punkskaphil

Now I'm only ever going to hear 'Bannan' said in Harry Hill's voice.

I missed your point. Did anybody say there were 29k there last night? Ah...I see you've edited your post now.

You're right. It was 26,061 last night.

Going on the attendance figures on the BBC website, they do.

Depends how long it takes, I expect. Usually bookings include time spent talking to the player(s) involved, and also the ref has to consider whether the offending team is trying to waste time as well.

Not that I want to support the officials, but the added time is always announced as a minimum. Nobody should be assuming that the number of minutes held up by the fourth official is exactly what it'll be. Presumably the ref stopped his watch for the two yellows he gave to Rhodes and Lee during injury time too.

No, that was me...but only because the guy's Band-aid had fallen off.

8 or 11 for me. I really like 17, but it has negative connotations.

My earlier comment was responding to the question about why we didn't go with a known name brand, if we had gone with a name brand doing something like that would've been ridiculously expensive. We'd have just ended up with a standard template kit - maybe not even having the extra anniversary badge on it, who knows? We may have been in line for something like really special with the manufacturer that was initially chosen, but if it's true that we had to get a new manufacturer at the last minute, it's no surprise that we haven't done anything amazing with it. It is a bespoke kit though, which is what I was getting at.

Can you name another club with an identical set of kits to us? The kits - whether people like them or not - are clearly bespoke for us. Secondly, given that the designer/manufacturer ended having to be changed so late in the day, maybe the original design had more embellishment than the added anniversary patch we've seen so far.

I wonder how many fans who are angry at the shorter 'shelf-life' also still wear shirts from years back. I still have shirts dating back to the 1980s. I don't throw them away at the end of the season.

The problem with this is that if we'd gone for something special/bespoke from one of those known brands, it would've ended up costing the club - and the fans - a fortune. We don't sell enough shirts compared to the top Premier League clubs so the only way we're going to get a special design kit from one of those brands is by paying an absolute premium, which would end up being handed down to us. It would only have been cost-effective to go with a bog-standard template kit, which most fans would've been disappointed by. Personally, I'd rather wait and get my hands on a specially-designed kit.

You're confusing me now. I can't figure out which of the things I've said are the parts you don't understand. Perhaps we've got our wires crossed. All I've tried to say is that I don't think any species (whether that be an owl or any other fauna or flora) should be (re)introduced without significant evidence that it was ever previously resident. I only mentioned Little Owls because they already have been introduced/established but I was trying to imply that, given that they aren't apparently affecting other species, then they might as well stay. I thought you were suggesting that Eagle Owls should be introduced simply because they live elsewhere in Western Europe and therefore they might have once been native here too. Apologies to the OP for taking this thread on a different direction...