THE LAB | Do You Trust The Lewis Family?

0:00This podcast is part of the Sports Social Podcast Network.

0:30Charrington's statement to the fans, ownership, responsibility, governance, recruitment, leadership vacuums and whether Tottenham finally have a proper football structure in place or whether we're simply witnessing another reset dressed up as revolution. If you enjoy the lab please do us a kindness and hit follow wherever you get your podcasts especially if you listen on Spotify and if you have the time and you haven't already give us five stars that'd be amazing as well good hello welcome back to another episode of the lab i'm joined once again by anatole pang how are you doing very good very good i mean there's a heat wave over where you are is there not a heat wave where you are well the whole world's on fire isn't it it's always hot in Hong Kong.

1:21Yeah, but I'm definitely, and you'll know this because you've experienced both climates, it's hotter in England than it is. 32 in England is hotter than 32 in Hong Kong. It's got to be. I think it's the other way around because it's more humid here, but I think it's hotter because you're not used to it. But I have to say that a few years ago, I bought my aunt who lives in Hampton Court. I bought her an aircon unit as a mobile one. I think actually in retrospect it's turned out to be a very good bet. Yeah, yeah. It's probably changed our life. Yeah, I think you're wrong about that, by the way. It's definitely hotter here.

1:56Anyway, we'll agree to disagree.

2:01We're talking because I think what we're seeing now is the result of the Gibb River report in all its glory. I don't know if that's correct but it feels like I don't know if you saw the statement let's start with the Lewis statement because they said that the the extent or the the damage or the the problems at the football club were much worse than they thought they were what did you what did you make of that because that that has to come from the report and then the sacking of Daniel Levy and then looking into the inner workings of the club is that it's only world where they they wouldn't have known that before that could they be surprised about what was happening at one of their companies so i mean that probably is worth looking across both statements because they do both make this um this very pointed comment about i think in charitings in charrington's letter he talks about september very specifically and uh in the lewis family's note they also say that things are much worse.

3:12I mean, essentially, it's saying it's expressing surprise at what they encountered, that much is for sure, right? So that's what they're claiming. But I think most of that is a bit of PR. I think the reality is this. We know that the Lewis family has always had control. And just to take it in terms of its numbers, right? Tottenham is 82 % owned by Enoch. it's one of these very weird companies which is technically a public company it has public shareholders like you and i but is not listed it's very rare for that to happen but it's a it happens to be here so of the 82 percent um it was owned by enic um that split roughly 70 30 between lewis family and and daniel levy so the simple reality is that controlling shareholder of the Lewis family has always had overwhelming control if it had wanted it.

4:10That is indisputable. Those small shareholders outside of the 82 % of the public shareholders have no power. And then the two parties within Enoch, 70-30, will be subject to something, what we call a shareholder agreement. So there will be some sort of agreement, probably written down, say, who gets to do what. Just because you own a minority doesn't mean you have no rights. If you've actually signed an agreement, then you'll probably have some sort of rights in there. But again, there's no doubt that the Lewis family, if they had wanted to, have always had this power. So the only real question is, is there any truth to the idea that the children in the last year have just suddenly one day woken up and said, oh, we own a football club?

5:00What's going on? No, it's not impossible. It's not impossible. And the reason it can happen is I think that, you know, we know that Joe Lewis obviously was the dominant figure. And we know that Joe Lewis has had issues, health problems, and other things in the last few years. So it is possible that Joe never gave his children much power and authority. And at the same time, himself was basically not able to turn up to things. And And in that vacuum, it's very possible that Daniel Levy was able to fill that vacuum and become a much more dominant figure. Now, if I look back over 25 years, I'm not sure that stacks up too much because Levy has been shoved out in front of the cameras from day one.

5:52He's always been the one who's been put there. So I don't think that there has, it doesn't feel that there has been huge sea change in underlying power just in the last few years. And if you think that things like the stadium plan, which of course is the dominant capital expenditure of the last 15 years, was fronted by Levy, and that would have stretched well before Joe Lewis was ill, or was facing the last round of legal trouble. So I think the plan has always been that Levy was more the front man for all this. And whatever happened, Levy would be there. I think that's been generally the case.

6:33I also think that even if the children of the Lewis family had not been given official reins of power, they probably would have been fairly aware of what was going on before. You know, it would be a big surprise if they had literally just decided, you know, out of nothing a year ago that they were actually going to start taking interest. Why would they? It would be naive at best. Now, maybe they are naive, but it just seems a little unlikely. So if you're asking me, do I think they knew more than what they're saying now? And do I think that these statements, I think you mentioned earlier, are somewhat designed to, apologies, throw Levy under the bus, or at least to use that change as a continued excuse for what went on before, and therefore to try and rebase everything to today as a sort of convenient time and I think probably there is convenience in that that's that's that would be my guess of what's going on so if so so if you if you take the Lewis family at their word which is their sentences our approach to running the club is and has been to trust the experts to do that which seems such a kind of I don't know like a um what's the word uh just like a simple way to explained something quite complex it's to trust the experts seems like something that i might say to my wife or about building our house not running a massive part of their business anyway um to trust the experts to do that while backing them to be successful the problems we found were deeper than we realized and were allowed to build over the last few years so they would like us to believe that daniel levy and his band of experts um have been running the football club and they've more or less while giving them some support and probably agreeing to everything that he wanted that it was Daniel Levy that was making these decisions and they were just having this standoff approach.

8:41Now, based on everything you've just said, I don't believe that to be the case. It'll be somewhat negligent. But if you imagine when Tavistock and Enoch bought Tottenham back in 2001 to the tune of about 50 million pound i don't know what their total value was worth back then but spurs would i'd imagine would have been a much smaller part of it than they are today so their total value today is around six seven billion i think and spurs could be worth half of their total portfolio is it could it be that when the stadium was built that built that suddenly they had to become more interested or like you say joe lewis was just ready to entrust daniel levy if you like, a sort of surrogate son, to just run the club in the way that he sees fit.

9:33And the evidence would show from when they took it over to where we are now, he's done an incredible job in building that as an, the football club is an asset for Tavistock. So that they then become, as it became more and more significant, they became more and more interested in how they were doing things, the club were doing things. And then they said over the last few years would suggest that it was in those last few years that things started to go awry i don't know is that is that fair is that could that be accurate that they they weren't interested until they were interested when the club became a significant size i think you you're definitely correct that purely as a as a percentage of exposure you know if you look at their percentage of wealth tied up in tottenham hotspur it almost certainly has evolved such that you know if they're let's say that real estate portfolio and Tavistock, one of the other big parts of its portfolio is real estate.

10:30Between the early 2000s and now, it will have grown, but let's say 2 billion would become 3 billion maybe. It just follows the ordinary course of business. Whereas Tottenham, yeah, very possibly from a few hundred million will have become equally 3, probably 3 is lower, I mean 3 to 4 billion, I would guess Tottenham would be sellable for now. So yes, by definition, Tottenham now takes up a much bigger piece of their wealth. Having said that, if you remember back in the day, you know, Enoch's purpose, even notwithstanding the size of the investment, they actually had plans. I mean, Enoch was actually an early attempt at trying to build one of these sort of sport groups.

11:15They never really got off the ground. But back in the day, they were trying to do this. they had Rangers and Icaffins didn't they and Spurs I think yeah um so you know I think from a you know what is true in business is that just because a part of the business is smaller by revenue or profits doesn't mean it takes up proportionately less management time in fact very often things which are which bring the least profit and reward end up taking absolutely the most amount of management time sometimes because you're trying to solve problems but also just you know there are a lot of vanity projects uh folie de grandeur we call them where it's just something you want to do you know frequently you'll find airlines are in this or hotel groups things which they can turn a profit in good years but of course very subject to vagaries such as covid or whatever else but you'll find the owners absolutely love those assets and spend all their time lifestyle thing yeah rather than sort of the boring unsexy core businesses so um i think that the i think what's more important is the generational change because i don't know what joe was thinking the key here is when did the children start to become more active and then i think what you're really asking is were the children the ones who instigated the give river review which i think is possible um but i think that doesn't detract from the fact that when you look at the problems we've been facing these last few years, they haven't been a sort of Daniel Levy problem, and they're not going to be solved by Daniel Levy going.

12:54And the references in these two letters and announcements, they're just designed to be a bit feel-good, and I think they're just trying to pin it conveniently on Levy, when in fact, in overall terms, even if Levy was in charge of a lot of day-to-day, the Lewis family would have had enough influence to see what was going on and they certainly would have signed off let's just take it down to specifics they would have signed off on all the capital requirements that went into building the stadium the whole stadium project and the sort of the business model around the stadium and knowing equally that at the same time that would have cost cost Tottenham on on the field in the sense that the same money was not going to be spent on players during that period.

13:40That is a fact which, that wasn't a Daniel Levy fact. The Lewises would definitely know about that and would have considered it and their board, including Charrington but also his predecessors, would have all sat around and discussed this. Will this work? Is this the right way to do things? Is this going to cost us too much? The interesting word in there is the experts and I wonder whether they considered Levy an expert or not because he's an expert at things like the project around the football stadium But I guess, you know, he probably isn't an expert on football. I sort of doubt whether the Lewises would have been scammed into thinking he was an expert on football.

14:19Maybe they did. But I think that therein lies some of the question that you leave experts to do the thing they're expert in rather than doing everything. Do you agree with me with that strange sort of nebulous phrase of the experts? it's like it just it's so vague like who who i mean since brexit so i mean i think it's all tied up to that kind of phraseology people who you think should know better than you no no i mean i appreciate that but i just feel like it is it like a dumbing down so that the fans would understand rather than being very specific or just you get away with that using that kind of language you don't have to commit to anything you don't say who is at fault or who isn't at fault it's just there are these i don't even know who they're talking about when they say experts i'm assuming daniel levy of course but are they does it extend to every um director of football that he's employed i don't know it just felt a bit odd but you know they have to say something and i guess i mean i think that you're right in asking this the thing about the expert first to use that show is basically to have a great responsibility you're basically saying well it wasn't our fault we there were experts in China yeah someone know better than not so whoever you think the experts are it's a way of saying well it wasn't our fault and now we're stepping in because the experts sort of failed and then the second question is who are the experts but the only you know in in terms of the ownership of a company the you only appoint that first layer you know the the CEO let's call and then don't forget even though we kept on referring to Dan leave is chairman when when you're the likes of football fans talk about chairman you mean an old-fashioned football chairman the football chairman which um you know from our childhood that really just means the ceo effectively so the ceo and the cfo the finance director a couple of people like that those are the only people who get directly appointed i don't think the lewis family would in most cases have in any case gotten involved with appointing you know even managers and directors of football, you shouldn't do that.

16:29And that's not what good governance is. I'd like to ask you about good governance in a second, but do you think, so there'd be no world where Daniel Levy would have to refer to the Lewis family about players signed because they wouldn't know, right? If he wanted to sign Ndombele for£60 million, that's a lot of money, but it's within the sort of confines of Enoch and Tottenham. so he wouldn't necessarily have to go to Vivian Lewis, the Lewis children, or wherever it might be, and say, I want to sign this player. It would give him that freedom, you'd imagine. Well, I think it's an interesting point, because the reason why the signing of a player would come up to the board is usually due to the size, the scale of the expenditure.

17:17So it's literally a case of any free transfer signing would barely have to ever be discussed. Whereas any major significant upfront expenditure, now bear in mind, football transfers don't really work like that. It's not like 60 million is literally 60 million. But I think you're getting to an interesting point here because I suspect it's very possible that one of the reasons Daniel Lee was so allergic to high upfront transfer fee signings is because the more he did that, the more he would have to go up to the board and have him discussed. Whereas I think below, and often you have actual numeric thresholds.

17:56So you'll say that any project that exceeds, let's just say, 10 % of the company's annual revenue will need to be a board matter. That's the kind of thing which happens now. Each company is different. But it's possible that Daniel Levy kept on signing players at transfer fees that were below that in order to avoid having to have conversations. because it is equally true that if he ever did want to try and make 150 million pounds signing it by most standards that would have been a major event for Tottenham and that would have actually required probably board discussion or at least more board discussion than did happen I wonder if that then led into why we were kind of it we always seemed under Daniel Lovie to be very hesitant in the market and you know why can't we be in it why aren't we in in the discussion to sign a player for 100 million pound if that was the case and the fact that he goes well i can't move quickly enough because it will have to go or i'll have to sort of give up my authority or i just want to retain the responsibility for what i'm doing that it just prevented spurs from being proactive because it feels like that through his reign that spurs have been a reactive rather than a proactive football club well i mean the football club run as a company would need that process i I guess the difference is if you have big oil money behind you, you know that the board meetings are a fait accompli.

19:16You don't really need to discuss it. Everyone will be on board anyway because they want to spend that money. But whereas it's possible because the Lewis's were a bit more detached and actual real financial investors, that Levy may have anticipated much more stringent discussions about big player transfers, which I think is very possible that that shaped the way he approached the market. And it's more the fact that he always liked cutting corners and liked sort of shaving bits off here and there, which you always think, well, it is his own money. He's a big shareholder. You get that. But there must be better ways of doing this.

19:52He was seemingly willing to sacrifice a lot of his own personal time. By the way, most CEOs, if they're effective, are not spending their personal time on such small aspects of a deal. They let people get on with it. And they come back. And their job is to manage people. the way that Levy did it himself as a sort of wheeler dealer Del Boy kind of figure implied that there was something very specific in it for him that he needed to get I think it's probably his personality the club became him he was institutionalised and by his own free will he went above and beyond and covered many many roles and because I think he felt like the football club was he's I don't know I'm just like this is pseudo psychology right but he's just he was so entrenched in everything and micromanaging everything because Tottenham Hotspur were a massive part of his identity I remember having a conversation with a guy who um we're talking about soft power and how it opens doors and how when you say you're the owner of Manchester City that you can get into certain rooms and be treated and and and the icebreakers are so much more easier when you're you're the owner of a Premier League football club and being the owner of a Premier League football club as Daniel Levy was it was a it was he was part of his identity which is why perhaps he was willing to or felt obliged to or wanted to go above and beyond and beyond what was needed probably yeah which comes back to the whole vanity project point I mean I think that it's very true if if Tottenham was sold for and just think about the quick back of the envelope math, sold for£4 billion today.

21:41Daniel Levy would end up with something in the region of a billion. Yeah, roughly about a billion. Now, you may think a billion is a lot of money. It sounds a lot of money, yeah. But I think the funny thing is, in the world of billionaires, a billion is not really that much. And actually, you're worth a lot more owning 30 % of time than you are with a billion in cash. because what are you going to do with the billion you can't i mean i'm sure you would do something but it's it's not no no you don't worry about money it's because something else is more important it's the status becomes more valuable than how much money that you could never spend anyway so i understand completely yeah and i think look coming back to the what's the core of this discussion of course the last decade or more was shaped by the whims and personality of daniel himself you know there's no doubt that he was doing a lot of this and there's no doubt he was stepping into a vacuum.

22:34The question we're being presented with is, have the Lewis family somehow, you know, had this road to Damascus conversion, where they suddenly now understand everything that's going on in football? You know, obviously, they've had the PR teams drafting these statements. But, you know, how much are we supposed to believe this based on the past? And I think it's the jury still is definitely out on that because it's they will definitely have been party to some of the biggest decisions in the last decade already for instance choosing the stadium and the lack of spending the choosing stadium implies just to give you the that's by far the biggest choice and they definitely will have been involved in that so if they're already part of that what are they going to choose now what what do you what's your answer to that question because what what what is their motives if like they were unhappy with daniel levy for for maybe he was getting in the way of takeovers i thought i was listening to simon jordan on talk sport earlier and he was saying tottenham hot spur like many many clubs are up for sale to for the for the right people who have the right amount of money so everybody every club has a price and spurs are actively up for sale despite the lewis say lewis family saying we're not going anywhere we are going to invest we are going to build and restructure and make tottenham great again but what what do you think their play is here what what if they they got rid of daniel levy for what reason do you think so i think there are a couple of different things the first is and you've done podcasts on this before right the idea that there have been approaches those approaches have been at varying levels of credibility and that levy himself has stood in the way of them so that may well be one part of it so if there's an eventual what we'd call an an exit pathway for the Lewises, then probably having Levy no longer at the helm would be helpful.

24:30I think you then have to just factor in this generational point. You know, these kids, and they're not kids exactly, but they're just sort of coming into their own now in the last five years. And I think we said this, we did a podcast, it must have been almost a year ago now, where I was saying that it is true that when you've been under the shadow, is like Prince Charles becoming King Charles, you know, how long was he waiting for that? There will be an itchiness. And I think a lot of these heirs apparently feel that they've got great plans. They've got great new ideas for everything, which is just, if only their father had given them power earlier, they would have done better or whatever.

25:08There's probably a real eagerness in there somewhere. But the question is, does that enthusiasm, is it based on any footballing knowledge which another topic we've talked about many times because none of these people are footballing people you know levy was levy learned football over the course of 20 years from invasive not very much and i doubt that lewis is no much more than than he does so even if there is commitment what are they actually going to do with that um i i think at the moment it feels like maybe they've stumbled into at least one piece of the puzzle which may work. But even if Deserby is one of those dominant, almost manager-style figures, there's still a hell of a lot in the club to restructure in terms of its ability to scout and assess players and all this kind of stuff.

26:02I don't think Lange is really that person. I mean, he's a small part of it. There's a huge amount of the club operations which need to be done again. And now, really, that's in the hands of Vinay Ben-Katesh, probably, because it's not going to be, the Lewis's don't know these things themselves. I was listening to, and I can't remember whether it was on one of your podcasts or whether it was maybe a view from Lane, but someone was saying how they just don't trust Vinay because of the way they were best friends, and then suddenly Levy's gone, and now he's the best friend of the new. Was that? I can't remember who.

26:38No, it wasn't. I've heard that as well, but I can't remember exactly where it was. I just think there's definitely some truth to that. It doesn't leave a great taste in the mouth when you see that kind of turnaround. And again, it's not a defense of Levy, but if you have some principles about what you're trying to do and you're doing that with party A, you can't very well reverse all those principles the moment party B comes in and say, actually, yes, I can do all this as well. It makes you wonder simply, does Vinay have this sort of long-term vision that some people wanted to credit him with at the beginning?

27:13Because the background was all, oh, look what he did at Arsenal. He went through the tough times, didn't change his mind. Maybe, but I'm not quite sure that he's the quality. Just earlier, you mentioned about governance. and from a governance point of view, where should the balance of power sit at a football club when making footballing decisions? Because we've got a head coach, which is a detraction from what we've talked about previously, like the modern structure of specialist departments. You've got CEOs, you've got sporting directors, you've got this chain that works from the players up to the boardroom that if certain segments fail, you can replace them with a new segment, like a new head coach or whatever it might be but it seems that with De Zerbi coming in things have shifted and the club have felt like they've needed to shift and maybe move to a more older model of management where De Zerbi is the power broker when making footballing decisions and you've got Langer and then you've got Venkatesham and then you've got the ownership but in terms of the balance of power at a football club it should sit somewhere between the head coach and the sport and director which would be Deserby and Lange, right?

28:29That's what it should do. That's what the CEO, Venkatesham, shouldn't necessarily... He gives license for those sporting directors and the head coaches to make the right decisions and give them license to direct the culture and whatever it might be to create a successful football club. That's what he does, which is why I've been kind of defensive. Not defensive. I don't care about Vino Venkatesham. I know he spent a lot of time with Arsenal that leaves a sour taste in the mouth. but people are saying get Venkatesham out and get Langer out and I just think that it's a Langer I'll happily see him replaced I think two seasons with 17th in the league is too many and that he's failed to do his job properly but Venkatesham his role is so much bigger than just the first team football although it's men's first team football although that's massively important his his job is different and so probably I don't think it serves Tottenham right now to remove him as CEO and to bring another one in but am I wrong in that do you think you're not wrong the firstly the in terms of the what the fans consume um the footballing side yeah that should basically be a mixture of the director of football the head coach and some of the other technical departments that's that's the thing which you will see on a Saturday afternoon and the buck for that stops with, I would say, a mixture of the two, but I would still say the director of football ideally is the one who it really stops with and if you want to protest someone, you should protest him.

30:03But that doesn't mean the CEO's not relevant to it because remember, the CEO is there to oversee the staffing of all these departments. I mean, a very wise person once said to me, You know, 90 % of a CEO's job is to make decisions, just make decisions, almost whether right or wrong, just make them. And 90 % of those decisions are people decisions. So the thing about Venkateshen is that, yes, he doesn't need to be responsible for the football product, but it is still in his court to choose people, including all of those figures, including the director of football and possibly the head coach as well.

30:45And I think the issue I've begun to have with Venkateshin is not a footballing one, but I'm beginning to doubt his judgment in people. I'm not sure that he is this omniscient sort of leader that actually is great at getting people. If you go into a company that's doing well, if you're walking into a leadership team that is on the up, one of the most important things is that the guy or guys at the top, they really understand people and they know when they see a good person. Whatever field this is, whether you're running a hospital, football club, a company, anything, these good leaders immediately know when people are good.

31:26and I think if you look at you know the Igor Tudor things are a little bit difficult because it was so brief and we don't really know where it came from but you do have the Thomas Frank side and you have some of these other things floating around. Pratich was there at the time as well wasn't he probably pulling strings yeah while you are right that Venkatesh shouldn't be taking the blame for football being bad in itself I do begin to wonder whether he has a good sense of judgment and judgment. Do you think he might be entrenched with Lange a little bit? That he might believe in him and maybe he shouldn't and that's a failing?

32:05I think definitely he, because I don't, none of us really know what the relationships are. Lange obviously came, arrived before Venkatesham did. Yes, he seems, Venkatesham seems reluctant to change things as needed. Now, look, does anyone need to go through three managers, three head coaches in one season? Ideally not. And we've seen in the past, I mean, I remember from decades past teams that were going through, you know, threes. I think there have been three or four coaches and managers in one season. So you don't just change things for their own sake, but it is his job to judge people in a holistic sense.

32:49and let's take Thomas Frank actually which is probably the best example Thomas Frank, mediocre manager but there's a much bigger problem with Thomas Frank which is he never really fit the club in a personality way like you could tell this wasn't going to necessarily go well with the fans it would take a lot of success with Frank for the terraces to be very happy and that is a personality judgment But that's a judgment which whoever's in charge needs to say, yeah, this guy fits. This guy doesn't fit. And you figure that out in a face-to-face interview. You had free time. Does he fit with the culture at Tottenham?

33:29And Venkateshian probably was here too. But then... Of course he doesn't understand the club. So before you even get to that, I mean, for Venkateshian to make that choice, he needs to have understood Tottenham. Now, maybe he didn't have enough time, but even, again, like a good CEO can go and, he'll leave, let's say, Walmart to go to General Electric. and it doesn't take him months and years to understand General Electric. He will be a good leader because he kind of gets what's going on, gets the vibes, he understands the vibes. So I think it's, I don't know, the signs to me don't point to Venkatesh being some sort of a really great CEO, regardless of the football.

34:03So the footballer side, he doesn't feel very hireable to me when I'm looking at the idea of new leadership for companies. But then you worry about who, where does the good decision-making start at Tottenham? like if it isn't Langer and it isn't um it isn't Venkateshjem and then it and then it isn't the Lewis family that almost our future success depends on it being Venkateshjem and him turning up and doing a good job I think there's a lot of people staring at each other and looking for leadership from each other and I think this is why into those again these vacuums you had people like Pratichi, who did step in and actually do his, he almost overstepped, tried to do more than necessarily was a job description, and with some success at certain times as well, right?

34:53But the reason he was able to do it, I think we mentioned this on a previous podcast, the reason why he and Lange, to an extent, have been able to exceed their mandate is because I think there just has been this vacuum in leadership. And I don't feel the Lewises are ready yet to be suddenly coming and saying, yes, no, actually, I think we should do this kind of thing. This is the right sort of head coach or whatever. So for now, this is another reason why if you look at these statements today, I'm not sure who's the expert driving any of this. Well, there's one expert at the football club, and that is our manager, Roberto De Zerbi.

35:30Could it be that because they're all looking around for leadership, that it might come from the general on the battlefield, that they'll believe in him and he'll be so convincing that they will give him what he wants. And actually there's this weird sort of chaotic, perfect storm created at Spurs and being really, really sort of, I'm sort of leaning into the most positive part of my brain right now. But there will be this sort of chaotic, perfect storm for De Zerbi where they just give him what he wants because clearly he's the one at the football club who really understands what's necessary in order to be successful.

36:04Something he was never given at Brighton and wasn't able to create at Marseille given the chaotic nature of that club. I just wondered maybe he could be influential. I definitely agree that he's one of these people who could step into a vacuum and he seems like the kind of personality that would want to. And you have to be careful though as to how far that's a good thing because right now, most of these extensions of power are probably positive because no one else is doing it. So let's take example, the transfer market, it probably is a good thing on balance right now that Dezerbi is active at influencing the transfer policy because no one else is doing it.