Lockout

[Bronco Billy]

Bah. The league uses players to advertise itself, obviously. Pretty sure the players get nothing from the NFL running trailers (and, IMO, nor should they).

 

Wait, I want to make sure I have this correct:

 

The position here is that the league benefits from the players much more than the players benefit from the league?

 

Seriously? That's the argument being presented?

[Ursa Majoris]

Wait, I want to make sure I have this correct:

 

The position here is that the league benefits from the players much more than the players benefit from the league?

 

Seriously? That's the argument being presented?

Sorry, I have no idea what your problem is with my statement. What would you suggest the league use to advertise itself, Jerry Jones' underpants?

[fitzkek]

Wait, I want to make sure I have this correct:

 

The position here is that the league benefits from the players much more than the players benefit from the league?

 

Seriously? That's the argument being presented?

What's Bronco's take on Judge Doty's decision. = owner's leverage

[lennykravitz2004]

What's Bronco's take on Judge Doty's decision. = owner's leverage

 

Wellllllll........ as Lee Corso likes to say... "not so fast". With stories like this coming up, I'd wager the owners can "afford" this more than the players. Their leverage took a hit, but I don't think it's nearly as bad as what some may say/think. (Just my )

 

 

Eagles’ Brandon Graham says broke teammate asked for $100K loan

 

Posted by Michael David Smith on February 28, 2011, 12:40 PM EST

 

Can NFL players manage their money well enough to make it through a lengthy work stoppage and afford to pay their bills? Or will the players’ union buckle quickly to the owners’ demands because union members simply can’t afford to miss any paychecks?

 

That’s one of the fundamental questions as the owners and the players continue their negotiations toward a new Collective Bargaining Agreement. And a story told by one NFL player suggests that the players simply aren’t prepared to play hardball with the owners.

 

Eagles defensive end Brandon Graham tells Philadelphia Sports Daily that he has had teammates come to him and say they’re broke, asking for loans of as much as $100,000.

 

“They try not to make it awkward. They’ll come to you like they’re joking, but they’re serious. They’re trying to feel you out, to see what you’ll say,” Graham said.

 

Graham says that if his teammates can’t manage their own money, there’s no way he’s lending them any of his money.

 

“I’ll be like, ‘What are you going to do with it, other than blow it?’ I don’t want to be beefing with guys on my team because they owe me money,” Graham said.

 

Graham is smart to put his foot down with his teammates. If the union leadership is smart, it’s been giving a tough message to its membership about the importance of saving money for a potential lockout. But if those members haven’t been smart with their money, the union is going to have a hard time staying strong once the paychecks stop coming.

 

Here's another decent read on the topic.

 

 

NFL owners won't run hurry-up offense vs. players

With so many players living check-to-check, time is on management's side in labor dispute

 

By Bill Briggs

msnbc.com contributor

updated 1 hour 32 minutes ago

Share Print Font:

When NFL owners read the opposing defense, they see an obvious soft spot in the line: the free-spending, high-living ways of more than 20 percent of the league’s players.

Though a lockout has been threatened for years — and despite an apparent rise in the number of football stars safeguarding their millions — roughly 380 of the NFL's near 1,700 players still live paycheck to paycheck, according to financial experts familiar with the league.

“Therein lies the leverage these owners have to potentially use as an excuse to force the Players Association … to sneeze first,” said Reggie Wilkes, a 10-year NFL linebacker and now a financial adviser who preaches “lifestyle management” to more than 20 NFL clients. “If (union chief) DeMaurice Smith doesn’t have guys saving their money, it’s going to be difficult for them to withstand a potential lockout.”

Many players are "going to be hurting," agreed New York Jets linebacker Bart Scott, 30, a Wilkes client. Scott, who stands to earn, or lose, $6 million next season, is frugal by NFL standards, driving his 2002 Lincoln Navigator “into the ground” and purchasing a $700,000 home — relatively modest by football star standards. Scott said some “young guys” in his locker room “see what the older guys have, and they’re not there yet. They’re trying to catch up and keep up with the Joneses” by buying $2 million mansions.

There is a wide variation in NFL players’ salaries. The average player salary for the 2009-10 season using USA Today's numbers is $1,870,998. But the number isn't particularly meaningful since superstars can earn far more and second- or third-stringers far less. The league rookie minimum salary is $320,000.

