Jump to content

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be a part of One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums by signing in or creating an account.

  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Full access to all forums (not all viewable as guest)
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members.
  • Support OTIB with a premium membership

IGNORED

Villa's finances and FFP


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, BanburyRed said:

Tin pot Spurs? Christ alive. Take a look at yourself. Incredible delusion.

Tin pot fans - Which part of this are you struggling to comprehend?

Spurs are catchable in any case - Just because they punched above their weight for a few years doesn't mean they'll continue indefinitely. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, downendcity said:

I can only presume that the Brummie translation of "champions league finalists last season" is tin pot.

 

First time Ive seen  "Villa" and  "unfair to championship sides" in the same sentence. :) 

Me too - It's not like Championship sides were fair to us was it?

Cynical fouls, kicking lumps out of our creative players etc, etc.

It's not a case of being fair is it?  What can you do if the season isn't completed?  Would it be fair to Fulham (who are only 2 wins off 2nd) to promote the top 2?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Delta said:

Tin pot fans - Which part of this are you struggling to comprehend?

Spurs are catchable in any case - Just because they punched above their weight for a few years doesn't mean they'll continue indefinitely. 

No more struggling than you are with understanding your place in the football pyramid. And your self righteous manner. If Spurs fans are tin pot, lord only knows what you are. Delusions of grandeur.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Delta said:

Me too - It's not like Championship sides were fair to us was it?

Cynical fouls, kicking lumps out of our creative players etc, etc.

It's not a case of being fair is it?  What can you do if the season isn't completed?  Would it be fair to Fulham (who are only 2 wins off 2nd) to promote the top 2?

Don’t think you can really preach that to us after Hourihane’s dive last year.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, reddoh said:

is that like going to warp factor 9 ? 

 

5 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

It is indeed Mr Sulu.

I dannae if she can take any more Cap'n!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had a fresh look at their figures and the rolling 3 year FFP.

Now they're still compliant but in that Year 3 what the generally excellent Kieran Maguire posted, I wonder if he possibly made a small mistake. Most operating losses perhaps not separated out ie Before Exceptional Items. 

IMG_20200304_144552.jpg

This was what @phantom posted higher up the thread. Indeed, I recognise the info and the format from Kieran Maguire's Twitter.

How the accounts are laid out though. Based on that, for Year 3 I make it:

Quote

Turnover

£54.258m

Net Operating Expenses before player trading and exceptional items

£138.214m

Operating Loss before player trading and exceptional items

£83,956m

That is rounding on his part, ie £83.956m to £84m etc. 

In other words, you don't subtract the Cost of Promotion bit twice if as it appears, it has already been excluded. Accounted for.

Starting point is inclusive of Amortisation I believe but not profit on disposal etc.

In short, I consider it to be possible that he has double counted somewhere. Possibly on the cost of Promotion bit.

Long story short, their FFP loss for that season if my rough calculations right around £10m and their compliance was only around £3-4m above the limit. Maybe £5m at a push?

Formats do vary of course, in how accounts might be presented or laid out but I think it possible that the FFP loss- well I've done rough calculations and my interpretation is that it if it is Operating Loss Before these items then you either add these items on before taking them away again or you disregard them entirely and merely make it Operating Loss-FFP allowables-Profit on disposal-HS2-Profit on Villa Park=FFP loss.

Rough summary, Loss before ie without exceptional items once profit on disposal of players, Villa Park, HS2 included is £23m, minus allowable costs £13m=FFP loss £10m.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also ask the question. and @Coppello , @Drew Peacock and @martnewts doubtless will know better here than me, but the HS2 income.

This is classed as "Exceptional Operating Income". My basic problem with that is, how can it be exceptional if it appears to be recurring, or at least in successive years? Should the EFL not have queried this aspect?

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, martnewts said:

@Mr PopodopolousIf it is recurring then it is by its nature not exceptional it is surely just a new source of income.

Thanks for the response- maybe that £3m widely mooted as HS2 wasn't in fact about HS2, it's pretty opaque as to what it/is was about.

In which case the tranche of HS2 last season...my problem with it I guess is that if stated as exceptional, it cannot be for the same item, is that the word, in successive years- surprised if FFP is silent on this but who knows.

Possible I've misread or misinterpreted something- but both years it seemed to be classified as "Income from compensation deed related to freehold land".

What I found interesting however was that it was classified as this, by which I mean Other Income in the Aston Villa Limited accounts but the NSWE UK ones, certainly in 2019, classified it as "Exceptional Operating Income".

In fact, in the NSWE UK ones of 2018, it was merely classed as "Other Income"- at least in the first page analysis.

I think the EFL have to ask some questions here, as and when they return- some searching ones at that. 

I've gone off on a bit of a tangent, but the crux of my challenge of these accounts in this respect is whether the HS2 revenue should be classed as Relevant Income given it appears in successive years when it's been classed as Exceptional Operating Income in the group accounts- Exceptional twice?

I'd have thought the EFL would be duty bound to investigate Aston Villa, not least because Derby and Sheffield Wednesday were initially fine but now pulled in for Investigation, Birmingham were charged, punished. Charged again, Independent panel throw out this second charge (a relatively minor charge at that) yet the EFL appeal the verdict!

Surely Aston Villa can't be simply waved through, no questions asked in the 3 years to May 2019 in that context by the EFL when they return- I'd be right behind Birmingham, Derby and Sheffield Wednesday taking action if so- can't have one rule for one...

Plus all of the other clubs as well, who have complied or tried to.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to post
Share on other sites

One more interesting note from last year- an article and tbh Matt Hughes is good, trust him- even if he works for the Daily Mail, he was at the Times last year.

Quote

Aston Villa are understood to be considering selling Villa Park if they fail to win promotion to the Premier League in this month’s play-off final.

Quote

Villa raised £4 million through the sale of a car park close to Villa Park last year and will look at selling the entire stadium as an option to raise funds if they are in breach of the EFL’s spending limits this summer. 

This was written in mid May, during the playoffs.

As it turned out, they sold it anyway but what I am intrigued by is whether it was in their Projected Accounts in March- if it wasn't, regardless of what Delta may have said, I still think there is scope for a little chat about this issue too, now that the EFL has someone who would like to enforce things in charge...

Link to post
Share on other sites

ONE more note.

Was reading the Bury report and an interesting snippet here- potentially relevant to Aston Villa as they changed owners in summer 2018.

They became Persons with Significant Control in summer 2018, Edens and Sawiris.

This bit is quite interesting- I am assuming it applied to Championship as much as the divisions below of course.

Quote

7.6 As noted above, where a change in control of a Club is proposed, EFL Regulation 16 requires the Club to file 'up to date Future Financial Information', meaning projected profit and loss accounts, cash flow, balance sheets and relevant explanatory notes commencing from its accounting reference date and expiring on the next accounting reference date after the end of the following season that 'take into account the consequences of the change of Control on the Club's future financial position'. 

 THE BURY FC REVIEW 21

Such Future Financial Information must be provided 'as far in advance of the change of Control as reasonably possible or, if such submission is not reasonably practicable prior to the change of Control, no later than 10 Normal Working Days thereafter'. This means that a new owner can acquire ownership of a Club before he or she has satisfied the Future Financial Information requirement. The EFL cannot hold up the takeover pending satisfaction of that requirement.

That's quite detailed tbh. Detailed enough anyway. Not suggesting their owners are improper, or new Xia, no this isn't my angle.

My question would be, DID the EFL apply this with Aston Villa and if so, was the idea of selling the stadium on the table in Summer 2018? If not, that's another angle for the EFL to explore- how late did the idea come about, how did the FFI and Projected Accounts compare- etc?

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to post
Share on other sites

My post about Appendix F, higher up the thread.

This could- might- anyway, be more relevant for the Profitability and Sustainability as opposed to the FFP before the 3 year rolling period. Or maybe some carries over.

Quote

 

1.1.11 Secure Funding means funds which have been or will be made available to the Club in an amount equal to or in excess of any Cash Losses which the Club has made in respect of the period from T-2 or is forecast to make up to the end of T+2. Secure Funding may not be a loan and shall consist of:

(a) contributions that an equity participant has made by way of payments for shares through the Club’s share capital account or share premium reserve account; or

(b) an irrevocable commitment by an equity participant to make future payments for shares through the Club’s share capital account or share premium reserve account. This irrevocable commitment shall be evidenced by a legally binding agreement between the Club and the equity participant and may if the Executive so requires be secured by one of the following:

(i) a personal guarantee from the ultimate beneficial owner of the Club, provided that the Executive is satisfied that

1) he is of sufficient standing; and

2) the terms of the guarantee are satisfactory;

(ii) a guarantee from the Club’s Parent Undertaking or another company in the Club’s Group, provided that the Executive is satisfied that

1) the guaranteeing company is of sufficient standing; and

2) the terms of the guarantee are satisfactory;

(iii) a letter of credit from a Financial Institution of sufficient standing and an undertaking from the Club’s directors to The League to call on the letter of credit in default of the payments from the equity participant being made;

(iv) payments into an escrow account, to be paid to the Club on terms satisfactory to the Executive; or

(v) such other form of security as the Executive considers satisfactory; or

(c) such other form of secure funding as the Executive considers satisfactory.

 

Seems a bit sketchy to me, given that Villa Park was paid for in the form of Other Loans Receivable.

They stuck in a shitload of equity tbh BUT the stadium sale payment method, I have a significant issue with- from an FFP standpoint if nothing else.

A reminder of Appendix F- and as stated before, not always clear where some rules are now obsolete but some might carry over and some have a combination of old and new.

Quote

 

APPENDIX F - Contributions from Equity Participants / Related Party(ies)

1 Introduction

1.1 This Appendix sets out further details as to what will (or will not) be regarded as a Contribution from an Equity Participant and / or Related Party.

2 Contributions

2.1 Contributions from Equity Participants are to be classified in accordance with FRS 25 or equivalent International Accounting Standard. The classification of a financial instrument between liabilities and equity is based on the substance of the contractual arrangement. (FRS 25 Para 15).

2.2 Contributions from a Related Party include:

2.2.1 capital contributions being a contribution by a Related Party that is an unconditional gift made to the Championship Club by a Related Party which increases the Championship Club’s equity without any obligation for repayment or to do anything in consideration for receiving them. This is an increase in equity and typically, such amounts are recorded in a separate reserve, often known as the ‘capital reserve’. For example, a permanent and unconditional waiver of inter-company or Related Party debt must be treated as a capital contribution, as it results in an increase in equity; and / or

2.2.2 the difference between the actual income / expenditure in a Reporting Period and the fair value of the transaction(s) in a Reporting Period (as determined in accordance with Appendix A) actually received / saved during the Reporting Period.

2.3 The following types of transaction are not Contributions from Equity Participants and / or Related Party(ies):

2.3.1 positive movement in net assets / liabilities arising from a revaluation;

2.3.2 creation, or increase in the balance, of other reserves where there is no contribution from equity participants;

2.3.3 a transaction whereby the Championship Club has a liability in that the entity has a present obligation to act or perform in a certain way;

2.3.4 contributions from owners in respect of instruments classified as liabilities; and

2.3.5 the write off of any historical interest accrued on debts due to or from Equity Participants and / or Related Party(ies) or members of the Group of the Championship Club.

2.4 The onus is on the Championship Club to demonstrate the substance of the transaction, which must have been completed in all respects and without any condition attached. An intention or commitment from owners to make a contribution is not sufficient for such a contribution to be taken into consideration.

2.5 For the avoidance of doubt to the extent that Contributions from Equity Participants and / or Related Party(ies) made after the end of the Reporting Period but prior to 1 December immediately following the end of that Reporting Period are utilised in accordance with Rule 4.5 in respect of the earlier Reporting Period they cannot also be utilised again during the subsequent Reporting Period notwithstanding the fact that the relevant transaction was completed during that subsequent Reporting Period.

