Jump to content
IGNORED

Man City and Chelski - published 2 hrs ago


Recommended Posts

Nothing confirmed yet but just saw this. It may be quiet at BS3 until we stuff Leicester who dont now want to get to the Premier league as they'll face points deductions, but this is of relevance to anyone on here who still wants SL to punt more of HIS millions into getting us promoted (some year). The entire PL has been so discredited i cant believe it will exist in a few years time. Begs an older question of what we do want financially from our owners. Main point is watch this space re Etihad City as it'll ripple down the leagues;

The Commission added: “Where a PSR breach is ‘minor’, then it will be for other Commissions to determine if any points deduction is necessary, appropriate or proportionate.

“But if the breach is properly described as ‘major’ then it may be the case that even a very severe sanction such as expulsion is more appropriate.”

  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can but hope.

However, as is too often the case when supporting Bristol City, I fear that hope will ultimately be replaced by disappointment. :grr:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In theory both could be kicked out of the PL if found guilty to the fullest extent is the point.

In the case of Man City, 115 charges- League 2 in theory because the EFL have no as per one report obligation to accept a forcibly Relegated Club into the Championship.

Chelsea who knows, but it wouldn't be for a typical overspend but if found guilty to the fullest extent of matters pertaining to the Abramovich era.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The two examples for Man City if found guilty to the fullest extent would be:

*-100 Points, that would likely be forcible relegation and yes to our level.

*Expulsion or forcible relegation. That would be something else and may end up down the divisions.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

In theory both could be kicked out of the PL if found guilty to the fullest extent is the point.

In the case of Man City, 115 charges- League 2 in theory because the EFL have no as per one report obligation to accept a forcibly Relegated Club into the Championship.

Chelsea who knows, but it wouldn't be for a typical overspend but if found guilty to the fullest extent of matters pertaining to the Abramovich era.

What often annoys me is the cries I hear of "what about Man City" mainly from them Everton fans. 

But what people don't realise is that these charges are very different to the charges that Everton and Forest admitted to. 

Man City deny any wrong doing. 

Look how long it took to deal with Everton and its one charge which meant other clubs were relegated instead of them. Why ain't people talking about that? 

115 charges that are all denied take a very long time to be dealt with. The hearing will probably last for months and months. Imagine the amount of paper work that is involved? I think I heard there was thousands of pages of paperwork for Everton for just the one charge! 

When people say "what about Man City" I just switch off as its such an invalid arguement and shows a lack of understanding about what is actually happening.

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin
42 minutes ago, Cole Not Gas said:

Nothing confirmed yet but just saw this. It may be quiet at BS3 until we stuff Leicester who dont now want to get to the Premier league as they'll face points deductions, but this is of relevance to anyone on here who still wants SL to punt more of HIS millions into getting us promoted (some year). The entire PL has been so discredited i cant believe it will exist in a few years time. Begs an older question of what we do want financially from our owners. Main point is watch this space re Etihad City as it'll ripple down the leagues;

The Commission added: “Where a PSR breach is ‘minor’, then it will be for other Commissions to determine if any points deduction is necessary, appropriate or proportionate.

“But if the breach is properly described as ‘major’ then it may be the case that even a very severe sanction such as expulsion is more appropriate.”

Which of this is your post and what is copy and pasted? 

Out of interest how much of what SL has invested in the club did you think he's looking to get back when he sells up? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, W-S-M Seagull said:

What often annoys me is the cries I hear of "what about Man City" mainly from them Everton fans. 

But what people don't realise is that these charges are very different to the charges that Everton and Forest admitted to. 

Man City deny any wrong doing. 

Look how long it took to deal with Everton and its one charge which meant other clubs were relegated instead of them. Why ain't people talking about that? 

115 charges that are all denied take a very long time to be dealt with. The hearing will probably last for months and months. Imagine the amount of paper work that is involved? I think I heard there was thousands of pages of paperwork for Everton for just the one charge! 

When people say "what about Man City" I just switch off as its such an invalid arguement and shows a lack of understanding about what is actually happening.

 

Oh totally agree, the two cases are completely different and as such the timeframes are very different. Think some Nottingham MPs mentioned it today which is ridiculous.

Stefan Borson often discusses it on Talksport the difference between FFP cases, on White and Jordan. I catch up with some of that stuff on YouTube.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin
15 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

 

In the case of Man City, 115 charges- League 2 in theory because the EFL have no as per one report obligation to accept a forcibly Relegated Club into the Championship.

Is that a genuine rule, or your feeling? 

I'd be interested in the wording, I completely see them getting such a dedication they will be relegated into the EFL 

Just now, W-S-M Seagull said:

What often annoys me is the cries I hear of "what about Man City" mainly from them Everton fans. 

But what people don't realise is that these charges are very different to the charges that Everton and Forest admitted to. 

Man City deny any wrong doing. 

Look how long it took to deal with Everton and its one charge which meant other clubs were relegated instead of them. Why ain't people talking about that? 

115 charges that are all denied take a very long time to be dealt with. The hearing will probably last for months and months. Imagine the amount of paper work that is involved? I think I heard there was thousands of pages of paperwork for Everton for just the one charge! 

When people say "what about Man City" I just switch off as its such an invalid arguement and shows a lack of understanding about what is actually happening.

 

100% spot on, and it's amazing how people can't see this 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anyone has any suggestions of how all this can be dealt with quickly then I'm all ears -

Details of the Premier League Rules that the Club is alleged to have breached are as follows:

1. In respect of each of Seasons 2009/10 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those seasons that required provision by a member club to the Premier League, in the utmost good faith, of accurate financial information that gives a true and fair view of the club’s financial position, in particular with respect to its revenue (including sponsorship revenue), its related parties and its operating costs, namely:

(a) for Season 2009/10, Premier League Rules B.13, C.71, C.72, C.75 (amended to C.79 from 10 September 2009 for the remainder of Season 2009/10) and C.80;

(b) for Season 2010/11, Premier League Rules B.13, C.78, C.79, C.86 and C.87;

(c) for Season 2011/12, Premier League Rules B.13, E.3, 4, E.11 and E.12;

(d) for Season 2012/13, Premier League Rules 16, E.3, E.4, E.11 and E.12;

(e) for Season 2013/14, Premier League Rules 15, E.3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.49;

(f) for Season 2014/15, Premier League Rules 16, E.3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.50;

(g) for Season 2015/16, Premier League Rules 16, E.3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.50;

(h) for Season 2016/17, Premier League Rules16, E.3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.51; and

(i) for Season 2017/18, Premier League Rules B.16, 3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.51.

2. In respect of:

(a) each of Seasons 2009/10 to 2012/13 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons requiring a member club to include full details of manager remuneration in its relevant contracts with its manager, namely:

(1) for Seasons 2009/10 to 2011/12 inclusive, Premier League Rules Q.7 and Q.8; and

(2) for Season 2012/13, Premier League Rules P.7 and P.8; and

(b) each of Seasons 2010/11 to 2015/16 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons requiring a member club to include full details of player remuneration in its relevant contracts with its players, namely:

(1) for Seasons 2010/11 and 2011/12, Premier League Rules K.12 and K.20;

(2) for Season 2012/13, Premier League Rules T.12 and T.20;

(3) for Seasons 2013/14 and 2014/15, Premier League Rules T.12 and T.19; and

(4) for Season 2015/16, Premier League Rules T.13 and T.20.

3. In respect of each of Seasons 2013/14 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons requiring a member club to comply with UEFA’s regulations, including UEFA’s Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations, namely:

(a) for Season 2013/14, Premier League Rule B.14.6; and

(b) for Seasons 2014/15 to 2017/18 inclusive, Premier League Rule B.15.6.

4. In respect of each of the Seasons 2015/16 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons on Profitability and Sustainability, namely:

(a) for Season 2015/16, Premier League Rules E.52 to E.60; and

(b) for Seasons 2016/17 and 2017/18, Premier League Rules E.53 to E.60.

5. In respect of the period from December 2018 to date, the Premier League Rules applicable in the relevant Seasons requiring a member club to cooperate with, and assist, the Premier League in its investigations, including by providing documents and information to the Premier League in the utmost good faith, namely:

(a) for Season 2018/19, Premier League Rules B.16, B.19, W.1, W.2, W.12 and W.13;

(b) for Season 2019/20, Premier League Rules B.16, B.19, W.1, W.2, W.12 and W.13;

(c) for Season 2020/21, Premier League Rules B.16, B.19, W.1, W.2, W.12 and W.13;

(d) for Season 2021/22, Premier League Rules B.15, B.18, W.1, W.2, W.15 and W.16; and

(e) for Season 2022/23, Premier League Rules B.15, B.18, W.1, W.2, W.15 and W.16. Commissions are independent of the Premier League and member clubs. The members of the Commission will be appointed by the independent Chair of the Premier League Judicial Panel, in accordance with Premier League Rules W.19, W.20 and W.26.

The proceedings before the Commission will, in accordance with Premier League Rule W.82, be confidential and heard in private. Under Premier League Rule W.82.2, the Commission’s final award will be published on the Premier League’s website.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, phantom said:

Is that a genuine rule, or your feeling? 

