McGinlay, Kevin Davies and Bergsson urge Eddie Davies to act swiftly to stave off administration

Ten Bobsworth wrote:There's an old saying, Sluffy, that says, "Don't convince yourself that you are Captain Webb when you are out of your depth in the paddling pool."



 But if you can find your listening ears and thinking head you might just be able to figure out how a creditor balance of nearly £5m can disappear from a company balance sheet without it being owed to somebody else.

You could try asking Boncey, if you're still confused. He knows a thing or two about accountancy.

Alternatively you could take a quick course in basic double-entry bookkeeping.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fm9BECuNbkw

I know a fair bit about Captain Webb too, who was, in my opinion, a bit of a berk, but we won't go into that.

boltonbonce wrote:
I know a fair bit about Captain Webb too, who was, in my opinion, a bit of a berk, but we won't go into that.

Not as big a berk as Captain Scott of course.

But if you can find your listening ears and thinking head you might just be able to figure out how a creditor balance of nearly £5m can disappear from a company balance sheet without it being owed to somebody else.

Thanks Bob.

The Administrator has legally struck out that it was ever put in...

The Act provides an administrator, liquidator or trustee with opportunities to recover assets/monies and/or to avoid certain events (e.g. the granting of charges) for the benefit of all creditors.

https://www.insolvencydirect.bis.gov.uk/freedomofinformationtechnical/technicalmanual/Ch25-36/Chapter31/part4A/Ch31-4A%20Intro.htm

Everything else flows from there.

In football terms the 'creditor balance of nearly £5m' was reviewed by the Administrator on his legally allowed 'VAR' machine, and struck it out for there being a 'foul' in the run up to it being put in.

Was his decision right?

You say no, I say the decision was final and everyone (bar you) has accepted it, the game has finished, the VAR decision did not effect the end result, the game was played a season or two ago now, and all the players involved (KA, EDT, their legal advisors, and VAR 'referee' himself (the Administrator)) have long since gone and won't be back.

Whether you like it or not, we've moved on.

And thank you for the link to Double Entry Bookkeeping for beginners, and I've even tried it from what I've learned so far!

I put an entry of nearly £5m in as a creditor on one side and made an equal allowance for it on the other side of the T accounts.

Then I saw that the tutor (who is an insolvency specialist) informed the class that the £5m was ruled out as an illegal entry and we were told to rub out the transaction on both sides of the T accounts, as though it had never happened.

Seems simple enough to me so far...

boltonbonce wrote:
Not as big a berk as Captain Scott of course.

Thanks for that, Boncey, but it wasn't exactly your knowledge of Captain Webb (or Captain Scott) that I was alluding to.

Your experience of how numbers might be 'modified' to achieve desired outcomes has been mentioned a few times and is of more interest to me.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:
Thanks for that, Boncey, but it wasn't exactly your knowledge of Captain Webb (or Captain Scott) that I was alluding to.

Your experience of how numbers might be 'modified' to achieve desired outcomes has been mentioned a few times and is of more interest to me.

Ah, yes. I've seen it in action. I once asked the number crunchers how they worked it, and I got the answer, "It's simple, just like joining the dots. It's just knowing which dots to leave out, or add a few extra dots when necessary".
I just left them to get on with it. 
I'm still clueless.

And just to go on a bit further...

If the £7.5m never came into the club, then the BM loan (and the loans to pay the wages from the previous year?) could not have been made could they?

But it did and they had!

So how does the Insolvency expert account for and square that off?

Clearly by reducing EFT's claimed security by the same amount.

So everything now does balance.

On what legal basis did the Administrator reduce EDT's amount?

I don't know, I'm not an Insolvency expert.

I can only assume that he's ruled that it was against the law that KA could secure against assets without existing creditors suffering (I don't care what anyone says, you simply can't all secure against the same assets unlimitedly because an asset has a finite value (at sale) and not an infinitive one)

To me he's ruled the the contract between EDT and KA could not be brought into the orbit of BL because there was no assets free of charge to secure against - whilst the company was trading when in effect insolvent.

He's set aside the contract to remain between the two legal entities (ED and KA) and away from BL.

