So the message seems to be that the Aussies should clear off, in order to make Roland drop his price and find another buyer?
In other words, it's the Aussies' fault that the price is too high and if only they would disappear then the price would go down so the club can be sold to someone else.
Not sure that logic stacks up, to be honest.
If the Aussies were the ONLY people to accept Roland's price, then yes it's them that have kept the price high.
If ALL potential owners told Roland they would only pay say £25m, then Roland would have to drop the price below what he's asking. If one group seem happy to pay £40m then to him that's justification that his price is fair.
Sitting on a beach in Goa is the best way to take all the crap going on. Waiter......a large Campari and Lemonade please, just put it on the bill....”I fank yew.”
Unmasked ... @SoundAsa£ is really Lorraine Chase .... Campari and Lemonade .... WTF is that all about
Sitting here with the cooling sea breeze and a C&L with a slice of orange.....thinking of you all! Luv.....SoundAs.
Sitting on a beach in Goa is the best way to take all the crap going on. Waiter......a large Campari and Lemonade please, just put it on the bill....”I fank yew.”
Unmasked ... @SoundAsa£ is really Lorraine Chase .... Campari and Lemonade .... WTF is that all about
Sitting here with the cooling sea breeze and a C&L with a slice of orange.....thinking of you all! Luv.....SoundAs.
You are obviously bored and can’t wait returning to Blighty
So the message seems to be that the Aussies should clear off, in order to make Roland drop his price and find another buyer?
In other words, it's the Aussies' fault that the price is too high and if only they would disappear then the price would go down so the club can be sold to someone else.
Not sure that logic stacks up, to be honest.
If the Aussies were the ONLY people to accept Roland's price, then yes it's them that have kept the price high.
If ALL potential owners told Roland they would only pay say £25m, then Roland would have to drop the price below what he's asking. If one group seem happy to pay £40m then to him that's justification that his price is fair.
So, to clarify, you're actually saying that it's the buyer that has caused the price to be too high? And not the seller?
Sitting on a beach in Goa is the best way to take all the crap going on. Waiter......a large Campari and Lemonade please, just put it on the bill....”I fank yew.”
Unmasked ... @SoundAsa£ is really Lorraine Chase .... Campari and Lemonade .... WTF is that all about
Yeah! Lemonade in Campari ffs sacrilegious tasteless buffoon The democratisation of fine quality comestibles is not a good thing. Ability to purchase is not the same as suitable. As if a clueless crackpot would buy a football club cos he has the cash but not the first fuckin idea or interest in how to run it 🙀😡🍷
So the message seems to be that the Aussies should clear off, in order to make Roland drop his price and find another buyer?
In other words, it's the Aussies' fault that the price is too high and if only they would disappear then the price would go down so the club can be sold to someone else.
Not sure that logic stacks up, to be honest.
If the Aussies were the ONLY people to accept Roland's price, then yes it's them that have kept the price high.
If ALL potential owners told Roland they would only pay say £25m, then Roland would have to drop the price below what he's asking. If one group seem happy to pay £40m then to him that's justification that his price is fair.
So, to clarify, you're actually saying that it's the buyer that has caused the price to be too high? And not the seller?
Perhaps both parties have to carry some of the blame?
So the message seems to be that the Aussies should clear off, in order to make Roland drop his price and find another buyer?
In other words, it's the Aussies' fault that the price is too high and if only they would disappear then the price would go down so the club can be sold to someone else.
Not sure that logic stacks up, to be honest.
If the Aussies were the ONLY people to accept Roland's price, then yes it's them that have kept the price high.
If ALL potential owners told Roland they would only pay say £25m, then Roland would have to drop the price below what he's asking. If one group seem happy to pay £40m then to him that's justification that his price is fair.
So, to clarify, you're actually saying that it's the buyer that has caused the price to be too high? And not the seller?
I think what is meant is because the 'buyer' has agreed a high price (but never actually followed through), the 'seller' believes that that is the fair price and can see no reason to lower it for anyone else.
Indirectly the 'buyer' has prevented the price from being dropped - but only because the 'seller' is so deluded that he cannot see that this seller is unlikely to ever complete and is too proud to walk away
So the message seems to be that the Aussies should clear off, in order to make Roland drop his price and find another buyer?
In other words, it's the Aussies' fault that the price is too high and if only they would disappear then the price would go down so the club can be sold to someone else.
Not sure that logic stacks up, to be honest.
If the Aussies were the ONLY people to accept Roland's price, then yes it's them that have kept the price high.
If ALL potential owners told Roland they would only pay say £25m, then Roland would have to drop the price below what he's asking. If one group seem happy to pay £40m then to him that's justification that his price is fair.
So, to clarify, you're actually saying that it's the buyer that has caused the price to be too high? And not the seller?
I think what is meant is because the 'buyer' has agreed a high price (but never actually followed through), the 'seller' believes that that is the fair price and can see no reason to lower it for anyone else.
Indirectly the 'buyer' has prevented the price from being dropped - but only because the 'seller' is so deluded that he cannot see that this seller is unlikely to ever complete and is too proud to walk away
Not sure the ‘buyers’ are responsible really.
Imagine you’re selling your house (sorry) and someone comes in and says, ‘that sounds fine, but I’ll check with the people buying the house with me’. They then come back to you and say, ‘sorry, my co-buyers say “no” because the price is too high’. You’d have to be nuts to think you’ve got a buyer at the high price. You haven’t.
So the message seems to be that the Aussies should clear off, in order to make Roland drop his price and find another buyer?
In other words, it's the Aussies' fault that the price is too high and if only they would disappear then the price would go down so the club can be sold to someone else.
Not sure that logic stacks up, to be honest.
If the Aussies were the ONLY people to accept Roland's price, then yes it's them that have kept the price high.
If ALL potential owners told Roland they would only pay say £25m, then Roland would have to drop the price below what he's asking. If one group seem happy to pay £40m then to him that's justification that his price is fair.
So, to clarify, you're actually saying that it's the buyer that has caused the price to be too high? And not the seller?
I think what is meant is because the 'buyer' has agreed a high price (but never actually followed through), the 'seller' believes that that is the fair price and can see no reason to lower it for anyone else.
Indirectly the 'buyer' has prevented the price from being dropped - but only because the 'seller' is so deluded that he cannot see that this seller is unlikely to ever complete and is too proud to walk away
A lot of people are saying that, but we don’t know for a fact that it’s true.
But imagine you’re selling your house (sorry) and someone comes in and says, ‘that sounds fine, but I’ll check with the people buying the house with me’. They then come back to you and say, ‘sorry, my co-buyers say “no” because the price is too high’. You’d have to be nuts to think you’ve got a buyer at the high price. You haven’t.
I think we are agreeing - I believe Roland has only listened to the bolded part and is sticking to the memory that someone agreed the price, so eventually they will pay
Whilst owning said house, you also have to spend money to keep it in good working order, otherwise the value is going to go down and not look attractive to a seller
So the message seems to be that the Aussies should clear off, in order to make Roland drop his price and find another buyer?
In other words, it's the Aussies' fault that the price is too high and if only they would disappear then the price would go down so the club can be sold to someone else.
Not sure that logic stacks up, to be honest.
If the Aussies were the ONLY people to accept Roland's price, then yes it's them that have kept the price high.
If ALL potential owners told Roland they would only pay say £25m, then Roland would have to drop the price below what he's asking. If one group seem happy to pay £40m then to him that's justification that his price is fair.
So, to clarify, you're actually saying that it's the buyer that has caused the price to be too high? And not the seller?
I think what is meant is because the 'buyer' has agreed a high price (but never actually followed through), the 'seller' believes that that is the fair price and can see no reason to lower it for anyone else.
Indirectly the 'buyer' has prevented the price from being dropped - but only because the 'seller' is so deluded that he cannot see that this seller is unlikely to ever complete and is too proud to walk away
Not sure the ‘buyers’ are responsible really.
Imagine you’re selling your house (sorry) and someone comes in and says, ‘that sounds fine, but I’ll check with the people buying the house with me’. They then come back to you and say, ‘sorry, my co-buyers say “no” because the price is too high’. You’d have to be nuts to think you’ve got a buyer at the high price. You haven’t.
Papers being lodged with The EFL, at the agreed price would suggest ypur scenario didn't happen though.
So the message seems to be that the Aussies should clear off, in order to make Roland drop his price and find another buyer?
In other words, it's the Aussies' fault that the price is too high and if only they would disappear then the price would go down so the club can be sold to someone else.
Not sure that logic stacks up, to be honest.
If the Aussies were the ONLY people to accept Roland's price, then yes it's them that have kept the price high.
If ALL potential owners told Roland they would only pay say £25m, then Roland would have to drop the price below what he's asking. If one group seem happy to pay £40m then to him that's justification that his price is fair.
So, to clarify, you're actually saying that it's the buyer that has caused the price to be too high? And not the seller?
I think what is meant is because the 'buyer' has agreed a high price (but never actually followed through), the 'seller' believes that that is the fair price and can see no reason to lower it for anyone else.
Indirectly the 'buyer' has prevented the price from being dropped - but only because the 'seller' is so deluded that he cannot see that this seller is unlikely to ever complete and is too proud to walk away
Not sure the ‘buyers’ are responsible really.
Imagine you’re selling your house (sorry) and someone comes in and says, ‘that sounds fine, but I’ll check with the people buying the house with me’. They then come back to you and say, ‘sorry, my co-buyers say “no” because the price is too high’. You’d have to be nuts to think you’ve got a buyer at the high price. You haven’t.
Papers being lodged with The EFL, at the agreed price would suggest ypur scenario didn't happen though.
Were such papers lodged with the EFL?
Were they papers related to the price or to the fit and proper test? Or to something else.
And even. If the price was agreed initialy doesn't mean it's still agreed.
So the message seems to be that the Aussies should clear off, in order to make Roland drop his price and find another buyer?
In other words, it's the Aussies' fault that the price is too high and if only they would disappear then the price would go down so the club can be sold to someone else.
Not sure that logic stacks up, to be honest.
If the Aussies were the ONLY people to accept Roland's price, then yes it's them that have kept the price high.
If ALL potential owners told Roland they would only pay say £25m, then Roland would have to drop the price below what he's asking. If one group seem happy to pay £40m then to him that's justification that his price is fair.
So, to clarify, you're actually saying that it's the buyer that has caused the price to be too high? And not the seller?
I think what is meant is because the 'buyer' has agreed a high price (but never actually followed through), the 'seller' believes that that is the fair price and can see no reason to lower it for anyone else.
Indirectly the 'buyer' has prevented the price from being dropped - but only because the 'seller' is so deluded that he cannot see that this seller is unlikely to ever complete and is too proud to walk away
Not sure the ‘buyers’ are responsible really.
Imagine you’re selling your house (sorry) and someone comes in and says, ‘that sounds fine, but I’ll check with the people buying the house with me’. They then come back to you and say, ‘sorry, my co-buyers say “no” because the price is too high’. You’d have to be nuts to think you’ve got a buyer at the high price. You haven’t.
Papers being lodged with The EFL, at the agreed price would suggest ypur scenario didn't happen though.
There is no indication that the sales brochure includes the price (or wether it is just a marketing brochure) plus the price is between buyer and seller... As Mr Harvey himself said they can't get involvdd orvinfluence ir. I am sorry it doesn't take 2yrs to buy a club. It has to be they don't want to pay over the odds for a league 1 football team that will now need 7/8 new players.
So the message seems to be that the Aussies should clear off, in order to make Roland drop his price and find another buyer?
In other words, it's the Aussies' fault that the price is too high and if only they would disappear then the price would go down so the club can be sold to someone else.
Not sure that logic stacks up, to be honest.
If the Aussies were the ONLY people to accept Roland's price, then yes it's them that have kept the price high.
If ALL potential owners told Roland they would only pay say £25m, then Roland would have to drop the price below what he's asking. If one group seem happy to pay £40m then to him that's justification that his price is fair.
So, to clarify, you're actually saying that it's the buyer that has caused the price to be too high? And not the seller?
Perhaps both parties have to carry some of the blame?
I still can't get to the point where I can imagine blaming the buyers (at whatever level of culpability) for the price being too high. I guess I am clinging too closely to the thought it's the seller that sets the price.
So the message seems to be that the Aussies should clear off, in order to make Roland drop his price and find another buyer?
In other words, it's the Aussies' fault that the price is too high and if only they would disappear then the price would go down so the club can be sold to someone else.
Not sure that logic stacks up, to be honest.
If the Aussies were the ONLY people to accept Roland's price, then yes it's them that have kept the price high.
If ALL potential owners told Roland they would only pay say £25m, then Roland would have to drop the price below what he's asking. If one group seem happy to pay £40m then to him that's justification that his price is fair.
So, to clarify, you're actually saying that it's the buyer that has caused the price to be too high? And not the seller?
I think what is meant is because the 'buyer' has agreed a high price (but never actually followed through), the 'seller' believes that that is the fair price and can see no reason to lower it for anyone else.
Indirectly the 'buyer' has prevented the price from being dropped - but only because the 'seller' is so deluded that he cannot see that this seller is unlikely to ever complete and is too proud to walk away
Not sure the ‘buyers’ are responsible really.
Imagine you’re selling your house (sorry) and someone comes in and says, ‘that sounds fine, but I’ll check with the people buying the house with me’. They then come back to you and say, ‘sorry, my co-buyers say “no” because the price is too high’. You’d have to be nuts to think you’ve got a buyer at the high price. You haven’t.
Papers being lodged with The EFL, at the agreed price would suggest ypur scenario didn't happen though.
You don’t really know for sure that happened, and if papers were lodged that there was an agreed price attached. It’s all above my pay grade, so I don’t know they weren’t either.
So the message seems to be that the Aussies should clear off, in order to make Roland drop his price and find another buyer?
In other words, it's the Aussies' fault that the price is too high and if only they would disappear then the price would go down so the club can be sold to someone else.
Not sure that logic stacks up, to be honest.
If the Aussies were the ONLY people to accept Roland's price, then yes it's them that have kept the price high.
If ALL potential owners told Roland they would only pay say £25m, then Roland would have to drop the price below what he's asking. If one group seem happy to pay £40m then to him that's justification that his price is fair.
So, to clarify, you're actually saying that it's the buyer that has caused the price to be too high? And not the seller?
I think what is meant is because the 'buyer' has agreed a high price (but never actually followed through), the 'seller' believes that that is the fair price and can see no reason to lower it for anyone else.
Indirectly the 'buyer' has prevented the price from being dropped - but only because the 'seller' is so deluded that he cannot see that this seller is unlikely to ever complete and is too proud to walk away
Not sure the ‘buyers’ are responsible really.
Imagine you’re selling your house (sorry) and someone comes in and says, ‘that sounds fine, but I’ll check with the people buying the house with me’. They then come back to you and say, ‘sorry, my co-buyers say “no” because the price is too high’. You’d have to be nuts to think you’ve got a buyer at the high price. You haven’t.
Papers being lodged with The EFL, at the agreed price would suggest ypur scenario didn't happen though.
Were such papers lodged with the EFL?
Were they papers related to the price or to the fit and proper test? Or to something else.
And even. If the price was agreed initialy doesn't mean it's still agreed.
CAST reported from their meeting with the EFL in October that they had been told by Shaun Harvey that a "sale and purchase agreement" had been submitted.
So the message seems to be that the Aussies should clear off, in order to make Roland drop his price and find another buyer?
In other words, it's the Aussies' fault that the price is too high and if only they would disappear then the price would go down so the club can be sold to someone else.
Not sure that logic stacks up, to be honest.
If the Aussies were the ONLY people to accept Roland's price, then yes it's them that have kept the price high.
If ALL potential owners told Roland they would only pay say £25m, then Roland would have to drop the price below what he's asking. If one group seem happy to pay £40m then to him that's justification that his price is fair.
So, to clarify, you're actually saying that it's the buyer that has caused the price to be too high? And not the seller?
I think what is meant is because the 'buyer' has agreed a high price (but never actually followed through), the 'seller' believes that that is the fair price and can see no reason to lower it for anyone else.
Indirectly the 'buyer' has prevented the price from being dropped - but only because the 'seller' is so deluded that he cannot see that this seller is unlikely to ever complete and is too proud to walk away
Not sure the ‘buyers’ are responsible really.
Imagine you’re selling your house (sorry) and someone comes in and says, ‘that sounds fine, but I’ll check with the people buying the house with me’. They then come back to you and say, ‘sorry, my co-buyers say “no” because the price is too high’. You’d have to be nuts to think you’ve got a buyer at the high price. You haven’t.
Papers being lodged with The EFL, at the agreed price would suggest ypur scenario didn't happen though.
Were such papers lodged with the EFL?
Were they papers related to the price or to the fit and proper test? Or to something else.
And even. If the price was agreed initialy doesn't mean it's still agreed.
CAST reported from their meeting with the EFL in October that they had been told by Shaun Harvey that a "sale and purchase agreement" had been submitted.
And yet no sale or purchase has been agreed.
Maybe because the key element, the price, has not been agreed.
So the message seems to be that the Aussies should clear off, in order to make Roland drop his price and find another buyer?
In other words, it's the Aussies' fault that the price is too high and if only they would disappear then the price would go down so the club can be sold to someone else.
Not sure that logic stacks up, to be honest.
If the Aussies were the ONLY people to accept Roland's price, then yes it's them that have kept the price high.
If ALL potential owners told Roland they would only pay say £25m, then Roland would have to drop the price below what he's asking. If one group seem happy to pay £40m then to him that's justification that his price is fair.
So, to clarify, you're actually saying that it's the buyer that has caused the price to be too high? And not the seller?
I think what is meant is because the 'buyer' has agreed a high price (but never actually followed through), the 'seller' believes that that is the fair price and can see no reason to lower it for anyone else.
Indirectly the 'buyer' has prevented the price from being dropped - but only because the 'seller' is so deluded that he cannot see that this seller is unlikely to ever complete and is too proud to walk away
Not sure the ‘buyers’ are responsible really.
Imagine you’re selling your house (sorry) and someone comes in and says, ‘that sounds fine, but I’ll check with the people buying the house with me’. They then come back to you and say, ‘sorry, my co-buyers say “no” because the price is too high’. You’d have to be nuts to think you’ve got a buyer at the high price. You haven’t.
Papers being lodged with The EFL, at the agreed price would suggest ypur scenario didn't happen though.
Were such papers lodged with the EFL?
Were they papers related to the price or to the fit and proper test? Or to something else.
And even. If the price was agreed initialy doesn't mean it's still agreed.
CAST reported from their meeting with the EFL in October that they had been told by Shaun Harvey that a "sale and purchase agreement" had been submitted.
And yet no sale or purchase has been agreed.
Maybe because the key element, the price, has not been agreed.
I don't agree with that. I think the problem is more likely to be that the person heading up the consortium agreed a price that he is unable to deliver because the consortium members wouldn't put it in the table when it came to it. The agreement was in place but not the money.
So the message seems to be that the Aussies should clear off, in order to make Roland drop his price and find another buyer?
In other words, it's the Aussies' fault that the price is too high and if only they would disappear then the price would go down so the club can be sold to someone else.
Not sure that logic stacks up, to be honest.
If the Aussies were the ONLY people to accept Roland's price, then yes it's them that have kept the price high.
If ALL potential owners told Roland they would only pay say £25m, then Roland would have to drop the price below what he's asking. If one group seem happy to pay £40m then to him that's justification that his price is fair.
So, to clarify, you're actually saying that it's the buyer that has caused the price to be too high? And not the seller?
I think what is meant is because the 'buyer' has agreed a high price (but never actually followed through), the 'seller' believes that that is the fair price and can see no reason to lower it for anyone else.
Indirectly the 'buyer' has prevented the price from being dropped - but only because the 'seller' is so deluded that he cannot see that this seller is unlikely to ever complete and is too proud to walk away
Not sure the ‘buyers’ are responsible really.
Imagine you’re selling your house (sorry) and someone comes in and says, ‘that sounds fine, but I’ll check with the people buying the house with me’. They then come back to you and say, ‘sorry, my co-buyers say “no” because the price is too high’. You’d have to be nuts to think you’ve got a buyer at the high price. You haven’t.
Papers being lodged with The EFL, at the agreed price would suggest ypur scenario didn't happen though.
Were such papers lodged with the EFL?
Were they papers related to the price or to the fit and proper test? Or to something else.
And even. If the price was agreed initialy doesn't mean it's still agreed.
CAST reported from their meeting with the EFL in October that they had been told by Shaun Harvey that a "sale and purchase agreement" had been submitted.
And yet no sale or purchase has been agreed.
Maybe because the key element, the price, has not been agreed.
You can lodge a "Sale & Purchase" agreement without the final price being on it. The agreement would contain the broad strokes of the deal as well as the finer detail.
Once the price is agreed the lawyers just send another copy to the EFL this time with the price on it.
Duchatelet is being punished by having to foot our monthly running costs, circa £800k. It is his own fault for not lowering his ridiculous selling price, so this saga could go on and on, with him losing more and more money on his failed project. So Duchatelet tries to strip back the running costs to make a potential sale more viable - Ha, ha to that! Meanwhile we the fans and staff are being punished by Duchatelet by him refusing to invest in key players, which makes promotion far less likely. My response is to avoid attending home matches and thus giving him my money - but sometimes I do break this pledge to myself, weak though I am. I do wonder what Jim White makes of all this because it does appear as if he has been well and truly played by our loathed owner.
So the message seems to be that the Aussies should clear off, in order to make Roland drop his price and find another buyer?
In other words, it's the Aussies' fault that the price is too high and if only they would disappear then the price would go down so the club can be sold to someone else.
Not sure that logic stacks up, to be honest.
If the Aussies were the ONLY people to accept Roland's price, then yes it's them that have kept the price high.
If ALL potential owners told Roland they would only pay say £25m, then Roland would have to drop the price below what he's asking. If one group seem happy to pay £40m then to him that's justification that his price is fair.
So, to clarify, you're actually saying that it's the buyer that has caused the price to be too high? And not the seller?
I think what is meant is because the 'buyer' has agreed a high price (but never actually followed through), the 'seller' believes that that is the fair price and can see no reason to lower it for anyone else.
Indirectly the 'buyer' has prevented the price from being dropped - but only because the 'seller' is so deluded that he cannot see that this seller is unlikely to ever complete and is too proud to walk away
Not sure the ‘buyers’ are responsible really.
Imagine you’re selling your house (sorry) and someone comes in and says, ‘that sounds fine, but I’ll check with the people buying the house with me’. They then come back to you and say, ‘sorry, my co-buyers say “no” because the price is too high’. You’d have to be nuts to think you’ve got a buyer at the high price. You haven’t.
Papers being lodged with The EFL, at the agreed price would suggest ypur scenario didn't happen though.
Were such papers lodged with the EFL?
Were they papers related to the price or to the fit and proper test? Or to something else.
And even. If the price was agreed initialy doesn't mean it's still agreed.
CAST reported from their meeting with the EFL in October that they had been told by Shaun Harvey that a "sale and purchase agreement" had been submitted.
And yet no sale or purchase has been agreed.
Maybe because the key element, the price, has not been agreed.
I don't agree with that. I think the problem is more likely to be that the person heading up the consortium agreed a price that he is unable to deliver because the consortium members wouldn't put it in the table when it came to it. The agreement was in place but not the money.
He told me that sale was agreed subject to confirmation by a couple of people. Obviously looks highly probably they said no. But even if a price was verbally agreed and Roland didn't hear the 'subject to approval' bit, the buyer has the right to reduce the offer, as the sale wasn't concluded. Unless a contract was signed and sealed I guess, in which case they might be in breach of contract, but that seems unlikely.
Comments
If ALL potential owners told Roland they would only pay say £25m, then Roland would have to drop the price below what he's asking. If one group seem happy to pay £40m then to him that's justification that his price is fair.
Luv.....SoundAs.
As if a clueless crackpot would buy a football club cos he has the cash but not the first fuckin idea or interest in how to run it 🙀😡🍷
Indirectly the 'buyer' has prevented the price from being dropped - but only because the 'seller' is so deluded that he cannot see that this seller is unlikely to ever complete and is too proud to walk away
Imagine you’re selling your house (sorry) and someone comes in and says, ‘that sounds fine, but I’ll check with the people buying the house with me’.
They then come back to you and say, ‘sorry, my co-buyers say “no” because the price is too high’.
You’d have to be nuts to think you’ve got a buyer at the high price. You haven’t.
Were they papers related to the price or to the fit and proper test? Or to something else.
And even. If the price was agreed initialy doesn't mean it's still agreed.
It’s all above my pay grade, so I don’t know they weren’t either.
Maybe because the key element, the price, has not been agreed.
Once the price is agreed the lawyers just send another copy to the EFL this time with the price on it.
But even if a price was verbally agreed and Roland didn't hear the 'subject to approval' bit, the buyer has the right to reduce the offer, as the sale wasn't concluded. Unless a contract was signed and sealed I guess, in which case they might be in breach of contract, but that seems unlikely.