Go fuck yourselves FSG

[Barrington Womble]

19 hours ago, lebron said:

 

It might be stupid, doesn’t mean it is any less true. They do (or at least every single one I have had the (mis)fortune of coming across). Don’t think people that have made the amount of money and had such personal business success as the guys that are owning us are any different, might even be MORE prone to defining themselves by their success (or lack of it). You really think they don’t care if LFC wins or not? If they are like most of us, they care about perception, and would much rather be popular than unpopular. Otherwise they wouldn’t have engaged with the fans at all, and fleeced us for even more money than they do. They are of course not perfect, but I find it amusing how many of our supporters that think we would be better off with other owners. 

 

I am sure they are even more focused on the Red Sox than us. I am fine with that. Many aren’t. It comes with the amount of money they administer. They won’t have just one investment. Hard to argue against them owning and prioritising one of the most historic sporting institutions in their homeland which is in their home city. We deserve better, many say. If there was some true local  Liverpool patriot billionaire lurking I would probably be rooting for him to buy us too, but as you all know, those don’t really exist. The amount of money needed to fund us if/when things go wrong isn’t available with GB money. Otherwise most PL clubs would be British owned, not US/oil money...

 

As to your last point. They have now owned us over 10 years. The Red Sox double that. Where is the evidence that they are pulling out soon? When is the «peak» you are talking about, and who could they feasibly sell to now that the PL is (much too late) seemingly tightening the tests on who can own a PL club? Qatar? China? Another US hedge fund? I will take these rather than the uncertainty that comes with the others, thank you.

 

I can’t really see them selling any time soon either. I understand your point of them saying they are seeking buyers and/or  investors. If they can still get the glory and the payout with less risk involved I am sure they will take that at some point. 3 pct is a pretty far cry from 100 though, and probably had a lot to do with the stadium expansion.

 

If I had to guess, I think they will hold onto us as long as Henry and Werner are of sound mind, might be a different kettle when they pack it in. I think they take a huge part of pride in being succesful businessmen with an affinity for and ownership of succesful sports franchises. 

 

I meet or speak to American's every single week. I'm just back from a week there and have spent another 2 there this year already. Nearly all are from similar background industry to JWH. I can firmly say it's a stupid generalisation and is completely wrong. They really don't care that much about winning where sport is concerned h or not the ones I meet anyway, which ensures ALL isn't right. The only time they're arsed about winning is when it happens..the rest of the time they barely have any interest. 

 

As for where the proof is they will sell, they've said it loads and loads of times. They'll never provide either a date or the exit point, as they'll both clearly be moving targets - and they will never want it to look a fire sale. But a point was 2 years ago, they tried and failed to sell the club. Instead they sold a 3% share. Money that was supposed to be reinvested in the club. I haven't had chance to read the accounts since, so I don't know if it was or wasn't. But the fact remains they tried to sell - 2 banks were running it and the sales pack was out there. 

[Moo]

11 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

 

I meet or speak to American's every single week. I'm just back from a week there and have spent another 2 there this year already. Nearly all are from similar background industry to JWH. I can firmly say it's a stupid generalisation and is completely wrong. They really don't care that much about winning where sport is concerned h or not the ones I meet anyway, which ensures ALL isn't right. The only time they're arsed about winning is when it happens..the rest of the time they barely have any interest. 

 

As for where the proof is they will sell, they've said it loads and loads of times. They'll never provide either a date or the exit point, as they'll both clearly be moving targets - and they will never want it to look a fire sale. But a point was 2 years ago, they tried and failed to sell the club. Instead they sold a 3% share. Money that was supposed to be reinvested in the club. I haven't had chance to read the accounts since, so I don't know if it was or wasn't. But the fact remains they tried to sell - 2 banks were running it and the sales pack was out there. 

 

I don't know if a penny of the share sale went into LFC, and to be fair I don't think they ever said it would. But of course some of it should have gone into the club, instead it looks like FSG used it to pursue other interests.

 

[Barrington Womble]

8 minutes ago, Moo said:

 

I don't know if a penny of the share sale went into LFC, and to be fair I don't think they ever said it would. But of course some of it should have gone into the club, instead it looks like FSG used it to pursue other interests.

