Up to date 'news'

[Laughter My Ploy]

As an aside if £12,000,000 of prawn sandwiches were piled up in a tower how far would that reach ? Say £2 per sandwich and 1 inch per sandwich thickness .

6 million inches; or
500,000 feet; or
166,667 yards; or
94.7 miles

Or approximate 2 return trips from home park to slapton sands

 

[The Doctor]

As an aside if £12,000,000 of prawn sandwiches were piled up in a tower how far would that reach ? Say £2 per sandwich and 1 inch per sandwich thickness .

6 million inches; or
500,000 feet; or
166,667 yards; or
94.7 miles

There you go - facts - we need more facts. Well done. On the other hand though, there's nothing in the question that says the pile is only one sandwich wide. If they were cut in half slice triangles it would make more sense to pile them up two sandwiches wide, rotating each successive level by 90 degrees to provide some interlocking and a bit more stability. In that case the pile would only be 47.85 miles high.

 

[richy2704]

As an aside if £12,000,000 of prawn sandwiches were piled up in a tower how far would that reach ? Say £2 per sandwich and 1 inch per sandwich thickness .

6 million inches; or
500,000 feet; or
166,667 yards; or
94.7 miles

There you go - facts - we need more facts. Well done. On the other hand though, there's nothing in the question that says the pile is only one sandwich wide. If they were cut in half slice triangles it would make more sense to pile them up two sandwiches wide, rotating each successive level by 90 degrees to provide some interlocking and a bit more stability. In that case the pile would only be 47.85 miles high.

I think your failing to take in account the type or thickness of bread, for example tiger bread rolls would increase the height or in fact the Asda smartprice thats slightly thinner than paper!!!

 

[Mark Colling]

As an aside if £12,000,000 of prawn sandwiches were piled up in a tower how far would that reach ? Say £2 per sandwich and 1 inch per sandwich thickness .

6 million inches; or
500,000 feet; or
166,667 yards; or
94.7 miles

There you go - facts - we need more facts. Well done. On the other hand though, there's nothing in the question that says the pile is only one sandwich wide. If they were cut in half slice triangles it would make more sense to pile them up two sandwiches wide, rotating each successive level by 90 degrees to provide some interlocking and a bit more stability. In that case the pile would only be 47.85 miles high.

If you cut a sandwich in half and rotated it, it would still only be one sandwich width so whilst you're engineering may be valid, your creative accountancy is pretty poor :wink:

 

[The Doctor]

As an aside if £12,000,000 of prawn sandwiches were piled up in a tower how far would that reach ? Say £2 per sandwich and 1 inch per sandwich thickness .

6 million inches; or
500,000 feet; or
166,667 yards; or
94.7 miles

There you go - facts - we need more facts. Well done. On the other hand though, there's nothing in the question that says the pile is only one sandwich wide. If they were cut in half slice triangles it would make more sense to pile them up two sandwiches wide, rotating each successive level by 90 degrees to provide some interlocking and a bit more stability. In that case the pile would only be 47.85 miles high.

If you cut a sandwich in half and rotated it, it would still only be one sandwich width so whilst you're engineering may be valid, your creative accountancy is pretty poor :wink:

I think you've misunderstood my system. But we've also neglected to take into account that the more sandwiches that are piled up the greater the weight of sandwiches pressing down on the bottom ones and so the more they will be compressed. Perhaps Paul Stapleton would like to suggest an answer to this one - he must be pretty good with numbers...

 

[richy2704]

As an aside if £12,000,000 of prawn sandwiches were piled up in a tower how far would that reach ? Say £2 per sandwich and 1 inch per sandwich thickness .

6 million inches; or
500,000 feet; or
166,667 yards; or
94.7 miles

There you go - facts - we need more facts. Well done. On the other hand though, there's nothing in the question that says the pile is only one sandwich wide. If they were cut in half slice triangles it would make more sense to pile them up two sandwiches wide, rotating each successive level by 90 degrees to provide some interlocking and a bit more stability. In that case the pile would only be 47.85 miles high.

If you cut a sandwich in half and rotated it, it would still only be one sandwich width so whilst you're engineering may be valid, your creative accountancy is pretty poor :wink:

I think you've misunderstood my system. But we've also neglected to take into account that the more sandwiches that are piled up the greater the weight of sandwiches pressing down on the bottom ones and so the more they will be compressed. Perhaps Paul Stapleton would like to suggest an answer to this one - he must be pretty good with numbers...[/quot

:lol:

 

[Laughter My Ploy]

He'll be up all night working on the problem

 

[richy2704]

He'll be up all night working on the problem

But will not be able to fully go into it.

 

[MickyD]

As an aside if £12,000,000 of prawn sandwiches were piled up in a tower how far would that reach ? Say £2 per sandwich and 1 inch per sandwich thickness .

Once to the mo(r)on and back.

That's not aimed at anybody at all, by the way. I just couldn't resist linguisitically.

 

[David Whitehouse]

It's such a shame as most of this month's laundry bill could have been covered with that sort of money.

 

[Born a Janner]

As an aside if £12,000,000 of prawn sandwiches were piled up in a tower how far would that reach ? Say £2 per sandwich and 1 inch per sandwich thickness .

6 million inches; or
500,000 feet; or
166,667 yards; or
94.7 miles

Did you factor in for any losses due to the rodent infestation at HP?

Someone with access to the Boardroom could leave a bag of prawns hidden somewhere just so they know we think what's going on at Argyle stinks!

 

[Peverell Pete]

This is not rumour, but from a very good source.

HMRC are still looking at PAFC, they are looking intoi everything to do with our club and are 'lifting up floorboards and looking into very dark corners'.

The new tax bill on February 22nd is 'considerably in excess of £300k, possibly nearer the £500k mark'. 'The club have no way of paying that' I was told.

There is rumour that Wraithall and Donnerly will be leaving tomorrow, but that is unsubtstantiated and cannot be lumped in with the above.

If it is true, I reckon admin, and then a Ridsdale/Stapleton alliance.

How come IJN can post a rumour and it stays on here all day - off to rumours, no-one will quit tomorrow.

 

[Anonymous]

No biggy PP, here it is.

 

[Peverell Pete]

Thanks Ian it's not true what they say about you... :lol:

 

[RedGreen]

Such as 'where did £12 million in 'other operating costs' over 3 years come from?" ?

Why do people seem to get hung up on the wrong line in the accounts?

Other operating costs cover pretty much everything that it takes to run the football club other than the staff costs. The 2009 accounts tell us that £626,000 of these costs related to the aborted Phase II and so no doubt much more followed with the failed White Elephant bid - how much that mismanangement cost us will no doubt come out eventually.

Excluding Phase II, other operating costs over the three years were £11.3m, up by 44% compared with the previous three years (£7.8m). Given that revenue over the same period was only up by 26%, there is no doubt that we had become inefficient but to highlight £12m is just wrong.

If you use the same comparative periods, staff costs were up by 87% to £19.3m (or by 102% to £21.3m if you include transfer and signing-on fees quite rightly written off over the length of the players' contracts).

By 2009, staff costs were 86% of total revenue (or 98% including transfer and signing-on fees). From what Ridsdale has said recently, there is every reason to believe these costs have risen even higher since. If I remember correctly, when a salary cap has been muted, a figure of 60% has been mentioned.

As I said above, I am sure there are some unnecessary costs within other operating costs but the bulk of the problem is that we allowed staff (and let's face it, that's mostly the players) costs get out of hand.

We had a chance to rectify that after the January 2008 firesale but "ambition" intervened and look where we are now.

I'd love to know what that "ambition" was, it certainly wasn't evident through the management of/by Sturrock or evident on the field either by the way we played or the players we didn't buy!!!!!!

Pah, i have seen some excuses in my time!