How to Win League One

[Kenilworth]

That was the first time I had doubts that night ,remember sat in a curry house in tamworth debating it on the way home ,not knowing what was round the corner.

Sutton Coldfield

 

[CaptainMorgans]

Echo the sentiments from others. An excellent post, a great contribution to the forum.

 

[itsinyerblood]

I hope so too cos if he fails, or, maybe I should say, if he gets sacked before he's had a proper chance to sort out the mess he has inherited (and that might actually take longer than the one season or so that has been the norm of late, though I do agree now with hindsight that Adkins wasn't the man for the job) then I will seriously start to worry for the future of this club.

Agree with that Wincobank. Without going on a serious anti-board rant, unless Wilder gets the support, both financial and vocal, that this job needs then it all points to a board, or should that be chairman, who isn't willing to resource a manager in order to get us out of this division. New blood is needed in order to give the manager what he needs to do the job. I'm not suggesting a policy of financial stupidity, but with each season in this division our plight gets more and more desperate. Forget all the big club bollocks, it's a theme that's used to deflect the reality that we're not a big club, we just happen to have a great ground, die-hard supporters, etc, etc. I'll hold my judgement on Wilder until we've shown what we're capable of. CW comes across as someone who's grounded and knowledgeable, now we need the board to give the manager the chance to assemble a promotion winning team.

 

[BushBlade]

Current squad number above - 22, add Woolford makes 23.

J.Wallace could well be a passenger again, so call it 22.

Coutts, K.Wallace, Freeman and Woolford are transfer listed. If they leave that makes 18.

In the high tempo, pressing style we intend could we get by with any of those on the list? - K.Wallace, Freeman yes; Coutts, Woolford no. Maybe true, maybe not, but let's say 2 stay and 2 go. If 2 go it may well be the case that we have to subsidise their departure up to say half their wages each.

In the circumstances of all this change and extra costs of player settlements (Diego, Hammond, plus say 2 more, maybe plus J.Wallace too) it might be the case that Wilder agrees to run a squad of say 24 not the optimum 26 mentioned.

My running total above stands at 20 so the need for 4 new players feels about right. The big question is whether Wilder has any budget right now or does he have to await player departures. Maybe he has authority to import another couple but has to await departures before signing any more, that seems possible.

However it pans out, the squad will include Whiteman, Reed and Lewin who will take varying times to establish themselves in the first team. It is relevant that any new signing makes it harder for them to break through and that in a way suggests to me we will run a small squad of say 24 maximum as our clear objective is to give our Academy lads more and more playing after all. Maybe Brook and Semple will be added into the numbers even.

If Lewin should leave for a big fee then that presumably affects Wilder's budget but it is hard to plan for. If it has to happen let's hope it happens sooner rather than later and not on the last day of the window. Any deal could involve a season long loan back but ironically Wilder would not be able to guarantee first team football for Lewin and that defeats the object for Everton. The historic 'United way' will see it all happen last day without any chance of replacement. Maybe that creates pressure to get the deal done quickly, who knows.

We are in a complex situation and Wilder has to manage through it as best he can when there are so many things beyond his control. To date he has done the first stages very well but the final couple of stages will be the 'icing on the cake' and will affect this season's success.

I can imagine Clough will be watching the Coutts situation closely and Cook watching Freeman. They'll both hold fire until the players have cash in their pocket and maybe then accept half wages with them; maybe Woolford would be in big demand under those circumstances too.

For the manager's sake, bite the bullet United and give the manager a clear run at it. Please don't hold back the last few signings, there is momentum building so go with it.

It is a complex situation and always will be while we are in this league and don't focus on the main prize; promotion. CW's brief must be no more than 'get us up'. No demands from the board to bring youth players through or play whatever type of football is currently fashionable - just get us up. And, like Warnock was, CW must be given the final say on who we sell. If we need to balance the budget, CW decides how we do that.
If the board applies those two simple principles and understand that the rebuild could be a two year job and actually support CW, even when some of his decisions go wrong, we should be OK.

 

[Woodwardfan]

It is a complex situation and always will be while we are in this league and don't focus on the main prize; promotion. CW's brief must be no more than 'get us up'. No demands from the board to bring youth players through or play whatever type of football is currently fashionable - just get us up. And, like Warnock was, CW must be given the final say on who we sell. If we need to balance the budget, CW decides how we do that.
If the board applies those two simple principles and understand that the rebuild could be a two year job and actually support CW, even when some of his decisions go wrong, we should be OK.

CW has a defined way of playing the game and it is currently fashionable as it happens.

The Board is backing the manager but there are these 4 remaining players on the list at present and they are complicating the picture -as far as we can ascertain. Wilder has said they need to move on before he can complete his task but recently he says it's not the end of the world if they should stay as their attitude has been exemplary.

I would love to see him decide now if he is keeping a couple of them -and he mentioned Coutts and Freeman particuarly ( I'd prefer Freeman and K.Wallace)- but the Board settle with the others so there is no running out of time to complete the squad due to them being in the way. Woolford and Coutts (IMO) would spend so much time on the bench, they may as well be elsewhere and at their age they should be playing every week too.

OK it's expensive but let's not fudge the issues and give the manager every chance to build on the momentum his appointment has started.

However, if the alternative choice is between selling Calvert-Lewin or keeping him then that's a dilemma. A big fee and a saved wage would make a whole load of difference to the cash flow.

 

[BushBlade]

CW has a defined way of playing the game and it is currently fashionable as it happens.

The Board is backing the manager but there are these 4 remaining players on the list at present and they are complicating the picture -as far as we can ascertain. Wilder has said they need to move on before he can complete his task but recently he says it's not the end of the world if they should stay as their attitude has been exemplary.

I would love to see him decide now if he is keeping a couple of them -and he mentioned Coutts and Freeman particuarly ( I'd prefer Freeman and K.Wallace)- but the Board settle with the others so there is no running out of time to complete the squad due to them being in the way. Woolford and Coutts (IMO) would spend so much time on the bench, they may as well be elsewhere and at their age they should be playing every week too.

OK it's expensive but let's not fudge the issues and give the manager every chance to build on the momentum his appointment has started.

However, if the alternative choice is between selling Calvert-Lewin or keeping him then that's a dilemma. A big fee and a saved wage would make a whole load of difference to the cash flow.

If we can't bring anymore in until we've shifted some out, that makes me think the issue is financial rather than we haven't got enough lockers or pegs. So I'm not sure how much benefit paying them off will be. If we can cut deals whereby we pay a percentage of their remaining contracted wages then there will be some saving.

But how much? If Coutts took half what he's 'owed' then maybe it's £200k and I'm guessing he's the highest paid of those listed. So maybe we're talking about saving £500k in total?

Between the two owners are we really unable to find that extra £500k now, to give CW a fighting chance of getting us up this time around? Perhaps the board understand this and will allow him to bring in a further three players (which I think is the minimum we need) before shipping anyone out. There's always the probability of shipping the listed players out in the JTW, either permanently or on loan to get them off the wage bill.

 

[Woodwardfan]

If we can't bring anymore in until we've shifted some out, that makes me think the issue is financial rather than we haven't got enough lockers or pegs. So I'm not sure how much benefit paying them off will be. If we can cut deals whereby we pay a percentage of their remaining contracted wages then there will be some saving.

But how much? If Coutts took half what he's 'owed' then maybe it's £200k and I'm guessing he's the highest paid of those listed. So maybe we're talking about saving £500k in total?

Between the two owners are we really unable to find that extra £500k now, to give CW a fighting chance of getting us up this time around? Perhaps the board understand this and will allow him to bring in a further three players (which I think is the minimum we need) before shipping anyone out. There's always the probability of shipping the listed players out in the JTW, either permanently or on loan to get them off the wage bill.

We don't know the numbers but the manager seems to be 'onside' with the budget and the approach and he said "we did all we could as a club to sign McFadzean", presumably a fee somewhere near £500k and wages were not an issue. So maybe that's one biggish signing we know will be funded.

That £500k saving you mention would help pay a wage for a new player. Savings on the other 3 similarly enabling the manager.

Stragglers are often sticking around and are par for the course. It's the numbers in the squad right now that is bothering me, that's where the pressure lies but if the 3 you mention come soon then there is no pressure anyway.

 

[Pollingtonblade]

We don't know the numbers but the manager seems to be 'onside' with the budget and the approach and he said "we did all we could as a club to sign McFadzean", presumably a fee somewhere near £500k and wages were not an issue. So maybe that's one biggish signing we know will be funded.

That £500k saving you mention would help pay a wage for a new player. Savings on the other 3 similarly enabling the manager.

Stragglers are often sticking around and are par for the course. It's the numbers in the squad right now that is bothering me, that's where the pressure lies but if the 3 you mention come soon then there is no pressure anyway.

Can't we sack Coutts for gross misconduct ?

Exhibit A been last seasons match videos.

 

[Revolution]

Agree, it's been a huge problem and one of the facets of making the Blades predictable and easy to defend against under Clough and Adkins.

I am more optimistic than last season re goals as long as none of the forwards leave and Duffy delivers, but unless this defence is able to concede less than a goal a game (and I don't think it's good enough) we aren't going to score enough to finish top 2. We are crying out for a central midfielder with a shot on him.

 

[Woodwardfan]

I am more optimistic than last season re goals as long as none of the forwards leave and Duffy delivers, but unless this defence is able to concede less than a goal a game (and I don't think it's good enough) we aren't going to score enough to finish top 2. We are crying out for a central midfielder with a shot on him.

If Done's pre-season form is cementing a place up front alongside Sharp then there will be an opportunity to play Adams just behind them and Scougall can play there too. That depends on whether we play 3-5-2 or 4-4-2. I do agree with you though and again what a shame J.Wallace can't get fit because neither Scougs or Che can play central midfield in a 4-4-2.

 

[Jonboy60]

Hmm, not straightforward, though I expect the three market leaders to be fighting it out. On balance I'll go for Shall We, chased home by Miss Marjurie.

Had a bet on your tip bohemian.

 

[The Bohemian]

Had a bet on your tip bohemian.

i really wish you hadn't! The clue was in "not straightforward."

 

[The Bohemian]

I am more optimistic than last season re goals as long as none of the forwards leave and Duffy delivers, but unless this defence is able to concede less than a goal a game (and I don't think it's good enough) we aren't going to score enough to finish top 2. We are crying out for a central midfielder with a shot on him.

"We are crying out for a central midfielder with a shot on him." Trying to remember the last time we had one of them? Michael Brown? Tongey for a few games?

Fleck, given a freer role, could improve his goal tally closer to double figures. I like Bash but am not close to being convinced he's a central midfield player (weak positionally and 'head down').

Who could we, realistically, expect to sign for this job?

 

[Jonboy60]

i really wish you hadn't! The clue was in "not straightforward."

No problem bohemian, was looking at it this morning fancied it myself.
Won't be backing the blades though, the gods wouldn't allow it.

 

[Maidenhead]

Agree with that Wincobank. Without going on a serious anti-board rant, unless Wilder gets the support, both financial and vocal, that this job needs then it all points to a board, or should that be chairman, who isn't willing to resource a manager in order to get us out of this division. New blood is needed in order to give the manager what he needs to do the job. I'm not suggesting a policy of financial stupidity, but with each season in this division our plight gets more and more desperate. Forget all the big club bollocks, it's a theme that's used to deflect the reality that we're not a big club, we just happen to have a great ground, die-hard supporters, etc, etc. I'll hold my judgement on Wilder until we've shown what we're capable of. CW comes across as someone who's grounded and knowledgeable, now we need the board to give the manager the chance to assemble a promotion winning team.

Probably a waste of time posting this as all I'll get is abuse from people that won't let facts get in the way of a good moan or a cheap shot.

The board have backed a succession of managers since we landed in div3 (I'm not commenting on further back) with consistently amongst the top budget in the division.

All managers are given a budget with which to work and how they do that is a fundamental part of their job.

Managers identify the players they want and the board then set out to acquire them.

Managers will know all the costs involved and where they sit with their budget before contracts are signed so if future player sales become necessary the manager has been a fundamental decision maker in the process.

Our problem has been the failure of a succession of managers to manage their budgets and get the team playing entertaining football or achieve positive results despite having had almost unconditional support from the board. How else do you explain the Hammond signing? I'm sure the board didn't go to the manager and say "we want you to get the lad Hammond whatever it costs us."

If we HAVE to sell DCL or Che then Wilder is already aware of this and has other priorities for his budget.

Sometimes an unwanted sale will happen due to other circumstances, ie the player wants to go as with Murphy who was told he wouldn't be picked for Scotland whilst playing in league 1 (shame they didn't qualify anyway ) or Maguire who had his head turned by the premiership. In these cases the managers will have been consulted. I know if I were in charge I wouldn't want to keep an unhappy or unsettled player, contracted to us or not.

The only crime that I can see the board has committed is picking a succession of failed managers but it's easy to say that with hindsight, and I didn't see too many complaints at any of the last 3 appointments.

Let's hope Wilder fares better than his predecessors.

 

[Maidenhead]

We don't know the numbers but the manager seems to be 'onside' with the budget and the approach and he said "we did all we could as a club to sign McFadzean", presumably a fee somewhere near £500k and wages were not an issue. So maybe that's one biggish signing we know will be funded.

That £500k saving you mention would help pay a wage for a new player. Savings on the other 3 similarly enabling the manager.

Stragglers are often sticking around and are par for the course. It's the numbers in the squad right now that is bothering me, that's where the pressure lies but if the 3 you mention come soon then there is no pressure anyway.

Or the £500k and wages we're not now paying may enable us to keep someone who may otherwise have been sacrificed for McFadzean.

 

[itsinyerblood]

Probably a waste of time posting this as all I'll get is abuse from people that won't let facts get in the way of a good moan or a cheap shot.

The board have backed a succession of managers since we landed in div3 (I'm not commenting on further back) with consistently amongst the top budget in the division.

All managers are given a budget with which to work and how they do that is a fundamental part of their job.

Managers identify the players they want and the board then set out to acquire them.

Managers will know all the costs involved and where they sit with their budget before contracts are signed so if future player sales become necessary the manager has been a fundamental decision maker in the process.

Our problem has been the failure of a succession of managers to manage their budgets and get the team playing entertaining football or achieve positive results despite having had almost unconditional supkin's demandsport from the board. How else do you explain the Hammond signing? I'm sure the board didn't go to the manager and say "we want you to get the lad Hammond whatever it costs us."

If we HAVE to sell DCL or Che then Wilder is already aware of this and has other priorities for his budget.

Sometimes an unwanted sale will happen due to other circumstances, ie the player wants to go as with Murphy who was told he wouldn't be picked for Scotland whilst playing in league 1 (shame they didn't qualify anyway ) or Maguire who had his head turned by the premiership. In these cases the managers will have been consulted. I know if I were in charge I wouldn't want to keep an unhappy or unsettled player, contracted to us or not.

The only crime that I can see the board has committed is picking a succession of failed managers but it's easy to say that with hindsight, and I didn't see too many complaints at any of the last 3 appointments.

Let's hope Wilder fares better than his predecessors.

The principle behind your comments makes a great deal of sense.....but.....I think the A-Z of a Board's role, as described above, should also include an understanding of what's acceptable or permissible. Hammond being a case in point, the wages and contractual add-ons has cost this club a lot for very little return, so somewhere a voice should have uttered the timely words, "You must be fucking joking!". As this wasn't the case then the board functioned as a lightweight and clueless group, showing no concern or fiscal literacy, unless of course they wilted under Adkins' demands, which would have been an even more outrageous proposition.

I don't disassociate managers from their part in the ongoing failure to move us forward, but having listened to the co-owner declare that bad luck has been at the centre of our failure to gain promotion, it made me wonder if those who are appointed to the Board are there for personal prestige/vanity or to show the ambition necessary when it comes to applying support for the club's best interests, even if this means suggesting that sometimes the best deal is no deal, as in we wish Hammond all the best in his search for a new club but he's not coming here on those terms.

 

[Deaneandagana]

The principle behind your comments makes a great deal of sense.....but.....I think the A-Z of a Board's role, as described above, should also include an understanding of what's acceptable or permissible. Hammond being a case in point, the wages and contractual add-ons has cost this club a lot for very little return, so somewhere a voice should have uttered the timely words, "You must be fucking joking!". As this wasn't the case then the board functioned as a lightweight and clueless group, showing no concern or fiscal literacy, unless of course they wilted under Adkins' demands, which would have been an even more outrageous proposition.

I don't disassociate managers from their part in the ongoing failure to move us forward, but having listened to the co-owner declare that bad luck has been at the centre of our failure to gain promotion, it made me wonder if those who are appointed to the Board are there for personal prestige/vanity or to show the ambition necessary when it comes to applying support for the club's best interests, even if this means suggesting that sometimes the best deal is no deal, as in we wish Hammond all the best in his search for a new club but he's not coming here on those terms.

What about this for a radical suggestion, appointing to the board someone who has a grasp of football, player recruitment, contract negotiation & able to implement a coherent long term football strategy.

Sounds a long shot - I know, but worth a dig after all Kev's tried everything else

 

[Maidenhead]

The principle behind your comments makes a great deal of sense.....but.....I think the A-Z of a Board's role, as described above, should also include an understanding of what's acceptable or permissible. Hammond being a case in point, the wages and contractual add-ons has cost this club a lot for very little return, so somewhere a voice should have uttered the timely words, "You must be fucking joking!". As this wasn't the case then the board functioned as a lightweight and clueless group, showing no concern or fiscal literacy, unless of course they wilted under Adkins' demands, which would have been an even more outrageous proposition.

I don't disassociate managers from their part in the ongoing failure to move us forward, but having listened to the co-owner declare that bad luck has been at the centre of our failure to gain promotion, it made me wonder if those who are appointed to the Board are there for personal prestige/vanity or to show the ambition necessary when it comes to applying support for the club's best interests, even if this means suggesting that sometimes the best deal is no deal, as in we wish Hammond all the best in his search for a new club but he's not coming here on those terms.

I don't disagree with anything you say but if you're the chairman and your manager is saying "get me this player and we'll be just about there" and it's only gonna cost you a bit more than you wanted to spend, you'd say what the he'll, Let's do it. A bit like a gambler having just one more go on the fruit machine because he knows it's ready to pay.

The alternative is that you say no, upset the manager because you won't let him have the best toy in the shop, and then he blames you when it all goes tits up at the end of the season.

Our board can be accused of blindly backing the manager, but never in recent times of not backing him.

That's why we now have a technical board to appraise the managers requests.

 

[Maidenhead]

What about this for a radical suggestion, appointing to the board someone who has a grasp of football, player recruitment, contract negotiation & able to implement a coherent long term football strategy.

Sounds a long shot - I know, but worth a dig after all Kev's tried everything else

You think our fans would support a long term strategy?

Let's hope we win at least one of our first three games next season and don't lose more than two at home.

 

[Deaneandagana]

You think our fans would support a long term strategy?

Let's hope we win at least one of our first three games next season and don't lose more than two at home.

You know what, I think given the events of the last 6 seasons then they just might, the boom & bust years under McCabe & his game changing investment nonsense have perhaps shifted people's views.

For me we need some footballing nouse, experience & vision in the boardroom, as I see it we have Kev + 2 junior McCabes + an assortment of local business men from the carpet trade, commercial property resale, light engineering & ex stallholders on the rag and tag market.

 

[Maidenhead]

You know what, I think given the events of the last 6 seasons then they just might, the boom & bust years under McCabe & his game changing investment nonsense have perhaps shifted people's views.

For me we need some footballing nouse, experience & vision in the boardroom, as I see it we have Kev + 2 junior McCabes + an assortment of local business men from the carpet trade, commercial property resale, light engineering & ex stallholders on the rag and tag market.

I agree entirely but unfortunately I think it will be very much a minority point of view

 

[Bartleby]

You know what, I think given the events of the last 6 seasons then they just might, the boom & bust years under McCabe & his game changing investment nonsense have perhaps shifted people's views.

For me we need some footballing nouse, experience & vision in the boardroom, as I see it we have Kev + 2 junior McCabes + an assortment of local business men from the carpet trade, commercial property resale, light engineering & ex stallholders on the rag and tag market.

looking back to the OP on this thread though, what we're doing looks very much like that blueprint for promotion from L1, esp if we sign this premier league loanee being rumoured.

 

[Woodwardfan]

The principle behind your comments makes a great deal of sense.....but.....I think the A-Z of a Board's role, as described above, should also include an understanding of what's acceptable or permissible. Hammond being a case in point, the wages and contractual add-ons has cost this club a lot for very little return, so somewhere a voice should have uttered the timely words, "You must be fucking joking!". As this wasn't the case then the board functioned as a lightweight and clueless group, showing no concern or fiscal literacy, unless of course they wilted under Adkins' demands, which would have been an even more outrageous proposition.

I don't disassociate managers from their part in the ongoing failure to move us forward, but having listened to the co-owner declare that bad luck has been at the centre of our failure to gain promotion, it made me wonder if those who are appointed to the Board are there for personal prestige/vanity or to show the ambition necessary when it comes to applying support for the club's best interests, even if this means suggesting that sometimes the best deal is no deal, as in we wish Hammond all the best in his search for a new club but he's not coming here on those terms.

I 'like' your post but I have to say that if I was the football manager of SUFC I would never take kindly to anybody from the Board telling me they know more about one of my favourite players than me. Each manager has to have autonomy and it just is not on to expect that and yet blame the Board for signings.

As a result of that though, the Board have set up the Technical Board which nevertheless will have zero plus 0.5 chance of telling Wilder he can't sign a particular player even though it's within budget. Ha hum.

 

[BushBlade]

I 'like' your post but I have to say that if I was the football manager of SUFC I would never take kindly to anybody from the Board telling me they know more about one of my favourite players than me. Each manager has to have autonomy and it just is not on to expect that and yet blame the Board for signings.

As a result of that though, the Board have set up the Technical Board which nevertheless will have zero plus 0.5 chance of telling Wilder he can't sign a particular player even though it's within budget. Ha hum.

I wouldn't either but it appears they had no problem telling Clough what he should be doing at the infamous meeting.
And everyone has to take a hit once in a while.

 

[larkymasher]

I don't think there is a Technical Board anymore since CW arrived.

The players he is bringing in are his choices and nobody else. The salary paid and the contract lengths are his.

The academy ethos has with all intent and purposes gone as well. There is Whiteman and Ramsdale coming through from the Academy from last season. DCL, Reed and Adams were already in this squad.

Lets not be under any illusions, CW is in charge of what he wants and what he wants to spend. As long as he sticks to his budget.

What he is doing is signing players on 2 year deals with an option of a third at his discretion. This means that if we do have young 17 year old players of quality ( which CW says we have ) he has left the door open to them to push into the first team squad over the next 2 years and not just chuck them in as we all feared ( not just for the team but for the kids themselves )

I like CW and how he seems to be taking the club by the scruff of the neck to get us all where we want to be.

 

[Woodwardfan]

I wouldn't either but it appears they had no problem telling Clough what he should be doing at the infamous meeting.
And everyone has to take a hit once in a while.

Clough was sensitve after an absolutely awful season when he spent a small fortune in recovery in the JTW.

Fans were complainng about style of play, entertainment and a lack of a spine in the team despite big expenditure.

Clough knew he had accumulated a poor squad. Getting sacked was convenient for him. look how it's turned out for him, he left with his reputation intact, somehow.

There's a whole world of difference between a Board saying in an annual meeting " last season was crap despite all the money you spent, what are your plans to improve entertainment and performance" and saying "you may rate that player but we don't so you can't have him, look for a different player".

 

[BushBlade]

Clough was sensitve after an absolutely awful season when he spent a small fortune in recovery in the JTW.

Fans were complainng about style of play, entertainment and a lack of a spine in the team despite big expenditure.

Clough knew he had accumulated a poor squad. Getting sacked was convenient for him. look how it's turned out for him, he left with his reputation intact, somehow.

There's a whole world of difference between a Board saying in an annual meeting " last season was crap despite all the money you spent, what are your plans to improve entertainment and performance" and saying "you may rate that player but we don't so you can't have him, look for a different player".

I'll take your word for what was said.

I wasn't there......

 

[Woodwardfan]

I don't think there is a Technical Board anymore since CW arrived.

The players he is bringing in are his choices and nobody else. The salary paid and the contract lengths are his.

The academy ethos has with all intent and purposes gone as well. There is Whiteman and Ramsdale coming through from the Academy from last season. DCL, Reed and Adams were already in this squad.

Lets not be under any illusions, CW is in charge of what he wants and what he wants to spend. As long as he sticks to his budget.

What he is doing is signing players on 2 year deals with an option of a third at his discretion. This means that if we do have young 17 year old players of quality ( which CW says we have ) he has left the door open to them to push into the first team squad over the next 2 years and not just chuck them in as we all feared ( not just for the team but for the kids themselves )

I like CW and how he seems to be taking the club by the scruff of the neck to get us all where we want to be.

The Technical Board was defined on the day Wilder was appointed, but I agree with you actually.

 

[Woodwardfan]

I'll take your word for what was said.

I wasn't there......

Really, what does that matter? Bet it's not far from the truth though.