This is Agent Provocateur with Allan Walsh and Adam Wild.

Welcome to another edition of Agent Provocateur. I'm Allan Walsh with the famous Adam Wild. Adam, how are you?

Famous? Is it because of the facial hair, Allan? Is it the must have?

Let me tell you something. I was not even going to bring it up today. I was not even going to bring it up today. But it's filling. I got it. It's impressive. Oh, it's impressive. It's filling out a little bit. But other than that, we'll let everybody to their own opinions about the fuzz under your nose.

Well, I appreciate that. You know what, Allan? I've raised $1,700 thanks to SDPN listeners so far. So that's great. But yes, I do think my wife is ready for it to go. We'll only attend more days. So let's start with you because there's been a lot of developments in the life of Alan Walsh, specifically things that I'm like, oh, my God. There's sometimes things that come across the news. I'll see him on Twitter, see him on Blue Sky, and I'm like, Oh, I can't wait to talk to Alan about this. And I won't even text you because I want to save your reaction for the podcast. The first thing, though, is fun. It's Jonathan Huberdo, it's you, and it's Bruce Springsteen. This has got to be what for you, Tour Stop 468. How was the show in Calgary.

As you and many other people might know, I've been to approximately 140 shows. It's amazing. It was the first time Bruce had played in Calgary in 21 years. And everywhere you went in the city, leading up to the day of the show was, Are you going to Springsteen? Who's going to Springsteen? I'm going to Springsteen. Are you going to Springsteen? I mean, the city was on fire with Bruce and the East Street Band coming to town. Funny aside, I was walking into the building the night before the show There was actually a hockey game going on, National Predators versus the Calgary Flames. One of the wives of one of the Calgary players said, Are you going to Bruce Springsteen? I looked at her and I walked over and I said, Yes, I'm going. And his name is Bruce Springsteen. Please don't make that mistake again. And she's like, Oh, okay.

It's like calling it Taylor Swipe. You can't do it.

You just can't do it. No. I think the person would want to know. Yeah, of course. Yeah. Of course. Yeah. So Let me set the stage.

Yeah, give it to us.

Okay. Jonathan and I and his girlfriend, we get to the show, and you could feel the excitement in the air. It was a little bit different than Other Springsteen shows I've been to, there's always an anticipation in the air, but this was a lot different. We're going to see something that people in this town have not seen in a long, long time. There's a different atmosphere. There's a different feeling when you're seeing Bruce in Jersey or you're seeing Bruce in cities where he might frequent more often. Bruce hits the stage with the band, and They were on fire all night. It was interesting in that most of the time when I go to a Bruce show, I'm in the center, the front pit. It's a general admission pit, and it's closest to the stage. The pit, I know that every seat was sold. I've been in the pit most of the time where you are packed in like sardines. This pit was only about two-thirds full. There was room 20 feet on either side of me. I could move from stage left to stage right. When Bruce would move over to a different part of the stage, you could move over there with him.

That's great. There was a period of time where I was 10 feet from the stage, and they're playing one of my favorite songs, and I got my arm around Jonathan. He's got his arm around. I mean, he's looking at me, and I think that he enjoyed watching my reaction to the songs and to the show as as much as he did seeing Bruce for the first time.

Yes, of course. First off, you got to love those fire code laws, right? Certain cities means that the pits are a lot easier to handle. The second thing is, what was his reaction seeing Bruce for the first time?

He loved it. Yeah? He loved it. It's funny because I was staying at his house in the morning of the show. I wake up really early and I'm drinking coffee in his kitchen, and all of a sudden, I hear Bruce come on his sound system, really loud, and he comes down the stairs, bouncing down the stairs from the bedroom upstairs, and he's like, It's Bruce Day. That's awesome. That's awesome.

What a guy.

We played Bruce in his house all day.

That's amazing. You know what, Allan? It's that stuff. He just seems like a fun guy, Huberto, to hang out with.

If there's anybody you want to hang out with, if you really want to have some fun, go spend some time with him and his extended family of 40 people. It's like they're uncles and aunts and cousins, and they're full of love, and they're full of life, and they're full of having fun.

That's amazing. Well, listen, I look forward to more concert updates as the Bruce Springsteen tour continues. And it's interesting. I'm so glad they're finally I was finally getting around to building that new arena in Calgary. When I was in morning show out there at Virgin Radio, you have acts like Taylor Swift roll through, but they do two shows in Edmonton and Zero in Calgary because they wanted to do the two shows in Alberta, make sure that Calgary got to go. But the Saddle Dome roof, a lot of people don't know this because it's shaped like a saddle, can't accommodate newer light rigs and sound rigs and that thing that a lot of these major concert tours put on. So a guy like Bruce Springsteen in the past, depending upon their sound or their whatever, might have skipped the city because the arena wasn't capable of handling them. It's going to be great for Calgary when that flippin arena is finally done because they've been talking about it for 20 years, and it's nice that they got a deal in place. It was nice for Bruce to stop in. 20 years. That's a long, long, long time.

One more thing. Give it to me. Two quick things. I'm walking through the between the first and second period of the Nashville versus Calgary game, and a guy comes up to me and he goes, Hey, agent provocateur. No. I said, Yeah. I said, Yeah. Alan Wall. She goes, Adam Wilds from Calgary.

I'm not from Calgary.

I said, Really? He goes, Oh, yeah, he was out in Calgary. He's from Calgary. He's a Calgary boy. I was like, okay. So I was like, there's something about you I didn't know. So please set the record straight. Are you a Calgary boy?

Not a Calgarian. My mom is an Edmontonian, but I am from Scarborough, which is a neighborhood here in Toronto, East end of Toronto. I lived in Calgary for two years. My grandfather and my grandmother were there the entire time. My first game, Alan, was Calgary versus versus Dallas in 1996, 1997. Rick Taberacci started for the Calgary Flames. I can remember that. My grandfather was a Calgary Flames season ticket holder from 1980 when they showed up to, I think, when he could stop. He wasn't able to go as easily. So I think 2009. And he was at the first game. And the first game you got, and I still have it, a certificate of authenticity saying that you were there. And it was signed by the President and the GM at the time, and it was a 6:06 tie between the Flames and the Nordiques. And that was at the old Stampede Corral. I don't know if you remember that, if you ever saw a game there, but smaller, much smaller And their original season tickets were in the audience, obviously, next to the organ player. My grandfather was a big organ player at church. So he got to sit next to the organ player who was in the actual audience, if you can imagine Wild times in the '80s.

But anyway, just a random story for you. I love old-time hockey, and I love the Corral building. They still have concerts there. So Alan, Saturday, I thought about you immediately. And this is where I don't text you because I'm like, if I get his reaction now, I'm not going to get it on the show. I love a fresh Allen reaction. And so I didn't text you when this happened, but Elliott Friedmann came out on Hockey Night Canada on their headline segment, and he says, okay, so just And I'm going to show you, the NHL and the NHLPA are going to have to negotiate, and this is something we've talked about on the show before, negotiate some accelerator of the salary cap that may be potentially spreads out this big jump they're about to have over two years. The idea being that, and we saw this with the NBA, I believe in 2015 or 2016, when you had this enormous jump in a TV rights deal, and all of a sudden there are these amazing players making much less money than guys on the next team who are playing on the bench? And of course, it leads to the Golden State Warriors dynasty, Kevin Durant goes to Golden State, et cetera.

And when I brought this up to you in September, because we did talk about this. One of the things that you mentioned at the time, and we didn't know hard numbers at that point, was they don't really need to do this. The NHLPA doesn't need to negotiate this. But Elliott Friedmann suggested somewhere, we expect the cap to be at 92.5 next year. He says it could be as high as 97. I've heard people say it could be higher. Give us a bit of an understanding, Allan, from your perspective on what this actually is, because Gary Bettman came out yesterday and said those numbers are inaccurate. I don't know where they came from. It's not like Gary needs to tell the truth. I think he knows exactly what the accurate numbers are. He's the Commissioner. He's supposed to. And he's not going to tell us, and he's certainly not going to tell the NHLPA because it's leverage. What do you know about this situation? Exactly.

So let's go back and let me frame the issues and put it all into its proper perspective. There is no greater mystery and misunderstanding in the hockey world, even amongst many people in the media, as to the operation of the collective bargaining agreement as it applies to the setting of the upper limit every year. Okay. So from 2005, when we came out of the full-season lockout and entered into the beginning of the salary cap era and the pandemic and the shutdown of the NHL and all the other pro-sports league in March of 2020, the NHL operated under a formula, a specific formula, of setting the cap. It was based on actual revenues plus a 5% growth factor that was added to that number every single year. If that specific formula were enforced today, the upper limit for the 2024-2025 season this year would be approximately 110 million. That would be the cap right now. Gary, that number is 100% accurate.Okay, all right. That number is accurate. In 2020, the world shut down, hockey shut down, the NHL shut down. No one knew what the world was going to look like going forward, how revenues would recover, how quickly they would recover, if they would recover from the NHLPA and Dawn Fier's perspective, they were very focused on preserving as much of NHL players' compensation for the 1920 and 2021 and going forward.

This was the general concept that they came up with. The players forfeited their last paycheck of that season, and the escrow, with the forfeited paycheck on top of the escrow, amounted to over 20% of player compensation for the year. In the 1920 season, players lost 20% of their comp plus. Remember, we came back and played the playoffs that year in the bubble, empty buildings, no revenue. Revenue took a dramatic, dramatic drop. If the players had not, if the PA had not made that deal, players would have lost 70% of their salary that year. Wow. But what happened was, remember, revenues are split 50/50. Hrr is split 50/50. Because the players received roughly 80%-ish of their compensation, they received much more than 50% of the revenues that year. It was basically a loan. What was created out of that loan for the the 2019-20 season, and the next year, we'll get into that, was an escrow debt. The next year, we played largely to empty buildings for a great percentage of the season. And the maximum, the highest the escrow debt came up to was 1.1 billion-ish, which is the amount over over 50/50 that the players received over what they should have received.

Now, that money had to be paid back. And this was the essence of the 2020 pandemic CBA. Now, there were all kinds of guardrails put into place on what would happen if the escrow debt was not paid back over the course of the CBA, and the projections were from both sides that there was a potential that when we came to the last year of the CBA, which is next year, there would still be a significant escrow debt remaining.Wow.And they even allowed for, if the escrow debt was in the 250 million range still remaining or above, they would extend the CBA another year. Wow. And escrow would be raised from the last three years of the deal, which was capped at 6%, escrow would be raised to 9%, and there was even a concern of what would happen if we came to the end of the CBA and there was still an escrow debt remaining. You had all of these potentials put into place on what if revenues lagged, revenues did not return, the escrow debt was not paid off, and that's the idea as it was negotiated and going forward. Negotiated a new CBA, the players got as much as they could from their compensation, preserving their contracts.

This That's where the escrow debt is created and then gets paid off over time. What they didn't account for, and I don't know why, I don't know why, is what happens if the escrow debt, based on revenue projections that the actual revenues far exceed the projections, what happens if the escrow debt gets paid off early. What they did is they have in this pandemic CBA, in the setting of the cap, what is called a two-year lag formula. The cap for this year is based on actual revenues from two years ago.

Wow.

Now, two years ago, revenues were around 5.5 billion. Revenues last year were actually around 6.3 billion, and revenues are projected this year to be around 6.5 to 6.6 billion. I've heard some people say it might even hit 6.7. Really? But the cap that we are living in today is based off of 5.5. It's a billion dollars less. Right. That's why last year, while final numbers are still being reconciled, and there has not been a final number decided upon yet between the NHL and the NHLPA. The NHLPA has audit rights. They're going around auditing various NHL teams forensically with a group of accountants who do forensic audits, and they're allowed to pick randomly certain teams to audit. The numbers are not final, final. The players had 6% of all of their compensation withheld last year in escrow. It looks very likely that all of it is coming back. Plus, to get to 50/50, the teams are going to have to cut additional checks to go back to the players because even returning the 6% escrow, it looks like for the year, it's still will not be equalized at 50-50. I should point out the entire escrow debt as of the beginning of last season has been paid back.

Wow.

Whole 1.1 billion Wiped out, paid back off the books. We are now back to even. But we're back to even with a pandemic cap-setting formula which does not take into account the fact that we are at 50/50, the debt has been paid off, and revenues are continuing to rise at a rate much higher than the original projections. That's where we are today. Now, let's talk about where we are going forward. If we go back to the old formula, that existed in the CBAs, plural, from 2005 to 2020, the cap next year, 2025, '26, would be set at around 120 million. Okay? Yeah, mind-blowing, right?

Mind-blowing.

Okay. Now, there are some people out there of the ignorant class who say, Well, what about escrow, Alan? You're forgetting about escrow. Do you want players to pay 15, 18% escrow again? If you set the cap at those numbers, There is a potential for escrow being in the, I would say, max, and I ran the numbers a couple of days ago when this whole thing... I calculated the maximum escrow to be about 10%. I think the sweet spot for players is keeping escrow at or below 6%, right? You're going to have to give a little bit on the reaches of the setting of the cap. Sure. No one is banding about numbers at 110 or 120 now. What I'm saying is that that's where it would have been set if we had that formula. But if you look at the two-year lag formula, and if you look at the CBA, the cap would be set next year under the current formula at 92.4 million. Wow. It's at 88 right now. Now, at 92.4 million, all of the escrow that will be withheld that's capped at 6% for next year would be returned, and the league would have to make additional...

The teams would have to make additional payments to the players to get it up to 50-50.

First off, that's unheard of. I've never heard of that happening before.

There have been two years between 2005 and 2020 when actually the escrow was completely returned and the league had to make top-up payments to get it to 50/50. It actually did happen under the old system. Extremely rare.Yeah.Oh, yeah. Now, With the 6% escrow cap for next year in place, the question becomes, we are so restricting the upper limit that players are really not getting the benefit of their contracts. Plus, they're not able, those who are going to free agents Agency this summer and restricted free agency, and the clubs, both sides, are being restricted from what their full potentials are. You have to, at the end of the day, have top-up payments. That's not good for the players. No. It's not good for the league, and it shouldn't be there. What Gary is doing, as Gary is prone to do is say, I'm not going to ever give the players anything unless they give me something back. That's the reason why Gary is going before the media and saying, I don't know what anybody's talking about, and we haven't been talking about this at all. He knows this issue is coming up, and he knows that there's going to be a negotiation negotiation about what's the right number to set the cap at for next year.

I'll bet you dollars to donuts that Gary is going to want to hold the NHLPA hostage and say, You guys want the cap to go up. The revenues might justify it, they might not justify it, but what are you going to give me in return? Because with Gary, it is always a transaction. It is never about what's good for the game. It's not It's not about what's good for the teams. It's not about what's good for the players, because the players are last in Gary's mind. It's what's good for Gary and the owners.

Right.

And that's where we are.

So here are the two scenarios that me, a layperson, would have in my mind. Tell me if I'm right or wrong. They negotiate something and they agree on something, and the cap accelerates it's fast over the next two summers. And obviously, I think that whatever they're negotiating here plays into the CBA negotiation that is, they say is not ongoing yet, but it's coming up, right?

Well, both sides have said publicly that there seems to be an expectation of the beginnings of CBA negotiations in January. Okay.

So this will be on the table, probably first item, I would think. If The other scenario here, Alan, is nothing gets done, and there's a gigantic pop in player salary come the end of the '25, '26 season. Those are the two scenarios here.

If you don't raise the cap next year, you're looking at a massive jump in the cap the year after. And with no escrow debt, the question is, do you smooth out the rise of the upper limit over for two years, or do you keep it artificially restricted under this two-year lag pandemic formula with no growth factor at 92.4 million And then the next year have the cap jump maybe 15, 18 million. Why? Is that good? Is that good for teams? Is that good for players?

Well, it's great for players, I would think, at least the ones that are coming up. And one of the things we talked about on the SDP is that if somebody has signed an eight-year deal in the last couple of years, they will automatically be on significantly depressed salary for the duration of that contract if there's a jump like this, whether or not it's two years or one year where the jump happens, Alan, you're going to have a lot of teams with long term deals that all of a sudden look really sexy because, hey, free agents cost what they cost now. And I got a bunch of these guys under contract early, and that looks great. The issue, though, becomes if there is a big pop, one of the things the NHL is obsessed with is teams not being able to hang on to their players. And you could create a dynasty situation very easily with two or three teams walking away with the majority of the best players on the market. And I'm thinking specifically of whether he stays in Edmondson or not. Connor McDavid is a free agent that year. Best player in the game just scored his thousandth in a crazy low amount of games.

What are your thoughts on what the effect of one or the other? So let's go, let's go. And a cooler heads prevail, NHLPA and NHL come to an agreement, and it's mutually beneficial, and it's a slower rise. But you see the cap jump maybe 10, 15 % over two years. What's a better scenario in your perspective, that or the instant jump all in 2026?

Well, I think it's much better to smooth the rise of the cap out. And given where the numbers are, there literally is no rational justification to keep the cap restricted to 92.4 next year. It doesn't make sense. It's bad for the teams. I know teams are chomping at the bit for it to rise. It's going to relieve a lot of pressure on teams that are capped out this teams that do have significant players coming up for restricted or unrestricted free agency soon. And again, what people always have to understand, because I hear so much public belly aching from fans about how much money players are making. We are only talking about the allocation of dollars within the system. No matter how salaries rise, we are still talking about a system where every year, 50% of revenues go to the players and 50% of revenues go to the league, the owners. It's the allocation of dollars within the system.

Yeah, it's not new charges. Your ticket prices, they might go up, but it's not because of this.

Let's deal with that fallacy. Please do. Every time there is a discussion about player salaries or the rise in player salaries, there are people who comment on... And that's the reason I can't afford to go to games anymore. And that's the reason why tickets are so astronomically priced and we can't afford, family afford to go to one game a year is with parking and a couple of beers and a hot dog and some popcorn is $1,000 plus. I understand what you're saying. I understand what you're saying. But hear me, please, when I say this, there is zero correlation. There is zero linkage between the rise of player salaries, the rise of player player salaries, and the pricing of tickets. Tickets are dynamically priced according to various algorithms, based on supply and demand.

What a market can afford, right?

If player salaries dropped 20%, ticket prices would still go up. Gary Bettman famously said during the 2004, 2005 lockout, this lockout is for the fans. It is ridiculous what fans have to pay already for ticket prices. And if the players get what they want, ticket prices are going to rise so high, it will be unaffordable for fans to go to games. I'm doing this. I'm locking out the players for the fans. 2004, 2005, CBA ended in disaster for the players. In came a salary cap with a 39 million There was an upper limit. There was a huge resetting of player salaries. Player salaries went down over 20%, and you had this new CBA, and ticket prices went up, and they went up, and they went up dramatically. Gary, what happened to the lockout being all about the fans?

Oh, I don't think he cares now. He got what he wanted.

It never was about the fans. It was about one thing, franchise values. Yes. Let's Let's take a look at where franchise values are today with every single NHL team valued at over $1 billion.

I think it did okay. I think it did okay. I think the thing that will stick with people from this is what this has How this affects the person watching at home. So for instance, a network like ours, we're bracing for a unbelievable trade deadline the next two years and an unbelievable free agency period. The speculation, Alan, is that we're going to see a lot of one and two year deals because a lot of people like Vlad Gavrakov, I think in LA had signed a two year deal a couple of years ago, knowing the cap would be 10 or 15 % higher by the time that deal has expired. And looks like he was bang on the money. And we'll now I'll go for a longer term deal on the open market. What do you think this has as an effect in the day to day trades and signings thing? How do you think this will change how general managers deal with the trade deadline? And And let's say you got four or five clients like you always do up next summer, how is that going to affect the offers that they receive and the offers that they want?

I think that what the teams want more than anything for planning purposes is to know as soon as possible, so they can look forward to three and four years, what the upper limit is projected to be going forward. Coming out of the pandemic, with this new CBA, we had much more certainty of where the upper limit would be year over year. It was flat going up a million dollars until the escrow debt was paid off. Now that it's paid off, it was set in the CBA to go up 5% a year. Teams could plan. Whatever the numbers were, teams could plan. That's what teams desperately want now is they'll know how much they can afford to pay a player this coming summer if they know what the upper limit is going to be in two years. In many ways, a lot of what Gary has done over his entire tenure has been as detrimental to the operation of teams as it's been to the players. Gary There was a comment that Gary made to somebody that got passed on to me, and he's very derisive sometimes of general managers. Gary's group is the country club of owners, not the general managers.

He made a comment once about... It may have been in a GM meeting over some contracts he was angry about in the summer, and he made a comment about how he has to make the CBA idiot proof, implicating that the general managers were the idiots for the way that they managed their teams. He would never make that comment in a group full of owners. But he would make that comment to a group full of general managers.

Who the owners employ to spend their money?

Thank you.Weird..

Now, I want to ask you from a negotiation perspective, Allan, you negotiate for a living, among other things. You babysit GMs for a meeting for a living, too, sometimes. I'm kidding.

We've had many GMs on the show and have great relationships with them. Let me tell you something. For the most part, they know what they're doing and they do great jobs with what they are. They have tough jobs. It's a tough job being a GM, and I have great respect for them.

It's amazing that any of them can remain friendly, honestly, with the criticism they take. True Living, I think, specifically, he went, I don't know if I told you this, we've got credentials to the leaves now, and Jesse goes all the time. And Brad went up and introduced himself. So apparently, very jovial guy, despite all the crap you take for being a GM Toronto. Now, Alan, from the NHLPA perspective, this cap thing for me, looking from the outside in, presents a... For me, the first time I can see in a long, long time that the players have some leverage over the league other than the withholding of their services as a union. I look at this Cap Accelerator thing as a player-controlled issue because the league knows it's coming, and the players know it's coming, and the league wants to avoid one big pop. The players know this because it won't be great for the owners if they do this. Is this something where Marty Walsh can get in there and go, actually, you're going to try to extract something from me? No, no. If we're doing this slow accelerator thing over two years, I'm going to try to get something from you.

So I have a lot of, and this is going to shock you, very strong opinions, especially about the Cap and about the system. But I also have great, great respect for the domain and territory of the NHLPA to do what they feel is best. I think Marty Walsh is doing a great job. I think the NHLPA is in very good hands, and I'm going to let them go forward and do as they see fit. I'm going to support them whatever they do, whatever they say, whatever positions they take, because that's what I do, and I'll publicly advocate on their behalf as best as I can when I can. But that's a question for them, and they're going to have to figure out their strategy. I have full faith that they'll do the right thing for the players.

Good answer. Okay. All right. With that, I don't know if we had anything else that you wanted to hit on, but I feel like this Cap discussion has been really illuminating because it is always so complicated, Allen. And Gary saying he needs to make things the CBA idiot proof. It would be nice if he made it fan friendly because so much of the discourse, and I say this as a guy who started a podcast in my mom's basement, so much of this is about the Cap. Oh, this player sucks because they're making $2 million more than they should, is less exciting than, did you see that goal last night? How did this person do this? But it always comes back to cap. And it'll be nice to see some of that pressure alleviated so fans can get back a little bit to focusing on just player performance.

One of the things that many things that Bob Goodman was 100% right on is he said, one of the evils of the Cap is that fans and media will be debating how much a guy is making and what percentage a guy is making and what percentage of the cap he is taking up in a particular market over the game. It has become the hand wringing in certain markets amongst people in the media and on radio and on podcasts over how much to pay this guy. Should it be 9 million? Should it be 8 million? Should it be seven and a half? It becomes dominant conversation. You know what? People don't want to hear it. People don't want to hear it. Fans love the game. They love following their teams. It's an amazing game. It's an incredible game. Who wants to have, Hey, this show is about the game, my team, and I want to check in, and I have to deal with 30 minutes of He's up for a contract this year, and is it the right number, 9 million and 8 million, and we shouldn't give him 9 million? And let's bring on this analyst to talk about whether he deserves 9 million.

Nobody wants to hear it.

Right. No, it's boring. It is. I mean, some of it's good, but you can't... In some cases, you're basing entire shows on it. Listen, there's a cap structure here in Toronto that has been widely criticized because too many guys have made too much, and it doesn't allow you to fill out the rest of the roster. And so those guys who have carried the team take a ton of criticism for not carrying them far enough. And so this will be nice to see this exercised. And I think that a lot of the decisions a lot of teams made in '18, '19, and early '20 were based on a cap already being Alan at $110 million right now. That's what they were projecting.

Right. And what happens is the fan base gets mad at some of the elite players because if you're not playing up to certain standards, you're hurting the team, not because you're not playing well, but because you're taking up too much cap space. And that is insanity.

Well, I guess we'll see how this all plays out. But Alan Walsh, really enjoyed today's show. And thank you for helping us with this. I'm going to redirect everybody from the SDP to listen to this because this is the clearest explanation I've seen. So thank you.

You got it. My pleasure. Love doing it. Love talking about it. Adam, have a great rest of your week, and we'll see everybody next week.

This has been Agent Provocateur with Allan Walsh and Adam Wild. Follow Allan Walsh on Twitter @walshe. Subscribe wherever you get your podcast by searching Agent Provocateur and hitting the subscribe button, youtube. Com/sdpn.