

You really are being obtuse deliberately are you not?

IF YOU CAN''T MAKE A PROFIT OUT OF .............

Does that say to you I am saying they didn''t make a profit.

So let me make it abundantly clear "I think they made a profit". How much I don''t know and I hesitate to say I wonder if they do.

Nothing to do with friend Tangy or anyone else.

I have never seen in any documents or had from our tame accountants if there is a split for match day tickets/catering which could/would alter profit margins greatly.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

I am being deliberately persistent that is all.

The match ticket / catering split is totally irrelevant because McNally will know if the catering is profitable or not. This is the point I am making which you refuse to address. Either that remarkable catering income is profitable and an asset to this club. Or McNally was spinnnig the facts and it isn''t really profitable. Or it''s a loser and will be part of the non-profitable loss making ventures that he is going to knock on the head pronto. Or he lied about that too.

Which is it Butler?

If you didn''t borrow those crayons from Tangie then fair do''s but it''s much easier on the eyes without them[8-|]

 

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Butler & cherub . . . straight answer to a straight question just for once please.

Do you think McNally was telling the truth about the exceptional catering income at the AGM? Or do you think he was using Doncaster style spin to hide what you''ve always believed?

[/quote]

I wasn''t at the AGM but I believe it''s true that the club''s catering income was £20m over 6 years if that''s what you mean.  £3.5m per annum sounds reasonable to me.  Whether it''s "exceptional" is neither here nor there.  What matters is the profit margin and I still question why they didn''t disclose it.  Withholding information is not the same as lying though.

Do I think they put a positive spin on it?  Yes of course, but they stopped short of "Doncaster style" economy with the truth imo.  Spin is universal.  It doesn''t make them bad people, but it''s up to us not to swallow every word they say without question.  Are they hiding something?  They could be, but who knows?  If not, it''s lack of transparency for no good reason.  Either way, not good.

 

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

I am being deliberately persistent that is all.

The match ticket / catering split is totally irrelevant because McNally will know if the catering is profitable or not. This is the point I am making which you refuse to address. Either that remarkable catering income is profitable and an asset to this club. Or McNally was spinnnig the facts and it isn''t really profitable. Or it''s a loser and will be part of the non-profitable loss making ventures that he is going to knock on the head pronto. Or he lied about that too.

Which is it Butler?

If you didn''t borrow those crayons from Tangie then fair do''s but it''s much easier on the eyes without them[8-|]

 

[/quote]

Again from my last post:-

So let me make it abundantly clear "I think they made a profit". How much I don''t know and I hesitate to say I wonder if they do.

So let me see..yes it is in English , not many big words, definately readable by an ex grammar school boy.

Can''t see what''s missing crayons or not.

Oh the split MUST be relevant or you won''t get a true figure for either tickets or catering. £75.00 a ticket for a seat/meal etc. per match. Split not relevant? But you know best!

Just for your information Nutty I have NEVER said that catering did not make a profit, it used to make a profit when it was run by South Norfolk Caterers and they used contract staff. Are you mixing me up with someone else? Age does have that effect at times[:D]

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="The Butler"]£75.00 a ticket for a seat/meal etc. per match.[/quote]How many of these tickets do you think are sold per game Buttles?

[nutty nigel 7,509]

Well done Cherub. Straight answer to a straight question it was [Y]

So if you believe that by quoting the income and not profit McNally is withholding information and misleading the Shareholders what is it you think he is hiding?

Like I said, I like your style[H] But it looks like Butler''s gonna be sayin'' Hail Marys ''til the cows come home[:O]

 

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="The Butler"]£75.00 a ticket for a seat/meal etc. per match.[/quote]How many of these tickets do you think are sold per game Buttles?[/quote]

Top of the Terrace, Jarrolds, several hundreds Lapp

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Well done Cherub. Straight answer to a straight question it was [Y]

So if you believe that by quoting the income and not profit McNally is withholding information and misleading the Shareholders what is it you think he is hiding?

Like I said, I like your style[H] But it looks like Butler''s gonna be sayin'' Hail Marys ''til the cows come home[:O]

 

[/quote]

No not hail Mary''s if you can''t understand then  stop posting about things you very obviously can''t comprehend..

I am sure it must be time for you to try and annoy someone.

Read what I posted then be honest just for once.

Have a good afternoon Nutty, snow outside so you have time to invent some more "facts"

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="The Butler"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

Well done Cherub. Straight answer to a straight question it was [Y]

So if you believe that by quoting the income and not profit McNally is withholding information and misleading the Shareholders what is it you think he is hiding?

Like I said, I like your style[H] But it looks like Butler''s gonna be sayin'' Hail Marys ''til the cows come home[:O]

 

[/quote]

No not hail Mary''s if you can''t understand then  stop posting about things you very obviously can''t comprehend..

I am sure it must be time for you to try and annoy someone.

Read what I posted then be honest just for once.

Have a good afternoon Nutty, snow outside so you have time to invent some more "facts"

[/quote]

I have to say I don''t understand this post.

What I do understand is that :-

If the remarkable catering income is not profitable even given any advantage by match ticket / catering split (or any other reason you can dream up) then McNally is guilty of deliberately mis-leading the Shareholders last Tuesday.

If the remarkable catering income is not profitable then McNally will take the hatchet to it like said he will to all loss making ventures. If he doesn''t then he is guilty of deliberately mis-leading Shareholders last Tuesday.

Oh and I always post honestly, not just for once. An opinion you don''t agree with isn''t neccessarily dishonest. Things stated as facts that aren''t facts are dishonest not opinions[:|]

 

[kilroyslefteyebrow 0]

NN. Put your c0ck away now. Butler has answered your question repeatedly and you are willfully misunderstanding it. I don''t kno what you are trying to do other than wind him up.

Grow up.

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Well done Cherub. Straight answer to a straight question it was [Y]

So if you believe that by quoting the income and not profit McNally is withholding information and misleading the Shareholders what is it you think he is hiding?

Like I said, I like your style[H] But it looks like Butler''s gonna be sayin'' Hail Marys ''til the cows come home[:O]

[/quote]

How did he mislead anyone?  Shareholders have a responsibility in this as well, to keep their heads screwed on and not let the feelgood factor rob them of their wits.  If they were misled it''s because they let it happen.  You don''t need a degree in economics to spot the difference between income and profit. 

What they are hiding is the level of profit.  I really don''t know why and hesitate to speculate.  Am I right in thinking that all or part of the catering business was split off into a separate company (Delia''s Canary Catering) two or three years ago?  If so, what effect does this have (wheher positive, negative or neutral) on the profit that the club receives?  Does Delia have a personal stake in DCC as distinct from the club itself?  I simply haven''t got enough information to come to any conclusions.

 

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="kilroyslefteyebrow"]NN. Put your c0ck away now. Butler has answered your question repeatedly and you are willfully misunderstanding it. I don''t kno what you are trying to do other than wind him up. Grow up.[/quote]

Thank you I thought it was me!![;)]