I'd be interested in the wording, I completely see them getting such a dedication they will be relegated into the EFL

I saw some articles when the charges first came out, will try and find them now.

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/man-city-news-relegated-b2278309.html

Here we go. Others suggested the EFL wouldn't in fact be under an obligation to accept.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I also find bizarre is that you always hear fans (mainly Everton fans) saying "what about the fans, these punishment are unfair on the fans" 

Yet they themselves are calling for Man City to recieve the strongest possible penalty. What about the Man City fans? 

It's crap like this that I can't take seriously. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

What often annoys me is the cries I hear of "what about Man City" mainly from them Everton fans. 

But what people don't realise is that these charges are very different to the charges that Everton and Forest admitted to. 

Man City deny any wrong doing. 

Look how long it took to deal with Everton and its one charge which meant other clubs were relegated instead of them. Why ain't people talking about that? 

115 charges that are all denied take a very long time to be dealt with. The hearing will probably last for months and months. Imagine the amount of paper work that is involved? I think I heard there was thousands of pages of paperwork for Everton for just the one charge! 

When people say "what about Man City" I just switch off as its such an invalid arguement and shows a lack of understanding about what is actually happening.

Whilst not untrue regarding the complexities of the charges brought against Man City, it's frankly reprehensible that these weren't dealt with as they occurred rather than more than a decade later.

The Premier League have been massively negligent here and have effectively created a situation whereby "What about Man City?" is asked so often.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Steve Watts said:

Whilst not untrue regarding the complexities of the charges brought against Man City, it's frankly reprehensible that these weren't dealt with as they occurred rather than more than a decade later.

The Premier League have been massively negligent here and have effectively created a situation whereby "What about Man City?" is asked so often.

When Everton fans use this arguement it's funny. Because the PL were negligent in bringing charges against them which saw other clubs relegated. 

But the PL have been investigating this for 5 years for Man City. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Steve Watts said:

Whilst not untrue regarding the complexities of the charges brought against Man City, it's frankly reprehensible that these weren't dealt with as they occurred rather than more than a decade later.

The Premier League have been massively negligent here and have effectively created a situation whereby "What about Man City?" is asked so often.

The PL have a lot of blame. Did they bother with Regulation in the Scudamore or indeed Pre Covid era?

I wonder if stuff could've been nipped in the bud or at least challenged sooner. When they did P&S checks back in the early 2010s, what sort of Proof for Man City but potentially others too of Arms Length did they truly seek out?

To launch an investigation in late 2018 or 2019 is ridiculous and so hard to work through.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the main problems with the Man city case ( stand to be corrected if my understanding is wrong) is that the basis for many/most/all of the charges is the information that was leaked on the internet as a result of Man City being hacked.

IIRC wasn't a similar case  brought by UEFA, but   didn't Man City get a lot thrown out because they argued that the evidence was illegally obtained and ended up with just a fine?

As others have already said Everton and Forests cases are relatively cut and dried because it was the evidence of the clubs' own accounts that convicted them, and it was only Everton's  pleas of "it's not fair that saw their points deductions reduced. 

By comparison, it will be much tougher to make a case against Man City. Even if they can produce telling evidence of wrongdoing, you can bet that Man C will have a team of the best i.e most expensive lawyers arguing tooth and nail in their defence  to kick the can as far down the road and for as long as possible so that even if they can't escape punishment, by the time a verdict can be reached it will have been watered down to such a degree as to be negligible as far as Man C are concerned.

While we have to concede that at this stage Man City are innocent until proven guilty, I think most football fans ( and I suspect that many/most football experts and journalists) think that there is no smoke without fire and that Man C have seriously bent the rules - in terms of gaining an advantage, well beyond that which Everton and Forest have. Despite which,  you just know that Man City are more than likely to end up with far less of a punishment than the other 2 clubs.

If it was Forest or Everton facing 105 charges similar to those against Man C, would the outcome likely be the same?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

The two examples for Man City if found guilty to the fullest extent would be:

*-100 Points, that would likely be forcible relegation and yes to our level.

*Expulsion or forcible relegation. That would be something else and may end up down the divisions.

.................. and Bailey Wright never playing again!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMHO I think they ought to do away with all this FFP or whatever and let clubs spend what they want (like back in the old days), the clubs will soon find their natural levels, those who want to be taken over can be...........oh and NO parachute payments . If clubs want to mortgage themselves to the hilt in search of progress, let'em .

  • Like 4
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

When Everton fans use this arguement it's funny. Because the PL were negligent in bringing charges against them which saw other clubs relegated. 

But the PL have been investigating this for 5 years for Man City. 

I think the majority of Everton fans and other prem fans are wanting to see Man City and Chelsea punished as they see it as the premier league just using lower prem team as an example of them being able to manage themselves and not need an independent regulator.

i dint see any major punishments coming Man City or Chelsea’s way as they are frequent premier league winners. Them being found guilty could lead to a collapse of the whole premier league

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, slartibartfast said:

IMHO I think they ought to do away with all this FFP or whatever and let clubs spend what they want (like back in the old days), the clubs will soon find their natural levels, those who want to be taken over can be...........oh and NO parachute payments . If clubs want to mortgage themselves to the hilt in search of progress, let'em .

FFP and parachute payments were introduced to stop club going to the wall as Bury and Macclesfield have. With PPs there is a way that they could be disbanded by introducing relegation clauses into players contracts. The percentage of wage reduction for relegated PL clubs would have to be around 70%.

These clauses wouldn’t make any difference to the big PL outfits such as Liverpool, the Manchester clubs Spurs et el.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Cole Not Gas said:

Nothing confirmed yet but just saw this. It may be quiet at BS3 until we stuff Leicester who dont now want to get to the Premier league as they'll face points deductions, but this is of relevance to anyone on here who still wants SL to punt more of HIS millions into getting us promoted (some year). The entire PL has been so discredited i cant believe it will exist in a few years time. Begs an older question of what we do want financially from our owners. Main point is watch this space re Etihad City as it'll ripple down the leagues;

The Commission added: “Where a PSR breach is ‘minor’, then it will be for other Commissions to determine if any points deduction is necessary, appropriate or proportionate.

“But if the breach is properly described as ‘major’ then it may be the case that even a very severe sanction such as expulsion is more appropriate.”

Chelski?! is it 2004?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

If anyone has any suggestions of how all this can be dealt with quickly then I'm all ears -

Details of the Premier League Rules that the Club is alleged to have breached are as follows:

1. In respect of each of Seasons 2009/10 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those seasons that required provision by a member club to the Premier League, in the utmost good faith, of accurate financial information that gives a true and fair view of the club’s financial position, in particular with respect to its revenue (including sponsorship revenue), its related parties and its operating costs, namely:

(a) for Season 2009/10, Premier League Rules B.13, C.71, C.72, C.75 (amended to C.79 from 10 September 2009 for the remainder of Season 2009/10) and C.80;

(b) for Season 2010/11, Premier League Rules B.13, C.78, C.79, C.86 and C.87;

(c) for Season 2011/12, Premier League Rules B.13, E.3, 4, E.11 and E.12;

(d) for Season 2012/13, Premier League Rules 16, E.3, E.4, E.11 and E.12;

(e) for Season 2013/14, Premier League Rules 15, E.3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.49;

(f) for Season 2014/15, Premier League Rules 16, E.3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.50;

(g) for Season 2015/16, Premier League Rules 16, E.3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.50;

(h) for Season 2016/17, Premier League Rules16, E.3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.51; and

(i) for Season 2017/18, Premier League Rules B.16, 3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.51.

2. In respect of:

(a) each of Seasons 2009/10 to 2012/13 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons requiring a member club to include full details of manager remuneration in its relevant contracts with its manager, namely:

(1) for Seasons 2009/10 to 2011/12 inclusive, Premier League Rules Q.7 and Q.8; and

(2) for Season 2012/13, Premier League Rules P.7 and P.8; and

(b) each of Seasons 2010/11 to 2015/16 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons requiring a member club to include full details of player remuneration in its relevant contracts with its players, namely:

(1) for Seasons 2010/11 and 2011/12, Premier League Rules K.12 and K.20;

(2) for Season 2012/13, Premier League Rules T.12 and T.20;

(3) for Seasons 2013/14 and 2014/15, Premier League Rules T.12 and T.19; and

(4) for Season 2015/16, Premier League Rules T.13 and T.20.

3. In respect of each of Seasons 2013/14 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons requiring a member club to comply with UEFA’s regulations, including UEFA’s Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations, namely:

(a) for Season 2013/14, Premier League Rule B.14.6; and

(b) for Seasons 2014/15 to 2017/18 inclusive, Premier League Rule B.15.6.

4. In respect of each of the Seasons 2015/16 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons on Profitability and Sustainability, namely:

(a) for Season 2015/16, Premier League Rules E.52 to E.60; and

(b) for Seasons 2016/17 and 2017/18, Premier League Rules E.53 to E.60.

5. In respect of the period from December 2018 to date, the Premier League Rules applicable in the relevant Seasons requiring a member club to cooperate with, and assist, the Premier League in its investigations, including by providing documents and information to the Premier League in the utmost good faith, namely:

(a) for Season 2018/19, Premier League Rules B.16, B.19, W.1, W.2, W.12 and W.13;

(b) for Season 2019/20, Premier League Rules B.16, B.19, W.1, W.2, W.12 and W.13;

(c) for Season 2020/21, Premier League Rules B.16, B.19, W.1, W.2, W.12 and W.13;

(d) for Season 2021/22, Premier League Rules B.15, B.18, W.1, W.2, W.15 and W.16; and

(e) for Season 2022/23, Premier League Rules B.15, B.18, W.1, W.2, W.15 and W.16. Commissions are independent of the Premier League and member clubs. The members of the Commission will be appointed by the independent Chair of the Premier League Judicial Panel, in accordance with Premier League Rules W.19, W.20 and W.26.

The proceedings before the Commission will, in accordance with Premier League Rule W.82, be confidential and heard in private. Under Premier League Rule W.82.2, the Commission’s final award will be published on the Premier League’s website.

If that wasn't a 'cut and paste' job you need to get out more Seagull 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

What often annoys me is the cries I hear of "what about Man City" mainly from them Everton fans. 

But what people don't realise is that these charges are very different to the charges that Everton and Forest admitted to. 

Man City deny any wrong doing. 

Look how long it took to deal with Everton and its one charge which meant other clubs were relegated instead of them. Why ain't people talking about that? 

115 charges that are all denied take a very long time to be dealt with. The hearing will probably last for months and months. Imagine the amount of paper work that is involved? I think I heard there was thousands of pages of paperwork for Everton for just the one charge! 

When people say "what about Man City" I just switch off as its such an invalid arguement and shows a lack of understanding about what is actually happening.

 

40, 000 pages for Evertons one charge.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Oh totally agree, the two cases are completely different and as such the timeframes are very different. Think some Nottingham MPs mentioned it today which is ridiculous.

Stefan Borson often discusses it on Talksport the difference between FFP cases, on White and Jordan. I catch up with some of that stuff on YouTube.

Kieran maguire has said previously when asked about Man City, it could take 4 years before the case is ready. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We seem to be getting so deep into detail that i can see two distinctly opposing viewpoints; Let market forces play as per Slarti's suggestion and just accept that money (usually 'bad' like Abramovich or foreign) will buy success and stimulate corruption  or try to make lawyers even richer by throwing the book at any club 'charged' with breaches. I agree with ex Atyeo that K.Maguire seems the most easy to follow in this mess but it really begs the question of whether we, as City fans, want to join that debacle - or not - by ever getting promoted. If some fans think SL should throw more of his own money at our Championship team, they will never be happy with the £ms, £10ms, £100ms that would be expected to compete well in the EPL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Cole Not Gas said:

Nothing confirmed yet but just saw this. It may be quiet at BS3 until we stuff Leicester who dont now want to get to the Premier league as they'll face points deductions, but this is of relevance to anyone on here who still wants SL to punt more of HIS millions into getting us promoted (some year). The entire PL has been so discredited i cant believe it will exist in a few years time. Begs an older question of what we do want financially from our owners. Main point is watch this space re Etihad City as it'll ripple down the leagues;

The Commission added: “Where a PSR breach is ‘minor’, then it will be for other Commissions to determine if any points deduction is necessary, appropriate or proportionate.

“But if the breach is properly described as ‘major’ then it may be the case that even a very severe sanction such as expulsion is more appropriate.”

The "get yer wallet out Steve" of years gone by is all but gone now, replaced by the more blunt "sell up and **** off" if you hadn't noticed? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Cole Not Gas said:

Nothing confirmed yet but just saw this. It may be quiet at BS3 until we stuff Leicester who dont now want to get to the Premier league as they'll face points deductions, but this is of relevance to anyone on here who still wants SL to punt more of HIS millions into getting us promoted (some year). The entire PL has been so discredited i cant believe it will exist in a few years time. Begs an older question of what we do want financially from our owners. Main point is watch this space re Etihad City as it'll ripple down the leagues;

The Commission added: “Where a PSR breach is ‘minor’, then it will be for other Commissions to determine if any points deduction is necessary, appropriate or proportionate.

“But if the breach is properly described as ‘major’ then it may be the case that even a very severe sanction such as expulsion is more appropriate.”

Genuinely interested in how a competition (finally) deciding to enforce some rules causes it to be "discredited"?

  • Like 1
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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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