The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits?


Over the months leading up to Craig Whyte’s takeover of Rangers, I was sceptical, to say the least, that anyone would want to take over a club so riven with problems. The options for explaining the motivations of a buyer were:

  • Billionaire ready to lose close to £80 million to cover the cost of repairing the damage left by the Murray legacy
  • Asset stripper intent on liquidating the club and making a quick profit
  • Shrewd strategist who will help Rangers to safety and survival
  • Idiot

The claims that Whyte was a billionaire with “off the radar” wealth were obvious fictions propagated by Hay McKerron (Whyte’s PR firm at the time) and eagerly repeated by a cowed and compliant Scottish media.  It is difficult to believe that any journalist wrote those stories without knowing that they were baseless.  Evidence then and now renders the idea of Billionaire-Whyte as laughable.  The preponderance of evidence seems to indicate that Whyte is just an aspiring entrepreneur with a string of business failures behind him.

Similarly, we can dismiss the notion of Whyte as a cynical asset-stripper, at least he is not one intent on maximising profit.  Had Whyte been interested only on a quick profit he would have been a little more focused on selling players and his club would not have had a net spend during the recent transfer window.

One of the theories which we have speculated upon on in this blog is that Whyte would be protected in the event of a Rangers insolvency.  Rangers’ debt holder is protected by a floating charge security interest on that would give the holder of that floating charge priority in repayment ahead of HMRC and other unsecured creditors.  This idea seemed to make a lot of sense. The Shareholder Circular released by Whyte seemed to confirm this idea.  It seemed like Whyte had bought a no-lose propisition: Rangers continue to qualify for the Champions’ League for the next few years (and all debts including the tax bills would be affordable) or he gets to control the relaunch of a debt-free Rangers following bankruptcy.  Was Whyte really the only “wealthy” man in Scotland with an affection for Rangers who could see this opportunity?  Or do fools rush in where angels fear to tread?

In reviewing some old records related to this situation, I started to wonder about the idea that Whyte will win regardless of what happens.  The MG05s that was filed with Companies House some weeks ago: it listed Lloyds’ subsidiary, the Bank of Scotland, as the beneficiary of this security interest.

With the reported purchase of Rangers’ debt by Whyte’s company, we should have expected that Lloyds would have assigned the mortgage on Rangers assets to The Rangers FC Group Ltd, the holding company Whyte uses to own Rangers. The assignation of the mortgage on Rangers’ assets would usually be the subject of a public filing in the form of an MG01s form filed at Companies House. No such filing has been made: the Bank of Scotland are still listed as the holders of the floating charge on Rangers’ assets. This alone did not give me much pause for thought as such a filing would be voluntary. However, a source has approached me with information that Whyte’s deal to purchase Rangers’ bank debt was something other than what Whyte and his co-conspirators in the Scottish media have made out. I am told that Whyte has indeed signed a contract obliging him to buy Rangers’ debt but that he has not paid for much of that debt, possibly not any of it. This would imply that Whyte does not “own” the security interest on Rangers’ assets. If this proves to be true, it would deny Rangers of their perfect rescue. In the event of an insolvency filing, it would be Lloyds who would control a receiver and it would be for Lloyds benefit that assets would be sold. This would crush the “shrewd strategist” theory.

When we add up the evidence: Whyte’s lack of any track record of legally making significant money since the collapse of his plant hire business and his dash to Monaco; the compliance problems involving corporate records for many shell businesses in which Whyte has been involved; the rank incompetence of Whyte’s leadership of Rangers to date- evidence is building that point to another explanation of Whyte’s takeover of Rangers: he was a useful idiot for the real villain of this piece, Sir David Murray.

If we stop and ask: “what was Sir David Murray’s worst fear related to Rangers?” The answer must surely be that the extent of the club’s illegal actions while he was in charge would become public knowledge. What would be the perfect outcome for Murray now? That an idiot would emerge who could be persuaded to take on the glory of owning Rangers for the price of a single pound. This perfect idiot should be administratively incompetent and should not have deep enough pockets to help Rangers over any cash flow problems. His real specification for Rangers next custodian might have been very different from the one he discussed in public. Murray benefits most by having a bumbling amateur with little cash in the hot seat. If Rangers can go bankrupt, and even disappear, before the big tax case returns then Murray might hope to duck the blame for his own actions.  Murray’s media poodles would be able to muddy the waters with a debate over whether Rangers would have survived had so many fan groups not pressured The Great Leader to sell. Rangers’ problems could be blamed on Whyte, and Murray’s legacy would remain largely intact in the minds of the newspaper reading public in Scotland.

