Martin Gray

[Spyman]

Finishing mid-table because we spent a season living within our means would be far more palatable than overspending on a top 5 squad but not being able to afford promotion as a result.

In your scenario Pete, what happens in 18/19 if we fail to go up next season because of ground grading? Chuck more money at the squad?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[Darlo_Pete]

We're going around in circles with the same old arguments, I'm sure I won't convince you that each is as important as each other and you're not going to convince me that the new stand is the be all that ends all. So we'll just have to accept that each other has a right to their opinions.

[Darlogramps]

We're going around in circles with the same old arguments, I'm sure I won't convince you that each is as important as each other and you're not going to convince me that the new stand is the be all that ends all. So we'll just have to accept that each other has a right to their opinions.

Answer the question.

What do we do in 18/19 if we fail to go up this season because our ground is sub-standard?

[Darlo_Pete]

We'll just carry on like we are doing this season, we would have no choice. I do expect us to have the stand built in time, to make your question irrelevant.

[Darlogramps]

We'll just carry on like we are doing this season, we would have no choice. I do expect us to have the stand built in time, to make your question irrelevant.

"In time." You really are being vacuous.

How long do you propose it goes on for? Several years?

To demonstrate the weakness of your argument, you're saying you're happy to get into the play-offs but not have a ground which allows us to compete in them.

And you also seem to expect fans, players and management to hang around if this is repeated year after year. Again, this is palpably nonsensical and without logic.

If we stay in this division until our ground is up-to-standard, players will leave for clubs who are able to be promoted, as would the management.

As a result, the crowds would drop away, making it more difficult to fund improvements.

There is no sense in further investing in a promotion push if we're not eligible to be promoted. Particularly when we have a competitive enough squad as it is.

It maybe a matter of opinion, but you do need to justify it. You've not provided any coherent, logical reasoning or evidence to back yourself up.

[Beano]

Finishing mid-table because we spent a season living within our means would be far more palatable than overspending on a top 5 squad but not being able to afford promotion as a result.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

THIS. THIS. THIS.

[meadowlark]

Wish I was a smart arse like darlogramps with all his big words etc, and his insistence that every comment you make on here has to be backed up with coherent, logical evidence.
Just maybe when darlopete said he believed the new stand would be finished in time, he meant in time to meet the league requirements for promotion this season, rather than a more open ` in the fullnesss of time` .But of course if you dont spell it out that way you open the door for someone to try and knock you down.

[Darlogramps]

Just maybe when darlopete said he believed the new stand would be finished in time, he meant in time to meet the league requirements for promotion this season, rather than a more open ` in the fullnesss of time` .But of course if you dont spell it out that way you open the door for someone to try and knock you down.

If Pete had meant he believes the stand would be completed this season, he should have said that clearly. He didn't because he's not sure himself. "In time" is very vague.

Sure he loves you riding to his rescue though.

Wish I was a smart arse like darlogramps with all his big words etc, and his insistence that every comment you make on here has to be backed up with coherent, logical evidence.

I know, how shocking that I use words longer than 6 letters and ask for people to explain the logic behind their opinions.

Given that it threatens you so much, perhaps you could lobby the moderators to incorporate an authoritarian exclusion on anyone using words longer than 9 letters.

In all seriousness, if you want to have a row with me, there's plenty in my opinions to have a go at.

But don't start getting upset because I use mid-length words and ask for people to be coherent in their arguments.

That really is you embarrassing yourself and suggests you have contempt for anyone who's even mildly intelligent. Or more likely, you're not the brightest and feel threatened by it.

Which of my longer words did you get so offended by?

[H1987]

Squabbling aside, Darlogramps is right. What difference does one season make. Get the stadium up to code and then we should spend more money on the squad. If anything, i'd support cutting the budget slightly to stop fans having to keep making donations to build a stand.

Likewise any winnings from a cup run should go on the stadium, not the squad. Once that is done, then absolutely, but we should have learned from last year. We can't (and arguably shouldn't be trying) to have our cake and eat it.

[Darlogramps]

Squabbling aside, Darlogramps is right. What difference does one season make. Get the stadium up to code and then we should spend more money on the squad. If anything, i'd support cutting the budget slightly to stop fans having to keep making donations to build a stand.

Likewise any winnings from a cup run should go on the stadium, not the squad. Once that is done, then absolutely, but we should have learned from last year. We can't (and arguably shouldn't be trying) to have our cake and eat it.

Exactly. I haven't seen anyone put forward a plausible counter argument.

Our funding appears to have stalled, and we're only around halfway through funding the entire project.

Which makes it even more imperative to focus on the ground, not the squad.

[Darlofan97]

Squabbling aside, Darlogramps is right. What difference does one season make. Get the stadium up to code and then we should spend more money on the squad. If anything, i'd support cutting the budget slightly to stop fans having to keep making donations to build a stand.

Likewise any winnings from a cup run should go on the stadium, not the squad. Once that is done, then absolutely, but we should have learned from last year. We can't (and arguably shouldn't be trying) to have our cake and eat it.

Cutting the budget slightly to stop fans making donations to build a stand? Bearing in mind that a new 250 seated stand would cost us around £127k, then how much of a "slight" budget cut do you expect to make? It would be an appox. 70% budget cut from the playing squad, or 50% from the playing staff & squad.

[shawry]

Squabbling aside, Darlogramps is right. What difference does one season make. Get the stadium up to code and then we should spend more money on the squad. If anything, i'd support cutting the budget slightly to stop fans having to keep making donations to build a stand.

Likewise any winnings from a cup run should go on the stadium, not the squad. Once that is done, then absolutely, but we should have learned from last year. We can't (and arguably shouldn't be trying) to have our cake and eat it.

Cutting the budget slightly to stop fans making donations to build a stand? Bearing in mind that a new 250 seated stand would cost us around £127k, then how much of a "slight" budget cut do you expect to make? It would be an appox. 70% budget cut from the playing squad, or 50% from the playing staff & squad.

the phrase was more along the lines of "stop the fans having to keep making donations"

meaning reducing what the fans need to raise

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

[Darlofan97]

The "we should spend money on the ground and not the squad argument" is too simplistic.

As pointed at above, a new seated stand would cost us around £127k to construct (which equates to around 37% of our turnover).

Would it be entirely feasible to cut the budget by this amount and funnel this turnover in to constructing a new stand? As also mentioned above, it would be around a 70% cut on our playing squad or a 50% cut on our playing staff.

Even if that amount is halved, you are still looking at significant cut backs.

Perhaps fans are also forgetting that we still have around 3 months to reach the target for Phase 2 for the steel work and cladding.

As far as I am aware, the budget has stayed around the same level as last season, and we have only brought in one player over the summer. The current squad is hardly's over-flowing with players (19, which you would have to say is about right).

With the budget remaining the same, then it gives us a greater chance of retaining interest towards the back-end of the season, reaching the play-offs or going on a good cup-run. This all equals more revenue for the club.

I am fairly confident that we can both have a playing squad capable of reaching the play-offs, and a ground ready for promotion in April 2018. It is a fine-balancing act for the club.

[Darlofan97]

Squabbling aside, Darlogramps is right. What difference does one season make. Get the stadium up to code and then we should spend more money on the squad. If anything, i'd support cutting the budget slightly to stop fans having to keep making donations to build a stand.

Likewise any winnings from a cup run should go on the stadium, not the squad. Once that is done, then absolutely, but we should have learned from last year. We can't (and arguably shouldn't be trying) to have our cake and eat it.

Cutting the budget slightly to stop fans making donations to build a stand? Bearing in mind that a new 250 seated stand would cost us around £127k, then how much of a "slight" budget cut do you expect to make? It would be an appox. 70% budget cut from the playing squad, or 50% from the playing staff & squad.

the phrase was more along the lines of "stop the fans having to keep making donations"

meaning reducing what the fans need to raise

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

We have around £82,000 still to raise.

If the club were to cut this from the budget right now, then it would have a huge impact. More than what people would think, IMO.

[Spyman]

The "we should spend money on the ground and not the squad argument" is too simplistic.

As pointed at above, a new seated stand would cost us around £127k to construct (which equates to around 37% of our turnover).

Would it be entirely feasible to cut the budget by this amount and funnel this turnover in to constructing a new stand? As also mentioned above, it would be around a 70% cut on our playing squad or a 50% cut on our playing staff.

Even if that amount is halved, you are still looking at significant cut backs.

Perhaps fans are also forgetting that we still have around 3 months to reach the target for Phase 2 for the steel work and cladding.

As far as I am aware, the budget has stayed around the same level as last season, and we have only brought in one player over the summer. The current squad is hardly's over-flowing with players (19, which you would have to say is about right).

With the budget remaining the same, then it gives us a greater chance of retaining interest towards the back-end of the season, reaching the play-offs or going on a good cup-run. This all equals more revenue for the club.

I am fairly confident that we can both have a playing squad capable of reaching the play-offs, and a ground ready for promotion in April 2018. It is a fine-balancing act for the club.

We already have the squad capable of reaching the playoffs. That's the whole point that is being made if you read the thread.

Nobody is suggesting we release half the squad, but the crux of it is that we know we have a squad that can challenge, because it's virtually the same squad as last season. Therefore there is no point strengthening it further. Any further expenditure should go on the ground because we know for a fact our ground is not good enough for a promotion challenge.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[Darlofan97]

The budget is at the same level as last season - therefore no more expenditure.

The squad is almost virtually the same as last season, apart from we have let go 2 over the summer in Wilczynski & Falkingham and only brought in one so far. It would be virtually the same if it was two in, two out. However, you seem to be objecting to strengthening further by bringing another player in, despite that meaning we have brought in 2 and released 2 thus keeping the squad as the same as last season, for some reason.

[al_quaker]

The budget is at the same level as last season - therefore no more expenditure.

The squad is almost virtually the same as last season, apart from we have let go 2 over the summer in Wilczynski & Falkingham and only brought in one so far. It would be virtually the same if it was two in, two out. However, you seem to be objecting to strengthening further by bringing another player in, despite that meaning we have brought in 2 and released 2 thus keeping the squad as the same as last season, for some reason.

The point is we don't need to strengthen further to have a good season - our squad as it stands now is good enough to at least challenge for a playoff place.

Not having the correct infrastructure once nearly split this club in 2. I dread to think what will happen if it occurs again. The fundraising has basically stopped (hopefully it picks up again - surely there are more than 93 people capable of chipping in to build an essential stand?!), so as it stands, the money will have to come from the club.

I could sort of understand the argument earlier in pre-season when it looked like we were going to have a reduced budget, and it was a balancing act between a decent team and infrastructure investment. But we now know are going to have a more than decent team next season.

Of course in an ideal world we'd all like to bring more players in and strengthen even further. However, a new player isn't necessary for us to have a good season on the pitch, whereas the stand is completely necessary to the future of this club. Therefore, would signing another player really the best use of the clubs funds?

[lo36789]

The squad is almost virtually the same as last season, apart from we have let go 2 over the summer in Wilczynski & Falkingham and only brought in one so far. It would be virtually the same if it was two in, two out. However, you seem to be objecting to strengthening further by bringing another player in, despite that meaning we have brought in 2 and released 2 thus keeping the squad as the same as last season, for some reason.

You seem to be conveniently missing Jameson out. He has come 'in' aswell last I checked he wasnt available for selection at the end of last season.

[Spyman]

The budget is at the same level as last season - therefore no more expenditure.

The squad is almost virtually the same as last season, apart from we have let go 2 over the summer in Wilczynski & Falkingham and only brought in one so far. It would be virtually the same if it was two in, two out. However, you seem to be objecting to strengthening further by bringing another player in, despite that meaning we have brought in 2 and released 2 thus keeping the squad as the same as last season, for some reason.

We've also basically added Wearmouth, as well as Portas. Also Ferguson and Bartlett who were not with us for half of the season. The two that have left were not regular starters or at least not integral players and have both been replaced.

We've also added one more central defender than we had last season, an experienced and no doubt reasonably well paid one.

Tell me in what position you think we are weaker than last season.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[Darlofan97]

The budget is at the same level as last season - therefore no more expenditure.

The squad is almost virtually the same as last season, apart from we have let go 2 over the summer in Wilczynski & Falkingham and only brought in one so far. It would be virtually the same if it was two in, two out. However, you seem to be objecting to strengthening further by bringing another player in, despite that meaning we have brought in 2 and released 2 thus keeping the squad as the same as last season, for some reason.

We've also basically added Wearmouth, as well as Portas. Also Ferguson and Bartlett who were not with us for half of the season. The two that have left were not regular starters or at least not integral players and have both been replaced.

We've also added one more central defender than we had last season, an experienced and no doubt reasonably well paid one.

Tell me in what position you think we are weaker than last season.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

For all we added Bartlett & Ferguson to last season's squad, I do remember activity at the exit door with Watson & Nowakowski leaving.

Hardy then left for a good fee which allowed us to bring in Wilczynski + one more.

In regards to one position I feel we are weaker last season, I would have to say centre forward. We started last season with Beck, Hardy, Cartman & Purewal. This season we have Beck, Cartman and Saunders (who is still only young). Perhaps Gray knows this and this is why he's having a look at another centre forward as reported in the Echo.

The "we shouldn't look to strengthen now because we finished in the play-offs last year" arguement is rubbish as other teams are strengthening significantly and we have another additional 2 full-time sides to deal with next year in Salford & Harrogate.

Why wouldn't Gray look to strengthen his squad further this summer within a budget set by the board? The idea that he should stop now because we finished 5th last season doesn't hold as it is a different league next year.

If we are in a position in Jan / Feb 2018 where we have a squad ready for promotion, but not a ground, then I will question the allocation of MG's budget then. As it stands I am fairly confident we can reach the targets set for the new stand.

I have no issues with Gray strengthening the squad further this summer within his budget that has been allocated by the Board.

[shawry]

the problem is if we haven't raised the money by then it's too late, we are gambling again...that isn't how you live within your means

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

[Darlofan97]

The squad is almost virtually the same as last season, apart from we have let go 2 over the summer in Wilczynski & Falkingham and only brought in one so far. It would be virtually the same if it was two in, two out. However, you seem to be objecting to strengthening further by bringing another player in, despite that meaning we have brought in 2 and released 2 thus keeping the squad as the same as last season, for some reason.

You seem to be conveniently missing Jameson out. He has come 'in' aswell last I checked he wasnt available for selection at the end of last season.

Pete was available on the last game against Salford.

We currently have a squad of around 19, including Saunders who is relatively young. If you compare this to the opening day last season, we had a squad size of 21.

[lo36789]

Pete was available on the last game against Salford.

Seriously? Not sure why I am even justifying that with a response...

My point is Jameson is in terms of squad number and extra one in and Ed has gone. In the same way when Bartlett came in Jameson went out.

I don't disagree that a new striker would be helpful, though not sure how you get a quality striker in who is prepared to just sit on the bench behind Beck & Cartman.

I still think that we are a goalkeeper too heavy (3) though. We still have that other lad don't we?

[Spyman]

The budget is at the same level as last season - therefore no more expenditure.

The squad is almost virtually the same as last season, apart from we have let go 2 over the summer in Wilczynski & Falkingham and only brought in one so far. It would be virtually the same if it was two in, two out. However, you seem to be objecting to strengthening further by bringing another player in, despite that meaning we have brought in 2 and released 2 thus keeping the squad as the same as last season, for some reason.

We've also basically added Wearmouth, as well as Portas. Also Ferguson and Bartlett who were not with us for half of the season. The two that have left were not regular starters or at least not integral players and have both been replaced.

We've also added one more central defender than we had last season, an experienced and no doubt reasonably well paid one.

Tell me in what position you think we are weaker than last season.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

For all we added Bartlett & Ferguson to last season's squad, I do remember activity at the exit door with Watson & Nowakowski leaving.

Hardy then left for a good fee which allowed us to bring in Wilczynski + one more.

In regards to one position I feel we are weaker last season, I would have to say centre forward. We started last season with Beck, Hardy, Cartman & Purewal. This season we have Beck, Cartman and Saunders (who is still only young). Perhaps Gray knows this and this is why he's having a look at another centre forward as reported in the Echo.

The "we shouldn't look to strengthen now because we finished in the play-offs last year" arguement is rubbish as other teams are strengthening significantly and we have another additional 2 full-time sides to deal with next year in Salford & Harrogate.

Why wouldn't Gray look to strengthen his squad further this summer within a budget set by the board? The idea that he should stop now because we finished 5th last season doesn't hold as it is a different league next year.

If we are in a position in Jan / Feb 2018 where we have a squad ready for promotion, but not a ground, then I will question the allocation of MG's budget then. As it stands I am fairly confident we can reach the targets set for the new stand.

I have no issues with Gray strengthening the squad further this summer within his budget that has been allocated by the Board.

We could feasibly finish 7th next season and 'qualify' but not be able to compete in the play-offs because the ground is not good enough.

We have a squad now that we are pretty sure is good enough to challenge for at least the top 7. Ignoring other teams and whether the league is stronger, the squad we have should be capable of challenging for top 7 - there's no denying it regardless of whether we've lost a couple or gained a couple. The core is the same, if not stronger. Players that you mention that have left - Purewal, Hardy, Ed, Nowakowski, Watson, were barely more than fringe players when they left.

So why not stick with the squad we have now, which you say is funded similarly to last season, give them the opportunity to have us in or around the play-offs while we focus on getting the ground up to scratch. If it looks like that will happen and we're competitive in January, that's the time to look to strengthen on the pitch to ensure we have a chance of promotion.

If we're still miles of funding the ground then we've not wasted money on players that we ultimately don't need.

Martin 'football academy' Gray should be blooding some youngsters to provide cover for the strong core squad we have rather than going out and signing players that relegate the current, strong enough, core to the bench.

[H1987]

Squabbling aside, Darlogramps is right. What difference does one season make. Get the stadium up to code and then we should spend more money on the squad. If anything, i'd support cutting the budget slightly to stop fans having to keep making donations to build a stand.

Likewise any winnings from a cup run should go on the stadium, not the squad. Once that is done, then absolutely, but we should have learned from last year. We can't (and arguably shouldn't be trying) to have our cake and eat it.

Cutting the budget slightly to stop fans making donations to build a stand? Bearing in mind that a new 250 seated stand would cost us around £127k, then how much of a "slight" budget cut do you expect to make? It would be an appox. 70% budget cut from the playing squad, or 50% from the playing staff & squad.

the phrase was more along the lines of "stop the fans having to keep making donations"

meaning reducing what the fans need to raise

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

We have around £82,000 still to raise.

If the club were to cut this from the budget right now, then it would have a huge impact. More than what people would think, IMO.

I think it's quite obvious I wasn't implying cut the entire amount

[don'tbuythesun]

It would be great if we could see the ground covered in dozens of signs for businesses, wouldn't it? at £600-700 a go we would have a extra £18,000 plus with just 30 of them. Half a pitch for the new stand!

[Allan Quatermain]

The budget is at the same level as last season - therefore no more expenditure.

The squad is almost virtually the same as last season, apart from we have let go 2 over the summer in Wilczynski & Falkingham and only brought in one so far. It would be virtually the same if it was two in, two out. However, you seem to be objecting to strengthening further by bringing another player in, despite that meaning we have brought in 2 and released 2 thus keeping the squad as the same as last season, for some reason.

We've also basically added Wearmouth, as well as Portas. Also Ferguson and Bartlett who were not with us for half of the season. The two that have left were not regular starters or at least not integral players and have both been replaced.

We've also added one more central defender than we had last season, an experienced and no doubt reasonably well paid one.

Tell me in what position you think we are weaker than last season.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

For all we added Bartlett & Ferguson to last season's squad, I do remember activity at the exit door with Watson & Nowakowski leaving.

Hardy then left for a good fee which allowed us to bring in Wilczynski + one more.

In regards to one position I feel we are weaker last season, I would have to say centre forward. We started last season with Beck, Hardy, Cartman & Purewal. This season we have Beck, Cartman and Saunders (who is still only young). Perhaps Gray knows this and this is why he's having a look at another centre forward as reported in the Echo.

The "we shouldn't look to strengthen now because we finished in the play-offs last year" arguement is rubbish as other teams are strengthening significantly and we have another additional 2 full-time sides to deal with next year in Salford & Harrogate.

Why wouldn't Gray look to strengthen his squad further this summer within a budget set by the board? The idea that he should stop now because we finished 5th last season doesn't hold as it is a different league next year.

If we are in a position in Jan / Feb 2018 where we have a squad ready for promotion, but not a ground, then I will question the allocation of MG's budget then. As it stands I am fairly confident we can reach the targets set for the new stand.

I have no issues with Gray strengthening the squad further this summer within his budget that has been allocated by the Board.

We could feasibly finish 7th next season and 'qualify' but not be able to compete in the play-offs because the ground is not good enough.

We have a squad now that we are pretty sure is good enough to challenge for at least the top 7. Ignoring other teams and whether the league is stronger, the squad we have should be capable of challenging for top 7 - there's no denying it regardless of whether we've lost a couple or gained a couple. The core is the same, if not stronger. Players that you mention that have left - Purewal, Hardy, Ed, Nowakowski, Watson, were barely more than fringe players when they left.

So why not stick with the squad we have now, which you say is funded similarly to last season, give them the opportunity to have us in or around the play-offs while we focus on getting the ground up to scratch. If it looks like that will happen and we're competitive in January, that's the time to look to strengthen on the pitch to ensure we have a chance of promotion.

If we're still miles of funding the ground then we've not wasted money on players that we ultimately don't need.

Martin 'football academy' Gray should be blooding some youngsters to provide cover for the strong core squad we have rather than going out and signing players that relegate the current, strong enough, core to the bench.

It would be good for that blooding to happen however, my understanding (which may be wrong) is that the MGFA is exactly that, an independent academy and not a DFC asset so DFC has no call or rights to any of the players being trained in it. MG has a responsibility to those youths, and to their parents, to get them the best start in the game he can possibly achieve. If that means they are looked at by local (or even not so local) professional clubs, he must allow that to happen rather than take the most promising for DFC.

To be honest, I think the marketing of the academy suggests there is a closer link to DFC than there really is and I'm surprised they are allowed to be seen as representing the football club and to play in DFC strips.

Happy to be contradicted if that's not the case though. Divas, over to you...

[Spyman]

To be honest I'm not even talking about bringing players in from the academy. I'm talking about bringing players through from our own youth teams, which do exist.

You'd think someone who runs a youth academy, independent or not, would want to build a reputation as a manager who gives youth a chance. Martin Gray's record in doing so is quite frankly very poor and you get the impression he'd always rather take the easy option of spending money on an experienced player rather than giving a youngster a chance.

Developing our own talent not only reduces the need to spend money on established players, whether transfer fees or wages, but also gives the opportunity to generate revenue by selling promising youngsters - although there's no guaranteed income from this it is exactly the sort of thing we need to do if we're going to thrive and become self-sufficient.

[Allan Quatermain]

To be honest I'm not even talking about bringing players in from the academy. I'm talking about bringing players through from our own youth teams, which do exist.

You'd think someone who runs a youth academy, independent or not, would want to build a reputation as a manager who gives youth a chance. Martin Gray's record in doing so is quite frankly very poor and you get the impression he'd always rather take the easy option of spending money on an experienced player rather than giving a youngster a chance.

Developing our own talent not only reduces the need to spend money on established players, whether transfer fees or wages, but also gives the opportunity to generate revenue by selling promising youngsters - although there's no guaranteed income from this it is exactly the sort of thing we need to do if we're going to thrive and become self-sufficient.

Good points all round.

[Emdubya]

To be honest I'm not even talking about bringing players in from the academy. I'm talking about bringing players through from our own youth teams, which do exist.

You'd think someone who runs a youth academy, independent or not, would want to build a reputation as a manager who gives youth a chance. Martin Gray's record in doing so is quite frankly very poor and you get the impression he'd always rather take the easy option of spending money on an experienced player rather than giving a youngster a chance.

Developing our own talent not only reduces the need to spend money on established players, whether transfer fees or wages, but also gives the opportunity to generate revenue by selling promising youngsters - although there's no guaranteed income from this it is exactly the sort of thing we need to do if we're going to thrive and become self-sufficient.

Have you considered for a second that the kids from the youth setup are not ready for first team action yet?.Saunders is close but not the finished article yet,Milburn is a good prospect as well but again not ready for the step up.Or should we just put them in anyway and watch them get mauled so people like you can say Gray doesn't have a clue and we should sack him.
The youth system at the club hasn't been established for very long and it can take years for good young players to come through.And don't forget that we aren't starting with the cream,they are already at Boro,Sunderland and the like.