Barring a late agreement between the union and owners, players could be locked out of NFL facilities as soon as Friday.

To bolster solidarity — and, as Scott says, to “protect the players from themselves” — the NFL Players Association has been urging its members to stockpile cash for two years. The association also withheld union dues and royalty checks to build an emergency fund that will pay members about $60,000 each over the course of next season if their game checks stop coming, said players association spokesman George Atallah.

Advertise | AdChoices

 

 

 

Many players have, indeed, heeded the union’s warnings by hiring money managers, sticking to precise monthly budgets, living with roommates, and postponing big buys (new homes) — or even small ones (new neckties), said several NFL players and their accountants.

PFT: Eagles player says broke teammate asked for $100,000 loan

Perhaps it’s the fear of going months without pay, or maybe it’s the notoriously high bankruptcy rate among retired NFL players — estimated at nearly 80 percent by Sports Illustrated — but “athletes are really starting to buckle down a lot more than they did 10 years ago,” said Steve Piascik, president of Piascik & Associates, a Richmond, Va.-based tax adviser to about 65 NFL, NBA and Major League Baseball players.

“They are taking more responsibility,” said Piascik, who added 12 pro clients — most from the NFL — in just the past six weeks. “The rookies, especially, are more aware of the situation and they’re trying to protect themselves. Boom, they see (ex-NFL players) going through financial scandals and they’re going to make sure that doesn’t happen to them.”

Many NFL stars have made headlines because of their financial problems.

Luther Elliss, who earned $11.6 million with the Detroit Lions from 2000 to 2004, filed for bankruptcy in 2009 and has recently relied on friends and local churches to pay his bills. Raghib "Rocket" Ismail, who pulled in an estimated $18 million during a 10-year career, lost much of it through bad investments. Mark Brunell, now a New York Jets backup quarterback, filed for bankruptcy in June 2010 despite contracts that paid him $50 million during his career.

These high-profile cases are one reason for open concerns among some fiscally conservative players that their lavish-living teammates will become a weak link for a union that aims to hold out for gains in its collective bargaining agreement.

Piascik figures he spends “a good 25 percent” of his time steering pro clients away from too many flashy toys — “cars and jewelry” — and often from family and friends who press the players for gifts, loans or investments in risky ventures. Piascik said he willingly takes on the role of “the bad guy.”

If his players max out their planned budgets and ask Piascik for extra cash, he said his pat answer is: “No! No! My job is to make sure that when your career’s over, you’re financially set.” He even cut ties with one NFL rookie who insisted — against Piascik’s advice — on buying his mother a $2.1 million home.

“A lot of people say you can’t bring your money to the grave. But there’s also a point where you’ve got to be conservative and set your savings up,” said Sabby Piscitelli, a Cleveland Browns safety and one of Piascik’s clients. According to Fox Sports, Piscitelli earns about $770,000 per season. “I remember my grandpa always told me: ‘The first bill you always pay is your savings account.’ ”

Piscitelli, 27, recently sold one car and opted to wait at least a year to purchase a property in south Florida – moves made, in part, to prepare for the possible lockout.

Other players have drawn up monthly budgets to control cash flow on everything from groceries and clothing to mortgage or rent, said Wilkes, the linebacker turned financial adviser.

Advertise | AdChoices

 

 

 

“Most guys are just like I was. I mean, you’re not really focused on this (as a young player). It takes a couple of years for a light to go off. It’s about the adviser constantly beating it into them on a monthly basis. Not on a six-month basis. Not every year. It’s every month. It has to be a recurring theme,” said Wilkes, vice president of the Wilkes Group in Wayne, Pa. He spent most of his career with the Philadelphia Eagles.

“They get tired of it. They get pissed off. Sometimes they hang up on me,” Wilkes added.

In his first conversations with NFL clients, Wilkes always broaches the topic of retirement to get them mulling that eventuality. He sends his players cash-flow reports every 30 days to record — or correct — spending habits. And he said he helps them move “a certain percentage of their assets” into an emergency fund meant to provide them with a three-year cash reserve.

Such steps, Wilkes believes, help players survive during and after NFL careers that, on average, last just 3.3 seasons.

Despite that typically short taste of pro ball, more than 20 percent of NFL players live check to check and fail to put money into savings, both Wilkes and Piascik estimated.

