Valuations of ACL (25 Viewers)

Deleted member 5849 · Jun 17, 2014

duffer said:
Confession: I met TF briefly on Thursday, after the trial, and although we didn't talk at all about the club (he offered to, anytime, in fairness), the one thing he did say is that 'we've made mistakes' - in the way that things have gone with the club, I presumed.

For me, that's good enough. I don't need to know the details, and I don't need apologies, I just want to see a willingness to move on. If we could get past all of the JR noise, and for that matter stop digging into all of SISU's past dealing to do that, then that's a price worth paying.

tbf it's something SISU have peddled for a fair while, but it hasn't been bought as a reason to move on. Why? Possibly because mistakes = blame. Extending it, if the concern over Council transparency would allow a 'made mistakes' line in return, then it may be a start. Until recently there's been no need for the council to acknowledge any failing, as they have had the position of strength wrt public opinion (and in a political beast, that does count)

Away from that, the old 'made mistakes' line always concerns me. Marlon King made mistakes It seems a free pass to be given more chances to make more mistakes. That being said, pragmatism maybe needs more forgiving than usual given current circumstances! But I never like things being absolved quite so easily as the future is always informed by the past, after all.

Oh and a vague statement about making mistakes, the mistake could have been not playing hardball enough, and not moving away sooner! It's all in the perspective.

Godiva · Jun 17, 2014

duffer said:
Apart from the fact I've never watched Jeremy Kyle (honest!) the problem with this is that we're never going to get to the whole truth and it will take forever.

We don't have forever, and I don't need 'closure'.

Confession: I met TF briefly on Thursday, after the trial, and although we didn't talk at all about the club (he offered to, anytime, in fairness), the one thing he did say is that 'we've made mistakes' - in the way that things have gone with the club, I presumed.

For me, that's good enough. I don't need to know the details, and I don't need apologies, I just want to see a willingness to move on. If we could get past all of the JR noise, and for that matter stop digging into all of SISU's past dealing to do that, then that's a price worth paying.

At the moment though, it feels like we're still stuck.

Getting on will require all parties start treating each other with respect. I sense TF gained a little bit of respect from you when he actually admitted they have made mistakes.
And that is in a sense what I was aiming at previously when I advocated the parties need to sit down in private and agree to what has happened and try to communicate their reasoning. That is the way to build respect and trust.

duffer · Jun 17, 2014

Godiva said:
It is actually covered in the JR to great extent.

Here's just a part of it (after coucil QC accuses sisu of going to the bank behind ACL's back):

So sisu claim they were not going to the bank, but the bank came to sisu. Sisu claim that nothing but rent was discussed. And in the end it seems that Council QC leaves his argument and say 'yes, but they could have done it'.

They did do it. SISU went to the bank, off their own backs, in (I think) March/April. It's in the Higgs document, and it's not denied in the JR. It seems that the Council took exception to it too, at that point in time. SISU can claim what they want, but clearly they were prepared to go to the bank directly, and indeed did so.

It's only your opinion, with respect, that SISU wouldn't attempt to do a deal behind the Council's back to purchase the bank's debt and gain control of ACL that way. The council QC clearly differs, but that doesn't agree with your opinion so you've disregarded it.

Which is, forgive me, exactly what happens with the trial documents - we (both of us, I do it too) latch onto the bits that support our views and inevitably rerun the same arguments. It gets us nowhere and my dinner's getting cold!

duffer · Jun 17, 2014

Godiva said:
Getting on will require all parties start treating each other with respect. I sense TF gained a little bit of respect from you when he actually admitted they have made mistakes.
And that is in a sense what I was aiming at previously when I advocated the parties need to sit down in private and agree to what has happened and try to communicate their reasoning. That is the way to build respect and trust.

Yes, it did gain my respect that he'd say that. But talk is cheap, and what matters now is action. I don't see the point of trying to force everyone to come clean now, and I seriously doubt it's ever going to happen. This isn't Jeremy Kyle, and everyone is going to be very wary about being dragged up in court again - we don't peace and reconciliation and doves, we need proper negotiation and contracts.

Everyone involved feels hard done to. It's pointless digging it all up. Move past it and get on, I'd say.

Godiva · Jun 17, 2014

duffer said:
They did do it. SISU went to the bank, off their own backs, in (I think) March/April. It's in the Higgs document, and it's not denied in the JR. It seems that the Council took exception to it too, at that point in time. SISU can claim what they want, but clearly they were prepared to go to the bank directly, and indeed did so.

It's only your opinion, with respect, that SISU wouldn't attempt to do a deal behind the Council's back to purchase the bank's debt and gain control of ACL that way. The council QC clearly differs, but that doesn't agree with your opinion so you've disregarded it.

Which is, forgive me, exactly what happens with the trial documents - we (both of us, I do it too) latch onto the bits that support our views and inevitably rerun the same arguments. It gets us nowhere and my dinner's getting cold!

You cannot possibly have read the quote I included in my post.
The meeting with the bank in March 2012 is in there. It was long before HoT with ACL was signed and it was long before the council had to make their decision.
I also included the council QC reply - and forgive me, but he clearly abandon his argument that sisu did appoach the bank and say 'they could have' (they had the option)'.

Godiva · Jun 17, 2014

Still reading on day 3 transcript.

The judge gives the sisu QC a real fight about the YB offer to restructure the loan at £15.3m. Sisu QC tries to argue that the bank demanded increased security, but the judge won't have it. When pressed sisu QC admit there's no mention of security in the offer from the bank at all.
The judge also makes the point that the bank thought it possible ACL could continue to service the loan.

This point is in my opinion a double edged sword. It can be argued that if the bank was not concerned about ACL's ability to service its loan and made no demand for increased security, then it could prove that the ccc loan was given on comercially rational terms.
On the other hand it can be argued that this proves there were other options for the council available and so no need to use public money, and it could even be argued that public money was used in unfair competition with the private bank.

It is quite hard to tell how much of the financial stuff the judge actually understands. Some times he seem to misinterpret financial terms and some times he is sharp and to the point (as above).

Astute · Jun 18, 2014

Godiva said:
Ah, I am sorry, you lost me there. What did sisu say is true/false? I don't think in the Higgs case sisu ever agreed their appetite to fullfil the termsheet ever ceased? It was the judges opinion - but it doesn't mean sisu necessary agree. It had no adverse effect on sisu's case as they won anyway.

This post alone shows how biased you are in this thread. SISU never won. Nobody won the case. And that was because no side carried on with the so called road map. but you try to say that SISU wanted to carry on. It wasn't the fault of not wanting to pay 5.5m as agreed. They seemed to be looking for an excuse to pull out. And even the judge called it a 0-0 draw. But to you it was a SISU win :facepalm:

And this is what I was saying is the difference between OSB and posters like here. OSB pionts out the facts and explains them. Godiva points out the facts and his explanation is pointed towards blaming ACL/CCC for everything possible and some count them as the same. This is how petty it is getting in here.

If I thought that SISU getting the arena would benefit our club I would join in with trying to make crap stick against CCC.

Deleted member 5849 · Jun 18, 2014

You are showing *your* bias yet again Astute...

Grendel · Jun 18, 2014

Astute said:
And this is what I was saying is the difference between OSB and posters like here. OSB pionts out the facts and explains them.

Wrong. He interprets data and gives his opinion - hence his sign off - just my opinion of course. It just so happens his opinion = your bias. When another poster presents a different scenario it makes you uncomfortable.

Astute · Jun 18, 2014

Deleted member 5849 said:
You are showing *your* bias yet again Astute...

Do you mean my bias of looking for the truth other than trying to lay the blame somewhere? Or not laying the blame at where you think might be able to bring an end to this shitfest if enough of us get behind it not worrying about the long term future of our club?

All of this crap has come out because the SISU QC said so for the majority of it. I suppose that the posters loving what Godiva has been saying on this thread would have been happy if someone else did the same on behalf of CCC/ACL And these same posters keep going on about the bias towards ACL/CCC.

torchomatic · Jun 18, 2014

Astute said:
So you know more than OSB? You can work this mess out better than OSB?

Or are you jealous so you just want to rip into OSB because he is much wiser and intelligent than yourself?

you missed off "and better looking and I love him, so there. .."

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Astute · Jun 18, 2014

Grendel said:
Wrong. He interprets data and gives his opinion - hence his sign off - just my opinion of course. It just so happens his opinion = your bias. When another poster presents a different scenario it makes you uncomfortable.

The joker is back.

There is hardly any evidence on what is going on. Mostly hearsay from SISU QC. But it is good enough 'proof' for some.

You are right about something. I look at evidence on what has been going on. I look at what is still going on. Then I have an opinion. I don't rely on hearsay like you love to because there isn't much more to defend the undefendable. But that seems to be your main aim on here.

Hobo · Jun 18, 2014

Grendel said:
Wrong. He interprets data and gives his opinion - hence his sign off - just my opinion of course. It just so happens his opinion = your bias. When another poster presents a different scenario it makes you uncomfortable.

You seem to undervalue the definition of opinion?
A judgement formed on something not necessarily biased on facts or knowledge.

a statement of advice by an expert on a professional matter.
"if in doubt, get a second opinion"

fernandopartridge · Jun 18, 2014

Astute said:
This post alone shows how biased you are in this thread. SISU never won. Nobody won the case. And that was because no side carried on with the so called road map. but you try to say that SISU wanted to carry on. It wasn't the fault of not wanting to pay 5.5m as agreed. They seemed to be looking for an excuse to pull out. And even the judge called it a 0-0 draw. But to you it was a SISU win :facepalm:

And this is what I was saying is the difference between OSB and posters like here. OSB pionts out the facts and explains them. Godiva points out the facts and his explanation is pointed towards blaming ACL/CCC for everything possible and some count them as the same. This is how petty it is getting in here.

If I thought that SISU getting the arena would benefit our club I would join in with trying to make crap stick against CCC.

Ali, they did win. They defended themselves. The counter claim was just a means to illicit information.

Astute · Jun 18, 2014

torchomatic said:
you missed off "and better looking and I love him, so there. .."

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

So you don't agree with most of what OSB says? Don't he help you to understand what is going on?

It isn't his fault that the truth goes against SISU a lot of the time. He never bitches against any side like most seem to do. But if someones points don't go with the points you want to make does that make it biased?

Grendel · Jun 18, 2014

Astute said:
So you don't agree with most of what OSB says? Don't he help you to understand what is going on?

Not often, no and no again.

Is that a hanging offence?

torchomatic · Jun 18, 2014

Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. However, it was the sycophantic remarks that made me feel a little queasy.

No, he doesn't bitch and as others have pointed out he says he is giving his "opinion" and is pretty much hero worshipped by you and others on here. Godiva, for me, is the same. He never bitches, gives his opinion, yet you and Tony decide he's wrong and start having a go.

Astute said:
So you don't agree with most of what OSB says? Don't he help you to understand what is going on?

It isn't his fault that the truth goes against SISU a lot of the time. He never bitches against any side like most seem to do. But if someones points don't go with the points you want to make does that make it biased?

sky blue john · Jun 18, 2014

torchomatic said:
Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. However, it was the sycophantic remarks that made me feel a little queasy.

No, he doesn't bitch and as others have pointed out he says he is giving his "opinion" and is pretty much hero worshipped by you and others on here. Godiva, for me, is the same. He never bitches, gives his opinion, yet you and Tony decide he's wrong and start having a go.

Both Osb and Godiva come up with good valid points. Osb is a little less subtle in his views and tends to plant seeds to make you think more. But they both have a bias.

torchomatic · Jun 18, 2014

I agree. However, Astute ignores OSB's bias because he won't have a word said against him. It's easier to attack someone with a different POV. Something Astute always seems to believe everyone should have. Well, as long as he agrees with it anyway.

sky blue john said:
Both Osb and Godiva come up with good valid points. Osb is a little less subtle in his views and tends to plant seeds to make you think more. But they both have a bias.

duffer · Jun 18, 2014

Godiva said:
You cannot possibly have read the quote I included in my post.
The meeting with the bank in March 2012 is in there. It was long before HoT with ACL was signed and it was long before the council had to make their decision.
I also included the council QC reply - and forgive me, but he clearly abandon his argument that sisu did appoach the bank and say 'they could have' (they had the option)'.

I read it Godiva - I just don't agree with your interpretation. You started off by saying that SISU didn't approach the bank behind the Council's back, but it's there in black and white that they did.

There might be some dispute as to whether they approached the bank again later - but rather than get into a debate about that, the point the Council QC makes is that they could do it again, and therefore it's a valid consideration for the judge.

It's kind of key this to my mind, although possibly not to the JR, because it shows SISU's tactics during the early stages off the negotiation which didn't seem (imho) destined to build trust. For SISU to complain about the Council going behind their back to the bank, whilst they attempted to do it themselves seems a bit rich to me.

It brings me back to the point that it seems that both sides tried to 'play' each other during these negotiations. The net result is where we are. If we want to get back, then the fastest way to me seems to be to start talking about where we're going, rather than where we've been.

Godiva · Jun 18, 2014

duffer said:
I read it Godiva - I just don't agree with your interpretation. You started off by saying that SISU didn't approach the bank behind the Council's back, but it's there in black and white that they did.

There might be some dispute as to whether they approached the bank again later - but rather than get into a debate about that, the point the Council QC makes is that they could do it again, and therefore it's a valid consideration for the judge.

It's kind of key this to my mind, although possibly not to the JR, because it shows SISU's tactics during the early stages off the negotiation which didn't seem (imho) destined to build trust. For SISU to complain about the Council going behind their back to the bank, whilst they attempted to do it themselves seems a bit rich to me.

It brings me back to the point that it seems that both sides tried to 'play' each other during these negotiations. The net result is where we are. If we want to get back, then the fastest way to me seems to be to start talking about where we're going, rather than where we've been.

Clearly the sisu QC accepts sisu went to the bank in March 2012 - and this is what you say, so full agreement on the fact.
If I understand you correctly you say this is the sort of behaviour that show their true character? And you suggest that ACL/CCC handled the negotiations and did their own planning 'knowing the true colour of sisu'? (Maybe I stretched it a bit there?).

But pre agreements with Higgs and ACL I cannot see why sisu couldn't explore their options - especially as they seemed on the brink of pulling the support to the club.
What matters more (to me anyway) is their behaviour after they signed term sheets and I can find nothing to suggest they did break their promise and approached the bank in an attempt to buy the loan. If they did I would think the bank had meeting notes to support that and that the council would have presented it ... from what I read this is quite material to the councils presentation, so they would have made a real effort to find evidence to back their claim.

So in my interpretation this is the council trying to demonise sisu to justify their own behaviour - signing an agreement (HoT) with sisu that they had no intention to honour.

sky blue john · Jun 18, 2014

Godiva said:
Clearly the sisu QC accepts sisu went to the bank in March 2012 - and this is what you say, so full agreement on the fact.
If I understand you correctly you say this is the sort of behaviour that show their true character? And you suggest that ACL/CCC handled the negotiations and did their own planning 'knowing the true colour of sisu'? (Maybe I stretched it a bit there?).

But pre agreements with Higgs and ACL I cannot see why sisu couldn't explore their options - especially as they seemed on the brink of pulling the support to the club.
What matters more (to me anyway) is their behaviour after they signed term sheets and I can find nothing to suggest they did break their promise and approached the bank in an attempt to buy the loan. If they did I would think the bank had meeting notes to support that and that the council would have presented it ... from what I read this is quite material to the councils presentation, so they would have made a real effort to find evidence to back their claim.

So in my interpretation this is the council trying to demonise sisu to justify their own behaviour - signing an agreement (HoT) with sisu that they had no intention to honour.

Hadn't the (Hot) long ran out by this time with both the Higgs and Sisu no longer having appetite for a deal. So said the judge at the Higgs trial anyway ?

Astute · Jun 18, 2014

sky blue john said:
Hadn't the (Hot) long ran out by this time with both the Higgs and Sisu no longer having appetite for a deal. So said the judge at the Higgs trial anyway ?

Which is one of the points that I made that has been ignored yet I am on a SISU witch hunt for seeing holes in the debate on behalf of SISU. And as I have also said what is the point of having debates on certain points only whilst ignoring the finer points brought up? Both sides look to be at fault. And it is up to the judge to decide. It doesn't matter what we think or what we know. It maybe won't even matter in the slightest that SISU have been trying to distress ACL. The judge knows this and commented on it during the JR. It most probably won't matter that SISU acted unlawfully whilst making CCC maybe act unlawfully. The judge also mentioned this, but SISU have brought the case up about CCC maybe acting unlawfully.

There was no smoking gun, but nothing is easy. The part I don't like is that our club has been running up debts whilst in Northampton, but if there is any compo to be paid it will be to SISU and not our club as our club wasn't involved in the JR. So SISU would pick up the cash and our club wouldn't have any debt paid off. If SISU don't get compo everything will be as it is now. Yet on the offal they call it SISU CCFC v CCC Just one big pile of shit from start to finish.

Astute · Jun 18, 2014

Godiva said:
So in my interpretation this is the council trying to demonise sisu to justify their own behaviour - signing an agreement (HoT) with sisu that they had no intention to honour.

Here we go again. So what did CCC do to make the deal collapse? It all stopped when SISU wouldn't pay for the Higgs share as agreed. Or do you know differently?

duffer · Jun 18, 2014

Godiva said:
Clearly the sisu QC accepts sisu went to the bank in March 2012 - and this is what you say, so full agreement on the fact.
If I understand you correctly you say this is the sort of behaviour that show their true character? And you suggest that ACL/CCC handled the negotiations and did their own planning 'knowing the true colour of sisu'? (Maybe I stretched it a bit there?).

But pre agreements with Higgs and ACL I cannot see why sisu couldn't explore their options - especially as they seemed on the brink of pulling the support to the club.
What matters more (to me anyway) is their behaviour after they signed term sheets and I can find nothing to suggest they did break their promise and approached the bank in an attempt to buy the loan. If they did I would think the bank had meeting notes to support that and that the council would have presented it ... from what I read this is quite material to the councils presentation, so they would have made a real effort to find evidence to back their claim.

So in my interpretation this is the council trying to demonise sisu to justify their own behaviour - signing an agreement (HoT) with sisu that they had no intention to honour.

First off, SISU weren't exploring their options pre-agreement with ACL and Higgs - they'd already proposed the Road Map to everyone by this point, and were notionally all working together to deliver it. Approaching the bank at that point was done without agreement and was bound to damage trust.

And your last bit - CCC signing a HoT that they had no intention to honour, you could probably aim that at both parties. It's worth remembering that by this point in time SISU had shipped out most of the assets from CCFC Ltd, seemingly in preparation for Administration.

I think that an alternative way of putting this is that regardless of HoT (which are statements of intent, rather than legally binding contracts), both sides had lost trust in each other, and both sides were hedging their bets in case the deal went wrong. I think the judge makes this point with regard to ACL/CCC when talking about separate commercial paths, which it appears he didn't of necessity see as being inappropriate.

Again, apologies, but from my pov I still don't really see where this gets us.

Godiva · Jun 18, 2014

sky blue john said:
Hadn't the (Hot) long ran out by this time with both the Higgs and Sisu no longer having appetite for a deal. So said the judge at the Higgs trial anyway ?

The HoT with ACL was signed on August 2nd (I believe).
Emails and the infamous 'August report' written by Chris West has been presented at the two hearings showing the plan for CCC to buy the mortgage was formed just days later.

It's important because the centre piece in the agreements between sisu/Higgs/ACL was that sisu - or sisu/CCC jointly - should buy the mortgage. So when the council/ACL started planning for the council to go alone to the bank it was against all intentions (and the spirit) in the roadmap and in the HoT.

It is also important that emails, notes and reports repeatedly emphasized the importance of keeping the plan secret from sisu.

What had run out in August was the exclusivity sisu had to negotiate a deal with Higgs to buy their shares. But buying the shares depended on sisu- or sisu/council jointly - buying the mortgage and discharge it.

Danceswithhorses · Jun 18, 2014

Grendel said:
Not often, no and no again.

Is that a hanging offence?

No it's not, so feel free to continually ignore unbiased and informative posts.

sky blue john · Jun 18, 2014

Godiva said:
The HoT with ACL was signed on August 2nd (I believe).
Emails and the infamous 'August report' written by Chris West has been presented at the two hearings showing the plan for CCC to buy the mortgage was formed just days later.

It's important because the centre piece in the agreements between sisu/Higgs/ACL was that sisu - or sisu/CCC jointly - should buy the mortgage. So when the council/ACL started planning for the council to go alone to the bank it was against all intentions (and the spirit) in the roadmap and in the HoT.

It is also important that emails, notes and reports repeatedly emphasized the importance of keeping the plan secret from sisu.

What had run out in August was the exclusivity sisu had to negotiate a deal with Higgs to buy their shares. But buying the shares depended on sisu- or sisu/council jointly - buying the mortgage and discharge it.

Sisu couldn't buy the debt without the shares but they were not prepared to buy the shares.
So all deals off and the judge agreed this was the case and that Acl could pursue other options.

Astute · Jun 18, 2014

Godiva said:
The HoT with ACL was signed on August 2nd (I believe).
Emails and the infamous 'August report' written by Chris West has been presented at the two hearings showing the plan for CCC to buy the mortgage was formed just days later.

It's important because the centre piece in the agreements between sisu/Higgs/ACL was that sisu - or sisu/CCC jointly - should buy the mortgage. So when the council/ACL started planning for the council to go alone to the bank it was against all intentions (and the spirit) in the roadmap and in the HoT.

It is also important that emails, notes and reports repeatedly emphasized the importance of keeping the plan secret from sisu.

What had run out in August was the exclusivity sisu had to negotiate a deal with Higgs to buy their shares. But buying the shares depended on sisu- or sisu/council jointly - buying the mortgage and discharge it.

Wrong. This ran out once they took our club away from the Ricoh after not paying the rent. Only the road map part of the discussions ran out at that time.

lordsummerisle · Jun 18, 2014

Astute said:
Wrong. This ran out once they took our club away from the Ricoh after not paying the rent. Only the road map part of the discussions ran out at that time.

What on earth are you on about?

Why don't you read stuff yourself so you can make up your own mind, rather than make up stuff to fit the mind you've already made up.

Astute · Jun 18, 2014

lordsummerisle said:
What on earth are you on about?

Why don't you read stuff yourself so you can make up your own mind, rather than make up stuff to fit the mind you've already made up.

Pot, kettle......

So the exclusive part of buying the Higgs shares ran out in the August and not when the rental agreement was broke by SISU? Try reading it again and then checking out the facts. It was only the road map that stopped by the start of August. I suppose SISU offered 2m for the higgs share for a laugh did they?

Godiva · Jun 18, 2014

Astute said:
Wrong. This ran out once they took our club away from the Ricoh after not paying the rent. Only the road map part of the discussions ran out at that time.

You are thinking about the buy-back option that contained a formula to calculate the buy-back price. An option the club negotiated when they originally sold their shares to Higgs.
This is different. When sisu/Higgs agreed term sheet in 2012 an exclusivity period of three months was included. That period ran out in late July IRC.

lordsummerisle · Jun 18, 2014

Astute said:
Pot, kettle......

So the exclusive part of buying the Higgs shares ran out in the August and not when the rental agreement was broke by SISU? Try reading it again and then checking out the facts. It was only the road map that stopped by the start of August. I suppose SISU offered 2m for the higgs share for a laugh did they?

Maybe you shouldn't read the documents after all, at least not until you've mastered comprehension.

Kingokings204 · Jun 18, 2014

The exclusivity period had ended.

So why were sisu pissed off when ACL then went to the bank?

Jealous that they missed their opportunity.

lordsummerisle · Jun 18, 2014

Kingokings204 said:
The exclusivity period had ended.

So why were sisu pissed off when ACL then went to the bank?

Jealous that they missed their opportunity.

It was exclusivity to buy the Higgs shares that ended, though nothing stopping them still buying them, just that othere interested parties could also buy them if they wished, including of course CCC.

I don't recall that Higgs were beating off hordes wanting to buy their share of ACL with a shitty stick at the time to be honest.

Valuations of ACL (25 Viewers)

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

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

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

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency