Cybereagles

The Undisputed Number One Home for All Super Eagles Fans
It is currently Mon Jun 17, 2019 3:58 pm

All times are UTC + 1 hour




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 264 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat May 25, 2019 10:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 7:59 pm
Posts: 60106
txj wrote:

You have to be kidding me! There is not a single journalist out there with a view that supports yours...They are not breaking the rules for the fun of it. They are doing so to avail themselves of the full capacity of a sovereign wealth fund. If City are trying to catch up, they would develop and spend from their commercial revenue, like other clubs, including those funded by oligarchs, rather than a SWF.

Its not about a snapshot in time, but a measurement period of years, one that captures spending as teams evolve from one period to another; such as a 5-10yr period.

The quote is more about his explanation of value of squads and what value transitions from one manager to another. Your constant reference to Sevilla is a poor ruse.

But it spoke about the impact of CL bonus on LFC's wages. It isolated it in the analysis of the accounts b/c its never a true measure of squad wages/value. Read the report you posted!

Again not based on any known fact. VVD had a commitment to LFC; specifically to Klopp and cited this in interviews...

Again quite preposterous, and not backed by any known reporting.

For your info, I don't need a journalist to support my opinion when I can do my own research and have been following the game longer than many of the journos. I know where City were b/4 Arab money. I know those that were blowing millions on transfer fees and wages b/4 City were in the picture. I know City had to spend to stop being a yo-yo club and start challenging for honours. I know why FFP favours the traditional big clubs and works against those with rich benefactors. I know the policy intent, that is not always declared, of FFP. Chelski spending was one of the reasons behind FFP.

City are not breaking the rules for the fun of it. I never suggested that. I said they are breaking the rules b/c they can't compete in terms of commercial streams with the traditional big clubs, who have decades of building success and a resultant worldwide following. Abramovich's plan at Chelsea was to inject money in the club and for the club to start paying for itself after a decade or so of sustained success and investment. They are just about starting to realise that now. It takes time.

You can't complain about City spending over any snapshot of time, while ignoring that the likes Liverpool, Manure, etc were spending megabucks long b/4 City had any money - when the likes of the Goat was their top striker.

Borinho was talking heritage after defeat to Sevilla. That was the backdrop for those comments. No matter how you slice and dice it, it was a futile exercise in excuse-making. It's even twice dumb to raise that issue in a discussion about spending when you contrast the Sevilla squad with Manure's.

The link I provided said Liverpool's wage bill included CL bonuses. It said nothing about whether City's wage bill could have included bonuses for getting to the CL QF, winning the EPL with a record number of points, etc. So the bonus argument like the money one doesn't fly - both clubs are spending on bonuses and spending big on transfer fees.

City stopped pursuing Van Dijk b/c they balked at the fee. When told about the price tag the chairman said "you can't be serious"! https://www.sportsjoe.ie/football/virgi ... ity-173111

I don't need "known reporting" to tell me what I can discern for myself. The budgets of City and Watford are as different as night and day. So there is a valid argument that money makes a difference in terms of the success of both clubs. But when elite teams are blowing similar amounts, you need to look to other factors for the differences in success. Just common sense.

_________________
Image
http://www.naijiant.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 25, 2019 2:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 11:35 pm
Posts: 29343
cic old boy wrote:
txj wrote:

You have to be kidding me! There is not a single journalist out there with a view that supports yours...They are not breaking the rules for the fun of it. They are doing so to avail themselves of the full capacity of a sovereign wealth fund. If City are trying to catch up, they would develop and spend from their commercial revenue, like other clubs, including those funded by oligarchs, rather than a SWF.

Its not about a snapshot in time, but a measurement period of years, one that captures spending as teams evolve from one period to another; such as a 5-10yr period.

The quote is more about his explanation of value of squads and what value transitions from one manager to another. Your constant reference to Sevilla is a poor ruse.

But it spoke about the impact of CL bonus on LFC's wages. It isolated it in the analysis of the accounts b/c its never a true measure of squad wages/value. Read the report you posted!

Again not based on any known fact. VVD had a commitment to LFC; specifically to Klopp and cited this in interviews...

Again quite preposterous, and not backed by any known reporting.

For your info, I don't need a journalist to support my opinion when I can do my own research and have been following the game longer than many of the journos. I know where City were b/4 Arab money. I know those that were blowing millions on transfer fees and wages b/4 City were in the picture. I know City had to spend to stop being a yo-yo club and start challenging for honours. I know why FFP favours the traditional big clubs and works against those with rich benefactors. I know the policy intent, that is not always declared, of FFP. Chelski spending was one of the reasons behind FFP.

City are not breaking the rules for the fun of it. I never suggested that. I said they are breaking the rules b/c they can't compete in terms of commercial streams with the traditional big clubs, who have decades of building success and a resultant worldwide following. Abramovich's plan at Chelsea was to inject money in the club and for the club to start paying for itself after a decade or so of sustained success and investment. They are just about starting to realise that now. It takes time.

Yet, City are the team in trouble and not Chelsea who are having to depend on their generated revenue and not inflated income. The commercial contract city has with kitting companies more than matches most of the top teams, as is their match day revenue. What puts them over the top is inflated sponsorship from the SWF.

You can't complain about City spending over any snapshot of time, while ignoring that the likes Liverpool, Manure, etc were spending megabucks long b/4 City had any money - when the likes of the Goat was their top striker.

On the contrary, I’m not complaining about City’s spending, but their willful undermining of the rules.


Borinho was talking heritage after defeat to Sevilla. That was the backdrop for those comments. No matter how you slice and dice it, it was a futile exercise in excuse-making. It's even twice dumb to raise that issue in a discussion about spending when you contrast the Sevilla squad with Manure's.

Sevilla May have been the backdrop of those comments, but it was not the sole focus of it. In the quotes I posted, he is clearly expanding on how the quality of a squad transitions from one period to another.

The link I provided said Liverpool's wage bill included CL bonuses. It said nothing about whether City's wage bill could have included bonuses for getting to the CL QF, winning the EPL with a record number of points, etc. So the bonus argument like the money one doesn't fly - both clubs are spending on bonuses and spending big on transfer fees.

It spoke about the impact of the CL bonus on LFC wage bill for a reason. Discount it and the wage picture is significantly different.

City stopped pursuing Van Dijk b/c they balked at the fee. When told about the price tag the chairman said "you can't be serious"! https://www.sportsjoe.ie/football/virgi ... ity-173111

The player himself said he was already committed to Klopp and LFC when the City approach was made. Confirmed also by City.

I don't need "known reporting" to tell me what I can discern for myself. The budgets of City and Watford are as different as night and day. So there is a valid argument that money makes a difference in terms of the success of both clubs. But when elite teams are blowing similar amounts, you need to look to other factors for the differences in success. Just common sense.

There is not a single report that would consider LFC to be at par with City on financial investments. Not even the Spanish teams can compete with City financially.

_________________
Image
Form is temporary; Class is Permanent!
Liverpool, European Champions 2005.

We watched this very boring video, 500 times, of Sacchi doing defensive drills, using sticks and without the ball, with Maldini, Baresi and Albertini. We used to think before then that if the other players are better, you have to lose. After that we learned anything is possible – you can beat better teams by using tactics." Jurgen Klopp


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 25, 2019 6:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 7:59 pm
Posts: 60106
txj wrote:
Yet, City are the team in trouble and not Chelsea who are having to depend on their generated revenue and not inflated income. The commercial contract city has with kitting companies more than matches most of the top teams, as is their match day revenue. What puts them over the top is inflated sponsorship from the SWF.

On the contrary, I’m not complaining about City’s spending, but their willful undermining of the rules.

Sevilla May have been the backdrop of those comments, but it was not the sole focus of it. In the quotes I posted, he is clearly expanding on how the quality of a squad transitions from one period to another.

It spoke about the impact of the CL bonus on LFC wage bill for a reason. Discount it and the wage picture is significantly different.

The player himself said he was already committed to Klopp and LFC when the City approach was made. Confirmed also by City.

There is not a single report that would consider LFC to be at par with City on financial investments. Not even the Spanish teams can compete with City financially.

Chelsea have on recently started making a profit after many years of Abramovich investment and he is no longer spending like a drunken sailor. Additionally, their many years of success have increased their commercial viability. City's new kit deal was signed this year at £65m a year is still below Manure's £75m a year deal signed in 2015.
https://talksport.com/football/502572/m ... l-chelsea/
City are only able to even get those amounts b/c their profile has been raised by winning and having a coach like Pep. Their matchday revenue is £57m and not in Manure and Liverpool league - £110m and £81m. The pymts investigated for breach of FFP happened in 2012/13 - very little bearing to what is happening today.

I have already acknowledged City are/were cheating. My point is that if they didn't cheat, they wouldn't be able to draw the type of commercial revenue traditional big clubs are used to.

There is no way in which Borinho's comments make sense. He inherited a squad better than Sevilla's. He has spent on one player what Sevilla spent on their entire squad. So why should he be losing to better heritage Sevilla?

The report mentions the CL bonus. But players get bonuses for winning the EPL too.

Van Dijk said what he was expected to say after signing for Liverpool. Pep dismissed reports that he was interested in the defender - also what he was supposed to say. Both were lies - as revealed by the report I posted. City were simply not keen to pay what Liverpool were willing to pay. But you all want us to believe it is just City spending.

It has already been posted here that Liverpool outspent City over the last 3 transfer windows. But you shifted to "preparatory spending" over a shifting timescale 5-10, depending on which of your points are exposed as hollow. You forget that for decades Liverpool was outspending City. You claim that City were signing players during Pellegrini's time in preparation for Pep, but that was when players like Mangala were signed and Pep had no time for him. Then you point at Sterling, De Bruyne, etc as "preparatory signings" but forget some of Klopp's mainstays like Henderson and Milner were "preparatory signings" for him.

_________________
Image
http://www.naijiant.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 1:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 11:35 pm
Posts: 29343
cic old boy wrote:
txj wrote:
Yet, City are the team in trouble and not Chelsea who are having to depend on their generated revenue and not inflated income. The commercial contract city has with kitting companies more than matches most of the top teams, as is their match day revenue. What puts them over the top is inflated sponsorship from the SWF.

On the contrary, I’m not complaining about City’s spending, but their willful undermining of the rules.

Sevilla May have been the backdrop of those comments, but it was not the sole focus of it. In the quotes I posted, he is clearly expanding on how the quality of a squad transitions from one period to another.

It spoke about the impact of the CL bonus on LFC wage bill for a reason. Discount it and the wage picture is significantly different.

The player himself said he was already committed to Klopp and LFC when the City approach was made. Confirmed also by City.

There is not a single report that would consider LFC to be at par with City on financial investments. Not even the Spanish teams can compete with City financially.

Chelsea have on recently started making a profit after many years of Abramovich investment and he is no longer spending like a drunken sailor. Additionally, their many years of success have increased their commercial viability. City's new kit deal was signed this year at £65m a year is still below Manure's £75m a year deal signed in 2015.
https://talksport.com/football/502572/m ... l-chelsea/
City are only able to even get those amounts b/c their profile has been raised by winning and having a coach like Pep. Their matchday revenue is £57m and not in Manure and Liverpool league - £110m and £81m. The pymts investigated for breach of FFP happened in 2012/13 - very little bearing to what is happening today.

http://financialfootballnews.com/manche ... zed-gains/

I have already acknowledged City are/were cheating. My point is that if they didn't cheat, they wouldn't be able to draw the type of commercial revenue traditional big clubs are used to.

They already draw top end commercial revenue. What they are looking for is not to match the biggest clubs but to dominate and sustain the dominance, hence the use of the full weight of the SWF.

There is no way in which Borinho's comments make sense. He inherited a squad better than Sevilla's. He has spent on one player what Sevilla spent on their entire squad. So why should he be losing to better heritage Sevilla?

Its not about Sevilla. Your fixation with a literal interpretation is a ruse. Jose's statements are quite clear about what he's referring to about squad value...

The report mentions the CL bonus. But players get bonuses for winning the EPL too.

Van Dijk said what he was expected to say after signing for Liverpool. Pep dismissed reports that he was interested in the defender - also what he was supposed to say. Both were lies - as revealed by the report I posted. City were simply not keen to pay what Liverpool were willing to pay. But you all want us to believe it is just City spending.

It has already been posted here that Liverpool outspent City over the last 3 transfer windows.

This is not supported by any evidence.
http://financialfootballnews.com/manche ... zed-gains/
http://financialfootballnews.com/liverp ... g-profits/


But you shifted to "preparatory spending" over a shifting timescale 5-10, depending on which of your points are exposed as hollow. You forget that for decades Liverpool was outspending City. You claim that City were signing players during Pellegrini's time in preparation for Pep, but that was when players like Mangala were signed and Pep had no time for him. Then you point at Sterling, De Bruyne, etc as "preparatory signings" but forget some of Klopp's mainstays like Henderson and Milner were "preparatory signings" for him.

Now you are misrepresenting me. I spoke about a time series analysis to properly evaluate the value of a squad. Then about the prep spending for Guardiola at the end of Pelle's reign.

_________________
Image
Form is temporary; Class is Permanent!
Liverpool, European Champions 2005.

We watched this very boring video, 500 times, of Sacchi doing defensive drills, using sticks and without the ball, with Maldini, Baresi and Albertini. We used to think before then that if the other players are better, you have to lose. After that we learned anything is possible – you can beat better teams by using tactics." Jurgen Klopp


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 1:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 7:59 pm
Posts: 60106
txj wrote:
They already draw top end commercial revenue. What they are looking for is not to match the biggest clubs but to dominate and sustain the dominance, hence the use of the full weight of the SWF.

Its not about Sevilla. Your fixation with a literal interpretation is a ruse. Jose's statements are quite clear about what he's referring to about squad value...

This is not supported by any evidence.
http://financialfootballnews.com/manche ... zed-gains/
http://financialfootballnews.com/liverp ... g-profits/


Now you are misrepresenting me. I spoke about a time series analysis to properly evaluate the value of a squad. Then about the prep spending for Guardiola at the end of Pelle's reign.

City are not in Manure or Barca's level when it comes to commercial revenue. Their kit deal only went up this year and still not at Manure level. The FFP beef is in relation to 2012/13.

Borinho spoke about heritage after being knocked out by Sevilla. He was suggesting people shouldn't expect his squad to progress in the CL. He spoke about the players he inherited. Very few bought what he was selling b/c he inherited quality expensive players like Martial, Mata, De Gea, etc. He blew fortunes on Matic, Pogba, Lukaku, etc. Lukaku cost more than the Sevilla squad that outplayed and knocked them out. There was no basis on which his claims were valid.


More: http://www.sportbible.com/football/tran ... s-20180809

You spoke about spending from a decade ago, then about spending during Pellegrini's reign. You spoke about players like KDB and Sterling bought pre-Pep that are now crucial parts of his team. You suggested that Klopp didn't have such advantages. So I asked what about Liverpool spending when City were spearheaded by the Goat? I asked about key Klopp players like Henderson and Milner that were "preparatory spending" b/4 Klopp's arrival.

_________________
Image
http://www.naijiant.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 2:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2003 12:51 am
Posts: 14893
cic old boy wrote:
I asked about key Klopp players like Henderson and Milner that were "preparatory spending" b/4 Klopp's arrival.

Oga CIC, do you really think Milner - a 29 year old free transfer was a preparatory signing for Klopp's arrival? :D

_________________

WC go sweet o
DNQ no good o

-
Cellular quotes
"Thank God na oyibo be coach." - Nov 16, 2017
"The Yeyeman is hardly ever vulgar when dealing with anyone. " - Mar 23, 2018
"I will take Trump over Clinton but I am in the minority." - Jul 19, 2016
-
© The YeyeMan 2018
This post is provided AS IS with no warranties and confers no rights.
It is not authorised by CyberEagles. You assume all risk for your use. All rights reserved.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 9:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 7:59 pm
Posts: 60106
The YeyeMan wrote:
Oga CIC, do you really think Milner - a 29 year old free transfer was a preparatory signing for Klopp's arrival? :D

Ask Txj. He claimed players signed in the Pellegrini era by City were "preparatory signings" for Pep. So I asked about Mangala signed by Pellegrini and asked if the pre-Klopp signings that he is using now were "preparatory". Txj has been looking for a "preparatory" answer since.

PS: "Preparatory signings" were introduced to claim that Klopp needed to spend more than Pep at City.

_________________
Image
http://www.naijiant.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 10:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 11:35 pm
Posts: 29343
cic old boy wrote:
The YeyeMan wrote:
Oga CIC, do you really think Milner - a 29 year old free transfer was a preparatory signing for Klopp's arrival? :D

Ask Txj. He claimed players signed in the Pellegrini era by City were "preparatory signings" for Pep. So I asked about Mangala signed by Pellegrini and asked if the pre-Klopp signings that he is using now were "preparatory". Txj has been looking for a "preparatory" answer since.

PS: "Preparatory signings" were introduced to claim that Klopp needed to spend more than Pep at City.



I said the preparatory spending was made once Pep accepted in principle to join City, which was at the end of Pelle’s reign.

Both teams have spent a lot of money, but the idea that LFC has spent more than City is preposterous.

Instead of using well established sources of information you are doing a tfco by posting tweets...

_________________
Image
Form is temporary; Class is Permanent!
Liverpool, European Champions 2005.

We watched this very boring video, 500 times, of Sacchi doing defensive drills, using sticks and without the ball, with Maldini, Baresi and Albertini. We used to think before then that if the other players are better, you have to lose. After that we learned anything is possible – you can beat better teams by using tactics." Jurgen Klopp


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 27, 2019 11:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 7:59 pm
Posts: 60106
txj wrote:
I said the preparatory spending was made once Pep accepted in principle to join City, which was at the end of Pelle’s reign.

Both teams have spent a lot of money, but the idea that LFC has spent more than City is preposterous.

Instead of using well established sources of information you are doing a tfco by posting tweets...

So we are now at signings at the end of Pellegrini's reign and not signings during his reign???

Liverpool have spent more than City in the last 3 transfer windows. I know you want to look at spending just for the last 5/10 years b/c you claim that the last 3 transfer windows were about Liverpool spending to catch up. But what about spending from when the EPL was established? Should City not have spent to catch up when the Arabs took over?

The tweet above is from the deputy sports editor of the Daily Mail. You were the one claiming no journalist backed my position. Now you don't want to see their tweets.

You want even more "well established sources of information", how about City's chairman:
Quote:
"And then you look back at transfers. In the top 10 transfers of all time, Manchester City has not a single player in that, not a single one. So I don't really take it seriously and I ask our fans to always put it in context.

"And I think people with glass homes shouldn't be throwing rocks. I'm happy to talk to anyone as long as the conversation is about facts but once we start talking about innuendo and talking about theories I have no time for that."

Quote:
Al Mubarak also turned his attention's to perceived "jealousy" and "envy" City face from their Premier League rivals, following an historic domestic treble for the club.

"I will not accept for this club to be used as a diversionary tactic on poor investment decisions from other clubs," he added.

"We've managed ourselves well and we will be judged by facts and facts alone. This is a well-run club. That's a fact.