 

 

So in reply to you and some additional to @lebron , here's a tom Werner quote about selling when they went to Goldman's to hawk the club 

 

In an interview with the Boston Globe, Liverpool chairman Tom Werner said, “We’re exploring a sale, but there’s no urgency, no time frame for us, and as far as I’m concerned, it’s business as usual.

 

 

And specifically about your point @Moo the money was supposed to pay down debt. As I say, I don't know if the accounts reflect this. 

 

From the article below... 

Liverpool’s owners have sold a small stake in the club for up to $200m (£164m).

The money raised will be used to pay down debt and help finance capital expenditure.

 

https://www-skysports-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.skysports.com/amp/football/news/11095/12971898/liverpool-fenway-sports-group-sells-minority-stake-to-us-private-equity-firm-dynasty-equity?amp_gsa=1&amp_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQIUAKwASCAAgM%3D#amp_tf=From %1%24s&aoh=17427406110268&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.skysports.com%2Ffootball%2Fnews%2F11095%2F12971898%2Fliverpool-fenway-sports-group-sells-minority-stake-to-us-private-equity-firm-dynasty-equity

[No2]

41 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

 

I bet you if you asked him to give up half his valuation for a couple of wins, the answer would be a clear no. So if he could be as wealthy and have huge success, of course. But that's not the aim. It's to be wealthy and if that brings sporting success, so be it. It's the same with JWH and his consortium. 

A fairer question would be have revenues of 750m and come second or revenues of 650m and finish first. I think they're choosing the later and success ultimately leads to increased valuation of the asset. 

[Barrington Womble]

2 minutes ago, No2 said:

A fairer question would be have revenues of 750m and come second or revenues of 650m and finish first. I think they're choosing the later and success ultimately leads to increased valuation of the asset. 

 

When Ian ayre was CEO, he said he didn't believe valuation and turnover was directly linked to revenues, because as a club we like to market ourselves on different things as we think it is both more sustainable and differentiates ourselves from other big clubs..what he was referring to was the whole "12th man" thing, which has delivered relentless marketing tagline bullshit like "this means more". Our club believe the value of the club is linked to some Scouse exceptionalism shite.

 

Even Manchester united have shown their key to their revenue success is running with the "biggest" tag rather than the "best". When they were successful, they still leaned heavily on the biggest aspect. And that has carried revenues through to this day, even though it's a decade since they've won either of the big 2 and are now a bottom half team. 

[lebron]

4 hours ago, Barrington Womble said:

 

So in reply to you and some additional to @lebron , here's a tom Werner quote about selling when they went to Goldman's to hawk the club 

 

In an interview with the Boston Globe, Liverpool chairman Tom Werner said, “We’re exploring a sale, but there’s no urgency, no time frame for us, and as far as I’m concerned, it’s business as usual.

 

 

And specifically about your point @Moo the money was supposed to pay down debt. As I say, I don't know if the accounts reflect this. 

 

From the article below... 

Liverpool’s owners have sold a small stake in the club for up to $200m (£164m).

The money raised will be used to pay down debt and help finance capital expenditure.

 

https://www-skysports-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.skysports.com/amp/football/news/11095/12971898/liverpool-fenway-sports-group-sells-minority-stake-to-us-private-equity-firm-dynasty-equity?amp_gsa=1&amp_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQIUAKwASCAAgM%3D#amp_tf=From %1%24s&aoh=17427406110268&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.skysports.com%2Ffootball%2Fnews%2F11095%2F12971898%2Fliverpool-fenway-sports-group-sells-minority-stake-to-us-private-equity-firm-dynasty-equity

 

I am aware of those quotes. «No urgency and no timeframe» being the words I’m leaning towards. As long as we’re doing well and they aren’t in a rush to get their hands on money (I think they manage to get by in their daily lives), I believe nothing much will change unless their health deteriorates…. People have been thinking they have been actively selling us for 8-10 years… I am guessing they will be right at som point in time…

 

The Athletic article seemed to suggest most of the influx of new money went to the build of ARE. Not my area of expertise, I must admit. Can’t really see that being a big deal either.

[Barrington Womble]

11 minutes ago, lebron said:

 

I am aware of those quotes. «No urgency and no timeframe» being the words I’m leaning towards. As long as we’re doing well and they aren’t in a rush to get their hands on money (I think they manage to get by in their daily lives), I believe nothing much will change unless their health deteriorates…. People have been thinking they have been actively selling us for 8-10 years… I am guessing they will be right at som point in time…

 

The Athletic article seemed to suggest most of the influx of new money went to the build of ARE. Not my area of expertise, I must admit. Can’t really see that being a big deal either.

 

The point you seem to be either missing or wilfully ignoring, is we are not running the club on a basis of anything other than being in shape for a sale. I think you're right they're not in a rush - they don't want to leave anything on the table. But that doesn't mean they're not prepared and ready to sell, as they proved when they got a stiffy when Chelsea sold - within no time both LFC and MUFC were being hawked around by investment banks like cheap whores. The best way to stay in shape for sale is doing the absolute minimum, while staying competitive enough to get CL football and major sponsorship and keep the revenues rolling. As I said before, from a sponsorship perspective, we deliberately don't lean into success as the driver, we lean into the 12th man, to ensure commercial activities are good when we drop out of the picture.

 

We are nothing but an asset to them. If you think we're not up for sale at every moment, I think it's because you don't want to believe we're just an asset. They say themselves they've explored and full sale and you just brushed it away, when earlier you were asking when had they ever said that. 

 

Nobody wants to believe we're just Weetabix. But that's the reality. 

 

 

[lebron]

Despite my username, I have absolutely no skin in the game. I am not wilfully ignoring anything. i just don’t get my knickers in a twist when American businessmen earn money on their investment and don’t plough their own money (to lose) into their assets. I also won’t mind if they sell us to a better owner (I still haven’t heard anyone including you come up with good alternatives), I just think our options out there are severely limited. We either end up with a similar hedge fund model (better the devil you know) or a state-owned/oil ownership. I personally think that would be a bit shit, but I am guessing you @Barrington Wombleand others are fine with it if it means more money for transfers/wages etc?

 

If you think they have no interest in winning, I think that is even more naive than my take. Guess we will have to agree to disagree, and wait to see who is right first. I’ll stick my neck out and say we are FSG-owned in the 2030-31 season. IF you think we are up to sale EVERY moment you should have a good chance of winning this one…

[lebron]

My computer skipped one of your previous posts it seems. Regarding a sale or staying to win. Two things can be right. I said they are not JUST sellers, which implies I also think they will sell us if they get
a) silly money

b) into financial trouble 

 

I don’t know if either is likely to happen soon. Hence my prediction above.

 

Doesn’t really matter. We will never agree here. The proof is in the pudding as they say. Care to make a prediction as to when they sell (timeframe a couple of years either way) and who the potential buyers that will be better owners are?

[Lee909]

More than it being them not wanting to win I think it's the don't see the needed outlay to try and push on as a necessary risk. They'd rather not spend 50ml on the chance it brings more success. Everything they do is risk adverse with finances

[lebron]

27 minutes ago, Lee909 said:

More than it being them not wanting to win I think it's the don't see the needed outlay to try and push on as a necessary risk. They'd rather not spend 50ml on the chance it brings more success. Everything they do is risk adverse with finances

 

Which is everything they have always promised. We are still more than competitive, and without the cheats would have had our must succesful stint since mid-70s/early 80s. Not bad for penny-pinchers

[Lee909]

1 minute ago, lebron said:

 

Which is everything they have always promised. We are still more than competitive, and without the cheats would have had our must succesful stint since mid-70s/early 80s. Not bad for penny-pinchers

 

Don't disagree 

But it also doesn't mean those complaining that they should at times have pushed the boat out as there's a good argument that running out of steam has cost us trophies. 

 

I agree that in many ways it's better the devil you know in terms of ownership and I don't really want a national wealth fund in charge. 

 

If they lose Virg,Trent and Salah in one summer it will be hard for them to find excuses why that made sense. You'd have to be spending over 300ml to just not stand still if we did

[Barrington Womble]

42 minutes ago, lebron said:

Despite my username, I have absolutely no skin in the game. I am not wilfully ignoring anything. i just don’t get my knickers in a twist when American businessmen earn money on their investment and don’t plough their own money (to lose) into their assets. I also won’t mind if they sell us to a better owner (I still haven’t heard anyone including you come up with good alternatives), I just think our options out there are severely limited. We either end up with a similar hedge fund model (better the devil you know) or a state-owned/oil ownership. I personally think that would be a bit shit, but I am guessing you @Barrington Wombleand others are fine with it if it means more money for transfers/wages etc?

 

If you think they have no interest in winning, I think that is even more naive than my take. Guess we will have to agree to disagree, and wait to see who is right first. I’ll stick my neck out and say we are FSG-owned in the 2030-31 season. IF you think we are up to sale EVERY moment you should have a good chance of winning this one…

 

If you're happy with a club being run on the basis of "nothing trumps money", good for you. Personally it makes me sick to the stomach to think they use our club in such a way. I'm not even suggesting there's better alternatives now the game has sold out this far, because I doubt there will be.

 

But if you're happy with how things are, are you ok with Abu Dhabi owning a club down the m62? What difference does it make? They're just a different bunch of cunt using a football club to enrich themselves in an entirely different way. 

 

The entire game is pretty much rotten to the core. It doesn't mean I need to be happy with it.

[an tha]

4 minutes ago, Lee909 said:

 

Don't disagree 

But it also doesn't mean those complaining that they should at times have pushed the boat out as there's a good argument that running out of steam has cost us trophies. 

 

I agree that in many ways it's better the devil you know in terms of ownership and I don't really want a national wealth fund in charge. 

 

If they lose Virg,Trent and Salah in one summer it will be hard for them to find excuses why that made sense. You'd have to be spending over 300ml to just not stand still if we did

This running out of steam argument and its sibling argument about being short of players, which it seems the fix for in people's eyes would be buying more players is one i struggle to understand when i see it....Where we supposed to stockpile some £50/60/70m players or add to for example when we had 10 midfielders an 11th or 12th - or a 7th forward this year...?

 

It isn't like we have been short of the numbers required - yes we have had crocks like Thiago and Keita and Oxlade who couldn't really contribute but we couldn't bin bag them, or stop paying them, or get someone to buy them - so we couldn't bring other bodies in....Or when we have had injury crises, we couldn't go out and lash money at shortish term replacements even if the right types of players were available, willing to come or at clubs who would sell to us.

 

We already have one of the biggest wage bills around - it is IMO unrealisitic to expect us to have been adding to that significantly anyway before we even get into the complexities mentioned above.

 

Our issues with 'running out of steam' 'being short' (if we accept we did or were) would IMHO be more down to players who we paid good money for and big money to being unreliable and not fit (literally) for purpose than it would be to some idea we didn't buy enough or spend enough on acquiring and paying players.

[BeefStroganoff]

14 minutes ago, an tha said:

This running out of steam argument and its sibling argument about being short of players, which it seems the fix for in people's eyes would be buying more players is one i struggle to understand when i see it....Where we supposed to stockpile some £50/60/70m players or add to for example when we had 10 midfielders an 11th or 12th - or a 7th forward this year...?

 

It isn't like we have been short of the numbers required - yes we have had crocks like Thiago and Keita and Oxlade who couldn't really contribute but we couldn't bin bag them, or stop paying them, or get someone to buy them - so we couldn't bring other bodies in....Or when we have had injury crises, we couldn't go out and lash money at shortish term replacements even if the right types of players were available, willing to come or at clubs who would sell to us.

 

We already have one of the biggest wage bills around - it is IMO unrealisitic to expect us to have been adding to that significantly anyway before we even get into the complexities mentioned above.

 

Our issues with 'running out of steam' 'being short' (if we accept we did or were) would IMHO be more down to players who we paid good money for and big money to being unreliable and not fit (literally) for purpose than it would be to some idea we didn't buy enough or spend enough on acquiring and paying players.

For goodness sakes…Slot doesn’t play a third of them. And at least another third are injury prone.

 

That’s what people talk about not stockpiling super expensive players. 
 

You know I worry about some of you lot I really do. You are too entrenched in your opinions and too blinded by focusing on people being ‘complainers’ to actually read properly.

[an tha]

20 minutes ago, BeefStroganoff said:

For goodness sakes…Slot doesn’t play a third of them. And at least another third are injury prone.

 

That’s what people talk about not stockpiling super expensive players. 
 

You know I worry about some of you lot I really do. You are too entrenched in your opinions and too blinded by focusing on people being ‘complainers’ to actually read properly.

I think it is fair to say you might be at best not comprehending what you've read or at worst have not read it properly here.

[BeefStroganoff]

1 hour ago, an tha said:

I think it is fair to say you might be at best not comprehending what you've read or at worst have not read it properly here.

No mate no I’m not. I’ve been consistent in my opinion over many years and much of the stuff I’ve been concerned about has come to pass. I’ve nothing but respect and admiration for what Jurgen achieved with everything against him, and everything included our owners.

 

Here is as clearly as I can put it.

 

I don’t like our owners for the following reasons:

 

1. We are a business to them and not a football club

2. Because of 1. they don’t invest in the squad on a regular basis.

3. Because of 2 we carry players until we run their contracts out, keep players we can’t rely on and keep players who have poor injury records.

4. Because of all of the above we have been inconsistent over many years with the best manager in world football and failed to build on the success and hard work he and the players achieved.

 

Its not about spending like Chelsea or just buying players for the sake of it, or being owned by a superstate, its about being smart, driven and hungry for consistent success backed by an ownership that equally cares about it as much as the fans.

 

Thats it, simple.

[an tha]

38 minutes ago, BeefStroganoff said:

No mate no I’m not. I’ve been consistent in my opinion over many years and much of the stuff I’ve been concerned about has come to pass. I’ve nothing but respect and admiration for what Jurgen achieved with everything against him, and everything included our owners.

 

Here is as clearly as I can put it.

 

I don’t like our owners for the following reasons:

 

1. We are a business to them and not a football club

2. Because of 1. they don’t invest in the squad on a regular basis.

3. Because of 2 we carry players until we run their contracts out, keep players we can’t rely on and keep players who have poor injury records.

4. Because of all of the above we have been inconsistent over many years with the best manager in world football and failed to build on the success and hard work he and the players achieved.

 

Its not about spending like Chelsea or just buying players for the sake of it, or bein g owned by a superstate, its about being smart, driven and hungry for consistent success backed by an ownership that equally cares about it as much as the fans.

 

Thats it, simple.

We can go around and around forever on this, mate, we won't fully agree and i think as a result of passion we end up at crossed purposes in these discussions.

 

So I feel agreeing to disagree is best now.

 

That said if we don't invest well in the summer then feel free to get on my case!

[BeefStroganoff]

2 minutes ago, an tha said:

We can go around and around forever on this, mate, we won't fully agree and i think as a result of passion we end up at crossed purposes in these discussions.

 

So I feel agreeing to disagree is best now.

 

That said if we don't invest well in the summer then feel free to get on my case!

Fair enough pal. I don’t have a problem with differing opinions what I do have a problem with is those that come on here and call you all manner of names because they don’t agree (not you btw).

 

And yes I was out of order for telling you to eff off, so my apologies there. I’m trying to keep off here because it just ends in circle spats.

 

Lets just get the league won.

[an tha]

22 minutes ago, BeefStroganoff said:

Fair enough pal. I don’t have a problem with differing opinions what I do have a problem with is those that come on here and call you all manner of names because they don’t agree (not you btw).

 

And yes I was out of order for telling you to eff off, so my apologies there. I’m trying to keep off here because it just ends in circle spats.

 

Lets just get the league won.

Don't worry about that.

 

And aye let's just get this title won. Will be so fuckibg good nailing No. 20 and it being in front of fans/a parade and that.

[The wanderer]

10 hours ago, BeefStroganoff said:

For goodness sakes…Slot doesn’t play a third of them. And at least another third are injury prone.

 

That’s what people talk about not stockpiling super expensive players. 
 

You know I worry about some of you lot I really do. You are too entrenched in your opinions and too blinded by focusing on people being ‘complainers’ to actually read properly.

Slot is in his first season here . He stated that he wanted to work with the squad he inherited. He made the choice to not play certain players (IMO that is a mistake some of them deserve more minutes). I think the time to evaluate things will be later this year. 

[The wanderer]

8 hours ago, BeefStroganoff said:

No mate no I’m not. I’ve been consistent in my opinion over many years and much of the stuff I’ve been concerned about has come to pass. I’ve nothing but respect and admiration for what Jurgen achieved with everything against him, and everything included our owners.

 

Here is as clearly as I can put it.

 

I don’t like our owners for the following reasons:

 

1. We are a business to them and not a football club

2. Because of 1. they don’t invest in the squad on a regular basis.

3. Because of 2 we carry players until we run their contracts out, keep players we can’t rely on and keep players who have poor injury records.

4. Because of all of the above we have been inconsistent over many years with the best manager in world football and failed to build on the success and hard work he and the players achieved.

 

Its not about spending like Chelsea or just buying players for the sake of it, or being owned by a superstate, its about being smart, driven and hungry for consistent success backed by an ownership that equally cares about it as much as the fans.

 

Thats it, simple.

Unfortunately football today is a business and sadly it’s not going to change. It’s why the club has less than 30,000 ST holders it suits their business model. You are just not going to get the owners you want because they are no longer out there. Our wage bill is second highest in the prem so we are prepared to offer excellent money to the right players let’s hope we do right in August or when the window opens.

[Scott_M]

18 hours ago, Moo said:

 

I don't know if a penny of the share sale went into LFC, and to be fair I don't think they ever said it would. But of course some of it should have gone into the club, instead it looks like FSG used it to pursue other interests.

 

These whole account article posted a couple of pages back says where that 3% went. 
 

This is the frustrating of those who are more on the FSG bandwagon than others, the answers to the things people complain about have been posted previously or are out there in articles, books and YouTube videos. 
 

Instead of wasting their time moaning & moaning about the same things over & over, take some time to educate yourselves. 

[Barnesey]

I don’t know where the 3% went but if I sell shares I own in any company the proceeds go into my pocket, not the company’s. Putting the money into the company is a different transaction altogether. 
Of course, if the company creates new shares (diluting the existing issue) the money goes into the company.

[lebron]

15 hours ago, Barrington Womble said:

 

If you're happy with a club being run on the basis of "nothing trumps money", good for you. Personally it makes me sick to the stomach to think they use our club in such a way. I'm not even suggesting there's better alternatives now the game has sold out this far, because I doubt there will be.

 

But if you're happy with how things are, are you ok with Abu Dhabi owning a club down the m62? What difference does it make? They're just a different bunch of cunt using a football club to enrich themselves in an entirely different way. 

 

The entire game is pretty much rotten to the core. It doesn't mean I need to be happy with it.

 

Huh?

 

I have made quite a few posts on here detailing the shitness of modern football. I absolutely despise its current state, and like many my age have a hard time following with the enthusiasm I once did. Having foreign, absent owners is a necessary evil though, in a time where agents and players are raking in ludicrous sums from their negotiating and footballing ability. I just think there are MUCH worse alternatives out there, and people like you are extremely frustrated with our lack of winning trophies because we didn’t fund transfer X or salary Y.

 

We are already walking a think line in terms of being sustainable. I would rather have a stable club that wins occasionally than give in to ridiculous demands and risk another G&H situation. A LOT of the Premier League clubs are walking a tightrope in terms of this. I’m comfortable with us being one of those operating on the «right side» financially, even if it means we offer Salah a mere 300 000 pounds a week (and not 400 + a signing on fee).

 

I would of course not be happy with Abu Dhabi owning us, neither am I happy with them owning City. The PL/FA/Government are to blame for this though, not FSG (Had there been rules and consequences that were enforceable, our owners would be viewed in a much better light on here as well). I just think state ownership in its current form has completely eroded any situation where you can expect relative parity when there is no framework of rules to work within financially. I welcomed both international and national FFP/PSR rules, because I thought it might lead to football not eating itself, but cheaters always find a way. Hopefully City will be severely punished, but I am afraid the money involved will make it a slap on the wrist more than the actual punishment it deserves. 

 

To the bolded part. If you can’t see the difference with an authoritarian regime using a club as a sportswashing tool and a few American businessmen wanting to enrich themselves as well as having a plaything with which to win, I am not sure we are in the same stratosphere of our discussion. Agree that they are most likely cunts of one sort or another, most people that get that rich normally are. Comparing them to Abu Dhabi just isn’t close imo.

 

The rotten-ness and and lack of happiness I can agree with, I am just not getting worked up with what are comparatively decent owners to most out there.