Possible Solution (17 Viewers)

dongonzalos · Mar 13, 2015

I have mentioned this in another thread and some can't see it working. However in the other thread it has all got a bit diluted and as usual you have Grendel trying to divert away from the idea. So I would mind the opinion of a few of more sensible posters

Basically if you are to believe SISU that we are building a new stadium. Even if it was part funded by debt and part by investors. I would guess the club would still get an extra 20 million debt.

We pay 1-5-2 million interest per year on 9 million debt to ARVO.

So double that you are and add the existing debt we would be paying 5-6 million a year in interest. In the Championship interest counts against your FFP. So the new revenue streams that are so important for funding the squad will need 6 million off them.

My idea is we offer Wasps half of what the new stadium would cost us in debt. In this hypothetical example 9 million. We want 49% of ACL. However we say as part of the deal wasps must clear half the loan with the money (7 million).

We then inherit 3.5 million of the remaining 7 million loan.

Wasps reduce their risks straight away they now only have a 3.5 million loan. They also have CCFC committed as a fellow anchor tenant long term to the Ricoh.

To entice wasps to take the risk we guarantee we will spend the remaining 11 million on a squad that can take league one by storm and get to 6th in the championship.

The appeal for Wasps ACL will automatically increase in value when we sign the deal.
They get an instant return on their investment.
A successful CCFC would bring in crowds comparable to Wasps and far more valuable sponsorship and advertising revenue.

The moment we hit 6th CCFC get to sell the premiership dream ( ie 100 million for last place to someone) finally getting a return on their investment.

Wasps then get a partner with genuine premiership aspirations so again more money for ACL.

For me this idea is more likely to get SISU a return on their investment than building a new stadium.

Gazolba · Mar 13, 2015

dongonzalos said:
I have mentioned this in another thread and some can't see it working. <snip> So I would mind the opinion of a few of more sensible posters

Basically if you are to believe SISU that we are building a new stadium. Even if it was part funded by debt and part by investors. I would guess the club would still get an extra 20 million debt.

We pay 1-5-2 million interest per year on 9 million debt to ARVO.

So double that you are and add the existing debt we would be paying 5-6 million a year in interest. In the Championship interest counts against your FFP. So the new revenue streams that are so important for funding the squad will need 6 million off them.

My idea is we offer Wasps half of what the new stadium would cost us in debt. In this hypothetical example 9 million. We want 49% of ACL. However we say as part of the deal wasps must clear half the loan with the money (7 million).

We then inherit 3.5 million of the remaining 7 million loan.

Wasps reduce their risks straight away they now only have a 3.5 million loan. They also have CCFC committed as a fellow anchor tenant long term to the Ricoh.

To entice wasps to take the risk we guarantee we will spend the remaining 11 million on a squad that can take league one by storm and get to 6th in the championship.

The appeal for Wasps ACL will automatically increase in value when we sign the deal.
They get an instant return on their investment.
A successful CCFC would bring in crowds comparable to Wasps and far more valuable sponsorship and advertising revenue.

The moment we hit 6th CCFC get to sell the premiership dream ( ie 100 million for last place to someone) finally getting a return on their investment.

Wasps then get a partner with genuine premiership aspirations so again more money for ACL.

For me this idea is more likely to get SISU a return on their investment than building a new stadium.

You use the word 'we' a lot in your post. Who is 'we'? Would that be CCFC or SISU? We, if you mean CCFC, have no money to buy anything. Anything SISU buys on our behalf will be in the form of a loan or debt loaded on CCFC.

dongonzalos · Mar 13, 2015

Gazolba said:
You use the word 'we' a lot in your post. Who is 'we'? Would that be CCFC or SISU? We, if you mean CCFC, have no money to buy anything. Anything SISU buys on our behalf will be in the form of a loan or debt loaded on CCFC.

Yes we as in SISU loading debt and interest payments into CCFC. I would rather it spent in half of ACL and a decent crack at getting 6th in the championship. Rather than 20 million debt building a stadium smaller than the Ricoh outside Coventry. That I fail to see how it will get a return on their investment.

stupot07 · Mar 13, 2015

Why do we only want 49%? Surely we want 50% to be equal partners?

You don't know what the interest would be, given that wasps are only paying c£1.4m pa on repayment and interest, I don't think you can suggest that we would be paying another £5-6m pa interests. Scaremongering.

I would welcome OSB's thoughts on your proposal and whether he thinks wasps would be receptive..

£11m wouldn't be enough to get promoted from league one and push for top 6 in championship, you would use half of that in league one, which would leave you with just £5.5-6.5m for championship, just about enough to scrape survival.

It makes me laugh, when it comes to football people just treat money and spending like its Monopoly money.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

mrtrench · Mar 13, 2015

1. CCFC would not own the new stadium. Tim Fisher has already stated that it would be owned by another legal entity and CCFC would pay rent.
2. Why would Wasps agree to sell half at cost? What's in it for them?
3. If Wasps agreed to sell for debt, they would now have greater risk, not less. They have the risk that we don't pay the debt.

Godiva · Mar 13, 2015

dongonzalos said:
We pay 1-5-2 million interest per year on 9 million debt to ARVO....

First of all - 'we' don't pay that amount, the interest is accrued to the debts and not paid out. This is recognized by OSB.
Second, the debt is owed to the shareholders. Not an outside bank or company. If the club cannot repay the debt then it's the shareholders who lose their money. The debt and the share value is equally of zero value until the club starts to make a serious profit.
Third - and this is the important bit that nobody talks about - the debts (made up of loans and interests) are seemingly being converted to equity to make sure the club can upkeep a decent wage bill under the SMCP/FFP in this league.

The debt level and the interest rate is really un-important unless you are either Hoffman trying to take over the club for £1 or another feeling the need to steer discussions away from one of the dozens other sensible topics.

Raggs · Mar 13, 2015

Including debt, which you are doing, wasps paid £20mil. You are offering £9mil for basically half... The value would have increased with wasps coming in. Why would they sell half for less than they paid for it.

Godiva · Mar 13, 2015

Raggs said:
Including debt, which you are doing, wasps paid £20mil. You are offering £9mil for basically half... The value would have increased with wasps coming in. Why would they sell half for less than they paid for it.

No they didn't. This is an old myth that has been debunked a few times already. Wasps paid £5.5m and took over a company that hold a loan of £14m and a balancing asset (the 250 yr lease). If Wasps decide to let ACL go bust they are not liable for the loan. It is only ACL who can service or default the loan - not Wasps.

Raggs · Mar 13, 2015

Then if we discount the loan, given the stipulations the offer is only £2mil ,( as the rest is on the loan) and still less than half.

skybluetony176 · Mar 13, 2015

Godiva said:
First of all - 'we' don't pay that amount, the interest is accrued to the debts and not paid out. This is recognized by OSB.
Second, the debt is owed to the shareholders. Not an outside bank or company. If the club cannot repay the debt then it's the shareholders who lose their money. The debt and the share value is equally of zero value until the club starts to make a serious profit.
Third - and this is the important bit that nobody talks about - the debts (made up of loans and interests) are seemingly being converted to equity to make sure the club can upkeep a decent wage bill under the SMCP/FFP in this league.

The debt level and the interest rate is really un-important unless you are either Hoffman trying to take over the club for £1 or another feeling the need to steer discussions away from one of the dozens other sensible topics.

The debt and interest surely is being expected to be paid back at some point. Otherwise wouldn't you cancel the debt by turning it into shares or at least never apply the interest charges in the first place? I sure I remember OSB questioning the "it's not real debt" line from Mr Fisher by pointing out if it's not real debt why is interest being applied.

shmmeee · Mar 13, 2015

Godiva said:
First of all - 'we' don't pay that amount, the interest is accrued to the debts and not paid out. This is recognized by OSB.
Second, the debt is owed to the shareholders. Not an outside bank or company. If the club cannot repay the debt then it's the shareholders who lose their money. The debt and the share value is equally of zero value until the club starts to make a serious profit.
Third - and this is the important bit that nobody talks about - the debts (made up of loans and interests) are seemingly being converted to equity to make sure the club can upkeep a decent wage bill under the SMCP/FFP in this league.

