Bluemoon goes into Meltdown

acnumber9 said:
For now they have helped make it more entertaining. Thanks largely to the brilliance of Alex Ferguson keeping us close. What people have said could ruin the game is if they continue to stockpile all the best players and turn the league into an extremely uncompetitive one then that will cease to be the case. Before you respond with a ludicrous comparison to Utd, try and think of a time where we could afford to loan a player worth £25m to a top four side meaning he could play against our rivals but not us.
Click to expand...

Where are they stockpiling players? They bought players to improve - those players were decent players but how many would have gotten into United's side? I only see that Silva, Toure and Aguero would be regulars in top four sides - Kompany and Hart also but they were already there.

The other players like Adebayor, Bellamy, Santa Cruz and Bridge and De Jong were decent players but not world beaters, and they're now being moved on where ever they can.

The fact is all of the suggestions that City will go out and buy all of the worlds top players and that it'll kill football have never come to pass. Last season they bought Aguero (probably to try and off-load Tevez) and a couple of others - again in January they didn't do any business. This summer it also looks like they'll sign one or two.
 
RedRover said:
It seems that simply because I don't jump on the "anti-city" bandwagon my argument counts for nothing.

My argument isn't based on figures, of which anyone can trawl the internet and find. My point is simple - specifically that United were the flagship club in the PL and helped create a monster - City are a symptom of "modern" football - because rightly or wrongly, clubs couldn't compete with the established top 4 without spending enormous sums as the rich clubs were simply getting richer. That's a point consistently ignored.

Put simply, they did what they had to - I therefore don't feel the need to bitch and moan about City just because they are now competative and a thorn in United's side.

Again - I ask the question whether anyone moaning on here actually wants a "level playing field" in football at all, or simply "new money" clubs out of the way so United can continue to be succesful without any credible and regular challenge.
Click to expand...

You used false figures to back up your point. It suggests you haven't a grasp of what you're talking about. They didn't have to do what they did. As has been pointed out to you several times, they had the same base as as us, they could do what Spurs have done. There's plenty they could do to make themselves successful and that goes for more clubs without financial doping. Did Everton and Spurs need a sugar daddy to make the top four?
 
RedRover said:
Where are they stockpiling players? They bought players to improve - those players were decent players but how many would have gotten into United's side? I only see that Silva, Toure and Aguero would be regulars in top four sides - Kompany and Hart also but they were already there.

The other players like Adebayor, Bellamy, Santa Cruz and Bridge and De Jong were decent players but not world beaters, and they're now being moved on where ever they can.

The fact is all of the suggestions that City will go out and buy all of the worlds top players and that it'll kill football have never come to pass. Last season they bought Aguero (probably to try and off-load Tevez) and a couple of others - again in January they didn't do any business. This summer it also looks like they'll sign one or two.
Click to expand...

Did they need Nasri or did they just want to stop a rival getting him? Could any other club afford big fees on players like Bellamy, Adebayor, Bridge, Santa Cruz etc only to loan them out a year later? The short answer, and correct one, is no.
 
RedRover said:
It seems that simply because I don't jump on the "anti-city" bandwagon my argument counts for nothing.

My argument isn't based on figures, of which anyone can trawl the internet and find. My point is simple - specifically that United were the flagship club in the PL and helped create a monster - City are a symptom of "modern" football - because rightly or wrongly, clubs couldn't compete with the established top 4 without spending enormous sums as the rich clubs were simply getting richer. That's a point consistently ignored.

Put simply, they did what they had to - I therefore don't feel the need to bitch and moan about City just because they are now competative and a thorn in United's side.

Again - I ask the question whether anyone moaning on here actually wants a "level playing field" in football at all, or simply "new money" clubs out of the way so United can continue to be succesful without any credible and regular challenge.
Click to expand...

You're consistently missing the point. There isn't an 'anti-City' bandwagon for the sake of it being City. When City were finishing above us in the late 80s and early 90s people didn't complain in this way - it's the way they have gone about it this time and the far reaching consequences, be it City, Chelsea or Bognor Regis FC: fundamentally its cheating, and its warping the very nature of the game
 
RedRover said:
Can they not afford that though? A drop in the ocean for the owner? And what if he devlopes the club as a business and makes money in the long run? A lot of businesses operate at a loss for years before they turn a profit? Indeed the owner has plans to develop the local area and expand the brand worldwide.
Click to expand...
Sure he can afford it. No real chance for him to make money over any time frame on an operating level, if they ever get to break-even I'll be surprised.

The way I look at it (once I thought about Abramovich when he arrived) is that it would have cost them X-million (the valuation of United at the time) to buy United (the premium brand) rather than Chelsea or City. I have no problem with them spunking that amount on buying their clubs and on transfers or wages, even though throwing that much cash in a short period at the market is inflationary, also United make profits which I leave out of my calculation. Once they pass that ceiling its time to take a look at what they have. In Chelsea's case Roman got near to break-even and finished in 6th. He has now re-opened the cheque book and is spending like a drunk again.

City will get to that stage even quicker at their current rate of spending.

RedRover said:
To me the fact that a huge club like United carries hundreds of millions in debt is more dangerous for football.
Click to expand...
Not really sure what you mean by dangerous for football. It is a risk to the Glazers initial investment (if it doesn't pay off) and really annoying to United fans who are financing the whole thing. Other than that I don't see any danger.

RedRover said:
In terms of what United have spent it was self generated, and fair enough - but it still created massive inequality in the game. My bottom line is that I don't see that any moral argument between that and City's luck in getting a rich backer carries any weight to anyone other than United fans. Others clearly disagree.
Click to expand...
Everyone was playing by the same rules, United just did it better. All the other teams had access to the same revenue streams (yes that's us the fans!) as United but there are more of us, and all the best people generally support United.

In the case of City and Chelsea they have access to a new revenue stream (their owners pockets).

RedRover said:
Again, valid points raised - and it depends where you sit in terms of your views. For me, as stated above, I'd rather see money pumped in that sucked out and so far all City's spending has done has made the league more entertaining for the paying fan.
Click to expand...
I'd agree with that. On a selfish level I want to win every year but seeing that United would have won the last 8 or 9 without the two petrodollar teams it might be boring for some others.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
I don't think many United fans level that accusation at them. Either that or you're missing the point being made. What differentiates City/Chelsea's spending from whatever has gone before is not the size of the fee paid for individual players it's the accumulated spending over time. Which is completely unprecedented. That and the stratospheric increase in the wages they offer. Both of which are making the league a lot less competitive as well as drastically inflating costs for other clubs at a time when football clubs - like all other businesses - should be tightening their belts.

Absolutely none of the above applies to Manchester United, at any time in our history.
Click to expand...

That's bullshit.

Last season was as competitive as I can remember. The title was decided in the dying seconds of the last match, and the fourth spot was in contention until very late in the competition, with Tottenham and Newcastle finishing above teams that spent fairly more money than them - Chelsea and Liverpool.

I'd say Abramovich's takeover at Chelsea made the league stronger and more competitive and it looks like City's rise made it even better.
 
RedRover said:
The fact is all of the suggestions that City will go out and buy all of the worlds top players and that it'll kill football have never come to pass. Last season they bought Aguero (probably to try and off-load Tevez) and a couple of others - again in January they didn't do any business. This summer it also looks like they'll sign one or two.
Click to expand...

Paying far, far above the norm for transfer fees and wages is what will kill football, especially as it has upset the traditional process of building a team based on planning according to that club's means.
 
You could argue it has already begun to kill football - look at the state Arsenal are in. We're only competing because we have SAF. Whereas Everton, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle etc all made the CL and Ipswich, Villa and others came close before Abramovich, the gap between 1st and 4th and then between 4th and the rest has widened consistently. I don't know what the odds are but I'd be willing to put money on the top three being us, City and Chelsea next year
 
Pogue Mahone said:
I don't think many United fans level that accusation at them. Either that or you're missing the point being made. What differentiates City/Chelsea's spending from whatever has gone before is not the size of the fee paid for individual players it's the accumulated spending over time. Which is completely unprecedented. That and the stratospheric increase in the wages they offer. Both of which are making the league a lot less competitive as well as drastically inflating costs for other clubs at a time when football clubs - like all other businesses - should be tightening their belts.

Absolutely none of the above applies to Manchester United, at any time in our history.
Click to expand...

Is the league less competitive?
 
Crustanoid said:
You could argue it has already begun to kill football - look at the state Arsenal are in. We're only competing because we have SAF. Whereas Everton, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle etc all made the CL and Ipswich, Villa and others came close before Abramovich, the gap between 1st and 4th and then between 4th and the rest has widened consistently. I don't know what the odds are but I'd be willing to put money on the top three being us, City and Chelsea next year
Click to expand...

Arsenal is a good example, because if City and Chelsea were taken out of the equation they'd actually be given a lot of praise for doing a lot of things right, rather than get dumped on by fans and media for not being able to keep up with unsustainable, unnatural spending habits of other clubs.

City have a rep now for being a rising force while Arsenal are working just to maintain where they are now; the reality is that the City model is the one that should be questioned, not Arsenal's.
 
acnumber9 said:
You used false figures to back up your point. It suggests you haven't a grasp of what you're talking about. They didn't have to do what they did. As has been pointed out to you several times, they had the same base as as us, they could do what Spurs have done. There's plenty they could do to make themselves successful and that goes for more clubs without financial doping. Did Everton and Spurs need a sugar daddy to make the top four?
Click to expand...

What false figures? Perhaps slightly innacurate, but interestingly nobody seems to have been able to tell me exactly how, and where tere accurate figures one from, even though I asked. Re Veron and Ferdinand how much was I out by, a few million?

It's just splitting hairs - my point was that Rio and Veron (as examples) cost a lot of money, which is a fact, and that the sums were large even into comparison to todays fees, which they are.

As regards Spurs and Everton they're interesting choices - one will supposedly hand their new manager a large transfer war chest and the other seems to be perennially skint. Both also regularly have their best players picked off, ironically at times by Man Utd as well as city and the like. Clearly City want to be a n established force, not one season wonders.

Either way, I'm not sure what relevance that has - you seem to be suggesting City shouldn't spend the cash they have, just in the interests of fairness.
 
acnumber9 said:
Did they need Nasri or did they just want to stop a rival getting him? Could any other club afford big fees on players like Bellamy, Adebayor, Bridge, Santa Cruz etc only to loan them out a year later? The short answer, and correct one, is no.
Click to expand...

Nasri was bought as cover for Silva, arguably heir most important player - who else in the squad would play in that role? Would you think that if United bought Rvp?

Clearly no other club could afford those players but again I fail to see your point. United have players in their squad on big wages that would be regulars elsewhere, as do a lot of other clubs.

Those players have and will be moved on. They evolved - bought the best they could to climb the league, the bought better again when they could - I'm sure they'd have liked to buy the best immediately but clearly that's unrealistic.

Now they'll buy a couple of players to add quality, just (as a few said on here) like United did years ago.
 
RedRover said:
What false figures? Perhaps slightly innacurate, but interestingly nobody seems to have been able to tell me exactly how, and where tere accurate figures one from, even though I asked. Re Veron and Ferdinand how much was I out by, a few million?

It's just splitting hairs - my point was that Rio and Veron (as examples) cost a lot of money, which is a fact, and that the sums were large even into comparison to todays fees, which they are.

As regards Spurs and Everton they're interesting choices - one will supposedly hand their new manager a large transfer war chest and the other seems to be perennially skint. Both also regularly have their best players picked off, ironically at times by Man Utd as well as city and the like. Clearly City want to be a n established force, not one season wonders.

Either way, I'm not sure what relevance that has - you seem to be suggesting City shouldn't spend the cash they have, just in the interests of fairness.
Click to expand...

The false figures that Rio Ferdinand cost £31m and we sold Veron for less than a third of what we paid for him. I gave you a link for Ferdinand's fee. I asked you for the source of your information and you declined to provide it. How much did you think we'd sold Veron for? Have you no access to Google.

Where have I suggested they shouldn't spend the cash they have bee given? I'm questioning your ludicrous comparison to Man Utd that lacks any basis in reality.

The relevance is you used false figures to try and prove your point.

What's your point regarding Spurs and Everton? You said City couldn't break the top four monopoly without a sugar daddy. Did those teams have sugar daddies?
 
RedCanuck said:
Sure he can afford it. No real chance for him to make money over any time frame on an operating level, if they ever get to break-even I'll be surprised.

