Erik Barmack

Hey, David, I don't feel like I'm getting it from all sides. I think you're asking good questions, and I'll try to answer them concisely. (I will say, on the Dragon's Den front, that answering questions on a message board is quite different than presenting a business plan. For us a business plan would take months, and require way more input than we have right now. I'm guessing we have 10% of the info we need, and the goal is to get a few more percentage points each day, but that's quite different than pitching something where you have all the info, and you've worked on the business for years -- all of which is to say, I'd ask you to consider the context of the medium we're on, and we're not claiming to have all the precise answers today.) On my track record: (1) I was an early and aggressive advocate of international content at Netflix, and started the group that did non-English originals. This seems obvious as a growth area now, but it wasn't at the time, and it allowed us to work on shows like DARK, MONEY HEIST, SACRED GAMES and others, which fundamentally altered the trajectory of how we grew in international markets. (2) I also advocated for sports content earlier, with lesser success, and specifically helped set up DRIVE TO SURVIVE with an old colleague from ESPN. I think it's fair to say that this series contributed to renewed interest in F1. (3) More recently, I was able to launch my own production company during a time when the market is contracting, and to make shows in the first three years of our existence in Scotland, Canada, the US, Brazil, Mexico, Chile, France, India, Japan, Spain, Sweden, and other countries not yet announced. This isn't super-easy to do as a new business, and we've done it with limited resources. (4) Prior to joining Netflix, I was employee #1 at one of the first fantasy sports companies online, and we were able to establish a profitable business with media partners and leagues from around the world. Courtney, meanwhile, has worked at Google and Snap, and done lots on the operations side of tech that I think is relevant and interesting to MFC. And taking what she's done with 1-4 above, I would say none of these are things that happened over the short-term. They were all multi-year efforts that required persistence and some level of strategy. Communication, in most of the context above, requires explaining to partners and/or stakeholders within a business why certain risks should be taken (a TV show is an inherent risk), and what success looks like (this is usually defined by user growth or engagement -- not exactly the same as a football club, but not entirely different, either). On the specifics of club ownership, I cannot provide assurances that are specific because we've never attempted to invest in a club before. On that level, the deal has to be right, and with protections in place to make sure that our interests are aligned with the interests of the club. I do think running small businesses could be relevant, as is working in big media (Netflix) and for big sports (ESPN). But that feeling should be balanced with experts (I think highly of Brian) and community advocates (I think highly of the WS Board, even when they disagree with me). On fan ownership, I think your point is basically right, which is that we missed a layer in how we viewed fan ownership. We need to adjust based on this feedback, which we'll do. In this case, some of this thinking has been provided to people on the WS Board, as well as the Club. I don't believe that we got it right. So we have to change this piece. As for other initiatives outside of media, I support the notion that capital should go to long-term improvements to the Club. One would be a better CRM platform -- if you can't track user data, you can't improve your long-term relationships with customers over time. Another would be seeing whether Fir Park could be used for more activities during the week, and whether the training facilities could have a better medium-term fix (this isn't my idea, but something that several stake-holders, including Brian and @Vietnam91, have shared, and one in which is an example where a little capital could lead to significant improvements). But if you accept my theory on its face, which is that our goal is to get the best ideas out here, then listing a bunch of initiatives runs against it. In a previous note, I suggested 10 areas that I'd look into (just making sure you read that post), but at least 5 of those might be bad ideas. Being more specific without discussions could make us sound smart (or quite dull), but it would run against the basic idea I have here, which is that we should be using our strengths to iterate and improve, and that the ideas need to be coming from multiple sources for us, collectively, to be fully growing the Club. Taking off for a flight, so TBC.

This is our Halloween costume for the upcoming year.