He had to reduce EDT security by the same amount, otherwise EDT would benefit twice, the BM loan had been paid off, therefore there was money in BL to pay ED's/EDT's charge in full BUT they would also be paid for the money loaned to KA to pay off the BM loan as well due to the personal (and enforceable contract - secured on Inner Circle Investments).

(In essence the BM loan would have been settled twice in effect but had only been paid the once - first (and physically) via BL BUT that way was ruled by the Administrator 'illegal'(?), so theoretically instead by KA to BM direct).

It had been paid once if you like from the money paid in by KA that has retrospectively been ruled as 'no longer received' and once (in theory) by KA (away from BL) from his contract with ED.

That anomaly created by the decision to rule out the legitimacy of KA's claim for security, had therefore needed to be corrected.

BL had benefitted by the £7.5m KA had paid into it - but that had now been ruled as illegal and 'quashed' (set aside).

As the effect of this money having been received by BL, the BM loan had now been settled (which it should not have had been).

The only creditor who could have benefited from this was EDT (PBP had secured against the hotel and Warburton against land).

And no creditor should benefit more than any other, which EDT would if paid their full claim for security AND enforce the contract between ED and KA.

To correct the transaction, and prevent EDT benefitting twice (from the BM loan no longer showing as a creditor because KA had paid it off AND being owed by KA for ED loan to him to pay it off AND be expected to settle the loan now outstanding to EDT, the Administrator made the necessary adjustment by writing down EDT's claimed security on BL by the same amount.

Not bad what you can figure out by using these T accounts, is it...?

Thank you for brining them to my attention.

boltonbonce wrote:
Ah, yes. I've seen it in action. I once asked the number crunchers how they worked it, and I got the answer, "It's simple, just like joining the dots. It's just knowing which dots to leave out, or add a few extra dots when necessary".
I just left them to get on with it. 
I'm still clueless.

Leave out five million dots/quid and Bob's your aunty, Boncey. Its still all proper, pukka and professional in Sluffyland.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:

boltonbonce wrote:
Ah, yes. I've seen it in action. I once asked the number crunchers how they worked it, and I got the answer, "It's simple, just like joining the dots. It's just knowing which dots to leave out, or add a few extra dots when necessary".
I just left them to get on with it. 
I'm still clueless.

That's it Bonce. Leave out five million dots/quid and its still all proper, pukka and professional in Sluffyland.

Well in Sluffyland we currently have with us the reputable and respected Insolvency company that provided their highly experienced and qualified Insolvency specialist to Administer, and act as the courts legal representative in the Administration of the financially distressed Burnden Leisure Ltd.  We also have Eddie Davies Trust and Ken Anderson and both their respective (and no doubt very expensive) legal advisors, being the ones at the sharp end of the Administrators decision to disallow both of them each a reduction of circa £7.5m each in the security they claimed and both of whom (no doubt informed by their very expensive legal advisors), that this decision was correct in law and from which no appeal was against it, even though this channel was open to them both.

Ok, I might be wrong on this, I've been wrong of lots of things before as you know, and have very kindly helped me to understand where I've gone wrong, but are you really saying that the Insolvency specialist acted somewhat underhanded, that Ken Anderson's highly expensive financial advisors advised him wrongly into accepting the Administrators decision and NOT to appeal it - bearing in mind the decision cost him £7.5m AND he was at the time employing his own Insolvency expert who he had appointed to Administer the hotel???

Don't you think he might have sought the advise from him also, as to whether the Administrator for BL was acting in good faith and by the letter of the Insolvency Law?

I think he probably did, don't you?

And if that isn't enough the same could be said of EDT, who apart from having their own highly paid legal advisors had also appointed the very Administrator who ruled against them to the tune of £7.5m, as well?

Don't you think they might have asked him what the Devil he was playing at, costing them £7.5m with some bum decision???

I think they'd certainly be on to his bosses at the Insolvency Company he is employed by at the very least - don't you?

Yet, incredibly, none of this happened.

The decision was accepted by all parties, no one appealed against it and no tears were apparently shed even though both EDT and KA had lost £7.5m apiece!!!

