SARU confident over Kings S15 bid

[QLD]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Steve-o @ Sep 27 2009, 07:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Woldog @ Sep 27 2009, 01:13 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE

SA franchises are setup up differently from Aussie or NZ franchises. We use our pre-existing geographical provinces to make teams.[/b]

Because obviously Queenlsand Reds, New South Wales Waratahs, Australian Capital Territory Brumbies and Western Australia Western Force aren't in our pre-existing geographical provinces..
[/b][/quote]

My bad, got that wrong.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Fushitsusha @ Sep 26 2009, 05:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

If they're going to persist in the format they've set out for the Super 15 tournament than Victoria must be awarded the next bid or it's going to be retarded to have a South African team in the Australian conference...[/b]

I completely agree, I would much rather have another Australian team in the... wait for it... AUSTRALIAN CONFERENCE. Even if it's just for national prides sake. I'm not sure how the rugby passionate crowd down in PE are gonna react to that, but they'll probably be stoked just to have a team from that region. EP used to be a very strong union, guys like Danie Gerber came from there.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (feicarsinn @ Sep 27 2009, 12:52 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Speaking of Mandela, I just learned he's not allowed in the US without permission from the Secretary of State as he was classed as a terrorist in the 60's. Crazy or what?[/b]

I'm pretty sure he got an official permanent pardon a couple of years ago and got taken off the terrorist list. I actually only found out he was ever on there because of the news of him being taken off.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dale @ Sep 27 2009, 02:36 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Cape Town Stormers or the Durban Sharks sounds better anyway for the super rugby. Naming them by the city would still represent their provinces.[/b]

Dude what are you on about?

You said, "Shows how ridiculous the South African teams names are. Do they represent anything?"

I've just told you who they represent. They represent what/who they've always represented, provinces.

Back in Super 12 days the Sharks were called the 'Natal Sharks'. Don't know why the name simply got cut down to the 'Sharks' because nothing has changed.
[/b][/quote]

They represent the provinces but how the f*** are people meant to know half the time when all the teams are just referred to by their lame Americanised nicknames 99% of the time.

Call them what they represent or where their based. I don't understand why all the NZ and SA teams and the Brumbies dropped their provincial/city name.

 

[Boggle]

Look, they're more than just teams that represent their provinces these days, and you guys know it.
They're franchises, it's just that much easier to market a "blue bulls" team than a Northern Transvaal team, not that you can have a Transvaal and North Transvaal anymore as they changed the province's name to Gauteng, which sort of screwed them over anyway.

This is also an indication of how the Western Province has been the stronghold against stupidity in this country, it's the oldest province with the oldest rugby team, it's the richest province in the country because it's actually run -properly- (or at the very least, better than any other). And surprise surprise WP are still called WP.

 

[Wally]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jethro @ Sep 28 2009, 04:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wally @ Sep 28 2009, 02:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Got to be in Melbourne, that much is obvious. It's just up to the VRU and the ARU to make it work. I think a Melbourne franchise can be just as successful as the Western Force.[/b]

So it would be facing bankruptcy too within four years You seem to be down a major sponsor at the moment btw.

[/b][/quote]
Explain to me how they are facing bankruptcy. They may be having some problems with a sponsor but that hardly constitutes utter ruin, failure, or depletion. They did extremely well for a start up franchise in AFL heartland, earning the respect of the sports fans in Perth. They had a huge membership base in the first three years of their existence, even without results on the field to back this up. The only reason why crowds started to dip (they were still strong compared to most club attendances) was due to the next to unwatchable spectator viewing at Subiaco. They're playing at the much more fan friendly MES stadium this season and will come close to selling out every game there. The Force are defiantly one of the few success stories of Australian rugby in recent times.

 

[Wally]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dale @ Sep 28 2009, 06:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wally @ Sep 28 2009, 02:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Got to be in Melbourne, that much is obvious. It's just up to the VRU and the ARU to make it work. I think a Melbourne franchise can be just as successful as the Western Force.[/b]

I thought Melbourne would have been the best option originally but West Sydney to me just seems better. We need to strengthen our heartlands and Sydney can easily cater for two teams. Play at ANZ and it doesn't matter what the crowds will be like originally because teams playing there make a profit no matter what the crowd is. This new stadium, tickets will be even more expensive and being successful from the start would be unlikely. How are they going to attract fans from the successful Melbourne Storm RL team, with the likes of Greg Inglis, Billy Slater etc?

[/b][/quote]
I meant out of Melbourne and the South African bid. Rugby in Western Sydney has huge untapped potential. I should know I was born there.