This hypothesis is very Machiavellian and assumes an extreme degree of advanced planning. However, of all of the stories about David Murray that have been circulated, none have ever claimed that he was stupid. Murray is a man of high intelligence and great cunning. I do not think that setting up Whyte as a patsy is beyond him.  During the takeover, the degree of harmony between buyer and seller was unusual.  The haste with which David Murray shot down the soundings of an alternative proposal from Rangers director Paul Murray was odd.  Lastly, I know of one other attempt to buy Rangers just before the takeover.  Graham Duffy may not have had the benefit of an expensive PR campaign to burnish his image and he might have had credibility problems of his own.  However, he made several desperate efforts to try to talk to Murray to discuss a deal in the weeks before the Whyte deal was announced, but Murray would not respond to his requests for a meeting.  Duffy may not have been any better for Rangers than Craig Whyte, but when you are surrendering your entire interest in a business for £1, you might be expected to explore all options before resigning yourself to your fate.  Murray’s actions certainly give the appearance of someone who was working hard to ensure that Whyte was the only option.  I find that difficult to explain.

As the wheels start to come off the Rangers wagon, we should not lose sight of the fact that the current custodian has inherited a situation not of his own making.  Whyte may just be another victim in a long line of businessmen who has fallen for a David Murray sales-pitch.

About rangerstaxcase
I have information on Rangers' tax case, and I will use this blog to provide the details of what Rangers FC have done, why it was illegal, and what the implications for what was (updated) one of the largest football clubs in Britain.

1,303 Responses to The Craig Whyte disaster: who benefits?

  1. thedogbarks... says:

    RTC in your 3rd paragraph “There is also no evidence supporting the idea that Whyte is anything more than an aspiring entrepreneur with a string of business failures behind him.”

    Can you clarify? Do you mean there is evidence that he has been successful?

  2. thedogbarks… says:

    05/09/2011 at 8:31 am(Edit)

    Just what it says on the tin. No evidence of Whyte making significant money from any of his previous business ventures since he decamped to Monaco.

  3. thedogbarks… says:

    05/09/2011 at 8:31 am(Edit)

    OK. I see the garbled grammar that might make that a double negative. Thanks for the heads-up. I will change.

  4. tomtom says:

    Lots of interesting comments and suggestions (as is the norm) RTC.

    However, where does Ellis fit in with all this. I can see Whyte being swept up in the Murray myth with vanity clouding common-sense but Ellis has no emotional attachment to Rangers. He may appear to be the junior partner in this but why get involved at all if Whyte is such a moron.

    For what it’s worth, and I know that I have harped on about this before, I think Whyte is more of a patsy for Ellis than Murray. As always time will tell.

    On a different matter how bad are Rangers finances that they had to do a deal with Close Finance to raise cash. Close Finance are obviously so worried that Rangers won’t pay them that they have to get another company (Azure) to pay them on Rangers behalf. Under these circumstances I’m astonished that they even agreed to give them any money. Is this kind of arrangement common in business? If it is then I’ve never come across it. What interest rate are they charging and what percentage of the income stream have they actually mortgaged?

  5. OnandOnandOnand says:

    I thought this site was meant to eschew wild hypothoses and stick to facts.

    Seems I was wrong. Never mind, I can read this to my 3 year old, she likes a good fable. I’ll make up the part where the nasty giant steps in and takes back his castle.

  6. Charlie says:

    RTC,

    The more this unfolds, the more I think you will be proved right. Machiavelli would have been out of his depths in this drama.

    After the book, will we have the movie? I think it’s agreed that Rik Mayal will play Whyte, what about Murray? John Laurie, if he were alive could have played a fans’ spokesman. I can just imagine him with a Rangers top on shouting ‘We’re doomed!’ How about some fun proposals for the cast.

  7. tomtom says:

    05/09/2011 at 8:36 am(Edit)

    I didn’t mention Ellis because I simply know nothing about him and the people I am talking with are not mentioning him.

    He could be involved, but if he is, it is in very deep background. Ellis is not some major power-broker who can pull the strings behind the scenes. He would be of similar wealth and power as Whyte.

    My gut feeling is that Ellis was brought in as Patsy No.1. Murray learned that he needed to lay more groundwork to prepare the media market for his next patsy and that is where Whyte came in. Ellis got mentioned early on probably just to keep him happy and ensure his silence by allowing him to enjoy some reflected glow from the Whyte PR campaign.

    Until I see or hear credible evidence otherwise, I think that Ellis has little or nothing to do with this story.

  8. Jim McC says:

    Lester Piggot was stripped of his OBE for tax evasion.
    Could a similar fate await Sir Moonbeams ?

  9. Jean says:

    Wow!! All I can say is thank god it’s not Celtic!

  10. OnandOnandOnand says:

    05/09/2011 at 8:37 am(Edit)

    Where did you get that idea? I make clear when I am stating facts of which I am certain, and I indicate where there is a degree of speculation.

    I know for a fact that Murray refused to discuss at least one alternative offer. Seems odd in the circumstances.

  11. tomtom says:

    I know someone who has very close connections at Ibrox who has dealt with Ellis in the past. Your suggestion of Ellis being the original patsy doesn’t fit in with his dealings with him. What sort of glow is he getting from the Whyte PR campaign. The only glow Whyte is generating is the red hot heat of anger from an increasingly hostile Rangers fan base.

    In terms of personal wealth you are probably spot on – he’s not incredibly wealthy and if he had succeeded in getting hold of Rangers I think their demise would have even quicker and more spectacular. He certainly would have attracted a lot more scrutiny than Whyte has encountered so far.

    As has been said before on many occasions “the last thing a businessman does before he goes bankrupt is buy a football club”

  12. Jim McC

    Murray is sufficiently slippery that I doubt that he will have left a trail that could see him done like Piggott.

  13. OnandOnandOnand says:

    Or maybe Murray favoured an offer that let him keep his catering outlets and other ways to keep raking in the cash?

    Alternatively, there could have been a side deal that Murray gets paid a bonus later. Who knows? We could all speculate in this and other universes but stoking the fires with this level of speculation seems outwith the original purpose of the blog.

  14. tomtom says:

    05/09/2011 at 8:49 am(Edit)

    Yes- I admit to knowing very little about him. I read from the comments on here that many do see him as a Svengali figure. All I know is that his name has not come up in conversations recently with people connected to Rangers. If he is involved, he is in the deep background.

  15. timmyconspiracy says:

    RTC – re the MG05 in HBoS’ name: Whyte bought the debt by assignment, meaning that HBoS remains the lender of record (I assume in order to preserve priority of the security package over HMRC, though as a technical point his company probably wouldn’t have satisfied the definition of ‘qualifying lender’ in the original loan docs anyway). No great intrigue that HBoS’ name appears/ will keep appearing on any legal docs.

    You nailed the point about Whyte’s need to keep the security in place a long time ago, but I don’t *think* there’s a new story there.

    Keep up the good work Sir/Madam!

    TC

  16. tomtom says:

    rangerstaxcase says:
    05/09/2011 at 8:55 am
    tomtom says:

    05/09/2011 at 8:49 am(Edit)

    Yes- I admit to knowing very little about him. I read from the comments on here that many do see him as a Svengali figure. All I know is that his name has not come up in conversations recently with people connected to Rangers. If he is involved, he is in the deep background.

    ————————————————————————————————————————-

    He’ll break cover soon.

  17. OnandOnandOnand says:

    05/09/2011 at 8:52 am(Edit)

    I cannot please everyone all of the time. I am combining that with the information received questioning the extent of Whyte’s payment to Lloyds. The suggestion is that he has not paid much (if anything yet) for the debt, would leave Lloyds in charge of the bank debt.

    Adding in a couple more snippets that I cannot discuss makes me increasingly believe that Whyte is not the genius we once feared.

  18. Keith McKenna says:

    I was thinking the other day that Murray has, as is his wont, disappeared into the undergrowth.yet again. When was the last time anyone seen his name mentioned anywhere? It’s important to remember who was the real architect of their current situation. He could, of course,ride to the rescue on his fabled white charger should the need arise. Let,s face it supporters of that club have, and still do, a penchant for delusional gullibility.

  19. tomtom says:

    05/09/2011 at 9:00 am(Edit)
    ————————————————————————————————————————-

    He’ll break cover soon.

    He may not have much time! 🙂

  20. The Black Knight says:

    “Stick a pony in me pocket,
    I’ll fetch the suitcase from the van.
    Cos if you want the best ‘uns,
    But you don’t ask questions,
    Then brother, I’m your man.
    Cos where it all comes from is a mystery,
    It’s like the changin’ of the seasons,
    And the tides of the sea.
    But here’s the one that’s drivin’ me beserk,
    Why do only fools and horses work?
    La-la-la
    La-lala-la
    La-la-la
    La-lala-la”

    Thanks for the inspiration Duggie 🙂

  21. Jean says:

    Given RTC’s position of being “in the know” and his obvious “know how”, as well as that of others in this blog, I’m inclined to think that CW might not come out of this as rosy as we think. I never thought that I would ever feel sorry for the vast majority of Rangers fans (my 84 year old mum is one of them by extension of my late father ;)). It’s one thing thinking that your club will be docked points and be forced to work it’s way back up but it’s another thing to think that your club could end up being liquidated!

  22. timmyconspiracy says:

    05/09/2011 at 8:57 am(Edit)

    Correct, but just like the MG01s related to the catering contract informs us of an assignment of a charge, we would normally expect that an MG01s would be filed for the assignment of the security interest to RFCGLtd. None has been filed. I believe that it is an optional filing, so in isolation would not mean much, but together with the information about questions over how much Whyte has actually paid for the debt at this point make me think that this deal is much more involved than we have been lead to believe.

  23. tomtom says:

    rangerstaxcase says:
    05/09/2011 at 9:01 am
    tomtom says:

    05/09/2011 at 9:00 am(Edit)
    ————————————————————————————————————————-

    He’ll break cover soon.

    He may not have much time!

    ————————————————————————-

    He’s got all the time in the world. His entry comes at the end of the play – which would seem to be soon (I wish I knew how to do those smiley things)

  24. The Black Knight says:

    RTC?

    Can we discount the possibility that:

    the alleged billionaire had NO money whatsoever,
    he did NOT pay off the debt, it was merely assigned,
    the mythical ‘warchest’ did NOT transpire for that very reason (mythical),
    the transfer period of claimed activity and false bids (inactivity) was because there was NO money,
    the recent MG01 does NOT give security against the future food operations /sales and the recent refurbishment (less we forget) for the purpose of a meager loan (or to pay for the refurb),
    the MG05s was NOT as some feared. The selling of the security of the future ticket sales.
    The operating capital has NOT come from Ellis. (his 25% share for £5M upfront)

    thanks in advance 😉

  25. Jean says:

    “He’s got all the time in the world. His entry comes at the end of the play – which would seem to be soon (I wish I knew how to do those smiley things)”

    God you couldn’t make it up!

    re. smiley things do a : then a ) together to get 🙂

    or a : and ; to get 😉

  26. OnandOnandOnand says:

    RTC @ 8.52

    There are plenty of facts around about Whyte if you dig a bit deeper, I sent you a post weeks ago which you kept in moderation. Join the dots and win a major prize……

    I have never thought Whyte was a genius, a genius would never have touched this poisoned chalice with a bargepole. Chancer? Maybe. He had the ability to see an investment which carried a good security and at worst, he will possibly walk away with his money intact. At best, either if Rankers win the tax case, (not a chance) or he gets all the assets out through Receivership, he will have added to his overall asset value and this gives him leverage for other deals.

    I have no doubt he has paid off Lloyds in respect of the club debt. He may have taken that liability into Wavetower (Lloyds are his bankers, after all), backed no doubt by a personal guarantee. He may have funded it elsewhere, again, backed by a PG. The fact that people will lend him money personally suggests they have checked out his creditworthiness and found him good for at least part of the borrowings.

    As for Ellis, has anyone seen him at Rangers since the start of the season? Rumour has it that he was at the Chelsea game but as a guest of someone who holds a corporate sponsorship.

    RTC, titivating us with references to gossip you’ve heard doesn’t help here, I can get that on the Huddleboard and now, it seems, on FF. Hey, wait, they tell me Whyte has run off to BVI, okay, it’s the middle of the hurricane season but it’s on FF so it must be true.

    Come on, you can do better than this

  27. timmyconspiracy says:

    RTC, re the assignment – would be better characterised as RFCGLtd buying a participation. Wouldn’t expect to see an assignment of security interest to them in that case (HBoS remain lender of record, security agent etc. though the economic effect is that RFCG has taken over the debt and HBoS are just the conduit). Anyway, a minor point which doesn’t change the long game of financial oblivion for the tax dodgers…

  28. The Black Knight says:

    05/09/2011 at 9:14 am(Edit)
    ___________________________________________________

    Where to start. I agree with most of these positions, so I will only address the ones which I think need to be qualified.
    My understanding is that the operating capital has come primarily from Rangers’ season ticket sales. (Cash balance at this time of year is at a peak). As mentioned above, I have not heard a peep about Ellis, so I cannot comment on his likely involvement. (Doesn’t mean that he is not involved).

    The rest I think you have nailed, at least we agree on the most likely state of events just now.

  29. tomtom says:

    Jean says:
    05/09/2011 at 9:16 am
    “He’s got all the time in the world. His entry comes at the end of the play – which would seem to be soon (I wish I knew how to do those smiley things)”

    God you couldn’t make it up!

    re. smiley things do a : then a ) together to get

    or a : and ; to get
    ————————————————————–

    Is there an English translation of this?

  30. Mel says:

    “He may not have much time!”

    RTC – What’s your best guess on timescale & the most likely scenario Administration or Liquidation?

  31. The Black Knight says:

    rangerstaxcase says:
    05/09/2011 at 9:19 am
    “(1) My understanding is that the operating capital has come primarily from Rangers’ season ticket sales. (Cash balance at this time of year is at a peak). (2) As mentioned above, I have not heard a peep about Ellis, so I cannot comment on his likely involvement. (Doesn’t mean that he is not involved).”

    Cheers RTC.

    Could 1 and 2 be linked? if for instance we say that there was little or no operating capital when The Whyte Knight took over?

  32. timmyconspiracy says:

    05/09/2011 at 9:18 am(Edit)
    __________________________________________________________

    It is a pretty important factor in all of this if BoS retains the security interest. Buying a participation would be a very good characterisation of the way the deal has been explained to me. However, we do not know the specifics of who retains the protection of the floating charge. Do you think that it is likely that Lloyds would surrender that protection until all of its money has been paid?

    I am increasinly suspecting that Murray persuafed them that this deal allows both of them to get out of the spotlight. Given fan boycotts and newspaper pressure, they may have found that idea appealing.

  33. tomtom says:

    OnandOnandOnand says:
    05/09/2011 at 9:17 am

    As for Ellis, has anyone seen him at Rangers since the start of the season? Rumour has it that he was at the Chelsea game but as a guest of someone who holds a corporate sponsorship

    ——————————————————————————————————————–

    Hardly surprising. His interest is not football related. From his point of view the sooner they go under the better. A successful RFC is not in his interests.

  34. Jean says:

    tomtom says:
    05/09/2011 at 9:23 am
    Jean says:
    05/09/2011 at 9:16 am
    “He’s got all the time in the world. His entry comes at the end of the play – which would seem to be soon (I wish I knew how to do those smiley things)”

    God you couldn’t make it up!

    re. smiley things do a : then a ) together to get

    or a : and ; to get
    ————————————————————–

    Is there an English translation of this?

    Cheeky bugga 🙂 I was trying to tell you how to make smiley things! as in using the characters : ) together to get 🙂

    or ; ) together to get 😉

  35. Chris says:

    tomtom, don’t look beyond what Jean told you, sometimes people get confused when reading unfamiliar stuff and they don’t just *read* it

    She said to get a 🙂 face you put a colon and a close parenthesis together – that’s a : and a )

    One after the otherwith no spaces is interpreted by the blog software as a smiley face 🙂

    Or you could do a semicolon ; which lookes a little bit like a winking eye beside an open eye, then the close parenthesis (which is a smile when you look at it sideways) and Bob’s your uncle – you have a winking face 😉

    To recap:

    Smiley face – COLON then CLOSE PARENTHESIS – : followed by ) = 🙂
    Wink – SEMICOLON then CLOSE PARENTHESIS – ; folliwed by ) = 😉

    Try it oot. 😉

  36. Jean says:

    I dunno Chris sometimes these really clever folk have no common sense 😉

  37. Mel says:

    05/09/2011 at 9:24 am(Edit)
    ____________________________________________________
    I really should not joke like that. Without access to their pattern of income and expenses I would not be able to put a firm timeline on this. However, with a wage bill that must be about £200k per week, they will need outside cash within a few months after having £2.8m swiped by HMRC.
    It is questionable whether they make it to the end of the year. Certainly, with the £1.4m penalty for wee tax case and Bain’s £1.5m claim (no guarantee that he wins)- and not forgetting £36m to be settled if the FTT finishes in November and returns findings early in the New Year.

    If I am correct in this post, Murray will be praying for them going under before November.

  38. tomtom says:

    Thank you Chris. I wasn’t being cheeky Jean, I genuinely didn’t have a clue what you were saying, sorry a:a)

  39. tomtom says:

    Feck it I’m sticking to English!!

  40. Robert Bell says:

    So RTC what’s your best guess at the likely outcome regarding the tax bills

  41. sam says:

    Word going round at Centre 1, that the big case is being abandoned.

  42. Jean says:

    rofllllllllllllll at tomtom…………see like most clever folk you definitely lack common sense 😉

  43. sam says:
    05/09/2011 at 9:37 am (Edit)
    Word going round at Centre 1, that the big case is being abandoned.

    Allowed through moderation for purely comedic value. 🙂

  44. tomtom says:

    RTC,

    Between McGregor, Davis, Jelavic, Whittaker and McCoist you have £100k a week. If you take an average of £8k for the rest you will soon get to £200k just for the playing staff. When you add in the rest of the employees I’d imagine you would get to at least £300k per week, maybe more.

  45. Robert Bell says:
    05/09/2011 at 9:36 am (Edit)
    _______________________________________________________

    It should be pretty clear Robert that I am pretty sure of the outcome of the big case (although there are never guarantees in any legal process).

    The small case is pretty much a done deal: HMRC have arrested enough cash to pay the £2.8m bill. The £1.4m penalty will likely be appealed just as a delaying mechanism. If Rangers have been egregious in this case as with others, they will have to pay the penalty.

  46. The Black Knight says:

    sam says:
    05/09/2011 at 9:37 am
    “Word going round at Centre 1, that the big case is being abandoned.”

    Well thats that then.!!! We can all go home. Good work RTC and good luck on the next project (Rangers VAT Case)

    SAM, if I were a highly paid member of HMRC/ a tax investigator/ part of the legal team involved in the case (which incidentally I’m not) I would at least wait for the decision by the FTT

    Seems like you are suggesting they are ‘folding’ when it is ‘free to stay’ (poker terminology)
    😉

  47. tomtom says:
    05/09/2011 at 9:44 am (Edit)
    _____________________________________________________________
    I was being conservative on purpose. My own estimate was closer to £250k per week all in, but I would not be surprised to learn that it was £300k.

    £1-1.2m per month? Minimal cash coming in between now and April?
    Tough times.

  48. What effect would a league without Rangers have on Scottish football.

  49. tomtom says:

    tomtom says:
    05/09/2011 at 9:44 am
    RTC,

    Between McGregor, Davis, Jelavic, Whittaker and McCoist you have £100k a week. If you take an average of £8k for the rest you will soon get to £200k just for the playing staff. When you add in the rest of the employees I’d imagine you would get to at least £300k per week, maybe more.

    ———————————————————————————————————————

    I forgot that they would have deducted the tax and NI at source so working on the basis that they don’t hand over the tax your figures are more accurate than mine (smiley)(Ihate you Jean)

  50. Chris says:

    tomtom, it’s not “an a followed by : followed an a followed by )”

    Any time you want a smiley face or wink, it’s 2 punctuation marks in total, entered together without any spaces between, for each smiley/wink

    So I will try to once again say this in words wihtout confusing the issue:

    To do a smile, you must enter a colon immediately followed by a close parenthesis
    To do a wink, you must enter a semicolon immediately followed by a close parenthesis

    Whenever you do a smiley/wink they must sit on their own as a pair of punctuation marks, with no letters before or after unless there is also a space.

    If you type a colon :
    you can follow it with a close parenthesis )

    Put those two together coloncloseparenthesis 🙂

%d bloggers like this: