Llambias - Gone?

[colinmk]

I think we can all realise that the club is in severe financial difficulty and will be next season too. Ashley and co have made some really bad decisions so far though and that is why I think they aren't up to it. They have been given another chance because there is no other option. Lets hope they have learned and try to right some wrongs come summer. All this still hinges on whether we stay up of course which is a huge gamble on their part. After their previous bad decisions though I'm not sure there is much they could of done about that apart from obviously getting in some better players and keeping Shay.

[Guest optimistic nit]

i think a lot of that money will because iirc apparently we are still paying parts of owen, luque and maybe boums transfer through installments.

[Mick]

 

I know Quayside reported it n his finances thread.  But has it ever been confirmed?

 

this link

 

http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2009/01/23/newcastle-united-club-accounts-reveal-state-of-play-61634-22758691/

 

only mentions

 

They show the sports retail tycoon has kept the Magpies afloat with a £100m loan, which would have to be paid back to him by any future new owner.

 

The Journal understands Ashley is not charging any interest on the loan and has also recently pumped £10m of his own money into the clubs coffers to help with running costs.

 

A note to the accounts, prepared by Ernst & Young and signed by managing director Derek Llambias reveals Ashleys fresh £10m investment and states: This funding, together with newly-agreed bank facilities has been incorporated into the directors cash flow forecast for the group.

 

Key points

 

Billionaire's £10m cash-injection

 

The accounts confirm that Ashley paid in £100 million and that was used to pay off loans and also made up the difference between money in and out, the loss.  You've mentioned the extra £10 million which is mentioned in a note.

 

The £10 million loaned this week was mentioned in the Times.

 

I've just looked at the accounts again and noticed that we also have a black-hole in our pension scheme, it's down to -£9 million from -£10.5 million the year before and will be paid back over 10 years, I hope nobodies done a Robert Maxwell.

[Mick]

I think we can all realise that the club is in severe financial difficulty and will be next season too. Ashley and co have made some really bad decisions so far though and that is why I think they aren't up to it. They have been given another chance because there is no other option. Lets hope they have learned and try to right some wrongs come summer. All this still hinges on whether we stay up of course which is a huge gamble on their part. After their previous bad decisions though I'm not sure there is much they could of done about that apart from obviously getting in some better players and keeping Shay.

 

Mistakes have been made and it looks like we're making another with Kinnear, I still think we'd be in a worse position if we didn't have Ashley to bail us out.

[Happy Face]

 

I know Quayside reported it n his finances thread.  But has it ever been confirmed?

 

this link

 

http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2009/01/23/newcastle-united-club-accounts-reveal-state-of-play-61634-22758691/

 

only mentions

 

They show the sports retail tycoon has kept the Magpies afloat with a £100m loan, which would have to be paid back to him by any future new owner.

 

The Journal understands Ashley is not charging any interest on the loan and has also recently pumped £10m of his own money into the clubs’ coffers to help with running costs.

 

A note to the accounts, prepared by Ernst & Young and signed by managing director Derek Llambias reveals Ashley’s fresh £10m investment and states: “This funding, together with newly-agreed bank facilities has been incorporated into the directors’ cash flow forecast for the group.

 

Key points

 

Billionaire's £10m cash-injection

 

The accounts confirm that Ashley paid in £100 million and that was used to pay off loans and also made up the difference between money in and out, the loss.  You've mentioned the extra £10 million which is mentioned in a note.

 

The £10 million loaned this week was mentioned in the Times.

 

I've just looked at the accounts again and noticed that we also have a black-hole in our pension scheme, it's down to -£9 million from -£10.5 million the year before and will be paid back over 10 years, I hope nobodies done a Robert Maxwell.

 

So the only confirmed cash injection Ashley has made (apart from paying off the debt when he arrived which is a loan fully repayable the moment someone else buys, at whatever price.  ie it's value doesn't drop in line with the clubs value) has been the £10M noted on the accounts.

 

Anything else is speculation because they've lied about so much in the past.

 

My head isn't in the sand.  I'm just wanting to look at what we know for sure.

 

I assume that £10M is a loan too.  So Ashley's only liability is the original £138M purchase price that might depriciate.

 

...unless of course he walks away from the club forfeiting all entitlements.

[Mick]

 

So the only confirmed cash injection Ashley has made (apart from paying off the debt when he arrived which is a loan fully repayable the moment someone else buys, at whatever price.  ie it's value doesn't drop in line with the clubs value) has been the £10M noted on the accounts.

 

Anything else is speculation because they've lied about so much in the past.

 

My head isn't in the sand.  I'm just wanting to look at what we know for sure.

 

I assume that £10M is a loan too.  So Ashley's only liability is the original £138M purchase price that might depriciate.

 

...unless of course he walks away from the club forfeiting all entitlements.

 

He's put £40 million in to cover our payments, £30 million is covered in the last set of accounts and £10 million has been reported this week yet you have decided that you'll make a judgement based on nothing. 

 

Regardless of him potentially getting the loans back, we needed the money and Shepherd wasn't in a position to pay that sort of money.

[Pilko]

Stop talking so much sense Mick, you're starting to confuse people.

[Mick]

Stop talking so much sense Mick, you're starting to confuse people.

 

Sorry.  

[Happy Face]

 

So the only confirmed cash injection Ashley has made (apart from paying off the debt when he arrived which is a loan fully repayable the moment someone else buys, at whatever price.  ie it's value doesn't drop in line with the clubs value) has been the £10M noted on the accounts.

 

Anything else is speculation because they've lied about so much in the past.

 

My head isn't in the sand.  I'm just wanting to look at what we know for sure.

 

I assume that £10M is a loan too.  So Ashley's only liability is the original £138M purchase price that might depriciate.

 

...unless of course he walks away from the club forfeiting all entitlements.

 

He's put £40 million in to cover our payments, £30 million is covered in the last set of accounts and £10 million has been reported this week yet you have decided that you'll make a judgement based on nothing. 

 

Regardless of him potentially getting the loans back, we needed the money and Shepherd wasn't in a position to pay that sort of money.

 

Sorry I'm thick.  Where does the £30M figure come from?  Do you have a link?

[Happy Face]

Stop talking so much sense Mick, you're starting to confuse people.

 

It's only confusing because of the lies I've been told about the debt in the past.

 

I only want to know what's been confirmed...and apart from taking Mick's word for it, I can't find a source that quotes £30M from the accounts.

 

If it turns out £30M extra has been loaned to the club, thatr's fine...it doesn't alter the fact that a lot of it is spent on players up front which needn't happen, but Ashley insists on to make it a saleable commodity.

 

While doing that income from the sale of top players is being delayed.

 

I might be daft here too, but in loaning the club money to buy players full whack, up front, isn't Ashley just ensuring that the depreciation doesn't affect him because he gets back EVERYTHING he puts in as a loan(bar the initial purchase price) if he fails?

[UV]

 

So the only confirmed cash injection Ashley has made (apart from paying off the debt when he arrived which is a loan fully repayable the moment someone else buys, at whatever price.  ie it's value doesn't drop in line with the clubs value) has been the £10M noted on the accounts.

 

Anything else is speculation because they've lied about so much in the past.

 

My head isn't in the sand.  I'm just wanting to look at what we know for sure.

 

I assume that £10M is a loan too.  So Ashley's only liability is the original £138M purchase price that might depriciate.

 

...unless of course he walks away from the club forfeiting all entitlements.

 

He's put £40 million in to cover our payments, £30 million is covered in the last set of accounts and £10 million has been reported this week yet you have decided that you'll make a judgement based on nothing. 

 

Regardless of him potentially getting the loans back, we needed the money and Shepherd wasn't in a position to pay that sort of money.

 

As I've tried to say in previous posts, the majority of the money Ashley has loaned the club on top of taking on the £70m debt when he took over is to pay for his decision to pay for players up front rather than stagger the payments as is typical. It's been specifically said that some of  the recent £10m is to cover the up front purchase of Nolan while we've received nothing for Given.

 

A lot of the additional money that Ashley has loaned the club would not have been necessary under the old board or indeed any other owners.

 

Assuming 4 year staggered payments, and starting with Smith as a signing Ashley would have had full control under:

 

Smith + Enrique + Beye + Feye = £16.5m

 

Incoming transfer costs to the club in 07-08 under Ashley = £16.5m

Incoming transfer costs to the club in 07-08 under anyone else = £4.1m

 

Bassong + Guthrie + Coloccini + Xisco + Nolan = £24m

 

Incoming transfer costs to the club in 08-09 under Ashley = £24m

Incoming transfer costs to the club in 08-09 under anyone else = £4.1m + £6m = £10.1m

 

So assuming all other things equal, the club has paid out up to 16.5+24 - (4.1+10.1) = £26.3m more in advance of when strictly necessary (ie if we did it like other clubs) simply due to Ashley's choice to pay up front for players rather than in instalments.

[madras]

 

So the only confirmed cash injection Ashley has made (apart from paying off the debt when he arrived which is a loan fully repayable the moment someone else buys, at whatever price.  ie it's value doesn't drop in line with the clubs value) has been the £10M noted on the accounts.

 

Anything else is speculation because they've lied about so much in the past.

 

My head isn't in the sand.  I'm just wanting to look at what we know for sure.

 

I assume that £10M is a loan too.  So Ashley's only liability is the original £138M purchase price that might depriciate.

 

...unless of course he walks away from the club forfeiting all entitlements.

 

He's put £40 million in to cover our payments, £30 million is covered in the last set of accounts and £10 million has been reported this week yet you have decided that you'll make a judgement based on nothing. 

 

Regardless of him potentially getting the loans back, we needed the money and Shepherd wasn't in a position to pay that sort of money.

 

As I've tried to say in previous posts, the majority of the money Ashley has loaned the club on top of taking on the £70m debt when he took over is to pay for his decision to pay for players up front rather than stagger the payments as is typical. It's been specifically said that some of  the recent £10m is to cover the up front purchase of Nolan while we've received nothing for Given.

 

A lot of the additional money that Ashley has loaned the club would not have been necessary under the old board or indeed any other owners.

 

Assuming 4 year staggered payments, and starting with Smith as a signing Ashley would have had full control under:

 

Smith + Enrique + Beye + Feye = £16.5m

 

Incoming transfer costs to the club in 07-08 under Ashley = £16.5m

Incoming transfer costs to the club in 07-08 under anyone else = £4.1m

 

Bassong + Guthrie + Coloccini + Xisco + Nolan = £24m

 

Incoming transfer costs to the club in 08-09 under Ashley = £24m

Incoming transfer costs to the club in 08-09 under anyone else = £4.1m + £6m = £10.1m

 

So assuming all other things equal, the club has paid out up to 16.5+24 - (4.1+10.1) = £26.3m more in advance of when strictly necessary (ie if we did it like other clubs) simply due to Ashley's choice to pay up front for players rather than in instalments.

but does that mean we'd have had more to spend if he staggered the payments ?

 

 

to me it means that this time next year we'll not have payments to make on the players bought this year...ultimatly in the long run this should be a better way to run any business and you aren't still paying for something 3 or 4 years down the line when your circumstances may have changed dramatically and should make it wasier to react to the current situation.

[Happy Face]

 

So the only confirmed cash injection Ashley has made (apart from paying off the debt when he arrived which is a loan fully repayable the moment someone else buys, at whatever price.  ie it's value doesn't drop in line with the clubs value) has been the £10M noted on the accounts.

 

Anything else is speculation because they've lied about so much in the past.

 

My head isn't in the sand.  I'm just wanting to look at what we know for sure.

 

I assume that £10M is a loan too.  So Ashley's only liability is the original £138M purchase price that might depriciate.

 

...unless of course he walks away from the club forfeiting all entitlements.

 

He's put £40 million in to cover our payments, £30 million is covered in the last set of accounts and £10 million has been reported this week yet you have decided that you'll make a judgement based on nothing. 

 

Regardless of him potentially getting the loans back, we needed the money and Shepherd wasn't in a position to pay that sort of money.

 

As I've tried to say in previous posts, the majority of the money Ashley has loaned the club on top of taking on the £70m debt when he took over is to pay for his decision to pay for players up front rather than stagger the payments as is typical. It's been specifically said that some of  the recent £10m is to cover the up front purchase of Nolan while we've received nothing for Given.

 

A lot of the additional money that Ashley has loaned the club would not have been necessary under the old board or indeed any other owners.

 

Assuming 4 year staggered payments, and starting with Smith as a signing Ashley would have had full control under:

 

Smith + Enrique + Beye + Feye = £16.5m

 

Incoming transfer costs to the club in 07-08 under Ashley = £16.5m

Incoming transfer costs to the club in 07-08 under anyone else = £4.1m

 

Bassong + Guthrie + Coloccini + Xisco + Nolan = £24m

 

Incoming transfer costs to the club in 08-09 under Ashley = £24m

Incoming transfer costs to the club in 08-09 under anyone else = £4.1m + £6m = £10.1m

 

So assuming all other things equal, the club has paid out up to 16.5+24 - (4.1+10.1) = £26.3m more in advance of when strictly necessary (ie if we did it like other clubs) simply due to Ashley's choice to pay up front for players rather than in instalments.

but does that mean we'd have had more to spend if he staggered the payments ?

 

 

to me it means that this time next year we'll not have payments to make on the players bought this year...ultimatly in the long run this should be a better way to run any business and you aren't still paying for something 3 or 4 years down the line when your circumstances may have changed dramatically and should make it wasier to react to the current situation.

 

Using transfer income to spend on transfer outgoings would mean the club is run within it's means and Ashley's return if he sold would depend for the most part on the value of the club.  (The reported £20M loss for 2008 turns into a £6M profit if you use UV's figures)

 

Deferring transfer income, and using loans from Ashley to buy up front in full means that Ashley is assured his money back.

 

So the £20M he's supposed to have put in on top of the initial loan has bought players whose value might drop, Xisco for example. But the £6m Ashley pumped in for him is a loan he's guaranteed to be paid back in full. The club might only recoup £2M from his sale, but Ashley is still owed the full amount.

 

I assume he saw the money being paid out on Luque and thought to himself, "well I'll fund those sorts of signings myself rather than within the club and be guaranteed the return as a money lender irrespective of the success of the player".

[Liam Liam Liam O]

Some of the corporate finance theory on here (particularly over the last 3 pages) could have come direct from the Beano.

[Happy Face]

Some of the corporate finance theory on here (particularly over the last 3 pages) could have come direct from the Beano.

 

Why does Ashley prefer to pay in full in advance, but delay receipt and stagger income then?

[Dave]

Some of the corporate finance theory on here (particularly over the last 3 pages) could have come direct from the Beano.

 

Why does Ashley prefer to pay in full in advance, but delay receipt and stagger income then?

 

The only benefit given so far when I asked that question is that it will help us get players in. Doesn't seem to have helped a great deal to date tbh.

[TRon]

 

So the only confirmed cash injection Ashley has made (apart from paying off the debt when he arrived which is a loan fully repayable the moment someone else buys, at whatever price.  ie it's value doesn't drop in line with the clubs value) has been the £10M noted on the accounts.

 

Anything else is speculation because they've lied about so much in the past.

 

My head isn't in the sand.  I'm just wanting to look at what we know for sure.

 

I assume that £10M is a loan too.  So Ashley's only liability is the original £138M purchase price that might depriciate.

 

...unless of course he walks away from the club forfeiting all entitlements.

 

He's put £40 million in to cover our payments, £30 million is covered in the last set of accounts and £10 million has been reported this week yet you have decided that you'll make a judgement based on nothing. 

 

Regardless of him potentially getting the loans back, we needed the money and Shepherd wasn't in a position to pay that sort of money.

 

As I've tried to say in previous posts, the majority of the money Ashley has loaned the club on top of taking on the £70m debt when he took over is to pay for his decision to pay for players up front rather than stagger the payments as is typical. It's been specifically said that some of  the recent £10m is to cover the up front purchase of Nolan while we've received nothing for Given.

 

A lot of the additional money that Ashley has loaned the club would not have been necessary under the old board or indeed any other owners.

 

Assuming 4 year staggered payments, and starting with Smith as a signing Ashley would have had full control under:

 

Smith + Enrique + Beye + Feye = £16.5m

 

Incoming transfer costs to the club in 07-08 under Ashley = £16.5m

Incoming transfer costs to the club in 07-08 under anyone else = £4.1m

 

Bassong + Guthrie + Coloccini + Xisco + Nolan = £24m

 

Incoming transfer costs to the club in 08-09 under Ashley = £24m

Incoming transfer costs to the club in 08-09 under anyone else = £4.1m + £6m = £10.1m

 

So assuming all other things equal, the club has paid out up to 16.5+24 - (4.1+10.1) = £26.3m more in advance of when strictly necessary (ie if we did it like other clubs) simply due to Ashley's choice to pay up front for players rather than in instalments.

but does that mean we'd have had more to spend if he staggered the payments ?

 

 

to me it means that this time next year we'll not have payments to make on the players bought this year...ultimatly in the long run this should be a better way to run any business and you aren't still paying for something 3 or 4 years down the line when your circumstances may have changed dramatically and should make it wasier to react to the current situation.

 

Using transfer income to spend on transfer outgoings would mean the club is run within it's means and Ashley's return if he sold would depend for the most part on the value of the club.  (The reported £20M loss for 2008 turns into a £6M profit if you use UV's figures)

 

Deferring transfer income, and using loans from Ashley to buy up front in full means that Ashley is assured his money back.

 

So the £20M he's supposed to have put in on top of the initial loan has bought players whose value might drop, Xisco for example. But the £6m Ashley pumped in for him is a loan he's guaranteed to be paid back in full. The club might only recoup £2M from his sale, but Ashley is still owed the full amount.

 

I assume he saw the money being paid out on Luque and thought to himself, "well I'll fund those sorts of signings myself rather than within the club and be guaranteed the return as a money lender irrespective of the success of the player".

 

If he's loaning money, he'd be entitled to getting his money back same way as the banks would. I'm not really sure what advantage he's getting personally out paying the money up front you haven't really made that very clear.

[Liam Liam Liam O]

Some of the corporate finance theory on here (particularly over the last 3 pages) could have come direct from the Beano.

 

Why does Ashley prefer to pay in full in advance, but delay receipt and stagger income then?

 

I imagine it's a statement that in the short to medium term the club annual spend will be firmly within it's annual income + what he's prepared to put in. The days of punting £18m on a centreforward in the hope of creeping into Europe to recoup it are over. The state the clubs been left in leaves little choice in that respect.

 

How do you propose he signs the Luque type players without loaning the club the money?  Are you suggesting there's a better way?

[Happy Face]

 

So the only confirmed cash injection Ashley has made (apart from paying off the debt when he arrived which is a loan fully repayable the moment someone else buys, at whatever price.  ie it's value doesn't drop in line with the clubs value) has been the £10M noted on the accounts.

 

Anything else is speculation because they've lied about so much in the past.

 

My head isn't in the sand.  I'm just wanting to look at what we know for sure.

 

I assume that £10M is a loan too.  So Ashley's only liability is the original £138M purchase price that might depriciate.

 

...unless of course he walks away from the club forfeiting all entitlements.

 

He's put £40 million in to cover our payments, £30 million is covered in the last set of accounts and £10 million has been reported this week yet you have decided that you'll make a judgement based on nothing. 

 

Regardless of him potentially getting the loans back, we needed the money and Shepherd wasn't in a position to pay that sort of money.

 

As I've tried to say in previous posts, the majority of the money Ashley has loaned the club on top of taking on the £70m debt when he took over is to pay for his decision to pay for players up front rather than stagger the payments as is typical. It's been specifically said that some of  the recent £10m is to cover the up front purchase of Nolan while we've received nothing for Given.

 

A lot of the additional money that Ashley has loaned the club would not have been necessary under the old board or indeed any other owners.

 

Assuming 4 year staggered payments, and starting with Smith as a signing Ashley would have had full control under:

 

Smith + Enrique + Beye + Feye = £16.5m

 

Incoming transfer costs to the club in 07-08 under Ashley = £16.5m

Incoming transfer costs to the club in 07-08 under anyone else = £4.1m

 

Bassong + Guthrie + Coloccini + Xisco + Nolan = £24m

 

Incoming transfer costs to the club in 08-09 under Ashley = £24m

Incoming transfer costs to the club in 08-09 under anyone else = £4.1m + £6m = £10.1m

 

So assuming all other things equal, the club has paid out up to 16.5+24 - (4.1+10.1) = £26.3m more in advance of when strictly necessary (ie if we did it like other clubs) simply due to Ashley's choice to pay up front for players rather than in instalments.

but does that mean we'd have had more to spend if he staggered the payments ?

 

 

to me it means that this time next year we'll not have payments to make on the players bought this year...ultimatly in the long run this should be a better way to run any business and you aren't still paying for something 3 or 4 years down the line when your circumstances may have changed dramatically and should make it wasier to react to the current situation.

 

Using transfer income to spend on transfer outgoings would mean the club is run within it's means and Ashley's return if he sold would depend for the most part on the value of the club.  (The reported £20M loss for 2008 turns into a £6M profit if you use UV's figures)

 

Deferring transfer income, and using loans from Ashley to buy up front in full means that Ashley is assured his money back.

 

So the £20M he's supposed to have put in on top of the initial loan has bought players whose value might drop, Xisco for example. But the £6m Ashley pumped in for him is a loan he's guaranteed to be paid back in full. The club might only recoup £2M from his sale, but Ashley is still owed the full amount.

 

I assume he saw the money being paid out on Luque and thought to himself, "well I'll fund those sorts of signings myself rather than within the club and be guaranteed the return as a money lender irrespective of the success of the player".

 

If he's loaning money, he'd be entitled to getting his money back same way as the banks would. I'm not really sure what advantage he's getting personally out paying the money up front you haven't really made that very clear.

 

Absolutley.

 

The way I see it, he's running the club the same as Shepherd.  Borrowing money to pay for things while making a loss.  He's just borrowing from himself and is only left open to risk if he actually takes the club into administration.

 

The difference is Shepherd would borrow money to finance big, ambitious moves.

 

Ashley seems to be borrowing to finance measly purchases that could have been financed by a combination of player sales and staggered payments within the club.

[Happy Face]

Some of the corporate finance theory on here (particularly over the last 3 pages) could have come direct from the Beano.

 

Why does Ashley prefer to pay in full in advance, but delay receipt and stagger income then?

 

I imagine it's a statement that in the short to medium term the club annual spend will be firmly within it's annual income + what he's prepared to put in. The days of punting £18m on a centreforward in the hope of creeping into Europe to recoup it are over. The state the clubs been left in leaves little choice in that respect.

 

How do you propose he signs the Luque type players without loaning the club the money?  Are you suggesting there's a better way?

 

He could ask for the money up front from the richest club in the world when they buy the leagues best keeper from us, or when he gets twice a players value from a team looking to be in the Champions league.

[Liam Liam Liam O]

Some of the corporate finance theory on here (particularly over the last 3 pages) could have come direct from the Beano.

 

Why does Ashley prefer to pay in full in advance, but delay receipt and stagger income then?

 

I imagine it's a statement that in the short to medium term the club annual spend will be firmly within it's annual income + what he's prepared to put in. The days of punting £18m on a centreforward in the hope of creeping into Europe to recoup it are over. The state the clubs been left in leaves little choice in that respect.

 

How do you propose he signs the Luque type players without loaning the club the money?  Are you suggesting there's a better way?

 

He could ask for the money up front from the richest club in the world when they buy the leagues best keeper from us, or when he gets twice a players value from a team looking to be in the Champions league.

 

And if they say no?

[Dave]

We keep the player? Like City did with Johnson, Sunderland did with Richardson, Toulouse did with Ebondo etc.

[Happy Face]

Some of the corporate finance theory on here (particularly over the last 3 pages) could have come direct from the Beano.

 

Why does Ashley prefer to pay in full in advance, but delay receipt and stagger income then?

 

I imagine it's a statement that in the short to medium term the club annual spend will be firmly within it's annual income + what he's prepared to put in. The days of punting £18m on a centreforward in the hope of creeping into Europe to recoup it are over. The state the clubs been left in leaves little choice in that respect.

 

How do you propose he signs the Luque type players without loaning the club the money?  Are you suggesting there's a better way?

 

He could ask for the money up front from the richest club in the world when they buy the leagues best keeper from us, or when he gets twice a players value from a team looking to be in the Champions league.

 

And if they say no?

 

Say no back.

 

Or at least ask for some money down.  Anything.

 

Supposed to be a hard nosed businessman. 

[Dave]

We keep the player? Like City did with Johnson, Sunderland did with Richardson, Toulouse did with Ebondo etc.

 

Eh?

[TRon]

£6m wasn't a huge sum for Given but if Man City didn't buy him, no one else was going to give us any more for a 33 yr old keeper. I just don't think we wanted to keep him that much, Dennis Wise putting the blocks on Krul's move to Feyenoord in the summer might be a clue.