I might well be floundering about and out of my depth at the Sluffyland paddling pool but so to must also be David Rubin & Partners (the insolvency specialist company), Paul Appleton and Asher Miller (the Administrators who made the decision to strike out the £7.5m's off EDT and KA). Fildraw (EDT), Fildraw's legal advisors, Ken Anderson, KA's legal advisors, Quantuma (KA's insolvency specialist company, who he appointed Administrators to Bolton Whites Hotel Ltd) and Andrew Hoskins and Michael Kiely (the Administrators to the hotel and both Insolvency specialists themselves!).

Pretty crowded paddling pool I must admit, hope I don't catch a verruca!

Funny how all of us know nothing and aren't as smart as you about this?

I'll take my chances that perhaps the decision was a correct and legal one, accepted by numerous independent, professional and highly qualified financial specialist on insolvency laws, who were involved in all this and the decision accepted by all, rather than some sort of vague underhandedness and conspiratorial attempt to deliberately and maliciously, shaft ED and/or KA (in fact I'm not even sure who you see as the loser in all of this anymore?) by misstatements from the appointed Administrator.

And seeing that no one appealed against the decision (even though it cost EDT and KA £7.5m each) I don't even think EDT and KA themselves believe either one of them had been shafted as you seem to believe had happened.

At least you have your paddling pool to yourself.

I'll pass on your regards to everyone at mine!

I don't know how many times or in how many ways this needs explaining, Sluffy, but the Administrators statement was just plain wrong. Ken Anderson and his legal team knew it, EDT's lawyers knew it and I knew it.

Someone was owed the money used to pay off Blumarble and the Administrators statement inferred that no-one was. That was impossible unless the money had been gifted which it plainly hadn't.

I have no idea where you might have gained the notion that it is easy for a creditor to get a Statement of Affairs overturned but I am in no doubt that Ken Anderson knew only too well how difficult it would have been and he didn't need to. There was an alternative way in which he could protect himself and that is the route he took.

Its actually not all that difficult to comprehend but if you insist on allowing your mind to drift off into all manner of pointless and baseless meanderings it could take a long time. Should you ever get to that point you might just start to think about why an administrator might understate the creditors.

Someone's going to be sleeping on the couch tonight.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:I don't know how many times or in how many ways this needs explaining, Sluffy, but the Administrators statement was just plain wrong. Ken Anderson and his legal team knew it, EDT's lawyers knew it and I knew it.

Someone was owed the money used to pay off Blumarble and the Administrators statement inferred that no-one was. That was impossible unless the money had been gifted which it plainly hadn't.

I have no idea where you might have gained the notion that it is easy for a creditor to get a Statement of Affairs overturned but I am in no doubt that Ken Anderson knew only too well how difficult it would have been and he didn't need to. There was an alternative way in which he could protect himself and that is the route he took.

Its actually not all that difficult to comprehend but if you insist on allowing your mind to drift off into all manner of pointless and baseless meanderings it could take a long time. Should you ever get to that point you might just start to think about why an administrator might understate the creditors.

Bob, it wasn't a creditor who got a Statement of Affairs overturned it was the Administrator who ruled under Insolvency Law that it should never have existed in respect of Anderson's £7.5m

The Act provides an administrator, liquidator or trustee with opportunities to recover assets/monies and/or to avoid certain events (e.g. the granting of charges) for the benefit of all creditors.

https://www.insolvencydirect.bis.gov.uk/freedomofinformationtechnical/technicalmanual/Ch25-36/Chapter31/part4A/Ch31-4A%20Intro.htm

Quantuma did something along the same lines with Heathcote the caterers, they ripped up BL's contract with Heathcote's because they had been ripping off the club as Ken Anderson had claimed.

https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/17654662.bolton-whites-hotel-cuts-ties-catering-partners-heathcote-co/

Administrators DO have these powers in law that you seem to be in denial of.

Everything else flows from his decision to 'avoid'...

'Avoid' meaning in legal terms

In nonlegal usage “avoid” is a synonym for “escape” or “evade,” commonly rendered as evitar, esquivar or evadir, etc. But in legal writing “avoid” sometimes means “to make void or undo”* and in this context “avoid” (and “avoidance”) are actually synonyms (or perhaps archaic forms) for “void” and “voidance”.  Thus, for example, one may “avoid a contract” (anular un contrato) and a contract may be deemed avoidable (anulable).

https://rebeccajowers.com/2016/05/06/common-words-with-uncommon-legal-meanings-1/#:~:text=In%20nonlegal%20usage%20%E2%80%9Cavoid%E2%80%9D%20is,void%E2%80%9D%20and%20%E2%80%9Cvoidance%E2%80%9D.

