Wave of optimism (2 Viewers)

skybluetony176 · Dec 20, 2016

Grendel said:
Which there wasnt, According to you the ricoh on a 47 year lease was worth £60 million was it?
The council, to coin a popular phrase on here, moved the goalposts by extending the lease to 250 years. I can assure you even a small premises with a sub 50 year lease is worthless. A lease that equates to freehold makes the value rise massively.

I suggest you indulge in some introspection and ask yourself the following;

Why did the council never make acl a 250 year lease before selling to wasps?

Why did the council actually take a loan from the Yorkshire Bank at all when they had clearly agreed a same to wasps prior to the transfer?

Why, as Dave constantly says and you ignore, did they not say that they will sell the whole shooting match for less than £6 million with a lifetime lease and left the loan at the Yorkshire Bank

Why are you so proud of a council that, if they did all of the above, would, without question have raised the equity value of the children's charity share overnight?

Why did they insist on the loan in the first place rather than agree a set fee of £1.9 million a year for acl to pay (which was the alternate option) and at the same time allow a lifetime lease?

Still - apparantly you are proud and they had no choice - none at all.

You see, this is why I think you're full of shit and never done a business deal in your life. Put aside your personal agenda, who did the deal, what the deal was for etc. You do realise that when you enter into negotiations on a business deal it's not just the price that is negotiable it's the terms to? Anyone who's ever done a deal ever whether that be a multi million pounds business deal or selling a second hand car would realise this yet apparently you are unaware of this and repeatedly come out with this nonsense. Why?

fernandopartridge · Dec 20, 2016

skybluetony176 said:
You see, this is why I think you're full of shit and never done a business deal in your life. Put aside your personal agenda, who did the deal, what the deal was for etc. You do realise that when you enter into negotiations on a business deal it's not just the price that is negotiable it's the terms to? Anyone who's ever done a deal ever whether that be a multi million pounds business deal or selling a second hand car would realise this yet apparently you are unaware of this and repeatedly come out with this nonsense. Why?

As usual you ignore all the points he makes. Classic Tony.

chiefdave · Dec 20, 2016

dongonzalos said:
So hand on heart. You genuinely believe if ACL was put up for sale.
That if SISU were not in a position to put in an acceptable offer.
Or keep up with the bidding to Wasps for example.
Then SISU would have left it at that and patiently waited for the new buyer to make there bids.

Forget SISU, they aren't who I'm talking about. I'm talking about the council getting the best return for the taxpayer. You might need to go back and read post 127 of this thread. The second point I made was purely about the sale process and getting the best return for the taxpayer, nothing to do with SISU.

I have no idea what SISU would have done had there been a proper sale process. I suspect they would have come under huge pressure to both return from Northampton and make a bid but equally they may not have, that is completely irrelevant to the point being made.

dongonzalos said:
Regarding legal action I had no idea about the 2 JR's that are completely unwinable that they are wasting people's time with now.

But to get the go ahead to proceed they would have to demonstrate there was a case to be heard. What possible basis could they make for a case to be heard if there was and open sale process in which they didn't bid or were outbid?

chiefdave · Dec 20, 2016

Astute said:
Why do you constantly go around in circles looking for someone to blame?

We know that SISU refused to negotiate.

We know that Fisher said that they would never have paid as much as Wasps as they took on the loan.

We know that CCC kept saying that they had interest in the arena and would sell it if SISU wouldn't negotiate on it.

We know that Fisher constantly said that we would never move back to the Ricoh and would build our own stadium.

Then we have your ifs, buts, mights, maybes and fantasies that you make out to be factual :shifty:

And none of those points are relevant to what is being discussed. The discussion taking place is around one point and its not placing blame on CCFC's predicament on anyone.

Its a very simple point, really not sure why some are struggling so much to understand it. To get the best return for the taxpayer, and the charity, there should have been an open, transparent sale process.

Grendel · Dec 20, 2016

skybluetony176 said:
You see, this is why I think you're full of shit and never done a business deal in your life. Put aside your personal agenda, who did the deal, what the deal was for etc. You do realise that when you enter into negotiations on a business deal it's not just the price that is negotiable it's the terms to? Anyone who's ever done a deal ever whether that be a multi million pounds business deal or selling a second hand car would realise this yet apparently you are unaware of this and repeatedly come out with this nonsense. Why?

That ignored every point I made tiny Tony - that's why I do do business deals and you don your overalls every morning.

Try answering point one. Let's start.

Grendel · Dec 20, 2016

fernandopartridge said:
As usual you ignore all the points he makes. Classic Tony.

It was indeed even by his standards truly bizarre.

The issues of initial lease length and the construct of that stupid loan are worthy of discussion. They suppressed the value of acl and made it commercially unworkable from the outset.

These are key issues. Tony in his response ignored these issues or they are beyond his comprehension. Either way it's diversion on a pathetic scale

Dongle is hiding under the bedsheets refusing to answer.

skybluetony176 · Dec 20, 2016

fernandopartridge said:
As usual you ignore all the points he makes. Classic Tony.

Points? Oh, you mean bullshit.

Grendel · Dec 20, 2016

skybluetony176 said:
Points? Oh, you mean bullshit.

So answer those points Tony.

Why didn't ACL commence like with a lease similar to freehold as most businesses would? I can't think of any that would have a lease under 100 years.

So Tony why did acl? Let's have a mature conversation - Tony your turn.

skybluetony176 · Dec 20, 2016

Grendel said:
That ignored every point I made tiny Tony - that's why I do do business deals and you don your overalls every morning.

Try answering point one. Let's start.

You really are a dullard.

Moving goal posts. You mean negotiations. It's good business practice and like I said involves terms as well as price.

Nothing wrong in wearing overalls for work. As for you doing business deals asking someone if they want fries with that doesn't count.

stupot07 · Dec 20, 2016

tbh, i can't see one reason why they didn't hold an open and transparent sale. I'm sure they have regulations and rules about tendering and commissioning and the need to get the best value for money possible, this is public tax payers money after all.

had they done this, and sisu/the club had not bid for the share's in acl then the club/sisu would have absolutely no grounds to challenge or appeal. I can only assume the secrecy / lack of transparency / open sales process is because they believe sisu would bit and they didn't want them or the football club purchasing it.

skybluetony176 · Dec 20, 2016

Grendel said:
So answer those points Tony.

Why didn't ACL commence like with a lease similar to freehold as most businesses would? I can't think of any that would have a lease under 100 years.

So Tony why did acl? Let's have a mature conversation - Tony your turn.

You've never had a mature conversation in your life.

Grendel · Dec 20, 2016

skybluetony176 said:
You've never had a mature conversation in your life.

Start then. Why didn't they? Why are you trying to divert the point? Why won't you answer the questions?

fernandopartridge · Dec 20, 2016

skybluetony176 said:
Points? Oh, you mean bullshit.

True or false? ACL as a company from 2005/06 was hamstrung by the £21m lease premium on a 50 year lease. This forced them to set a disproportionate and excessive rent for CCFC. All made necessarily purely by council mismanagement.

Grendel · Dec 20, 2016

fernandopartridge said:
True or false? ACL as a company from 2005/06 was hamstrung by the £21m lease premium on a 50 year lease. This forced them to set a disproportionate and excessive rent for CCFC. All made necessarily purely by council mismanagement.

True and there was an alternative which they chose to ignore.

chiefdave · Dec 20, 2016

stupot07 said:
I'm sure they have regulations and rules about tendering and commissioning and the need to get the best value for money possible, this is public tax payers money after all.

IMO thats why they sold ACL and a huge lease extension, way past the lifetime of the stadium so effectively the freehold, rather than the freehold itself.

There are far more regulations that come in to play if they sold the freehold including a requirement for it to be placed on the open market and properly marketed and a requirement to be able to prove they have got best value for the taxpayer.

skybluetony176 · Dec 20, 2016

fernandopartridge said:
True or false? ACL as a company from 2005/06 was hamstrung by the £21m lease premium on a 50 year lease. This forced them to set a disproportionate and excessive rent for CCFC. All made necessarily purely by council mismanagement.

Probably why they negotiated terms as well as price. Sorry I meant moved the goal posts. Negotiating terms doesn't happen. Grendull said so.

skybluetony176 · Dec 20, 2016

chiefdave said:
IMO thats why they sold ACL and a huge lease extension, way past the lifetime of the stadium so effectively the freehold, rather than the freehold itself.

There are far more regulations that come in to play if they sold the freehold including a requirement for it to be placed on the open market and properly marketed and a requirement to be able to prove they have got best value for the taxpayer.

Worth remembering that best value for taxpayers is ambiguous and doesn't have to be in monitory terms. It's value, not price. JR2 if it goes ahead will be a bigger waste of time, energy, money and opportunities than JR1.

chiefdave · Dec 20, 2016

skybluetony176 said:
Worth remembering that best value for taxpayers is ambiguous and doesn't have to be in monitory terms.

But it is limited, undervalue sales shouldn't be undervalue by more than £2m and should be for either environmental, social or economic improvement.

Of course if those regulations applied it would be further complicated by issues of state aid due to an uncompetitive sale and the value with the extended lease would also have to be considered as, having agreed the extension at the same meeting as the sale, the council could not claim they weren't aware of the possibility of that extension at the point of agreeing the sale.

None of that comes in to play though, as I said earlier I suspect the sale was done in a very deliberate fashion to ensure that was the case. Seems CCC don't have their policy available online which is unfortunate. Many councils have their own policies in addition to the regulations which bring leases under the same requirements.

dongonzalos · Dec 20, 2016

ok

why did the council not want to create a bidding war and have a big open transparent sale of ACL. If such a method was going to earn more money for them and the charity?

Dave, Grendel Stu please enlighten us?

stupot07 · Dec 20, 2016

dongonzalos said:
ok

why did the council not want to create a bidding war and have a big open transparent sale of ACL. If such a method was going to earn more money for them and the charity?

Dave, Grendel Stu please enlighten us?

Personally, i think they did it to prevent sisu/ccfc from buying it.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

dongonzalos · Dec 21, 2016

stupot07 said:
Personally, i think they did it to prevent sisu/ccfc from buying it.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

So I assume you think SISU would have bid and tried to buy it?
Why do you think SISU did not table a bid when Anne Lucas said put your bid in or she was going to go a different direction with ACL?

If they wanted to prevent SISU from buying it they could have still done what Dave said an open bidding war.
SISU said they would not have done the deal Wasps did. So they would have got out bid anyway.
SISU said it has to be freehold or nothing and the loan has to be taken care of beforehand as well.
So the council just needed to put it up for Sale at the guide price that they ended up agreeing with Wasps.

So that doesn't really make sense. There must be another reason it needed to be secret?

dongonzalos · Dec 21, 2016

Grendel said:
Which there wasnt, According to you the ricoh on a 47 year lease was worth £60 million was it?

(Nope the Ricoh full stop was worth at least 60 million, not ACL the management business running it. Think we have had this conversation 20 times now, never mind keep making things up one day it will stick)

The council, to coin a popular phrase on here, moved the goalposts by extending the lease to 250 years. I can assure you even a small premises with a sub 50 year lease is worthless. A lease that equates to freehold makes the value rise massively.

I suggest you indulge in some introspection and ask yourself the following;

Why did the council never make acl a 250 year lease before selling to wasps?

(Don't know you tell me you keep asking me I keep telling you I don't know I ask you for the answer you never give it me then say I am avoiding the question, first few times it was amusing now it's a bit bizzare.The only guess I can give is they wanted to sell it as did the charity and they may have struggled to get a buyer doing that? Otherwise I have no idea)

Why did the council actually take a loan from the Yorkshire Bank at all when they had clearly agreed a same to wasps prior to the transfer?
( not sure I understand the question, but they agreed the loan to stop ACL going bust over the rent strike which I can only assume was designed to devalue ACL and/or make it go bust like the High court Judge said after he saw all the evidence. I assume you don't know more than him?)

Why, as Dave constantly says and you ignore, did they not say that they will sell the whole shooting match for less than £6 million with a lifetime lease and left the loan at the Yorkshire Bank

(Dave has said why did they not have a open transparent sale. To which I have answered why I don't think they did (to avoid legal action and other attempts by SISU to prevent a derail a sale to anyone else ) To which you Dave and Stu disagreed and I have now asked you Dave and Stu why you think it was a secret deal. Stu has answered the question. In all of the above you have avoided it)

Why are you so proud of a council that, if they did all of the above, would, without question have raised the equity value of the children's charity share overnight?

( ACL was getting devalued by SISU. The council stopped this process and with the agreement if the children's charity got it sold and got them more money than they were offered by SISU and got them ongoing money. So yes still proud of them. Sorry you can repeat that phrase as much as you like. They stood up when it counted. Where I think many other councils would have took the easy way out. )

Why did they insist on the loan in the first place rather than agree a set fee of £1.9 million a year for acl to pay (which was the alternate option) and at the same time allow a lifetime lease?
(Don't know why did they?)

Still - apparantly you are proud and they had no choice - none at all.

(They had two choices let it get devalued and lose money for a children's charity and the council or make a stand. FairPlay they chose the second option. Shit one for me as a Cov fan but sometimes you have to see the bigger picture and take a decision that is shit for you personally on the chin if overall it was the right thing to do)

skybluetony176 · Dec 21, 2016

stupot07 said:
Personally, i think they did it to prevent sisu/ccfc from buying it.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

You really think that CCFC/SISU were going to bid? Based on what? Because all the evidence suggests otherwise.

I suspect that the outcome wouldn't have been any difference myself.

stupot07 · Dec 21, 2016

skybluetony176 said:
You really think that CCFC/SISU were going to bid? Based on what? Because all the evidence suggests otherwise.

I suspect that the outcome wouldn't have been any difference myself.

It doesn't matter what I believe, it matters what the council believed/suspected/concerned about.

Funny really, in a time where councils are making cuts, where there is increased focus on increased transparency in LA's, where LA's and other public sector have to follow strict open and transparent procurement and commissioning processes all in order to get best value for money for the tax payers.

I've not seen one argument for why it was a good thing / best practice / the right thing to do not to run and open and transparent sale process. And one soundbite from Ann Lucas in the Coventry telegraph doesn't constitute an open sale.

I can only assume at the point of Lucas making that soundbite, wasps were already on thr scene and they didn't want an open and transparent bidding process as they feared sisu /ccfc might bid and wanted to mitigate that risk (whether we believe they would or not, regardless of Fishfaces subsequent soubdbites or not).

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

stupot07 · Dec 21, 2016

dongonzalos said:
So I assume you think SISU would have bid and tried to buy it?
Why do you think SISU did not table a bid when Anne Lucas said put your bid in or she was going to go a different direction with ACL?

If they wanted to prevent SISU from buying it they could have still done what Dave said an open bidding war.
SISU said they would not have done the deal Wasps did. So they would have got out bid anyway.
SISU said it has to be freehold or nothing and the loan has to be taken care of beforehand as well.
So the council just needed to put it up for Sale at the guide price that they ended up agreeing with Wasps.

So that doesn't really make sense. There must be another reason it needed to be secret?

See my response to Tony.

Can't be arsed to respond further.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

dongonzalos · Dec 21, 2016

stupot07 said:
It doesn't matter what I believe, it matters what the council believed/suspected/concerned about.

Funny really, in a time where councils are making cuts, where there is increased focus on increased transparency in LA's, where LA's and other public sector have to follow strict open and transparent procurement and commissioning processes all in order to get best value for money for the tax payers.

I've not seen one argument for why it was a good thing / best practice / the right thing to do not to run and open and transparent sale process. And one soundbite from Ann Lucas in the Coventry telegraph doesn't constitute an open sale.

I can only assume at the point of Lucas making that soundbite, wasps were already on thr scene and they didn't want an open and transparent bidding process as they feared sisu /ccfc might bid and wanted to mitigate that risk (whether we believe they would or not, regardless of Fishfaces subsequent soubdbites or not).

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

I don't see what Tin Fisher gained by saying they would have never have done that same deal.
They have always said they did not want that deal.
I totally agree in normal circumstances a council would put it out there.
I also agree it would be in the council's best interest to do so.
It would take highly exceptional circumstances for them to not do so.
It would take highly exceptional circumstances for the whole council to agree with what they did. It is very very controversial.
We are doing it this way because we don't like 'SISU'. Sorry that doesn't cut it and would not get unanimous support.

SISU allegedly threatened to tie them up in legal battles well before this.
SISU took legal action against them over the loan before this.
I am sure the clandestine manner in which the council acted was related to SISU taking legal action and the potential of them taking further legal action. If a bidding process didn't go their way whixhbit wouldn't as they had their plan set and it did not include an auction.

dongonzalos · Dec 21, 2016

skybluetony176 said:
You really think that CCFC/SISU were going to bid? Based on what? Because all the evidence suggests otherwise.

I suspect that the outcome wouldn't have been any difference myself.

They had so many opportunities to bid and didn't. They got a final warning and didn't.
They had a good plan in place. I can only assume they couldn't afford the deal Wasps did hence why they said afterwards they would never had done that deal.
They legal action they have taken over the Wasps sale now JR2
Could have easily been instigates at the time of a public bid in order to attempt to delay and derail it. If they sos wished.

chiefdave · Dec 21, 2016

dongonzalos said:
why did the council not want to create a bidding war and have a big open transparent sale of ACL. If such a method was going to earn more money for them and the charity?

That would be a question for the council to answer. Maybe they were concerned there was even the slightest possibility of a SISU bid, maybe something we don't know about went on behind closed doors (remember when they went into the meeting to vote and it was said to be close, by the time they came out it was unanimous and no record of what happened at the meeting exists), maybe they were concerned about public reaction putting ACL up for sale when we were in Northampton, maybe they did it to stick two fingers up to SISU. Maybe they didn't want to have to reveal publically that ACL wasn't performing as well as they kept claiming.

Even if, for some strange reason, you are against and open and transparent sale process what possible reason can there be for not extending the lease prior to the sale therefore increasing the value of ACL's biggest asset?

skybluetony176 said:
Because all the evidence suggests otherwise.

They bid for Higgs half, in fact they bid more than Wasps. Not beyond the realms of possibility that they'd have bid for the council half. Do you not think there would have been pressure on them to table a bid if an open and transparent sales process was taking place?

dongonzalos · Dec 21, 2016

chiefdave said:
That would be a question for the council to answer. Maybe they were concerned there was even the slightest possibility of a SISU bid, maybe something we don't know about went on behind closed doors (remember when they went into the meeting to vote and it was said to be close, by the time they came out it was unanimous and no record of what happened at the meeting exists), maybe they were concerned about public reaction putting ACL up for sale when we were in Northampton, maybe they did it to stick two fingers up to SISU. Maybe they didn't want to have to reveal publically that ACL wasn't performing as well as they kept claiming.

It is just not realistic or creadible to suggest that an entire council would agree unanimously to not do a transparent open bid in such a controversial subject in order to stick two fingers at SISU.
Now the fact that SISU had allegedly stated that they would tie the council up in legal battles . The fact SISU already had taken legal action against the council.
The fact SISU have lined up legal action over the sale to Wasps now it has happened.
Shows their would have been justifiable paranoia in the Council that SISU may take legal sanction to disrupt any sale to anyone else.
That is a far more credible suggestion than they took the risk of getting less money for themselves and the charity. That they did something highly controversial without transparency just to blow a raspberry a SISU.
Is there any reason SUDY could not have taken JR2 or similar whilst the transparent bid was going through. If they saw it was a bid they were not able to do themselves.
Causing Long term delays to the eventual winner (Wasps) from actually completing the deal?

chiefdave · Dec 21, 2016

dongonzalos said:
Is there any reason SUDY could not have taken JR2 or similar whilst the transparent bid was going through. If they saw it was a bid they were not able to do themselves.

On what basis? If you apply for a JR the initial hearing is to see if there is a case to be heard. How on earth would SISU persuade anyone that an open and transparent sales process, done along similar lines to the disposal of assets regulations, required a JR?

dongonzalos · Dec 21, 2016

chiefdave said:
On what basis? If you apply for a JR the initial hearing is to see if there is a case to be heard. How on earth would SISU persuade anyone that an open and transparent sales process, done along similar lines to the disposal of assets regulations, required a JR?

JR2 isn't about the transparency of the process
JR2 is that it is was sold too cheaply. So if the same deal was done in public and as SISU stated they would not have done that deal.
If they then took out a unwinable JR like JR1. ( their choice to burn their investors money )
Prior to completion of the deal. The deal could be put on hold. Until the JR is concluded. That leaves all avenues of resolution open as oppose to allowing the deal to go through then do the JR.
I am sure given time to plan and prepare their is a legal measure out their to delay the sale until the JR is submitted.
JR1 in my humble opinion was completely unwinable. However it served another purpose.
JR2 also in my opinion is unwinable again it is serving another purpose.
If submitted during a transparent bidding process the purpose would be to well truely scare off other bidders.
Just my opinion of course and I am not a lawyer and bar far an expert just Joe bloggs.
Yet it seems a more credible reason to me for such drastic action than just to annoy SISU.

The thing with you Dave and please don't take this personally but you never never accept something if it doesn't suit your point of view.
We are currently debating whether it is more likely CCC took a massive controversial risky decision with huge implications unanimously agreed on across the entire council. Did they do it behind closed doors because it was a good way to stick two fingers up at SISU (as you say) , or it was because of SISU's litigatious nature and the legal action SISU had already taken, were threatening to take and would likely take in the future.
Ask yourself honestly which is more plausible.

It's like in here when Anne Lucas said to SISU put in your bid or we are going a different direction.
Most on here were saying come on SISU get you bid in which get the negotiations started.
Not you, for you to was down to the council to approach SISU and offer it to them.
Despite the fact without buying ACL our business was screwed. You still felt it was right to sit there and not bid and wait for the council to come to us.
As the other option didn't suit your arguement. You will just keeping going until you are blue in the face arguing a completely ridiculous point.
That I have a feeling even you know you are wrong on.

Grendel · Dec 21, 2016

Despite Dongonzalos spin (and the usual likes from councillor Dart) the reality is he has failed to answer any questions I've raised.

Much of my questioning was pre sisu. The comment as to £60 million not just for the management company exposed his ignorance as a 250 lease puts all the value into the management company and none into the freehold.

The answers in my view are simple. They were incompetent, controlling and never wanted the club to have it.

The ricoh as any business on such a short lease would have been was a worthless white elephant - unsalable - which suited them fine until the football club stopped funding their business game.

chiefdave · Dec 21, 2016

Doesn't the argument that SISU could have taken legal action which would impact the sale of ACL kind of fall down when ACL was sold when legal action was ongoing anyway?

Grendel · Dec 21, 2016

So the OP is optimistic.

I find no optimism at all. A club sold down the river by all parties.

A club that should have been valued by its local council but instead was royally shafted.

Again, on the ops rather hilarious posts on the council was how proud he was that "little" Coventry council stood up to sisu. A stupid, ignorant remark. The council are a huge organisation with vast reserves and power. They could have kept the stadium so that the club could, in brighter times, gained control.

Despite the bluster there is no need ever to sell. There is no impact on public services, none on the local taxpayer as the vast reserves are used for such eventualities - as they are for the calamitous £20 million - yes £20 million - investment in a pool complex that 90% of the population will never see

No ground, no investment potential, in the hands of a Mayfair hedge fund and relying on an equally ruthless and financially distressed Maltese hedge fund to come together and find a long term solution,

I suspect the optimism is through council tinted glasses. The vision is blurred - I'd ask for my money back if I were you.

PM councillor dart - oh I've forgot he ignored those as much as you are ignoring the plight of the club.

dongonzalos · Dec 21, 2016

Grendel said:
Despite Dongonzalos spin (and the usual likes from councillor Dart) the reality is he has failed to answer any questions I've raised.

Much of my questioning was pre sisu. The comment as to £60 million not just for the management company exposed his ignorance as a 250 lease puts all the value into the management company and none into the freehold.

(The comment you keep referring to was about the Ricoh itself bricks and mortar. As you well know and I will remind you again in a couple of months when you no doubt misquote me again for the 20th time. 48 million by and independent valuer for a 250 year lease hence JR2)

The answers in my view are simple. They were incompetent, controlling and never wanted the club to have it.

(Why say to the club come on and bid otherwise we are going a different direction. Why did the club not bid then?)

The ricoh as any business on such a short lease would have been was a worthless white elephant - unsalable - which suited them fine until the football club stopped funding their business game.

It wasn't worthless by any measure of the word. Once the football club starting breaking its legally binding contract it's value was heading south no question

Wave of optimism (2 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

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