Jump to content
IGNORED

The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)


Mr Popodopolous

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, JamesBCFC said:

Aren't they getting a chunk of money selling land for HS2?

 

16 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Couple of million isn’t it????

If they use the surveyor that valued Derby's ground they'd probably bring in £50m! :grr:

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Plus wow look at this...

http://www.thebusinessdesk.com/westmidlands/news/2021424-prominent-businessman-takes-top-hs2-role

Theoretical yes, but a potential Conflict of interest much?? Former Aston Villa chairman takes key role in HS2 in that region...they have issues with FFP, they require compensation for Bodymoor Heath- wonder if he will try to fast-track or inflate it..nah people wouldn't do such things. ?

The cavalry has arrived! FFS that would cause scenes 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Promotion denied would be the only fair solution of course.

The interesting thing about the Grealish sale of course is that just say they sell and backdate, stay down- that helps to alleviate the rolling period to this season, but then leaves them with an enormous hole...losing well I dread to think how much! Parachute payments gone albeit wages down- having to find a whole new set of profits on players just to stay compliant...straight- hard not soft- embargo and big deduction would surely be about right?

D1cXnRTX4AADq7N.jpg

This Swiss Ramble Graphic shows just how tight a spot!

It would mean they could lose only £4m next season in this scenario plus FFP allowable exclusions. Let's assume they backdate a Grealish sale of £25m. Means they lose £35m in 2 years and then the next year in FFP terms can only lose, £4m...meanwhile Parachute Payments fall by £17m. Factor out the Grealish sale too. Means they need to find £52m from somewhere just to comply for the 3 seasons to May 2020.

This is at the heart of why ffp was introduced in the first place.

My understanding is that one of the primary reasons for introducing ffp is to avoid the type of situation that affected Pompey when they dropped out of the premier league, i.e. expenses                ( particularly wages) well in excess of much reduced income. leading to insolvency.

If Villa's figures are as suggested, then it seems that since relegation they have effectively ignored financial expediency, choosing instead to go for broke to gain a quick return, on the basis that premier league riches will then bring the books back in order. The fact that they borrowed against their third year of parachute payments is a clear indication of the lengths they have gone to gain the maximum advantage over the rest of the division.

It's little different from a couple being in mortgage arrears, at the limit of their overdraft and maxed out credit cards, borrowing £20,000 from money lender to buy lottery tickets, in the hope that buying enough tickets will give them a jackpot that will solve their financial problems!

Forget for a moment the fact that clubs like this are taking the 9i55 out of all the other clubs ( like us) that are trying to manage prudently and within the ffp rules, they are risking the club's future because, was you say, failure to gain promotion could leave them with a black hope financially.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, downendcity said:

This is at the heart of why ffp was introduced in the first place.

My understanding is that one of the primary reasons for introducing ffp is to avoid the type of situation that affected Pompey when they dropped out of the premier league, i.e. expenses                ( particularly wages) well in excess of much reduced income. leading to insolvency.

If Villa's figures are as suggested, then it seems that since relegation they have effectively ignored financial expediency, choosing instead to go for broke to gain a quick return, on the basis that premier league riches will then bring the books back in order. The fact that they borrowed against their third year of parachute payments is a clear indication of the lengths they have gone to gain the maximum advantage over the rest of the division.

It's little different from a couple being in mortgage arrears, at the limit of their overdraft and maxed out credit cards, borrowing £20,000 from money lender to buy lottery tickets, in the hope that buying enough tickets will give them a jackpot that will solve their financial problems!

Forget for a moment the fact that clubs like this are taking the 9i55 out of all the other clubs ( like us) that are trying to manage prudently and within the ffp rules, they are risking the club's future because, was you say, failure to gain promotion could leave them with a black hope financially.

 

 

 

 

You couldn’t imagine how desperate I am for Villa to ****-up in the play-offs.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

You couldn’t imagine how desperate I am for Villa to ****-up in the play-offs.

If Villa's losses are as suggested, you couldn't imagine how desperate I am for the EFL to act now,  stop just talking the talk, get their fingers out of their collective arses and apply a points deduction to take them out of the play off positions.

This is not about being vindictive to a particular club, or that such action might benefit us, but because without hitting clubs hard ffp will be a farce and the EFL will effectively be condoning clubs cheating to gain an advantage over every other club.

A club in Villa's position being properly punished might just be the catalyst for ffp to do the job for which it was intended as other clubs will realise that it is not worth the risk.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apologies if already mentioned but apparently Derby made an offer to Boro to inspect their accounts but Gibson declined.

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/mel-morris-reveals-derby-countys-2796253

 

Also, a statement from the EFL following the meeting of the clubs (saying nothing obviously);

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/efl-derby-villa-sheff-wed-2796310

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, downendcity said:

If Villa's losses are as suggested, you couldn't imagine how desperate I am for the EFL to act now,  stop just talking the talk, get their fingers out of their collective arses and apply a points deduction to take them out of the play off positions.

This is not about being vindictive to a particular club, or that such action might benefit us, but because without hitting clubs hard ffp will be a farce and the EFL will effectively be condoning clubs cheating to gain an advantage over every other club.

A club in Villa's position being properly punished might just be the catalyst for ffp to do the job for which it was intended as other clubs will realise that it is not worth the risk.

Totally agree about not being vindictive.  The EFL brought in projected accounts to deal with exactly the scenario Villa are in - breaking the rules and going for promotion.  You could also argue that Birmingham's points deduction should’ve been last season.  Barnsley would’ve stayed up.  Or if they’d started 18/19 with 9 points deduction and been in relegation trouble at Xmas, might Adams have wanted to go then?  The EFL have had a real missed opportunity here.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, bcfc01 said:

Apologies if already mentioned but apparently Derby made an offer to Boro to inspect their accounts but Gibson declined.

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/mel-morris-reveals-derby-countys-2796253

 

Also, a statement from the EFL following the meeting of the clubs (saying nothing obviously);

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/efl-derby-villa-sheff-wed-2796310

Derby's Accountant has the books prepared, organised  and ready for inspection.

1339425295_dianeabbott.jpg.4fcc49be2c5822be5261cb0751cead32.jpg

Can't imagine why Gibson declined the offer!

 

Edited by downendcity
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, downendcity said:

This is at the heart of why ffp was introduced in the first place.

My understanding is that one of the primary reasons for introducing ffp is to avoid the type of situation that affected Pompey when they dropped out of the premier league, i.e. expenses                ( particularly wages) well in excess of much reduced income. leading to insolvency.

If Villa's figures are as suggested, then it seems that since relegation they have effectively ignored financial expediency, choosing instead to go for broke to gain a quick return, on the basis that premier league riches will then bring the books back in order. The fact that they borrowed against their third year of parachute payments is a clear indication of the lengths they have gone to gain the maximum advantage over the rest of the division.

It's little different from a couple being in mortgage arrears, at the limit of their overdraft and maxed out credit cards, borrowing £20,000 from money lender to buy lottery tickets, in the hope that buying enough tickets will give them a jackpot that will solve their financial problems!

Forget for a moment the fact that clubs like this are taking the 9i55 out of all the other clubs ( like us) that are trying to manage prudently and within the ffp rules, they are risking the club's future because, was you say, failure to gain promotion could leave them with a black hope financially.

 

 

 

 

They have a rich set of owners so the black hole- so long as the owners stay committed- will be for FFP IMO.

Bolton have the opposite issue...not enough cash to break FFP even if they wanted to, but a dodgy/skint- dodgily skint- owner in Ken Anderson.

In general though, agree with the post fully.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

They have a rich set of owners so the black hole- so long as the owners stay committed- will be for FFP IMO.

Bolton have the opposite issue...not enough cash to break FFP even if they wanted to, but a dodgy/skint- dodgily skint- owner in Ken Anderson.

In general though, agree with the post fully.

I thought Anderson had sold Bolton now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bristol Rob said:

I thought Anderson had sold Bolton now?

He has, was giving an example of a case where a side could be FFP compliant but wrecked financially or vice versa.

I'll rephrase that then- when Anderson ran Bolton, they were FFP fine but in trouble in real cash terms.

Aston Villa, Birmingham, Derby, Sheffield Wednesday amongst others- likely to be the opposite!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

He has, was giving an example of a case where a side could be FFP compliant but wrecked financially or vice versa.

I'll rephrase that then- when Anderson ran Bolton, they were FFP fine but in trouble in real cash terms.

Aston Villa, Birmingham, Derby, Sheffield Wednesday amongst others- likely to be the opposite!

Villa had cashflow issues at the start of this season, but now have FFP issues!

Edited by Davefevs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Villa had cashflow issues at the start of this season, but now have FFP issues!

Think that might be news to the EFL though Dave!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Villa had cashflow issues at the start of this season, but now have FFP issues!

That's true. Probably a better example.

I suppose my Bolton v Aston Villa example was to highlight that a club can have one but not the other- but Bolton's case was/is pretty unusual. FFP didn't save them, in fact it is highly likely that they didn't breach it in this cycle...

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Pabloavfc said:

You know we haven't actually failed FFP. Not sure what we have done that is so despicable and disgusting. 

If the ruled with projected accounts as submitted by the club were enforced correctly, you likely would have been out by £25m.  For the 3 years to THIS season.

That'd be a 12 point deduction, 3 points for aggravated breach and one off for admitting it probably.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hoping west brom go up out of the play offs as I really want to see big time Charlie's Leeds, villa and Derby fail with a couple of them being questionable over finances. I think Derby would be in trouble and villa will be without parachute so would seriously have to sell or would be in trouble I think. I just want Leeds to fail as they feel they have a right to promotion.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Pabloavfc said:

Then why haven't the EFL punished us? They happily gave birmingham a pts deduction.

Okay.

On a train so limited battery but to summarise.

EFL FFP regs have submitted accounts in order to enable in-season punishment.

Birmingham were punished for the 3 seasons to LAST season. The period covering 2015/16-2017/18.

The whole point of clubs submitting projected accounts in March is so they can be assessed live and in-season. By rights Birmingham should've been docked points LAST season with Burton or Barnsley staying up.

When it affects the top with financial stakes it is worse still. You surely are in breach. Sheffield Wednesday well it's highly likely they are and Derby may very well be though that's the hardest to unpick.

The reason I'm particularly angry is that we sold Flint, Bryan and Reid last summer..squad players in Magnússon and Djuric also departed helping with cost reduction.

We've done fine, absolutely but it's beside the point. Birmingham should've sold Adams, you should've sold Grealish already IMO or others to raise £20-25m in offsetting losses.  

Derby tbh have already sold quite a few but are right up to the limit. Sheffield Wednesday? Should surely have sold any of Bannan, Forestieri but especially Reach. Signing Onomah and Hector season long loan plus in January Lazaar, Aarons and on loan is that sticking to the regs?? Plus Iorfa permantly.

Middlesbrough sold Gibson, Traore, Bamford and loaned Braithwaite- though with Pulis in charge they wouldn't have got best out of them anyway.

The alternative to bringing it in line through sales should be hard embargoes and points deductions fairly quickly implemented.

Oh yeah. Also firmly believe our necessary restructing and cutbacks contributed to the slow start.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Pabloavfc said:

You seem more clued up on the regulations than I do. 

I would say that forcing a club to sell an academy product to meet FFP is going to be one of the reasons the rich clubs in the prem remain rich and have the advantage. 

Our CEO believes we will be compliant with the rules so until he gives me reason to distrust him I have faith that we are following the rules.

Wolves lost a reported £57m last year and £23m the year before with no consequences. The media would have us believe their progress is some kind of fairytale of course.

FFP is meaningless without proper controls and independent in-season enforcement. The problem is that the EFL is a trade association not a governing body.

If any club ever gets really severe sanctions it's a safe bet it will be some little league 2 club not one of the powerful Championship clubs.

Edited by chinapig
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Pabloavfc said:

You seem more clued up on the regulations than I do. 

I would say that forcing a club to sell an academy product to meet FFP is going to be one of the reasons the rich clubs in the prem remain rich and have the advantage. 

Our CEO believes we will be compliant with the rules so until he gives me reason to distrust him I have faith that we are following the rules.

Thanks- bit of a hobbyhorse of mine. ?

Purslow seems to have gone from confident of compliance to admitting it's a challenge... Bit of both IMO.

Different debate. For the record though. Reid and Bryan? Academy boys. 

So was Gibson at Middlesbrough. 

Taylor at Leeds and Vieira.

Believe Christie, Hendrick and Hughes at Derby all were.

Burke and Brereton at Nottingham Forest.

Murphy at Norwich.

Evading FFP? To me, it's cheating- pure and simple.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Pabloavfc said:

You seem more clued up on the regulations than I do. 

I would say that forcing a club to sell an academy product to meet FFP is going to be one of the reasons the rich clubs in the prem remain rich and have the advantage. 

Our CEO believes we will be compliant with the rules so until he gives me reason to distrust him I have faith that we are following the rules.

I agree to the extent that I have long suspected that one of the real purposes of FFP was to entrench the advantage of the richest clubs.

By the same token, though, do you object to the advantage given to clubs who get parachute payments, especially those who are still profligate despite having that advantage?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Pabloavfc said:

I think the parachute payments are an unfair advantage but then the loss in income once relegated is a huge thing. We had to sack a lot of staff and close a whole tier of a stand for most games. 

To be honest I think FFP is a mess at the moment. If they want real financial fairness then they need to adopt rules similar to American sports, with salary caps in place. 

I take your point, and it's always the non-football staff who take the hit. I don't suppose any of the club hierarchy lost much sleep over that. 

It didn't stop Bruce signing ever more expensive players then complaining he wasn't given enough to spend. How many staff could have been paid from the wages wasted on Bolasie and Hogan alone? Let alone Terry!

Absolutely agree on the American model though. It's ironic that the home of capitalism red in tooth and claw has better financial controls.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, chinapig said:

Wolves lost a reported £57m last year and £23m the year before with no consequences. The media would have us believe their progress is some kind of fairytale of course.

FFP is meaningless without proper controls and independent in-season enforcement. The problem is that the EFL is a trade association not a governing body.

If any club ever gets really severe sanctions it's a safe bet it will be some little league 2 club not one of the powerful Championship clubs.

Mad though it sounds, I believe Wolves complied- just.

You add profit onto allowable losses. Maybe £8m profit in 2015/16. Then a purported £20m in bonuses and fees due on promotion...if no promotion, nothing paid.

Then deductible costs- youth, infrastructure, depreciation and amortisation of non-footballing assets, Community. Say £4-5m per season.

For sure they would've needed some good sales had they lost in the playoffs..in Neves, Cavaleiro and Costa to name 3 though they were some good ones to sell. Could've turned a profit on Ruddy, Bennett and Douglas too if necessary.

No fairytale though, that's for sure. Mix of capitalising on 15/16 profit, utilising Mendes- and his manager with a La Liga and CL based CV- and by the looks of it moderate to big wages with large bonuses and yes gambling. Albeit with easily saleable assets as an insurance policy.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Mad though it sounds, I believe Wolves complied- just.

You add profit onto allowable losses. Maybe £8m profit in 2015/16. Then a purported £20m in bonuses and fees due on promotion...if no promotion, nothing paid.

Then deductible costs- youth, infrastructure, depreciation and amortisation of non-footballing assets, Community. Say £4-5m per season.

For sure they would've needed some good sales had they lost in the playoffs..in Neves, Cavaleiro and Costa to name 3 though they were some good ones to sell. Could've turned a profit on Ruddy and Douglas too if necessary.

I'm not at fait with the accounting niceties but the idea that pre-tax losses of £57m is somehow ok doesn't suggest financial responsibility to me.

If that is the case, with his expertise and resources I'm sure SL could manipulate our position accordingly. Except he is too honest and we are not a big enough club to get a free pass.

Not that I think football is a cesspit of dubious practices or anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, chinapig said:

I'm not at fait with the accounting niceties but the idea that pre-tax losses of £57m is somehow ok doesn't suggest financial responsibility to me.

If that is the case, with his expertise and resources I'm sure SL could manipulate our position accordingly. Except he is too honest and we are not a big enough club to get a free pass.

Not that I think football is a cesspit of dubious practices or anything.

I agree £57m losses is shocking.

I wasn't too clear- it wasn't that Wolves last season were financially responsible- they backloaded the losses.  

£80m-£39m. That's breaking the 3 year losses by £41m.

SUBTRACT £20m for promotion bonuses etc. That's an overspend of £21m. Because promotion bonuses don't count as expenditure under FFP. Rightly or wrongly?

SUBTRACT about £8m of their profit in Steve Morgan's final season. Mix of parachute payments and player sales. Overspend down to £13m.

Allowable costs. Think there's been good infrastructure investment, academy, depreciation etc. Think £4-5m per year for a typical Championship club not unreasonable. These don't count towards FFP expenditure as it's seen as 'good investment'.

Reckon their 3 year FFP losses were £37-39m. Maybe at a push, £40m.

Think SL could do a few things and all by the book at that. We can spend reasonably this summer IMO. Or be under no pressure to sell if we don't wish to, FFP wise.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously wouldn't do it myself but a friend subscribed to Off The Pitch for varying reasons. Sent me this article- has potential to interest a few.

Still maintain that there may have been a legal precedent for what Gibson was wanting- if taken to the CAS then precedent- well say Birmingham took it to CAS for getting punished when others may avoid, the CAS could compel the EFL potentially to provide Birmingham with the accounts of other sides who may have got away with it. Would take a club with a strong legal case that they had been treated differently to others- Birmingham v Derby, Sheffield Wednesday or Aston Villa could be it. Settled in CAS or other courts.

Quote

 

Bitter Championship battle over clubs breaking FFP goes on

 25 April 2019 3:59 PM

Aston Villa Photo: Getty Images  Aston Villa players celebrate a goal playing away against Sheffield Wednesday. Some Championship clubs think clubs like Aston Villa are continuing to break the financial fair play rules to get promoted.
 
  • Off The Pitch discovers that a renewed attempt by clubs angry at those potentially guilty of financial rule avoidance is taking place.
  • No resolution despite claims to the contrary after six hour meeting between EFL clubs at the City Ground on Wednesday.
MARTIN HARDY contact@offthepitch.com

 

The battle for more financial transparency amongst Championship clubs is still raging despite an EFL meeting at the City Ground yesterday.

It had been thought that moves led by Middlesbrough, with the backing of a significant number of clubs, had been overthrown after six hours of talks at the home of Nottingham Forest.

However Off The Pitch has learned that there was no meaningful vote and that those clubs fighting for a more open approach to finances and a tightening of the rules imposed by profitability and sustainability still believe they will be successful.

It is understood the English Football League have given private assurances that they have the capacity within their current rules to bring tighter control over the spending and accountancy of clubs in the second tier in England.

Pressing on

The majority of clubs are now said to have been appeased by this promises and are pressing on for greater clarity, rather than a rule change, and the matter has now been placed in the hands of legal teams to bring about more transparency.

“It is now a technical debate amongst the legal guys,” said a source.

A group of clubs, led by Middlesbrough, have become unhappy with the spending and financial actions of Derby County, Sheffield Wednesday and Aston Villa.

Under Financial Fair Play rules - or what is now termed the EFL’s profitability and sustainability - clubs who post a loss of more than £39 million over three years will face punishments and sanctions. These can be either a points reduction or restrictions in the transfer market.

Pressing for rule change

Those clubs fighting for greater clarity maintain that clubs are continuing to break the rules to get promoted, which lands a guaranteed minimum bounty of £171 million, because the risk of punishment is too small a deterrent.

Those clubs unhappy and pressing for rule change insist nothing was lost at the City Ground on Wednesday but have instead been privately assured that the rules within the EFL are adequate to bring about more scrutiny and the potential punishment they seek.

...are confident they will find corporate structures have been put in place to avoid punishment for breaking the EFL’s profitability and sustainability rules.

They were told they would not have to alter the rules to shine a brighter torch inside the accounts of their Championship rivals.

Off The Pitch understands that those clubs pushing for greater scrutiny and stricter control have used the current rules to get inside rivals’ books and are confident they will find corporate structures have been put in place to avoid punishment for breaking the EFL’s profitability and sustainability rules.

Yield of 5 per cent

One of the major areas of contention has been Derby’s ability to sell their stadium to the owner Mel Morris for £80 million, which allowed the club to post a pre-tax profit of £14.6million.

It has been said on a commercial deal that the yield is around five per cent but Derby are paying just £1 1/4 million-per-year to a private company owned by Morris following the sale.

Aston Villa, who are in the final season of their parachute payment following relegation from the Premier League in 2016, valued Villa Park at just £39 million in their accounts for 2016/17.

The three-year rolling period for what is effectively FFP means that next season their maximum loss for any of the three years is £13 million, rather than the £35 million allowed for a Premier League club.

Morris claimed yesterday that Middlesbrough had declined the opportunity to go through Derby’s books in March. "Middlesbrough were offered by us in writing to come with their advisors to go through our submissions for profitability and sustainability, they declined,” he said.

 

 

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

D5kGTVaWwAA3kgz.jpg

D5kGTVaX4AAdr9s.jpg

Saw this on @KieranMaguire Price of Football Twitter.

Two things. Firstly Sheffield Wednesday must be in a huge mess FFP wise- not solvency wise of course.

Secondly, it is possible they used that to buy time for some dodgy manoeuvre- the EFL have had 2 months to prepare and plan for it, I hope they are wise to it and will act accordingly.

If it were down to me, moves like Derby owner selling ground to himself and whatever Sheffield Wednesday may have planned? I would dock points for not only breaching the regs but the spirit too- now Derby may not have breached the regs themselves, but if it was viable they should be docked points for such a move. Sheffield Wednesday likely have breached it and if there is some dodgy manoeuvre, would aggravated breach cover it? I hope so!

In layman's terms they extended- as is their legal right I hasten to add- their accounting period by 2 months when it was due in February 2019. Accounts which were to May 31 2018 are now to July 31 2018.

Despite this, they still appear to be late - clubs and businesses have 9 months to submit accounts to Companies House after their reporting period ends. I assume they are in a fairly tight spot indeed.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As per Kieran Maguire, now officially overdue!

D58dRxbXoAAy18j.jpg

Fair's fair, been a number of bank holidays lately but given they extended it by 2 months I'd say they have little excuse personally...

Bolton's are also officially overdue but then they are a basketcase of a club, run into the ground by terrible ownership in recent times whose very future is in doubt so it's hardly surprising.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...