The way I look at it (once I thought about Abramovich when he arrived) is that it would have cost them X-million (the valuation of United at the time) to buy United (the premium brand) rather than Chelsea or City. I have no problem with them spunking that amount on buying their clubs and on transfers or wages, even though throwing that much cash in a short period at the market is inflationary, also United make profits which I leave out of my calculation. Once they pass that ceiling its time to take a look at what they have. In Chelsea's case Roman got near to break-even and finished in 6th. He has now re-opened the cheque book and is spending like a drunk again.

City will get to that stage even quicker at their current rate of spending.


Not really sure what you mean by dangerous for football. It is a risk to the Glazers initial investment (if it doesn't pay off) and really annoying to United fans who are financing the whole thing. Other than that I don't see any danger.


Everyone was playing by the same rules, United just did it better. All the other teams had access to the same revenue streams (yes that's us the fans!) as United but there are more of us, and all the best people generally support United.

In the case of City and Chelsea they have access to a new revenue stream (their owners pockets).


I'd agree with that. On a selfish level I want to win every year but seeing that United would have won the last 8 or 9 without the two petrodollar teams it might be boring for some others.
Click to expand...

Good point well made. Roman is clearly a law unto himself, and I think that's dangerous for Chelsea. City on the other hand spent massively to get to the top, now the owners seem to understand what they need to do to make it all sustainable. Like I said, a lot of people suggested city would be buying up th worlds best and killing the league - it simply hasn't happened.

I like the competition - without it we end up with the SPL.
 
RedRover said:
Nasri was bought as cover for Silva, arguably heir most important player - who else in the squad would play in that role? Would you think that if United bought Rvp?

Clearly no other club could afford those players but again I fail to see your point. United have players in their squad on big wages that would be regulars elsewhere, as do a lot of other clubs.

Those players have and will be moved on. They evolved - bought the best they could to climb the league, the bought better again when they could - I'm sure they'd have liked to buy the best immediately but clearly that's unrealistic.

Now they'll buy a couple of players to add quality, just (as a few said on here) like United did years ago.
Click to expand...

The point is they've stockpiled players with obscene amounts of money. Many of them with no long term plan.

What other club in this League's history has been able to subsidise a player to another top four side?

Van Persie would be signing in order to improve our first team. Your point falls down on the notion that we are very unlikely to sign him. In fact who do you think is more likely to get him? What other clubs can afford £20m plus huge wages for what you label cover? You don't consider that stockpiling?
 
acnumber9 said:
The false figures that Rio Ferdinand cost £31m and we sold Veron for less than a third of what we paid for him. I gave you a link for Ferdinand's fee. I asked you for the source of your information and you declined to provide it. How much did you think we'd sold Veron for? Have you no access to Google.

Where have I suggested they shouldn't spend the cash they have bee given? I'm questioning your ludicrous comparison to Man Utd that lacks any basis in reality.

The relevance is you used false figures to try and prove your point.

What's your point regarding Spurs and Everton? You said City couldn't break the top four monopoly without a sugar daddy. Did those teams have sugar daddies?
Click to expand...

According to wikipedia, as a good a source as any keyboard warriors out there Rio cost "around 30 million, a British record for a defender". Again, my points were that they cost a lot, which they did, more so than any other club could spend. You're splitting hairs, and it's like arguing wih a child. A few million out, point I mad till stands.

As for Spurs and Everton my point was that thy are not regular top fou clubs. They qualify, teams will try pick off their best players with mor wages and the offer of sustained success - they don't qualify the year after.

It's abundantly clear to anyone with even half a brain that without spending large sums you will never break in season after season, nor win anything, nor compete in th CL. That's what clubs want, as do owners, unite understandably.
 
RedRover said:
According to wikipedia, as a good a source as any keyboard warriors out there Rio cost "around 30 million, a British record for a defender". Again, my points were that they cost a lot, which they did, more so than any other club could spend. You're splitting hairs, and it's like arguing wih a child. A few million out, point I mad till stands.

As for Spurs and Everton my point was that thy are not regular top fou clubs. They qualify, teams will try pick off their best players with mor wages and the offer of sustained success - they don't qualify the year after.

It's abundantly clear to anyone with even half a brain that without spending large sums you will never break in season after season, nor win anything, nor compete in th CL. That's what clubs want, as do owners, unite understandably.
Click to expand...

Around £30m? Not very reliable is it? You're still refusing to answer how much you think we sold Veron for. You sensationalised things to try and back up a spurious comparison to how Utd and City have conducted their business. How does your point stand? It's not like for like as you've suggested. Not close. Other teams were spending big, Utd just happened to be making their outlays on single players.

Have you asked yourself the question of why those clubs can't do it season after season? Could the financial doping at City and Chelsea have played it's part? Nobody's suggesting that they could have instant success but why couldn't they build something with clever investment? After all, they were gifted the benefit of the fourth biggest stadium in the league. Spurs have finished top 4 in two of the last three seasons. Why couldn't City have done similar?
 
acnumber9 said:
The point is they've stockpiled players with obscene amounts of money. Many of them with no long term plan.

What other club in this League's history has been able to subsidise a player to another top four side?

Van Persie would be signing in order to improve our first team. Your point falls down on the notion that we are very unlikely to sign him. In fact who do you think is more likely to get him? What other clubs can afford £20m plus huge wages for what you label cover? You don't consider that stockpiling?
Click to expand...

The players referred to we're regulars when they singed and were surplus when better players came in. They evolved, quickly, but it's what you do to improve

One player in Adebayor, who will soon move permenantly.. Big deal. He signed, didn't do then business and was moved on, just like any other club.

As regards Nasri I disagree. Bought a player whose contract was running down, paid hima large wage, similar to United buying Ashley Young. Indeed buying Phil Jones was hardly a necessity. Football is a squad game, United didnt need Veron when they bought him, but still took he plunge. A first eleven will get you nowhere over 50 odd games.
 
RedRover said:
The players referred to we're regulars when they singed and were surplus when better players came in. They evolved, quickly, but it's what you do to improve

One player in Adebayor, who will soon move permenantly.. Big deal. He signed, didn't do then business and was moved on, just like any other club.

As regards Nasri I disagree. Bought a player whose contract was running down, paid hima large wage, similar to United buying Ashley Young. Indeed buying Phil Jones was hardly a necessity. Football is a squad game, United didnt need Veron when they bought him, but still took he plunge. A first eleven will get you nowhere over 50 odd games.
Click to expand...

Well I disagree. They simply bought a player because he was available in my opinion. Something they've been making a habit of.

The point I'm making with these players is what other club in history has been able to simply write off players in the fashion City have? This is something you're simply ignoring when you compare them to how Utd conducted their business. A club should not be able to do what City have done.
 
RedRover said:
What false figures? Perhaps slightly innacurate, but interestingly nobody seems to have been able to tell me exactly how, and where tere accurate figures one from, even though I asked. Re Veron and Ferdinand how much was I out by, a few million?

It's just splitting hairs - my point was that Rio and Veron (as examples) cost a lot of money, which is a fact, and that the sums were large even into comparison to todays fees, which they are.

As regards Spurs and Everton they're interesting choices - one will supposedly hand their new manager a large transfer war chest and the other seems to be perennially skint. Both also regularly have their best players picked off, ironically at times by Man Utd as well as city and the like. Clearly City want to be a n established force, not one season wonders.

Either way, I'm not sure what relevance that has - you seem to be suggesting City shouldn't spend the cash they have, just in the interests of fairness.
Click to expand...

Yes, but - the point you seem now to be deliberately missing - is that those players (along with Rooney and Berbatov) represent our four most expensive acquisitions.

Veron - Signed for £28.1m in 2001/02. Our net spend that season was £28.9m. We also spent £19m on Van Nistelrooy but sold players such as Stam and Cole for large fees to offset our spending.

Ferdinand - Signed in 2002 for £29.1m. Our net spend was around £27m, Rio being the only major signing.

Rooney - Signed in 2004 for £27m. Our net spend was £34m due to also spending around £6m each on Smith and Heinze and selling Butt, Forlan and Djemba Djemba for modest fees. The previous year's net spend was just £3m.

Berbatov - Signed in 2008. United hadn't come close to matching Rooney's fee for the previous four years. We have not looked like coming close to matching it in the following four, either.

So, we've four big-money signings in 11 years. These have been offset somewhat by sales and low cost punts. Of course we have spent not inconsiderable sums on players such as Nani, Carrick, Hargreaves, Anderson, Jones etc - however, they have been bought for sums that other clubs such as Arsenal, Liverpool, Spurs etc would have been able to afford also.

How is this comparable to spending £25m each on five players in a single season as City did in 2010/11? This being after they had spent £240m on transfers in the previous two seasons?
 
Pimpy the Magic Elf said:
Dave, I'm still waiting for your reply. How is it possible that a "huge" club like ManCity with an all star cast of players gives away cup tickets basically for free and still barely draws 20.000 fans.
Click to expand...

Can you please tell me which match that was for?

While your at it, can you please tell me why United are handing out flyers in all the local papers practically begging fans to buy season tickets?
 
newtonheathdave said:
How can City bringing money from outside the game and investing it in it not be good for the game?
Click to expand...

:wenger: why do people keep on with this?

The money being put into Manchester City is good for Manchester City. Fair play to the reworking of the Etihad stadium site and the facilities for City, good on the Shiek for sticking with it to pump some actual money into the club and not raping it.

What does this actually have to do with other clubs besides signing some players for big fee's from English clubs? Apart from inflating the wages of nearly everyone in the league and unsettling a lot of top tier players with the offer of ridiculous wages to leave, get a grip mate.

Since 08/09
300m pounds has left the club to clubs outside England.
170m pounds has left the club to clubs in England. (Fair play)

newtonheathdave said:
I also said that if City played United 38 times in a season that there would be more than 2 points in Citys favour. I got ridiculed for that as well. Would people wish to discuss that again seeing as you are bringing shit up I said months ago?
Click to expand...

If City played United in a 300,000 seat stadium 250,000 of them would be United fans.
 
acnumber9 said:
Advertising now constitutes begging? This is news.
Click to expand...

The point I was trying to make was to Pimpie who for some strange reason wants to have a pop about City's attendances. I was trying to show that things are not all that rosy for united at present.
It was not that long ago that United were claiming they had so many millions of fans, yet here they are having to advertise their season tickets. Whats happened to these millions of fans and the legendary Manchester United waiting list.

Now Pimpie which match are you on about? Plus were you at Old trafford last year when you lot played Palace and had big chunks of empty seats?
 
newtonheathdave said:
The point I was trying to make was to Pimpie who for some strange reason wants to have a pop about City's attendances. I was trying to show that things are not all that rosy for united at present.
It was not that long ago that United were claiming they had so many millions of fans, yet here they are having to advertise their season tickets. Whats happened to these millions of fans and the legendary Manchester United waiting list.

Now Pimpie which match are you on about? Plus were you at Old trafford last year when you lot played Palace and had big chunks of empty seats?
Click to expand...

They can no longer afford the season tickets in a time of economic unrest?
 
ghaliboy said:
:wenger: why do people keep on with this?

The money being put into Manchester City is good for Manchester City. Fair play to the reworking of the Etihad stadium site and the facilities for City, good on the Shiek for sticking with it to pump some actual money into the club and not raping it.

What does this actually have to do with other clubs besides signing some players for big fee's from English clubs? Apart from inflating the wages of nearly everyone in the league and unsettling a lot of top tier players with the offer of ridiculous wages to leave, get a grip mate.

Since 08/09
300m pounds has left the club to clubs outside England.
170m pounds has left the club to clubs in England. (Fair play)



If City played United in a 300,000 seat stadium 250,000 of them would be United fans.
Click to expand...

Are you saying United have never unsettled a player and are always above board in their transfer dealings?

Do City actually pay the most in wages?
 
Liam147 said:
I was talking about prior seasons. Even so, it's £100-£150 more expensive. And considering we keep the entirety of our gate receipts and have more fans coming in, and pay less wages, it's not quite proportional. But god knows how you'll survive if your prices don't rocket in the next five years.
Click to expand...

I take on board what you are saying but that has nothing to do with the point I was making mate.

From looking on the net, it seems Chelsea pay more out in wages as well.

City are guilty of paying Wayne Bridge, Adebayor and Santa Cruz etc ridiculous wages. I can not argue at that, but City are not responsible for wage inflation
 
ghaliboy said:
:boring: it resides in the many points you sidestepped with your curt answer that I quoted.

Anyways, enjoy. :lol:
Click to expand...

You answered your own question. City gave 170 million pounds to other English clubs. That money came from outside the game, so surely it is good for English football.

City were not responsible for wage inflation. They just followed the route already set out
 
You must log in or register to reply here.