 Okay. So, are we okay to make a start, if that's alright? We just sort of run into time. The door is remaining open because, if you can probably tell by the heath that's given off in there after the air monster came out. So, it's a workshop on growth and co-opityms. And what we mean by that is growth in terms of coming from members, growth in terms of turnover, growth in terms of capital growth in terms of the whole, myriad of different things. We've got three speakers today. We've got Martin from the Unicorn Grocery in Charlton, which is a working co-op when we established it for some of the years. 17, right. Working up to it then. And the Unicorn Grocery co-op, which is great strength, real institution in that part of Manchester. We've got Jules Spencer from FC United. It's a product there of FC United from sort of fairly exponentially in the past. I will get this one right since they were born in 2005. I've got that one right. And we've got David Button, who has been working with that agriculture co-op. I'm not going to say how many years actually, but a number of years. And it's worked with organisations to help them grow and sort of expand and work with various varieties. And I'm with Jules first because you're in a bit of a time issue right now. So Jules has just come to talk about FC United and how they've achieved growth recently. Thanks, Jules. As Jules says, I'm a board of directors of FC United Manchester, which, if you don't know, is co-operative co-op of Manchester 7. We established in 2005 as a 9DS, a digital product of the size of it. We decided at the time of that institution where a one-man co-op was a football club. We've grown quite quickly as a football club over those seven years. We have in excess of three thousand three of the numbers, which is the size of our level of football that we're playing at. It's an amazing figure. We regularly average two thousand every week at our attendances and we can get anything up to six, seven thousand for something game that we've played in our short history. We currently tend to giggle out in Barry who don't have our own ground, clearly in a time that we'd be going up and up to get to that stage. So if you talk about Barry's growth and that's to make Barry its closest, it's getting our own football stadium. So we embarked on a mission to build our own ground probably about four years ago, talking to Manchester City Council, Dr Salford, and the likes to try and find a suitable plot. One was identified in Newton Heath in Manchester at 10 acres late, but of course that was pulled in the round with local local cuts two years ago. But we offered alternative side of Boston in North East Manchester, which we hope to build our community facility there in hopefully in the next 12 months. Clearly, as a fledgling football club, we've not got huge reserves of cash to be able to simply find three and a half, four million or five million or more of the cost of build football ground. So main barrier to grow, if you like, was finding that money. We've been able to access grant funding for the football foundation in sport England. However, supporters have raised around about £600,000 in cash in terms of donations for that impact, putting on functions, putting money in buckets, all the way of activity over the last three years. Our source has raised, as I say, just sharp £600,000 in cash. My greatest achievement to date, and I'm sure a general will be able to answer some questions on this, if you haven't, was the launch of the community scheme, which today has raised just over £1.7 million, £1.725 million, and is on target to reach £1.8 million over the next few months. That's been achieved from a base of, as I say, around about 3,000 members. It's about 1,400 people put into that scheme, of which around about 20-22% are new members. So that people have come on board to see what they've got to do, see what they've got to do, see what the community will deliver to the residents, if not to these Manchester, and have come on board and invested and put that money in. That's the way that matters, which is to talk to a gentleman inside. He's got the beans for a game, he probably never will, he's in the Midlands, but he invests in the community share scheme, because he believed in what we were doing, believed in what we wanted to take and the football club, believed in what we wanted to deliver for the community. And what we believe is that that way of raising capital, that way of raising finance, can be, is being raised on the property movement, but can go beyond that. If we can raise about £0.8 million from a base of 2,000 to 3,000 supporters, we can say what would be raised elsewhere higher on the football pyramid. We believe that there's no need for football supporters to go cap at hand, or indeed for football clubs to go cap at hand to high stream landers charging us for raised interest when there is a different method of raising finance. A method of raising capital that doesn't undermine what we're about. What's important to know from the community share scheme is that no matter how much you put in, if you put in £200 or £20,000, it doesn't undermine our one-member, one-ball principle. We believe with the help of Properties UK that this is a method of raising capital that can grow and grow and grow. Do you want to do your part, Martin? That's all right. Great, thanks. Thank you, OK. I'm Martin from your co-operation. It's not standing there. It's a being there. And we've fairly long established co-op. We established on quite radical principles in the sense that we were at a time if not the only vegan supermarket, definitely the only one that dared to be larger than a corner shop, and to aspire to be a larger corner shop. And part of that context was that probably all of the family members, including myself, were radicalised during facturism. So, during that whole kind of dire period when a lot of structures were being stripped back, that's when we kind of gained our conscience or our insight. A lot of us were coming from environmental activism, off-track activism, and we were setting up a co-op for workers co-opted in what actually now looks like a very mild recession. But at the time, in 1996, it was considered a recession. So, it was considered to be setting up an inappropriate time, setting up a co-op. It seemed to be not by a bunch of ex-hyppies wanting to only sell mentals, I think, was going to be the most immortal attitude. Our initial capital was about 40,000, which was drawn from ourselves. We didn't start off with a low stock. We started off with what we called a lot of sweat laner. I would say that probably average working week for the first few years, probably top 60 hours per start. That wasn't sustainable, to be honest. So, I'm glad to say that now, 16, 17 years later, I'm not doing those type of hours anymore. But it does indicate that within a co-op, particularly a worker co-op, should actually go through different phases of radicalism, and the sheer, brutal will power to succeed or sustain yourself early on is not necessarily a staff base that you have. You enter into a kind of, I would say, as an organisation of middle age, where we have a far more humane and varied staff. We're now approaching 50 members of the co-op. I'm the last person for most family or hair suit to the days. Key moments in our growth was often, happens in co-ops, up with maybe all kinds of businesses, you either change or change is forced upon you. One of the key moments in our growth was that the warehouse, which was attached to an office block on our site, the whole site was being speculatively looked at for the developers. The person who owned the site was just about to spend a couple of years at his pleasure, for tax evasion, and he was rapidly getting rid of all the assets that were in his wife's name before the email. So, we were forced to a position where we had to undertake buying a building to make rapid expansion, and it was also a rapid uptake in our perception of our responsibilities. So, that's when we did use a load of stock. We managed to raise just under a million pounds, which at the time was petrifying. The idea that we had amongst 16 members at that time a liability, which extended beyond the numbers, extended to thinking that customers coming in to shop for the last few years is prepared to put their savings into a workers co-optiff at the end of the day. It's still not going to sell the cheese or eggs for many times in the way that a new communication can sell the cheese. Since then, we've decided that change should be something that we generate rather than necessarily a reactive thing. Reactive things can be good, and that was a good reactive thing, but it's on the path that we still are. But we have also raised load of stock to enable us to move into farming, and we now have a small site, a new site of will, which is being farmed by another co-optiff, which is actually drawn from our existing members. That's part of our philosophy about sustainability, reducing the food mileage, and also reflecting the fact that, as an independent, as opposed to a large chain, we don't have, when we want to basically have less autonomy when it comes to things like hauling wages. As you probably, if anybody reads the kind of back pages of the business page, you'll see that there's a lot of consolidation for years at the moment, and there will possibly come a time when the independent sector will bravely struggle to be able to technically compete against the multiples as they increasingly take over the supply chain. Where we are at the present, we seem to be still spending more money, we still seem to be growing, but I think one of the things that's very important to us as a worker co-optiff is that, through all of that growth, whilst we have used load and stock and we have used sweat labour, we've never been a subsidised organisation, it's quite important in terms of our philosophy as a worker co-optiff that, whilst there are organisations which do require to exist by seeking government or government agency support, and those organisations that wouldn't exist without that, that we as a worker co-optiff, we survive through our tillers, if our tillers aren't rattling, we don't get paid. So, everything that we do, our 1% fund, our 4% fund, our local commitments in terms of social activism, is based on the fact that we have to have a viable business. We don't seek to actually get funding from elsewhere to sustain our business. I see more opportunities. Absolutely great. Thank you. Obviously you do. Well, good afternoon. I'm David Butler, as you mentioned, I was a chair of a co-optiff in Cable. My background in the last 37 years has been working with agriculture co-optiffs. That's very important. So my story is not the main way of using the issue as the last two, because that's the second business. So I'm trying more on the generality of things, and also looking at the way agriculture co-optiffs have moved. Now they've had to reach structure in many cases, and they've had to fund themselves differently, because the way that industry's chain looks over, start in the 70s, really, and basically the issues in those days were that we had a lot of big British farmers who didn't feel the need necessarily to cooperate, because they were thinking out to supply the markets that they wanted. But as I mentioned in the encroach, and if you look at the Dutch, and there's no offense to any other nationality by forestry, the Dutch, and the Spanish, and the French, et cetera, who were able to produce large-quality products, and they're stronger. They could be delivered. We suddenly found that the UK produced so many losing them. I need to speak up a bit. Oh, sorry, you've got the raining on the roof. I'll use the microphone for you. I don't like these things. Is that better? Is that better? Do you mind if I sit down then? Oh, it's even better. It's getting better by the minute. Good. Okay. Yes, so back in the 70s, we were starting to lose our market share after the UK's producers, and it became essential that farmers started to work together, and in those days, Government provided funding to set up an organisation called the Central Council for Agriculture and Autocultural Cooperation, just trips off the town name, Marlon. And basically, we were given money to provide, not just grant labour to buy some guidance, on providing the structures necessary to get farmers to work together. Originally, the purpose was to be more market-focused. So, therefore, a lot of the early co-ops were set up to really to just get product together. So, the same were producing, I said, a horticulture product, so top fruit. I had a greater volume of top fruit, which you could then market to supermarkets, another outlet. As time went on, it's very, very simple. Most of the groups acted as agents, in other words, they didn't take ownership of the product. They marketed the product after their members took a levy for doing it. Fairly low-risk, risk-averse businesses, really. And that's also applied to grain and many other products that were being produced by British farmers. As time went on, and as the supermarkets got more and more powerful, it became obvious that we needed to improve the infrastructure in terms of call chain, in terms of the facilities in the form of processing facilities, storage in particular, the fruit. And therefore, the whole structure of those businesses needed to change. Now, in the main, the money has always been provided by three parts. One was either bank borrowing. One, initially, was from Grande. And the third, was from producers themselves. Now, it's quite interesting that we developed fairly early on. Rather than going down the share capital route, we went down the route of generally one share per member. In other words, you bought a £1 share, which enabled you to be a member. And then you provided qualification loans that we called them. Loans, which enabled you to make use of the services. A lot of those loans, like a grain guru, in an example, will be linked to the amount of tonnage that you wanted to store. So in other words, if I wanted to stun 50 times, store 50 times, or be 500 times, probably, let's say 50 times, make it easy. I would not pay 60 pounds of time for the privilege. That would be in the form of a loan. If you wanted to put in 1,500, you'd pay 1,500 times it. So therefore, that business was very cooperative in other words, you funded it according to your usage. Again, most of these were done as agents and the money that was raised to pay for services. If there was any surplus, you can talk surplus as a post-profit, because we're taxing controls now that we don't pay tax by working in a particular way. Any surplus would either go back to members in relation to their throughput. So very cooperative. The other key element was to ensure that we had security and the banks for their lending needed obviously security and they were no different then than they are now. We used what we called the members agreement to do that to ensure that all the members in their co-ops set out quite clearly what the members' obligations are. The legal contractual agreement and therefore if they said they were going to mark it all their tannies through the group or they were going to store their tannies through the group, they signed it legally obligatory. They couldn't be a member without. And if they failed to do that, they actually would then remove from membership. So therefore, it's a very key principle in most agriculture, almost all agriculture co-ops, they are there for the current user and therefore if you do not have a current members agreement and use it, you'll no longer remember. I think a key lesson we learned from that was from Ireland, from the dairy co-ops. When the dairy co-ops in Ireland were essentially a privatised soul from under the members who were actually using them, it was done because they were not calling their registers and they had more people on their register who were either dead, had left milk or whatever than the people actually producing milk. So they could make the decision on the actual business that you and I may be a member of and using it. So now if you take all the rules that we use in agriculture co-ops or articles, whatever, whichever legal structure we use, we have as a basis that unless you honour your members' agreements and fitting to supply, you'll no longer remember and you lose your voting rights immediately. So decisions can only be made by a member. So raising capital we did through qualification in England. Scotland they tend to use share capital more than we do. We tend to use qualifications linked to the use that you want to make the group. We did exactly the same in the top group co-ops, in horticultural groups. That's a grain goose particularly. But across the whole crop spectrum of co-ops, we've got to remember the members of agriculture co-ops our business is in their own right. So that very business focus. But I would argue very co-operatively minded. It's always one member, one vote. Everything goes back to them according to usage. Very strict regulations about who could be members how you lose your membership. But raising of capital. We're now coming to a new era really when we're looking at the milk groups. Of course the amount of money needed to fund added value is extremely high. And I'm trying to be a realist. That's when you can start to hit problems because you then start to look for new novel ways of raising money. And if you start to bring outside influences and I know you can do that. But if you start to bring in undue outdoor influences then you can start to lose your cooperative ethos. You start to lose the basic principles of why you're there. And that's something we're very keen. Not from a philosophical point of view but simply from a business point of view. We know that if producers are responsible for funding it, for using it then the thing will succeed. The commitment of members has always been absolutely key. So nowhere near as exciting as our previous two but not individuals. But I think from the point of view of lessons to be learnt in any company business good sound business structures, good ways of raising money, member real focus, member commitment and that's the way that the agricultural copies are performed and that's why if you look at the sectors we have 50 of the top 100 coops in the UK. Chairman copies of the UK side level coops. But I could go for coops. I'm sorry about that. Anyway, that's great. Thanks very much. Well, I'm going to survive. I don't need a microphone or an answer with my big garden. It's just moving on now to talking up to some questions and answers. Jules has had to go from FCI however I've worked on the share issue so if it is a case of any questions on that I'm more than happy to answer them as I've made for Martyn and David and myself. We've got quite a few people in the room who could bring an additional skill set. Vivian's kindly joined us and there's various other people from other coops who've had a look around at some of these things and others. Vivian's from a phone coops amongst many, many others who've also gone past decade experience quite a high rate of growth and it's very interesting the different methodologies that have been used for example at Unicol and not particularly wanting to distill their work or ownership so thereby not offering shares but offering loans to support but without ceiling control. However FCI would have a huge membership on which to draw who could become investors as well as members first, investors second so there's two different, two quite different approaches there and a blended approach in the agricultural which use a mixture of these types of approaches. So hand it over to you if there's any questions and answers and if I could point them in the right direction. Great, we had a question from over here and then we've gone for Vivian. It's the very greatest of respect to disagree with you on another point. I think there's a real danger I'm doing a master's in food policy at the moment and it's a mind blown. I mean I thought I knew something about food and now I've been on this floor and now I know something about food. But I think there are some real real areas of caution particularly food coops. I don't really agree that the right way is to try and match these giants. Everything about the food cost of food is not about the industrialisation of the process we've got almost to the last letter and I think it's really I think what we what I would like to see the cooperative movement do is much more of what you were talking about in the previous one and the one this morning which is much more networking and cooperation within the cooperatives and between the cooperatives I think there's a huge amount of potential in that and I think unfortunately with food it goes right back to the soil and if you've got the soil not good, if you've got health not good you've got all sorts of other things and everything about the huge multinational super market is wrong in that respect. Which would be interesting to get your thoughts on that but I'm very in mind Unicorn have now actually raised the long stock in part to have their own farm produce a lot of food now We also by default have a market garden with very strong outcomes of the emergence of the market garden all of you remember from that in the 1950s there were actually market gardens that were all the way around and they had a lot of ideological and ethical and scientific effect on the supply of the system I think there's a we don't have the option as a multiple to be engaged with the scale of buying that might work we don't have that option so in some ways we're going to address that at all what we do want to address is those kind of interproducer relationships and where we often make invo this is to actually personal relationships developed with suppliers, growers can build trust over a period of time we have things that we can't count we can't count on that test goes tomorrow but my team can pay and tell loads of lies and say they're the cheapest in the country and what we can do is write on a blackboard that our organic carrots are more cheaper than their non-organic carrots we don't have that base but we're used to that we're used to the idea that the power of the water process is a huge advantage of this information there was a question from Vivian yes I'm intrigued in this way this is broadly about how to grow a co-op and yet all the conversation pretty much has been about how to do it and I'm actually not sure that is the biggest issue it is an issue facing co-ops that want to grow and I think it's about how we run the business how we scale it how we market our products and the phone co-op as you said has grown over the last year we have grown every year but I sort of think if it's true that we're one of the fastest growing ones it worries me about the rest of the co-op because I sit there and I think we've only got another 160 customers this month and that's actually not very many and we lost nearly as many and the growth has come through but it's not it's not just capital and I think often there is also a misunderstanding of what the true problem is if it's not possible for an organisation these capital to raise it that's possible because it isn't financially successful commercially successful enough to justify investment I completely support the idea that we should look to members for investment but I think we have to do that in a way that's responsible we have to be completely transparent with members about what risks we're asking them to take some of the community share issues I see worry me a little bit because I think it is bordering on and maybe the members don't understand that but that's a whole other discussion that's one we'll pick up on tomorrow I'm asking them for a gift and so I think when we call them it may be a chance if they're actually able to get that money back when they meet these are quite slim and that may not be apparent to the member at the time I think there is a lot of a lot of the share issues by ethical PLCs essentially look like that as well don't it because you buy in a transferable share in reality no one's ever going to take off your hands so it's more about I suppose it's the way you approach investment we've been talking about capital a lot in this as well but we don't talk about unicorn growing from a couple of members to 50 members of staff and FC United growing into a 3,000-year membership base so membership and talk about growth is certainly more about capital and co-operatives it's about re-investment it's about members it's about growth in a variety of different ways Shagles plug I keep doing this in every workshop on the homepage of co-operatives UK UK.coop there's on the right hand side there's Grow a Co-operative and we've got three cases that is one being unicorn one being FC United and the other being Revise Co-Co and all of them talk about growth in the more holistic sense about how they've grown their members how they've re-invested in the business and the various other things they've done to grow a successful business co-operatively David you've had a comment first of all I should say that as a member of the Co-op the new name sorry the co-operative phone and broadband is on that's it it's a good Shagles plug that's a great question I do it's a bit of a dream anyway you can stay as chair that's another vote okay I take the point I mean we've talked about capital I've sent the Indian Air Force basically I've never been down this project worthy of support but couldn't get capital for a lot of the business so we can't get cannot get the capital for growth that's simply because they're not good enough they're not good enough businesses most of their growth has tended to come by I have to say by natural growth that the individual producers they've got bigger or whatever an albumation of family businesses is about this country and therefore somebody buys another family and they enjoy the co-op and the main most of their groups merge up or transport engagements society to it they've tended to grow in that way I've come from the background and I've changed this properties are business enterprises like any other business the moment you forget that you're a business you'll do because and I think I mentioned previously I hate the term not for profit everything is for profit it's what we do within camps I'm thinking of myself now but I'm absolutely we have to be business focus because nobody owes us a living unless we're able to compete unless we're able to produce what our customers want what our members want, produce, benefit all of those things we will be getting the water I can remember when I was a food critic we used to do a lot of research into world sourcing but one of the things we looked at research into people buying habits buying habits were in supermarkets buying Britain and if you interviewed most people going into the supermarket and said do you buy produce? when you came they came out and you checked their shopping basket which we did the majority had bought on price that was rather sad actually because we thought we were doing a good job promoting British food this is an international conference day this is an international conference day so although people I think they all honestly do believe that that's what they do in reality we're all given a much different theme certainly in the economic climate at the moment people will buy on price they'll never know an argument they'll disagree probably we've not reached district councils what are the council members everybody should buy your gun and everybody should buy this and buy a gun everybody should do that not everybody can do that it's a good thing they learn to cook they all be alright I didn't hit it so I think we have to be very careful one of the problems sometimes sometimes I go to conferences not this one but I have been where you've got people who can afford to do all these things preaching what everybody else should do and as a co-operator and I come from I did 10 years in Eastern Europe working in some of the poorest communities on this planet and it's no good telling them that they need to do this and do that they just want to survive it's an old saying I can't use the term I would normally use but it's very difficult to think about draining the swamp when that alligator is budging your bottom so you can use them of agricultural terminology but I think it's very we just have to be careful sometimes but I agree we do live in a local market but there is all the time we've got people like you who record others keeping us on our toes and doing that sort and of course the independent group and group that's good but I think we just have to realise that we are competition-wise we cannot just throw everything out I just wanted to offer a comment about public perception profiling and in Australia at ThinkTag the Australian Institute published a paper last week entitled who knew Australians were so co-operative and found doing some research this cognitive dissonance between members being members of co-ops but not knowing the consequences of that or their entitlement or their place in the market it's great thank you just to comment to the lady because I wasn't I don't believe either or I mean in our society we've interacted about because we're middle son so we've got an initiative with the seasonal food called locally and what we do is we say to the farmer or a craft baker or something stuff in our shops and if you do you want to put them in the store and there is we don't do like the Tescos and they say trunk it out the road at your expense and what they do to the people is they say we're promoting your chickens next week that's going to cost you that ethics with the movement comes from saying we're a bit compared to you but we're actually want to be partners and it is about a partnership value we can't use our strength of our size if we're being overpowered by other people we've got to a some time at some place be aware of price and say we've got the top of the difference but we've also got to have a fee fee for food can't afford to pay us that that's the vision for the business being achieved by several people and perhaps most local getting together to do that that's what that is that's a different model from the only distinction I was making is that there's a danger if you go with their model on it if we do need the size to utilise that may be true but I would hate for it to be on a principle that must by its very nature start have you seen some of the principles you need to stick with the food I don't think you need to I think that within the co-op that the one thing that's been successful about 150 years of co-op operation it's been someone's always been out and trying to find a way to maintain the principles and go on and you look round the world they should always say historically maybe they've come up something of America some of the states historically they've been very big in housing they've done housing and they've done it well over in this country we've not been able to match that but we are very good at shops big problem was we set up 60% of the markets and that and now we've got 6% and that's that's the problem because in life if you're not going for you're going back and it's nothing to do with wanting it you know wanting to be vicious to match the market is the fact that you have to okay, thanks very much it's been an interesting point has anyone got anything else do you want to ask any of the comments or anything in the night's right to the call or go and discuss it I thought her knowledge effort talked about most people so far so it might just be a very basic question to yourself which is when you started with Unicor how many people were co-operators wanting to develop a co-op and how many were retailers and as the business has grown have you had to bring in retailers with an empathetic and sympathetic interest or have you stayed focused on talking about people ruining the business not the membership the mention is purely that the people are not a business we don't have any shareholders you buy one share as a director and you are a director so when I go back I clean the toilet and take the shelves and I'm still a director so I sort of go out of the spreadsheet the founding members we had one priest who has gone on to try to find another co-op and we had one person who was working for a co-op set up just a second co-op about 2000 years ago all the rest none of them could have been dealt with a couple of them I would even say probably didn't even have work experience and since then we've had some interesting conversations with people that would oppose themselves to the experts in retail and they probably are but it's a bit like when you speak to somebody from their NHS you're running something like that hoc that they don't necessarily understand that you can find complex solutions that doesn't have a diagram that preceded it and often when you talk to retail analysis specialist you're often talking to people that are reached drastically for their diagram it may be a brilliant diagram but any of sense we could probably in hindsight make some nice diagrams that would make us look really good for your profession but I think there's been a huge amount of people who start this way there's been a huge amount of saying what is someone's potential as we could perceive it we might get involved how do we create that potential so we've had people that have come in that are no more experienced than I am trained in HRs trained in finances we've had people that have trained up that we've lost because they've taken a qualification and we can rank as you can imagine if you pay a huge amount of money because there's going to be no tabis and if you pay the same amount that person will detest then you might lose people but we have that kind of a best we have that kind of a both construction and we try to take people where they are I think if I applied to talk to something called the accountants that you've applied for a job at the court I wouldn't get it he was asking me about that I said no I haven't got the qualification no I haven't got the labs I've applied to employment HR functions these sorts of products clean the toilets so I can drive a full and I can study with the till and they kind of didn't know where to put that because I couldn't walk into their white column and I was over-qualified or disqualified so it's kind of different co-ops is moving worker coops is moving from maybe you're not getting where I think you can find a lot of distortions to something that's inorganic whilst maintaining consensus easy everybody does it I would say 10 million individual worker coops build a training room Interestingly one of the retail societies has done that in recent years with Angling so it's a great way for that old furnishings department I was just going to comment on that because in the phone call when it started everybody was doing everything we could all ask the phone we could all set up new accounts we could all buy something but very quickly obviously we had specialised and I think we went to the point of specialisation we took specialisation too far and we actually had to learn to multi-skill back so now you don't have one group of people who talk to customers or other group of people who enter data we now have people going back and forth between those things and we can respond to changes in demand we're beginning to now think we actually want people to be a bit more spend some time in finance rather than just doing those things so actually we've gone back to that and it is interesting as a business grows you have different pressures on you to do different things and you evolve through that I think part of the trick is where we've perhaps made mistakes in the past is not seeing that sooner but not adapting faster to those changes but of course you can I was just going to say it's a really I mean Unicorn as a case study we do that to death as a case study because they're such an unlikely and an uplifting case study and it's really in terms of growth and the growth of people's skills is something that work co-ops very depth work co-ops are great at industry generally could definitely look at work co-ops to see how do you develop people how do you grow people sorry we've got one very quick question it's just a very quick observation going back to your point there I think also there's an element of I don't think in this country with that really sometimes we're a bit hierarchical and we don't recognise the resources that we're making on that I did a survey online a couple of days ago which was asking about the evolution of councils over councils and several questions have been said and I think the council should and I'm sort of having worked with the GRC in India there were very very good things that were rubbish to divide up between into localised situations whereas there were other things that it was very good to do and I don't think we're terribly good necessarily at doing that generally I think we don't sometimes get the management faces that will work but we're not venture on with things great well neutralisation of public services is probably a different workshop as well probably when we haven't got time left to answer in 30 seconds adequately we're wrapping up now Paul sorry I'm having a red card thanks for your contributions thanks very much to it if we could give a round of applause to the speakers thanks also for your contributions