 

Well not quite an obligation off the back of a liability but it was a stadium sold, or 'sold' in exchange for loans- so that's an obligation of sorts?

Even if a load of equity has been stuck in though- surely the equity limits for FFP purposes pose fresh questions over the sale and leaseback arrangement?

There was meant to be something about debt and equity instruments for FFP but cannot necessarily find it on the EFL site- a google search suggests there is/should be though.

IF this bit still holds, then it's still up for debate:

Quote

 

4.2 Examples of Related Party Transactions that must always be excluded from income are:

4.2.1 monies received by a Championship Club from a Related Party as a donation; and

4.2.2 settlement of liabilities on behalf of the Championship Club by a Related Party.

4.3 In effect, contributions from / savings in relation to a Related Party will be treated as Contributions from Equity Participants / Related Party(ies) as further described in Appendix F.

 

Not a case to treat the Villa Park sale and leaseback as contributions from Equity Participants / Related Party (ies), included within the equity limits.

Ie as part of the overall pot, as opposed to an additional one.

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

To finish off my Assessment from the other day, I therefore make it:

(Slightly confusing as amortisation is surely included so I guess it means Profit on disposal)

Quote

Operating Loss Before player trading and exceptional items:

£83,956M

MINUS 

Profit on Disposal of Player Registrations

£10,598M

PLUS

Exceptional items- promotion liability

(£30M)

PLUS

Exceptional items- promotion related payments

(£15,808M)

MINUS

Profit on disposal fixed assets (Villa Park)

£36,374M

MINUS

Exceptional Operating Income (HS2)

£14,494M

Total Net Operating Expenses

(£122,596M)

Operating Loss

(£68,298M)

ADD

Interest receivable and similar income

£55k

SUBTRACT

Interest payable and similar expenses

(£641K)

Loss before taxation

(£68,884M)

Loss for the financial year

(£68,884M)

My reading of this therefore is that was the Operating Loss BEFORE those exceptional Items. Profit on disposal of players, HS2 and sale of Villa Park offset but then you add back in the exceptional costs- you add them back in before excluding them again.

£23.076M their loss therefore IMO, excluding the exceptional items- then you lop off about £13-14m of allowable costs, and that is an FFP loss of £9-10m.

Of course, I have significant questions about a) The stadium sale b) The method pf payment and how it links to equity and c) Whether the 2nd tranche of HS2 should count towards this given the first lot was classed as "Exceptional Operating Income. There seems to be a significant consensus that the £3m in 2017/18 was HS2 revenue- and if it is recurring, how can it be for FFP at least, classed as Exceptional Operating Income?

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14/03/2020 at 12:34, Delta said:

Me too - It's not like Championship sides were fair to us was it?

Cynical fouls, kicking lumps out of our creative players etc, etc.

It's not a case of being fair is it?  What can you do if the season isn't completed?  Would it be fair to Fulham (who are only 2 wins off 2nd) to promote the top 2?

On the rare occasions a gust of wind hadnt blown them over I suppose.

Then again if we're going to be as hyperbolic as you, Terry got away with playing rugby during the games against us, not just his tackles but also with how often he was catching it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03/05/2020 at 13:44, havanatopia said:

Short version: Villa in the deep crapper if they get relegated. 

Covid19 notwithstanding, and let's disregard that for a minute as this all predated it.

I would hope so- at the very least I would hope for a serious investigation when they return, just hold that 3 year period until they return- hold it over.

If waved through, the EFL would be opening themselves up to the risk of many lawsuits IMO. Firstly from clubs who have complied and secondly from clubs who were cleared but then pulled back in for investigation- see Derby and Sheffield Wednesday, arguably Birmingham too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's tenuous and let's be fair it's Martin Samuel but an exert from one of his articles...

Quote

Think about relegation in the current climate. Where are football’s displaced being relegated to? What will the Championship look like when the new season starts? Will its clubs have voted for radical regulatory measures — the maximum wage, or a salary cap perhaps? Will the Football League still be looking to get their claws into Aston Villa, furious that they avoided further financial investigation by winning promotion last season? Do the elite even care about this? Of course not.

He makes an interesting point about relegation being a significant issue in the current climate though I totally disagree with him if 38 games are played then we must have 3 up, 3 down.

The bit in bold. I struggle to see how not given:

  • a) There were stories last May about Championship clubs being concerned that Aston Villa would avoid a points deduction imposed by the PL, stories that resurfaced periodically.
  • b) Birmingham got done under FFP.
  • c) Sheffield Wednesday got charged despite being fine for that period up to and including the 2018/19 season.
  • d) D for Derby- they did as well.
  • e) The EFL charged Birmingham for breaching a business plan and were pushing on a fairly minor charge.That some resports indicated only 3 points deducted, from a midtable side- seems fairly pointless tbh.
  • f) The EFL lost at this hearing...but proceeded to appeal it!
  • g) Let's not forget too, stories last May or late last May that Aston Villa were under a soft embargo.

So I'm struggling to see how the EFL- not just may not choose to investigate seriously Aston Villa's 3 years to May 2019, but how they can get out of it!

The wording of the Aston Villa statement in late February...

...I cannot help but notice a subtle difference.

Quote

After promotion, The Premier League reviewed and confirmed compliance in accordance with their own policies and procedures.

This one sounds like they got the go ahead...the green light.

...Whereas.

Quote

Aston Villa can confirm that in the 3-year period ending May 31, 2019, the Club complied with the EFL’s Profitability & Sustainability Rules

That's pretty loose and woolly by comparison.

One states that there was confirmation and review by the PL.

The other? The club confirming that they were indeed fine with the EFL rules, is this the club's interpretation/belief that confirmation has been reached? Certainly no indication of review or confirmation by the EFL.

A hell of a lot less bullish in fact, than Derby's a week or so after the EFL independent valuations news came out (shouldn't probably have come out at that time mind you, but football seems a pretty leaky industry).

Quote

Derby County Football Club has adhered to the EFL’s Profit and Sustainability Rules with respect to the sale of its stadium.

ClubStatementBanner.jpg

The stadium was subject to an independent professional valuation before sale, nearly 18 months ago, and the EFL indicated in writing that the arrangement was in accordance with its rules and regulations.

The EFL cannot now, long after approving the arrangements, suggest Derby County breached the rules.

The Club regrets that Middlesbrough Football Club have said they are suing the EFL over the matter, but that is a matter for them. Derby County offered to show Middlesbrough its financial records but they declined the invitation and appear to have decided to bring a claim against the EFL instead.

The outcome of that action could not now affect Derby County, which has already had its financial returns for the relevant season approved by the EFL, and the Club is solely focussed on the current season.

The Club will not be making any further comment at this time.

Look at the confidence! The bullishness! Here, above!

Quote

The stadium was subject to an independent professional valuation before sale, nearly 18 months ago, and the EFL indicated in writing that the arrangement was in accordance with its rules and regulations.

First bolded and underlined bit- claim of confirmation IN WRITING by the EFL that they could do it. In writing!

Quote

The EFL cannot now, long after approving the arrangements, suggest Derby County breached the rules.

Second bolded and underlined line section- note that they were declaring that the EFL could not, this challenging their very authority. To even suggest that there was a breach was not allowed.

Quote

The outcome of that action could not now affect Derby County, which has already had its financial returns for the relevant season approved by the EFL

In Paragraph 4, that is very bold. "Cannot affect us", "already had financial returns approved".

Untouchable right?

That's far bolder than Aston Villa...yet what happened in mid Jan, about 4 months later? BOOM! CHARGED!

My own view is that, as I've intimated before, Shaun Harvey was possibly happy for these sorts of arrangements to keep the show on the road, his comm,ents in July and August 2018 are instructive.

He had not a lot of an issue with it, but the FFP and the spirit of the FFP regulations has a very different stance.

People might think 'What about Birmingham?' I'd suggest that he was probably stunned and furious by their stupidity in signing Pedersen while under a soft embargo and bang went the goodwill and any mutual help, getting sides back to balance before June 30th 2018. Despite their breach, I'm still not wholly sold on the idea that Birmingham would've been charged as they were, but certainly not put under an EFL Business Plan, restrictions in the market, had the EFL pushing for 12 (some reports even said 15) points off without it.

Could be wrong of course but the EFL must have been spitting feathers when they seemed to disregard the soft embargo during vital time trying to get back to some sort of balance ie within FFP limits by end of June!

Back to Aston Villa.

It's the longest of long shots but IF they were under a soft embargo in May 2019, how much trouble in theory might they be in for spending £100m or whatever it was when under one albeit in a different League, when Birmingham got hammered for a £2m LB!

Would be intrigued to know if they signed anyone when under these restrictions...

A good piece from last season, by Al Majir.

https://almajir.net/2019/02/11/efl-the-whys-of-ps/

Another good piece.

https://almajir.net/2018/05/18/ffp-clubs-in-breach/

By the way, I feel this has changed now or a sea change with Parry and post Bury so it may not be fully in date- plus of course the risk of Middlesbrough taking legal action!

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

Some Aston Villa fans, VillaTalk granted- well gotta laugh, **** me...

Quote

Blame the PL for their generous parachute payments. Blame the EFL for their terrible business model which favours wage bubbles. Most clubs would have done the same in that situation, and we never breached FFP. We are certainly no Bournemouth. The squad rebuild was a practical solution, otherwise we'd have fewer than 15 squad players for the Premier League.

The Championship is full of clubs bloated on excess wages, look at the likes of Bristol City and Sheffield Wednesday. Look at Derby County and their disgusting tactics to circumvent FFP. There are villians in the Championship, I would not have counted ourselves. Was money wasted? Certainly, but it preciptated the spending in the summer.

@Davefevs @Vincent Vega

What a laugh...

How the **** are we anywhere near that category?

Delusional? Words almost fail me with this post- and we're somehow in the same boat as a few dodgy or badly run clubs yet Aston Villa are fine and dandy...

Funny thing is they could've picked any number of existing clubs close to it...Reading, Stoke possibly (Coates family good owners overall over the years though), Blackburn...to name 3- yet us, our great selling model- ha!

Blame- blame- blame, PL, EFL- yet no responsibility for themselves, staggering!

Not saying there isn't the odd valid point in there but...

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Some Aston Villa fans, VillaTalk granted- well gotta laugh, **** me...

@Davefevs @Vincent Vega

How the **** are we anywhere near that category?

Delusional? Words almost fail me with this post- and we're somehow in the same boat as a few dodgy or badly run clubs yet Aston Villa are fine and dandy...

Blame- blame, PL, EFL- yet no responsibility for themselves, staggering!

Obviously lockdown has brought on some kind of mental breakdown. Living in Birmingham can't have helped either.

  • Flames 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at their accounts, there's one small item I don't get.

It states cost of promotion as £15.808m or thereabouts.

However, included within the wages is £11,654,795 in promotion related payments.

Basically, is it the case that both are excluded or is it the case that included within the £15.808m was the £11,654,795 in bonuses- with the rest other promotion related costs?

This could help explain the difference between Kieran Maguire and Swiss Ramble's interpretation.

My assumption is but would have to read further, that the £15,808M is that in total and the £11,654,795 is the wage bill section of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/05/2020 at 16:25, Mr Popodopolous said:

Some Aston Villa fans, VillaTalk granted- well gotta laugh, **** me...

@Davefevs @Vincent Vega

What a laugh...

How the **** are we anywhere near that category?

Delusional? Words almost fail me with this post- and we're somehow in the same boat as a few dodgy or badly run clubs yet Aston Villa are fine and dandy...

Funny thing is they could've picked any number of existing clubs close to it...Reading, Stoke possibly (Coates family good owners overall over the years though), Blackburn...to name 3- yet us, our great selling model- ha!

Blame- blame- blame, PL, EFL- yet no responsibility for themselves, staggering!

Not saying there isn't the odd valid point in there but...

Even I don't agree with that assessment.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • phantom changed the title to Villa's finances and FFP

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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...