Nuneaton MP to raise CCFC home next season in Parliament (1 Viewer)

oldskyblue58 · Feb 23, 2018

fernandopartridge said:
Unfortunately, all this action from MPs is too little too late. Where were they when:

2. The heavily indebted club sold its stake in ACL for a paltry £2m (repaying debt to Derek Higgs et al should not be considered as part of the price)

Sorry but the consideration was not £2m. It matters not that only £2m was received in cash. The Charity waived a £2.5m loan that it was owed by CCFC (therefore CCFC benefited) and whether paid directly or through CCFC the repayment of other loans still formed part of the consideration and CCFC benefited. The Charity monies paid off or were applied to the two director loans that CCFC owed. The fact that the directors then were lent the money again is irrelevant to what CCFC sold it for or what the Charity bought it for. Total consideration 6.5m

This is how CCFC described the transaction in the 2003 audited accounts

CCFC made a loss of £308,425 on the deal. If the consideration was only £2m then the loss would have been £4.808m.

The Charity audited accounts included the price of Acquisition as 6.5m.

You can not ignore the other parts of the transaction

But I agree with you on the other points. Our public servants have not distinguished themselves, whether local or national, in this saga

skybluetony176 · Feb 23, 2018

Nick said:
In which case it hasn't achieved anything has it? If it ever does then I will be wrong, as I have just said.

You do realise that’s a contradiction in terms? If it does achieve something it’s achieved something, that’s the opposite of not achieving anything.

WTF Haskell, Hoffman or Michael have to do with the on going discussions in Westminster god only knows but I’m guessing you need a distraction from the web of contradictions you’re spinning.

SkyBlueCRJ · Feb 23, 2018

skybluetony176 said:
Don’t think he was being patronising either. The point is no one knows what it could achieve. The only certainty is that doing nothing will achieve nothing. We have to keep pushing it to see how far we can take it. It started out as a couple of MP’s raising it in Parliament, it then raised an EDM and now some local MP’s backed by various fans groups have secured parliamentary debate on us. Where that will lead is yet to be seen but there are options on how it could move forward but people have to be pushing it forward, people need to write to their MP’s if their MP’s aren’t contribution, we through fan groups need need to use our voice. Being lazy and criticising with one liners like what will it achieve achieves nothing, unless you’re one of the interested parties then it achieves letting them of the hook. I’m talking about all interested parties here not just our owners.

Well it was but that's neither here nor there. Some interesting points made there but once again you're misconstruing my tone. In no way shape or form was I being negative when I said "what will it actually achieve"; I reiterate it was a question that I wanted feedback on as my knowledge on parliamentary procedure isn't the best. Funnily enough this is a forum where you're allowed to do that... So before you presume and wrongfully brandish people as lazy may I ask what action you're taking to save the club? Simply calling people out when they're attempting to find an answer for their question hardly achieves much in itself does it...

It's promising that our cause is receiving genuine concern on a political level - rather than individuals simply stating what a sorry situation we're in then doing nothing as you stated. Obviously it remains to be seen where and how this will lead but it's promising none the less. However, whilst the club are receiving EDM's in Parliament, more needs to be done as very few are debated further. Our situation is difficult as like it or not SISU are invested in the club and in effect have every right to continue their reign until in their eyes a suitable buyer is sourced. Our situation is made even more difficult by the fact that it's a unique one. I've had a number of discussions with fans that wonder why SISU won't just simply 'pack up and leave'. However as everyone has discovered their situation is complicated due to the fact that as a hedge fund, much of the money invested by SISU isn't their own - which leaves Joy effectively stuck in the mud with us. This was once again why I was asking the question, what can parliament actually do besides give Joy a telling off because from my perspective there's no basis for parliamentary intervention - with exception from the Ricoh situation. Obviously this doesn't mean we should do nothing, there's a number of avenues we can take to further our voice. If we built upon the Telegraph petition for instance that was signed by 16,000 then our voice would be heard. 100,000 signatures are needed for our case to be heard in Parliament and our case would subsequently be up for discussion - ultimately broadcasting our cause which is what is needed. In my eyes this is the route to go down as IF there isn't legislature in place and leaves Parliament ineffectual in our situation, at least it'll broadcast our cause

Nick · Feb 23, 2018

skybluetony176 said:
You do realise that’s a contradiction in terms? If it does achieve something it’s achieved something, that’s the opposite of not achieving anything.