Hey, All -- I just wanted to clarify a few points: What we've proposed, strategically, isn't all that "tech-bro-y". To condense it, it would be as follows: (1) We think the Club can grow through smart media creation and media tie-ins. (2) We think that the Club could be more global in its scope and ambition. (3) We think that the Club could leverage tech platforms to improve customer-retention, communications, and upsells. (4) We think that we would be decent at communicating with key stakeholders and would work hard. (5) We think that capital could help with other ways that would help solidify the Club and/or make the Club grow. I think we have a reasonable track record that would support us being decent at these initiatives, especially if done in conjunction with Brian and TWS Board (and yes, engaged fans on this board, too). But nothing in 1-5 precludes a bunch of other ways that the Club could and should grow. I'm as excited about Brian's ideas and TWS's ideas as our own. Our goal is to marry what we're decent at, with capital, and the thoughts of Brian/TWS. Nowhere do we believe that we should pursue quick fixes, huge boom/bust player acquisition cycles, AI for the sake of AI, and celebrities. Almost all of what we're proposing would require very hard work (even making a docu-series is quite labor intensive) and there's no easy solve here. And we don't believe that there's some quick flip of a business, nor are we really interested in thinking that way. The claims of ulterior motives don't align with the idea that a) the SPFL is historically not a place where anyone makes "easy money" and b) our desire to be engaged in this community and invest in a way that makes it difficult, if not impossible, to extract any value short-term. We do think that the Club should be fan-owned, and understand that what we proposed doesn't 100% fit that based, frankly, on the feedback from TWS Board and this message board. That should be changed. On that note, our goal isn't to have a flawless approach to MFC -- it's to engage, improve and communicate when we've missed the mark. I believe an update will be going out Monday, and I hope that this update aligns with many of the conversations we've had here. E

@David1979, thanks for these questions. I'm going to try to answer as many of them as I can briefly. My ask here is that we can expand on many of these topics, and that I'm sticking to 2-3 sentences per topic in the name of not turning this thread into a Tolstoy novel. So here goes, in terms of long term projects, here are a few considerations. This is by no means an exhaustive list. And I'm pretty convinced that the best ideas will come from interactions with TWS Board and fans who are passionate about the Club. Secondarily, my theory from Netflix is that you need to have a lot of ideas, and you need to "fail quickly" on the bad ones, and that ideas that are risky, low-cost and fast, with some upside should almost always be tried. So when we talk about "success," I'm not going to give you great answers on each project, but each one should have enough potential to change the business by 100k pounds+. Paramount to this strategy is that we should always have a queue of new ideas incoming that are 10-20 deep, and that mostly improves based on what's worked already. That (partially) answers your "measure of success" question, which is that good businesses should be constantly trying and failing. Here are some things I'd like to try -- I'm going to start with 10 as conversation points (and the focus of this list is by no means the "best ideas" for the club, as there are several ideas for football ops and already well in progress, I think, by TWS -- so I've tried to focus on ideas that may be a bit farther afield, for now): (1) On Predictive AI ... this is a topic that can easily go down the wrong track, but there's generative AI (think Chat GPT "creating content") and predictive AI (think of Amazon deciding what ad to place in your queue). I'm mostly interested in predictive AI, which can be used to implement better ticketing campaigns (if it knows something about our users), upsells, merch sales, determine the frequency of correspondence per person, and so on. Your database should not be static, but always learning, and in MFC's particular case, there's 13k+ people who have had season tickets at some point, but currently don't. Reaching 5% of them means we'd be up 20% y-o-y on season ticket sales, which passes the, "could this be worth 100k or more?" test. Predictive AI tools can be implemented for single thousands of dollars (and we've worked with companies that are good at this). (2) On TV ... yes, I think I a docu-series can be made. I've been approached by a broadcaster. That model has some revenue attached to the show, some distribution rights that could stick with the club, and it would pass the 100k test, and, more importantly, get MFC known as a brand to more people outside of Scotland. That could have big implications beyond a simple licensing revenue stream. (3) On Player Media Amplification ... I believe that, between our experiences at Netflix, Youtube, and Snap, we'd be able to put players in touch with experts to help them build their own content in a way that's not expensive to the Club. Wrexham has used this as a recruiting tool in a way that's not insignificant. Players want to understand how they can expand their own brands, and it will be valuable for the Club to sell product tie-ins and sponsorships. This one, I don't have a target business case against, but feel strongly that it would differentiate MFC over time with minimal investment. (4) On TWS (ex-Scotland) ... The Caledonian Braves have a platform that's raised 1m dollars this year. They are in the 5th division. Their stadium is in Motherwell. What they've done has made their platform accessible and entertaining for Americans (and others). Part of this is that they're on a platform that's easier for Americans, and part of this is that their value proposition is clearer for Americans, but I believe implementing a platform for better fan engagement (combined with #2 and #3, and investors below) could lead to bigger engagement abroad, which would strengthen, not weaken, TWS. (5) On TWS Tools (Generally) ... a more engaged TWS will lead to better ideas, more fun, and higher engagement on activities that could drive revenue to the Club. That means weekly video meetings, more ability to vote on things, greater access to talent within the Club, and clearer engagement around communal activities. As an example, there's tons of evidence to suggest that a fan who is part of a vote on the look of a kit is much more likely to buy that kit. Nike has done a ton of work on this, and I believe that the more TWS is a platform for fan engagement, the higher the revenue around that engagement will be. (But I think this will take awhile to prove out.) (6) On integrated sponsorships ... There's a pretty thriving market here for celebrities who a) like sports and b) want to push branded products into integrated marketing approaches, which suits sports fairly well. Those include musicians who have new liquor lines, and things of that nature. I think we can tap into some of these opportunities. And again, if we're building 1-5 well, the question then becomes can we work on marketing deals with brands that are a bit more global, but still integrated into local sports? (7) On Using Players/Coaches/Talents to Promote Season Ticket Sales/Other Sales: This relates partially to #1 and partially to #3, but there's increasing value for celebrities (or, in this case, players) being involved in helping a club achieve certain sales goals. The challenge is that players are stretched thin for time, so you want to optimize how and when they can be used for, say, a season ticket push, and also incentivize them financially to help. Here technology matters to maximize the use of their time, as well as to create the proper incentive structure. (8) On In Game Experiences ... When Tottenham moved to its new stadium, they managed to get the average person there for over 40 minutes longer, which had significant gameday revenue implications. I don't know enough about how to make this change within Fir Park, but pre-game acoustic concerts, post-game radio/podcasts or Q+As at particular places, local food vendors -- I think there has to be some thinking that extending the time spent in or around Fir Park is a measurable and objective goal that would lead to more revenue over time. (9) On Stadium Sponsorships ... No, I don't want to be a dumb American here, but over half of the SPFL has some sort of stadium sponsorship. I think there may be some cost to finding the right package to present, and the right branding implementation. But I wonder if this is an idea worth investigating if the right positioning can be achieved. (10) On Improving the Value of TWS/Season Tickets within Motherwell: @Vietnam91 pointed this out to me a long time ago, and I agree with him that there's a big opportunity to provide discounts locally for people who are invested in season tickets and or TWS. It's a win for the stores to increase business, and, with restaurants, if you have a family, you can justify season tickets by getting, say, 3 pounds off per meal per kid -- it adds up quickly. This isn't a new idea, but something that I think requires some sweat and technology, and is important to the community. Again, I've tried to focus on ideas that are slightly more in my domain here -- I don't think all of them are the biggest ideas. Brian Caldwell, I know, has at least 10 ideas as big as these worth investing time and thought into, as does TWS, as does this Board. In a sense, culture will always beat individual ideas, and a culture where we can debate and try things wins over one in which we're endlessly stuck on a few fixed ideas. So, before you shoot half of these ideas down, I'd say, "That's the point." We need 30-40 ideas, picking 10, and getting a new set every few months. @David1979, If it's okay with you, I'll split your thread into multiple answers, so that each one can have its own discussion. My next answer (on investors) will come after my F**cking kids stop yelling at me.

So ... it's a complicated process that not even keyboard warriors on this board, full of brim and snark, understand. But sure, direct your focus at 7 drafts (there haven't been seven drafts). On your bet ... at least, in part, you'd be wrong.

Of course! On SOL, I noticed that people are saying that I'm on here for the same reasons that politicians kiss babies -- to win votes. Someone else suggested that I have an elite PR team communicating on my behalf, also for nefarious reasons. Just to be clear, I'm on here to learn and to articulate what I think is interesting about the Club and our offer. The way I think this should be done is by talking to people who care the most about the Club, and also the people who are the most negative about our offer, within reason. (And yes, I am posting my own thoughts -- I don't think an intern would help much here.) Nothing that @Vietnam91 has said is out of bounds, nor do I find it to be unhealthy. I do get frustrated by the notion of intention -- I will repeat this until my face turns blue, there are far better ways to make money than through SPFL ownership. Even the most cynical view of valuation has us a) jettisoned if we suck in two years and b) with an asset in six years that is very wonky and hard to sell (and we don't plan on selling ever). Logic has to take you down a path that we're not doing it to make a quick buck, nor are we doing it to make a buck at all -- we're investing because we think we can improve the Club and that it would be a really, really interesting opportunity to participate in a community. It's really not more complicated than that. On the deal itself, I want to reiterate that this conversation has me rethinking certain points of our offer, which I hope to discuss shortly. The changes that we make may still leave the people on this board unsatisfied, but I don't think anyone here can accuse me of not listening to fans and/or trying to understand different viewpoints. Beyond that, if this collective project isn't meant to be, we'll know shortly -- but the one area that I do need to push back on is intentionality. So I'm going to be super-clear here: * Where we think our deal is unfair, and there's an opportunity to incorporate feedback, we'll do it. * I don't mind being told that I'm wrong so long as we're all polite. * I don't think we ( @Vietnam91 and others and I) will particularly bridge our differences on valuation, which is okay. Valuation is quite subjective and I ultimately want us to go forward or not based on our collective view of what growth looks like. I'm not trying to lobby here, it's just that we've done several rounds on what something that's very subjective could be worth, we all have our comps, and it's quite hard to persuade someone in life (and in this case) as to a complicated asset's inherent value. I will say this, though -- there is a bit of belittling happening on a multi-million dollar investment, and for us, it's not an insignificant amount of money. It's easy to tell someone to pay more, but for my family, it's also a significant investment and one that we take quite seriously. * I don't think I give off a kiss-ass, selling votes vibe here, nor is it my goal. So, just to be clear -- I'm not here to solicit votes, I'm here to get smarter and to make sure that I'm being thoughtful about the Club. I realize that this forum is swinging way more to "no" than "yes," and if I wanted to lobby for the deal, there would be better places to do so. * Also for clarity, a close vote with low turnout that leads to an investment from us and a pissed off fanbase is a terrible outcome for everyone. There's no "fast one" that helps the Barmacks, TWS or MFC short-term (because we'd be jacked) or long-term (because we'd be isolated from the community that we want to be a part of). Again, if we were trying to pull a fast one, we'd hope for the opposite. Here, we want as many votes as possible, and as clear of a mandate (positive or negative) as possible. So, yep, still here ... @Vietnam91, let's get on WhatsApp for old time's sake. E

So, I feel like we're just talking past each other, but let me see if I can make my point better: (1) Over the history of fan-ownership, the Club has been more or less breakeven/slightly profitable, but dependent on player sales to accomplish this. (2) On any given year, there are a bunch of variables that would contribute to profitability: season ticket sales, player sales, place in the table, changing media rights deals, and so on. I have some visibility on this, but not enough visibility to know if the Club will be profitable on any given year. But that's actually true within the club, too, at this time in the year. It's something that I would obviously no better if I were "inside" the club, but I'm not. (3) On a macro level, regardless of changing rights deals (the new TV deal, the change to solidarity payments), it's true that the club is usually a little unprofitable or neutral. That's been the steady state. And it's also true that more clubs in the SPFL have increased their investment pool, which MAY put MFC at a competitive disadvantage over time (unless this capital is used poorly, which it could be). (4) To answer your question, the new media rights deals were never discussed with me, nor are player sales. From my point, I'm taking a very long view of the Club and I'm trying to understand what will happen to the SPFL and MFC over 10-20 years -- so I try not to let short-term changes impact my view (but this can be debated). On your consulting idea ... I don't know, it feels testy to me. I have ideas and think we collectively can help the Club grow. If you disagree, let's debate the ideas themselves, but I hope people on here see me as someone who's creative with a skillset that could help the Club (beyond just being capital).

Sorry, to be clear again, I don't have a POV on cashflow on a particular year. It's possible that it could be neutral this year. I am merely saying that TWS capital doesn't disappear. It's either used to cover gaps or for investment. I'm not opining on this year because there are too many variables to understand it (I don't know what the cashflow situation will be).

One other thing that may be worth discussing -- let's assume, for the moment, that we agree on what fan ownership is (and it's clear to me that this board doesn't view the offer as proper fan ownership, but let's say hypothetically that it did), there are still vastly different ways to implement fan ownership, right? * Morton, I think, transfers everything over (the budget of the club and fan ownership group are one) * Hearts is the same, but I believe it's further supplemented by individual benefactors on preferred terms? * Thistle's trust places a certain amount of running costs from the society into the bank to smooth unpredictable cash-flow * Exeter, I think, has a very interesting model of fan ownership on two levels, with an individual model combined with a corporate / local business model. It seems like, the more aligned the club and fan group are, the more predictably you can budget -- that seems at least partially true with governance, too. But on the flip side, if the club and fan society are out of synch, it affords the least checks and balances to protect the fan society long-term (but this doesn't seem to be an issue at Hearts). At any rate, maybe I'm stating the obvious, but a) there may be better or worse ways to think about this issue and b) it's clear that different clubs operate fan ownership in completely different ways.

Sorry, I didn't suggest that it would only be in black with our investment. I'm saying, to be clear, that WITHOUT US, the company will either be cash-flow negative or close to neutral. In the case where it's negative, someone has to fill the gap. That, historically, has been TWS. In the case where it's neutral/positive, money in the club would not "go to nothing." It should be used to invest in projects/opportunities that grow the club. I'm merely stating that the cash is either needed (first case) or would help build something (the second case), and nothing more than that.

Sorry, Ghost, I don't mean to get into a spat here, but I think there are some important concepts to discuss: (1) You are using a kind of valuation for the overall business that doesn't apply to this market. There is no club with the same characteristics that MFC is selling for that amount (and we've looked at several), at least not in the short term. Book value is never how football teams are valued. Starting from that basis will always lead to skewed analysis. (2) The coinvestment from TWS is important to discuss, as one of two things have to be true: (a) The club is losing money on a particular year, and in its present configuration, the majority shareholder (TWS) would be exepected to bridge that gap anyway. In other words, it helps maintain the existing valuation of the club. OR (b) The club is breakeven/slightly positive, in which case that money doesn't lead to "nothing in return," it leads to projects that we, collectively, have to believe make MFC stronger. In other words, it helps grow the club's value. The only way that one of these two things isn't true is if you believe that coinvestors would be wasting that money on projects and/or players that somehow burn cash but don't grow the club, which I don't think would lead to a sound investing strategy overall (in which case the valuation won't matter on the money incoming, because the club will have the wrong group of people engaged). (3) Nowhere in this is a value placed on whether strategic partnerships matter. It essentially views all money as equal, when we would be putting a ton of work into the club and not getting paid to do so. The reason isn't altruistic -- it's because we think we can make the club stronger and better, but just as people are questioning some of our asks to water down equity and/or remove debt, you could also question how we're adding value for "free." So, for example, if the club gains, say, 150k pounds (I'm just making this up) for a TV show that happens because we can help make it, and TWS can't on its own, that doesn't make it into the equity table, but it (possibly) improves the overall balance sheet for the club. (4) Again, you need to look at the context of the deal and how it informs value -- if TSM were not located in Taiwan at present, many people think it would be valued 50% higher. That doesn't make a company in Taiwan less interesting -- it's just a different investment thesis. Investing into split ownership is MORE interesting to us, but there are fewer (appropriate) buyers for that thesis. It's not right or wrong, but it affects value. Just some thoughts to mull over ...

If you believe something is off by 3x -- then by all means, that sucks, and you should vote "no." The market is a ruthless beast, so we'll see if that's right over time. In other news, I've given it some thought -- first, based on the Well Society Board letter and second, disturbingly, based on feedback on this board -- and I will be asking the Executive Board of MFC to make some changes prior to a vote. By the way, I think the offer has a better chance than many of you do -- if you follow politics closely, as I do, you can see examples on Twitter and message boards of a block that clearly don't like a proposal or politician, and are certain that their points are unanimous, only to see the quieter side of a voting block feel differently. As one touch-point, there was a poll on Twitter about our offer, and I believe it was 30 for / 70 against, and I think you have to consider a bit who's voting on a Twitter poll to realize that the fan-base might be more divided than this thread suggests. So, I'm not throwing in the towel. The problem that I have is that the joy I have in working on this would be connected to the opinions of people who care the most about the Club, and so it's possible, I think, to win the vote and still lose the point of making the investment. I also believe that this is really the only shot that I have on this project, and don't want to miss out on what I think is a good opportunity for us and MFC on differences that could be bridged. So, yes, I'm going to suggest a few tweaks and will post those tweaks here and to the WS Board tomorrow (before Scotland vs. Germany). Of those tweaks, I'm least inclined to change the valuation, for the reasons stated above, and I do have some thoughts on edits, but you are welcome to email me directly (erik@wildsheepcontent.com) if you have suggestions (besides, "get in the bin") -- @Alanos just posted the kind of stuff that I wouldn't agree with 100%, but which is quite useful, as an example. E p.s. "After many years in which the world has afforded me many experiences, what I know most surely in the long run about morality and obligations, I owe to football." - Camus

Fine, but that's a funny fucking gif.

@Vietnam91, I appreciate you digging into EV. I think it's a useful discussion. A few thoughts to add here: (1) EV is most useful when you're looking at a business that's spitting out cash on a consistent basis. You're basically getting into the guts of that business, understanding what's being built as a long-term asset, and then using that to predict cashflow on an ongoing basis (e.g. you're in the construction business and have margins on new houses being built) OR to predict how you can sell assets that are being built over time (e.g. a set of houses have been built, rented for a bit, and now you're selling the lot). (2) These types of models are not great for sports teams, because they tend to be very bad at spitting out cash, and the assets that are "built" can't be sold or shouldn't be sold (Fir Park is an "asset," but "stripping" that asset would mean you'd have nowhere to play, and in the process you've destroyed history). Conditions may improve for a team (players sales, improved media rights), but in almost all cases that improvement is going back into the Club (as it should). (3) Some of the comps mentioned here ignore ancillary businesses to that club. Tottenham now has a massive business off of NFL games, concerts and hospitality. I think we could all agree that, to the extent that the SPFL grows, those kinds of opportunities favor teams in bigger cities with bigger infrastructure. The rich are getting richer, and most accounting analysis of this kind doesn't do a great job of anticipating where growth will change anticipated valuation on a relative basis over time. (4) The type of opportunity has to meet the right type of buyer in order for valuations to make sense. No, this isn't just business-speak -- certain buyers will ONLY want to buy clubs over which they have full, absolute control. So, even if two teams are valued equally in terms of revenue and opportunities, the one with a hybrid ownership model could have fewer potential buyers, which affects price. (Think of a summer cabin that a family wants to "share" versus one that's owned outright; the sharing may be great, but many fewer buyers will even take a look at it, because they want their own stuff in the house.) (5) What no one seems to disagree with here is that a better offer hasn't emerged. That doesn't mean that this is the right offer for you, but no one to my knowledge is saying that we have somehow offered to pay LESS than a buyer who's qualified and who wants to be part of a hybrid business model. On some level , you'd expect that to happen if valuation was WAY off. (6) I suppose you can believe me or not, but we have looked at other clubs in this market, and similar markets. Given the above, there's nothing that's led me to conclude that we're somehow lowballing MFC. And given the example I gave about the EPL -- that some teams are worth 30x other teams -- it's also, in my mind, not totally off to think that teams within the SPFL could be worth 6x another team (I'm ignoring the OF, as they're kind of off the charts here). (7) Finally, I believe @Vietnam91 asked a few posts ago if I would take a low-ball offer for my production business. And the answer is, it depends if the money is "strategic" and in alignment with my values. When I raised money for my new company, I had offers from studios to pay significantly more for a piece of Wild Sheep, but I ultimately decided to partner with a big Spanish production concern at a cheaper valuation because I liked the people, the investment allowed my group to grow, they didn't want to take-over my business, and I thought that they would help with sales in Europe. Almost all of those things ended up proving out as true, and I haven't regretted the decision. Writing all of this doesn't mean that it's the right decision for MFC, but I raise some of these points as considerations, other points because I think we have been somewhat thoughtful about valuation, and the final point because I pretty firmly believe that valuation as a zero-sum game is pointless if the parties involved don't believe that they will grow something bigger together. Now excuse me while I pull my GW shoe-ducking gif out ....

No, I don't. I think there are a lot of moving pieces and the structure of the club is inherently complicated. Would I do some things differently? Sure, but I also think I've learned a lot about how the Club ticks, which is important if a deal goes through, and I think everyone has negotiated with good intentions. I just raise this point because I feel like an earlier post that I made implied that TWS didn't provide feedback, and I know that they have (and I would reiterate that even those who are adamantly against the deal have been overwhelmingly kind to me on a personal level, and have wanted, I think, to share why the club is so special to them). But to answer your question, it was just hard to corral everything together.