A few questions for PWKH (38 Viewers)

Ian1779 · Apr 14, 2014

Blimey... Didn't quite expect that character assassination.

I naively thought id ask the question in the hope I might get an answer to my questions direct from horses mouth do to speak.
They may seem like obscure questions to some - but I believe they are fundamental to ascertaining the motives of some of the parties in this dispute.

I struggle to see the viability of ACL as a business without CCFC being at Ricoh, and as such think we have been misled about this particularly through the CET. Which if true, then questions the motives of ACL and directly from them CCC.

Hence my questions.

Not sure why people seem so offended by them...

dongonzalos · Apr 15, 2014

Ian1779 said:
Blimey... Didn't quite expect that character assassination.

I naively thought id ask the question in the hope I might get an answer to my questions direct from horses mouth do to speak.
They may seem like obscure questions to some - but I believe they are fundamental to ascertaining the motives of some of the parties in this dispute.

I struggle to see the viability of ACL as a business without CCFC being at Ricoh, and as such think we have been misled about this particularly through the CET. Which if true, then questions the motives of ACL and directly from them CCC.

Hence my questions.

Not sure why people seem so offended by them...

Not sure anyone took offence.

Just as I am sure you can imagine when someone posts only a couple of times since joining. Each time they are only questions regarding PWKH and the Higgs charity.

Also like with this one the questions are quite specific and suggest you have a very keen interest.

They don't strike me as the burning questions of major significance, when your club wants to follow a plan leading to us borrowing 75 million.

mds · Apr 15, 2014

dongonzalos said:
To be fair though if JS TF or ML had the courtesy to come on here and answer fans questions. My posting history would be full if questions to them.

What a warm reception they would get/
Stuart Linnel came on here and got called allsorts then got told to FO u cnut, so he did, can imagine them 3 hanging around on here for a session of verbal!

dongonzalos · Apr 15, 2014

mds said:
What a warm reception they would get/
Stuart Linnel came on here and got called allsorts then got told to FO u cnut, so he did, can imagine them 3 hanging around on here for a session of verbal!

That's a shame that some said that to SL

James Smith · Apr 15, 2014

Deleted member 5849 said:
No.

A different Higgs

Have to admit though, with Higgs as related to ACL, Higgs as related to Allard way, then Derek Higgs the former director... it's pretty easy to forget which Higgs hat is on when referring to Higgs at any one time!

Perhaps Rob S should sort out a few meetings so he can say he's spoken with the Higgs/Higgs/Higgs side of it all too.

I just refer to them as the Higgs (meaning the charity) and the Higgs Centre (meaning the Allard Way place) where the Academy train.

Astute · Apr 15, 2014

Ian1779 said:
Blimey... Didn't quite expect that character assassination.

I naively thought id ask the question in the hope I might get an answer to my questions direct from horses mouth do to speak.
They may seem like obscure questions to some - but I believe they are fundamental to ascertaining the motives of some of the parties in this dispute.

I struggle to see the viability of ACL as a business without CCFC being at Ricoh, and as such think we have been misled about this particularly through the CET. Which if true, then questions the motives of ACL and directly from them CCC.

Hence my questions.

Not sure why people seem so offended by them...

Will let you into a little secret here. The little green bit in the middle of the stadium was the reason that the whole thing was built for. So there will always be questions on the viability of the whole place.

If the Ricoh was like the vast majority of football grounds it might have gone under by now. Mortgage repayments to be made and not much chance of an income to be made as no tenant in place. But the Ricoh is much more than a football ground. The outgoings will be much less than when it was first built. Interest rates were much higher then and the loan amount was also much higher. I would guess that the interest rate payable will be about 2.5%. The loan will be about 14m. So interest payable will be about 350k per year. Sounds a lot, but it works out to be about 1k a day. To make this they have conference facilities, hotel rooms and much more. I have not seen much about it myself with my own eyes as I don't live locally, but it sounds like it is quite busy most of the time midweek.

Yes it would be more profitable with our football club in place. But things have moved forward from when the stadium was first built and a high rent was needed to pay the mortgage. The arena business has been built up now. It will continue to get better with a good management in place. And all sides would be happier with our football club also in place. If the present problems would have happened at the start it would have been different. But there would be something seriously wrong for the arena and everything that comes with it not to make more than 350k profit a year. And this is what the viability is all about.

RoboCCFC90 · Apr 15, 2014

dongonzalos said:
Not sure anyone took offence.

Just as I am sure you can imagine when someone posts only a couple of times since joining. Each time they are only questions regarding PWKH and the Higgs charity.

Also like with this one the questions are quite specific and suggest you have a very keen interest.

They don't strike me as the burning questions of major significance, when your club wants to follow a plan leading to us borrowing 75 million.

What a load of tripe.

Why should Ian's questions be disregarded or mocked just because this poster has only decided to post on one topic?

If I only posted on Football related topics would that not give me any credibility to post on topics that revolve around the Stadium, Administration and the JR for instance? Of course it wouldn't, don't be such a pleb.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

skybluetony176 · Apr 15, 2014

Ian1779 said:
Blimey... Didn't quite expect that character assassination.

I naively thought id ask the question in the hope I might get an answer to my questions direct from horses mouth do to speak.
They may seem like obscure questions to some - but I believe they are fundamental to ascertaining the motives of some of the parties in this dispute.

I struggle to see the viability of ACL as a business without CCFC being at Ricoh, and as such think we have been misled about this particularly through the CET. Which if true, then questions the motives of ACL and directly from them CCC.

Hence my questions.

Not sure why people seem so offended by them...

I'm more concerned about the viability of CCFC while playing in Northampton, as a CCFC fan this is what's important. Perhaps you've accidently logged onto the wrong forum. This is a CCFC forum not an ACL forum.

PS are you grendulls "accountant" by any chance?

Nick · Apr 15, 2014

What's wrong with him asking the questions after pwkh was on here yesterday?

Between this and the other thread some people's agendas are really starting to shine through

skybluetony176 · Apr 15, 2014

Nick said:
What's wrong with him asking the questions after pwkh was on here yesterday?

Between this and the other thread some people's agendas are really starting to shine through

I just don't understand why any self respecting CCFC fan would be more concerned about ACL's accounts than CCFC's. All this particular poster seems to be interested in is ACL, hence my question about him being on the wrong forum.

Having said that perhaps PWKH could go on CWR and promise this poster a forum on the accounts and then promptly arrange it. Much like ML has done, he's a man of his word you know.

Ian1779 · Apr 15, 2014

You don't see the link between CCFC accounts and those of ACL?

The whole crux of the dispute is centered around revenue streams that currently ACL access, and CCFC cannot. And you can't see the link??

RoboCCFC90 · Apr 15, 2014

Nick said:
What's wrong with him asking the questions after pwkh was on here yesterday?

Between this and the other thread some people's agendas are really starting to shine through

That's been the case for a while I am afraid Nick..

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Astute · Apr 15, 2014

Nick said:
What's wrong with him asking the questions after pwkh was on here yesterday?

Between this and the other thread some people's agendas are really starting to shine through

If someone only asks questions about SISU and the viability of our club they don't want what is best for our club and love CCC. But if someone only asks questions about ACL it is OK?

RoboCCFC90 · Apr 15, 2014

skybluetony176 said:
I just don't understand why any self respecting CCFC fan would be more concerned about ACL's accounts than CCFC's. All this particular poster seems to be interested in is ACL, hence my question about him being on the wrong forum.

Having said that perhaps PWKH could go on CWR and promise this poster a forum on the accounts and then promptly arrange it. Much like ML has done, he's a man of his word you know.

Tony does that also count then for the numerous other threads regarding ACL and there accounts? As you said why should "any self respecting CCFC fan" care about a business that has no ties to the Club??

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Astute · Apr 15, 2014

Ian1779 said:
You don't see the link between CCFC accounts and those of ACL?

The whole crux of the dispute is centered around revenue streams that currently ACL access, and CCFC cannot. And you can't see the link??

The link is very easy. CCFC sold the share of the Ricoh that they were given to Higgs. SISU haven't paid for this share so they don't own it. It looks like Higgs just want their money back. SISU would get the half share if they pay for it. It looks like they lost 7m last season. They could have had the Higgs share for less than this.

One question from me. How are we supposed to move forward when Joy won't negotiate? And what she says she wants can't happen by law.

skybluetony176 · Apr 15, 2014

Ian1779 said:
You don't see the link between CCFC accounts and those of ACL?

The whole crux of the dispute is centered around revenue streams that currently ACL access, and CCFC cannot. And you can't see the link??

So ACL have the access to revenue and in your words it's still not a viable business. So using your logic you are saying there is no benefit to ccfc in having access to revenue if they return to the ricoh.

Ian1779 · Apr 15, 2014

Let me quantify my first question. From scouring the internet I'm pretty certain that Isle of Capri had to pay a 'fine' to leave the Ricoh Arena complex as they would have broken their lease agreement. I can't 'prove' it so I wanted to ask.

If it is true, then a multitude of questions stem from that fact, and questions that are important in this dispute.

How much was paid? (From reading Twitter it would seem it could be as much as £7m)
If taken as a lump sum - why was it not in their published accounts from that time period?
If ACL are spreading it out in their accounts (which is a perfectly legal and common practice in business) then what is the distribution? (Again from reading Twitter it may be done at £1m pa - having an impact on the perceived viability of ACL as a business)
If ACL is a self sufficient business that does not need a football club in the Ricoh complex - then why was the business in financial distress? (bearing in mind this 'distressed' period was before CCFC stopped paying rent)
If ACL had this money from Isle of Capri and were not distributing it in their yearly accounts, then why did they need to negotiate with SISU to sell part of their business? And when that turned sour why did CCC need to intervene and buy out their mortgage?

Likewise, lets say it is not true. That brings itself questions that are important too.

How does a partner in the Ricoh complex just walk away from a lease without penalty? Why would some leaseholders be afforded this and not all?
ACL negotiated a pretty brutal lease agreement when CCFC first went to Ricoh, do you not think they would have had similar in place for other partners?
How did someone that was part of ACL not realise that when they went hell for leather to put CCFC in admin, that in doing so it would immediately negate the lease agreement they had worked so hard to protect, and likewise jeopardise their opportunity to not only get back their money, but protect future revenue.
Did the deal that ACL set up with Compass have a break clause? How the hell are they going to pay a catering/event contract when no fans ever use the stadium?

Every single question here goes some way into understanding the motives of ACL.
What do they want?
Why didn't they sign the CVA if the financial outcome would be the same for them?
Why was it that within their own organisation they couldn't even agree on their approach to the CVA?

There is also the question more generally of information. I don't have access to have any secret information. Aside from the reports in the CET and some rooting about on Google, I have only read 3 specific documents relating to CCFC and this dispute.

They are the Arena Cabinet Report on the Ricoh build, the Statement of Facts that was produced for the JR application and the published transcript from last weeks court case. Every single one of these is freely available for all fans to read. Yet it seems to me that plenty of people don't even know about their existence, never mind seening these documents.

Why is this the case? Why hasn't the CET published more information from these? Why is there not a single fans group that has shared these documents with their members? If I was running the SBT I'd have damn well made sure all of my members could have access to all this. Why is only selected information being drip fed into the general domain for the bulk of fans?

skybluetony176 · Apr 15, 2014

RoboCCFC90 said:
Tony does that also count then for the numerous other threads regarding ACL and there accounts? As you said why should "any self respecting CCFC fan" care about a business that has no ties to the Club??

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Depends on the context of the OP. This is the second thread that I can remember being started over concerns about ACL's accounts by individual posters who seem so blaze about CCFC group of companies accounts it's only right that their motives should be questioned. ACL as you rightly pointed out have no ties to the club (at present anyway) so why all the concern if it's viable or not on a CCFC chat room? Even GMKers seem less concerned than individuals on here.

Ian1779 · Apr 15, 2014

skybluetony176 said:
So ACL have the access to revenue and in your words it's still not a viable business. So using your logic you are saying there is no benefit to ccfc in having access to revenue if they return to the ricoh.

Perhaps because CCFC are the vehicle that generates the revenue in part for ACL. I didn't say ACL wasn't a viable business if CCFC are there - although it is a pretty shitty deal for CCFC -and that would be the same if SISU or anyone else owned the club.

skybluetony176 · Apr 15, 2014

Ian1779 said:
Let me quantify my first question. From scouring the internet I'm pretty certain that Isle of Capri had to pay a 'fine' to leave the Ricoh Arena complex as they would have broken their lease agreement. I can't 'prove' it so I wanted to ask.

If it is true, then a multitude of questions stem from that fact, and questions that are important in this dispute.

How much was paid? (From reading Twitter it would seem it could be as much as £7m)
If taken as a lump sum - why was it not in their published accounts from that time period?
If ACL are spreading it out in their accounts (which is a perfectly legal and common practice in business) then what is the distribution? (Again from reading Twitter it may be done at £1m pa - having an impact on the perceived viability of ACL as a business)
If ACL is a self sufficient business that does not need a football club in the Ricoh complex - then why was the business in financial distress? (bearing in mind this 'distressed' period was before CCFC stopped paying rent)
If ACL had this money from Isle of Capri and were not distributing it in their yearly accounts, then why did they need to negotiate with SISU to sell part of their business? And when that turned sour why did CCC need to intervene and buy out their mortgage?

Likewise, lets say it is not true. That brings itself questions that are important too.

How does a partner in the Ricoh complex just walk away from a lease without penalty? Why would some leaseholders be afforded this and not all?
ACL negotiated a pretty brutal lease agreement when CCFC first went to Ricoh, do you not think they would have had similar in place for other partners?
How did someone that was part of ACL not realise that when they went hell for leather to put CCFC in admin, that in doing so it would immediately negate the lease agreement they had worked so hard to protect, and likewise jeopardise their opportunity to not only get back their money, but protect future revenue.
Did the deal that ACL set up with Compass have a break clause? How the hell are they going to pay a catering/event contract when no fans ever use the stadium?

Every single question here goes some way into understanding the motives of ACL.
What do they want?
Why didn't they sign the CVA if the financial outcome would be the same for them?
Why was it that within their own organisation they couldn't even agree on their approach to the CVA?

There is also the question more generally of information. I don't have access to have any secret information. Aside from the reports in the CET and some rooting about on Google, I have only read 3 specific documents relating to CCFC and this dispute.

They are the Arena Cabinet Report on the Ricoh build, the Statement of Facts that was produced for the JR application and the published transcript from last weeks court case. Every single one of these is freely available for all fans to read. Yet it seems to me that plenty of people don't even know about their existence, never mind seening these documents.

Why is this the case? Why hasn't the CET published more information from these? Why is there not a single fans group that has shared these documents with their members? If I was running the SBT I'd have damn well made sure all of my members could have access to all this. Why is only selected information being drip fed into the general domain for the bulk of fans?

Yes, you're on the wrong forum. May I suggest you either contact ACL directly or take your issues up with Simon Gilbert at the CET and let him do the investigation for you. You clearly have no idea where to start otherwise you wouldn't be posting on a CCFC forum.

Nick · Apr 15, 2014

Why is he on the wrong forum when pwkh was on here yesterday?

Who are you to tell people what they can and can't post?

skybluetony176 · Apr 15, 2014

Nick said:
Why is he on the wrong forum when pwkh was on here yesterday?

Who are you to tell people what they can and can't post?

It was friendly advice nick. When PWHK starts asking questions on here about CCFC group of companies accounts I'll give him the same advice.On tthat you have my word.

Ian1779 · Apr 15, 2014

Thanks for the advice Tony - but I think i'm going to ignore it. If you're not interested in my questions, I'm not forcing you to respond. I do however find it intriguing that you seem to have got yourself in a tizz about this though.

As for asking Simon Gilbert to investigate this for me - I assume you are being ironic? The CET is probably the biggest hurdle we have in this dispute. After all bad news sells papers doesn't it?

If fans can only read the CET approved (vetoed by a certain G Hoffman) version of events no wonder there is a lack of information available to people.

japandy · Apr 15, 2014

For God sake Nick he only said he was on the wrong forum. You 'own' this site but without the fans contributing you would be on here on your tod. May be that is what you want because you seem to treat people with alot of contempt lately.

skybluetony176 · Apr 15, 2014

Ian1779 said:
Thanks for the advice Tony - but I think i'm going to ignore it. If you're not interested in my questions, I'm not forcing you to respond. I do however find it intriguing that you seem to have got yourself in a tizz about this though.

As for asking Simon Gilbert to investigate this for me - I assume you are being ironic? The CET is probably the biggest hurdle we have in this dispute. After all bad news sells papers doesn't it?

If fans can only read the CET approved (vetoed by a certain G Hoffman) version of events no wonder there is a lack of information available to people.

So where are the good news stories surrounding CCFC? Could it not just be that the CET are just reporting the facts and the facts speak for themselves.

Do you work for a local MEP by any chance. You seem to have the same concerns and style of questioning.

Grendel · Apr 15, 2014

skybluetony176 said:
Yes, you're on the wrong forum. May I suggest you either contact ACL directly or take your issues up with Simon Gilbert at the CET and let him do the investigation for you. You clearly have no idea where to start otherwise you wouldn't be posting on a CCFC forum.

No he's on the right forum. There are very relevant questions - only an idiot or a council employee would question there validity.

Grendel · Apr 15, 2014

Nick said:
Why is he on the wrong forum when pwkh was on here yesterday?

Who are you to tell people what they can and can't post?

I know its the council mob trying to subvert the truth. Strangely everyone salivates when a non CCFC employee like PWKH "keeps them informed" Its embarrasing.

shmmeee · Apr 15, 2014

Ian1779 said:
Thanks for the advice Tony - but I think i'm going to ignore it. If you're not interested in my questions, I'm not forcing you to respond. I do however find it intriguing that you seem to have got yourself in a tizz about this though.

As for asking Simon Gilbert to investigate this for me - I assume you are being ironic? The CET is probably the biggest hurdle we have in this dispute. After all bad news sells papers doesn't it?

If fans can only read the CET approved (vetoed by a certain G Hoffman) version of events no wonder there is a lack of information available to people.

Yeah really not sure you can pull that with an organisation that employs Les Reid. Rather than trying to sully others, why not prove your own credibility.

Also, I think your net scouring needs some work. First result for "Isle of Capri exit Arena Coventry"

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...sale-of-facility-in-coventry-uk-61922317.html

Press Release said:
ST. LOUIS, April 23 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Isle of Capri Casinos, Inc. (Nasdaq: ISLE) (the "Company" or "Isle") today announced that they have entered into a definitive agreement and completed a transaction with The Rank Group PLC ("Rank") to sell the Company's casino asset and take over the existing leased premises at the Ricoh Arena in Coventry, UK.
The Company made the announcement after previously indicating its intention to exit its international operations in order to focus on continuing to improve operating results and increase free cash flow from its domestic property portfolio. The total price for the acquisition by Rank is pounds Sterling 650,000, or an approximate current U.S. value of $940,000. In conjunction with the transaction, the Company also executed a buy-out of the Company's obligations under the Coventry casino lease for pounds Sterling 7.7 million, or an approximate current U.S. value of $11.2 million, and releases Isle from its parent guaranty under the lease.

I'm no contract lawyer, nor am I an accountant, but if that went to ACL then I'd imagine their turnover couldn't have been less than that £7.7m surely? Sounds from that like it's gone to Rank, but I could be wrong and am happy to be proven so.

Not sure why ACL would profit from a third party being bought out though.

Ian1779 · Apr 15, 2014

shmmeee said:
Yeah really not sure you can pull that with an organisation that employs Les Reid. Rather than trying to sully others, why not prove your own credibility.

Also, I think your net scouring needs some work. First result for "Isle of Capri exit Arena Coventry"

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...sale-of-facility-in-coventry-uk-61922317.html

I'm no contract lawyer, nor am I an accountant, but if that went to ACL then I'd imagine their turnover couldn't have been less than that £7.7m surely? Sounds from that like it's gone to Rank, but I could be wrong and am happy to be proven so.

Not sure why ACL would profit from a third party being bought out though.

It was kind of a tongue in cheek comment to be fair - but to say that the CET is the pantheon of accurate reporting is stretching it a little too far. You have to love how Les Reid was the voice for the fans to begin with, but now as he started to ask certain questions that didn't fit in within certain agendas he is now derided as someone who is not credible. Same for Nikki Sinclaire - everyone was happy to have her on board when the March went through the city, but all of a sudden she isn't credible either.

It's hardly the basis of a constructive campaign if you are happy to take people's information as fact until they don't fit in with your aims - at which point they are lambasted and made to be peddlers of false information.

As for the link - I have seen it, but as I am not an expert in contract law I wanted to be 100% sure, which is why I asked. I guess it will be easy for PWKH to answer that one as it appears that money went to ACL. As for the £7.7m have you ever seen it in ACL's accounts? And how does a company that receives a financial injection like that need bailing out by the local council less than 3 years later?

Grendel · Apr 15, 2014

shmmeee said:
Yeah really not sure you can pull that with an organisation that employs Les Reid. Rather than trying to sully others, why not prove your own credibility.

Also, I think your net scouring needs some work. First result for "Isle of Capri exit Arena Coventry"

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...sale-of-facility-in-coventry-uk-61922317.html

I'm no contract lawyer, nor am I an accountant, but if that went to ACL then I'd imagine their turnover couldn't have been less than that £7.7m surely? Sounds from that like it's gone to Rank, but I could be wrong and am happy to be proven so.

Not sure why ACL would profit from a third party being bought out though.

I think these questions are directed at Peter not you.

I am sure as Peter loves to keep posters informed he will answer them. He will certainly see the significance of them.

As to trying to prove his own credibility stop being co descending. Why should he? Face it if someone's first post on here was to call fisher a wanker he'd have more likes than so e would have council lunches.

We know you are indoctrinated into the council and the bias is riddled throughout your posts. Sorry but this is a democracy not a tin pot Marxist dictatorship - if you want suppression go elsewhere.

The Gentleman · Apr 15, 2014

Ian1779 said:
Perhaps because CCFC are the vehicle that generates the revenue in part for ACL. I didn't say ACL wasn't a viable business if CCFC are there - although it is a pretty shitty deal for CCFC -and that would be the same if SISU or anyone else owned the club.

Which one is a pretty shit deal for CCFC? We all know the original rental deal was too high in the Championship and L1 (not if we were in the PL), but are you talking about the last two rental deals, or are you talking about the current shit rental deal at Sixfields?

TurkeyTrot · Apr 15, 2014

Nick said:
What's wrong with him asking the questions after pwkh was on here yesterday?

Between this and the other thread some people's agendas are really starting to shine through

Totally agree Nick, they are
PWKH put something right after a specific point was made and proved it to be untrue.

Astute · Apr 15, 2014

shmmeee said:
Yeah really not sure you can pull that with an organisation that employs Les Reid. Rather than trying to sully others, why not prove your own credibility.

Also, I think your net scouring needs some work. First result for "Isle of Capri exit Arena Coventry"

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...sale-of-facility-in-coventry-uk-61922317.html

I'm no contract lawyer, nor am I an accountant, but if that went to ACL then I'd imagine their turnover couldn't have been less than that £7.7m surely? Sounds from that like it's gone to Rank, but I could be wrong and am happy to be proven so.

Not sure why ACL would profit from a third party being bought out though.

The conclusion that you have come to looks good to me. If ACL had got the money they could have paid half of the mortgage off.

Ian1779 · Apr 15, 2014

I was referring to the original deal. The one where CCFC only got match day tickets revenue and that was it. An absolutely ridiculous deal to have been put in place. And although the subsequent rent deals were improved, the revenue conditions were never altered - which is why they can't come to an agreement.

Ian1779 · Apr 15, 2014

Astute said:
The conclusion that you have come to looks good to me. If ACL had got the money they could have paid half of the mortgage off.

So that would seem a logical plan. But less than 3 yrs later ACL have to be bailed out by the council to the tune of £14m. Still sounding like a sustainable business?

A few questions for PWKH (38 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency