Rayvin

Tories up 1, Labour down 1.

On top of that, don't all previous Presidents have ongoing access to top secret information about the state? So we might have Trump leaking stuff left and right once he's out, depending on his whims.

I daresay you'll find a way to enjoy it when it happens

What happened with this bit, I missed the detail. Did we accidentally impose sanctions against them? Or did we impose sanctions and then decide we could have our cake and eat it by also phoning up to say that we didn't really mean it? This sounds like good news for the takeover but it's a shameful episode for the British in general.

I got it. SUMPRODUCT(SUMIF(C3:D7,"Comp 1",E3:E7)) I didn't get there myself, I did a final spate of desperate googling and found it. Tbf mate, everything you've set out would be fine for a single line and I suspect that if you'd not contributed then I wouldn't have got there in the end. Thank you.

Surely the two tribes he is referring to are 1) Luke Edwards on one side, desiring to be right, and 2) everyone else on the other side, actually being right.

Hope you're right Rents, but I'm sticking to the prediction that they'll be in power for at least another term after this one.

Most left wing spending package I can remember seeing. Going down well with the public too. It turns out that people do want left wing policies, they just don't want to have to admit that they want them. The Tories, to their credit, seem to have worked this out. Can't see any way back for Labour at present, as badly as the government has handled almost everything since the election, they're still managing to create positive headlines and are still up on Starmer.

So the problem is that the variable situation is actually way more complicated than what I've outlined here. The variable columns would be better defined as 'category of variable columns'. And they have drop down boxes for up to 10 or 20 specific subsets of that variable category. So I get what you're saying but no, sadly not. I do appreciate that all of this would be far easier in an SQL database but I can't afford to spend the time on that yet. New venture etc etc.

Yeah that sounds about right tbh, it's the only leverage they're ever going to have. Presumably the PL has been on standby about this for possible years and has a roadmap to get what they want out of it. The fact that the Saudis haven't walked away yet is encouraging on this front. What is maybe a bit disconcerting is that if the Saudis are having to jump through hoops for the PL at this stage, it suggests that they were unaware of certain aspects of this process that they would be challenged on... which seems inconceivable to me in a business arrangement like this. You'd expect that, unofficially and behind the scenes before this even started in earnest, the Saudis would have spoken to the PL about what might be involved. So either this is all planned or they've been blind-sided by something.

First off, thanks for your effort on this - greatly appreciated, even Reddit hasn't bothered coming back to me on this query. But in answer to your ultimate question, yes, I'm after one line for all products. The Component stock sheet is totally separate and fairly complicated in and of itself so I can't run that stock table in it - all I'm looking for is to be able to subtract the sum total of all Component stock reductions from the overall total in stock, in that sheet, in a single line. =(SUMIF('Incoming Stock'!D:D,'Product Inventory'!B:B,'Incoming Stock'!F:F))-(VLOOKUP([@ID],'Sales Log'!E:G,3,FALSE)) That's the code I'm running so far. The red bit is being informed by an incoming stock table, the yellow is deducting component sales if we sell them individually. This part works - I just need it to net off as a single number, all components sold across all Products (as variables), on a component by component basis. Your example above does this on a line by line basis that can operate cumulatively... and I suppose I could probably arrange for it to do that in a separate sheet and then sum the columns per component to get what I want. Tbh that would probably work and would fix the issue, I think maybe I was aiming too big to get it all through in a single run of code. Unless you can think of anything on the single line front? Like I said, thanks so much for taking some time on this.

For the above, each product can have one of 3 variables assigned to it, and tracks the total sales of the product in column B. In columns E:G we have the stock levels of each of the components. What I want is to be able to deduct the number of components that sold as part of the product sale, from the stock levels for those components. So I need something that will pick up on Component 1 from both Variable columns, and will deduct 2 for Product A, and 5 for Product C. And nothing for B and D (for that Component only). I should add that I don't have the component stock level here in reality, it's on a different sheet - but for simplicity I've added it in E:G.

They already have won IMO. At least for another generation.

Just for the record, this stuff worked and I have it set up now. Thank you. I have a new issue though. I have a table that has each individual Product on separate rows. The Product consists of variable Components that can be selected through drop down boxes in columns D:Z. I am tracking the number of Products sold in Column C. I have an inventory sheet that tracks stock levels for all variable Components, and I want it to update automatically if a Product is sold, based on the variations of Components associated with it. This means I need a formula which will look across D:Z for all rows, identify the Component, and then multiply it by the number of Products sold (Column C). The problem is that I only want it to multiply it if it actually exists as a variable option for that Product. So for example: Product A = Component A + Component B + Component C Product B = Component B + Component C Product C = Component A + Component C Product A Sales: 1 Product B Sales: 1 Product C Sales: 1 So I want the stock sheet for Component C to count all the sales totals because it is used in all Products. However, Component B I only want it to count Product A and B. Because the Components are all set to a stock value of 1 when they are associated with a Product, it would also be feasible to simply Sum the sales column where a Component exists on the same row. But for the life of me, I can't make it happen. It keeps setting it to zero.

Lying coward afraid to take responsibility for his stupidity. There is no logical argument at any stage for that position. May went in ultra hard to begin with, and the "Remain politicians" turned out for her vote in sufficient numbers that if the hard-core leave politicians had joined in, she would have won. It is on them, entirely. No deal is happening only because of leavers. Remainers, no matter what they think, were deliberately made completely powerless throughout.

Why now? Why is the penny finally dropping now when we are absolutely past the point of no return. Everything said there has been transparently obvious since day 1.

Loads of comments from gammons in there threatening never to go back to Scotland though. The other side of the same fucking coin as the muppets in the video. When they're running around sticking two fingers up at the EU it's all fair and proper, when Scotland does it to them it's an outrage. I'd fire the lot of them into the fucking sun at this point.

Unless you're in cahoots with the betting agent, apparently. I'm not saying this is a sensible move other than for them to be as ballsy as they have, I would imagine they're making a killing somehow. Maybe loads of Phillipine gamblers bet they would stay up and the total value of transactions makes this one bet going the other way safe for the betting agency and a reward for the owners?

Ashley will be kicking himself that he didn't think of this.

I read it more as they've put a bet on themselves to get relegated (a bet with their shirt sponsor no less) and are trying to ensure it happens.

The owner of Wigan, a Hong Kong based poker player/gambler is actively trying to get them relegated in order to clean up on a bet - and so has placed them into administration to ensure they get a 12 point penalty and therefore relegation (he bet they would go down). It's staggering.

They're going to announce the heat death of the universe before this fucking takeover.

So he's actually the follow up to Boris Johnson then, not Cummings.

What that post really indicates tbh is that they don't care how shite they are, whatsoever, as long as we're vaguely in there with them. They'd be happy being the joint worst team in all of professional football as long as we were the other one. All this "Sonny knows his place, Sonny may be a fucking retard, but at least he knows to doff his cap to the big kids". Servile fucks. In my entire time talking to Newcastle fans about football, not once has one of them ever said to me "I don't mind how shite we are as long as the mackems aren't doing better". I know we all know this but it amazes me that they can't see it for the life of them.

What the gibbering fuck is wrong with whoever wrote that.