Jump to content
IGNORED

A Saudi Arabian takeover of Newcastle United is close to being agreed.


Jerseybean
 Share

Recommended Posts

I really don't get Newcastle, their so called special support or big club mentality.

A less successful Ipswich Town without Mark Ashton, and delusions of grandeur wrapped up in a desperate part of the UK, labouring under a 'special' status that is about as special as Liz Truss is in negotiations with the United States.

For all the faults Mike Ashley presents, he ran the financial side of Newcastle well.

I hope they do an Arsenal. Spend years campaigning to get rid of something that saw you being reasonably competitive only to find themselves ever so marginally worse off.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

In which case, I likely know very little. What were the problems with Ashley?

Shouldn't be hard to find with very little investigating.

Start with his treatment of guiteirez (may have to check spelling) when he had cancer

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, grifty said:

Why would a country/state want to own a football club anyway? Let alone one 4000 miles away.

There’s a huge amount of soft power in owning a football club, it’s a huge legitimiser as well. The same applies to for example hosting formula 1 races. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Wanderingred said:

You can’t be serious surely? We all know about China’s human rights issues regarding freedom of speech and the Uighur people and I’m certainly not brushing it under the carpet but Shariah Law is utterly barbaric. This is a country where raped women are public ally stoned to death for adultery, homosexuals and petty thieves have body parts amputated and religious police patrol the streets, forcing people into mosques during prayer time and dishing out corporal punishment to any violators of their laws. 

I’d put all gulf countries far ahead of China in terms of human rights abuses. Here, the majority of people are at least able to live a relatively normal life. In Saudi, shariah law dictates every aspect of their life and stepping out of line has brutal repercussions.

Well for a start, I imagine that numerically the Uighur abuses outweigh any abuses of people in Saudi Arabia. Then we have the joys of the Cultural Revolution, the annexation of Tibet, the crushing of Hong Kong. It all depends how far back you go and how much you value the switch from real communism to the weird state controlled capitalism they have moved to. It’s a vastly bigger place of course, so you can argue numerically or otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't want Saudi's owning city for all the money and trophies in the world.  Not jealous of Newcastle in the slightest and hope to see it all come tumbling down.  Seeing their deluded fans eating a bit of humble pie would be nice too. 

Edited by cityloyal473
  • Robin 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 2015 said:

The funny thing is Mike Ashley actually did a good job as their owner and they can't even see it

I think that depends on what you define as a "good job". If you mean making sure they remain solvent, then yes he did that. If you consider every other element then he did poorly. 

His treatment of club legends was disgusting (Shearer, Keegan etc). His treatment of players was despicable. His hiring of executive staff make Mark Ashton look like a footballing genius, and we won't mention Dennis Wise/Joe Kinnear or renaming the stadium after his own retail interest.

I was a Newcastle season ticket holder growing up and worked at the stadium as a teen, but the man genuinely made me fall out of love with football. It was only when I moved down to the south west and started going to City (my boys wanted to go to a match and I didn't want them supporting one of the Manchester/London teams) that I started getting the love back. 

  • Like 3
  • Robin 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, petehinton said:

All my in laws and subsequent family are geordie and it goes far, far, far deeper than just on the pitch stuff. Outside of two relegations, Turned the club shop into a Sports Direct, stadium name change, tried to have the Bobby Robson statue moved, pushed for Shearer’s bar to be renamed ‘number 9 bar’ as he didn’t want anything pre his ownership to be near the club. Raised Ticket prices to some of the most expensive in the league in a pretty deprived area. 
 

People may underestimate how big this is for the league actually. They could genuinely go on to be the next Man City now, without needing to plough money into an academy/training, one club city etc

You sound like a true Geordie.

So fans were only too glad to take & spend sponsorship money from Sports Direct but object to then having to use its name? Just how do they think such things work?

The removal of Robson's statue was a fan promoted, urban myth, though I think police had raised safety objections re it's location given its focus for fan demonstrations spilling out onto the adjacent carriageways.

