|
Post by Doc Halladay 32 on Sept 7, 2015 14:05:03 GMT 1
Nothing to see here, if Canalside made any profits then there could be an argument. Canalside provides a service for HTAFC and its fans and does NOT make a profit - If it did then i'm sure DH would channel any profit straight into HTAFC.
Do some posters feel cheated that their money spent at Canalside (for subsidised beer and grub) goes to offset losses of an entity that the club owner has built from his own dosh and in addition to this he has put neigh on £40m into the coffers at HTAFC to try and get the club to compete at it's highest level in over 40 years.
Ungratefulness on here shows no bounds.
If you're wanting to think of unscrupulous owners, just remember the one that DH purchased the club from.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2015 14:08:33 GMT 1
I thought it was common knowledge that Dean had paid for Canalside, and that it would be left as a legacy for the football club. I don't see where the funding has ever come out of the football club. It was always my interpretation that when/if Dean sold HTAFC he kept hold of Canalside to ensure it remained for the use of the club..the fact he might want a rent for it is quite right, why wouldn't he ? Dean's business interests don't just stop with HTAFC, and Canalside is a Ltd Co. in it's own right.. not a subsidiary of HTAFC despite both businesses having the same owner....(unless of course their is a tax efficient parent company tucked away in the Cayman islands.....) Currently it is. Going by DH's comments today, that would change if he were to sell the club. The £390k turnover of Canalside is counted within the club's total revenue in the last set of accounts. As far as I can tell, we don't pay any rent for using the facilities. Not sure why some people seem to have got themselves so confused and worked up by this. As the accounts confirm...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2015 14:08:32 GMT 1
Similarly, should Canalside be excluded from a future deal to sell the football club, why is it that Dean expects a return on his investment with the comment about a new owner having to BUY or rent the site....but when Ken wanted to see his investment returned via the mechanism of getting some value back out of the stadium shares, he was hounded by fans, supporter groups and the media and probably lived in fear for a while off the back of some very threatening vitriol. Davy didn't fund Town's 40% of the construction of the ground. He received that 40% from buying the club and then sold it to himself (for £2 was it?) By comparing the two situations you're inferring that when Dean bought the club this £5million Canalside was just sat there as an asset that he's now taken control of and will use it as a bargaining tool to get some money. You're twisting things. Why? The situation seems crystal clear to most but you for some reason are attempting to retrieve murkiness and underhandedness from it. There's a lot of harmful drivel wrote on this board that people shouldn't get too worked up about, but your recent posts in this thread just seem to be trying to cause trouble and paint a picture that doesn't exist. I'm not doing it intentionally, but money has gone from Hudds Town directly into the Canalside development, that's visible in the accounts, there seems to be an implication now that "Dean built Canalside out of his own back pocket", and therefore he would deserve some return on that. Ps...I'm more than happy that football club money has developed this great facility, when you look at how things were up at Storthes Hall. I believe that it's money that would get discounted from allowable losses on the FFP statement too, so is money that effectively wouldn't have been able to increase the playing budget anyway without Dean putting in more (than he is allowed), or savings made elsewhere.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2015 14:10:45 GMT 1
Nothing to see here, if Canalside made any profits then there could be an argument. Canalside provides a service for HTAFC and its fans and does NOT make a profit - If it did then i'm sure DH would channel any profit straight into HTAFC. Do some posters feel cheated that their money spent at Canalside (for subsidised beer and grub) goes to offset losses of an entity that the club owner has built from his own dosh and in addition to this he has put neigh on £40m into the coffers at HTAFC to try and get the club to compete at it's highest level in over 40 years. Ungratefulness on here shows no bounds. If you're wanting to think of unscrupulous owners, just remember the one that DH purchased the club from. If you buy something at Canalside the money does feed through to HTAFC.
|
|
|
Post by somenun on Sept 7, 2015 14:10:45 GMT 1
Nothing to see here, if Canalside made any profits then there could be an argument. Canalside provides a service for HTAFC and its fans and does NOT make a profit - If it did then i'm sure DH would channel any profit straight into HTAFC. Do some posters feel cheated that their money spent at Canalside (for subsidised beer and grub) goes to offset losses of an entity that the club owner has built from his own dosh and on top of this he has put neigh on £40m into the coffers to try and get the club to compete at it's highest level in over 40 years. Ungratefulness on here shows no bounds. If you're wanting to think of unscrupulous owners, just remember the one that DH purchased the club from.
I take on board your comments, but why do people on here get so defensive of Dean ? Its not a case of ungratefulness, not on my part anyway, just that of clarification.
Anyone would think you can't ask questions of Dean, he seems untouchable to some.
|
|
|
Post by htafctaunton on Sept 7, 2015 14:15:51 GMT 1
On the Trust issue, it would just depend on how the Trust's beneficiaries ie HTAFC LTD are treated. I'd think it would be quite simple to just have any money from KSDL divis paid into the Trust go straight to the football club, which would give all the benefit of actually owning the shares without a future owner having the ability to mortgage or sell the asset. I don't know how you'd get a trust to work within KSDL's corporate structure though - if the trustee was the owner of HTFC then they'd probably be able to wind the trust up. It'll be a good day for the solicitors, anyway. Actually, it's VERY rarely a bad day for that lot, is it!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2015 14:19:21 GMT 1
Nothing to see here, if Canalside made any profits then there could be an argument. Canalside provides a service for HTAFC and its fans and does NOT make a profit - If it did then i'm sure DH would channel any profit straight into HTAFC. Do some posters feel cheated that their money spent at Canalside (for subsidised beer and grub) goes to offset losses of an entity that the club owner has built from his own dosh and on top of this he has put neigh on £40m into the coffers to try and get the club to compete at it's highest level in over 40 years. Ungratefulness on here shows no bounds. If you're wanting to think of unscrupulous owners, just remember the one that DH purchased the club from.
I take on board your comments, but why do people on here get so defensive of Dean ? Its not a case of ungratefulness, not on my part anyway, just that of clarification.
Anyone would think you can't ask questions of Dean, he seems untouchable to some.
People were correcting factual errors you'd made. I don't know why you'd get so defensive about it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2015 14:21:48 GMT 1
Davy didn't fund Town's 40% of the construction of the ground. He received that 40% from buying the club and then sold it to himself (for £2 was it?) By comparing the two situations you're inferring that when Dean bought the club this £5million Canalside was just sat there as an asset that he's now taken control of and will use it as a bargaining tool to get some money. You're twisting things. Why? The situation seems crystal clear to most but you for some reason are attempting to retrieve murkiness and underhandedness from it. There's a lot of harmful drivel wrote on this board that people shouldn't get too worked up about, but your recent posts in this thread just seem to be trying to cause trouble and paint a picture that doesn't exist. I'm not doing it intentionally, but money has gone from Hudds Town directly into the Canalside development, that's visible in the accounts, there seems to be an implication now that "Dean built Canalside out of his own back pocket", and therefore he would deserve some return on that. Ps...I'm more than happy that football club money has developed this great facility, when you look at how things were up at Storthes Hall. I believe that it's money that would get discounted from allowable losses on the FFP statement too, so is money that effectively wouldn't have been able to increase the playing budget anyway without Dean putting in more (than he is allowed), or savings made elsewhere. Any capital transfer from HTFC to HCL has been funded from Dean's DLA anyway - the majority of which he's going to write off upon sale (as it's mainly dissipated into the ether of paying Alan Lee and Joey Gudjonnsen.) He's just not writing off the bit that's been spent on steel and concrete, which is up to him. Our quibbling over whether he'd leave the club by writing off £26m or £30m seems a trifle uncharitable to me.
|
|
|
Post by somenun on Sept 7, 2015 14:22:58 GMT 1
I take on board your comments, but why do people on here get so defensive of Dean ? Its not a case of ungratefulness, not on my part anyway, just that of clarification.
Anyone would think you can't ask questions of Dean, he seems untouchable to some.
People were correcting factual errors you'd made. I don't know why you'd get so defensive about it.
Sorry you interpreted my question as being defensive. As for factual error/s, I am unsure of what they are
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2015 14:27:54 GMT 1
People were correcting factual errors you'd made. I don't know why you'd get so defensive about it.
Sorry you interpreted my question as being defensive. As for factual error/s, I am unsure of what they are ???
Ok, I should have worded that "answered your questions", with hindsight.
|
|
|
Post by fredcarno1 on Sept 7, 2015 14:29:08 GMT 1
I'm all for being critical of the clubs transfer policy, lack of strikers ect but Jesus wept this thread is really plumbing the depths !!! Are folk really slating Dean Hoyle for putting together a fantastic training / supporters facility at his own cost simply because he hasn't seen fit to give it lock stock and barrel to the club ? The place will be bereft of many paying customers most of the time and has cost a fortune to do up, which is incidentally why Syngenta wanted shut of it. Would people rather us be back up renting pitches from the university at Storthes hall probably using bins for posts ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2015 14:32:54 GMT 1
Any potential new owner might be quite happy not being burdened with having to buy the stadium complex, stadiums don't win matches..players do and it would enable him/her to concentrate their funds purely on the playing matters and not (for instance) in having to de-rust and re paint the stadium. I would imagine the security that the HTAFC Trust is holding Towns share of the complex and the management of it is undertaken by KSDL staff would be seen as a positive. When clubs are bought and sold I would say the majority of the time it is the potential on the field that swings it, rather than ooh it's a pretty stadium although I do accept some less savoury buyers purely see the potential of the site for development, but Dean will weedle them out first I reckon. The same goes for canalside, why waste precious capital when you can simply lease it for the duration of your ownership.. The combination of these two lease arrangements should in themselves be enough to weedle out any buyers salivating over the redevelopment prospects rather than pushing the football club forward. I agree. But its all very confusing when. 1) There was an initial collaboration agreement drawn up between the council, the football club and the rugby club, such that the stadium would be run and developed in such a way to benefit all three parties. 2) Ken Davy transferred the football clubs ownership of the shares away from the football club, to "protect the football club from the potential liabilities of the stadium" (the rugby club shares had already moved away from the rugby club, as he effectively manufactured the situation, in amongst Sheffield/Hudds Giants etc, where the club playing as Hudds Giants ultimately was a new company, with the shares remaining in the old, largely dormant rugby club business,which became an umbrella, and "protected the Giants from KSDL liabilities". 3) Ken Davy sells the football club, without the stadium shares. 4) We're then told the football club NEEDs a direct say in how the stadium is managed and needs direct ownership to " benefit in the future" (although specifically how is never made clear). 5) Ken doesn't want to sell / give away is stadium ownership, is declared the devil incarnate against a backdrop of insisting still that keeping the shares separate from the football club protects the football club. 6) After influence of aprolonged aggressive campaign led on Deans behalf, and no doubt lots of negotiation, Dean gets the stadium shares "back where they belong", at a cost of £2m? For some reason the football club no longer needs " protecting" from KSDL. 7) Now we're told that when Hudds Town next changes hands, then the stadium ownership will be removed. Does the football club "need protecting" from KSDL again? Why was direct stadium ownership by the football club / the owner of the football club such a critical requirement whilst Dean has been the owner, but Dean is saying he will ensure that any future owner won't have that ownership? Something doesnt add up somewhere. Similarly, should Canalside be excluded from a future deal to sell the football club, why is it that Dean expects a return on his investment with the comment about a new owner having to BUY or rent the site....but when Ken wanted to see his investment returned via the mechanism of getting some value back out of the stadium shares, he was hounded by fans, supporter groups and the media and probably lived in fear for a while off the back of some very threatening vitriol. Will Dean sell "Hudds Towns share" in Canalside back to a future Hudds Town for £99, or will he bargain for millions? We really need more info putting out there, as theres a risk that Dean is starting to build a wall between himself and the fans, whereas over the last few years he has been considered as one of those fans. I'm sure its all innocent and theres probably nothing to worry about, he seems an inherently fair and decent person, but, as Town fans we've been scarred in the past by well meaning owners doing their best for the club but ultimately running it down....and that the tenures of Rubery, Taylor, and Davy are all so fresh in the mind makes us naturally wary. It's just a shame that Rubery didn't have Deans head, or that Taylor didn't have Ruberys money! (I won't comment on Davy...most folk remain irrational with regards to him...he's probably the kind of owner who would have been seen as quite successful in the 80s). Unfortunately, the only thing that doesn't add up is your brain. No offence intended, but you are confusing belief in what an accused assett stripper might wish you to believe and belief in what a person with demonstrable integrity has done as part of a process of protecting the future of HTFC going forwards. So it's simple, 40% of stadium was purchased by DH to protect the clubs interests and that will be transfered into a trust for the club before any sale. 100% of canalside was purchased by DH to provide local high quality training facilities for HTFC, to ensure that is also available for the future of HTFC it can be either purchased by a new owner or rented on favourable terms. No further ownership changes are currently appropriate as the club is not for sale!
|
|
|
Post by somenun on Sept 7, 2015 14:36:37 GMT 1
I agree. But its all very confusing when. 1) There was an initial collaboration agreement drawn up between the council, the football club and the rugby club, such that the stadium would be run and developed in such a way to benefit all three parties. 2) Ken Davy transferred the football clubs ownership of the shares away from the football club, to "protect the football club from the potential liabilities of the stadium" (the rugby club shares had already moved away from the rugby club, as he effectively manufactured the situation, in amongst Sheffield/Hudds Giants etc, where the club playing as Hudds Giants ultimately was a new company, with the shares remaining in the old, largely dormant rugby club business,which became an umbrella, and "protected the Giants from KSDL liabilities". 3) Ken Davy sells the football club, without the stadium shares. 4) We're then told the football club NEEDs a direct say in how the stadium is managed and needs direct ownership to " benefit in the future" (although specifically how is never made clear). 5) Ken doesn't want to sell / give away is stadium ownership, is declared the devil incarnate against a backdrop of insisting still that keeping the shares separate from the football club protects the football club. 6) After influence of aprolonged aggressive campaign led on Deans behalf, and no doubt lots of negotiation, Dean gets the stadium shares "back where they belong", at a cost of £2m? For some reason the football club no longer needs " protecting" from KSDL. 7) Now we're told that when Hudds Town next changes hands, then the stadium ownership will be removed. Does the football club "need protecting" from KSDL again? Why was direct stadium ownership by the football club / the owner of the football club such a critical requirement whilst Dean has been the owner, but Dean is saying he will ensure that any future owner won't have that ownership? Something doesnt add up somewhere. Similarly, should Canalside be excluded from a future deal to sell the football club, why is it that Dean expects a return on his investment with the comment about a new owner having to BUY or rent the site....but when Ken wanted to see his investment returned via the mechanism of getting some value back out of the stadium shares, he was hounded by fans, supporter groups and the media and probably lived in fear for a while off the back of some very threatening vitriol. Will Dean sell "Hudds Towns share" in Canalside back to a future Hudds Town for £99, or will he bargain for millions? We really need more info putting out there, as theres a risk that Dean is starting to build a wall between himself and the fans, whereas over the last few years he has been considered as one of those fans. I'm sure its all innocent and theres probably nothing to worry about, he seems an inherently fair and decent person, but, as Town fans we've been scarred in the past by well meaning owners doing their best for the club but ultimately running it down....and that the tenures of Rubery, Taylor, and Davy are all so fresh in the mind makes us naturally wary. It's just a shame that Rubery didn't have Deans head, or that Taylor didn't have Ruberys money! (I won't comment on Davy...most folk remain irrational with regards to him...he's probably the kind of owner who would have been seen as quite successful in the 80s). Unfortunately, the only thing that doesn't add up is your brain.No offence intended, but you are confusing brief in what an accused assett stripper might wish you to believe and belief in what a person with demonstrable integrity has done as part of a process of protecting the future of HTFC going forwards. So it's simple, 40% of stadium was purchased by DH to protect the clubs interests and that will be transfered into a trust for the club before any sale. 100% of canalside was purchased by DH to provide local high quality training facilities for HTFC, to ensure that is also available for the future of HTFC it can be either purchased by a new owner or rented on favourable terms. No further ownership changes are currently appropriate as the club is not for sale! - crikey, it gets a little tense on here sometimes
|
|
|
Post by mids on Sept 7, 2015 14:39:45 GMT 1
Dean owns Canalside. Huddersfield Town own the 40% share in the stadium. Dean owns Huddersfield Town. Quite worrying really. The club have lead supporters to believe Canalside belongs to the club prior to today No they haven't. It's always been stated. In any case. Dean owns Canalside. Dean owns Huddersfield Town. Therefore Huddersfield Town owns Canalside. Move along now there's nothing to see.
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Sept 7, 2015 14:42:42 GMT 1
The spoilt little kid who only received a £1000 bike from his uncle instead of the £2000 bike he wanted, has stopped rolling about on the floor having a tantrum, and is now trying to run over his uncle with his new bike.
|
|
|
Post by somenun on Sept 7, 2015 14:42:54 GMT 1
Quite worrying really. The club have lead supporters to believe Canalside belongs to the club prior to today No they haven't. It's always been stated. In any case. Dean owns Canalside. Dean owns Huddersfield Town. Therefore Huddersfield Town owns Canalside. Move along now there's nothing to see.
I see what your saying, I accept what your saying to a degree. However, I am struggling to understand how Huddersfield Town can OWN Canalside when it is held under another company name ? Sorry, it might just be me been absolutely dense, I apologise if so.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2015 14:56:20 GMT 1
Well I have to say lads, I understand the whole thing a lot better now. Thanks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2015 15:02:15 GMT 1
No they haven't. It's always been stated. In any case. Dean owns Canalside. Dean owns Huddersfield Town. Therefore Huddersfield Town owns Canalside. Move along now there's nothing to see.
I see what your saying, I accept what your saying to a degree. However, I am struggling to understand how Huddersfield Town can OWN Canalside when it is held under another company name ? Sorry, it might just be me been absolutely dense, I apologise if so.
Because the company that holds Canalside is a subsidiary of Huddersfield Town (as shown by the Companies House docs Rory put up). It's the same way Cadbury's is owned by Kraft, despite them operating as different companies.
|
|
|
Post by somenun on Sept 7, 2015 15:04:51 GMT 1
I see what your saying, I accept what your saying to a degree. However, I am struggling to understand how Huddersfield Town can OWN Canalside when it is held under another company name ? Sorry, it might just be me been absolutely dense, I apologise if so.
Because the company that holds Canalside is a subsidiary of Huddersfield Town (as shown by the Companies House docs Rory put up). It's the same way Cadbury's is owned by Kraft, despite them operating as different companies.
Pennys dropped, than you
|
|
|
Post by bluedogs, Esq. on Sept 7, 2015 15:17:38 GMT 1
Well this let the cat out of the bag a bit. I'd asked before about who exactly owned and benefited from Canalside and got repeatedly told Town did. I wonder if some of the club's "losses" include the buying of the stadium shares and development of Canalside? I feel we have been lied to again. Not good. Its a sad day when you find out Santa Claus is not real
|
|
|
Post by ColchTerrier on Sept 7, 2015 15:24:00 GMT 1
I'm all for being critical of the clubs transfer policy, lack of strikers ect but Jesus wept this thread is really plumbing the depths !!! Are folk really slating Dean Hoyle for putting together a fantastic training / supporters facility at his own cost simply because he hasn't seen fit to give it lock stock and barrel to the club ? The place will be bereft of many paying customers most of the time and has cost a fortune to do up, which is incidentally why Syngenta wanted shut of it. Would people rather us be back up renting pitches from the university at Storthes hall probably using bins for posts ? Unbelievable isn't it. Hurry up Saturday so we can have actual football to moan about like why Hogg is starting left side of Midfield and why did we settle for a draw after an hour and end up loosing 2-1
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2015 15:47:34 GMT 1
Not sure why us football fans should be so miserable and inquisitive... Pop along to one of this blokes shindigs and see how football has improved for us ordinary fans over the last 20-odd yrs - if you can get beyond the vested interest hype that is... It's appropriate to this thread BTW, to prove that there are hundreds if not thousands of truly unscrupulous people involved in our game... www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33789701
|
|
|
Post by Sugy , Paignton Devon Terrier on Sept 7, 2015 16:02:59 GMT 1
Could someone please explain in detail how any " incoming business person/s " could turn club seasonal losses of around 6.8 million into that of profit or break even. I very much doubt the club would have sold its star players if there had been an alternative way to keeping losses down.. I would be interested to know how much Mr Hoyle has valued the club if a buyer of his liking were to be found. Mr Hoyle and his team did not get where they are today through failure , and feel if anybody could turn the club finances around it would be he and his team of professionals. . Be careful for what you wish for especially after what happened to the club when being run by a very enthusiastic Mr Rubery.
|
|
|
Post by haveitback on Sept 7, 2015 16:05:49 GMT 1
I have been critical of some things DH has done or continues to do, However i have always said it's not a campaign against the man, I don't see what all the fuss is that some are creating about this issue, DH has not done anything wrong here or try to lie or twist the truth. On what he has done as far as securing the club long term i can not fault him for what ever division that maybe in.
|
|
|
Post by Big Ern on Sept 7, 2015 16:14:53 GMT 1
I'm baffled as to why there are some people seemingly implying there are underhand tactics at play here. Before Dean Hoyle came we were training on a shitty field in storthes hall, had no tangible assets and owned none of our stadium.
We now have a multi million pound training facility, shares in the stadium back and a championship team (even of we are weak in places but let's not go there).
It seems simple to me. When Dean decides to leave he will place the shares in trust. The football club will still stand to reap the benefits of the stadium shares it just means a future chairman can never sell them or use them for his/her own financial gain.
The training facility is still being offered to a future buyer but at a cost but like was said before the fee for the sale of the club in the first instance will take this into account.
If future chairman decides not to carry the burden of the training ground then the football club rent it for a pittance. I'm sure the offer to buy will always be there!
Having said all of this I am very curious to know why Dean Hoyle has chosen to say all this today. I am sure that there is a future sale in the pipeline.
|
|
|
Post by galpharm2400 on Sept 7, 2015 17:30:47 GMT 1
Not sure why us football fans should be so miserable and inquisitive... Pop along to one of this blokes shindigs and see how football has improved for us ordinary fans over the last 20-odd yrs - if you can get beyond the vested interest hype that is... It's appropriate to this thread BTW, to prove that there are hundreds if not thousands of truly unscrupulous people involved in our game... www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33789701unscrupulous??? cheating/lying/thieving bastards more like.. every extra quid that comes in adds another schyster tring to get as much of that quid as he can.
|
|
|
Post by eastterrace on Sept 7, 2015 17:31:05 GMT 1
Jesus wept; well he would if he read the rubbish in this thread. DH makes a clear statement. Daft buggers on here have nothing better to do than pull it apart. DATM = Dreary and tiresome moaners.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2015 17:36:07 GMT 1
My only concern over Canalside is that the canals bursts its banks and Canalside ends up looking like New Orleans.
I hope the club have invested in some sandbags for when the inevitable happens.
|
|
|
Post by galpharm2400 on Sept 7, 2015 17:37:53 GMT 1
Jesus wept; well he would if he read the rubbish in this thread. DH makes a clear statement. Daft buggers on here have nothing better to do than pull it apart. DATM = Dreary and tiresome moaners. 'clear statements' lots of clear statements made that dont reflect what happens from football clubs including ours.. its a business and things change, making clear statements is for today, altering what you actually do is for tommorow.. the 'amount' of things said off the record by Dean at various open meetings is so vast and so different its a wonder he had time to do any business in between.. rumour, speculation and support and critique, lifebllod of being a football fan..ffs if it was all about the results at least a third of fans in the country would never go back to the games again..
|
|
|
Post by bluedogs, Esq. on Sept 7, 2015 18:05:55 GMT 1
My only concern over Canalside is that the canals bursts its banks and Canalside ends up looking like New Orleans. I hope the club have invested in some sandbags for when the inevitable happens. I hope you have invested in some beads for when this happens
|
|