For that fast-living slice of the league, “there’s going to be a shock factor” if the lockout interrupts their income, Piascik said.

“It could be trouble for them,” agreed Cleveland safety Piscitelli. If salaries are held up for a full season, he expects unprepared players to “start selling off stuff, liquidating stuff, like the properties they have.”

Scott, the Jets veteran, will not be that weak link. He said years of financial planning will allow him to comfortably survive at least a year without pay.

“Some players never see the end (of their careers),” Scott said. “I just wanted to start preparing for the end. … I’m all set no matter what — lockout, no lockout. Understand, I stand to lose $6 million in salary next year if there is a work stoppage. But I’m prepared to lose $6 million if that’s what I have to do.”

Through his work with Wilkes, Scott said he will have his home, cars and the educations of his two children paid off in full this year. He plans to eventually walk away from the NFL debt-free.

“I learned something a long time ago from Steve Bisciotti, the owner of the Baltimore Ravens. He said, ‘You can live like a king for a while, or you can live like a prince forever.’ I’m satisfied with living like a prince forever.”

[Square]

I think this is a cash grab by a bunch of billionaires who don't care that they are putting a game we all love at risk. I'm surprised there are so many pro owners folks though. The current owners have either taken little risk or have been paid several times over for their initial risk. Some of you act like it's a moral issue that because an old white guy has "owner" next to his name he automatically deserves to make sure he won't have to take any future risk and can be guaranteed his golden goose.

 

I'm fine if they operate in good faith to get a deal done in time and the settlement ends up within a percent or two of where the current agreement is. I find it to be a hard sell that they "deserve" another 1 billion (making their share 2 of the 9 billion outright before splitting the left over) because of rising costs. The stadium costs are going through the roof because the owners know they don't have to share the stadium money (that they rent to the football team) with the players or the other owners. That's why every owner wants a Jerry world and they are asking for more money from the players so they can build bigger stadiums and keep more money in their pockets.

[tazinib1]

The judge ruled in favor of the players association. And just to let you know, for the first time since these talks began, a very BIG group of NFL owners are at the meetings today. We have only hours left but there are some good signs here.

Edited March 2, 2011 by tazinib1

[Slugs3511]

Further, to think that players don't deserve their fair share of the revenue is to discount what American capitalism is all about.

 

Don't we live in a Socialist government?...Look at what the states are doing to the collective bargaining rights of unions today....We want a capitalist economy at the expense of the working, blue collar worker....Not at the expense of the wealthy, by no means......Let's just all play ball without keeping score to not hurt anyone's feelings.....LOL! Oh.....we already do that.....

[Bronco Billy]

What's Bronco's take on Judge Doty's decision. = owner's leverage

 

yep, it really undermines the owners. That said, they were still embarrassed last time. I think they'd rather sit out the season than have the players dictating the terms again and taking such a hugh slice of the pie. The threat of players going without paychecks for a year is real and the players had better recognize that. The owners aren't going to let the inmates run the assylum. (BTW, for what it's worth, I think the judge's decision was right on target even though the networks signed the deal with their eyes wide open and their own lawyers running over all the verbage. The networks took a risk, lost, and the judge pulled their bacon out of the fire for them. But the principle of denying unjust enrichment should still hold in this country).

 

But if somthing gets done, the owners are going to have to give more than they planned, now that they've been hamstrung.

Edited March 2, 2011 by Bronco Billy

[Bronco Billy]

I think this is a cash grab by a bunch of billionaires who don't care that they are putting a game we all love at risk. I'm surprised there are so many pro owners folks though.

 

 

It's because it is the owners' league. That's why they are OWNERS. They aren't going to surrender their business to the employees, and that's the bottom line no matter how you cut it.

 

I said it earlier, I'll say it again. The players could simply start their own league if they had the ability to manage it. They don't, so they can't.

 

Here, check this out:

 

link

 

The statistic is downright alarming: By the time they are out of the game for two years, 78 percent of NFL players are bankrupt or financially distressed.

 

This isn't because players are underpaid, it's because they piss their money away living unsustainable lifestyles.

Edited March 2, 2011 by Bronco Billy

[delusions of grandeur]

It's because it is the owners' league. That's why they are OWNERS. They aren't going to surrender their business to the employees, and that's the bottom line no matter how you cut it.

 

Great, looks like I’ve found my first recruit for my latest venture called “Forum Wars”, where I take people who are extremely talented in disputing on internet message boards, and have them fight in out in a real live arena!

 

Here’s how it will work. I’ll get tax-payer funding to help build an unnecessarily expensive and extravagant stadium with vendors and the works. It will be awesome. We’ll sell tickets to these events for big $$ because everyone likes to see a good fight... So once I’ve earned enough to pay for all of this to fully exploit all of your fights, then we can begin to start talking about any revenue splits.

 

Since I’m the only one with capital to pull this off, I think the most fair way to do it is for me to take half of whatever we gross, to add to my piles of money. All of you fighters will divvy up the other half, since I guess your job of taking all the beatings and providing the sole entertainment/product people are paying for is kind of important… That is, until you simply cannot take any more beatings. At that point we will be terminating your contract, but at least you can be happy that you were an integral part of us building something that will allow me to sit back and make hundreds of millions for the rest of my life.

 

So are you in BB?

Edited March 2, 2011 by delusions of granduer

[tazinib1]

Great, looks like I’ve found my first recruit for my latest venture called “Forum Wars”, where I take people who are extremely talented in disputing on internet message boards, and have them fight in out in a real live arena!

 

Here’s how it will work. I’ll get tax-payer funding to help build an unnecessarily expensive and extravagant stadium with vendors and the works. It will be awesome. We’ll sell tickets to these events for big $$ because everyone likes to see a good fight... So once I’ve collected enough to pay for all of this to fully exploit all of your fights, then we can begin to start talking about any revenue splits.

 

Since I’m the only one with capital to pull this off, I think the most fair way to do it is for me to take half of whatever we gross, to add to my piles of money. All of you fighters will divvy up the other half, since I guess your job of taking all the beatings and providing the sole entertainment/product people are paying for is kind of important… That is, until you simply cannot take any more beatings. At that point we will be terminating your contract, but at least you can be happy that you were an integral part of us building something that will allow me to sit back and make hundreds of millions for the rest of my life.

 

So are you in BB?

 

 

 

There would be some epic battles.

 

I'd like to throw my hat into the ring of representing the debaters. Even though I have zero experience at it, I'm sure they wouldn't mind...cause ya know I'm a hard ass.

[bpwallace49]

It's because it is the owners' league. That's why they are OWNERS. They aren't going to surrender their business to the employees, and that's the bottom line no matter how you cut it.

 

-sigh-

 

I dont know of anyone that has advocated "surrendering their business to the employees" at all. The owners are savvy businessmen, and have added to their already great wealth BY OWNING A TEAM THAT CONTINUES TO GROW IN VALUE EVERY YEAR.

 

I have not seen anything that shows that NFL franchises have DEcreased in value.

 

Why not say instead of the 1st 2 billion (which is laughable in and of itself) you can take 1.5 billion off the top, but in a rookie pay scale, and work out the little details like franchise tags and years before free agency over drinks?

[Bronco Billy]

Great, looks like I’ve found my first recruit for my latest venture called “Forum Wars”, where I take people who are extremely talented in disputing on internet message boards, and have them fight in out in a real live arena!

 

Here’s how it will work. I’ll get tax-payer funding to help build an unnecessarily expensive and extravagant stadium with vendors and the works. It will be awesome. We’ll sell tickets to these events for big $$ because everyone likes to see a good fight... So once I’ve earned enough to pay for all of this to fully exploit all of your fights, then we can begin to start talking about any revenue splits.

 

Since I’m the only one with capital to pull this off, I think the most fair way to do it is for me to take half of whatever we gross, to add to my piles of money. All of you fighters will divvy up the other half, since I guess your job of taking all the beatings and providing the sole entertainment/product people are paying for is kind of important… That is, until you simply cannot take any more beatings. At that point we will be terminating your contract, but at least you can be happy that you were an integral part of us building something that will allow me to sit back and make hundreds of millions for the rest of my life.

 

So are you in BB?

 

I have the exact same option as the players do. I can choose not to work as an employee in your business and instead seek employment elsewhere.

 

I choose to reject your offer.

 

I wish you the best in your venture and hope that you make billions. After all, no one should be allowed to determine whether you are making too much money, how much money you are allowed to make, or how you should run your business - since after all it is yours.