The debt level and the interest rate is really un-important unless you are either Hoffman trying to take over the club for £1 or another feeling the need to steer discussions away from one of the dozens other sensible topics.

I really want to believe this, but have a hard time wrapping my head around it. Are you basically saying because no one would buy us with the debt it's worthless? As in no one would take it on in the same way the equity is worthless as no one would pay for the shares?

If nothing else it puts off potential investors surely? Doesn't it mean we're stuck here until we fluke the Prem or is there another realistic short term exit strategy?

dongonzalos · Mar 13, 2015

stupot07 said:
Why do we only want 49%? Surely we want 50% to be equal partners?

(To entice Wasps into the deal)

You don't know what the interest would be, given that wasps are only paying c£1.4m pa on repayment and interest, I don't think you can suggest that we would be paying another £5-6m pa interests. Scaremongering.

(It's the rate SISU are currently loaning money at. They will likely need to go to ARVO again for their share. So it is the most logical explanation unless we go with yours and they loan it from CCC. )

I would welcome OSB's thoughts on your proposal and whether he thinks wasps would be receptive..

£11m wouldn't be enough to get promoted from league one and push for top 6 in championship, you would use half of that in league one, which would leave you with just £5.5-6.5m for championship, just about enough to scrape survival.

(What have Bournemouth spent)

It makes me laugh, when it comes to football people just treat money and spending like its Monopoly money.

(Our owners are intending to on a monopoly stadium I am just suggesting something more sensible )

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

stupot07 · Mar 13, 2015

Bournemouth spent over £15m in one season in league one just to get promotion.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/27224806

And that might be the rate at which Sisu are currently lending money but it doesn't mean that's the rate they would do it for the stadium.

The average person can borrow money on one of my credit cards for 18.9%c(outside 0% period), or could get a loan at around 4% or a mortgage at c1.5% tracker.

I would suggest that with the asset as security (like a mortgage) the rate would be significantly lower than what ARVO are charging.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

dongonzalos · Mar 13, 2015

stupot07 said:
Bournemouth spent over £15m in one season in league one just to get promotion.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/27224806

And that might be the rate at which Sisu are currently lending money but it doesn't mean that's the rate they would do it for the stadium.

I can borrow money on one of my credit cards for 18.9%, or I could get a loan at around 4% or a mortgage at c1.5% tracker.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

..............

dongonzalos · Mar 13, 2015

stupot07 said:
Bournemouth spent over £15m in one season in league one just to get promotion.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/27224806

And that might be the rate at which Sisu are currently lending money but it doesn't mean that's the rate they would do it for the stadium.

I can borrow money on one of my credit cards for 18.9%, or I could get a loan at around 4% or a mortgage at c1.5% tracker.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

They did not spend 15 million on their squad, their debt was 15 million.

I am talking about spending the 11 million on top of the 7 million we will probably use and spend in that season anyway

The 11 million is additional money we would have been wasting on the new stadium to be spent purely on the squad

stupot07 · Mar 13, 2015

dongonzalos said:
They did not spend 15 million pm their squad, their debt was 15 million.

I am talking about spending the 11 million on top of the 7 million we will probably use and spend in that season anyway

The 11 million is additional money we would have been wasting on the new stadium to be spent purely on the squad

I never said they spent £15m on their squad. I'm saying they used £15m on top of the revenue the club made in order to get promoted. It wasn't their debt, it was one year's losses.

So what your saying is. We already lose £7m, so we should throw another £11m so we're losing £18m on a punt to get out of this league? Like I said Monopoly money. Utterly fanciful.

So that's the £11m gone, wasps have pocketed their £9m, getting to the championship brings in an additional £5m. So the next season we're on course to lose £13m before the players get an automatic pay rise due to promotion, and before we've added to the squad. What's next?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Bill Glazier · Mar 13, 2015

It's good to see creative thinking but that looks a complicated idea. I can see the two clubs coming together under one owner in some sort of Coventry Sporting Club - which could include Cov Rugby Club too - ultimately. How that situation arrives, God knows, but I've a feeling it'll be the only way any of the teams can thriive in the long run.

dongonzalos · Mar 13, 2015

mrtrench said:
1. CCFC would not own the new stadium. Tim Fisher has already stated that it would be owned by another legal entity and CCFC would pay rent.

(Paid for partly by debt (SISU) and partly by the other investors

2. Why would Wasps agree to sell half at cost? What's in it for them?

(Wasps spent 5.5 million and got 14 million debt. They will get 9 million reduce their debt to 3.5 million. Have 50% of a company that instantly increases in value. They gain another anchor tenant and a business plan that shows CCFC will be investing an additional 11 million on their squad. Which will lead to increased revenue streams for ACL.)

3. If Wasps agreed to sell for debt, they would now have greater risk, not less. They have the risk that we don't pay the debt

(We have the debt they reduce theirs by two thirds )

.

Godiva · Mar 13, 2015

shmmeee said:
I really want to believe this, but have a hard time wrapping my head around it. Are you basically saying because no one would buy us with the debt it's worthless? As in no one would take it on in the same way the equity is worthless as no one would pay for the shares?

If nothing else it puts off potential investors surely? Doesn't it mean we're stuck here until we fluke the Prem or is there another realistic short term exit strategy?

Yes, that's the reality. The shares and the debt is worth nothing to the owners with the state the club is in. Long record of suffering financial losses, no assets worth mentioning, the rent may be low but it's only set for another three seasons and the income streams are extremely limited.
On top of that you have the customers fighting the owners launching endless campaigns to make them leave. You have the local council who clearly don't offer any support to the - once - proud football team.

Who in their right mind would take that on?

Sisu is stuck with the club as the club is stuck with sisu. There are in my view no short term resolution.

bigfatronssba · Mar 13, 2015

Working with Wasps/ACL is the only sensible option left. Anything else doesn't make sense.

Loading the club up with massive interest debt to pay for a stadium no one wants is going to kill the club.

Sisu need to sit down with Wasps and sort something out. If they keep picking fights that they can't win then they will lose everything.

stupot07 · Mar 13, 2015

bigfatronssba said:
Working with Wasps/ACL is the only sensible option left. Anything else doesn't make sense.

Loading the club up with massive interest debt to pay for a stadium no one wants is going to kill the club.

Sisu need to sit down with Wasps and sort something out. If they keep picking fights that they can't win then they will lose everything.

What happens if wasps change the seats?

It all goes back to what will wasps want or be prepared to give. It's likely they will want significantly more than £100k per annum rent, but highly unlikely they are going to want to give any more the 50% of matchday revenues away. Then we are left back at square one.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Godiva · Mar 13, 2015

stupot07 said:
Bournemouth spent over £15m in one season in league one just to get promotion.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/27224806

And that might be the rate at which Sisu are currently lending money but it doesn't mean that's the rate they would do it for the stadium.

The average person can borrow money on one of my credit cards for 18.9%c(outside 0% period), or could get a loan at around 4% or a mortgage at c1.5% tracker.

I would suggest that with the asset as security (like a mortgage) the rate would be significantly lower than what ARVO are charging.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

No it's not. Last accounts records fresh money injections of some £5m - to make up for the administration and lost revenues at Sixfields. TF clearly says it's the intention to become 'independent' of the owners - I translate that as an order from sisu to not ask for more money.

dongonzalos · Mar 13, 2015

Godiva said:
First of all - 'we' don't pay that amount, the interest is accrued to the debts and not paid out. This is recognized by OSB.

(And recognised by me, also it will be recognised by the FL if we get promoted to the championship and it gets deducted from the FFP we so desperately need to increase)

Second, the debt is owed to the shareholders. Not an outside bank or company. If the club cannot repay the debt then it's the shareholders who lose their money. The debt and the share value is equally of zero value until the club starts to make a serious profit.

(No argument there and that is irrelevant to the point I am making. The chances of making serious profit will be more via my suggestion than a new stadium)

Third - and this is the important bit that nobody talks about - the debts (made up of loans and interests) are seemingly being converted to equity to make sure the club can upkeep a decent wage bill under the SMCP/FFP in this league.

(FFP as covered above)

The debt level and the interest rate is really un-important unless you are either Hoffman trying to take over the club for £1 or another feeling the need to steer discussions away from one of the dozens other sensible topics

(Sorry that's where you are wrong do some reading on FFP in the championship and interest paid on debt and loans)

.

bigfatronssba · Mar 13, 2015

stupot07 said:
What happens if wasps change the seats?

It all goes back to what will wasps want or be prepared to give. It's likely they will want significantly more than £100k per annum rent, but highly unlikely they are going to want to give any more the 50% of matchday revenues away. Then we are left back at square one.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Ok lets plunge the club millions in debt and move it out of the city because of the colour of the seats (which when Mark Robins proposed a few years ago half of the posters on here thought it was a good idea anyway).

As you say its down to what Wasps are prepared to do. So your solution seems to be lets not talk to Wasps and then that way they will give CCFC everything.

That fat tub of lard posing as CCFC chairman should be kissing Nick Eastwood's arse 24/7 in trying to get the best deal for CCFC.

torchomatic · Mar 13, 2015

Tbf, he'd have to join the back of the queue behind you, shmmeee, mmm, dongo...

bigfatronssba said:
That fat tub of lard posing as CCFC chairman should be kissing Nick Eastwood's arse 24/7 in trying to get the best deal for CCFC.

Godiva · Mar 13, 2015

dongonzalos said:
(And recognised by me, also it will be recognised by the FL if we get promoted to the championship and it gets deducted from the FFP we so desperately need to increase)

Godiva said:

The debt level and the interest rate is really un-important unless you are either Hoffman trying to take over the club for £1 or another feeling the need to steer discussions away from one of the dozens other sensible topics

Click to expand...

(Sorry that's where you are wrong do some reading on FFP in the championship and interest paid on debt and loans)

The point I made about charging a high interest, then accrue it to the debt and ultimately convert it to equity is a creative way to increase SMCP budget without having to inject real money is legal in league 1. That's where we are now and was in the season covered by the accounts.

Surely they are using whatever financial instrument available to them in the present circumstances? Maybe they will change financial tactics if - and that will take at least another season - we get promoted to the Championship.

bigfatronssba · Mar 13, 2015

torchomatic said:
Tbf, he'd have to join the back of the queue behind you, shmmeee, mmm, dongo...

Good one.

Have you got any suggestions on how to sort this mess out or are you just on the wind up again?

I would have hoped a super fan such as yourself would have taken this subject more seriously. Unfortunately it seems that once again you have taken this opportunity to make a few snide remarks against your fellow fans.

Godiva · Mar 13, 2015

bigfatronssba said:
Ok lets plunge the club millions in debt and move it out of the city because of the colour of the seats (which when Mark Robins proposed a few years ago half of the posters on here thought it was a good idea anyway).

How will building a new stadium put the club in more debts?

Noggin · Mar 13, 2015

stupot07 said:
The average person can borrow money on one of my credit cards for 18.9%c(outside 0% period), or could get a loan at around 4% or a mortgage at c1.5% tracker.

I would suggest that with the asset as security (like a mortgage) the rate would be significantly lower than what ARVO are charging.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

The 1,5% you can borrow for on a tracker will only last for 2 years (they expect alot of people to forget to switch and these are the people they make their money from), will normally have a product fee and will require you to easily be able to afford repayments as well as have a property with about 40%+ equity. None of this is at all similar to investing in a stadium.

yes someone can borrow at 4% on a loan unsecured, but again you will have to prove affordability and rates that low are only on small sums of money, say up to 15k max.

If they had the stadium already built and it was valued at more than they wanted to borrow and they could show profitability they would be able to borrow at a decent rate (though still well above the 1.5% from earlier) it's extremely unlikely that investors who were putting money into a hedge fund would be happy with this as an investment though. Of course though the stadium isn't already built, they aren't going to be able to show profitability and it's unlikely the stadium is going to be worth significantly more than they want to borrow (at least from seeing the ricoh as an example).

So they are going to have to borrow to build the stadium 3I think you are talking 20% interest at the very least (and I think you are completely nuts to do so at only 20%) to borrow under these circumstances and I'd still not be willing to invest myself. Once the stadium is built you can refinance, but people think that the ricoh loan is risky with 11% interest, this is a massively massively more risky investment even after the stadium is built, and before it's built it's frankly nuts imo.

The numbers just don't work, you can stick your money in a world index tracker, get something like 7% on average, only pay a very small fee each year and while there will be volatility and years when you lose over the long term it's a pretty safe investment

dongonzalos · Mar 13, 2015

stupot07 said:
I never said they spent £15m on their squad. I'm saying they used £15m on top of the revenue the club made in order to get promoted. It wasn't their debt, it was one year's losses.

So what your saying is. We already lose £7m, so we should throw another £11m so we're losing £18m on a punt to get out of this league? Like I said Monopoly money. Utterly fanciful.

So that's the £11m gone, wasps have pocketed their £9m, getting to the championship brings in an additional £5m. So the next season we're on course to lose £13m before the players get an automatic pay rise due to promotion, and before we've added to the squad. What's next?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

What I am saying is the Monopoly money (debt) we are going to blow on our share of the new stadium, blow it on half of ACL and a crack at 6th in the championship instead..

If we are going to increase our debt on the new stadium idea why not try it on an idea that will more likely lead to a 50-60 million pound return.

bigfatronssba · Mar 13, 2015

Godiva said:
How will building a new stadium put the club in more debts?

It will put the club and its associated companies into more debt.

Or are you saying the company that will ultimately own this new ground will not be part of the CCFC group of companies?

dongonzalos · Mar 13, 2015

Godiva said:
Yes, that's the reality. The shares and the debt is worth nothing to the owners with the state the club is in. Long record of suffering financial losses, no assets worth mentioning, the rent may be low but it's only set for another three seasons and the income streams are extremely limited.
On top of that you have the customers fighting the owners launching endless campaigns to make them leave. You have the local council who clearly don't offer any support to the - once - proud football team.

Who in their right mind would take that on?

Sisu is stuck with the club as the club is stuck with sisu. There are in my view no short term resolution.

Agree.

The Premier League TV deal has just created the only possible solution for SISU to get the investors money back.

Getting to sixth in the championship and selling the club for 50-60 million would be the only resolution for me.

What is the long term resolution via a new stadium?

Godiva · Mar 13, 2015

bigfatronssba said:
It will put the club and its associated companies into more debt.

Or are you saying the company that will ultimately own this new ground will not be part of the CCFC group of companies?

I have said that a number of times already.
It will be owned by investors in a company outside the SBS&L group (could even be inside, but less likely).
The club (Otium) will own another company - a stadium management company that lease the stadium and operate it 24/7/365.
The club will pay rent to the stadium management company but in return gain access to all revenue streams generated in the stadium (complex).

It compares to:
Investors owning the Ricoh and leasing it to ACL who operate it and the club paying rent to play there. Only the club does not own ACL the access to income streams is limited.

dongonzalos · Mar 13, 2015

Godiva said:
How will building a new stadium put the club in more debts?

How much is this going to cost? Where is the money coming from?

The financing will be a mix of equity and debt. As a ground share requirement for the Football League we have had to show how the new stadium might be financed and included the accompanying proof of funding.

- Tim Fisher

Read more at http://www.ccfc.co.uk/news/article/new-stadium-questions-1245952.aspx#dQ9KdhjUtYbUJ1rf.99

A mixture of equity and Debt

Equity will be the other investors
Debt will be borrowing from someone like ARVO.

Noggin · Mar 13, 2015

I don't see much if any extra risk to ccfc if sisu are planning to build a new stadium using more money from sisu investors, I just don't believe there is any chance of it happening. The only way I can see it is if the money comes from investors that don't realise what is happening, they give there money to sisu expecting them to invest it for them and the money gets used to build a new stadium with almost zero chance of a return for the investors but helping sisu to get more of their own money back by selling the lot as a package, imo this would be near criminal behaviour and so I don't see any chance of a new stadium being built.

Possible Solution (17 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New 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

Active 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

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency