GSE and the Owners; where do you stand?

[G STAR RAM]

"£2million might not sound much but that is £40k per week, or in the context of this league probably 4 decent players on £10k a week."

 

I would imagine a fair chunk of that would be swallowed-up by the increased cost of the Schteve's management team over Nigel's.  It was reported that Nigel et al were on very low wages compared to others in the Championship.  I can't believe that the new team came cheap!

 

I may be wrong here, as I was sat at the back, but I think he said players wages and I believe that this has also said by Rush weeks/months before Nigel was sacked.

 

'Nigel was on a fair wage' was another quote I heard last night, not sure what to read into that.

[Guest]

Went to the fans forum last night.

Was mainly the same questions that Rush gets asked every day of his life probably, you would think people would try and be a bit more imaginative rather than asking questions they have probably seen answered in the newspaper hundreds of times before.

One thing that stood out for me was how much praise Don Amott had for them. We all know Don is one of us so to hear him saying that the owners are genuine and we are in safe hands is quite reassuring. He also said he was the last of LOG to agree to sell his shares to the new owners.

There was also a quote saying that they have increased the wage budget by £2million.this season.

what imaginative question did you ask and what was the response?

[G STAR RAM]

what imaginative question did you ask and what was the response?

 

Did not get chance to ask any question.

 

The questions I wanted to ask were on another thread:-

 

What the owners strategy would be if we got promoted.

 

How long we would give young players to fulfil their potential before selling them on and who would make the decision when the time was right to sell.

[Mostyn6]

I may be wrong here, as I was sat at the back, but I think he said players wages and I believe that this has also said by Rush weeks/months before Nigel was sacked.

 

'Nigel was on a fair wage' was another quote I heard last night, not sure what to read into that.

 

If it's true he's refused to apply for jobs cos he's holding out for his entitlement, then I would suggest it must be decent to jeopardise future employment opportunities.

[G STAR RAM]

If it's true he's refused to apply for jobs cos he's holding out for his entitlement, then I would suggest it must be decent to jeopardise future employment opportunities.

 

Thats something I forgot...someone asked Rush why he went on the radio saying NC would always be welcome at Pride Park even after sending him a letter saying that he was banned from the ground.

 

Rush did not even acknowledge the question and moved straight on to someone else, the guy who has asked the question consequently left the building!

[Mostyn6]

Thats something I forgot...someone asked Rush why he went on the radio saying NC would always be welcome at Pride Park even after sending him a letter saying that he was banned from the ground.

 

Rush did not even acknowledge the question and moved straight on to someone else, the guy who has asked the question consequently left the building!

 

 

I don't like that if it's true. Nigel did a good job of Nursing the club back to health, and without Clough's loyalty and refusal to ever rock the boat, there perhaps wouldn't be a well-paid, desirable position for Rush to be in. (and no, I haven't changed my opinion on Clough, he did his bit and deserves credit for that.)

[G STAR RAM]

I don't like that if it's true. Nigel did a good job of Nursing the club back to health, and without Clough's loyalty and refusal to ever rock the boat, there perhaps wouldn't be a well-paid, desirable position for Rush to be in. (and no, I haven't changed my opinion on Clough, he did his bit and deserves credit for that.)

 

As I said there was no answer from the top table so whether that means it is true, or they cannot comment due to legal proceedings, is anybodys guess.

 

I did overhear Sam Rush saying that the sacking was not pre-meditated and that the owners called a board meeting after the Forest match and with 3 defeats in a week, 2 against local rivals, they thought the time was right to pull the trigger.

[May Contain Nuts]

Sure someone reported that Clough was at the Leeds or ipswich game

[Mostyn6]

As I said there was no answer from the top table so whether that means it is true, or they cannot comment due to legal proceedings, is anybodys guess.

 

I did overhear Sam Rush saying that the sacking was not pre-meditated and that the owners called a board meeting after the Forest match and with 3 defeats in a week, 2 against local rivals, they thought the time was right to pull the trigger.

 

I think if we look at the things Rush has said, there's no way this was a surprise to him. There's not the time to decide that they want to improve on "recruitment, relationships and coaching", which you'd assume would require some sort of review process, and then appoint the successors in the period after Nigel's removal. It slightly contradicts the implication that the decision was taken to move to the next level and not because of any particular series of results too.