 

[Woldog]

Settle down Alphonse.

 

[Wally]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Woldog @ Sep 28 2009, 08:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Settle down Alphonse.[/b]

Could I be any more of a house?

 

[Fushitsusha]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dale @ Sep 28 2009, 06:20 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Fushitsusha @ Sep 27 2009, 02:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dale @ Sep 27 2009, 12:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (snoopy snoopy dog dog @ Sep 27 2009, 01:15 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Would Sydney be able to support a second team? The Waratahs don't exactly attract fans in their droves.

I agree, a SA franchise in an "Australian" conference seems daft. A Victorian franchise based in Melbourne seems the best option if they can get the financing together. A question I'd have is whether the Australian playing base is large enough to support another team. Should Victoria win out, there'll be a hell of a lot of non-Australian players brought in to all their franchises in order to fill out the rosters.[/b]

Yes it can. I think Australia's problem is ignoring rugbys heartlands. Sydney's population is 4million. Sydney has nine rugby league teams, AFL wants to plonk a 2nd team there.. a second team in Sydney would generate more interest than a Melbourne team. West Sydney is a mission to get to the SFS in the Eastern Suburbs and this team can represent the the entire west and north sydney. A team for all the bored polynesians out there lost to rugby league.

Who says Melbourne would work? AFL heartland with a presence of league.
[/b][/quote]

East Sydney, West Sydney and North Sydney are already represented by a team - they're called the NSW Waratahs...

We can't have the NSW Waratahs, and the Western Sydney Rams or whatever... you can't have the state go up against a team that only represents a group of suburbs within a city within that state... it's stupid, really really stupid... and it will further disrupt the Tahs already dwindling fanbase...

The NSWRU just need to put more effort into making rugby attractive in Western Sydney...

And why would North Sydney rugby fans give a f*** about a Western Sydney team?
[/b][/quote]

According to your theory Tasmania and South Australia would be better options than a West Sydney team because we already have a NSW team.

Technically they don't represent the whole of NSW when they are based in Sydney.. most of their fans are from the Eastern Suburbs. Do you think it's easy for rugby fans in Penrith, Parramatta, Campbelltown, parts of North Sydney etc to make it to the SFS? and Southern NSW is Brumbies territory.

The one crowd at ANZ in Western Sydney got the highest Waratahs crowd all year of 32k. Your team abandoned what it represents a couple of years ago and are now just The Brumbies.. no reason why the NSW Waratahs can't do the same.

I think West Sydney Rams and Sydney Waratahs would be better for the game imo. Possibly a Fibros vs Silvertails rivalry, and the people of NSW can choose a team they want to support. Melbourne is AFL mad, the Storm have needed assistance (5-10 million) from news ltd since 1998 just to stay alive.. imo rigged too so they have the best players playing for them under a salary cap.. no surprise the two news ltd (Broncos and Storm) teams have done well every year? Heck I reckon a second Brisbane rugby team would be better than a Melbourne side given the amount of juniors we are producing.
[/b][/quote]

Rugby league has no history in Melbourne and was always destined to fail... Melbourne have a good rugby history and continue to produce talent and there are a lot of ex-pat Kiwis down there...

My 'theory' of course wouldn't apply to Tasmania or South Australia...

 

[Woldog]

Tasmania don't do anything worthwhile, we should give them to New Zealand.

 

[smartcooky]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dale @ Sep 28 2009, 06:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Call them what they represent or where their based. I don't understand why all the NZ and SA teams and the Brumbies dropped their provincial/city name.[/b]

In the case of the New Zealand S14 teams they do NOT just represent the five provinces you think they do:

BLUES: Northland, Auckland, North Harbour,

CHEIFS: Waikato, Bay of Plenty, Counties-Manukau, King-Country, Thames Valley

HURRICANES: Wellington, Horowhenua-Kapiti, Taranaki, Manawatu, Hawkes Bay, East Coast, Wairarapa-Bush, Poverty Bay, Wanganui

CRUSADERS: Tasman, West Coast, Buller, Canterbury, Mid-Canterbury, South Canterbury

HIGHLANDERS: Otago, North Otago, Southland

 

[Woldog]

Why are they called Auckland Blues, Wellington Hurricanes, Otago Highlanders, Canterbury Crusaders, Waikato Chiefs?

Wouldn't that be the main provinces, then the rest are just "supporters bases?"

 

[gingergenius]

If you're from the Griquas or Valke or Elephants or whatever, who do you play for in S14?? I know that the Sharks, Bulls etc. are not the same as the Currie Cup sides but it's really confusing nonetheless. It's like splitting England up into regions for a specific competition and calling London's team Wasps.

Why can't we have:

Western Cape
Kwa-Zulu Natal
Pretoria
Johannesburg
Free State
NSW
Western Australia
Queensland
ACT
Auckland
Wellington
Canterbury
Otago
Waikato

and then add in a Victoria, Eastern Cape etc. teams as we go along. No 2nd team from NSW, that would ruin the NSW vs Queensland thing which is about as close as the S14 gets to tradition.

And while we're at it, the Guinness Premiership can go back to being

Wasps
Harlequins
Saracens
London Irish
Leicester
Bath
Leeds
Worcester
Gloucester
Sale
Newcaslte
Northampton

without any of the stupid nicknames they add on either. I hate the trend in sport towards the American idea of everything having to have a gimmicky nickname. If football has managed to resist why can't rugby and cricket?

 

[Fushitsusha]

The Brumbies are still generally referred to as the ACT Brumbies despite the 'ACT' being dropped from their ***le... but this was only to help market the Brumbies' brand to other parts of Australia including areas of NSW surrounding the ACT... it is a professional game...

Anyways, I believe the Brumbies are the only team in Australia to have their local government coat of arms on the jersey...

 

[Steve-o]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dale @ Sep 28 2009, 08:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Steve-o @ Sep 27 2009, 07:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Woldog @ Sep 27 2009, 01:13 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE

SA franchises are setup up differently from Aussie or NZ franchises. We use our pre-existing geographical provinces to make teams.[/b]

Because obviously Queenlsand Reds, New South Wales Waratahs, Australian Capital Territory Brumbies and Western Australia Western Force aren't in our pre-existing geographical provinces..
[/b][/quote]

My bad, got that wrong.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Fushitsusha @ Sep 26 2009, 05:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

If they're going to persist in the format they've set out for the Super 15 tournament than Victoria must be awarded the next bid or it's going to be retarded to have a South African team in the Australian conference...[/b]

I completely agree, I would much rather have another Australian team in the... wait for it... AUSTRALIAN CONFERENCE. Even if it's just for national prides sake. I'm not sure how the rugby passionate crowd down in PE are gonna react to that, but they'll probably be stoked just to have a team from that region. EP used to be a very strong union, guys like Danie Gerber came from there.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (feicarsinn @ Sep 27 2009, 12:52 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Speaking of Mandela, I just learned he's not allowed in the US without permission from the Secretary of State as he was classed as a terrorist in the 60's. Crazy or what?[/b]

I'm pretty sure he got an official permanent pardon a couple of years ago and got taken off the terrorist list. I actually only found out he was ever on there because of the news of him being taken off.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dale @ Sep 27 2009, 02:36 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Cape Town Stormers or the Durban Sharks sounds better anyway for the super rugby. Naming them by the city would still represent their provinces.[/b]

Dude what are you on about?

You said, "Shows how ridiculous the South African teams names are. Do they represent anything?"

I've just told you who they represent. They represent what/who they've always represented, provinces.

Back in Super 12 days the Sharks were called the 'Natal Sharks'. Don't know why the name simply got cut down to the 'Sharks' because nothing has changed.
[/b][/quote]

They represent the provinces but how the f*** are people meant to know half the time when all the teams are just referred to by their lame Americanised nicknames 99% of the time.

Call them what they represent or where their based. I don't understand why all the NZ and SA teams and the Brumbies dropped their provincial/city name.
[/b][/quote]
Ya see you got it twisted homie. We all only have our "Americanised" names left, ya heard. Queensland Reds are now only known as the 'Reds' as well, yo. Back in the hip hop happening 90's (Super 12) we all had our regional/provincial names. Auckland Blues, Natal Sharks, ACT Brumbies. Bang bang, peace out.

 

[Steve-o]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Sep 28 2009, 03:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

If you're from the Griquas or Valke or Elephants or whatever, who do you play for in S14?? I know that the Sharks, Bulls etc. are not the same as the Currie Cup sides but it's really confusing nonetheless. It's like splitting England up into regions for a specific competition and calling London's team Wasps.[/b]

You're right it's hella confusing.
Let me try explain.
The way SA rugby is setup these days, all the unions have a say. The thing is their are more small unions than big, on what is known as the Presidents Council. Now the thing is politics in SA rugby is so confusing, there is like 3 councils/organisations calling the shots. How do you think PdV got his job in the first place? The smaller Unions (Boland, Griquas, Leopards, Falcons, Griffons, SWD Eagles, Border Bulldogs) rallied together and out voted the big unions (Natal Sharks, Blue Bulls, WP, Free State, Golden Lions) who actually mean something. OK know that you know how the balance of power works, sort of.
Now for some reason SA rugby feels compelled to cover all the national unions in SA in the S14. Every inch of South Africa is represented in the S14 somewhere. For instance the Bulls cover (1) The Blue Bulls provincial Union (previously known as Northern Transvaal who have existed since forever), (2) Falcons based in Brakpan, and (3) the WHOLE of the Limpopo province who does even have a team of ANY sort. Now I've not seen 1 player from either Brakpan or Limpopo EVER represent the Bulls. The provincial union of the Blue Bulls who compete in the Currie Cup are EXACTLY the same as the Bulls that compete in the S14. So I ask anybody, what's the point. My concussion is politics because the small unions are saying "you can't call the 'Stormers' the 'Western Province Stormers' because there is a **** little union called Boland that is also represented, so it's not fair. weeeeh!"
Most fans know that the Bulls are the same as the Blue Bulls, and the Natal Sharks are the same as the Sharks, and WP is the same as the Stormers. The only thing that distorts their S14 squads from their Currie Cup squads is the fact that the Bok players are away playing the Tri-Nations during the CC. Except for the last few games when the Boks are back. For instance the Sharks CC team that won the trophy last year are the exact same team that played in the S14 this year.

Help a bit? That's my take on the matter.

 

[smartcooky]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Woldog @ Sep 29 2009, 12:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Why are they called Auckland Blues, Wellington Hurricanes, Otago Highlanders, Canterbury Crusaders, Waikato Chiefs?

Wouldn't that be the main provinces, then the rest are just "supporters bases?"[/b]

They aren't called the "Auckland" Blues, "Wellington" Hurricanes. etc etc

They were originally, but in 2000 all of New Zealand's Super 12 franchises dropped the geographical identifiers from their official names, as it was felt this tended to exclude the other unions involved. Each franchise is entitled to draw players from any of its member unions without any player draft or negotiations with another franchise.

Also, this is not just paying lip service to those Provincial Unions. There have been players from member unions, both Heartland and ANZC/NPC Unions who have either played for, or been in the wider training squads of Super Rugby franchises.......plenty of Hawkes Bay/Taranaki players fronting for the Hurricanes, Southland players for the Highlanders, BoP players for the Chiefs etc.

 

[Woldog]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

Queensland Reds are now only known as the 'Reds' as well[/b]

Actually the Queensland Reds are referred too as the Queensland Reds or as the QR Reds depending what idiot they have on the mic at games occasionally you will even get the Queensland QR Reds.

 

[QLD]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (smartcooky @ Sep 29 2009, 04:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Woldog @ Sep 29 2009, 12:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why are they called Auckland Blues, Wellington Hurricanes, Otago Highlanders, Canterbury Crusaders, Waikato Chiefs?

Wouldn't that be the main provinces, then the rest are just "supporters bases?"[/b]

They aren't called the "Auckland" Blues, "Wellington" Hurricanes. etc etc

They were originally, but in 2000 all of New Zealand's Super 12 franchises dropped the geographical identifiers from their official names, as it was felt this tended to exclude the other unions involved. Each franchise is entitled to draw players from any of its member unions without any player draft or negotiations with another franchise.

Also, this is not just paying lip service to those Provincial Unions. There have been players from member unions, both Heartland and ANZC/NPC Unions who have either played for, or been in the wider training squads of Super Rugby franchises.......plenty of Hawkes Bay/Taranaki players fronting for the Hurricanes, Southland players for the Highlanders, BoP players for the Chiefs etc.
[/b][/quote]

What a success that has been, from what I've seen super 14 interest has dwindled in NZ and more fans are tuning into the ANZC. I always thought the Blues and Hurricanes were just named after the cities.

 

[QLD]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Fushitsusha @ Sep 28 2009, 08:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dale @ Sep 28 2009, 06:20 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Fushitsusha @ Sep 27 2009, 02:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dale @ Sep 27 2009, 12:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (snoopy snoopy dog dog @ Sep 27 2009, 01:15 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Would Sydney be able to support a second team? The Waratahs don't exactly attract fans in their droves.

I agree, a SA franchise in an "Australian" conference seems daft. A Victorian franchise based in Melbourne seems the best option if they can get the financing together. A question I'd have is whether the Australian playing base is large enough to support another team. Should Victoria win out, there'll be a hell of a lot of non-Australian players brought in to all their franchises in order to fill out the rosters.[/b]

Yes it can. I think Australia's problem is ignoring rugbys heartlands. Sydney's population is 4million. Sydney has nine rugby league teams, AFL wants to plonk a 2nd team there.. a second team in Sydney would generate more interest than a Melbourne team. West Sydney is a mission to get to the SFS in the Eastern Suburbs and this team can represent the the entire west and north sydney. A team for all the bored polynesians out there lost to rugby league.

Who says Melbourne would work? AFL heartland with a presence of league.
[/b][/quote]

East Sydney, West Sydney and North Sydney are already represented by a team - they're called the NSW Waratahs...

We can't have the NSW Waratahs, and the Western Sydney Rams or whatever... you can't have the state go up against a team that only represents a group of suburbs within a city within that state... it's stupid, really really stupid... and it will further disrupt the Tahs already dwindling fanbase...

The NSWRU just need to put more effort into making rugby attractive in Western Sydney...

And why would North Sydney rugby fans give a f*** about a Western Sydney team?
[/b][/quote]

According to your theory Tasmania and South Australia would be better options than a West Sydney team because we already have a NSW team.

Technically they don't represent the whole of NSW when they are based in Sydney.. most of their fans are from the Eastern Suburbs. Do you think it's easy for rugby fans in Penrith, Parramatta, Campbelltown, parts of North Sydney etc to make it to the SFS? and Southern NSW is Brumbies territory.

The one crowd at ANZ in Western Sydney got the highest Waratahs crowd all year of 32k. Your team abandoned what it represents a couple of years ago and are now just The Brumbies.. no reason why the NSW Waratahs can't do the same.

I think West Sydney Rams and Sydney Waratahs would be better for the game imo. Possibly a Fibros vs Silvertails rivalry, and the people of NSW can choose a team they want to support. Melbourne is AFL mad, the Storm have needed assistance (5-10 million) from news ltd since 1998 just to stay alive.. imo rigged too so they have the best players playing for them under a salary cap.. no surprise the two news ltd (Broncos and Storm) teams have done well every year? Heck I reckon a second Brisbane rugby team would be better than a Melbourne side given the amount of juniors we are producing.
[/b][/quote]

Rugby league has no history in Melbourne and was always destined to fail... Melbourne have a good rugby history and continue to produce talent and there are a lot of ex-pat Kiwis down there...

My 'theory' of course wouldn't apply to Tasmania or South Australia...
[/b][/quote]

Destined to fail? They are in their 4th grand final in a row, their crowds are up and have gotten around 30k to their finals (one of them played on the night of the AFL grand final). Western Force worked because there were rugby starved fans and people who didnt like AFL, Melbourne Storm have done the same in Melbourne. Do you think a Perth rugby league team would be a success in 2012/13?

 

[InsaneAsylum]

why did the western reds turn to **** in the 90's and the force have succeded? is it because all those ex pat setheffrikens in perth don't like league?

 

[Jethro]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wally @ Sep 28 2009, 06:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jethro @ Sep 28 2009, 04:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wally @ Sep 28 2009, 02:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Got to be in Melbourne, that much is obvious. It's just up to the VRU and the ARU to make it work. I think a Melbourne franchise can be just as successful as the Western Force.[/b]

So it would be facing bankruptcy too within four years You seem to be down a major sponsor at the moment btw.

[/b][/quote]
Explain to me how they are facing bankruptcy. They may be having some problems with a sponsor but that hardly constitutes utter ruin, failure, or depletion. They did extremely well for a start up franchise in AFL heartland, earning the respect of the sports fans in Perth. They had a huge membership base in the first three years of their existence, even without results on the field to back this up. The only reason why crowds started to dip (they were still strong compared to most club attendances) was due to the next to unwatchable spectator viewing at Subiaco. They're playing at the much more fan friendly MES stadium this season and will come close to selling out every game there. The Force are defiantly one of the few success stories of Australian rugby in recent times.
[/b][/quote]

By all accounts, and this was reported widely within Australia the Force are currently facing some real financial hardships of the bailing out variety. With the intro of S15 taking out the visitor Saffa and Kiwi outfits expect further drops in the Force's home ground attendances. As a couple of people have point out already the Tahs are dependant on ex pats getting along to the games, something the ARU has largely ignored in their claims of rivers of gold.

Clearly if they are going with the mooted S15 setup the new franchise must be Australian. I simply don't see it as viable down in the AFL heartland. The ARU have burnt the regions so that leaves them with West Sydney, possible, and maybe Queensland.