Greed is going to destroy this country again

GRMA

Einhard wrote: »

So it's ok for the tenant to increase their prices if they have to pay the bills?

To state "if they are stuck for a few bob" is a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the matter. Being forced into bankruptcy is a tad more extreme than being stuck for a few bob, and you well know it.

One of the problems with this country is people are always looking out for an easy target to last out at. it saves them actually having to take a close look a problem. And landlords now are the easy target. God forbid we actually try to take an objective look at the situation and figure out a solution that works for all- no, far easier to just attack and condemn without taking on board the very real issues on all sides.

This is the same excuse landlords in the 1800's gave for exploiting their tenants. Was that ok?


Its hard to build up a successful business, especially in these times. Being forced to relocate can utterly destroy it, so many people are trapped and are easy prey to these landlords because moving isn't an option.

Einhard

gurramok wrote: »

So a landlord took out a Celtic tiger mortgage, and how exactly is that the tenants problem? If a landlord cannot sustain his business in a capitalist market, he is not fit to be a landlord.

Eh, but if he can sustain his business by raising rents then it becomes the tenants problem. Hence the thread.

dj jarvis

gurramok wrote: »

So a landlord took out a Celtic tiger mortgage, and how exactly is that the tenants problem? If a landlord cannot sustain his business in a capitalist market, he is not fit to be a landlord.

how is it the landlords fault that the tenant signed a upwards only contract , with the full knowledge that it will either stay static or go up
christ , do we have to babysit every person in this state`?

read the contract - understand it - make sure you can honor it
if you can then dont sign it , what are people not getting about this

and this is regardless of the landlord being a money grabbing lizard , you should ALWAYS assume they are and work forward from that

boo hoo , he put the rent up after he told me he was going to

gurramok

Einhard wrote: »

Eh, but if he can sustain his business by raising rents then it becomes the tenants problem. Hence the thread.

And he cannot get a new tenant at the higher rate? Then its the landlords problem.

mikemac1

If the landlord owns an empty property do the council still charge the landlord for rates?

Not sure how they'd calculate it with no turnover.
Maybe it's a fixed rate

I'm just interested to know if empty units are paying

Einhard

GRMA wrote: »

This is the same excuse landlords in the 1800's gave for exploiting their tenants.

No it wasn't. Not even close. Most of the landlords in the 1800s had received their massive tracts of land through services rendered by their families in the previous centuries. Please stop inventing spurious analogies.

Its hard to build up a successful business, especially in these times. Being
forced to relocate can utterly destroy it, so many people are trapped and are
easy prey to these landlords because moving isn't an option.

But the landlord is often trapped as well. Obviously a proportion of landlords are greedy. But also, there are those with massive debts, often tied to their family homes and other assets. It's all very well for people here to yammer on about them being greedy, but I'm pretty certain if it were your family home and wellbeing in question, you wouldn't be quite so balse about it.

There needs to be a system whreby people can enter bankruptcy without the punitive outcomes currently involved. I understand that such a system is on the cards and the sooner it's implemented the better.

steddyeddy

Right guys I'll clarify the problem which my mio amico italiano encountered. He was renting in Ireland since the celtic tiger. He entered into a celtic tiger lease and was paying large rents which he didn't mind paying. He was unable to negotiate a reduction in rent during this period and the excuse given was only upward rent reviews are allowed. His lease ended recently and he wanted to negotiate a new one at a cheaper price. His landlord wanted a slight increase on the price.

My problem is that the celtic tiger featured a range of over priced commodities such as properties ect. Now that we have entered a recession that same renting prices have been sustained even though businesses are suffering and closing celit tiger rents still exists. this is damaging businesses and the economy.

I have no problem with landlords charging certain rents if realistic but paying a landlord celtic tiger rents in this day and age is extortion.

I particular I have a problem with this

A standard lease in operation for commercial property in Ireland provides for rents to be revised
to market value every five years. An upward-only rent review means that the rent payable after
a revision cannot be less than either the rent payable at the start of the lease or before the
revision.

Rents are too high and need to drop. Everyone here keeps saying a ll can charge whatever he likes ect but people are missing the point that closing businesses because the price charged by a tiny proportion of people (landlords) prevents economic recovery.

Einhard

gurramok wrote: »

And he cannot get a new tenant at the higher rate? Then its the landlords problem.

True, but obviously many landlords are getting new tenants at the higher rates. Or else they wouldn't be raising the rents.

steddyeddy

Einhard wrote: »

No it wasn't. Not even close. Most of the landlords in the 1800s had received their massive tracts of land through services rendered by their families in the previous centuries. Please stop inventing spurious analogies.



But the landlord is often trapped as well. Obviously a proportion of landlords are greedy. But also, there are those with massive debts, often tied to their family homes and other assets. It's all very well for people here to yammer on about them being greedy, but I'm pretty certain if it were your family home and wellbeing in question, you wouldn't be quite so balse about it.

There needs to be a system whreby people can enter bankruptcy without the punitive outcomes currently involved. I understand that such a system is on the cards and the sooner it's implemented the better.

Which is going to have a bigger effect on the economy; a couple of landlords out of business or a couple of businesses out of business?

dj jarvis

steddyeddy wrote: »

Right guys I'll clarify the problem which my mio amico italiano encountered. He was renting in Ireland since the celtic tiger. He entered into a celtic tiger lease and was paying large rents which he didn't mind paying. He was unable to negotiate a reduction in rent during this period and the excuse given was only upward rent reviews are allowed. His lease ended recently and he wanted to negotiate a new one at a cheaper price. His landlord wanted a slight increase on the price.

My problem is that the celtic tiger featured a range of over priced commodities such as properties ect. Now that we have entered a recession that same renting prices have been sustained even though businesses are suffering and closing celit tiger rents still exists. this is damaging businesses and the economy.

I have no problem with landlords charging certain rents if realistic but paying a landlord celtic tiger rents in this day and age is extortion.

I particular I have a problem with this



Rents are too high and need to drop. Everyone here keeps saying a ll can charge whatever he likes ect but It's people are missing the point that closing businesses because the price charged by a tiny proportion of people (landlords) prevents economic recovery.

knowledge is power , now i have the full info , no offense but that is not the story you started the thread with , not saying you done this intentionally, but does change the situation slightly

Einhard

steddyeddy wrote: »

Which is going to have a bigger effect on the economy; a couple of landlords out of business or a couple of businesses out of business?

If two landlords owe say, €20 million between them for their properties, and they go bankrupt, then the banks take a hit on that And who owns the banks?

steddyeddy

dj jarvis wrote: »

knowledge is power , now i have the full info , no offense but that is not the story you started the thread with , not saying you dont this intentionally, but does change the situation slightly

I didnt post the full story because I wanted to be sure he doesn't post here and didn't want to rub salt in the wounds.

By the way there is no part of the story I lied about

The owner was an Italian chap who was an Irish citizen and came here to open a business. Anyway at the end of his current lease his landlord demanded a crazy amount of rent and refused to negotiate away from the proposed rent increase

At the end of the lease the landlord demanded slightly above his celtig tiger rate, which is a crazy amount of rent.

GRMA

Einhard wrote: »

No it wasn't. Not even close. Most of the landlords in the 1800s had received their massive tracts of land through services rendered by their families in the previous centuries. Please stop inventing spurious analogies.

You'll find I'm correct. the worst landlords had their properties mortgaged to the hilt and raised rents etc as a result to service their debts.

I made no mention of how they got stole the land, thats a different topic all together, why bring it up?

But the landlord is often trapped as well. Obviously a proportion of landlords are greedy. But also, there are those with massive debts, often tied to their family homes and other assets. It's all very well for people here to yammer on about them being greedy, but I'm pretty certain if it were your family home and wellbeing in question, you wouldn't be quite so balse about it.

There needs to be a system whreby people can enter bankruptcy without the punitive outcomes currently involved. I understand that such a system is on the cards and the sooner it's implemented the better.

I can honestly say that I would not inflict hardship and suffering on another family, or families, to keep my head above the water because of the situation I found myself in. They should charge fair rents. I'm saying they should give it for free.

Most often it is greed. These people aren't the type who will end up on the streets if they charge a fair rent. They might have to downsize of sell things but they wont be on the breadline.

gurramok

Einhard wrote: »

True, but obviously many landlords are getting new tenants at the higher rates. Or else they wouldn't be raising the rents.

Only the wealthy big international multiples(like the recent Abercombie) can afford the high rates, not your low end everyday shops.

For example when the landlord of the Blanchardstown shopping centre tried to raise the rent, Arcadia(who own a rake of clothes shops) threatened to pull out. The landlord backed down because you would have seen a load of empty units in that centre as well as a huge financial loss, tenant power worked in this case. A single tenant like in the thread title does not have the power of Arcadia to stand up to landlords hence they have to close up shop.

Pottler

Einhard wrote: »

But the landlord is often trapped as well. Obviously a proportion of landlords are greedy. But also, there are those with massive debts, often tied to their family homes and other assets. It's all very well for people here to yammer on about them being greedy, but I'm pretty certain if it were your family home and wellbeing in question, you wouldn't be quite so balse about it.

There needs to be a system whreby people can enter bankruptcy without the punitive outcomes currently involved. I understand that such a system is on the cards and the sooner it's implemented the better.

But, they often then struggle to get any rent in and then end up getting less. The Tiger is dead. This point is seeming to be a bit hard to get across, no wonder so many landlords are shooting themselves in the foot..

Death and Taxes

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Now that they have brought in a property tax it should be possible to reduce local authority rates (although you do have to ask what exactly does a business get for their money?). Most pay their own water supply and rubbish collection.

I pay nearly €2,000 a year in rates, for that I get nothing, nada, zilch. i also pay water charges and refuse charges seperatley.:mad:

steddyeddy

Pottler wrote: »

But, they often then struggle to get any rent in and then end up getting less. The Tiger is dead. This point is seeming to be a bit hard to get across, no wonder so many landlords are shooting themselves in the foot..

Yes that's putting it better than I did. Landlords are acting as if the tiger is alive and well and this is killing local and national economies by making doing business much harder.

Malibu Sunshine

This thread reminded me of the loss of two great eateries due to Landlord idiocy.

Mermaid Cafe owner criticises rent practices

The owners of the defunct Mermaid Cafe and Gruel restaurants in Dublin have hit out at the “short-sighted” behaviour of landlords, which they say will force many city traders out of business and ruin the character of the capital.Mark Harrell and Ben Gorman, who first opened the Mermaid Cafe on Dame Street in 1996, said the principal reason for the closure of the two restaurants was “the intransigence of landlords who still demand boom-time rents with their upward-only review mechanisms still in place”.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2011/0114/1224287488277.html

And then 6 months later

Mermaid, Gruel to let for 55% less

TWO of Dublin’s best known restaurants, the Mermaid Cafe and Gruel on Dame Street, Dublin 2, which closed last December in a protest over high rents, are to be offered to new traders at substantially lower terms.


Estate agent Conor Ó Cléirigh Company is now quoting a combined rent of €85,000 for the two premises – a long way short of the €190,000 charged up to Christmas for the two restaurants and spacious overhead accommodation.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/commercialproperty/2011/0727/1224301438315.html


So in short; landlords are, mostly, fúckwits.

Einhard

GRMA wrote: »

You'll find I'm correct. the worst landlords had their properties mortgaged to the hilt and raised rents etc as a result to service their debts.

Some landlords were heavily mortgaged, but they were in the minority. And their debts did not arise from buying the and in a property bubble which subsequently collapsed, so there is no comparision between the two eras or the two situations.

why bring it up?

Indeed. Why would you?

I can honestly say that I would not inflict hardship and suffering on another
family, or families, to keep my head above the water because of the situation I
found myself in.

BS. You expect the landlord to inflict hardship on his family though? You're contradicting yourself entirely.

They should charge fair rents. I'm saying they should give it for free.

I'm all for this. But if they charge less than the cost of ther mortgage, then they go bankrupt. And inflict pain and hardship on their families. Which you seem to think is grand, because their landlords. And it's alright that they suffer. Or something.

Most often it is greed. These people aren't the type who will end up on the
streets if they charge a fair rent. They might have to downsize of sell things
but they wont be on the breadline.

How do you know? The fact is you don't. Anyone who bought property at the height of the boom is facing incredibly tight margins, and many face financial ruin.

gurramok wrote: »

Only the wealthy big international multiples(like the recent Abercombie) can afford the high rates, not your low end everyday shops.

For example when the landlord of the Blanchardstown shopping centre tried to raise the rent, Arcadia(who own a rake of clothes shops) threatened to pull out. The landlord backed down because you would have seen a load of empty units in that centre as well as a huge financial loss, tenant power worked in this case. A single tenant like in the thread title does not have the power of Arcadia to stand up to landlords hence they have to close up shop.

But the landlord is not an idiot. He's not going to evict a tenant if he doesn't have someone to take over the lease. If the landlord has to pay €20k a month to cover his mortgage, it only makes sense that he charge at least that amount in rent if he can. It's not greed to do so. It's common sense. And yet, people here would accuse him of greed for wishing to do so. That's my issue. Of course there are greedy landlords. But equally, there are landlords who find themselves forced to charge higher rates to stave off financial ruin.

Pottler wrote: »

But, they often then struggle to get any rent in and then end up getting less. The Tiger is dead. This point is seeming to be a bit hard to get across, no wonder so many landlords are shooting themselves in the foot..

But are they shooting themselves in the foot? I mean, landlords are not morons. Something is better than nothing, so I doubt they are evicting tenants unless they have a replacement.

Pottler

Einhard wrote: »

But are they shooting themselves in the foot? I mean, landlords are not morons. Something is better than nothing, so I doubt they are evicting tenants unless they have a replacement.

Mother of the devine lord jesus wept. You're either deliberatly missing the whole point, or else you're about to jack the rent on a tenant that's been in place for ten years. On the bit in bold, are you kidding me? I know an awful lot of Landlords, I run a commercial property maintenance business and have done so for a long long time. The non-morons are a pleasure, a very small, minority, but a pleasure.

Jarren

A few months ago I was inquiring about this industrial property.
http://www.daft.ie/searchcommercial.daft?id=18736
Offered 60% of the asking price paid in advance for one year.
Got the short reply no which which is fair enough but the site was empty since January 2008!!!

Go figure !

steddyeddy

Malibu Sunshine wrote: »

This thread reminded me of the loss of two great eateries due to Landlord idiocy.



http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2011/0114/1224287488277.html

And then 6 months later



http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/commercialproperty/2011/0727/1224301438315.html


So in short; landlords are, mostly, fúckwits.

Well I dont think ll are all idiots. A lot have been very fair with their tenants and tried to keep them by lowering rents. Some LLs are like the one in your story above though. Think how much money and jobs the economy is losing do to attitudes like that.

Boombastic

Rents should not be determined by the amount of the landlord's mortgage repayments. If the going rate of the rental market matches/is more than the rent landlord makes profit, if it doesn't, well then, the landlord needs to contribute towards the mortgage on their investment. Sure didn't the world and its dog become a landlord during the boom! I wonder is leaving them empty is a deliberate ploy to help them plead poverty?

Duck Soup

Landlords rely on what you could call the self-motivated, thrusting, ambitious entrepreneurs of the future - or as I call them, the Hopeful Idiots.

I don't mean that unkindly - about 10% of them prove not to be Hopeful Idiots, and they are the engine of future prosperity. But the vast majority of retail businesses fail within a year. An accountant told me that with restaurants, 9 out 10 are closed within 12 months. I shouldn't imagine shops generally are vastly different in their failure rate. I count about 60 shops from Baggot Street Bridge to Ely Place and in 15 years only one of them (a Chinese take-away) has been there all that time.

But there's always been that steady supply of shiny faced loons, God love 'em, who are willing to step into the vacant premises and defy the odds. I've even talked to a few of them before they set up shop. What the others are doing wrong is... I've got this failsafe strategy for....

They always underestimate the costs (particularly staff) and they're always wildly optimistic about sales. The most ridiculous disparity between expectation and possible results was when I saw a premises on Grafton Street advertised for €365,000 a year. A Chinese medicine place moved in there and within a few weeks they were handing out flyers, almost dragging people in. Did they really think they were going to sell €1,000 worth of herbal poultices each and every day?

The point is that the landlords have always felt secure trying to squeeze out another penny from existing tenants as there was always a queue of naively optimistic would-be go-getters waiting at the back door. It's a big part of the reason why commercial rents haven't dropped half as much as you'd have expected them to.

But the Hopeful Idiot is no longer there. Even in the busiest streets, there are empty premises. Try an upward-only rent review and chances are that the tenant will shrug his shoulders and get a fresh agreement at a more reasonable price elsewhere. If the landlords have enough cash to keep them warm, then fair play to them. If they've mortgages to pay, sooner or later they're going to reacquaint themselves with reality, or sell up themselves.

Malibu Sunshine

Duck Soup wrote: »

The most ridiculous disparity between expectation and possible results was when I saw a premises on Grafton Street advertised for €365,000 a year. A Chinese medicine place moved in there and within a few weeks they were handing out flyers, almost dragging people in. Did they really think they were going to sell €1,000 worth of herbal poultices each and every day?

Wow. Crazy expectations.

Hasnt Grafton St got a higher rental yield than even Times Square?

Pottler

Duck Soup wrote: »

Landlords rely on what you could call the self-motivated, thrusting, ambitious entrepreneurs of the future - or as I call them, the Hopeful Idiots.

I don't mean that unkindly - about 10% of them prove not to be Hopeful Idiots, and they are the engine of future prosperity. But the vast majority of retail businesses fail within a year. An accountant told me that with restaurants, 9 out 10 are closed within 12 months. I shouldn't imagine shops generally are vastly different in their failure rate. I count about 60 shops from Baggot Street Bridge to Ely Place and in 15 years only one of them (a Chinese take-away) has been there all that time.

But there's always been that steady supply of shiny faced loons, God love 'em, who are willing to step into the vacant premises and defy the odds. I've even talked to a few of them before they set up shop. What the others are doing wrong is... I've got this failsafe strategy for....

They always underestimate the costs (particularly staff) and they're always wildly optimistic about sales. The most ridiculous disparity between expectation and possible results was when I saw a premises on Grafton Street advertised for €365,000 a year. A Chinese medicine place moved in there and within a few weeks they were handing out flyers, almost dragging people in. Did they really think they were going to sell €1,000 worth of herbal poultices each and every day?

The point is that the landlords have always felt secure trying to squeeze out another penny from existing tenants as there was always a queue of naively optimistic would-be go-getters waiting at the back door. It's a big part of the reason why commercial rents haven't dropped half as much as you'd have expected them to.

But the Hopeful Idiot is no longer there. Even in the busiest streets, there are empty premises. Try an upward-only rent review and chances are that the tenant will shrug his shoulders and get a fresh agreement at a more reasonable price elsewhere. If the landlords have enough cash to keep them warm, then fair play to them. If they've mortgages to pay, sooner or later they're going to reacquaint themselves with reality, or sell up themselves.

Really good post Duck, I am always amazed when a business closes and another lad swoops in "because he can do it better/differently/cheaper(that's the best one)" and goes bust in 6 months. Ah well. My arguement is not about start ups, the going rate is 1 of 5 start ups last the first three years, and of those 1 in ten is still going ten years later. My arguement is with LL who have tenants who are there years and then the LL hits them with an unsustainable, non-negotiable rent increase that cannot be met and so they walk. This happens so often it is laughable, but sadly, there's not too much humour in that laugh.

Einhard

Pottler wrote: »

Mother of the devine lord jesus wept. You're either deliberatly missing the whole point, or else you're about to jack the rent on a tenant that's been in place for ten years.

My point is pretty simple: not every landlord who is jacking up their rent is doing so out of pure greed. Some feel they have no choice. I don't think that analysis is incorrect, and you haven't posted anything that would convince me otherwise.

On the bit in bold, are you kidding me? I know an awful lot of Landlords, I run
a commercial property maintenance business and have done so for a long long
time. The non-morons are a pleasure, a very small, minority, but a pleasure.

To be honest, in a capitalist society, moronic business owners don't last very long, so I'm happy to contend that landlords, in general, are not morons.

3DataModem

Pottler wrote: »

Sorry Einhard, can't agree, like I said, the units get rented out again, usually at a much reduced rate. You are confusing the issue. You are mixing up greed with commercial pressures, they're not the same. A fair few of the lads I know who are at this don't have mortgages, they've owned the units outright from the beginning. As for "the Landlords costs??" Do you know many landlords? They're not too big on incurring costs, of any kind.

But isn't it better for society as a whole that this happens... Landlord increases rent, business refuses to pay, tenant moves elsewhere at lower rent, original landlord forced to cut rent drastically to get any tenant in.

This speeds up rent reductions overall, right?

Pottler

3DataModem wrote: »

But isn't it better for society as a whole that this happens... Landlord increases rent, business refuses to pay, tenant moves elsewhere at lower rent, original landlord forced to cut rent drastically to get any tenant in.

This speeds up rent reductions overall, right?

You do get it that removing the bit in bold speeds it up as well, but eliminates all the hassle, don't you?

GKidd

3DataModem wrote: »

But isn't it better for society as a whole that this happens... Landlord increases rent, business refuses to pay, tenant moves elsewhere at lower rent, original landlord forced to cut rent drastically to get any tenant in.

This speeds up rent reductions overall, right?

The whole thing is cat vs mouse. I was in a situation just before Xmas whereby the landlord was upping the rent by 20% which was impossible for the business to pay in todays climate.

12 staff were being made redundant and landlord was told to gtfo with new demands. It was only when he realized we weren't ****ting him about closing that he gave us the premises rent free for one year and a marketing budget of €500 per month from his own pocket. Not all landlords are pricks...

Duck Soup

Pottler wrote: »

I am always amazed when a business closes and another lad swoops in "because he can do it better/differently/cheaper (that's the best one)" and goes bust in 6 months. Ah well. My argument is not about start ups, the going rate is 1 of 5 start ups last the first three years, and of those 1 in ten is still going ten years later. My arguement is with LL who have tenants who are there years and then the LL hits them with an unsustainable, non-negotiable rent increase that cannot be met and so they walk. This happens so often it is laughable, but sadly, there's not too much humour in that laugh.

Even the "I can do it better" brigade (which is most of the Hopeful Idiot intake) are now sitting on their hands. Or, to phrase it less cynically, even the most enthusiastic and ambitious of would-be new entrepreneurs can figure out that you can't sell to customers with empty pockets. Now is not the time.

The one thing that would make it a great time to get in would be if costs were falling. And your major cost after staff is rent. Oh, hang on...

You're right, landlords look at the handful that make it and think "Well, if they can afford the current rent, then there's more there to be had." This ignores the fact that few, if any, retail outlets are making anything other than a wafer-thin profit.

And that's both greed and stupidity on the part of the landlord. In the current environment, you'd do well to keep a tenant at either the current rate or a nominal increase. But it's in the nature of the property-owning beast I suppose to think in fat and fast profit terms.

They're also leaning on the tenants with the knowledge that much of the sales derives not just from a decent location, but the build-up of regular custom from that location. In other words, it's not as simple as relocating from Point A to Point B and expecting all of your customers to follow you there.

As it is, many landlords are toughing it out, thinking that probably 2014 will be start of the upturn. But I don't think the upturn will be the classic V-shape acceleration out of recession. It'll be a slow and painful climb back and tenants will only able to bear modest rents.

The glory days have gone and no one's told the commercial property owners that they aren't coming back.

Pottler

Duck Soup wrote: »

Even the "I can do it better" brigade (which is most of the Hopeful Idiot intake) are now sitting on their hands. Or, to phrase it less cynically, even the most enthusiastic and ambitious of would-be new entrepreneurs can figure out that you can't sell to customers with empty pockets. Now is not the time.

The one thing that would make it a great time to get in would be if costs were falling. And your major cost after staff is rent. Oh, hang on...

You're right, landlords look at the handful that make it and think "Well, if they can afford the current rent, then there's more there to be had." This ignores the fact that few, if any, retail outlets are making anything other than a wafer-thin profit.

And that's both greed and stupidity on the part of the landlord. In the current environment, you'd do well to keep a tenant at either the current rate or a nominal increase. But it's in the nature of the property-owning beast I suppose to think in fat and fast profit terms.

They're also leaning on the tenants with the knowledge that much of the sales derives not just from a decent location, but the build-up of regular custom from that location. In other words, it's not as simple as relocating from Point A to Point B and expecting all of your customers to follow you there.

As it is, many landlords are toughing it out, thinking that probably 2014 will be start of the upturn. But I don't think the upturn will be the classic V-shape acceleration out of recession. It'll be a slow and painful climb back and tenants will only able to bear modest rents.

The glory days have gone and no one's told the commercial property owners that they aren't coming back.

We're investing in heavy demolition plant at the moment, so every cloud, and all that:)