WTF Haskell, Hoffman or Michael have to do with the on going discussions in Westminster god only knows but I’m guessing you need a distraction from the web of contradictions you’re spinning.

It's not a contradiction it's you just struggling to read again.

In which case it hasn't achieved anything has it? If it ever does then I will be wrong, as I have just said.

Hence I said if it does achieve something I will be wrong.

I was giving examples of how you and the heroes have been running your marathon and it's achieved the same as me with my feet up.

Rodders1 · Feb 23, 2018

oldskyblue58 said:
I don't think that the people clamouring for SISU to put money in to the club in January understand it fully Nick. It is a frustration that will repeat itself every transfer window whilst SISU are the owners

The greatest passion for the club exists in the core of fans that go to the matches. Certainly not with the owners

The EFL are hamstrung in this as they are with the woes of any club. They have competition rules that they can enforce but when it comes to anything fundamental they are pretty impotent. Which is something else some fans do not understand, particularly those saying the EFL would or could take the golden share away. They simply could not afford the legal cases that would be sure to follow

English footballs administration needs fundamental change. Yes it’s easy for a Cov fan to pipe up on this subject as we need help now - but when the financial bubble of the prem pops there will be loads of clubs like us. Look at Sunderland for one.

I feel the 92 league clubs need to forfeit some of the income they get (ok this is mainly prem clubs) from TV rights etc and fund an administration regarding its legal costs. In which case the EFL for example would no be coerced into staying silent out of fear of legal action. Does make you wonder about handing back the golden share to “SISU” after our administration. Or making any decision that is actually meaningful.

I admit it’s unlikely to happen - any fund generated would effectively be a pot of money from current owners of clubs potentially funding legal action against themselves - but by agreeing to do this would mean self governance. A greater trust in football ownership and their morals to fans etc.

It’ll never happen I know - just seems the clubs don’t really have to worry about anything - Leicester’s ridiculously low fine this week for breaching FFP rules in previous years is another example of weak governance.

wingy · Feb 23, 2018

JamesCCFC said:
Well it was but that's neither here nor there. Some interesting points made there but once again you're misconstruing my tone. In no way shape or form was I being negative when I said "what will it actually achieve"; I reiterate it was a question that I wanted feedback on as my knowledge on parliamentary procedure isn't the best. Funnily enough this is a forum where you're allowed to do that... So before you presume and wrongfully brandish people as lazy may I ask what action you're taking to save the club? Simply calling people out when they're attempting to find an answer for their question hardly achieves much in itself does it...

It's promising that our cause is receiving genuine concern on a political level - rather than individuals simply stating what a sorry situation we're in then doing nothing as you stated. Obviously it remains to be seen where and how this will lead but it's promising none the less. However, whilst the club are receiving EDM's in Parliament, more needs to be done as very few are debated further. Our situation is difficult as like it or not SISU are invested in the club and in effect have every right to continue their reign until in their eyes a suitable buyer is sourced. Our situation is made even more difficult by the fact that it's a unique one. I've had a number of discussions with fans that wonder why SISU won't just simply 'pack up and leave'. However as everyone has discovered their situation is complicated due to the fact that as a hedge fund, much of the money invested by SISU isn't their own - which leaves Joy effectively stuck in the mud with us. This was once again why I was asking the question, what can parliament actually do besides give Joy a telling off because from my perspective there's no basis for parliamentary intervention - with exception from the Ricoh situation. Obviously this doesn't mean we should do nothing, there's a number of avenues we can take to further our voice. If we built upon the Telegraph petition for instance that was signed by 16,000 then our voice would be heard. 100,000 signatures are needed for our case to be heard in Parliament and our case would subsequently be up discussion - ultimately broadcasting our cause which is what is needed. In my eyes this is the route to go down as IF there isn't legislature in place that leaves Parliament ineffectual in our situation, at least it'll broadcast our cause

Would have thought the bulk of Investment was written off with liquidation, just the ARVO investment needing recovery.

skybluetony176 · Feb 23, 2018

Nick said:
It's not a contradiction it's you just struggling to read again.

Hence I said if it does achieve something I will be wrong.

I was giving examples of how you and the heroes have been running your marathon and it's achieved the same as me with my feet up.

There’s only one of us struggling to read and it’s you. It’s a clear contradiction. It’s duplicity. You’re doing a Grendull thinking it means you’re not wrong not realising it also means you’re not right either.

Nick · Feb 23, 2018

skybluetony176 said:
There’s only one of us struggling to read and it’s you. It’s a clear contradiction. It’s duplicity. You’re doing a Grendull thinking it means you’re not wrong not realising it also means you’re not right either.

What exactly is the contradiction?

I have clearly said if it eventually achieves something then I will be wrong and I will be the first to say that. Not too sure how that's a contradiction.

To sum it up:

Me: What's it going to achieve? I can't see it doing much.
You: We don't know that, it hasn't finished or been exhausted.
Me: So it hasn't achieved anything yet, but if it does eventually I will be wrong.

Don't think it could be any clearer, maybe stop running and read.

SkyBlueCRJ · Feb 23, 2018

wingy said:
Would have thought the bulk of Investment was written off with liquidation, just the ARVO investment needing recovery.

Surely any remaining outstanding debts to subsidiaries or investors will still be fairly sizeable if Joy won't even acknowledge any bid put before her?

skybluetony176 · Feb 23, 2018

Nick said:
Me: So it hasn't achieved anything yet, but if it does eventually I will be wrong.

Ha ha ha

You do know what you actually said is in my post at the top where I quote you directly and it doesn’t have the word “yet” in it, which you’re now claiming is what you said. Talk about making it up as you go along.

Nick · Feb 23, 2018

skybluetony176 said:
You do know what you actually said is in my post at the top where I quote you directly and it doesn’t have the word “yet” in it which you’re now claiming is what you said. Talk about making it up as you go along.

This one?

In which case it hasn't achieved anything has it? If it ever does then I will be wrong, as I have just said.

I will break it down:
You said :

It really isn’t is it. You think it’s achieved nothing and the process hasn’t even finished yet, there’s plenty of places for this to go yet within Westminster but that will only happen if MP’s continue to push it and fans and fans groups push them. We’ve completed lap three the race is far from over and it’s an endurance race, you’ve retired to the pits without even completing a warm up lap.

I said...

In which case it hasn't achieved anything has it? - This means to this point in time of posting nothing has been achieved. You have referred to it as an endurance race, you have said it hasn't finished yet.
If it ever does then I will be wrong, as I have just said. - This means if it ever did, I would be wrong. You can then link that up to my other posts where I have also said I would be wrong if it did. So once the endurance race is finished, if the aims of the action are met and change happens then I would be wrong.

You do love the SBK impressions recently. It's like last time when you were on about Chiefdave making things up or trying to mislead, when in fact he didn't and you didn't read it.

italiahorse · Feb 23, 2018

Nick said:
Most have no idea that the Ricoh has anything to do with the ratepayer.

You say they have no idea about our "plight", yet you expect them to know the ins and outs of how it impacts the ratepayer?

Most people are simple on matters like this. They follow the headlines.
When people know I'm a city fan they just quote the latest headlines at me in conversation.

Most ratepayers will however know the Council own the stadium.
They would have only thought it impacted them when it was empty.
They will now see CCFC is there along with Wasps and would think there are no problems.
The move to Northampton certainly did the club no favours with them and has slightly alienated those with no interest in football.

italiahorse · Feb 23, 2018

Nick said:
Again, you keep saying I am never wrong but what am I actually wrong about?

You always seem slightly defensive of Sisu in your responses, perhaps because you are worried it will impact on the club, or something.
Just an impression you give and I might be wrong.

Certainly give me the impression you have time on your hands and need very little sleep

Nick · Feb 23, 2018

italiahorse said:
You always seem slightly defensive of Sisu in your responses, perhaps because you are worried it will impact on the club, or something.
Just an impression you give and I might be wrong.

If you have to scrape the barrel with that after you were the most pro SISU person on here and Tony has to scrape the barrel because he misread I am sure I can't be doing too badly can I? Must be pretty easy to point out what I have been wrong about that I haven't acknowledged in this thread if I am wrong constantly?

italiahorse · Feb 23, 2018

Nick said:
If you have to scrape the barrel with that after you were the most pro SISU person on here and Tony has to scrape the barrel because he misread I am sure I can't be doing too badly can I? Must be pretty easy to point out what I have been wrong about that I haven't acknowledged in this thread if I am wrong constantly?

