It is all very strange ! I know that he got pelters for commenting on performances etc but this new silence is deafening !
After 3 wins on the bounce I would have suspected atleast a few BOOM's
The quiet non sack people sandgaard is an OK enough individual.
When Charlton win games and he stays quiet, (doesn't assume credibility for it by believing he would be a good football manager) then even better.
I don't mind a background owner who doesn't cause problems, who looks in the mirror and can see zippy - doesn't open his gob at all and just deletes twitter accounts.
An owner like that deserves a complimentary cold pint and a "thanks for saving the club mate".
Nothing has changed from a business perspective, it is just that results have improved on the footie side. Still waiting in hope, however long that may be, as I think that this owners’ strategy belongs to fantasy island…
our squad is probably in the healthiest state injury wise it has been for a year or few (even with the terrific Leaburn sidelined). Give it a few more knocks and suspensions (odds-on) and suspect this thread will get a whole lot more attention. Attention I feel it deserves!
Got my call from Cristos today. Didn’t answer as it was from a number that my call filter didn’t recognise. But he left a message and followed up with an email. Looks like he’s trying to flog me a meal deal for the Coalville match. 🍔🍟 and a🥤
So we(Club 'Seniors') are basically expecting Garner to mould something special from free transfers, loans and kids.
Correct, but in fairness so are most of league one. Not aware of the exact stats but there aren't many clubs who sign players for fees at this level.
Exactly that. I still don't think we have League 1 vision on the problem, Have you seen any club that's far in excess of where we are? Plymouth? Portsmouth? All sides are trying to reach promotion within a budget that probably their fans are not happy with. Back Garner all we can as the reality of L1 is the problem for us more than TS.
So we(Club 'Seniors') are basically expecting Garner to mould something special from free transfers, loans and kids.
I think so. If we got the striker in Jan and he got injured after a couple of matches, we are back to square one. So for sustainability, those free transfers, loans and the academy should still be a major focus, done wisely of course.
Our fate is not just determined by how much TS spends. Even if he paid £10M for a striker, he couldn't pay his wages without breaching our EFL budget limit, which is set relative to turnover.
Our L1 attendances are a seriously limiting factor in determining that budget .Loans offer the chance to control wage costs in the short term, freebies not so much so if they're signed on longer term contracts.
Admittedly, we could fill the Valley every week paying exorbitant ticket prices to get that budget up like TS wanted, and he might still decide not to spend more on the team, but we're unlikely to find out as things are.
If fans were to turn up in big numbers to support the team, it would showcase the Club to those prospective suitors we're being told are sniffing around, and TS wouldn't be left doubting the fan base as it seems he does now given those I'll advised comments of Leo Rifkind, and his son(?)
Our fate is not just determined by how much TS spends. Even if he paid £10M for a striker, he couldn't to pay his wages without breaching our EFL budget limit, which is set relative to turnover.
Our L1 attendances are a seriously limiting factor in determining that budget .Loans offer the chance to control wage costs in the short term, freebies not so much so if they're signed on longer term contracts.
Admittedly, we could fill the Valley every week paying exorbitant ticket prices to get that budget up like TS wanted, and he might still decide not to spend more on the team, but we're unlikely to find out as things are.
If fans were to turn up in big numbers to support the team, it would showcase the Club to those prospective suitors we're being told are sniffing around, and TS wouldn't be left doubting the fan base as it seems he does now given those I'll advised comments of Leo Rifkind, and his son(?)
This all makes perfect sense and agree, however, the reality is that we are in an economic downturn. On TV today (25/10/22) announced food prices up 17% on average. Inflation 10%+ and rising. It would be great if people could afford to pay £30 for a ticket but with travel costs, food, etc. it means a day at the valley becomes too expensive when the other option is to spend on food or heating. I think that a better approach would be to work out a realistic ticket price that would get people back - even if that is only breakeven at the moment. That added to (apparent) improvements on the pitch and we'll start to increase numbers and make the valley look more attractive.
Our fate is not just determined by how much TS spends. Even if he paid £10M for a striker, he couldn't to pay his wages without breaching our EFL budget limit, which is set relative to turnover.
Our L1 attendances are a seriously limiting factor in determining that budget .Loans offer the chance to control wage costs in the short term, freebies not so much so if they're signed on longer term contracts.
Admittedly, we could fill the Valley every week paying exorbitant ticket prices to get that budget up like TS wanted, and he might still decide not to spend more on the team, but we're unlikely to find out as things are.
If fans were to turn up in big numbers to support the team, it would showcase the Club to those prospective suitors we're being told are sniffing around, and TS wouldn't be left doubting the fan base as it seems he does now given those I'll advised comments of Leo Rifkind, and his son(?)
The falling attendances (which I’ve highlighted here: www.votvonline.com) are largely of Sandgaard’s making - unrealistic pricing, mediocre recruitment leading to poor results and a related credibility problem arising from actions and statements.
Realistically, if we are 2-3,000 down a game on where we might have been that is a difference of £30,000 to £50,000* a game, including the shortfall in season-ticket holders this season.
It’s at most £1m a season and probably less, so even on the assumption that it would go on players (it’s more likely, to judge from his own rhetoric, it would be used to reduce the operating loss) it’s not a game changer.
It’s possible to get the home support back above 10,000 (on Saturdays) if the team puts a few results together. Hopefully that will happen this weekend, but it’s not going to 15,000 plus in L1. So while it may be generally true that revenue is a limiting factor, it’s pie in the sky to think this is going to change substantially through bigger crowds. In fact, the opposite is happening. Maybe the club will offset the drop with commercial revenue but that’s not clear. Again the rhetoric is likely to be unreliable.
*average net revenue per home admission is unlikely to exceed £20 due to season ticket pricing, concessions and VAT.
So we(Club 'Seniors') are basically expecting Garner to mould something special from free transfers, loans and kids.
Correct, but in fairness so are most of league one. Not aware of the exact stats but there aren't many clubs who sign players for fees at this level.
Exactly that. I still don't think we have League 1 vision on the problem, Have you seen any club that's far in excess of where we are? Plymouth? Portsmouth? All sides are trying to reach promotion within a budget that probably their fans are not happy with. Back Garner all we can as the reality of L1 is the problem for us more than TS.
On the subject of Plymouth, according to transfermarkt, they haven't signed a player for a fee since June 2021. And he's a full back who has played 12 games in 18 months and not at all this season.
Our fate is not just determined by how much TS spends. Even if he paid £10M for a striker, he couldn't to pay his wages without breaching our EFL budget limit, which is set relative to turnover.
Our L1 attendances are a seriously limiting factor in determining that budget .Loans offer the chance to control wage costs in the short term, freebies not so much so if they're signed on longer term contracts.
Admittedly, we could fill the Valley every week paying exorbitant ticket prices to get that budget up like TS wanted, and he might still decide not to spend more on the team, but we're unlikely to find out as things are.
If fans were to turn up in big numbers to support the team, it would showcase the Club to those prospective suitors we're being told are sniffing around, and TS wouldn't be left doubting the fan base as it seems he does now given those I'll advised comments of Leo Rifkind, and his son(?)
The falling attendances (which I’ve highlighted here: www.votvonline.com) are largely of Sandgaard’s making - unrealistic pricing, mediocre recruitment leading to poor results and a credibility problem arising from actions and statements.
Realistically, if we are 2-3,000 down a game on where we might have been that is a difference of £30,000 to £50,000* a game, including the shortfall in season-ticket holders this season.
It’s at most £1m a season and probably less, so even on the assumption that it would go on players (it’s more likely, to judge from his own rhetoric, it would be used to reduce the operating loss) it’s not a game changer.
It’s possible to get the vote home support back above 10,000 (on Saturdays) if the team puts a few results together. Hopefully that will happen this weekend, but it’s not going to 15,000 plus in L1. So while it may be generally true that revenue is a limiting factor, it’s pie in the sky to think this is going to change substantially through bigger crowds. In fact, the opposite is happening. Maybe the club will offset the drop in commercial revenue but that’s not clear.
*average net revenue per home admission is unlikely to exceed £20 due to season ticket pricing, concessions and VAT.
I'm sure you're right with your analysis, but I'm not sure what you mean when you say the opposite is happening. Revenue can't be made worse by higher attendances unless the reduced price differential isn't more than offset by an any increase in numbers. Is that what's happening now then, or have I misunderstood.
Edit - Just realised that you're referring to revenue falling due to a drop in commercial income
So we(Club 'Seniors') are basically expecting Garner to mould something special from free transfers, loans and kids.
Correct, but in fairness so are most of league one. Not aware of the exact stats but there aren't many clubs who sign players for fees at this level.
Exactly that. I still don't think we have League 1 vision on the problem, Have you seen any club that's far in excess of where we are? Plymouth? Portsmouth? All sides are trying to reach promotion within a budget that probably their fans are not happy with. Back Garner all we can as the reality of L1 is the problem for us more than TS.
On the subject of Plymouth, according to transfermarkt, they haven't signed a player for a fee since June 2021. And he's a full back who has played 12 games in 18 months and not at all this season.
Possibly because they have rebuilt their main stand. I don’t think fees are the whole issue - we’ve signed players from L2 because we want to pay L2 wages. There may well be value in some of those players but that’s the reason we recruited in that division.
So we(Club 'Seniors') are basically expecting Garner to mould something special from free transfers, loans and kids.
Correct, but in fairness so are most of league one. Not aware of the exact stats but there aren't many clubs who sign players for fees at this level.
Exactly that. I still don't think we have League 1 vision on the problem, Have you seen any club that's far in excess of where we are? Plymouth? Portsmouth? All sides are trying to reach promotion within a budget that probably their fans are not happy with. Back Garner all we can as the reality of L1 is the problem for us more than TS.
On the subject of Plymouth, according to transfermarkt, they haven't signed a player for a fee since June 2021. And he's a full back who has played 12 games in 18 months and not at all this season.
Possibly because they have rebuilt their main stand. I don’t think fees are the whole issue - we’ve signed players from L2 because we want to pay L2 wages. There may well be value in some of those players but that’s the reason we recruited in that division.
Fair point. However the 4 signings we made from league 2 have all been fairly solid signings whereas McGrandles who came from league 1 has been possibly the worst signing.
So we(Club 'Seniors') are basically expecting Garner to mould something special from free transfers, loans and kids.
Correct, but in fairness so are most of league one. Not aware of the exact stats but there aren't many clubs who sign players for fees at this level.
Exactly that. I still don't think we have League 1 vision on the problem, Have you seen any club that's far in excess of where we are? Plymouth? Portsmouth? All sides are trying to reach promotion within a budget that probably their fans are not happy with. Back Garner all we can as the reality of L1 is the problem for us more than TS.
On the subject of Plymouth, according to transfermarkt, they haven't signed a player for a fee since June 2021. And he's a full back who has played 12 games in 18 months and not at all this season.
Possibly because they have rebuilt their main stand. I don’t think fees are the whole issue - we’ve signed players from L2 because we want to pay L2 wages. There may well be value in some of those players but that’s the reason we recruited in that division.
Fair point. However the 4 signings we made from league 2 have all been fairly solid signings whereas McGrandles who came from league 1 has been possibly the worst signing.
I agree with that, although I suspect Egbo is the only one who might develop into a better player, unsurprisingly given the age of the signings.
Our fate is not just determined by how much TS spends. Even if he paid £10M for a striker, he couldn't to pay his wages without breaching our EFL budget limit, which is set relative to turnover.
Our L1 attendances are a seriously limiting factor in determining that budget .Loans offer the chance to control wage costs in the short term, freebies not so much so if they're signed on longer term contracts.
Admittedly, we could fill the Valley every week paying exorbitant ticket prices to get that budget up like TS wanted, and he might still decide not to spend more on the team, but we're unlikely to find out as things are.
If fans were to turn up in big numbers to support the team, it would showcase the Club to those prospective suitors we're being told are sniffing around, and TS wouldn't be left doubting the fan base as it seems he does now given those I'll advised comments of Leo Rifkind, and his son(?)
The falling attendances (which I’ve highlighted here: www.votvonline.com) are largely of Sandgaard’s making - unrealistic pricing, mediocre recruitment leading to poor results and a credibility problem arising from actions and statements.
Realistically, if we are 2-3,000 down a game on where we might have been that is a difference of £30,000 to £50,000* a game, including the shortfall in season-ticket holders this season.
It’s at most £1m a season and probably less, so even on the assumption that it would go on players (it’s more likely, to judge from his own rhetoric, it would be used to reduce the operating loss) it’s not a game changer.
It’s possible to get the vote home support back above 10,000 (on Saturdays) if the team puts a few results together. Hopefully that will happen this weekend, but it’s not going to 15,000 plus in L1. So while it may be generally true that revenue is a limiting factor, it’s pie in the sky to think this is going to change substantially through bigger crowds. In fact, the opposite is happening. Maybe the club will offset the drop in commercial revenue but that’s not clear.
*average net revenue per home admission is unlikely to exceed £20 due to season ticket pricing, concessions and VAT.
I'm sure you're right with your analysis, but I'm not sure what you mean when you say the opposite is happening. Revenue can't be made worse by higher attendances unless the reduced price differential isn't more than offset by an any increase in numbers. Is that what's happening now then, or have I misunderstood.
Edit - Just realised that you're referring to revenue falling due to a drop in commercial income
No, I’m saying that the revenue effect of bigger crowds is overestimated and that currently revenue is going backwards largely because of Sandgaard’s policies and interventions, despite the price rises.
Some of the reduced attendances may be due to a higher percentage of season-ticket holders not bothering (which is revenue neutral), but the reduced number of season tickets sold and lower match sales means ticket revenue is likely to be falling.
The changes in paying attendances that are realistically achievable are not going to transform the budget, regardless of the spending rules.
it may be that commercial revenue will grow to offset the reduced ticket revenue but I won’t assume that based on what the club has said because it’s not reliable.
Our fate is not just determined by how much TS spends. Even if he paid £10M for a striker, he couldn't to pay his wages without breaching our EFL budget limit, which is set relative to turnover.
Our L1 attendances are a seriously limiting factor in determining that budget .Loans offer the chance to control wage costs in the short term, freebies not so much so if they're signed on longer term contracts.
Admittedly, we could fill the Valley every week paying exorbitant ticket prices to get that budget up like TS wanted, and he might still decide not to spend more on the team, but we're unlikely to find out as things are.
If fans were to turn up in big numbers to support the team, it would showcase the Club to those prospective suitors we're being told are sniffing around, and TS wouldn't be left doubting the fan base as it seems he does now given those I'll advised comments of Leo Rifkind, and his son(?)
The falling attendances (which I’ve highlighted here: www.votvonline.com) are largely of Sandgaard’s making - unrealistic pricing, mediocre recruitment leading to poor results and a credibility problem arising from actions and statements.
Realistically, if we are 2-3,000 down a game on where we might have been that is a difference of £30,000 to £50,000* a game, including the shortfall in season-ticket holders this season.
It’s at most £1m a season and probably less, so even on the assumption that it would go on players (it’s more likely, to judge from his own rhetoric, it would be used to reduce the operating loss) it’s not a game changer.
It’s possible to get the vote home support back above 10,000 (on Saturdays) if the team puts a few results together. Hopefully that will happen this weekend, but it’s not going to 15,000 plus in L1. So while it may be generally true that revenue is a limiting factor, it’s pie in the sky to think this is going to change substantially through bigger crowds. In fact, the opposite is happening. Maybe the club will offset the drop in commercial revenue but that’s not clear.
*average net revenue per home admission is unlikely to exceed £20 due to season ticket pricing, concessions and VAT.
I'm sure you're right with your analysis, but I'm not sure what you mean when you say the opposite is happening. Revenue can't be made worse by higher attendances unless the reduced price differential isn't more than offset by an any increase in numbers. Is that what's happening now then, or have I misunderstood.
Edit - Just realised that you're referring to revenue falling due to a drop in commercial income
No, I’m saying that the revenue effect of bigger crowds is overestimated and that currently revenue is going backwards largely because of Sandgaard’s policies and interventions, despite the price rises.
Some of the reduced attendances may be due to a higher percentage of season-ticket holders not bothering (which is revenue neutral), but the reduced number of season tickets sold and lower match sales means ticket revenue is likely to be falling.
The changes in paying attendances that are realistically achievable are not going to transform the budget, regardless of the spending rules.
it may be that commercial revenue will grow to offset the reduced ticket revenue but I won’t assume that based on what the club has said because it’s not reliable.
My comments reflect my concerns about how close to that spending limit we might be at the moment. If in danger of breaching it, I believe the EFL have the option to impose a transfer embargo, in which case January onwards would become more challenging.
Without having such information to hand, it's hard to know for sure and my thinking is along the lines of every little helps!
I sense that, despite having many other concerns about our direction of travel under TS, you don't share that particular one at present though, which I find reassuring.
Our fate is not just determined by how much TS spends. Even if he paid £10M for a striker, he couldn't pay his wages without breaching our EFL budget limit, which is set relative to turnover.
Our L1 attendances are a seriously limiting factor in determining that budget .Loans offer the chance to control wage costs in the short term, freebies not so much so if they're signed on longer term contracts.
Admittedly, we could fill the Valley every week paying exorbitant ticket prices to get that budget up like TS wanted, and he might still decide not to spend more on the team, but we're unlikely to find out as things are.
If fans were to turn up in big numbers to support the team, it would showcase the Club to those prospective suitors we're being told are sniffing around, and TS wouldn't be left doubting the fan base as it seems he does now given those I'll advised comments of Leo Rifkind, and his son(?)
Owner's investing capital counts as turn over. So if Thomas put 10 million in, as capital, to buy said striker the wages wouldn't be a ratio problem.
If fans were to turn up in big numbers to support the team, it would showcase the Club to those prospective suitors we're being told are sniffing around, and TS wouldn't be left doubting the fan base as it seems he does now given those I'll advised comments of Leo Rifkind, and his son(?)
I don't think potential buyers worry too much about our current crowds, I think anyone with common sense would understand that they're a symptom of years of mismanagement and awful football. What they see is a former premier league club in London, with an EPL ready stadium, both of those are huge selling points and a major advantage over most other clubs a potential suitor might look at. We are viewed as a project that could be built into an EPL mainstay, with all the money making potential that brings.
From what Airman has suggested recently, there are interested parties so I don't think current crowds are putting anyone off.
Our fate is not just determined by how much TS spends. Even if he paid £10M for a striker, he couldn't pay his wages without breaching our EFL budget limit, which is set relative to turnover.
Our L1 attendances are a seriously limiting factor in determining that budget .Loans offer the chance to control wage costs in the short term, freebies not so much so if they're signed on longer term contracts.
Admittedly, we could fill the Valley every week paying exorbitant ticket prices to get that budget up like TS wanted, and he might still decide not to spend more on the team, but we're unlikely to find out as things are.
If fans were to turn up in big numbers to support the team, it would showcase the Club to those prospective suitors we're being told are sniffing around, and TS wouldn't be left doubting the fan base as it seems he does now given those I'll advised comments of Leo Rifkind, and his son(?)
Owner's investing capital counts as turn over. So if Thomas put 10 million in, as capital, to buy said striker the wages wouldn't be a ratio problem.
Loans don't count as turnover.
I thought only donations counted towards turnover with most owners loaning the money, often charging no interest.
If fans were to turn up in big numbers to support the team, it would showcase the Club to those prospective suitors we're being told are sniffing around, and TS wouldn't be left doubting the fan base as it seems he does now given those I'll advised comments of Leo Rifkind, and his son(?)
I don't think potential buyers worry too much about our current crowds, I think anyone with common sense would understand that they're a symptom of years of mismanagement and awful football. What they see is a former premier league club in London, with an EPL ready stadium, both of those are huge selling points and a major advantage over most other clubs a potential suitor might look at. We are viewed as a project that could be built into an EPL mainstay, with all the money making potential that brings.
From what Airman has suggested recently, there are interested parties so I don't think current crowds are putting anyone off.
Our fate is not just determined by how much TS spends. Even if he paid £10M for a striker, he couldn't pay his wages without breaching our EFL budget limit, which is set relative to turnover.
Our L1 attendances are a seriously limiting factor in determining that budget .Loans offer the chance to control wage costs in the short term, freebies not so much so if they're signed on longer term contracts.
Admittedly, we could fill the Valley every week paying exorbitant ticket prices to get that budget up like TS wanted, and he might still decide not to spend more on the team, but we're unlikely to find out as things are.
If fans were to turn up in big numbers to support the team, it would showcase the Club to those prospective suitors we're being told are sniffing around, and TS wouldn't be left doubting the fan base as it seems he does now given those I'll advised comments of Leo Rifkind, and his son(?)
Owner's investing capital counts as turn over. So if Thomas put 10 million in, as capital, to buy said striker the wages wouldn't be a ratio problem.
Loans don't count as turnover.
I thought ony donations counted towards turnover with most owners loaning the money, often charging no interest.
Equity injected counts as turnover. That is not technically a donation but as it is unlikely to ever be recovered unless we got to the PL and sold on a profit it probably would be. Loans which even at 0% interest rates represent a liability on the balance sheet do not count as turnover.
I guess the point is, TS can use wage ratios as a reason why he cannot expand the squad and if trying to run us as a long term sustainable business then that is a fair point. It is a bit daft though as you would have to be a moron to buy Charlton in L1 with a sustainable business plan as it is not reality.
Any new owner with money would simply inject equity to help them buy their way out of this league.
Just to be clear, all my comments earlier today were bourne out of concerns over the consequences of low attendances, NOT questioning the causal factors, which I had no doubts about but which have since been restated by others anyway.
I stand corrected on what contributes towards the turnover figure used by the EFL in setting the player wage budget, not that I'm expecting TS to increase it with an equity injection to fund a spending spree on the team in January though.
EXCL: Wigan late paying players' wages again. Some of squad considering their positions. Serious concerns over financial situation. Third parties instructed to find a buyer. EFL aware of situation. This only two years after club went into admin.
Proves owning a football club at present is not easy .. and these had all debts paid before they took over …
EXCL: Wigan late paying players' wages again. Some of squad considering their positions. Serious concerns over financial situation. Third parties instructed to find a buyer. EFL aware of situation. This only two years after club went into admin.
Proves owning a football club at present is not easy .. and these had all debts paid before they took over …
Comments
The quiet non sack people sandgaard is an OK enough individual.
When Charlton win games and he stays quiet, (doesn't assume credibility for it by believing he would be a good football manager) then even better.
I don't mind a background owner who doesn't cause problems, who looks in the mirror and can see zippy - doesn't open his gob at all and just deletes twitter accounts.
An owner like that deserves a complimentary cold pint and a "thanks for saving the club mate".
our squad is probably in the healthiest state injury wise it has been for a year or few (even with the terrific Leaburn sidelined). Give it a few more knocks and suspensions (odds-on) and suspect this thread will get a whole lot more attention. Attention I feel it deserves!
If we sign players in January, which they will certainly be looking to do, they will be loans.
So for sustainability, those free transfers, loans and the academy should still be a major focus, done wisely of course.
Our L1 attendances are a seriously limiting factor in determining that budget .Loans offer the chance to control wage costs in the short term, freebies not so much so if they're signed on longer term contracts.
Admittedly, we could fill the Valley every week paying exorbitant ticket prices to get that budget up like TS wanted, and he might still decide not to spend more on the team, but we're unlikely to find out as things are.
If fans were to turn up in big numbers to support the team, it would showcase the Club to those prospective suitors we're being told are sniffing around, and TS wouldn't be left doubting the fan base as it seems he does now given those I'll advised comments of Leo Rifkind, and his son(?)
It’s possible to get the home support back above 10,000 (on Saturdays) if the team puts a few results together. Hopefully that will happen this weekend, but it’s not going to 15,000 plus in L1. So while it may be generally true that revenue is a limiting factor, it’s pie in the sky to think this is going to change substantially through bigger crowds. In fact, the opposite is happening. Maybe the club will offset the drop with commercial revenue but that’s not clear. Again the rhetoric is likely to be unreliable.
Edit - Just realised that you're referring to revenue falling due to a drop in commercial income
The changes in paying attendances that are realistically achievable are not going to transform the budget, regardless of the spending rules.
it may be that commercial revenue will grow to offset the reduced ticket revenue but I won’t assume that based on what the club has said because it’s not reliable.
Without having such information to hand, it's hard to know for sure and my thinking is along the lines of every little helps!
I sense that, despite having many other concerns about our direction of travel under TS, you don't share that particular one at present though, which I find reassuring.
Loans don't count as turnover.
From what Airman has suggested recently, there are interested parties so I don't think current crowds are putting anyone off.
I guess the point is, TS can use wage ratios as a reason why he cannot expand the squad and if trying to run us as a long term sustainable business then that is a fair point. It is a bit daft though as you would have to be a moron to buy Charlton in L1 with a sustainable business plan as it is not reality.
Any new owner with money would simply inject equity to help them buy their way out of this league.
I stand corrected on what contributes towards the turnover figure used by the EFL in setting the player wage budget, not that I'm expecting TS to increase it with an equity injection to fund a spending spree on the team in January though.