Long Kesh Park takes another step forward

[Main Street]

Linfield have the IFA by the balls as well.
Talk about stuck between a rock and a hard place

[SammyG]

What makes you think you'll get a slice of £240 million?

You're right, with the money from selling off the land, for housing, it'll probably be more than £240 million in the pot but I was trying not to be too greedy.

Hypothetically, if they ever did sell the land, the money would be controlled by the NI assembly - it was gifted to NI by the exchequer, so presumably they could do what they like with it.

BUT....as you already know, all major spend has to be approved by both Unionist and Nationalist blocks.
Not a snowball's chance of any Nationalist support for any stadium unless
1. it caters for NI's most attended sport, namely gaelic football
2. it is located on a site acceptable to both communities.

Which is what everybody (except a few GAA hardliners) wants.

You only have to look at the recent sectarian savagery perptrated by / inflicted on sports fans in Belfast to see the reluctance of the Nationalist community to locate a shared space stadium there.
Bang goes your myth of a better match day atmosphere.

I have no idea what this means, can you give me some details?

Nope, I think that NI's best ever chance of decent stadium provision will sink if Robinson attempts to override the three sprts bodies (and UK Govt's ) wishes.
The revenue strapped UK Govt will gladly take the money back (just look at how they're risking a politically damaging strike by English police over a measly 50 million).

In what way is anybody over-riding the sports bodies? If the business case doesn't add up (which it doesn't) it would be madness for the sports bodies to get involved in a white elephant.

Hypothetically, if the assembly did flog the Maze site, the NI assembly would see stadium development as a much lower priority faced with other more important demands on budgets it controls.

And I would agree.

Additionally, I detect no appetite from Nationalist / Alliance parties for the wasteful duplication of resources that would result from separate stadia developments by the three main sports bodies.

Again agree

My guess is that you lot would get very little.

WHo in the name of fcuk are 'you lot'?

I also doubt that your probable plan B, ie  the granting of a free site by Belfast City Councilo will get off the ground, well not without a simultaneous gifting of a stadium site to the GAA.
Remember that the pro-Maze Alliance now control the balance of power there.

When all else fails go back to blackmail (ignoring the fact that the GAA are excluding themselves, not the other way round). Excellent approach, as always.

[SammyG]

Linfield have the IFA by the balls as well.

If it wasn't for the Linfield contract, we'd have had a decent stadium long ago. Another of Maggie Thatcher's bright ideas, the oul hoor. 

[Solomon Kane]

I also doubt that your probable plan B, ie  the granting of a free site by Belfast City Councilo will get off the ground, well not without a simultaneous gifting of a stadium site to the GAA.
Remember that the pro-Maze Alliance now control the balance of power there.

One of the options being looked at for Belfast was a 100% private development.

[Evil Genius]

What makes you think you'll get a slice of £240 million?

You're right, with the money from selling off the land, for housing, it'll probably be more than £240 million in the pot but I was trying not to be too greedy.

Hypothetically, if they ever did sell the land, the money would be controlled by the NI assembly - it was gifted to NI by the exchequer, so presumably they could do what they like with it.

BUT....as you already know, all major spend has to be approved by both Unionist and Nationalist blocks.
Not a snowball's chance of any Nationalist support for any stadium unless
1. it caters for NI's most attended sport, namely gaelic football
2. it is located on a site acceptable to both communities.

Well, you're half right (emboldened). Assuming the Assembly gains control over the money, then there will be two choices open to it.
1. Say "Thank you very much", and just chuck it into the general budget. Which is all very well, until NI are forced at some stage to play their matches outside NI and/or the IFA lose their legal battle with Linfield and go bust. Either way, the pressure on the DUP (responsible for binning the Maze, remember) from NI supporters would be electorally damaging. Think about it: they would be taking away a stadium which, for all its faults, would have done the job kindovaway, and replacing it with zilch.
Which leaves them to:
2. Take a portion of the money allocated to the Maze and use it to sort out the IFA's problems the cheapest possible way (renovate Windsor? Co-operate with BCC?). Of course, the other two sports (and SF and SDLP) will naturally object, so the DUP will allocate them some money. The leftovers can then go back into the general budget, as a nice little windfall for the general majority of the public, who actually don't give a damn about sport.

Of course, Option 2 will leave a considerable amount of "horse-trading" as to the actual amounts for each sport, but they're managing it over schools, housing, hospitals etc, so I don't see why sport should be any different. And in the end, all three sports will agree, since none of them ever cared for The Maze (and two of them didn't need it), so a cash windfall for them to spend as they see fit will do the trick.

By the way, Snatter, whatever happened to your former certainty that the Maze Stadium would be built, come what may? I'll still not be popping any champagne corks until I see it officially and publicly buried, but it might just be time to get a couple of bottles out of the cellar, to put in the fridge...

[Evil Genius]

Linfield have the IFA by the balls as well.

If it wasn't for the Linfield contract, we'd have had a decent stadium long ago. Another of Maggie Thatcher's bright ideas, the oul hoor. 

I suspect Thatcher was rather more preoccupied with matters like the Miners Strike, Falklands, Hunger Strike, EEC Rebate etc, to concern herself over a new stand at a football ground. The fault doubtless lies with some half-witted Junior NIO Minister in Jim Prior's administration and the Civil Servants who misadvised him/her.

[stiffler]

Linfield have the IFA by the balls as well.

If it wasn't for the Linfield contract, we'd have had a decent stadium long ago. Another of Maggie Thatcher's bright ideas, the oul hoor. 

I suspect Thatcher was rather more preoccupied with matters like the Miners Strike, Falklands, Hunger Strike, EEC Rebate etc, to concern herself over a new stand at a football ground. The fault doubtless lies with some half-witted Junior NIO Minister in Jim Prior's administration and the Civil Servants who misadvised him/her.

Now now lads, you dont want to be falling out with each other. 

[Evil Genius]

Linfield have the IFA by the balls as well.

If it wasn't for the Linfield contract, we'd have had a decent stadium long ago. Another of Maggie Thatcher's bright ideas, the oul hoor. 

I suspect Thatcher was rather more preoccupied with matters like the Miners Strike, Falklands, Hunger Strike, EEC Rebate etc, to concern herself over a new stand at a football ground. The fault doubtless lies with some half-witted Junior NIO Minister in Jim Prior's administration and the Civil Servants who misadvised him/her.

Now now lads, you dont want to be falling out with each other. 

Thanks for your concern, but when it comes to the important aspects of this issue, we're both pretty much in accord: No to the Maze! 

[his holiness nb]

What makes you think you'll get a slice of £240 million?

You're right, with the money from selling off the land, for housing, it'll probably be more than £240 million in the pot but I was trying not to be too greedy.

Hypothetically, if they ever did sell the land, the money would be controlled by the NI assembly - it was gifted to NI by the exchequer, so presumably they could do what they like with it.

BUT....as you already know, all major spend has to be approved by both Unionist and Nationalist blocks.
Not a snowball's chance of any Nationalist support for any stadium unless
1. it caters for NI's most attended sport, namely gaelic football
2. it is located on a site acceptable to both communities.

Which is what everybody (except a few GAA hardliners) wants.

Yes, so why are you protesting for a Belfast stadium when you know that this is not acceptable to most GAA fans?
And not suprising given recent sectarian attacks in the city.

You only have to look at the recent sectarian savagery perptrated by / inflicted on sports fans in Belfast to see the reluctance of the Nationalist community to locate a shared space stadium there.
Bang goes your myth of a better match day atmosphere.

I have no idea what this means, can you give me some details?

You know exactly what this means, Celtic fan stabbed by Linfield / Rangers / Chelsea fans in Belfast.

Connaught rugby fan critical in hospital after similar incident.

Both targeted for being fans of "Taig" teams, quite obviously. Imagine what GAA fans would get 

My guess is that you lot would get very little.

WHo in the name of fcuk are 'you lot'?

Jesus Sammy, isnt it obvious he is talking about the IFA here 
Stop faking being offended and cop on!

[SammyG]

Yes, so why are you protesting for a Belfast stadium when you know that this is not acceptable to most GAA fans?

Firstly I've no idea what 'most GAA fans' think, as there has been no attempt to survey them. I know some who support Belfast, some who support the Maze and some who couldn't give a shite either way. Secondly I support a Belfast stadium because it is the only option that stacks up financially. I have said many, many times that if somebody can show me a way to make the Maze work, then I'll happily support it.

And not suprising given recent sectarian attacks in the city.

Sectarian attacks have decreased dramattically over the last few years, and even if they hadn't I'm not sure how a neutral site in Belfast, is more or less dangerous than a Loyalist site at the Maze.

You only have to look at the recent sectarian savagery perptrated by / inflicted on sports fans in Belfast to see the reluctance of the Nationalist community to locate a shared space stadium there.
Bang goes your myth of a better match day atmosphere.

I have no idea what this means, can you give me some details?

You know exactly what this means, Celtic fan stabbed by Linfield / Rangers / Chelsea fans in Belfast.

Connaught rugby fan critical in hospital after similar incident.

Both targeted for being fans of "Taig" teams, quite obviously. Imagine what GAA fans would get 

Complete and utter bullshit. And a bit sick that you would use these sickening attacks to try and back up your argument.

[SammyG]

Linfield have the IFA by the balls as well.

If it wasn't for the Linfield contract, we'd have had a decent stadium long ago. Another of Maggie Thatcher's bright ideas, the oul hoor. 

I suspect Thatcher was rather more preoccupied with matters like the Miners Strike, Falklands, Hunger Strike, EEC Rebate etc, to concern herself over a new stand at a football ground. The fault doubtless lies with some half-witted Junior NIO Minister in Jim Prior's administration and the Civil Servants who misadvised him/her.

I know but I blame Maggie on everything that went wrong in the 80's, whether it was directly her fault or not. 

[slow corner back]

Yes, so why are you protesting for a Belfast stadium when you know that this is not acceptable to most GAA fans?

Firstly I've no idea what 'most GAA fans' think, as there has been no attempt to survey them. I know some who support Belfast, some who support the Maze and some who couldn't give a shite either way.

Why would any GAA fan want another GAA stadium built in Belfast when we already have one, Casement Park, capable of hosting 25-30,000. Your fantasies are getting funnier by the minute

[Donagh]

Spotted this glorious quote from OWC on the financial case against the new stadium.

"There is no further research cited in the report in respect of concerts, but comparison with, say, Croke Park in Dublin would cast significant doubt on the realism of PwC's forecast. In 2007, for example, Croke Park – located in a much bigger city with a much larger catchment area than the Maze – was only able to attract one concert."

Very disingenuous to say the least lads. Now I see how SammyG finds it so easy to spin bare faced lies on public forums. Only a matter of time before all the navel gazing lies and spin comes back to haunt you. 

[Evil Genius]

Spotted this glorious quote from OWC on the financial case against the new stadium.

"There is no further research cited in the report in respect of concerts, but comparison with, say, Croke Park in Dublin would cast significant doubt on the realism of PwC's forecast. In 2007, for example, Croke Park – located in a much bigger city with a much larger catchment area than the Maze – was only able to attract one concert."

Very disingenuous to say the least lads.

If that is the only point you can take exception to from a long and detailed Report, I'd say it is you who is being disingenuous in your efforts to disparage it! Anyhow, here is the full effort, since I think it merits a wider readership.

RESPONSE TO PwC REPORT: 'PROPOSED MULTI-SPORTS STADIUM FOR NORTHERN IRELAND'

1. INTRODUCTION: IN-BUILT BIAS

1.1 The process that has led to the current proposal to build a stadium at the site of the former Maze prison at a stated cost of £240m(!) to the taxpayer is conceptually biased. The proposal seeks to provide an answer to the question "What should we do with the Maze?" ... but the question that should have been asked is "Where is the best location for a stadium?"

1.2 The Government has spent over £9m on consultants to develop the Maze proposal, and spent nothing on proposals for any other locations, yet cites the absence of worked-up proposals for Belfast as a reason for favouring the Maze! This is disingenuous.

1.3 The assessment that PwC has carried out is biased in favour of the Maze:


Belfast options other than North Foreshore are excluded completely from the assessment, despite the fact that no proper consideration has yet been given to Titanic Quarter, Ormeau Park, Maysfield, or any other Belfast location.
The two-sport stadium at North Foreshore which is included is assessed at a more expensive 30,000 capacity, even though a lower-cost 25,000 would be sufficient for football and rugby.
Non-financial criteria are emphasised, resulting in bias towards the most expensive option (Maze):
o The Maze is credited for its apparent compliance with the "shared future" policy, but this is almost wholly spurious: a stadium, by its nature, can never be shared, since events will take place on different days! The supporters of each sport will no more mix at the Maze than they currently do at their separate venues.
o The presumed requirement for three sports to be involved in the same stadium means that an apparent veto exercised by the GAA in favour of the Maze has ruled out potentially cheaper and more value-for-money options in Belfast.

2. COSTS

Actual capital costs

2.1 It is instructive to examine the actual cost of the Maze stadium proposal and the alternatives. A comparison of actual costs shows that the Maze is, in fact, the most expensive option – over 70% more expensive than the enhanced refurbishment of existing stadia.

Table of actual costs (based on PwC figures)

............................................. Stadium costs .. Infrastructure costs .. Total costs
Option 1 (Do Minimum) ....................... £41m ............ 0 .................... £41m
Option 2 (Refurbish existing venues) ........ £110m ........... 0 .................... £110m
Option 3 (Enhanced refurb. existing venues) . £131m ........... £9m .................. £140m
Option 4a (North Foreshore 30,000) .......... £100m ........... £58m ................. £158m
Option 4b (North Foreshore 38,500) .......... £126m ........... £58m ................. £184m
Option 5 (Maze 38,500) ...................... £126m ........... £115m ................ £241m
Not considered (Other Belfast sites) ........ ? ............... ? .................... ?

2.2 Because the stadium is the only component of the overall Maze plan that will involve large volumes of traffic entering and exiting at one time, many of the infrastructure improvements, e.g. M1 widening, identified for the Maze site are necessary only because of the stadium, yet PwC has attributed initially only 80% of all of these costs to the stadium, reducing to 60% after ten years. This means that the final cost figure for infrastructure at the Maze is likely to be even more than £115m.

Value for money?

2.3 PwC forecasts that the stadium will only be used on only 23 occasions each year. Does it represent value-for-money for the taxpayer to spend £142m on road improvements that will only be necessary for 23 days of every year, when less money could be spent on improvements in Belfast that could be of daily benefit to commuters and others?

Private sector

2.4 Moreover, the PwC report does not take account of the potential for private sector involvement in a Belfast stadium, which would reduce the cost to the taxpayer. (Proposals by private developers for stadiums in Belfast have been submitted to Belfast City Council.)

Assumptions and theoretical costs

2.5 PwC uses a "net present cost" (NPC) calculation to argue that the Maze is the cheapest option over 25 years. This calculation is based on assumptions about operating costs, revenue and visitor spending, and theoretical figures such as "site opportunity costs" and "residual value". These assumptions, of course, may turn out to be optimistic or unrealistic, and the other sums would only be realised if any of the sites were to be sold. At the present time, there is no indication of any intention to sell any of the sites into private ownership in the short or medium term. (See section 3 for more on revenue assumptions.)

2.6 The PwC report includes theoretical opportunity costs in its calculations, the result of which is to reduce the stated cost of the Maze proposal (by virtue of land value there being less than at North Foreshore). The calculation, however, is based on a 60-acre site requirement , giving an opportunity cost figure for North Foreshore of £47m (compared to £10m at the Maze), even though the present owners of the site plan to keep it in public ownership. There is, however, no explanation as to why a 60-acre site is considered necessary. The Millennium Stadium in Cardiff, for example, has a footprint of only 10 acres . Part of the rationale for a city location is the requirement for a much smaller site due to the presence of urban transport infrastructure, entertainment venues, etc. The opportunity cost of a smaller site, therefore, could be as little as £8m (less than that identified for the Maze proposal).

3. REVENUE

3.1 We know that the actual cost of the Maze proposal is, by quite some margin, the most expensive option. The economic case for the Maze, therefore, is based entirely on assumptions about how many additional events it can attract to Northern Ireland, and how much additional revenue can be generated by those events. If these assumptions turn out to be unrealistic, the Maze stadium will not be financially viable. The Maze, therefore, constitutes the highest risk option, since it entails by far the highest capital expenditure and therefore the greatest dependence on assumptions about future costs and revenue.

3.2 "Contribution to sporting bodies" is identified separately from the stadium operating surplus/deficit , and on this basis an annual operating deficit is shown against the enhanced refurbishment option . This is because any profit is recorded separately under "contribution to sporting bodies" heading and contributions to a "sinking fund" – applied to cover the cost of maintenance, etc. – therefore produces a loss. This may give the impression that sporting events held at refurbished stadia would be unviable, but when the "contribution to sporting bodies" is included, there is a forecast profit of £32m (calculated as NPC). This compares to an equivalent forecast surplus for the Maze of £69m, but on the basis of £100m more capital investment .

Table showing net present value of each option in terms of actual capital costs and assumed total operating surplus/deficit (based on PwC figures)

............................................. Actual capital costs .. Net operating surplus/deficit (stadium and sporting bodies combined)
Option 1 (Do Minimum) ....................... £41m .................. £29m
Option 2 (Refurbish existing venues) ........ £110m ................. £34m
Option 3 (Enhanced refurb. existing venues) . £140m ................. £32m
Option 4a (North Foreshore 30,000) .......... £158m ................. £27m
Option 4b (North Foreshore 38,500) .......... £184m ................. £69m
Option 5 (Maze 38,500) ...................... £241m ................. £69
Not considered (Other Belfast sites) ........ ? ..................... ?

Assumed additional events

3.3 The business case for the new stadium is dependent on the assumption that it will attract annually seven major events other than those contracted by the three sporting bodies. Suggestions for such events include:


Three concerts every year, based on "indications" from unspecified "consultations with a number of leading entertainment promoters". It is unclear whether these were "indications" of additional events, or whether it would merely be displacement from existing venues in Belfast such as the Odyssey, Botanic Gardens and Ormeau Park. There is no further research cited in the report in respect of concerts, but comparison with, say, Croke Park in Dublin would cast significant doubt on the realism of PwC's forecast. In 2007, for example, Croke Park – located in a much bigger city with a much larger catchment area than the Maze – was only able to attract one concert.
Three "other sporting/entertainment events" every year. Examples given are:
o A "speedway/rally event" attracting 30,000 people paying £50 per ticket on average: there is no indication of any research to suggest there is a market in Northern Ireland for such an event and such a pricing policy.
o An NFL (American football) exhibition match attracting 20,000 people at £20 per adult ticket : there is no indication that the likelihood of attracting such a match has been researched.
One additional sports event hosted by one of the existing sporting bodies. A suggested for this is autumn rugby internationals – yet it is acknowledged that the IRFU has already sold premium seats for these matches at Lansdowne Road.


3.4 These concerts and "other events" are forecast to produce annual revenue of £1.3m , so failure to attract these events in the forecast numbers would bring into doubt the stadium's viability.

Contracted events

3.5 It is assumed that, among the contracted sports events will be one unspecified "pre-season soccer tournament" , attracting 25,000 supporters. It is unclear on what basis such a popular pre-season tournament could be attracted annually to the Maze when such tournaments are not attracted annually to Windsor Park, and when they are they do not attract similar attendances.

3.6 It is assumed that the all-Ireland Setanta Cup final would be played at the Maze every second year, attracting an attendance of 10,000 . This cup final, however, is alternated between North and South only in the event of the two finalists being from either jurisdiction. When two Southern teams reach the final (as happened in 2006), it is played in the South and past evidence indicates that a Setanta Cup final would only be played in Northern Ireland once every three years. The 2007 final, played in Belfast, achieved an attendance of 6,500 , so a forecast of 10,000 is very optimistic.

3.7 It is assumed that the Irish Cup final will achieve an annual attendance of 10,000. Attendances at this event, however, fluctuate depending on which teams reach the final: in 2005, only 5,500 attended the final between Larne and Portadown, and even the prospect of playing this fixture in a 38,500 stadium could reduce attendance due to the likely lack of atmosphere.

3.8 The Irish FA is, in any case, seeking to build a smaller stadium and to upgrade existing club stadia, which would be more suitable for domestic cup finals.

3.9 All the contracted events attributed to the GAA are unspecified.

Sponsorship and corporate revenue

3.10 It is assumed that naming rights at the Maze will produce revenue of £1m every year, yet only half that in an alternative new-build stadium and nil at refurbished existing stadia.

3.11 It is assumed that 40 boxes and 1250 "premium seats" will be sold at the Maze stadium.

Car parking

3.12 PwC forecasts £142,000 in car parking revenue from 19 events : not only are spectators to be encouraged to travel by private car rather than on foot or by public transport, but they are going to be charged for the privilege of parking at the site. Is this good value for the customer?

4. ACCESS AND TRANSPORT

Maze bottleneck

4.1 In the PwC report, no proper account has been taken of access or transport problems. The proposed solution for overcoming the Maze site's isolation is to build a new junction, lane and slip road off the M1 at a cost of £99m. A single slip road and extra motorway lane will be totally inadequate to cope with the forecast number of visitors to the stadium, all of whom would be attempting to enter and exit the site at the same time. (Spectators at a stadium in the city, served by numerous roads, rail, and other public transport and pedestrian options would disperse via many routes, thus causing much less congestion.)

4.2 The lack of entertainment facilities noted below will also compound the transport difficulties: with no reason for fans to arrive early or to stay after the match, everyone will seek to arrive and leave at the same time, contributing further to the bottleneck on the single slip road on to the motorway.

Public transport and pedestrian access

4.3 There are no public transport plans for the Maze site: it is unlikely that any such plans could compete with the already-existing options for bus and rail travel to and from Belfast and the rest of Northern Ireland, especially considering the access problem noted above.

4.4 Given its location, pedestrian and cycling access to the Maze will be non-existent, yet pedestrian accessibility has been identified as a key success factor for stadiums.



5. CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE AND OPINION

Customers ignored

5.1 Incredibly, PwC has taken no account of the vital ingredient for any stadium enterprise: the customer experience. PwC did not even consult with customers: supporters of all three sports – on whom the success of any stadium is entirely dependent – have been ignored.

Match atmosphere and experience

5.2 If PwC had spoken to supporters, they would have learned that the atmosphere at any sporting event is just as important as what happens on the pitch, and is crucial to the popularity of such events. The atmosphere at a 38,500 stadium – which PwC acknowledges will rarely be filled – at an isolated location such as the Maze will be lost. For football, PwC forecasts an average attendance of 12,667 – in other words, a two-thirds-empty stadium! Similarly, for rugby the forecast is for a 15,000 average attendance – 60% empty! (And even for GAA, the forecast is an average of 27,500 – still 30% empty!)

5.3 The average forecast attendance for all contracted sports events is 18,000: it is therefore forecast that the stadium will be less-than-half full on average.

5.4 The experience outside the stadium will also be a poor one. An out-of-town location, in use for only 23 days per year, will not be able to sustain sufficient entertainment facilities to meet the pre- and post-match demands of fans in the same way as a city location. Fans expect to be able to meet up with friends before an event, or to celebrate or commiserate after an event: this is all part of the experience and will not be possible at the Maze.

5.5 If the stadium is incapable of delivering an enjoyable match-day experience, and risks delivering an unenjoyable one (due to the congestion beforehand and afterwards), it will not succeed in attracting additional fans. Revenue will not meet expectations and the financial viability will be in jeopardy.

Lack of confidence

5.6 PwC recognises that the supporters are not convinced by the case for the Maze: that is why it recommends a "hearts and minds" campaign to win over public support. Clearly, a business case is not enough.



6. THE ENVIRONMENT

6.1 Incredibly, no account whatsoever is taken of environmental issues. No environmental impact assessment has been carried out, although it is Government policy that all major projects should undergo such an assessment.

6.2 The urgent need to cut carbon emissions should be a key consideration in all policy decisions. The UK, like all EU countries, is committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020 , yet the Maze proposal will have the opposite effect of increasing carbon emissions by its dependence on the private car. It is crazy for a responsible Government on the one hand to be promoting a huge out-of-town development such as the Maze while on the other hand encouraging us to use our cars less.

7. ECONOMICS

7.1 The report acknowledges that visitor/tourism spending before and after events is an important economic benefit of a stadium – and also acknowledges that this benefit cannot be maximised at an out-of-town location. The actual value of the lost economic activity which would result from an out-of-town build, however is under-estimated by basing calculations, for football and rugby fans, only on those spectators who visit and spend the night : the vast majority of fans who live in Northern Ireland, and who would, given the opportunity, spend money before and after sporting events, is ignored! The economic multiplier effect for city locations is estimated at around 2.5 as opposed to 1.4 for out-of-town locations.



***ENDS***

[Donagh]

If that is the only point you can take exception to from a long and detailed Report, I'd say it is you who is being disingenuous in your efforts to disparage it! Anyhow, here is the full effort, since I think it merits a wider readership.

Life's too short to read through the rest of that rubbish. So have you nothing to say about the point I raised?