Ok, the definition above is not from the best of sources but it explains it simply, other more reputable sources confirms this definition.

Avoid
verb

2 - law : to make legally void (see VOID entry 1 sense 1a) : ANNUL
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/avoid

4.  law : to make (a plea, contract, etc) void; invalidate; quash
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/avoid

Avoid to make a plea or a contract void.
Collins Dictionary of Law W.J. Stewart, 2006
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/avoided



Once you face up to this course of action 'could' and to my mind 'was' used to LEGALLY rule out Anderson's £7.5m 'security' - then all else flows.

The money to pay off BM should not have been available to BL, so that had to be accounted for.

Because however in the real world the money had come into BL and had paid off BM, then the physical accounts showed BL to be that much better off because the BM loan was no longer showing on the books.

Which meant that in the real world there was now £5m plus (or whatever it was) in the pot, to ultimately be distributed to ALL creditors (including the unsecured ones who would end up getting more pennies in the £ that they should really be entitled too).

The solution to the 'problem' was to balance off the £7.5m from EDT's claim.

I guess the logic (which must have been accepted by EDT - they didn't legally challenge in at least) was that they already had existing security on the money to pay off BM by the security they had on ICI which owned the ownership shares in BL.

I don't know the legalities but it seems to me that if the money was given to KA by ED to pay off BM was made 'external' to BL and secured on KA's assets (ICI) which were also held external to BL - and it all was - that disallowing (legally voiding) KA's loan to BL, intended to pay off BM (which the Administrator did) would not effect the contract between KA and ED, and if the circa £7.5m was secured elsewhere, that in practice ED had paid off the BM loan on BL books by using £7.5m from his total of £17.5m assets (or whatever it was he still held) - hence why the Administrator made the reduction to EDT's claim.


In your vernacular and not meaning any offence or lack of respect to you, why not change your 'fixed idea' head and replace it with your 'open minded' head and at least accept that there is more than just merit in the way I have presented a legal and viable alternative to your narrative which seems to be that the Administrator was wrong, that it's all some form of a conspiracy - I'm no longer sure to whom, as at first is was against ED, then it suddenly seemed to switch to KA - maybe you mean both?  And if so why has the independent Insolvency Specialist got an axe to grind with EDT and/or KA, and if they have why are they acting unfaithfully (in your opinion anyway) and if they have acted unfaithfully and have cost KA and EDT £7.5m each, why has neither of them screamed blue murder and fought to get their money back???

I don't doubt your unequalled knowledge on accountancy but Administrators also work to Insolvency laws as well.

I don't believe you've taken this into consideration in your views of as to what went on and why.

Sorry Sluffy but you still haven't got your listening ears on and keep churning out all manner of nonsense which frankly I have neither the time nor the patience to respond to. And frankly I doubt that there can be many who can be bothered to read it.

But you do seem to have got it into your head that anyone in authority never does anything wrong despite the glaring evidence when, as in this case, something is manifestly wrong.

Despite it all, Ken Anderson was able to ignore the lapses or errors (or call them what you will) until the administrators came up with something satisfactory. In due course, they did but only after they seem to have decided that it could be leaked that everything had been agreed when it hadn't been.

There are things to learn from all this but you will learn nothing whilst you continue to ignore the facts, chase shadows, clutch at straws, run up blind alleys and cling to naive beliefs.

I simply don't care if you or anyone else bothers to read what I post, I do so for my own amusement.

I might be wrong but only the Administrator and the parties involved with his ruling would know that for certain simply because there is existing Insolvency legislation that an Administrator can use to void the granting of charges - and the Administrator in this case has clearly not granted the charges of Ken Anderson's £7.5m.

You can make disparaging remarks about me as much as you like, believe me I've been called far worse, but they don't mean that I am wrong in what I say or that you are unequivocally right in your opinions on this either.

I do find it a bit rich however when you tell me I won't learn anything whilst I ignore the facts, when I've present facts to you in regards to Insolvency law that can and does give an alternative narrative as to what went on, that you seeming choose to be in denial of.