It may come as a surprise to many but Ashley doesn't spend his days managing the club, he handsomely pays a chief executive to do that. It took but 6 years after Ashley's acquisition for Shearer's name to be dropped from the bar and the reason for so doing was simply nobody went there. It had become dilapidated & was dying on its arse,  hence as with such 'fad' premises it was wholly refurbished and rebranded to attract a different clientelle, not just the Saturday football crowd. Shearer (doubtless aided by an envelope of cash,) was so upset he's plastered all over the reopening with comments about how great a venue it is and how the new name better reflects Newcastle's heritage.

Recall Ashley so wanted to distance himself from the previous regime he, er,  appointed Shearer as interim manager, with disastrous consequence. Hero to Zero faster than their crowds fall when on a losing streak.

As for ticket prices. This season they've the 13th cheapest ticket in The Premier, they're 14th on average weighting and 8th most expensive (but that's for their Platinum Club.) The bulk of their tickets aren't that dissimilar from what we pay at AG.

So like a Monty Python sketch all that's left to ask is 'What Did Mike Ashley Ever Do For Newcastle?' 

Kept them afloat, that's what.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This deal sums the EPL up perfectly. Endorsing players taking the knee for equality for everyone, rainbow laces, kick it out campaigns, badges etc etc. But as soon as a bit (a lot) of cash comes along they just bend over just happily let in the Saudi mob - who are a state against everything that the EPL apparently stand for. Shows them up for what they are, a virtue signalling bunch of ***** who obviously don't believe a single word of what they actually say to others.

Is it a surprise, not really. We have the World Cup being held in Qatar ffs, but that's all good as well, especially when money and brown envelopes comes into the equation.  

  • Like 5
  • Flames 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 07/10/2021 at 09:10, BetterRedThanBlue said:

Whilst I'm happy for their fans getting rid of Ashley who feels like he ripped the soul out of the club I'm always on the fence with capital from Saudi Arabia with their human rights issues.

Yes because Russian oligarchs are squeaky clean aren't they. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 07/10/2021 at 09:10, BetterRedThanBlue said:

Whilst I'm happy for their fans getting rid of Ashley who feels like he ripped the soul out of the club I'm always on the fence with capital from Saudi Arabia with their human rights issues.

I think you better look into what day to day things Saudi invest in before beating Newcastle with the morality stick.

It’s sad to see this level of investment ruin our game, but you’d struggle to get by without using something linked with the Saudi PIF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

You sound like a true Geordie.

So fans were only too glad to take & spend sponsorship money from Sports Direct but object to then having to use its name? Just how do they think such things work?

The removal of Robson's statue was a fan promoted, urban myth, though I think police had raised safety objections re it's location given its focus for fan demonstrations spilling out onto the adjacent carriageways.

It may come as a surprise to many but Ashley doesn't spend his days managing the club, he handsomely pays a chief executive to do that. It took but 6 years after Ashley's acquisition for Shearer's name to be dropped from the bar and the reason for so doing was simply nobody went there. It had become dilapidated & was dying on its arse,  hence as with such 'fad' premises it was wholly refurbished and rebranded to attract a different clientelle, not just the Saturday football crowd. Shearer (doubtless aided by an envelope of cash,) was so upset he's plastered all over the reopening with comments about how great a venue it is and how the new name better reflects Newcastle's heritage.

Recall Ashley so wanted to distance himself from the previous regime he, er,  appointed Shearer as interim manager, with disastrous consequence. Hero to Zero faster than their crowds fall when on a losing streak.

As for ticket prices. This season they've the 13th cheapest ticket in The Premier, they're 14th on average weighting and 8th most expensive (but that's for their Platinum Club.) The bulk of their tickets aren't that dissimilar from what we pay at AG.

So like a Monty Python sketch all that's left to ask is 'What Did Mike Ashley Ever Do For Newcastle?' 

Kept them afloat, that's what.