 

See how easy that is?

[Bronco Billy]

-sigh-

 

I dont know of anyone that has advocated "surrendering their business to the employees" at all. The owners are savvy businessmen, and have added to their already great wealth BY OWNING A TEAM THAT CONTINUES TO GROW IN VALUE EVERY YEAR.

 

I have not seen anything that shows that NFL franchises have DEcreased in value.

 

Why not say instead of the 1st 2 billion (which is laughable in and of itself) you can take 1.5 billion off the top, but in a rookie pay scale, and work out the little details like franchise tags and years before free agency over drinks?

 

How much the owners make and what the value of NFL franchises are has nothing to do with the CBA and the money allocated to employees.

 

I'm not sure how anyone can not understand that, but that appears to be the case.

Edited March 2, 2011 by Bronco Billy

[lennykravitz2004]

I have the exact same option as the players do. I can choose not to work as an employee in your business and instead seek employment elsewhere.

 

I choose to reject your offer.

 

I wish you the best in your venture and hope that you make billions. After all, no one should be allowed to determine whether you are making too much money, how much money you are allowed to make, or how you should run your business - since after all it is yours.

 

See how easy that is?

 

So sayeth the shepherd, so sayeth the flock.

 

This was my exact first thought as well.

[delusions of grandeur]

I have the exact same option as the players do. I can choose not to work as an employee in your business and instead seek employment elsewhere.

 

I choose to reject your offer.

 

I wish you the best in your venture and hope that you make billions. After all, no one should be allowed to determine whether you are making too much money, how much money you are allowed to make, or how you should run your business - since after all it is yours.

 

See how easy that is?

 

Okay, now let's look at it from my standpoint as an owner. If I want to get such a talented disputer like you BB, then obviously I'm going to have to make a more generous offer or some benefits to get you on board. I certainly don't want this to turn into "blog wars".

 

(Edit: BTW, isn't the players "rejecting an offer" exactly what's going on right now. Honestly BB, I don't even know what we're arguing about half the time).

Edited March 2, 2011 by delusions of granduer

[bpwallace49]

How much the owners make and what the value of NFL franchises are has nothing to do with the CBA and the money allocated to employees.

 

I'm not sure how anyone can not understand that, but that appears to be the case.

 

It is when pleading that they cant afford it and need more money. This is alllll about what the owners make and the value of frnachises, as it directly relates to the division of profits from said franchise. The weak argumnet that "we need more money before we split the remainder up, but we wont show any proof so we can negotiate in good faith so just trust us" seems very lame.

 

 

Just like your statement of "turning the business over to the employees" has nothing to do with the discussion either.

[lennykravitz2004]

How much the owners make and what the value of NFL franchises are has nothing to do with the CBA and the money allocated to employees.

 

I'm not sure how anyone can not understand that, but that appears to be the case.

 

Sorry... but you're beating me to the punch - I'm not trying to ride your jock here...

 

All the comments about the worth of a franchise... what happens in the meantime before an owner can sell? How do they increase that value, or at a minimum not decrease its value? IMHO, it's like buying a mansion - I bought it for $10 million, however, if I don't maintain it (reinvest in it when needed), it's value falls. And that money is probably tied up in a mortgage. I can't use the value of the house for day-to-day operations unless I possibly take out a second mortgage... catch-22. And even if the sale value doesn't fall, the buyer still needs more than "buy money" to run the whole operation. Should we expect, no... mandate owners use money from their other business(es) to keep another of their businesses afloat?

 

IMHO, talking about franchise values is totally irrelevant. That money/worth is tied up and not available. Best it can be is high-dollar collateral.

[bpwallace49]

Sorry... but you're beating me to the punch - I'm not trying to ride your jock here...

 

All the comments about the worth of a franchise... what happens in the meantime before an owner can sell? How do they increase that value, or at a minimum not decrease its value? IMHO, it's like buying a mansion - I bought it for $10 million, however, if I don't maintain it (reinvest in it when needed), it's value falls. And that money is probably tied up in a mortgage. I can't use the value of the house for day-to-day operations unless I possibly take out a second mortgage... catch-22. And even if the sale value doesn't fall, the buyer still needs more than "buy money" to run the whole operation. Should we expect, no... mandate owners use money from their other business(es) to keep another of their businesses afloat?

 

IMHO, talking about franchise values is totally irrelevant. That money/worth is tied up and not available. Best it can be is high-dollar collateral.

 

And that is why they get 1 billion off the top to "maintain the mansion" and continue to grow the value. The value grows becasue of interest in the league and the people spending the money to watch it. Lets not be disingenuous here . . . NO franchise are DEcreasing in value. Isnt happening.

 

To use your example, Red McCombs did NOTHING to reinvest in the Vikings (his mansion) he then sold it, for a very very very handsome profit, despite ZERO reinvestment on his part.

 

That is why the value of franchises IS relevant. The owners are saying they need more money, yet their teams keep growing and growing in value.

 

And stop riding Bears jock

[delusions of grandeur]

Edit: Nevermind, BP and several others already answered my question about the revenue splits.

 

Costs are kind of irrelevant then to revenues.

Edited March 2, 2011 by delusions of granduer

[lennykravitz2004]

And that is why they get 1 billion off the top to "maintain the mansion" and continue to grow the value. The value grows becasue of interest in the league and the people spending the money to watch it. Lets not be disingenuous here . . . NO franchise are DEcreasing in value. Isnt happening.

 

To use your example, Red McCombs did NOTHING to reinvest in the Vikings (his mansion) he then sold it, for a very very very handsome profit, despite ZERO reinvestment on his part.

 

That is why the value of franchises IS relevant. The owners are saying they need more money, yet their teams keep growing and growing in value.

 

And stop riding Bears jock

 

I guess 31.25 million a year (per team) doesn't buy what it used to...

 

I understand your point, just don't agree, I guess. I still don't understand how money an owner doesn't see until he sells, helps him run his franchise year-to-year.

 

Do you know if Red made money while owning the team, did he simply pocket his 1/32 share, etc? Did he pay all of his day-to-day bills from merchandise licensing, vendor sales, and ticket sales? Why was he so cheap... because if he wasn't so frugal, he'd have to pump his own money into the franchise and be in the Red? (OK, that one was bad.) I understand we'll never know since they don't "open their books"...

 

As usual... just my

[bpwallace49]

I guess 31.25 million a year (per team) doesn't buy what it used to...

 

I understand your point, just don't agree, I guess. I still don't understand how money an owner doesn't see until he sells, helps him run his franchise year-to-year.

 

Do you know if Red made money while owning the team, did he simply pocket his 1/32 share, etc? Did he pay all of his day-to-day bills from merchandise licensing, vendor sales, and ticket sales? Why was he so cheap... because if he wasn't so frugal, he'd have to pump his own money into the franchise and be in the Red? (OK, that one was bad.) I understand we'll never know since they don't "open their books"...

 

As usual... just my

 

The 31.25 million is off the top. THEN they get the rest of the revenue split, which is something like over a hundred million per team. I easily could be wrong on this one, but I think that each team/owner keeps their own concession sales and parking revenue per game. Add in close to a million per home game for that, times 8 games. The gate receipts, NFL merchandise (I think) all go into the collective pot that is divided between the owners and players. Oh . . and add in the personal seat licenses for certain teams above and beyond as well.

 

Again, Not really sure how they are pleading poverty on this one. . .

[WaterMan]

Sorry, I have no idea what your problem is with my statement. What would you suggest the league use to advertise itself, Jerry Jones' underpants?

 

Where would have the Falcons' merchandise sells been without Vick?

[piratesownninjas]

A question for nerds of labor laws...

So lets say the NFLPA decides to decertify... What's keeping them from forming a union again once they get what they wanted from decertifying?

[tazinib1]

A question for nerds of labor laws...

So lets say the NFLPA decides to decertify... What's keeping them from forming a union again once they get what they wanted from decertifying?

 

I'm not sure about the specifics on them re-forming, but the entire desertification process would enable the NFLPA to file a class action lawsuit against the NFL. It's happened before, as recently as 1989 when Gene Upshaw decertified the union in order to access the courts and anti-trust laws.

 

Regardless, after David Doty reversed the ruling involving Owners to collect the $4billion worth of TV revenue in lieu of a lockout, the NFL would be missing a significant stream of revenue, perhaps leveling the playing field for the union.

 

We'll see what transpires as the deadline is 11:59pm tomorrow and they would have to de-certify before that.

Edited March 3, 2011 by tazinib1