McFaul 35 Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 As discussed in this threrad, the revenues for this season look like being up there with the highest revenues the previous board ever achieved. They only exceeded £90m 3 times. Obviously this is by virtue of the fact that TV money has been thrown at the club far in excess of what was previously paid, but it still makes your point about diving diving revenues moot, since they've clearly rebounded now. On the other hand when Freddy was here revenue dived from £96m in 2003 to £83m in 2006. You cannot ignore that drop (which recovered) and pillory the drop under Ashley (which recovered). The £96m was enhanced by Champions League money, but with Sky TV revenues going up over that period it was offset somewhat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deano 0 Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 HappyFace... Do you think we are just gonna bring in one player? If we brought in say... Gunter 3mil + 15k a week 5 year contract = 7mil Taarabt 4mil + 30k a week 5 year contract = 12mil Lens 8mil + 30k a week 5 year contract = 16mil Derdiyok 8mil + 40k a week 5 year contract = 18.5mil Thats a 23mil spend on transfer fee's and then 49.5mil on wages over 5 years. Just doesnt compute. There is no way on this earth that wages will be incorperated into the transfer pot as the wages will go into the running costs which will be covered every year with TV money and sponsorships as well as other incoming monies. Those 4 players would increase the wage bill by 10 mil a year. You can't say TV money will cover wages because we might get relegated. We're being positioned financially as a club that can handle relegation without a complete overhaul. I dont think we will be relegated, and i think we will be even stronger next year but i see your point. But....could this not also be a sign of ambition? Setting us up like this means we operate at a profit....we stay up year on year, keep collecting TV monies and so on then we CAN afford that sort of lay out in the summer no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4411 Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 I think regardless of how well FFS did, if we could turn back time now, we could probably compete with Liverpool just about as we did then, but if Chelsea and Man City had the money then they do now, we'd be behind them too. You could get the best businessman in the world in without being a sugar daddy and the best we can ever hope to be without Asian billions, is what Tottenham are now. That's no slight on FFS it's just a fact of life in modern football. If every club had to rely on being self sufficient and no borrowing or major external investment allowed we'd have as good a chance as almost anyone. That's the crux that Leazes just won't acknowledge - Shepherd's way of doing things, even if he could pull it off now which is doubtful financially, simply wouldn't work in 2011. Realistically you can have all the ambition in the world but it means nowt now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 wtf are you wittering about man You ARE accepting it. If not, accept that your man might not reach the league positions, champions league and european qualifications, and bring the players to the club that his predecessors did ? He won't do it The club is in decline. Expectations are down, revenues are down, ambitions are down. Your man Dekka has just said so......10th is the aim WHERE HAVE I EVER CLAIMED OTHERWISE? Answer this or you're making even more stuff up, arguing with yourself. You can't answer this with a direct link to a quote where I have claimed otherwise, because I never have. That is why people think you're a senile fuck. Do you comprehend this? However, we weren't reaching the league positions or champions league qualifications when your man left, meaning by your own logic that the club was ALREADY IN DECLINE Do you get it? no, it wasn't, and I've explained why it wasn't. The club is in decline because the revenues have dived, and the structures and ambitions have changed accordingly/as a result of. Basic stuff this. Your man will be ecstatic to finish 10th, this is his aim, the revenues have dived, our best players realise they are playing for a micky mouse club and so don't want to stay anymore, and you and your dad say the club isn't in decline ?? As discussed in this threrad, the revenues for this season look like being up there with the highest revenues the previous board ever achieved. They only exceeded £90m 3 times. Obviously this is by virtue of the fact that TV money has been thrown at the club far in excess of what was previously paid, but it still makes your point about diving diving revenues moot, since they've clearly rebounded now. On the other hand when Freddy was here revenue dived from £96m in 2003 to £83m in 2006. You cannot ignore that drop (which recovered) and pillory the drop under Ashley (which recovered). how long ago was this ? When will the club be 14th in footballs rich list again and investing on talent on the pitch to attempt to consolidate the position of the club at such a level ? Are you saying, if this ambition is brought to an end, the club isn't in decline ? I don't think we will invest enough to be competing with the best any time soon. I totally agree with you. I'm saying you can't use declining revenue as a barometer of our decline without accepting the similar decline (and recovery) under Shepherd. The difference is, under Shepherd the revenue bounced back but there was massive outlay on the squad, and no improvemnent on the pitch or in league position. Under Ashley, the revenue has bounced back on virtually no outlay whatsoever on players, and an iimproved league position too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 (edited) HappyFace... Do you think we are just gonna bring in one player? If we brought in say... Gunter 3mil + 15k a week 5 year contract = 7mil Taarabt 4mil + 30k a week 5 year contract = 12mil Lens 8mil + 30k a week 5 year contract = 16mil Derdiyok 8mil + 40k a week 5 year contract = 18.5mil Thats a 23mil spend on transfer fee's and then 49.5mil on wages over 5 years. Just doesnt compute. There is no way on this earth that wages will be incorperated into the transfer pot as the wages will go into the running costs which will be covered every year with TV money and sponsorships as well as other incoming monies. Those 4 players would increase the wage bill by 10 mil a year. You can't say TV money will cover wages because we might get relegated. We're being positioned financially as a club that can handle relegation without a complete overhaul. I dont think we will be relegated, and i think we will be even stronger next year but i see your point. But....could this not also be a sign of ambition? Setting us up like this means we operate at a profit....we stay up year on year, keep collecting TV monies and so on then we CAN afford that sort of lay out in the summer no? I think it's a stretch to call it ambitious....but they got grief when they didn't have relegation clauses in players contracts and we went down so it's an understandable approach to ensure we could cope with it. I think your hope is predicated on our belief that Ashley will not use any excess funds to satisfy the debt, but to improve the squad within means. There's very few clubs without debts...and even less who don't use TV money to cover those debts. Fingers crossed. They've made so much noise about not taking a penny out of the club, it would be embarrassing for them to start as soon as they've settled the ship...that's not to say they won't. Edited March 30, 2011 by Happy Face Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deano 0 Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 Letting go of whats happened under this regime for a minute, looking at the situation for what it is now, we ARE going in the right direction. Financially and positionally. We are in the PL and with a couple of good results securing our status, and on our way to stabilising our finances too. If we can get 3-5 good signings in with our wage structure who will improve the 1st team and squad then next year we can progress further. Repeated over a couple of seasons and we will be sitting in a pretty sound position. I just dont think its as bad as a lot of people make out. Frustrating aye, but not so bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil 6 Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 Do you honestly think we're going to bring in those players like? There'll be another Perch-esque "handyman", a couple from abroad who won't be Tiote-esque but that'll be the reason behind signing them and a striker from the lower leagues. of course, then it will be "give him until january" from the usual idiots. Our two best player were bought in the summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 WHERE HAVE I EVER CLAIMED OTHERWISE? Answer this or you're making even more stuff up, arguing with yourself. You can't answer this with a direct link to a quote where I have claimed otherwise, because I never have. That is why people think you're a senile fuck. Do you comprehend this? However, we weren't reaching the league positions or champions league qualifications when your man left, meaning by your own logic that the club was ALREADY IN DECLINE Do you get it? no, it wasn't, and I've explained why it wasn't. The club is in decline because the revenues have dived, and the structures and ambitions have changed accordingly/as a result of. Basic stuff this. Your man will be ecstatic to finish 10th, this is his aim, the revenues have dived, our best players realise they are playing for a micky mouse club and so don't want to stay anymore, and you and your dad say the club isn't in decline ?? As discussed in this threrad, the revenues for this season look like being up there with the highest revenues the previous board ever achieved. They only exceeded £90m 3 times. Obviously this is by virtue of the fact that TV money has been thrown at the club far in excess of what was previously paid, but it still makes your point about diving diving revenues moot, since they've clearly rebounded now. On the other hand when Freddy was here revenue dived from £96m in 2003 to £83m in 2006. You cannot ignore that drop (which recovered) and pillory the drop under Ashley (which recovered). how long ago was this ? When will the club be 14th in footballs rich list again and investing on talent on the pitch to attempt to consolidate the position of the club at such a level ? Are you saying, if this ambition is brought to an end, the club isn't in decline ? I don't think we will invest enough to be competing with the best any time soon. I totally agree with you. I'm saying you can't use declining revenue as a barometer of our decline without accepting the similar decline (and recovery) under Shepherd. The difference is, under Shepherd the revenue bounced back but there was massive outlay on the squad, and no improvemnent on the pitch or in league position. Under Ashley, the revenue has bounced back on virtually no outlay whatsoever on players, and an iimproved league position too. We will see. The first couple of years under Bobby Robson was also a time to re-group as such, but the ambition to succeed was still there. There is a difference between re-grouping and retaining high ambitions. Ashley won't have the ambitions. As for the last sentence, this season is far from over yet, and using one league position in 15 years as a barometer to say one position higher shows he is "better" is daft, and I wouldn't expect such a comment from you. Toonpack or skidders , but not you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 (edited) I think regardless of how well FFS did, if we could turn back time now, we could probably compete with Liverpool just about as we did then, but if Chelsea and Man City had the money then they do now, we'd be behind them too. You could get the best businessman in the world in without being a sugar daddy and the best we can ever hope to be without Asian billions, is what Tottenham are now. That's no slight on FFS it's just a fact of life in modern football. If every club had to rely on being self sufficient and no borrowing or major external investment allowed we'd have as good a chance as almost anyone. That's the crux that Leazes just won't acknowledge - Shepherd's way of doing things, even if he could pull it off now which is doubtful financially, simply wouldn't work in 2011. Realistically you can have all the ambition in the world but it means nowt now. you won't find a post anywhere by me that says we should be competing with Chelsea and Man City on transfer fees etc. Only skidders and Toonpack makes up that sort of shite. On the contrary, I've made the point a few times, that along with ManU we have to accept they are a special case. Liverpool and Spurs aren't though.....but we have just made Liverpool stronger and us weaker. Great business there from Mike and Dekka. Edited March 30, 2011 by LeazesMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deano 0 Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 I think regardless of how well FFS did, if we could turn back time now, we could probably compete with Liverpool just about as we did then, but if Chelsea and Man City had the money then they do now, we'd be behind them too. You could get the best businessman in the world in without being a sugar daddy and the best we can ever hope to be without Asian billions, is what Tottenham are now. That's no slight on FFS it's just a fact of life in modern football. If every club had to rely on being self sufficient and no borrowing or major external investment allowed we'd have as good a chance as almost anyone. That's the crux that Leazes just won't acknowledge - Shepherd's way of doing things, even if he could pull it off now which is doubtful financially, simply wouldn't work in 2011. Realistically you can have all the ambition in the world but it means nowt now. you won't find a post anywhere by me that says we should be competing with Chelsea and Man City on transfer fees etc. Only skidders and Toonpack makes up that sort of shite. On the contrary, I've made the point a few times, that along with ManU we have to accept they are a special case. Liverpool and Spurs aren't though.....but we have just made Liverpool stronger and us weaker. Great business there from Mike and Dekka. Would you really of turned down 35mil + add ons for a player that cost us nothing? See you ignored my reply before.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasepud 59 Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 Under Ashley, the revenue has bounced back on virtually no outlay whatsoever on players, and an iimproved league position too. I think its a bit rich to say, improved league position when we're 6 points ahead of the bottom team. we may be 11th but its a precarious 11th. At this stage in the season pre-Ashley we had 36 points (16 more than Watford) we'd just been knocked out of the UEFA cup, got to the 5th round of the League Cup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 I think regardless of how well FFS did, if we could turn back time now, we could probably compete with Liverpool just about as we did then, but if Chelsea and Man City had the money then they do now, we'd be behind them too. You could get the best businessman in the world in without being a sugar daddy and the best we can ever hope to be without Asian billions, is what Tottenham are now. That's no slight on FFS it's just a fact of life in modern football. If every club had to rely on being self sufficient and no borrowing or major external investment allowed we'd have as good a chance as almost anyone. That's the crux that Leazes just won't acknowledge - Shepherd's way of doing things, even if he could pull it off now which is doubtful financially, simply wouldn't work in 2011. Realistically you can have all the ambition in the world but it means nowt now. you won't find a post anywhere by me that says we should be competing with Chelsea and Man City on transfer fees etc. Only skidders and Toonpack makes up that sort of shite. On the contrary, I've made the point a few times, that along with ManU we have to accept they are a special case. Liverpool and Spurs aren't though.....but we have just made Liverpool stronger and us weaker. Great business there from Mike and Dekka. Would you really of turned down 35mil + add ons for a player that cost us nothing? See you ignored my reply before.... oh dear. Plenty of people ignore me, particularly Toonpack and skidders... Anyway, yes I would have told Liverpool to get stuffed, basically, although if you run a club you accept your managers judgement. Keegan has said he would have took it so I would have trusted him and gave him the money as happened when he decided to sell Cole. At this moment in time, setting out ambitions for NUFC is important after the last few years, and basically Mike Ashley has failed the test although those with their eyes open knew he had failed the test ages ago. The fact he cost nothing is irrelevant, totally irrelevant, you are talking "profit", but this is football, selling a player to a club we should aspire to finish above behind the back of your manager and not giving him the whole amount of money, plus to do exactly what he wants to do with it, says everything I'm afraid. This sale has gave a message to everybody in the game that NUFC are a selling club again, and has told the other best players at the club that they are wasting their careers here if they hope to play for a club in europe and aiming to chase the prizes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayatollah Hermione 14053 Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 I'd have accepted it like but not on the last day of the transfer window. In the summer with plenty of time to reinvest in the squad, similar to how Spurs done with the sale of Berbatov, I don't think it would have been too foolish or disasterous a sale. But, they've not got the long-term in mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McFaul 35 Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 I remember Shepherd's last game as chairman. We were shite, team was decimated by injuries but fans were in revolt mood. 2-0 loss against Blackburn, was a lovely day and neet, we fucked off to Hexham Races after the game. At full time I remember standing in the aisle, and this massively obese bloke shouts in the direction of the directors box "YA FAT CUNT" and that was it, I couldn't stop laughing, but it summed the mood up - 80% of people wanted Shepherd gone. I wonder if he'd exchange Ashley for FFS now. Better the devil you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4411 Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 I think regardless of how well FFS did, if we could turn back time now, we could probably compete with Liverpool just about as we did then, but if Chelsea and Man City had the money then they do now, we'd be behind them too. You could get the best businessman in the world in without being a sugar daddy and the best we can ever hope to be without Asian billions, is what Tottenham are now. That's no slight on FFS it's just a fact of life in modern football. If every club had to rely on being self sufficient and no borrowing or major external investment allowed we'd have as good a chance as almost anyone. That's the crux that Leazes just won't acknowledge - Shepherd's way of doing things, even if he could pull it off now which is doubtful financially, simply wouldn't work in 2011. Realistically you can have all the ambition in the world but it means nowt now. you won't find a post anywhere by me that says we should be competing with Chelsea and Man City on transfer fees etc. Only skidders and Toonpack makes up that sort of shite. On the contrary, I've made the point a few times, that along with ManU we have to accept they are a special case. Liverpool and Spurs aren't though.....but we have just made Liverpool stronger and us weaker. Great business there from Mike and Dekka. I think we have to see how the new Liverpool owner backs Dalglish in the summer before you can say that - I'd also say that we will never be able to compete with them in terms of pulling power when it comes to players. As I also said above, I think Spurs actually have followed an Ashley type plan by reinvesting sale money - even if it wasn't designed as such. Of course I don't trust Ashley to do that but I do think it would work in a limited fashion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 Fancy winnin the league this year mike? Nahhh fuck that I want a relegation scrap. Of course yet again you just want trophy signings, when everything in the football world says that it wouldn't be wise unless it was at the levels to compete with the top 4, which is unrealistic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deano 0 Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 I think regardless of how well FFS did, if we could turn back time now, we could probably compete with Liverpool just about as we did then, but if Chelsea and Man City had the money then they do now, we'd be behind them too. You could get the best businessman in the world in without being a sugar daddy and the best we can ever hope to be without Asian billions, is what Tottenham are now. That's no slight on FFS it's just a fact of life in modern football. If every club had to rely on being self sufficient and no borrowing or major external investment allowed we'd have as good a chance as almost anyone. That's the crux that Leazes just won't acknowledge - Shepherd's way of doing things, even if he could pull it off now which is doubtful financially, simply wouldn't work in 2011. Realistically you can have all the ambition in the world but it means nowt now. you won't find a post anywhere by me that says we should be competing with Chelsea and Man City on transfer fees etc. Only skidders and Toonpack makes up that sort of shite. On the contrary, I've made the point a few times, that along with ManU we have to accept they are a special case. Liverpool and Spurs aren't though.....but we have just made Liverpool stronger and us weaker. Great business there from Mike and Dekka. Would you really of turned down 35mil + add ons for a player that cost us nothing? See you ignored my reply before.... oh dear. Plenty of people ignore me, particularly Toonpack and skidders... Anyway, yes I would have told Liverpool to get stuffed, basically, although if you run a club you accept your managers judgement. Keegan has said he would have took it so I would have trusted him and gave him the money as happened when he decided to sell Cole. At this moment in time, setting out ambitions for NUFC is important after the last few years, and basically Mike Ashley has failed the test although those with their eyes open knew he had failed the test ages ago. The fact he cost nothing is irrelevant, totally irrelevant, you are talking "profit", but this is football, selling a player to a club we should aspire to finish above behind the back of your manager and not giving him the whole amount of money, plus to do exactly what he wants to do with it, says everything I'm afraid. This sale has gave a message to everybody in the game that NUFC are a selling club again, and has told the other best players at the club that they are wasting their careers here if they hope to play for a club in europe and aiming to chase the prizes. And you still ignore my point on ashley and the previous regime.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 Fancy winnin the league this year mike? Nahhh fuck that I want a relegation scrap. Of course yet again you just want trophy signings, when everything in the football world says that it wouldn't be wise unless it was at the levels to compete with the top 4, which is unrealistic once again, you are just showing how utterly stupid you are. As well as making things up. What a sad case. Anyway, I'll try to leave you alone as I said I would, but sometimes you are just beyond any sort of help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 Under Ashley, the revenue has bounced back on virtually no outlay whatsoever on players, and an iimproved league position too. I think its a bit rich to say, improved league position when we're 6 points ahead of the bottom team. we may be 11th but its a precarious 11th. At this stage in the season pre-Ashley we had 36 points (16 more than Watford) we'd just been knocked out of the UEFA cup, got to the 5th round of the League Cup. I meant compared to the previous couple of seasons. Not the last decade. Comparing the shepherd decline and the ashley decline from their original positions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Your Name Here Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 The expectations have to be lowered because of the burden of debt left by the previous owners - you might not agree LM but they're just as much to blame for our current predicament as Ashley. Unless you have a realistic suggestion as to how anyone can change that situation of course. That simply isn’t true. £135m was a stupid price to pay for a club that was apparently about to cease to exist, and we all know why he paid way over the odds. It’s ironic a man renowned for bargain buys should get so well and truly ripped off. Ashley gambled and lost. The bottom line is in close to four years the club’s revenues have dropped, attendances have dropped and its status has dropped. The only key business indicator that has gone up is the amount of money it owes, which has near enough doubled and now stands in excess of £150m. It’s a shocking state of affairs and there is only one person to blame. The local media need to grow some balls and scrutinise the data, not just regurgitate the club’s absurd spin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt 0 Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 The expectations have to be lowered because of the burden of debt left by the previous owners - you might not agree LM but they're just as much to blame for our current predicament as Ashley. Unless you have a realistic suggestion as to how anyone can change that situation of course. That simply isn’t true. £135m was a stupid price to pay for a club that was apparently about to cease to exist, and we all know why he paid way over the odds. It’s ironic a man renowned for bargain buys should get so well and truly ripped off. Ashley gambled and lost. And is building a business so that our loyalty repays him for his largesse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giraffidae 0 Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 Mike Ashley clearly doesn’t have a clue how to run a competitive football club — I know this is our promotion season and our main concern is avoiding relegation — but if we do qualify for Europe in the future, he’d shit himself. If we do stay up and “compete for European places” then that is the maximum he’d stretch to. Having to put a squad together that could cope with the demands of a European competition and the top 10, then he’d be well out of his depth. The last transfer window was another litmus test for him, but he chose to cut costs rather than pushing on from the healthy position we were in — and that’s the gambler without wisdom in him. You only have to look at our centre forwards (since the window shut) that he’s happy to gamble on staying up with, to know he likes to take high risks. Running a football club at the upper levels is a financially scary proposition for someone who doesn’t know what they’re doing, and it seems at the moment he’s more driven by the buzz of doing it his way with reduced outlay, than with any aspirations that come with the capabilities of a club the size of NUFC. You only need to look at him employing a casino manager mate of his and Joe Kinnear to understand his mindset. He tried to do it differently with KK and Wise but got his fingers burnt as he was well out of his depth, he hasn’t got the balls to do what is needed anymore, so now he aspires to the ‘success’ of Wigan et al — and that’s about it. The danger is now that he thinks relegation isn’t really a problem as he’s got through it before.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 Fancy winnin the league this year mike? Nahhh fuck that I want a relegation scrap. Of course yet again you just want trophy signings, when everything in the football world says that it wouldn't be wise unless it was at the levels to compete with the top 4, which is unrealistic once again, you are just showing how utterly stupid you are. As well as making things up. What a sad case. Anyway, I'll try to leave you alone as I said I would, but sometimes you are just beyond any sort of help. Default post when you've got nothing to say Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 Fancy winnin the league this year mike? Nahhh fuck that I want a relegation scrap. Of course yet again you just want trophy signings, when everything in the football world says that it wouldn't be wise unless it was at the levels to compete with the top 4, which is unrealistic once again, you are just showing how utterly stupid you are. As well as making things up. What a sad case. Anyway, I'll try to leave you alone as I said I would, but sometimes you are just beyond any sort of help. Default post when you've got nothing to say Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 Fancy winnin the league this year mike? Nahhh fuck that I want a relegation scrap. Of course yet again you just want trophy signings, when everything in the football world says that it wouldn't be wise unless it was at the levels to compete with the top 4, which is unrealistic once again, you are just showing how utterly stupid you are. As well as making things up. What a sad case. Anyway, I'll try to leave you alone as I said I would, but sometimes you are just beyond any sort of help. Default post when you've got nothing to say there are plenty of others sharing my points without having to show your obsession with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now