 

You can take sponsorship money without renaming the ground - especially when the owner owns the company too. We still play at Ashton Gate not the Lansdown Arena. Just a thought on that, don’t know enough about the rest to comment 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, TonyTonyTony said:

Agreed. Cannot stand Newcastle. Lopsided stadium with delusions of grandeur. Could well go down this season, which would not go down well in Riyadh. 

I actually found Villa fans to be many times more unbearable. 

Found the Geordies to be much more realist and down to earth while they were down here.

Think the majority are just relieved to be rid of Ashley. Who never really had any plans for the club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Fuber said:

Think the majority are just relieved to be rid of Ashley. Who never really had any plans for the club.

I know Ashley comes off as a knob, but he kept Newcastle stable. When Newcastle fans moan about him, what they are really saying is he didnt spend his personal fortune on the club. Its the same argument you get on here from some about our own SL. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

You sound like a true Geordie.

So fans were only too glad to take & spend sponsorship money from Sports Direct but object to then having to use its name? Just how do they think such things work?

The removal of Robson's statue was a fan promoted, urban myth, though I think police had raised safety objections re it's location given its focus for fan demonstrations spilling out onto the adjacent carriageways.

It may come as a surprise to many but Ashley doesn't spend his days managing the club, he handsomely pays a chief executive to do that. It took but 6 years after Ashley's acquisition for Shearer's name to be dropped from the bar and the reason for so doing was simply nobody went there. It had become dilapidated & was dying on its arse,  hence as with such 'fad' premises it was wholly refurbished and rebranded to attract a different clientelle, not just the Saturday football crowd. Shearer (doubtless aided by an envelope of cash,) was so upset he's plastered all over the reopening with comments about how great a venue it is and how the new name better reflects Newcastle's heritage.

Recall Ashley so wanted to distance himself from the previous regime he, er,  appointed Shearer as interim manager, with disastrous consequence. Hero to Zero faster than their crowds fall when on a losing streak.

As for ticket prices. This season they've the 13th cheapest ticket in The Premier, they're 14th on average weighting and 8th most expensive (but that's for their Platinum Club.) The bulk of their tickets aren't that dissimilar from what we pay at AG.

So like a Monty Python sketch all that's left to ask is 'What Did Mike Ashley Ever Do For Newcastle?' 

Kept them afloat, that's what.

 

What sponsorship money? Sports Direct didn't pay anything (up to 2018 at least and I doubt during COVID that would change) for the advertising. There was a promise made in 2018 that eventually Sports Direct would start paying £2m per season.. but that promise was also made in 2015.

EDIT: I see in 2019 they did pay £1m for sponsorship.. not bad for 12 years of advertising.

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

2 minutes ago, TonyTonyTony said:

I know Ashley comes off as a knob, but he kept Newcastle stable. When Newcastle fans moan about him, what they are really saying is he didnt spend his personal fortune on the club. Its the same argument you get on here from some about our own SL. 

They made profits in 8 of the past 11 seasons, the latter most loss due to COVID.

I'd argue if a club is looking to progress, there should be an overall net spend in roughly half season over said time period. Ashley has simply pocketed the profits in the same manner Glazers rack up Man Utd as a debt pinata.

Add to that in 2015 and 2019 Newcastle had the 19th highest revenue of any club listed in Deloittes Rich List (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.skysports.com/amp/football/news/11678/11615548/newcastle-rank-19th-in-deloitte-money-league)

Much more Money could've been spent to at least give them a competitive spine that could see them easily into the top half.

Their fans aren't asking Ashley to spend personal fortune but just to reinvest profits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, MarcusX said:

You can take sponsorship money without renaming the ground - especially when the owner owns the company too. We still play at Ashton Gate not the Lansdown Arena. Just a thought on that, don’t know enough about the rest to comment 

We aren't 'sponsored' by Lansdown, but were he to seek sponsorship the way contract law works it there has to be a 'consideration', you can't pay for 'nothing' in return. Doesn't necessarily have to be the renaming of the stadium, which is pretty meaningless anyway as folks will call it what they like, rather the point I highlighted is it's duplicitous for fans to crave and spend sponsorship monies then bemoan the quid pro quo.

"We are all prostitutes and we all have our price", as so aptly The Pop Group pointed out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, TonyTonyTony said:

I know Ashley comes off as a knob, but he kept Newcastle stable. When Newcastle fans moan about him, what they are really saying is he didnt spend his personal fortune on the club. Its the same argument you get on here from some about our own SL. 

It has absolutley no comparison to lansdown and his detractors (me included), to say so shows a lack of understanding.

St James park is literally falling apart due to lack of investment, unlike Ashton gate.

Their training facilities are pathetic and outdated, unlike lansdowns!

Just two examples, there's loads more

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Buckeyed said:

What sponsorship money? Sports Direct didn't pay anything (up to 2018 at least and I doubt during COVID that would change) for the advertising. There was a promise made in 2018 that eventually Sports Direct would start paying £2m per season.. but that promise was also made in 2015.

EDIT: I see in 2019 they did pay £1m for sponsorship.. not bad for 12 years of advertising.

 

40 minutes ago, Fuber said:

They made profits in 8 of the past 11 seasons, the latter most loss due to COVID.

I'd argue if a club is looking to progress, there should be an overall net spend in roughly half season over said time period. Ashley has simply pocketed the profits in the same manner Glazers rack up Man Utd as a debt pinata.

Add to that in 2015 and 2019 Newcastle had the 19th highest revenue of any club listed in Deloittes Rich List (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.skysports.com/amp/football/news/11678/11615548/newcastle-rank-19th-in-deloitte-money-league)

Much more Money could've been spent to at least give them a competitive spine that could see them easily into the top half.

Their fans aren't asking Ashley to spend personal fortune but just to reinvest profits.

Some folks just don't get it.

Ashley acquired £65m of debt when buying the club. That has to be serviced. He loaned, interest-free let it be known, £144m to pay off the debt and invest in club improvements. To date only £33m of that loan has been repaid.

Profits made during the intervening years are retained by the club and are their assets, which Ashley will recoup once he sells it. That's why he refused to be pushed out without a deal that suited him. In almost the anthesis of the Glazers he hasn't had need to cash strip the asset, rather he'll make his money via capital appreciation of the asset at sale. Smart move from him.

It's also interesting how folks see 'profits' (sic). Now were they the difference between income and the actual costs of running the club that would be fine, but those reported aren't. I've already highlighted Ashley, like SL, advanced huge discounted loans to the club. They come at cost, though not in year to the club.

Sports Direct only briefly in 2011 'sponsored' Newcastle, but as the fans kicked up so much fuss over the stadium name the deal died a death and was quickly replaced by the Wonga deal. How appropriate, sponsored by a shyster payday loan operation, robbing Peter to pay Paul, only quickly to go bust themselves, leaving a trail of debt in their wake.

Otherwise Sports Direct only advertise at St James' and it's worth, well that depends upon the quality of the product? I've seen mention of the £1m per season post 2015 and £2m for 2020 but have no other commercial detail. Doubtless there were relegation clauses considered. I'd have to look at the balance sheet to see whether the difference in what was contracturally payable and that which has been paid has been accounted for. Could be Newcastle are owed a considerable sum by Sports Direct, which will be accounted for when the club is sold.

As for revenue - so what? You'll note the top two 'earners' on that list hold somewhat unusual incorporations. They are fan 'owned' and for good reason. Both are technically bankrupt and that's a political way of keeping them going. It's only the fear by Spanish Banks of pulling the plug that allows them to exist. They're the social collective, magic money tree made form. Fans who claim ownership yet don't have a pot to p*ss in. Only this week Barca's auditors reminded disgruntled fans that were the club a PLC or Ltd enterprise they'd cease trading immediately.

With the sheer volume of the 'greatest fans in the world' (sic), I could never fathom why Newcastle didn't follow suit ....

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, frenchred said:

It has absolutley no comparison to lansdown and his detractors (me included), to say so shows a lack of understanding.

St James park is literally falling apart due to lack of investment, unlike Ashton gate.

Their training facilities are pathetic and outdated, unlike lansdowns!

Just two examples, there's loads more

Well, he has left Newcastle virtually debt free, and when they got relegated he coughed up his own money to pay the wages, and they came straight back up. Had they not been promoted it could have been another Sunderland. I don't think his management of the club was as bad as some portray. A lot of the dislike from him was the "cockney mafia" stuff. He doesn't have a good public image either but i take your points about the stadium and training ground. 

Edited by TonyTonyTony
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no doubt a lot of the Geordie's have complained about Man City's money that are now lapping up the fact they are absolutely minted. Laughable.

Their fans have always come across as entitled. Admittedly, Mike Ashley was a right ar$ehole at times, but maybe Newcastle needed him to tighten the purse strings to enable them to be sold to extremely wealthy businessmen? 

They are also a Premier League club, which I think their fans also take for granted. Any side who isn't Man Utd, Man City, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal, Spurs are all at threat of being relegated imo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BTRFTG said:

 

Some folks just don't get it.

Ashley acquired £65m of debt when buying the club. That has to be serviced. He loaned, interest-free let it be known, £144m to pay off the debt and invest in club improvements. To date only £33m of that loan has been repaid.

Profits made during the intervening years are retained by the club and are their assets, which Ashley will recoup once he sells it. That's why he refused to be pushed out without a deal that suited him. In almost the anthesis of the Glazers he hasn't had need to cash strip the asset, rather he'll make his money via capital appreciation of the asset at sale. Smart move from him.

It's also interesting how folks see 'profits' (sic). Now were they the difference between income and the actual costs of running the club that would be fine, but those reported aren't. I've already highlighted Ashley, like SL, advanced huge discounted loans to the club. They come at cost, though not in year to the club.

Sports Direct only briefly in 2011 'sponsored' Newcastle, but as the fans kicked up so much fuss over the stadium name the deal died a death and was quickly replaced by the Wonga deal. How appropriate, sponsored by a shyster payday loan operation, robbing Peter to pay Paul, only quickly to go bust themselves, leaving a trail of debt in their wake.

Otherwise Sports Direct only advertise at St James' and it's worth, well that depends upon the quality of the product? I've seen mention of the £1m per season post 2015 and £2m for 2020 but have no other commercial detail. Doubtless there were relegation clauses considered. I'd have to look at the balance sheet to see whether the difference in what was contracturally payable and that which has been paid has been accounted for. Could be Newcastle are owed a considerable sum by Sports Direct, which will be accounted for when the club is sold.

As for revenue - so what? You'll note the top two 'earners' on that list hold somewhat unusual incorporations. They are fan 'owned' and for good reason. Both are technically bankrupt and that's a political way of keeping them going. It's only the fear by Spanish Banks of pulling the plug that allows them to exist. They're the social collective, magic money tree made form. Fans who claim ownership yet don't have a pot to p*ss in. Only this week Barca's auditors reminded disgruntled fans that were the club a PLC or Ltd enterprise they'd cease trading immediately.

With the sheer volume of the 'greatest fans in the world' (sic), I could never fathom why Newcastle didn't follow suit ....

Totally agree that some just don't get it. The fans didn't dislike Ashley because of the finances. I think most would agree that he managed to keep them solvent (although other clubs have also done so without the other crap he has done to players, ex players, managers etc).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 2015 said:

Admittedly, Mike Ashley was a right ar$ehole at times, but maybe Newcastle needed him to tighten the purse strings to enable them to be sold to extremely wealthy businessmen? 

I read somewhere due to running profits the last few seasons, they can spend 200M and still be within FFP. That is still miles away from the Mancs /Liv/Chelski

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MarcusX said:

I think you better look into what day to day things Saudi invest in before beating Newcastle with the morality stick.

It’s sad to see this level of investment ruin our game, but you’d struggle to get by without using something linked with the Saudi PIF.

Maybe if it was all out in the open and all reported fairly by actual Journalists (I don't think we have any left now as they are as corrupt as the EPL, EFL, UEFA, FIFA), people wouldn't have to go and find who are behind certain businesses, Social Media etc etc. It just shows how corrupt the whole World is when it comes to taking money. But you won't see many people boycotting any of these businesses whilst using them as it suits the individual.

No doubt the majority of people who shout the loudest about any type of equality are doing nothing about it whatsoever themselves, I expect they are posting about it on their mobile phone/tablet/pc made by cheap labour in China, whilst wearing the latest fashion made by cheap labour in China/Pakistan/Turkey etc etc, without even seeing the irony.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Buckeyed said:

Totally agree that some just don't get it. The fans didn't dislike Ashley because of the finances. I think most would agree that he managed to keep them solvent (although other clubs have also done so without the other crap he has done to players, ex players, managers etc).

I'd point out all comments towards Newcastle on this thread are from our (Championship/BCFC) perspective.

In the same manner of us in regards to Ipswich relating to Ashton re the Tractor Boys view of us.

All we know for certain is that the Geordies likely know more about the ins and outs than any of us here, and all have been protesting Ashley's ownership for some degree for almost ten years at this point.

Re the point about servicing the Debt. Any debt would have to settle upon transaction of ownership, so either way Ashley's met his end goal. Profit.

As for interest, he paid near no Sponsorship fees re Sports Direct for years with regards to stadium advertisements, bar the recent years a counts which still way below the promised value. I'd count that as service of the interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

 

Some folks just don't get it.

Ashley acquired £65m of debt when buying the club. That has to be serviced. He loaned, interest-free let it be known, £144m to pay off the debt and invest in club improvements. To date only £33m of that loan has been repaid.

Profits made during the intervening years are retained by the club and are their assets, which Ashley will recoup once he sells it. That's why he refused to be pushed out without a deal that suited him. In almost the anthesis of the Glazers he hasn't had need to cash strip the asset, rather he'll make his money via capital appreciation of the asset at sale. Smart move from him.

It's also interesting how folks see 'profits' (sic). Now were they the difference between income and the actual costs of running the club that would be fine, but those reported aren't. I've already highlighted Ashley, like SL, advanced huge discounted loans to the club. They come at cost, though not in year to the club.

Sports Direct only briefly in 2011 'sponsored' Newcastle, but as the fans kicked up so much fuss over the stadium name the deal died a death and was quickly replaced by the Wonga deal. How appropriate, sponsored by a shyster payday loan operation, robbing Peter to pay Paul, only quickly to go bust themselves, leaving a trail of debt in their wake.

Otherwise Sports Direct only advertise at St James' and it's worth, well that depends upon the quality of the product? I've seen mention of the £1m per season post 2015 and £2m for 2020 but have no other commercial detail. Doubtless there were relegation clauses considered. I'd have to look at the balance sheet to see whether the difference in what was contracturally payable and that which has been paid has been accounted for. Could be Newcastle are owed a considerable sum by Sports Direct, which will be accounted for when the club is sold.

As for revenue - so what? You'll note the top two 'earners' on that list hold somewhat unusual incorporations. They are fan 'owned' and for good reason. Both are technically bankrupt and that's a political way of keeping them going. It's only the fear by Spanish Banks of pulling the plug that allows them to exist. They're the social collective, magic money tree made form. Fans who claim ownership yet don't have a pot to p*ss in. Only this week Barca's auditors reminded disgruntled fans that were the club a PLC or Ltd enterprise they'd cease trading immediately.

With the sheer volume of the 'greatest fans in the world' (sic), I could never fathom why Newcastle didn't follow suit ....

I think that Barcelona might be significantly worse off than Real Madrid tbh, but who knows for sure. The latter have certainly shown restraint in the market with some good player sales and downsizing in recent years- Barcelona's plight was laid bare when La Liga capped them at 85m euros in player wages for this season- yet that will help to save them moving forward and better to have tough times on the pitch and come out the other side eventually than alternatives.

Other stuff, don't disagree. Not looked at their accounts much of late tbh.

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.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...