[G STAR RAM]

I think if we look at the things Rush has said, there's no way this was a surprise to him. There's not the time to decide that they want to improve on "recruitment, relationships and coaching", which you'd assume would require some sort of review process, and then appoint the successors in the period after Nigel's removal. It slightly contradicts the implication that the decision was taken to move to the next level and not because of any particular series of results too.

 

It could be that Rush was looking for ways to improve the current set up ie; get new coaches, scouts etc to compliment what was already in place but the board may have said rather than adding to what we already have why not have a complete clear out on the management side and start from scratch.

[Mostyn6]

It could be that Rush was looking for ways to improve the current set up ie; get new coaches, scouts etc to compliment what was already in place but the board may have said rather than adding to what we already have why not have a complete clear out on the management side and start from scratch.

 

 

the sad thing is, maybe if Clough had bought in a Steele and a Simpson, it made have been the making of him

[Animal is a Ram]

the sad thing is, maybe if Clough had bought in a Steele and a Simpson, it made have been the making of him

 

Maybe not, if Clough wasn't made head coach..

[ramblur]

Gadsby really didn't cover himself in glory on that interview.

I can understand why a lot of fans would not trust him back here.

...and did Glick cover himself in glory? Here's one of his quotes:- "We've spent the best part of the last 2 years sorting out the mess that was left behind in the winter of 2008". So let's examine the steps taken to sort out this 'mess'.

 

The prologue.In an earlier interview,Glick reminded fans of their Jan 08 activity (AP later to confirm that it was at the owners' direction).Given the fact that no new money was put into the club by the owners that year,then quite obviously this was funded out of the 'mess' they inherited.

 

Now we go onto the main course.In the early part of 08/09 over £9m was borrowed from Investec bank,effectively fast forwarding a major chunk of the second chute payment (a little ironic when Glick claimed they wouldn't spend money they hadn't got).Was this in some way sorting out the 'mess'? ...or was it to help fund a shedload of players,many mediocre,and their attendant high wages (related to their ability),which was to have future adverse implications.AP said we were £2m over on wages and he'd have to do something about it-we later went on to sign the expensive Varney.He also said the wage bill would have to be trimmed the following year if we were not promoted (hardly surprising as most of the 09/10 chute payment had already gone)-he was later to find out that it was rather difficult to ditch well paid ,mediocre players.

 

Going back to the first Glick interview ,he was rather reluctant,when pressed,to disclose how much had been put in (yet in future years,when money was put in,they don't appear to have been coy in this respect).Glick was speaking in July 08,and it's my belief that at that time not a dime of loot had been introduced into the club.Why do I say this? Simply because the accounts show that they started the year with nearly £8m of cash,quickly boosted by the £9m Investec loan.Although the accounts show they eventually input c£7.7m of cash,would this have been done in July 08? The total wages for the year amounted to over £20m-an expense that arises fairly evenly over the year,so why borrow a large amount of money (and pay interest on it) early in the year.From memory,there was a flurry of activity round about November of that year at CH,where a couple of bits of debt appear to have been paid off,as well as a charge document relating to the revolving loan.This leads me to think that the £7.7m probably came in round about that time.

 

So when Glick (in the first interview) was listing all the bits of 'investment',he was being rather clever with his use of words,as he's not talking about investment in the form of owners' cash injections that Gadsby had claimed was lacking (and Gadsby was quite right in asserting that we wouldn't know the story until the accounts were published.

 

You speak of trust.My strategy has always been to carefully note what is being said at any given point and then check against the accounts when published.This grouping has a long way to go before earning my trust (i.e automatically believing anything they say). 

[G STAR RAM]

...and did Glick cover himself in glory? Here's one of his quotes:- "We've spent the best part of the last 2 years sorting out the mess that was left behind in the winter of 2008". So let's examine the steps taken to sort out this 'mess'.

The prologue.In an earlier interview,Glick reminded fans of their Jan 08 activity (AP later to confirm that it was at the owners' direction).Given the fact that no new money was put into the club by the owners that year,then quite obviously this was funded out of the 'mess' they inherited.

Now we go onto the main course.In the early part of 08/09 over £9m was borrowed from Investec bank,effectively fast forwarding a major chunk of the second chute payment (a little ironic when Glick claimed they wouldn't spend money they hadn't got).Was this in some way sorting out the 'mess'? ...or was it to help fund a shedload of players,many mediocre,and their attendant high wages (related to their ability),which was to have future adverse implications.AP said we were £2m over on wages and he'd have to do something about it-we later went on to sign the expensive Varney.He also said the wage bill would have to be trimmed the following year if we were not promoted (hardly surprising as most of the 09/10 chute payment had already gone)-he was later to find out that it was rather difficult to ditch well paid ,mediocre players.

Going back to the first Glick interview ,he was rather reluctant,when pressed,to disclose how much had been put in (yet in future years,when money was put in,they don't appear to have been coy in this respect).Glick was speaking in July 08,and it's my belief that at that time not a dime of loot had been introduced into the club.Why do I say this? Simply because the accounts show that they started the year with nearly £8m of cash,quickly boosted by the £9m Investec loan.Although the accounts show they eventually input c£7.7m of cash,would this have been done in July 08? The total wages for the year amounted to over £20m-an expense that arises fairly evenly over the year,so why borrow a large amount of money (and pay interest on it) early in the year.From memory,there was a flurry of activity round about November of that year at CH,where a couple of bits of debt appear to have been paid off,as well as a charge document relating to the revolving loan.This leads me to think that the £7.7m probably came in round about that time.

So when Glick (in the first interview) was listing all the bits of 'investment',he was being rather clever with his use of words,as he's not talking about investment in the form of owners' cash injections that Gadsby had claimed was lacking (and Gadsby was quite right in asserting that we wouldn't know the story until the accounts were published.

You speak of trust.My strategy has always been to carefully note what is being said at any given point and then check against the accounts when published.This grouping has a long way to go before earning my trust (i.e automatically believing anything they say).

Listened to Don Amott last night who had nothing but good things to say about the owners. As a proper fan who has invested substantial monies into the club, and the last member of LOG to agree to the sale, his word is as good as I am going to hear from anyone I imagine.

Interesting how he doesn't mention 'the broken promises' Gadsby did to try and promote his bid.

Also like the way Gadsby used the early bird season ticket renewal scheme as a stick to beat the owners with...any ideas who introduced that scheme? Incidentally I have no problem with the introduction of the scheme, it probably helped raise funds at a time when they were needed.

Also Gadsby goes on about not knowing the identity of the investors...isn't this the same investors that he sold his remaining stake to? So basically he is admitting to just cashing in without researching who he was selling to? But wait a minute they managed to convince him that they could take the club forward and were going to invest huge sums...

All this from a person who you deem so trustworthy compared to our current owners...

And no I don't think Glick covered himself in glory.

[ramblur]

Listened to Don Amott last night who had nothing but good things to say about the owners. As a proper fan who has invested substantial monies into the club, and the last member of LOG to agree to the sale, his word is as good as I am going to hear from anyone I imagine.

Interesting how he doesn't mention 'the broken promises' Gadsby did to try and promote his bid.

Also like the way Gadsby used the early bird season ticket renewal scheme as a stick to beat the owners with...any ideas who introduced that scheme? Incidentally I have no problem with the introduction of the scheme, it probably helped raise funds at a time when they were needed.

Also Gadsby goes on about not knowing the identity of the investors...isn't this the same investors that he sold his remaining stake to? So basically he is admitting to just cashing in without researching who he was selling to? But wait a minute they managed to convince him that they could take the club forward and were going to invest huge sums...

All this from a person who you deem so trustworthy compared to our current owners...

And no I don't think Glick covered himself in glory.

I think if you were to listen to Gadsby's interview again,the point he was trying to make was that a wealthy grouping shouldn't need to fast forward S/T sales. The LOG were nowhere near as wealthy and it would be quite reasonable to fast forward same (allied to the cash they themselves introduced) in order to support BD in badly needed team building-not forgetting that as well as the transfer fees,they had to fund wages from when they took over through to the start of the season,when incidental gate money kicked in.

 

The LOG sold out to a GS investment vehicle fronted by AA.AA said a long time ago that a lot of investors didn't want to be identified,so presumably the same would have applied to the LOG.All the LOG would have been interested in would have been the agreed purchase price,together with assurances that the grouping would have the clout to take the club forward.In view of the nature of the investment vehicle,AA most probably wouldn't have been able to identify all of the investors (even if he wanted to) because we all know some jumped on board after the event.

 

It's pointless talking about Amott's current attitude (when we now know substantial funds have eventually filtered through,albeit loans to a large extent).What's being examined are things that were said years ago.As I've already pointed out,there's every chance that nothing new had been put in at the time of Gadsby's first outburst,and at the time of the second one (the takeover) he would probably have been aware of the £7.7m in 08/09,but possibly not the c£6.6m for 09/10.

 

I don't recall deeming Gadsby trustworthy at any stage-all I've tried to do is ascertain if he had a point in what he was saying,and certainly as far as July 08 goes he almost certainly did.I might remind you that when the Gadsby bid was made a poster asked me if I supported it.I said "no",on the premise that the current grouping should have more financial fire power (but with the caveat that I'd like to see some of it to match Gadsby's £5m transfer kitty promise).

 

Two interviews were put up and you chose to launch an attack on just one of the interviewees.My post was to give balance.

 

Perhaps I should have said that you deem the current owners so trustworthy compared to Gadsby?

 

By the way,as someone who claims to be a qualified accountant,can you verify (or otherwise) Glick's claim on RD,following publication of the 9/10 accounts that £4.1m of the revolving loan had been paid off shortly after the year end (9/10) and that this left the debt at £15m.Very simple task for a qualified accountant. 

[G STAR RAM]

I think if you were to listen to Gadsby's interview again,the point he was trying to make was that a wealthy grouping shouldn't need to fast forward S/T sales. The LOG were nowhere near as wealthy and it would be quite reasonable to fast forward same (allied to the cash they themselves introduced) in order to support BD in badly needed team building-not forgetting that as well as the transfer fees,they had to fund wages from when they took over through to the start of the season,when incidental gate money kicked in.

The LOG sold out to a GS investment vehicle fronted by AA.AA said a long time ago that a lot of investors didn't want to be identified,so presumably the same would have applied to the LOG.All the LOG would have been interested in would have been the agreed purchase price,together with assurances that the grouping would have the clout to take the club forward.In view of the nature of the investment vehicle,AA most probably wouldn't have been able to identify all of the investors (even if he wanted to) because we all know some jumped on board after the event.

It's pointless talking about Amott's current attitude (when we now know substantial funds have eventually filtered through,albeit loans to a large extent).What's being examined are things that were said years ago.As I've already pointed out,there's every chance that nothing new had been put in at the time of Gadsby's first outburst,and at the time of the second one (the takeover) he would probably have been aware of the £7.7m in 08/09,but possibly not the c£6.6m for 09/10.

I don't recall deeming Gadsby trustworthy at any stage-all I've tried to do is ascertain if he had a point in what he was saying,and certainly as far as July 08 goes he almost certainly did.I might remind you that when the Gadsby bid was made a poster asked me if I supported it.I said "no",on the premise that the current grouping should have more financial fire power (but with the caveat that I'd like to see some of it to match Gadsby's £5m transfer kitty promise).

Two interviews were put up and you chose to launch an attack on just one of the interviewees.My post was to give balance.

Perhaps I should have said that you deem the current owners so trustworthy compared to Gadsby?

By the way,as someone who claims to be a qualified accountant,can you verify (or otherwise) Glick's claim on RD,following publication of the 9/10 accounts that £4.1m of the revolving loan had been paid off shortly after the year end (9/10) and that this left the debt at £15m.Very simple task for a qualified accountant.

As I said I have no problem with the early bird scheme. Not sure why they would have needed to do it when they invested £25million between them, after all that is what was quoted and I never once saw our chairman dispute that figure, please correct me if I am wrong.

Would hardly say I launched an attack, just pointing out that something which would have been labelled spin if said by our current owners just seemed to go unquestioned.

 

And just for reference yes I do trust the current owners more than I trust Peter Gadsby. I find it hard to trust somebody that goes on the readio slating a group for lying to the fans and letting the club down only to find out a few years later that he is collabarating with them on the Pride Plaza project. Would you really go into business with people that you believe are not true to their word when it comes to stumping up money?

Thanks for your little exam, if you know the answer pretty pointless answering and I don't have the accounts in front of me anyway.

By the way, I'll try and find out my certificates to save you the hassle of referring to me as 'someone who claims to be an accountant etc' every time I raise a point that you are uncomfortable with.

[ramblur]

As I said I have no problem with the early bird scheme. Not sure why they would have needed to do it when they invested £25million between them, after all that is what was quoted and I never once saw our chairman dispute that figure, please correct me if I am wrong.

Would hardly say I launched an attack, just pointing out that something which would have been labelled spin if said by our current owners just seemed to go unquestioned.

Thanks for your little exam, if you know the answer pretty pointless answering and I don't have the accounts in front of me anyway.

By the way, I'll try and find out my certificates to save you the hassle of referring to me as 'someone who claims to be an accountant etc' every time I raise a point that you are uncomfortable with.

As I pointed out earlier,it's my recollection that the £25m related to cash and guarantees.In the high risk situation they inherited ,any personal guarantees they may have given would in turn be high risk.

 

Seemed like an attack to me.I wouldn't have been posting here on this topic at all if I didn't think there was a balancing counter argument.

 

Don't bother with any certificates.I've several professional friends in my village.I could go anonymously onto any forum claiming to be one of them and borrowing their certs for proof.Not saying you'd do this,just pointing out a possibility.As I've said before,posters shouldn't take any great notice of what others claim to be,merely focus on what they're actually saying.I refer to you as someone who claims to be an accountant because that's what you claim to be.I don't recall referring to you in this manner because I was uncomfortable with a point you'd made,as I don't recall you mentioning the revolving loan.

[G STAR RAM]

As I pointed out earlier,it's my recollection that the £25m related to cash and guarantees.In the high risk situation they inherited ,any personal guarantees they may have given would in turn be high risk.

 

Seemed like an attack to me.I wouldn't have been posting here on this topic at all if I didn't think there was a balancing counter argument.

 

Don't bother with any certificates.I've several professional friends in my village.I could go anonymously onto any forum claiming to be one of them and borrowing their certs for proof.Not saying you'd do this,just pointing out a possibility.As I've said before,posters shouldn't take any great notice of what others claim to be,merely focus on what they're actually saying.I refer to you as someone who claims to be an accountant because that's what you claim to be.I don't recall referring to you in this manner because I was uncomfortable with a point you'd made,as I don't recall you mentioning the revolving loan.

 

Fair enough. To be fair I mentioned once, probably two years what I did for a living, it's not like I mention it every time I post on a financial thread! Nor do I call myself AccountantRam or anything like that. I have never professed to be an expert and have always maintained that my posts reflect my personal opinions as a fan as well as my professional opinion (thats if I really am a professional of course!)

 

I can't find any articles relating to the LOG takeover but my recollection is it being under the guise of £25million cash injection, infact I still believed this until just last week when someone posted otherwise on this forum.

 

Had a quick glance at e-mails that I sent a friend regarding the e-mails and I don't see the figure of £4.1million that you refer to and from memory I don't remember when the revolving loan was last that high. The figures I have down as being repaid on the revolving loan in 2011 and 2012 were both closer to £3million. So in answer to your question - no I can't clarify a £4.1million loan was repaid shortly after 09/10.

 

Now your turn:-

 

1 - What did you think to Peter Gadsby using the scheme introduced under his tenure as a tool for trying to turn the fans against the current owners?

 

2 - Do you think it is normal for a wealthy businessman to go into business with people he believes to be liars and not good for their word when it comes to stumping up?

 

3 - As a lifelong fan would you want to do a bit of investigating on who you were selling your shares to if you loved the club so much?

[ramblur]

Fair enough. To be fair I mentioned once, probably two years what I did for a living, it's not like I mention it every time I post on a financial thread! Nor do I call myself AccountantRam or anything like that. I have never professed to be an expert and have always maintained that my posts reflect my personal opinions as a fan as well as my professional opinion (thats if I really am a professional of course!)

 

I can't find any articles relating to the LOG takeover but my recollection is it being under the guise of £25million cash injection, infact I still believed this until just last week when someone posted otherwise on this forum.

 

Had a quick glance at e-mails that I sent a friend regarding the e-mails and I don't see the figure of £4.1million that you refer to and from memory I don't remember when the revolving loan was last that high. The figures I have down as being repaid on the revolving loan in 2011 and 2012 were both closer to £3million. So in answer to your question - no I can't clarify a £4.1million loan was repaid shortly after 09/10.

 

Now your turn:-

 

1 - What did you think to Peter Gadsby using the scheme introduced under his tenure as a tool for trying to turn the fans against the current owners?

 

2 - Do you think it is normal for a wealthy businessman to go into business with people he believes to be liars and not good for their word when it comes to stumping up?

 

3 - As a lifelong fan would you want to do a bit of investigating on who you were selling your shares to if you loved the club so much?

I assume that when you say 2011 and 2012 you mean 10/11 and 11/12,for obvious reasons.If a claim that £4.1m was repaid shortly after the 9/10 year end,then it should obviously feature in the 10/11 accounts.The cash flow statement for this year shows that the TOTAL of secured loans repaid during that year amounted to £2.764m,which appears to me to be rather less than £4.1m. I'm sure that if you had access to the 9/10 accounts and looked at Note 13,you'd find that the outstanding balance of the so called revolving loan was given as £2,999,075 (as at 30/6/10).Now as this £4.1m repayment was said to have been made shortly after the year end,then it follows that shortly before this event the balance was c£3m??

 

As far as the debt is concerned,then everyone seems to know that the PP loan is £15m.Rather fewer might also know that there's been a further c£0.5m of long term debt,that's featured for a few years.One might say that £15.5m is close enough to £15m if it weren't for the fact that a GSE c£1.7m loan was introduced in 9/10 and remains outstanding,hence the debt couldn't have been lower than £17.2m at the point of time in question.Any comments?

 

Point (1) I've already dealt with.

 

Point (2)He couldn't have known what you allege at the point of takeover.AP arranged all of this,and I would have assumed he would have noted the success of GSE's previous US venture and reported back to the LOG that they were suitable new owners,with a track record.

 

Point (3) Really answered in the last paragraph.AP would appear to have been handsomely rewarded (eventually) for sourcing the new owners.It would be rather strange to allow AP to acquire 2,000,000 Gellaw shares at cost (in the knowledge their value would rise following takeover) and install him as chairman if the LOG were to question his judgement when it mattered. 

[G STAR RAM]

I assume that when you say 2011 and 2012 you mean 10/11 and 11/12,for obvious reasons.If a claim that £4.1m was repaid shortly after the 9/10 year end,then it should obviously feature in the 10/11 accounts.The cash flow statement for this year shows that the TOTAL of secured loans repaid during that year amounted to £2.764m,which appears to me to be rather less than £4.1m. I'm sure that if you had access to the 9/10 accounts and looked at Note 13,you'd find that the outstanding balance of the so called revolving loan was given as £2,999,075 (as at 30/6/10).Now as this £4.1m repayment was said to have been made shortly after the year end,then it follows that shortly before this event the balance was c£3m??

 

As far as the debt is concerned,then everyone seems to know that the PP loan is £15m.Rather fewer might also know that there's been a further c£0.5m of long term debt,that's featured for a few years.One might say that £15.5m is close enough to £15m if it weren't for the fact that a GSE c£1.7m loan was introduced in 9/10 and remains outstanding,hence the debt couldn't have been lower than £17.2m at the point of time in question.Any comments?

 

Point (1) I've already dealt with.

 

Point (2)He couldn't have known what you allege at the point of takeover.AP arranged all of this,and I would have assumed he would have noted the success of GSE's previous US venture and reported back to the LOG that they were suitable new owners,with a track record.

 

Point (3) Really answered in the last paragraph.AP would appear to have been handsomely rewarded (eventually) for sourcing the new owners.It would be rather strange to allow AP to acquire 2,000,000 Gellaw shares at cost (in the knowledge their value would rise following takeover) and install him as chairman if the LOG were to question his judgement when it mattered. 

 

I said 2011 and 2012 as I was making the point that I don't remember £4.1m being paid in any year. Nor do I even know when the £4.1m or £15m was ever mentioned.

 

Only comment I would make on the debt is that I imagine that they probably treat their loan as equity as they probably have no intention of taking it out. Very contentious I know and even Rush/Vicars did not have an answer when asked why the 'investment' had changed from equity to debt.

 

Rush doesn't strike me as knowing, nor caring, too much about the financial side. On several occasions he said that the owners had invested £50 to £60million in the club and I am surprised nobody picked him up on this.

 

I'm not alleging that Gadsby knew anything at takeover, all I am alleging is that I think anyone who claims to love the club so much and want to be the saviour of it would have asked a few more questions than Peter Gadsby appears to have done.

 

You've not really answered point 3, it's a yes no answer and doesn't really require anybody else bringing into the equation.