PDA

View Full Version : Whitlock Shreds Glass


'Hamas' Jenkins
06-16-2006, 07:23 AM
I just read this on Page 2. Pretty goddamned funny if you ask a Cards fan.

By Jason Whitlock
Special to Page 2


You don't become the worst owner in professional sports overnight. It's a process.


For David Glass, the owner of the Kansas City Royals, that process began in the decade before he took official ownership of the club, and it culminated a week ago today when Glass cemented his Charles Montgomery Burns legacy by overreacting to contentious questions posed during a news conference to introduce the Royals' new general manager/scapegoat, Dayton Moore.

Two Kansas City sports radio reporters -- Rhonda Moss and Bob Fescoe, who have carved out niches baiting athletes, coaches and executives with condescending inquiries -- peppered Glass with questions about his decision to fire Allard Baird, the old Kansas City general manager/scapegoat.

Glass wanted the day to be a celebration of his ability to hoodwink Moore, a hot GM prospect off the John Schuerholz tree, into being Glass' next pigeon.

Fescoe and Moss saw the press conference -- Glass' first public media gathering since he announced in the Kansas City Star a month earlier his intentions to scapegoat (aka fire) Baird -- as an opportunity to publicly browbeat Glass for his reprehensible treatment of Baird.

Rather than ask Moore meaningless questions about a management philosophy that Glass' cheapness and incompetence will undermine, Moss and Fescoe took turns probing Glass (and Glass' bumbling son/team president, Dan) about his cheapness and incompetence as it related to Baird.

Glass grew visibly shaken and chippy in his retorts. And finally, emboldened by Fescoe's hypocritical radio boss's Thursday afternoon monologue lambasting Fescoe and Moss and sucking up to Glass, the worst owner in professional sports returned to his Wal-Mart roots a day later.

Glass instructed his media relations staff to strip Fescoe and Moss of their credentials for the rest of the year. No one who remembers Glass' infamous 1992 performance on NBC's "Dateline" is all that surprised by Glass' petulant response.

Yes sir, the man who as chairman of the board of directors of the Royals for seven years negotiated a sweetheart, $96 million sales price of the club for himself -- $24 million less than the other bidder -- has a history of reacting poorly to difficult public questions.

As CEO of Wal-Mart and after being given two months to prepare, Glass stormed out of a "Dateline" interview when he couldn't find the proper words to explain Wal-Mart's "Made in America" and "Bring it Home to the USA" marketing campaigns after the show aired footage of Bangladeshi children working in sweatshops and making Wal-Mart clothes.

David Glass is no overnight sensation. He's been cutting corners and making untold millions for years and years. Forbes magazine estimated Glass' yearly profits from the Royals at $20 million. Quite a handsome haul for a franchise that has averaged 97 losses and is well on its way to its fourth, 100-plus-loss season during David and Dan Glass' seven-year reign of terrible. With new Kauffman Stadium taxpayer-financed renovations on the way, the franchise will soon be valued at more than twice what Glass paid for it in 2000.

Whatever Glass lacks in baseball and media savvy, he makes up for with cold, bottom-line business acumen.

And I'm not all that sure Glass is short on media savvy. From his Bentonville, Ark., compound, Glass has played the Kansas City media like a baby grand piano. Before purchasing the Royals, he spent his seven years as chairman of the board convincing the local media that no one of any consequence wanted to buy the "small market" squad given baseball's economic inequities. Glass stiff-armed George Brett's attempt to purchase the club with virtually no local media backlash.

Glass somehow cast himself as a white knight owner willing to save Kansas Citians from an out-of-town buyer who might move the team. He was never appropriately called out for building an upper-level management team that -- like their owner -- all maintained primary residences outside of the Kansas City area.

We, the local media, ate up Glass' small-market rhetoric and told Kansas City sports fans that it was unreasonable to expect the Royals to field a contender when the Yankees and Red Sox could field teams with payrolls more than triple K.C.'s.

The Royals were treated like a child born with a disability. Tough commentary, particularly about the city's Robin (the) Hood owner, was frowned upon.

We were lucky to have an owner willing to instantly slash the budget of the scouting department, willing to compromise the draft by selecting players based on "signability," willing to begin each year with a promise of a youth movement and a self-defeating pledge of playing .500 ball and willing to pocket millions of dollars in profit.

Damn lucky.

A franchise that thrived in the '70s and '80s powered by owner Ewing Kauffman's passion for the club and the city was reduced to accepting the efforts of a half-assed owner who started every year with a half-baked plan to win half the club's games in hopes that half the stadium would be filled.

But David Glass didn't hit rock bottom overnight and Baird wasn't the first scapegoat. He followed Herk Robinson and Hal McRae and Bob Boone and Tony Muser and Tony Pena and a half-dozen pitching and hitting coaches.

The 2006 season isn't the first time the Royals committed to developing their young players while filling out lineup cards featuring 30-something has-beens.

Reggie Sanders, Matt Stairs, Doug Mientkiewicz, Mark Grudzielanek and Tony Graffanino -- the building blocks for this year's disaster -- are legacies of a tradition started and carried on by has-beens/K.C. lineup staples such as Gary Gaetti, Jay Bell, Juan Gonzalez, Jose Lima, Benito Santiago, Bip Roberts, Jeff Conine, Wally Joyner, Vince Coleman, Greg Gagne, Mike Macfarlane, Chili Davis, Jeff King, Hal Morris, Terry Pendleton, Chad Kreuter, Rey Sanchez, David McCarty, Luis Alicea, Brent Mayne, Chuck Knoblauch, Desi Relaford and Emil Brown.

Committing to youth while trying to meet ownership's mandate of a .500 finish does weird things to a GM's roster and vision.

David Glass just does weird things as the owner of a professional sports franchise. Fescoe and Moss should be glad they're getting a break from witnessing, covering and detailing Glass' incompetence up close.

OnTheWarpath58
06-16-2006, 07:30 AM
I guess if Fatlock had a credential at Kauffman, it's gone now.......

Seriously, I really think that if he would get the hell out of Dayton's way, he could turn this thing around in 3-5 years. But Glass won't let that happen.

Good column by Jason. Truth hurts. Even got in a Simpsons reference.

Ultra Peanut
06-16-2006, 07:59 AM
Is that a new kind of cereal?

Cochise
06-16-2006, 08:10 AM
Nothing new here.. but one comment I will make about something I think is stupid.

Who gives a rat's ass if the owner is local? Lamar Hunt doesn't live in Kansas City. Nobody bitches about him not being at the Arrowhead offices every day. If Glass wanted to stay down in Bentonville the whole year round and only come up to KC for opening day I would not even think about caring. Hell, given history, that might be a good thing.

You would think the titles were intuitive. "Owner". He owns the team. "General Manager". He manages the team. The owner does not need to be at the shop every day to own the team. The manager does need to be there to manage it.

I'm certainly no fan, but what does it matter if the Glasses live here? Why are people always harping on that?

Ultra Peanut
06-16-2006, 08:11 AM
Lamar Hunt doesn't live in Kansas City.This is true.

Kerberos
06-16-2006, 08:12 AM
Is that a new kind of cereal?

Kellocks Shredded Glass?

Talk about super colon blow fiber!

OUCH

.

Cochise
06-16-2006, 08:16 AM
This is true.

Him being local hasn't helped the Dallas Burn or whatever they are called now win any cups that I can remember, either.

Ultra Peanut
06-16-2006, 08:25 AM
The FC Dallas Flaming Ponies are SUPERCLUB USA!!!!!!!!!1`1

OK NOT REALLY

StcChief
06-16-2006, 08:26 AM
LOL. The glass melt down over this would be funny, but this is so true. MLB rescue the Royals from this JA.

morphius
06-16-2006, 08:30 AM
As soon as I learned that Glass was leading the committee that completely trashed the entire Royals orginization I pretty much had little faith that he was ever going to do anything to really make this a competitive team.

Hell, any small market team has to rely on its coaching in their farm clubs to get the players ready for the big leagues, cutting that just shows how little he understands things.

Cochise
06-16-2006, 08:47 AM
As soon as I learned that Glass was leading the committee that completely trashed the entire Royals orginization I pretty much had little faith that he was ever going to do anything to really make this a competitive team.


Yeah, it's not as if he's actually been owning the team since Kauffman's death, but he's at least had a large hand in running it for all of that time.

morphius
06-16-2006, 09:10 AM
Nothing new here.. but one comment I will make about something I think is stupid.

Who gives a rat's ass if the owner is local? Lamar Hunt doesn't live in Kansas City. Nobody bitches about him not being at the Arrowhead offices every day. If Glass wanted to stay down in Bentonville the whole year round and only come up to KC for opening day I would not even think about caring. Hell, given history, that might be a good thing.

You would think the titles were intuitive. "Owner". He owns the team. "General Manager". He manages the team. The owner does not need to be at the shop every day to own the team. The manager does need to be there to manage it.

I'm certainly no fan, but what does it matter if the Glasses live here? Why are people always harping on that?
If the team is doing well, people don't really care about such things much, but when the team is moving into "worst sports franchise ever" catagory people start to notice that the owner isn't sitting in the box suffering through this with them. The idea being that if the families of the people running the club actually had to live here and see the games with the rest of us that there would be an added amount of pressure to improve the situation.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-16-2006, 09:19 AM
If the team is doing well, people don't really care about such things much, but when the team is moving into "worst sports franchise ever" catagory people start to notice that the owner isn't sitting in the box suffering through this with them. The idea being that if the families of the people running the club actually had to live here and see the games with the rest of us that there would be an added amount of pressure to improve the situation.

That and his presence might be indicative of the fact that he actually gives a shit about the franchise, which is clearly not the case in this sense. Glass sees the team as an investment that reaps him $20 mill a year in profits, not a competitive team. He also has no sense of decency or ethics, as witnessed by his reaction to the sweatshop inquiry in the Dateline story.

Cochise
06-16-2006, 09:54 AM
If the team is doing well, people don't really care about such things much, but when the team is moving into "worst sports franchise ever" catagory people start to notice that the owner isn't sitting in the box suffering through this with them. The idea being that if the families of the people running the club actually had to live here and see the games with the rest of us that there would be an added amount of pressure to improve the situation.

I agree. When you are winning no one cares. Lots of successful sports teams don't have owners in the box every night. It's just one more thing to fire misdirected bitching at when you are losing.

I really don't think that sitting in the box is going to motivate someone if the fact that they have hundreds of millions of dollars invested does not.

The problem, obviously, is not that ownership doesn't care. If ownership didn't care, they wouldn't have went for the best GM candidate out there, they would have went with someone cheap. If ownership didn't care they wouldn't have drafted a guy who rejected a huge contract offer last year, they would have drafted some marginal first rounder like they would have in the past.

The fortunes of this team have nothing to do with where David Glass is geographically. They have everything to do with whether Dayton Moore is allowed to do his job or not.

banyon
06-16-2006, 10:33 AM
Nothing new here.. but one comment I will make about something I think is stupid.

Who gives a rat's ass if the owner is local? Lamar Hunt doesn't live in Kansas City. Nobody bitches about him not being at the Arrowhead offices every day. If Glass wanted to stay down in Bentonville the whole year round and only come up to KC for opening day I would not even think about caring. Hell, given history, that might be a good thing. ?

I think people long for Mr. K who was at most games and visibly gave a s*** about the team.

It is troublesome that when he bought the team that he promised that he would relocate to Kansas City and never did. So, IMO it is really just another blow to his already low credibility.

DaneMcCloud
06-16-2006, 10:37 AM
Nothing new here.. but one comment I will make about something I think is stupid.

Who gives a rat's ass if the owner is local? Lamar Hunt doesn't live in Kansas City. Nobody bitches about him not being at the Arrowhead offices every day. If Glass wanted to stay down in Bentonville the whole year round and only come up to KC for opening day I would not even think about caring. Hell, given history, that might be a good thing.

You would think the titles were intuitive. "Owner". He owns the team. "General Manager". He manages the team. The owner does not need to be at the shop every day to own the team. The manager does need to be there to manage it.

I'm certainly no fan, but what does it matter if the Glasses live here? Why are people always harping on that?

I think people are always harping on it because it shows a lack of passion for his team and the city. Lamar Hunt has been at almost every Chiefs game ever and the only time he's missed them has been when he's not healthy enough to attend.

Now granted, there's 162 baseball games (81 of which are at home) so it's reasonable to expect an owner to miss several outings. But in general, it just seems to magnify the fact that he's a bumbling, passionless owner who's only in it for the dough.

Do you think Miles Prentice would have missed many games?

kc rush
06-16-2006, 10:40 AM
I agree. When you are winning no one cares. Lots of successful sports teams don't have owners in the box every night. It's just one more thing to fire misdirected bitching at when you are losing.

I really don't think that sitting in the box is going to motivate someone if the fact that they have hundreds of millions of dollars invested does not.

The problem, obviously, is not that ownership doesn't care. If ownership didn't care, they wouldn't have went for the best GM candidate out there, they would have went with someone cheap. If ownership didn't care they wouldn't have drafted a guy who rejected a huge contract offer last year, they would have drafted some marginal first rounder like they would have in the past.

The fortunes of this team have nothing to do with where David Glass is geographically. They have everything to do with whether Dayton Moore is allowed to do his job or not.


Good post. I agree. But can we trust the Glass's to stay out of the way?

Cochise
06-16-2006, 10:47 AM
Do you think Miles Prentice would have missed many games?

Why would I think some New York City lawyer would be there any more than a corporate executive from Arkansas would?

Prentice didn't even have the money to buy the team himself. I don't know why people think he would have been some kind of Jesus for the organizaiton.

Cochise
06-16-2006, 10:48 AM
when he bought the team that he promised that he would relocate to Kansas City and never did.

Can you substantiate this ?

Mr. Laz
06-16-2006, 10:50 AM
I guess if Fatlock had a credential at Kauffman, it's gone now........

i think pulling the creds of the local newspaper reporters is much harder than a local radio station.

kc rush
06-16-2006, 10:51 AM
Can you substantiate this ?


It was one of the stipulations for buying the team. It was one of the "reasons" they gave for not letting Prentice buy the team. I do remember Glass saying that he would move here, but he doesn't need to worry about such things since he and Bud Selig are buddies.

Mr. Laz
06-16-2006, 10:53 AM
Can you substantiate this ?
i remember the same thing being said is some form or fashion

now i don't remember what words were used exactly ... but it was sure implied.



part of the process of buying the Royals included Glass "implying" that he would move to KC to be close.

kc rush
06-16-2006, 10:53 AM
i think pulling the creds of the local newspaper reporters is much harder than a local radio station.

Its not possible, there is an agreement with the baseball writers association which won't allow local owners to pull their credentials.

Jason Stark was on Petro's show the other day talking about that.

Mr. Laz
06-16-2006, 10:57 AM
Its not possible, there is an agreement with the baseball writers association which won't allow local owners to pull their credentials.

Jason Stark was on Petro's show the other day talking about that.
i think the newspaper to should hire moss and that other guy temporarily.... so they get their creds back.


just to prove a point

DaneMcCloud
06-16-2006, 11:16 AM
Why would I think some New York City lawyer would be there any more than a corporate executive from Arkansas would?

Prentice didn't even have the money to buy the team himself. I don't know why people think he would have been some kind of Jesus for the organizaiton.

My point was to emphasize the passion of Miles Prentice vs. David Glass, not to imply that Prentice would have been a "saviour" of the franchise.

FringeNC
06-16-2006, 11:25 AM
The fortunes of this team have nothing to do with where David Glass is geographically. They have everything to do with whether Dayton Moore is allowed to do his job or not.

In theory, I agree; however, suppose David Glass did reside in KC and go to every game. Every fan who came into contact him, whether at the ballpark, or at a nice restaurant....wherever..would at least give him a dirty look. If he lived in KC, he bears a cost, albeit not monetary, but a cost nonetheless for ruining this franchise. And with the ego that guy has, it may very well be a big cost to him.

Now, if he'd butt out and let Dayton do his job, it is an irrelevant point. Had he lived in KC, he may have butted out much sooner, though.

Cochise
06-16-2006, 11:31 AM
My point was to emphasize the passion of Miles Prentice vs. David Glass, not to imply that Prentice would have been a "saviour" of the franchise.

The "passion of Miles Prentice"? What basis do you have for saying that?

Last I heard he owned a AA team in Alabama or something. I wonder if the sheer 'passion' of Miles Prentice led a guy from NYC worth a couple hundred millions of dollars to move permanently to Huntsville AL?

tk13
06-16-2006, 12:26 PM
Personally, I've always said Glass can stay in Arkansas all he wants. All I want him to do is give us budgets, not be around fudging with baseball stuff.

I'm not particularly happy with the situation, but I will say one thing in defense of Glass. That $20 million dollar number here is cherry picked. Glass is not making $20 million annually off this team. The last Forbes evaluation said he made $20 million dollars last year, yes. That was with a young team at a reduced payroll and increased luxury tax money.

However, the previous years Forbes had Glass making like $3 mil one year, losing $6 mil another year... I don't remember all of them but it was nothing like 20 mil a year. According to Glass last year, he said the Forbes numbers for that last year were pretty much correct, but overall he claimed he'd lost $27 million since purchasing the team. If you'll notice, when they responded to the comments that they'd made $20 million last year, their comments were something along the lines of keeping with their goal of breaking even since owning the team.

That's why we signed all these old guys to begin with. Because people were complaining that Glass was making too much money and pocketing the luxury tax. I don't think Baird really wanted to do that, but Glass had to look like he was spending the luxury tax money.

FringeNC
06-16-2006, 12:30 PM
Personally, I've always said Glass can stay in Arkansas all he wants. All I want him to do is give us budgets, not be around fudging with baseball stuff.

I'm not particularly happy with the situation, but I will say one thing in defense of Glass. That $20 million dollar number here is cherry picked. Glass is not making $20 million annually off this team. The last Forbes evaluation said he made $20 million dollars last year, yes. That was with a young team at a reduced payroll and increased luxury tax money.

However, the previous years Forbes had Glass making like $3 mil one year, losing $6 mil another year... I don't remember all of them but it was nothing like 20 mil a year. According to Glass last year, he said the Forbes numbers for that last year were pretty much correct, but overall he claimed he'd lost $27 million since purchasing the team. If you'll notice, when they responded to the comments that they'd made $20 million last year, their comments were something along the lines of keeping with their goal of breaking even since owning the team.

That's why we signed all these old guys to begin with. Because people were complaining that Glass was making too much money and pocketing the luxury tax. I don't think Baird really wanted to do that, but Glass had to look like he was spending the luxury tax money.

When you are looking at a return of a stock, do you ignore the capital appreciation and only look at dividends?

tk13
06-16-2006, 12:54 PM
When you are looking at a return of a stock, do you ignore the capital appreciation and only look at dividends?
Wrong. And I'll tell you why. Glass cannot profilt off the sale of the team. The net worth of the franchise may have doubled, but that means nothing to Glass. He wouldn't get any of that. If he sells the team, any profit he turns must go to Kansas City charities. Mr. K ordered that in the succession plan. He wasn't gonna let someone buy this team and sell it off for a bunch of money and move it.

banyon
06-16-2006, 01:22 PM
Can you substantiate this ?

Appears to predate Google and all that. I'm not gonna pay to use KC Star's archives.

I have heard Petro refer to this on several occasions and it is usually not disputed when it comes up in other sports radio.

jettio
06-16-2006, 01:58 PM
This last couple Royals teams have ben awful, and Glass may be to blame, but he fought hard for small market clubs to have a better deal. He was the talk of those owner's meetings that led to revenue sharing.

Clearly small-market teams have a better chance at success now than before.

Dayton Moore looks promising as does some of the prospects, you can't argue about how dissappointing the Royals have been since 2003, but whoever this Fescoe guy or this Rhonda Moss-gal is, it was pretty crappy of them to act like brats when it is Dayton Moore's day.

If Allard Baird did not like how he was treated he could have resigned, he might have been treated badly, but he is a grown man and can fight his own battles.

I don't think two cub reporters trying to make some point about dignified human behavior make their point when they act undignified themselves.

HemiEd
06-16-2006, 02:33 PM
Best article Whitlock has ever written that I have read.

FringeNC
06-16-2006, 03:01 PM
Wrong. And I'll tell you why. Glass cannot profilt off the sale of the team. The net worth of the franchise may have doubled, but that means nothing to Glass. He wouldn't get any of that. If he sells the team, any profit he turns must go to Kansas City charities. Mr. K ordered that in the succession plan. He wasn't gonna let someone buy this team and sell it off for a bunch of money and move it.

Wow. What a perverted incentive. Kauffman was a great owner, but the trust the he put it in was a debacle. They refused to sell to Lamar Hunt for some reason I cannot even remember. And this? What can of idiotic contract says that owner of an asset who increases the value of the asset has no claim on the improvements?

My guess is that this was a limited-time thing. Glass couldn't churn the team immediately, but after a certain number of years, any profits were his. I just can't imagine anyone buying the Royals if this wasn't true.

tk13
06-16-2006, 03:25 PM
Wow. What a perverted incentive. Kauffman was a great owner, but the trust the he put it in was a debacle. They refused to sell to Lamar Hunt for some reason I cannot even remember. And this? What can of idiotic contract says that owner of an asset who increases the value of the asset has no claim on the improvements?

My guess is that this was a limited-time thing. Glass couldn't churn the team immediately, but after a certain number of years, any profits were his. I just can't imagine anyone buying the Royals if this wasn't true.
Why do you think not that many people stepped forward to buy it? I mean it was really was a cheap buy in terms of sports franchises. I don't think anybody who bought it would've spent much money. Miles Prentice gets talked up a lot but he was quoted saying he projected payroll to be in the mid-20 million dollar range.

I don't know, maybe the whole thing is a bunch of lies, but I've seen it mentioned several times and a lot of people seem to believe it's true. Flanagan in the KC Star had an article about it trying to confirm it... he called up Glass and talked to him about it. Glass said what Flanagan heard was correct, if he sold the Royals, all profit above what he paid for the team would go to charitable causes. Maybe there's a loophole in there somewhere he didn't mention... but a lot of the money would apparently go to charity. That'll definitely keep the team in the city, I guess.

kc rush
06-16-2006, 03:31 PM
Wrong. And I'll tell you why. Glass cannot profilt off the sale of the team. The net worth of the franchise may have doubled, but that means nothing to Glass. He wouldn't get any of that. If he sells the team, any profit he turns must go to Kansas City charities. Mr. K ordered that in the succession plan. He wasn't gonna let someone buy this team and sell it off for a bunch of money and move it.

My understanding was that Glass could profit as long as he sold the team to someone who was to keep the team in town. I've also heard that this provision may no longer be there since the team signed a new lease with the city for the stadium upgrades.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-16-2006, 03:33 PM
Why do you think not that many people stepped forward to buy it? I mean it was really was a cheap buy in terms of sports franchises. I don't think anybody who bought it would've spent much money. Miles Prentice gets talked up a lot but he was quoted saying he projected payroll to be in the mid-20 million dollar range.

I don't know, maybe the whole thing is a bunch of lies, but I've seen it mentioned several times and a lot of people seem to believe it's true. Flanagan in the KC Star had an article about it trying to confirm it... he called up Glass and talked to him about it. Glass said what Flanagan heard was correct, if he sold the Royals, all profit above what he paid for the team would go to charitable causes. Maybe there's a loophole in there somewhere he didn't mention... but a lot of the money would apparently go to charity. That'll definitely keep the team in the city, I guess.

I'd imagine that Glass could sell after a number of years, or maybe his profits would be held up for xxx number of years, but I don't think that it would be a bad idea for Glass to promote this idea, as it makes him seem like a more benevolent owner than the ass clown he truly is.

Halfcan
06-16-2006, 08:09 PM
Glass was a greedy bastard at WalleyWorld, and he is even worse now. I will never give the guy a cent.

ChiefaRoo
06-16-2006, 08:46 PM
Nothing new here.. but one comment I will make about something I think is stupid.

Who gives a rat's ass if the owner is local? Lamar Hunt doesn't live in Kansas City. Nobody bitches about him not being at the Arrowhead offices every day. If Glass wanted to stay down in Bentonville the whole year round and only come up to KC for opening day I would not even think about caring. Hell, given history, that might be a good thing.

You would think the titles were intuitive. "Owner". He owns the team. "General Manager". He manages the team. The owner does not need to be at the shop every day to own the team. The manager does need to be there to manage it.

I'm certainly no fan, but what does it matter if the Glasses live here? Why are people always harping on that?

Lamar brought the Chiefs to KC to begin with so it's a bit different than Glass cruising up from NW Arkie land to run the Royals into the ground. I don't think you can compare the two owners in any way. They're about as different from each other as night and day.

I usually don't like Whitlock and his columns but what he is saying is true. I just hope that Glass wants to win and not just count his $$.

What has happened to the Royals is a complete and utter discrace.

WilliamTheIrish
06-16-2006, 09:17 PM
Thanks for chiming in about 3 ****ing seasons to late, you fat bastard.

Go eat something.