Seems you demand of me to do what you say, but you don't practice it yourself.

Norpig wrote:Trouble in paradise between our love birds i see 

Maybe you are right after all Norpig.

I never would have thought it believable myself, though.

I see that you have had a bit of a ticking off there Sluffy!

karlypants wrote:I see that you have had a bit of a ticking off there Sluffy!

Indeed!

I don't mind getting things wrong, you don't learn anything if people don't challenge you and put you right when you do - I don't see much point in telling lies and pretending that you haven't which is what Wanderlust does - not that I'm suggesting Bob is - better just to learn from your mistakes and gain from them.

Bob has been extremely helpful to me in the past and in my way I'm trying to play his games as some sort of a thank you back to him.

I don't know much if anything about Insolvency or Administration of private companies but seeing it happened to the club we all support I've tried to understand as much as I possibly could to get some idea as to what was going on and why.

Bob has been the only person I have found who clearly did understand the accountancy side to all of this.

There was clearly no point listening to idiots like Iles and Wanderlust who clearly pontificated their financial bollocks (and clear hatred to some of those involved such as Anderson and Eddie).

Clearly Bob has some sort of bee in his bonnet because for some reason I seemed to have missed, he's resurrected the actions of the Administrator that took place some four years ago and seemed to want to make an issue of it on here.  He set me a challenge and I've done my best to answer him.

Unfortunately he doesn't like the narrative I came up with.

Am I right with it - I don't know, but I do believe it is a legitimate and legal course of action that could have been taken, and in my humble opinion gives more plausible reasons why all those involved acted as they did rather than Bob's apparent deep state conspiracy theory...

Ten Bobsworth wrote:
Yes things do have to be done lawfully and professionally in administrations but can you explain why the administrators were vague about the exact amounts owed to the Eddie Davies Trust and, crucially, significantly misrepresented the amounts owed to Ken Anderson?

Ten Bobsworth wrote:And for heaven sake, do you really need to be reminded of Ken Anderson's history with the Insolvency Service?

Who knows, perhaps Bob is right but I'm naturally inclined to follow facts where I can and I've quoted Insolvency Laws that permit what the Administrator did and I feel more inclined that he acted this way rather than 'misrepresent' facts and have some sort of long sought out state revenge on Anderson for past misdeeds.

It would make a much more interesting tale if Bob is indeed right but I tend see the truth as nearly always much more boring and mundane - just like my narrative is here.

The irony in all of this is whoever is right won't change a thing - everything is closed and filed away and everybody involved have long since moved on.

No doubt in Bob's eyes I'm probably wrong about that as well!

Hey ho!

Natasha Whittam wrote:Someone's going to be sleeping on the couch tonight.

Unbelievable jeff!

Yes, Sluffy, you are wrong. You're not always wrong but you are completely wrong on all this. The facts are clear and they do not support the Administrators Statement of Affairs. But it does seem that, in your world, if someone in authority makes a claim that is manifestly untrue it immediately becomes true because someone in authority has claimed it.

That's Lewis Carroll logic in my judgement. 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'


I can see what an Administrator might gain by this tactic but I also wonder how often this sort of thing occurs in insolvency situations.

P.S. Everybody hasn't moved on, so you are wrong about that too, Sluffy.

Ken Anderson continues to be blamed for everything that went wrong and continues to be singled out for vile abuse on every conceivable occasion by the usual suspects, as was Eddie Davies until he came to the club's rescue for the umpteenth time immediately prior to his unfortunate death.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Yes, Sluffy, you are wrong. You're not always wrong but you are completely wrong on all this. The facts are clear and they do not support the Administrators Statement of Affairs. But it does seem that, in your world, if someone in authority makes a claim that is manifestly untrue it immediately becomes true because someone in authority has claimed it. That's Lewis Carroll logic in my judgement.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'


I can see what an Administrator might gain by this tactic but I also wonder how often this sort of thing occurs in insolvency situations.

I may be wrong Bob but in my world, I was the one who was paid to stop those in authority making manifestly untrue claims, (well any untrue claims actually, let alone manifest ones!) so I probably know better than many about what goes on in with respect to abuses of power.

What I've said repeatedly on here - and which you fail to understand of me (whether it is intention or simply dismissed out of hand) is that the Administrator has powers under Insolvency Law to void certain events which include the granting of charges.

The Administer in this case seemed to have voided charges.

I put forward the narrative that a reason for this could simply be because he used the powers in law he had available to him.

I never claimed he did - in fact I stated several times I didn't know what he did because I hadn't knowledge of what actions he really took and whatever his reasons were for doing so.

You for reasons best known to yourself got it locked into your head that I seemingly believed the Administrator (and presumably any other person who ever held a position of responsibility) to be somehow and unquestionable right!

I am not and never have been that sort of person, I check things out the best I can whatever anyone says or reports.

Ironically if I was the sort of person you had taken me for then I would simply have believed you without question, seeing that I view you as the best authority I know on matters of accountancy.

You, may I remind you, challenged me, a person who you know freely and often admits of little to no previous knowledge of insolvency or private sector company financial dealings, to answer a question you set about what the Administrator did four years ago.

I've done my best to answer it simply as a puzzle to stretch myself with and, in some small way, for me to give something back to you for all the help and kind assistance you've shown to me in the past.

I've enjoyed doing it too and if I got the wrong answer, well I got the wrong answer.

I did my best.

What more do you want from me?

I find it pretty meaningless other than just for a mental exercise, to care much about something that happened historically, that everyone involved has ruled a line under, and moved on with their life's.

Clearly you don't.

Clearly you feel there has been a mis-service here to someone but I don't know to whom or what, and I half suspect whoever you feel this mis-service has been done to has long since moved on with their life and long since put it behind them.

Re-reading the Administrators initial Statement of his report (filed at CH 22nd July, 2019) I see he states under secured creditors that the amount outstanding to EDT in the COMPANY RECORDS is £10,050,000 and not £17m and for KA the COMPANY's RECORDS show an amount of £1,578,042 and not £7.5m.

I note also the BM is not shown as a creditor to the company as their TWO accounts were satisfied on 24th September, 2018 - that ED (Moonshift registered a charge on 18th September, 2018 (there were previous charges of theirs dating back to some years before) - and KA charge registered on 2nd October, 2018

Eddie Davies died on the 11th September, 2018.

The Administrator was appointed on 13th May, 2019.

Looking back on this information seems to confuse me now somewhat.

I assume someone put money into BL to pay off the BM loan, so from the timeline I assume ED put in the money first, BM was settled, then he secured (EDT by that time) his money he had put in on ONE of the assets that BM had now settled their charge on.

So IF it was ED that put the BM payment money into BL, then how did KA secure against - presumably the second set of asset's that BM had now settled their claim on?

Did KA then put an additional claimed £7.5m of his own money in as well as Eddie's £7.5m???

He must have put something in as it was the only charge he ever made - see below.

If he only put it in after BM was settled and after ED had secured then how could it have been the money apparently loaned to him to settle BM because by that time BM had already been settled?

Did ED settle BM direct away from BM if so he hadn't lent the money to BL, if so how could he secure it against BL's assets?

Anyway leaving those thoughts unanswered.


So yes Bob, you were right, the Administrator could not have used Insolvency law to void KA's security, as he reports that KA was indeed a secured creditor.

His reason given for reducing the amounts of EDT and KA was simply because that is what the companies accounts showed them to be.

I'm pleased for you, I've always stated that you are the best I've come across for knowledge of accounts, and for the record I've never claimed that you were wrong but rather my narrative (proved to be wrong now) gave an alternative and believable scenario, than an Administrator deliberately acted in someway underhandedly and for EDT and KA to walkaway after, on the face of it, losing £7.5m each!

Well done.

But what has it achieved you?

The forensic audit of the accounts would have showed the company records for EDT and KA to be what they were, and everybody and their dog has long since packed up their tent, picked up their ball and gone home and forgotten about all of this.

What exactly are you trying to prove and to whom?

Does anyone but yourself even care?

Whatever it is I hope now it brings you some peace, some closure.

I do hope so anyway.

Sluffy, now with a verruca, befudledly thrashing about in the  shallow end of a swimming pool looking for his thinking head and listening ears.

Over and out.