[Archived] Sky Sports

[FourLaneBlue]

Yes but that has nothing to with television, that happens every time we play United at home anyway.

[Paul]

I'll hold my hand up then. I think Sky and the Murdoch empire in general is a bad thing. I agree their football coverage is very good, I simply don't feel it is for the long-term good of the game or Murdoch media in general is a particularly good thing. Sorry that's how it is, blinkered I know. In football terms there will come a reckoning and it gets closer every season. Wall to wall TV football is not good for the game. The live football fan is a dieing breed, much of it fueled by Sky.

I wouldn't have Sky in the house but yes I do watch Rovers in the pub or club when we are away and live. Double standards, probably, but I have to watch the Rovers when I can.

[doctorryan]

With Sky now showing 2 live games on a Saturday, it is bound to effect gates, not just at Rovers. .

Sky showed 2 games more or less most Saturdays last season. Personally I enjoyed the away games when we could get to the pub for 12 watch a match, then watch the Rovers and then back in to watch another match.

It's all personal choice but the facts are that Rovers make more money from being on Sky than they lose from the fans that stay away.

I don't think Sky showed 2 Prem games on a saturday hardly at all last season. There were a few Midday kick offs and that was about it. I think there may have been a couple of 5.00 pm kick offs toward the end of the season. They didn't show 2 Prem games on a Saturday often though.

There were quite a lot of midday kickoffs. I like those, since I'm an early riser and the wife isn't. A nice 7:30 match without her bothering me is heaven!

I have to admit that although I prefer the 3 PM kickoffs(10 AM our time) from a standpoint of routine as well as tradition, this additional amount of elbow room that Sky has been given is brilliant for US supporters. 6 of the 7 Sky matches should be available for free in the US, with only the Birmingham match being a PPV here, and that's only for the first half of the season. We should see at least 1 Saturday 3 PM match on PPV in that time(yes, we get them - the blackout rule doesn't apply over here of course) and there's always the second half of the season and some cup ties if we advance a bit. Add in the usual 3 to 4 tape-delayed matches and it's definitely an improvement. 10 of the first 20 matches are still at 3 PM on Saturday. While this is not ideal, I wouldn't declare Saturday-3 PM matches dead either.

[78]

Paul, I understand what you're saying and I can see your point-especially the bit that it's not good for the future of Blackburn Rovers. What Sky is doing is breeding the youngsters into tele footy watchers who with all the angles and rubbish commentaries soon start thinking that it's cheaper and probably better to sit and watch the footy on the tv than pay £20 odd quid to go watch it live. I've seen and met quite alot of people who share this opinion, which is sad and especially for a club of our size who's fighting to get more fans.

But I think it comes to a point where the blame has to be also pointed towards the individual and not the big corporation trying to earn a few bucks. I'm a strong believer in having options and I think there should be an option for those who can't afford to go to live matches and that's why I think what SKY is providing is a good thing and that it means that more people not just in this country but also abroad get to watch Rovers. People that watch Rovers play will then realise that we're a small club that probably play the most attractive football (or atleast capable) outside the top 5 teams in the country and this may lead to more people becoming Rovers fans.

I'm just hoping that people that watch Rovers play this season or whenever on tv realise (sooner rather than later) that football is best watched live and our club could do with more fans coming through the gates.

[grizfoot]

This is good it means i'm nearly gonna be able to watch every single Rovers match well 50 mins of some. Cause i go to all home matches (19) and then there's the 3 matches that are live on Sky (3) plus i go to local away games man city, man u and bolton (3) = 25 full games and 13 , 5o mins highlights. Not bad very good idea

I don't think it will effect home supoort maybe away though people will just stay at home and watch highlights instead.

[colin]

But I think it comes to a point where the blame has to be also pointed towards the individual and not the big corporation trying to earn a few bucks.

78,

Nothing personal, but you have just hit the nail on the head as to why I am so cheesed off with Sky and The Premiership sponsored by Coca F*****g Cola or whoever is moving these (stop swearing) games around.

I have a life to live and I would like to co-ordinate it with doing my 60 mile round trip to see Rovers. Maybe the 60 mile round trip counts for nothing.

As someone once said, the reason a lot of people go to see football is because a lot of people go to football. What else would attract 20,000 people once a fortnight to an event in Blackburn/Norwich/Derby.

Big businesses are sucking the life-blood out of football. Is any one naive enough to beleive that big corporations are not trying to make a few million bucks out of football? If they didn't make money out of it they wouldn't do it.

"This is the "McDonalds Cup" semi final between Blackburn and Burnley and there is a poor crowd tonight of about 4,000 people huddled together ."

The lucky ones are watching it home & dry in the pub and buying burgers and sweety drinks and kentucky fried rat and some (stop swearing again) bloody toilet cleaner or bog roll.

I've seen the first ten fixtures and at least five of them are major headaches for the Colin family in arranging who looks after the child, the cat, and everything else.

So sod me, sod you, buy the rat burger, buy ten spoonfuls of sugar in every can and have a nice day this goal was sponsored by Ocean Finance, the next goal will be sponsored by some other opportunist capitalist arse-wipe who just wants to make some money.

"Hello, I'm doing a series of interviews on behalf of the Premier League; EUFA; whatever the English league is called now; and FIFA"

"OK, happy to oblige."

GIVE ME YOUR CREDIT CARD, YOUR WALLET AND YOUR CHEQUE BOOK

Hey Guys, not bad for 2:30 in the morning

[Alan75]

ADVERTISEMENT

Do you enjoy community signing and have an interest in sport. Sky Sports are searching for people to be part of a live audience in stadiums around the country.Participants will need to be in their seats at leaste 1 hour before the main event in order to allow sound checks and pre-match instructions from the sponsors.

Participants will also need to wear coloured shirts scarves etc to coincide with the teams playing. Further details of colours will be shown on the ticket.

Tickets are available for various venues, dates and times throughout the country.

For further details ........

[RevidgeBlue]

Usually in complete agreement with you on everything Paul but don't agree at all on this.

Really don't see why people are complaining about Sky - in the post Jack era with the Trust seemingly having firmly zipped their wallet up for the time being, the TV and place money is the only thing which allows us to compete on such relatively favourable terms.

As far as the televised highlights are concerned, again I think this is a good thing for us. If the product at Ewood is actually any good it will potentially encourage a far wider audience than would otherwise have been the case to come along. And we have the unique advantage of being just about the only side who can accomodate new fans.

As for the match times, I know that it is occasionally difficult when faced with a long away trip, but does it really matter whether a game at Ewood kicks off at 12.45p.m. or 3p.m. or 5.35p.m. on a Saturday?. Doesn't to me. As long as you know the kick off time well in advance you can plan your day and family arrangements accordingly. I'm sure a lot of people complaining use the same argument in reverse criticising the Riversiders who leave early - (What do they do with that extra 15 minutes etc?.)

Bottom line is we can gladly take the Sky money and kick off as and when required. Or don't and scrap around in the lower leagues. Not even an issue for me.

[RevidgeBlue]

I'm not too sure but I thought we get about 250 grand for each Sky appearance, not too sure about PPV.

I think it's £600k - £700k for a "normal" Sky appearance and £200 - £300k for a PPV.

So to put it in perspective just one "normal" Sky appearance equates to the income from 1500 season ticket holders. Which is why it's so important for a Club like Rovers size. One or two extra TV games make a huge difference.

[FourLaneBlue]

Usually in complete agreement with you on everything Paul but don't agree at all on this.

Really don't see why people are complaining about Sky - in the post Jack era with the Trust seemingly having firmly zipped their wallet up for the time being, the TV and place money is the only thing which allows us to compete on such relatively favourable terms.

As far as the televised highlights are concerned, again I think this is a good thing for us. If the product at Ewood is actually any good it will potentially encourage a far wider audience than would otherwise have been the case to come along. And we have the unique advantage of being just about the only side who can accomodate new fans.

As for the match times, I know that it is occasionally difficult when faced with a long away trip, but does it really matter whether a game at Ewood kicks off at 12.45p.m. or 3p.m. or 5.35p.m. on a Saturday?. Doesn't to me. As long as you know the kick off time well in advance you can plan your day and family arrangements accordingly. I'm sure a lot of people complaining use the same argument in reverse criticising the Riversiders who leave early - (What do they do with that extra 15 minutes etc?.)

Bottom line is we can gladly take the Sky money and kick off as and when required.  Or don't and scrap around in the lower leagues. Not even an issue for me.

Excellent post Rev and it sums up the issue perfectly.

It is annoying when people have to change their schedules but to be honest the 'babysitter' argument doesn't really wash; there's advance warning given months before the game. In return Sky give the club loads of money which allows us to play the likes of Man United and Arsenal. Without Sky we'd have plenty of 3pm kick offs against the likes of Stockport or Crewe.

It isn't really the fault of Sky so much...just the way it is, it's progress. If Sky didn't exist we'd have to invent them. If you want a real example of a TV monopoly of football you have to go back to the eighties when he BBC and ITV teamed up to offer as low a price as possible for football, far below what it was worth. Only when Sky first bid in 1988 did the league and the clubs begin to get a fraction of what their product is worth. If Sky wasn't wround other companies would have been set up to broadcast this product

As for people thinking it is killing itself with its greed....does anyone know when this accusation was first laid at football's door? The early 1880s. It's continued to be said ever since and yet today football is about as healthy as it'd ever been.

Colin - you mention "I have a life to live and I would like to co-ordinate it with doing my 60 mile round trip to see Rovers. Maybe the 60 mile round trip counts for nothing."

If you didn't want to make the trip you wouldn't, we all have lives and all supporters make sacrifices for their team. It's a bugger that everything isn't set up perfectly for each and every one of us but as there are millions of fans to cater for then I'm sorry but we just have to get on with it .

Oh and as for the 5.15 kick off time, unless you live a long distance away then I still haven't heard any good reason against it.

Edited July 4, 2004 by FourLaneBlue

[tashor]

we have the unique advantage of being just about the only side who can accomodate new fans.

How this plays out will determine our future more than any other issue.

Our weakness MUST become our biggest selling point which could remedy that very problem.

The direction that football is taking with growth dependent on generating finance from a large fan base means that none of our Lancashire rivals has a cat's chance in hell of any more than a fleeting/failing premiership appearance.

As football continues it's t.v. conquering of the ever growing middle classes then only the premiership ( or heavens forbid only the chumpions league ) will matter.

The disaffected populations ( especially the young ) of our neighbouring towns can help us sustain a top league club. Without them we can only have the same future as our nationwide beached neighbours.

I must admit I am no longer optimistic.

Has our club and especially our fans the vision to ensure we stay where we are now, nevermind grow?

[Paul]

Oh and as for the 5.15 kick off time, unless you live a long distance away then I still haven't heard any good reason against it.

How about having to start work at 7.00pm in Leyland? Which may well be the case for one ST holder in our house, not me though I did pay for the ticket.

[roversWASmylife]

Oh and as for the 5.15 kick off time, unless you live a long distance away then I still haven't heard any good reason against it.

How about having to start work at 7.00pm in Leyland? Which may well be the case for one ST holder in our house, not me though I did pay for the ticket.

I don’t have a clue why they want to put a match on tele at that stupid time.

Personally, football is a weekend event where it happens on a Saturday afternoon at three.

I’m having a problem where I work on weekend nights. It means I’m not going to make work on time, for those particular evenings when the game is on.

Matches on tele, more money for the clubs I suppose there not going to complain. But as other people have said, is it going to affect the attendances? My guess is yes.

And why? Fans that don’t have season tickets aren’t going to drag themselves out of the house on a Saturday evening when it’s at that stupid time.

The power of Sky........

[FourLaneBlue]

Oh and as for the 5.15 kick off time, unless you live a long distance away then I still haven't heard any good reason against it.

How about having to start work at 7.00pm in Leyland? Which may well be the case for one ST holder in our house, not me though I did pay for the ticket.

We all know people who have work commitments that mean they miss some games each season while furiously trying to swap shifts so they can see others. It's not nice when the game has to be missed but what do you suggest? That all games are played at 3pm on a Saturday and we have no live league football to watch? No thanks, I don't want miss being able to watch games on television and I don't think many people do.

Yes it's irritating and it's always a shame when someone has to miss a game because they are at work or college or whatever (as has happened a number of times to me) but I can hardly expect the game to positioned around my life. It's just one of these things...playing the game at that time means hundreds of thousands get to see the game. I for one think that's a good thing and I'm sure those who otherwise wouldn't be able to see the game do as well.

roversismylife- it's only 5.15pm, not midnight! It'll finish at seven...so you'll still have the night in front of you.

[pussycat]

I think think the extra tv coverage is excellent. unfortunately a lot of you bloody fella's have wives and girlfriends that don't appreciate the finer points of football and would like to shop and spend your money on saturday afternoons, which means us poor buggers that work in shops can't buy a season ticket no matter how much we want to. this means i could only go to eleven games this season but now i'll manage to get to a few more on sunday's, week nights and see afew in the pub that otherwise i wouldn't see.

these days the workin week is seven days long and sky coverage helps me to see more of my beloved rovers.

COME ON SKY PUT MORE ON.

[Paul]

On Saturday night I chatted with 3 ex ST holders - had six between them - about why they are no longer ST holders. The conversation broadened to Rugby League ( a sport I know little about), each had stopped watching Wigan following the advent of the summer game. The view regardng Rovers from these casual rather than die-hard fans is:

1. The players earn too much money

2. The bulk of the players are mercenary

3. None of the players have a real interest in the club or fans and fail to understand the supporters perspective. The players are viewed as distant from the support

4. Even local players, Dunn was cited as the example, ultimatley are swayed by money and ambition.

5. The players know if they fail in their job they can simply walk away and pick up a fat signing on fee at another club. In no other walk of life does this occur.

6. There should be a salary cap with performance related bonuses introduced

Each of these people has Sky, none mentioned the ease of getting a match day ticket or that it was simpler to watch on Sky. The ST cost was not an issue nor, surprisingly, was last season. Each of these potential ST holders took children, have good incomes and often took wives along as well.

In the instance of RL, the major point was that this is a winter sport and that in the summer there are many other alternative activities. RL is seen as a winter sport, the mud, blood and cold all being part of the event. What else can you do on a wet January Sunday was the question?

My point, and I do follow Revidge's arguement on finance, is the Sky money has created the financial problem clubs like ours face. It is the Sky money that funds multi-millionaires who know they can under-perform, walk away and pick up another signing on fee. The bulk of Sky money ends up in the pockets of those with the least interest in the club. This cannot be right.

The more football appears on TV and the more reliant on TV money the game becomes the weaker the clubs position. Look at the transfer market, big fees are becoming a thing of the past as clubs know that money must be retained for the player's salary. In another thread it's suggested JFH is a bargain on a free beacuse all the Rovers have to do is find his salary

Yes, it's a good thing we can see more of the Rovers away from home.......but all good things must come to an end.

[den]

Just a quick reply to that Paul and not to do with sky really:

Using the players over inflated wages as an excuse not to renew S.T's, is just that, an excuse.

I suspect that if rovers were paying huge wages and were top of the Prem, they would renew. It's not the players wages that's the problem, it's the players performances.

[Paul]

den, I'd argue it has everything to do with Sky as this is the source of the cash. The point being the players are paid a fortune, consequently the players are expected to perform to a level that justifies the salary. Play well and the money is not any issue, fail to perform and the salary becomes a big issue.

These arguements were coming from very well-heeled individuals, people whose household incomes would be in the range of £50 to £100K, not the man on the factory floor.

[Cheshireblue]

I can't agree with you on that Paul.

If we did not get TV money, then the difference in buying power between the Scummers and the rest of the league would be even greater. If all we had to survive on was ticket, sponsorship and merchandinsing revenues then we would no doubt be scrabbling around the lower leagues.

The sky money actually levels the playing field. Everybody gets broadly the same, so the percentage difference in the Scummers revenues and the likes of us, Fulham, Southampton, Everton etc is less.

Remember - Other countries would have TV money so suggesting that we should have just buried our heads in the sand and preferred it not to happen would just have meant that millionaire footballers would all be outside the premiership. Germany has failed to keep pace with the other big footballing countries and look at their league and national side. No big stars at all play in Germany.

[RevidgeBlue]

On Saturday night I chatted with 3 ex ST holders - had six between them - about why they are no longer ST holders. The conversation broadened to Rugby League ( a sport I know little about), each had stopped watching Wigan following the advent of the summer game. The view regardng Rovers from these casual rather than die-hard fans is:

1. The players earn too much money

2. The bulk of the players are mercenary

3. None of the players have a real interest in the club or fans and fail to understand the supporters perspective. The players are viewed as distant from the support

4. Even local players, Dunn was cited as the example, ultimatley are swayed by money and ambition.

5. The players know if they fail in their job they can simply walk away and pick up a fat signing on fee at another club. In no other walk of life does this occur.

6. There should be a salary cap with performance related bonuses introduced

Each of these people has Sky, none mentioned the ease of getting a match day ticket or that it was simpler to watch on Sky. The ST cost was not an issue nor, surprisingly, was last season. Each of these potential ST holders took children, have good incomes and often took wives along as well.

In the instance of RL, the major point was that this is a winter sport and that in the summer there are many other alternative activities. RL is seen as a winter sport, the mud, blood and cold all being part of the event. What else can you do on a wet January Sunday was the question?

My point, and I do follow Revidge's arguement on finance, is the Sky money has created the financial problem clubs like ours face. It is the Sky money that funds multi-millionaires who know they can under-perform, walk away and pick up another signing on fee. The bulk of Sky money ends up in the pockets of those with the least interest in the club. This cannot be right.

The more football appears on TV and the more reliant on TV money the game becomes the weaker the clubs position. Look at the transfer market, big fees are becoming a thing of the past as clubs know that money must be retained for the player's salary. In another thread it's suggested JFH is a bargain on a free beacuse all the Rovers have to do is find his salary

Yes, it's a good thing we can see more of the Rovers away from home.......but all good things must come to an end.

Excellent post as usual Paul but does this not tend to suggest that the problem lies with the clubs and chairmen themselves and not Sky?

Not one of your mates has cited Sky as a reason for not going to games more the players commitment and attitudes.

Sky simply pays the money to the clubs. No-one forces them to pay out nearly all that dosh in players wages.

Alan Sugar isn't usually someone I have much time for but he was correct when he called this "the prune juice effect". i.e. all the Sky money completely bypasses the clubs and ends up straight in the players wallets.

Personally I like watching as much Premiership football as possible on Sky.

Neither do I mind if our weekend games kick off at 12.30, 2.00, 3.00, 4.00 or 5.35 etc.

If the time came (and I wouldn't be that surprised to see it) when we were kicking off against ManUre at 1a.m. on a Thursday morning to satisfy a huge far eastern TV audience I think you could then say that things had gone too far.

[FourLaneBlue]

My point, and I do follow Revidge's arguement on finance, is the Sky money has created the financial problem clubs like ours face. It is the Sky money that funds multi-millionaires who know they can under-perform, walk away and pick up another signing on fee. The bulk of Sky money ends up in the pockets of those with the least interest in the club. This cannot be right.

What financial problem? We don't have one! That's because the board has been careful to look after the best interests of the club. If the club spends within their budget then there is no financial problem. If the club overspends like Leeds then deservedly things will go pear-shaped. None of this is the fault of Sky. It is totally the responsibility of the club to look after themselves and make sure they do not overspend. Just like in any other business.

The last time Rovers had major financial problems was in the pre-Sky days of the 1980s when Bill Fox had to send out cheques to his creditors unsigned...meaning he'd have a few more days to find the funds. On one occasion a match was postponed and those present were treated to the sight of the chairman of Blackburn Rovers fretting about what he was going to do without the revenues from pie sales that day.

Paul - you mention "The bulk of Sky money ends up in the pockets of those with the least interest in the club". Wait a minute...we go to watch top quality players perform and that's what we spend the money on. Of course most should go to them. It's just like watching a Brad Pitt or a Julia Roberts movie solely because they are in it and then complaining that the movie studio ain't getting enough of the takings.

Players are a special commodity. Hired for their special talent. They ain't ten a penny like solicitors, accountants, teachers, nurses whatever. It's a case of supply and demand. It's the way it is. As for fans complaining about the money they get...well, you pay them. If it's football you are a fan of then stop watching Sky or going to Ewood and watch a non-league side. Except that isn't quite it...we all want to watch the most talented footballers. For that we have to pay.

[CAPT KAYOS]

yet today football is about as healthy as it'd ever been.

FLB not nit picking but tend to disagree on this point to the extent only a small number of clubs are healthy and the rest are living on scraps or in deep trouble as the amount going into administration would suggest.

What I also think is that by moving the ko times it is creating more competition for the contents of peoples' wallets especially those with families etc.

So all in all tend to sway to Paul's comments and disagree its a good thing, but as what has already been mentioned - you can't just blame SKY.

[FourLaneBlue]

yet today football is about as healthy as it'd ever been.

FLB not nit picking but tend to disagree on this point to the extent only a small number of clubs are healthy and the rest are living on scraps or in deep trouble as the amount going into administration would suggest.

Quite true Mr Kayos- however, it really has ALWAYS been like that. Look up any year since the football league began and I guarantee you will find clubs in that kind of financial situation. Go back fifty years and the likes of Accrington Stanley, Gateshead, Bradford Park Avenue, Southport, new Brighton, Barrow, Workington, Aldershot etc etc were all league clubs. They all went the way of either obscurity or extinction. Small clubs have always struggled. Mainly because they are, well...so small. The Leeds United situation is nothing new, their predecessors Leeds City got in trouble and were booted out the league. Yet football carried on, it always does...

That England sustains far more clubs than any other country and has far more fans watching them than any other does not suggest a national game in crisis.

Look - I don't particularly like the extortionate amounts charged to watch live football, or for that matter televised football. I don't like players getting eighty grand a week. I don't think...wow! Sunday lunchtime, what a great time to go the football. The most worrying modern trend in football is the reluctance to buy lower division players but instead go after cheap foreign signings. That could be worrying for the long-term future of lower division clubs. But..you know...what can you do? It's the way it is now. Money talks in football. Then again...to a greater or lesser extent, it always has.

Edited July 5, 2004 by FourLaneBlue

[CAPT KAYOS]

yet today football is about as healthy as it'd ever been.

FLB not nit picking but tend to disagree on this point to the extent only a small number of clubs are healthy and the rest are living on scraps or in deep trouble as the amount going into administration would suggest.

Quite true Mr Kayos- however, it really has ALWAYS been like that. Look up any year since the football league began and I guarantee you will find clubs in that kind of financial situation. Go back fifty years and the likes of Accrington Stanley, Gateshead, Bradford Park Avenue, Southport, new Brighton, Barrow, Workington, Aldershot etc etc were all league clubs. They all went the way of either obscurity or extinction. Small clubs have always struggled. Mainly because they are, well...so small. The Leeds United situation is nothing new, their predecessors Leeds City got in trouble and were booted out the league. Yet football carried on, it always does...

That England sustains far more clubs than any other country and has far more fans watching them than any other does not suggest a national game in crisis.

Look - I don't particularly like the extortionate amounts charged to watch live football, or for that matter televised football. I don't like players getting eighty grand a week. I don't think...wow! Sunday lunchtime, what a great time to go the football. The most worrying modern trend in football is the reluctance to buy lower division players but instead go after cheap foreign signings. That could be worrying for the long-term future of lower division clubs. But..you know...what can you do? It's the way it is now. Money talks in football. Then again...to a greater or lesser extent, it always has.

Agree whole heartedly FLB especially re the Premiership culture of not looking in the lower leagues for other 'Stead's (to pick as an example) and of thinking to have to pay 'big money' to buy quality.

What also used to be the situation was that players couldn't just walk out of a club either and sign for another club and expect to pick up the readies as easily as they can nowadays.

Small clubs will always struggle as you so rightly state but they have survived- and normally they can keep their head above water but the way football is going nowadays the question has to be for how long? I feel alot more will possibly be in the' begging' brigade before we know it - which at the end of the day could end up with our 'over full' leagues being cut down.

My personal gripe is that more money should filter its way down to the lower leagues from the premiership matches if this is the way it should be.

All players aspire to play in the top leagues which is rightly so and its by selling their 'young stars that alot of the so called smaller clubs primarily survive on or are hoping that one day they will hit the jackpot with a sale as they know they cannot keep these players- some of these players would not be able to realise their dream without these smaller clubs.

For the TV World they are not for the majority an attractive draw, and maybe the directive being looked at by UEFA re the limitations of foreigners may be a good thing by directing funds to the 'smaller clubs'.

Yes money does talk in football - but does it speak the right language?

[Simon Says]

Looking at the new edition of the Sky magazine it previews the new saturday night show Football First on Sky Sports 1.

The show starts at 8.25 and is hosted by Clare Tomlinson (worth watching already ).

A full 90 minutes will be shown of a selected game then when thats finished you can choose extended highlights- at least 50 minutes- of a game played in The Premiership that day.

In the words of Big Brother - "you decide".