"With success there is a certain level of jealousy, envy, whatever you call it. You know when Man United dominated the Premier League for many years, they know what they had to deal with for so many years, that's part of the game.

https://www.skysports.com/football/news ... al-mubarak

Quote:
In March, Sportsmail revealed Liverpool's chiefs were among a group of American owners in English football's top flight who pushed the Premier League to join UEFA in investigating allegations of financial cheating by Manchester City.

Quote:
'The reality is that we didn't buy the most expensive player in the Premier League, we didn't buy the most expensive goalkeeper, we didn't buy the most expensive midfielder, we didn't buy the most expensive striker, so when people throw that, you know what they throw at us, I go back - let's look at the facts; let's stalk about facts.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... itics.html

_________________
Image
http://www.naijiant.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 27, 2019 1:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 12:43 pm
Posts: 25733
Location: london
Man city owner cousin just bought Newcastle!

_________________
So angry Nigeria got kicked out of the world cup once again, i nearly told my wife that i caught my girlfriend with another man today!

Marko


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 27, 2019 3:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 11:35 pm
Posts: 29343
cic old boy wrote:
txj wrote:
I said the preparatory spending was made once Pep accepted in principle to join City, which was at the end of Pelle’s reign.

Both teams have spent a lot of money, but the idea that LFC has spent more than City is preposterous.

Instead of using well established sources of information you are doing a tfco by posting tweets...

So we are now at signings at the end of Pellegrini's reign and not signings during his reign???

Liverpool have spent more than City in the last 3 transfer windows. I know you want to look at spending just for the last 5/10 years b/c you claim that the last 3 transfer windows were about Liverpool spending to catch up. But what about spending from when the EPL was established? Should City not have spent to catch up when the Arabs took over?

The tweet above is from the deputy sports editor of the Daily Mail. You were the one claiming no journalist backed my position. Now you don't want to see their tweets.

You want even more "well established sources of information", how about City's chairman:
Quote:
"And then you look back at transfers. In the top 10 transfers of all time, Manchester City has not a single player in that, not a single one. So I don't really take it seriously and I ask our fans to always put it in context.

"And I think people with glass homes shouldn't be throwing rocks. I'm happy to talk to anyone as long as the conversation is about facts but once we start talking about innuendo and talking about theories I have no time for that."

Quote:
Al Mubarak also turned his attention's to perceived "jealousy" and "envy" City face from their Premier League rivals, following an historic domestic treble for the club.

"I will not accept for this club to be used as a diversionary tactic on poor investment decisions from other clubs," he added.

"We've managed ourselves well and we will be judged by facts and facts alone. This is a well-run club. That's a fact.

"With success there is a certain level of jealousy, envy, whatever you call it. You know when Man United dominated the Premier League for many years, they know what they had to deal with for so many years, that's part of the game.

https://www.skysports.com/football/news ... al-mubarak

Quote:
In March, Sportsmail revealed Liverpool's chiefs were among a group of American owners in English football's top flight who pushed the Premier League to join UEFA in investigating allegations of financial cheating by Manchester City.

Quote:
'The reality is that we didn't buy the most expensive player in the Premier League, we didn't buy the most expensive goalkeeper, we didn't buy the most expensive midfielder, we didn't buy the most expensive striker, so when people throw that, you know what they throw at us, I go back - let's look at the facts; let's stalk about facts.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... itics.html


Good luck to KAM trying to make this an issue for all EPL clubs. He ignores the fact LFC was also under observation for possible FFP infringement and had to keep strictly within it’s confines. Also, he has never really categorically addressed the allegations. Its either he speaks about the process or about jealousy.

My point about prep spending in advance of Guardiola's arrival has been consistent and is there for all to see.

_________________
Image
Form is temporary; Class is Permanent!
Liverpool, European Champions 2005.

We watched this very boring video, 500 times, of Sacchi doing defensive drills, using sticks and without the ball, with Maldini, Baresi and Albertini. We used to think before then that if the other players are better, you have to lose. After that we learned anything is possible – you can beat better teams by using tactics." Jurgen Klopp


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 264 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

All times are UTC + 1 hour


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: lakdarbelloumi, vancity eagle and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group