I had the mindset to change my opinion when I realised they were taking the pi55 and moved us to Northampton.
Instead of sticking it out and trying to come up with a commercial arrangement they thought they could make ACL collapse.
Not content with that they raised the stakes and went for the freehold.
..... and people still wonder why the council (and now others) can't ever deal with them.

I reversed my opinion on them. Perhaps you need to do the same ?

fernandopartridge · Feb 23, 2018

oldskyblue58 said:
Sorry but the consideration was not £2m. It matters not that only £2m was received in cash. The Charity waived a £2.5m loan that it was owed by CCFC (therefore CCFC benefited) and whether paid directly or through CCFC the repayment of other loans still formed part of the consideration and CCFC benefited. The Charity monies paid off or were applied to the two director loans that CCFC owed. The fact that the directors then were lent the money again is irrelevant to what CCFC sold it for or what the Charity bought it for. Total consideration 6.5m

This is how CCFC described the transaction in the 2003 audited accounts

View attachment 9128

View attachment 9129
CCFC made a loss of £308,425 on the deal. If the consideration was only £2m then the loss would have been £4.808m.

The Charity audited accounts included the price of Acquisition as 6.5m.

You can not ignore the other parts of the transaction

But I agree with you on the other points. Our public servants have not distinguished themselves, whether local or national, in this saga

Fair enough, what you've described irritates me greatly as the directors as creditors of the club should not really be looking to sell its only real asset in order to get repayment, seems irresponsible to me.

Nick · Feb 23, 2018

italiahorse said:
I had the mindset to change my opinion when I realised they were taking the pi55 and moved us to Northampton.
Instead of sticking it out and trying to come up with a commercial arrangement they thought they could make ACL collapse.
Not content with that they raised the stakes and went for the freehold.
..... and people still wonder why the council (and now others) can't ever deal with them.

I reversed my opinion on them. Perhaps you need to do the same ?

The thing is, if I had ever said things like "Everybody should get behind SISU" then I probably would need to do a U Turn. Note that it was SISU and not CCFC you said.

I've never given it things like that, so nothing really need to be reversed. I'm the same about CCFC and would be if we were owned by anybody else.

Still, you can keep scraping the barrel at me if you want now you have Wasps in your ear giving you things to say and you say exactly the same about them?

Nick · Feb 23, 2018

fernandopartridge said:
Fair enough, what you've described irritates me greatly as the directors as creditors of the club should not really be looking to sell its only real asset in order to get repayment, seems irresponsible to me.

What I don't get is why they paid themselves back and then straight away lent it back to the club? Were different terms than added to it or something? Why not just leave it in the club?

italiahorse · Feb 23, 2018

Nick said:
What I don't get is why they paid themselves back and then straight away lent it back to the club? Were different terms than added to it or something? Why not just leave it in the club?

The charity had loaned the club £2.5M against the value of the players.
That was effectively wiped out with the Bosman ruling.
The club had no security on the loan after that so Higgs were duty bound to call it back.
They didn't want to force the club into administration so buying the 50% ACL share was the only viable option.

Nick · Feb 23, 2018

italiahorse said:
The charity had loaned the club £2.5M against the value of the players.
That was effectively wiped out with the Bosman ruling.
The club had no security on the loan after that so Higgs were duty bound to call it back.
They didn't want to force the club into administration so buying the 50% ACL share was the only viable option.

No I meant the directors of CCFC.

Surely when ACL gave over the money they had to give it to CCFC and couldn't give it directly to the directors for? So why did they then take it out to pay themselves back and put it back in again.

fernandopartridge · Feb 23, 2018

Nick said:
What I don't get is why they paid themselves back and then straight away lent it back to the club? Were different terms than added to it or something? Why not just leave it in the club?

Maybe a similar reason as to why SISU has loaded the club with a massive debt, the main creditor has more control come what may.

Nick · Feb 23, 2018

fernandopartridge said:
Maybe a similar reason as to why SISU has loaded the club with a massive debt, the main creditor has more control come what may.

It's just the taking it back out to pay their loans back, to then put it back in as another loan I don't get.

Was the new loan then on different terms?

AVWskyblue · Feb 23, 2018

Nick said:
How is it progressing? The sports minister straight out said it was nothing to do with them and they couldn't do anything about it as it was a private matter.

If they can force joy, council, pwkh and everybody in to grill them then great. I still don't think they could force an agreement but if they could at least get some answers it would have done that. If it happens I am more than happy to be wrong.

I think it's both you and Tony are both right, The sports minister did say they couldn't directly get involved but Tony is right as if Joy etc were called before a committee their shareholders would be up in arms and quite possibly bailing at the fear of any negative exposure

Sent from my 5010X using Tapatalk

Nick · Feb 23, 2018

AVWskyblue said:
I think it's both you and Tony are both right, The sports minister did say they couldn't directly get involved but Tony is right as if Joy etc were called before a committee their shareholders would be up in arms and quite possibly bailing at the fear of any negative exposure

Sent from my 5010X using Tapatalk

I did say that if that was the case I'd be wrong and would be the first to say I was wrong.

italiahorse · Feb 23, 2018

Nick said:
No I meant the directors of CCFC.

Surely when ACL gave over the money they had to give it to CCFC and couldn't give it directly to the directors for? So why did they then take it out to pay themselves back and put it back in again.

Yes, thats a gap in my knowledge on this.

skybluetony176 · Feb 23, 2018

Nick said:
This one?

I will break it down:
You said :

I said...

In which case it hasn't achieved anything has it? - This means to this point in time of posting nothing has been achieved. You have referred to it as an endurance race, you have said it hasn't finished yet.
If it ever does then I will be wrong, as I have just said. - This means if it ever did, I would be wrong. You can then link that up to my other posts where I have also said I would be wrong if it did. So once the endurance race is finished, if the aims of the action are met and change happens then I would be wrong.

You do love the SBK impressions recently. It's like last time when you were on about Chiefdave making things up or trying to mislead, when in fact he didn't and you didn't read it.

And you accuse me of scraping the barrel. So now you’re admitting that what you originally said was a contradiction, you don’t realise you are or more likely won’t admit you are but that’s what’s happening here. You’ve had to add the additional “yet” later on to make it sound like a non contradiction. Try reading what you yourself have written in the context of what you said it at the time before you accuse others of scraping the barrel or being SBK, you’ll be breaking open the you don’t comment on match thread line next. Pathetic.

fernandopartridge · Feb 23, 2018

AVWskyblue said:
I think it's both you and Tony are both right, The sports minister did say they couldn't directly get involved but Tony is right as if Joy etc were called before a committee their shareholders would be up in arms and quite possibly bailing at the fear of any negative exposure

Sent from my 5010X using Tapatalk

What shareholders? They manage funds and it's private. I think the type of people invested in this thing are more interested in whether or not their investment is being managed and protected. They're unlikely to be interested in any perceived ethics. What would an investor think if SISU didn't look as if they were in control of what they were doing? The club seems to be parked at the minute with limited investment from outside, so who would be 'bailing'?

Nick · Feb 23, 2018

skybluetony176 said:
And you accuse me of scraping the barrel. So now you’re admitting that what you originally said was a contradiction, you don’t realise you are or more likely won’t admit you are but that’s what’s happening here. You’ve had to add the additional “yet” later on to make it sound like a non contradiction. Try reading what you yourself have written in the context of what you said it at the time before you accuse others of scraping the barrel or being SBK, you’ll be breaking open the you don’t comment on match thread line next. Pathetic.

What exactly is contradictory about that line?

In which case it hasn't achieved anything has it? If it ever does then I will be wrong, as I have just said.

I don't know how to break it down any simpler for you to understand, we had the same the other week about the word "tried" and how it made sentences different.

skybluetony176 · Feb 23, 2018

AVWskyblue said:
I think it's both you and Tony are both right, The sports minister did say they couldn't directly get involved but Tony is right as if Joy etc were called before a committee their shareholders would be up in arms and quite possibly bailing at the fear of any negative exposure

Sent from my 5010X using Tapatalk

I sort of think they wouldn’t be up in arms. It’s unlikely she could be forced to expose who the investors/shareholders are. Sort of the point of investing through a hedge fund as I understand it, anonymity. I doubt it would be Joy either as she too likes her anonymity. More likely to be Deering and Fisher I’d think. Be nice if they could get Joy to explain herself publicly under questioning rather than a well organised article or statement.

skybluetony176 · Feb 23, 2018

Nick said:
What exactly is contradictory about that line?

I don't know how to break it down any simpler for you to understand, we had the same the other week about the word "tried" and how it made sentences different.

Fuck me you are thick

Nick · Feb 23, 2018

skybluetony176 said:
Fuck me you are thick

Feel free to explain it Tony...

I have already had to break it down into simple terms for you multiple times. Point out the contradiction....

In which case it hasn't achieved anything has it? If it ever does then I will be wrong, as I have just said.

Captain Dart · Feb 23, 2018

Nick said:
In which case it hasn't achieved anything has it? If it ever does then I will be wrong, as I have just said.

Is it the same running that was done around Haskell? Is it the same running that was done when Hoffman was using Michael as a front with his bids and rental deals? There seems to be a lot of running going on by the heroes but the reality of it is it's achieved the same as me going home and putting my feet up. If that ever changes then again I will be wrong and I will be the first to acknowledge that.

So your solution is to do absolutely nothing and just go to games and be happy with owners that have seen the club relegated twice and provided a budget that may not be sufficient to achieve promotion from D4, the lowest division in the EFL.

skybluetony176 · Feb 23, 2018

Nick said:
Feel free to explain it Tony...

I have already had to break it down into simple terms for you multiple times. Point out the contradiction....

Explain it again? No thanks. I’ll leave you to your self indulgent ignorance that means you’re never wrong.

Captain Dart · Feb 23, 2018

JamesCCFC said:
Well it was but that's neither here nor there. Some interesting points made there but once again you're misconstruing my tone. In no way shape or form was I being negative when I said "what will it actually achieve"; I reiterate it was a question that I wanted feedback on as my knowledge on parliamentary procedure isn't the best. Funnily enough this is a forum where you're allowed to do that... So before you presume and wrongfully brandish people as lazy may I ask what action you're taking to save the club? Simply calling people out when they're attempting to find an answer for their question hardly achieves much in itself does it...

It's promising that our cause is receiving genuine concern on a political level - rather than individuals simply stating what a sorry situation we're in then doing nothing as you stated. Obviously it remains to be seen where and how this will lead but it's promising none the less. However, whilst the club are receiving EDM's in Parliament, more needs to be done as very few are debated further. Our situation is difficult as like it or not SISU are invested in the club and in effect have every right to continue their reign until in their eyes a suitable buyer is sourced. Our situation is made even more difficult by the fact that it's a unique one. I've had a number of discussions with fans that wonder why SISU won't just simply 'pack up and leave'. However as everyone has discovered their situation is complicated due to the fact that as a hedge fund, much of the money invested by SISU isn't their own - which leaves Joy effectively stuck in the mud with us. This was once again why I was asking the question, what can parliament actually do besides give Joy a telling off because from my perspective there's no basis for parliamentary intervention - with exception from the Ricoh situation. Obviously this doesn't mean we should do nothing, there's a number of avenues we can take to further our voice. If we built upon the Telegraph petition for instance that was signed by 16,000 then our voice would be heard. 100,000 signatures are needed for our case to be heard in Parliament and our case would subsequently be up for discussion - ultimately broadcasting our cause which is what is needed. In my eyes this is the route to go down as IF there isn't legislature in place and leaves Parliament ineffectual in our situation, at least it'll broadcast our cause

I think the fact a lot of local MPs are putting their support behind this cause is indeed promising and also shows where the weight of opinion is, they are not divided politically and they're all keen to see the back of SISU.

There is also a bid from the Hoffman camp and I think his group will eventually acquire the club, but you are right there is no real pressure on SISU to sell the business is no longer losing money but it is not as competitive as it should be and while Joy knows there is a willing buyer she can hold on and hope for a better price.

However I think this situation may be used by the MP's to promote calls to reform football ownership in legislation and a strategic action like that may be beneficial to the game in the long run, Supporters Direct are chasing this goal I believe.

Unfortunately the Government is very weak and heavily engaged on other matters, so I think any actual action will have to wait to the next election as evidenced by the Sports Minister just waffling on and promising nothing.

The result of mediation is the next point at which something may give, even the courts are saying this is unsatisfactory sort it out!

Nick · Feb 23, 2018

skybluetony176 said:
Explain it again? No thanks. I’ll leave you to your self indulgent ignorance that means you’re never wrong.

Or you could explain how it's a contradiction and prove me wrong?

Nuneaton MP to raise CCFC home next season in Parliament (1 Viewer)

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency