Jump to content

Trust.. The on going debate


rudemedic

Recommended Posts

I agree entirely with the crux of your point, but you're going at it completely arse-about-face.

Agree, but what a pointless point from Mr Carl.

 

To put in a smarmy intro about name-calling and then refuse to address any of the questions by putting in some valedictory toss about being insulted, is poor. All that you look like Lookers_Carl is someone who has seen their arse and now is sulking. Stop it. Man up. It isn't (very) personal and answer the questions sensibly.

 

Oh, and rudemedic - drop the masonic verbals and maybe we can get a sensible debate going.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Agree, but what a pointless point from Mr Carl.

 

To put in a smarmy intro about name-calling and then refuse to address any of the questions by putting in some valedictory toss about being insulted, is poor. All that you look like Lookers_Carl is someone who has seen their arse and now is sulking. Stop it. Man up. It isn't (very) personal and answer the questions sensibly.

 

Oh, and rudemedic - drop the masonic verbals and maybe we can get a sensible debate going.

 

One thing I am certainly not doing de la vega is sulking, I can assure you of that. And the name calling to me personally is like water off a ducks back. But, I am simply not willing to let somebody call the other volunteers who give up their time and effort without pay for both Trust Oldham and OAFC masons/stonecutters, just because they dont agree with something that the trust has done in the past. I don't have any problem with rudemedic asking questions and criticising the Trusts election processes, but that can be done without sinking to calling hard working volunteers masons or stonecutters.

 

Now regarding the issues being raised on the election process. Everyone will have different views on how we should/should not hold elections. At the moment as was stated on here at an earlier date, a trust member can be nominated to the board by two existing fully paid trust directors - against the will of existing directors. Or we can co opt someone as directors onto the board until the next AGM.

 

My view on this is, although we do have positions within the trust, when you are elected you are simply a director, and roles can be rotated. However, it is my view (and my personal view) that directors should be elected to a specific role, and people who stand for the position of director should apply to be elected for a specific role, much like a job, so we have thr right people in the right positions, and so that people who apply to be a director will know their duties from the off.

 

However, the chair is elected by existing directors, from existing directors. This is to stop any bill and jo from simply walking into the position of director. My personal opinion on this matter is that any future trust chairman should serve at least 12 months as a director to prove that they are trust worthy, they could do the role justice and that they would bring something to the table that would benefit Trust Oldham and OAFC. I would expect any potential future chairman to work actively to work with the club and build bridges, whilst at the same time representing the fans concerns on the board and not blindly agreeing with everything that goes on.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I am certainly not doing de la vega is sulking, I can assure you of that. And the name calling to me personally is like water off a ducks back. But, I am simply not willing to let somebody call the other volunteers who give up their time and effort without pay for both Trust Oldham and OAFC masons/stonecutters, just because they dont agree with something that the trust has done in the past. I don't have any problem with rudemedic asking questions and criticising the Trusts election processes, but that can be done without sinking to calling hard working volunteers masons or stonecutters.

Totally agree - this is not about personalities and should not descend to name calling. Likewise though, it can only exascerbate the situation when you responded as you did. To fail to address the issues at all even when your verbal sparring partner came to the table, however begrudgingly he did so, was not ever going to get us into a proper debate and could only engender another response of the sort the preceded it. The bigger man doesn't need to make the point, so why doesn't everyone get "BOT" and let's address the rest of your post.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) What is the purpose of the Trust?

 

2) Does the current set up deliver this?

 

3) Would becoming a more democratic organisation deliver this? If not, what would?

 

(By the way, the masonic jibes seemed like a hint that the Trust may not be as open as it could be - not a personal insult).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) What is the purpose of the Trust?

 

2) Does the current set up deliver this?

 

3) Would becoming a more democratic organisation deliver this? If not, what would?

 

(By the way, the masonic jibes seemed like a hint that the Trust may not be as open as it could be - not a personal insult).

 

1) I would say

- to protect the future of Oldham Athletic and prevent a Chris Moore style scenario

- To represent the view of the fans on the board

- To invest in the future of oldham Athletic

- To help the club as and when we can

 

2) Not quite. I personally think directors wise we are a bit thin on the grounds and could do with getting at least a couple of people on board with experience in fundraising or with some business nouse. But Bernard Matthews would find it easier to recruit turkeys at christmas than trust oldham trying to recruit vounteers of the calibre we need at the moment.

 

3) My personal opinion on this (and this is what it is, a personal opinion) is as described above. At the moment a member can be nominated as a director regardless of whether an existing director likes them or not. The chair is elected from the existing board of directors by the directors. Currently we have nine active directors including Barry. We have room for a total of 15.

 

From what I can gather, I think the problem most people have with the system is not how directors are elected, rather how the chair is elected. As I said, my views are that the chair should be:

1) A fully paid member of Trust Oldham

2) A director for at least 12 months

 

Speaking as a trust member and a fan of Oldham Athletic, I would not be comfortable with any old bill and jo at the helm just because they were popular. The position of chair is not a popularity contest. The chair will not only hold the position of director at OAFC, but they will be ultimately responsible for making the final decision on many trust related issues, unless he or she has delegated certain decisions to be made by other directors. Hhence why I think any potential future chairperson of Trust Oldham needs to be a director for 12 months, to give them the opportunity to show that they are capable of fulfilling the position of the chair of the trust.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) I would say

- to protect the future of Oldham Athletic and prevent a Chris Moore style scenario

- To represent the view of the fans on the board

- To invest in the future of oldham Athletic

- To help the club as and when we can

 

2) Not quite. I personally think directors wise we are a bit thin on the grounds and could do with getting at least a couple of people on board with experience in fundraising or with some business nouse. But Bernard Matthews would find it easier to recruit turkeys at christmas than trust oldham trying to recruit vounteers of the calibre we need at the moment.

 

3) My personal opinion on this (and this is what it is, a personal opinion) is as described above. At the moment a member can be nominated as a director regardless of whether an existing director likes them or not. The chair is elected from the existing board of directors by the directors. Currently we have nine active directors including Barry. We have room for a total of 15.

 

From what I can gather, I think the problem most people have with the system is not how directors are elected, rather how the chair is elected. As I said, my views are that the chair should be:

1) A fully paid member of Trust Oldham

2) A director for at least 12 months

 

Speaking as a trust member and a fan of Oldham Athletic, I would not be comfortable with any old bill and jo at the helm just because they were popular. The position of chair is not a popularity contest. The chair will not only hold the position of director at OAFC, but they will be ultimately responsible for making the final decision on many trust related issues, unless he or she has delegated certain decisions to be made by other directors. Hhence why I think any potential future chairperson of Trust Oldham needs to be a director for 12 months, to give them the opportunity to show that they are capable of fulfilling the position of the chair of the trust.

 

Question 4. Do you think Barry being chairmen of the trust stifles membership

 

.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question 4. Do you think Barry being chairmen of the trust stifles membership.

I don't think that's a fair question to ask Carl is it?

 

If someone asked you to give your honest opinion of your boss in front of your boss you wouldn't feel comfortable would you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question 4. Do you think Barry being chairmen of the trust stifles membership

 

.

 

Barry is not everybody's cup of tea he will be the first to admit that, but my answer to that would be that there are other factors that stifle it alot more.

 

1) What you get for being a trust member. This is something we are actively working on. Although the membership fee is buggar all (£5) I still think we should try to give something back to trust members. As well as a membership which entitles you to stand for director or nominate other directors, we are trying to negotiate with local businesses deals whereby trust members would benefit from some kind of discount.

 

2) Circumstances at the club. the last time the trust was at its most active and membership at its peak level (as I understand), was in a time of crisis when Chris Moore walked. How many times have people asked on here when we werent in a time of crisis as such 'what is the point of having a trust'? I personally think a mindset of complacency that 'we had three millionaire owners who are bankrolling the club, what to we need the trust for' stifled membership alot more than Barry does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that's a fair question to ask Carl is it?

 

If someone asked you to give your honest opinion of your boss in front of your boss you wouldn't feel comfortable would you?

 

Ackey it depends what type of person you are, in answer to your question yes i would tell my boss my opinion, if he didn`t like it and i couldn`t justify my opinion it would be up to him what he did about it.

 

My opinion is that i think it does stifle membership, it only costs £5 to join the trust and yet they only have around 300 members i believe, Barry may do a good job but he has no people skills and therefore alienates the very people he should be trying to attract to the trust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barry is not everybody's cup of tea, but my answer to that would be no. I think there are a couple of things which do stifle Trust Membership though, which is as follows.

 

1) What you get for being a trust member. This is something we are actively working on. Although the membership fee is buggar all (£5) I still think we should try to give something back to trust members. As well as a membership which entitles you to stand for director or nominate other directors, we are trying to negotiate with local businesses deals whereby trust members would benefit from some kind of discount.

 

2) Circumstances at the club. the last time the trust was at its most active and membership at its peak level (as I understand), was in a time of crisis when Chris Moore walked. How many times have people asked on here when we werent in a time of crisis as such 'what is the point of having a trust'? I personally think a mindset of complacency that 'we had three millionaire owners who are bankrolling the club, what to we need the trust for' stifled membership alot more than Barry does.

 

Carl, thanks for the honest answer, as you can see i was typing my reply to Ackey as you were posting, you can see from that reply we dissagree but it wouldn`t be very interesting if we were all the same

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) I would say

- to protect the future of Oldham Athletic and prevent a Chris Moore style scenario

- To represent the view of the fans on the board

- To invest in the future of oldham Athletic

- To help the club as and when we can

 

IMO, you've not done the first one- if Corney leaves or has to pull his money out, or stop funding the club over the next season and we can't find a replacement quickly we are going to be up a creek without a paddle and the buckets will be out again in order to stop the club going under.

You've not done the second one either- the move to Failsworth was very unpopular with a large section of the fans, and Barry has himself said he doesn't give the board the fans views he gives them his views. Not to mention the number of times he has come on here and posting some frankly ridiculous comments about the fans and turning up.

The third- not sure on, you've bought the club a new tractor and a minibus, not sure how that is really investing in the future of the club

The fourth- yes you've done that.

 

From what I can gather, I think the problem most people have with the system is not how directors are elected, rather how the chair is elected. As I said, my views are that the chair should be:

1) A fully paid member of Trust Oldham

2) A director for at least 12 months

 

Speaking as a trust member and a fan of Oldham Athletic, I would not be comfortable with any old bill and jo at the helm just because they were popular. The position of chair is not a popularity contest. The chair will not only hold the position of director at OAFC, but they will be ultimately responsible for making the final decision on many trust related issues, unless he or she has delegated certain decisions to be made by other directors. Hhence why I think any potential future chairperson of Trust Oldham needs to be a director for 12 months, to give them the opportunity to show that they are capable of fulfilling the position of the chair of the trust.

 

I think you've forgotten one thing- I don't have a problem with that, if the trust was made up of just those who were popular we'd have Blue Pizza as chair and Royle Army would be involved. The problem is at the moment only the board can vote for chair, it isn't hard to get someone on to the board, you are crying out for people to volunteer. But considering that you have 9 active directors (so over half the board) it is impossible to get rid of Barry (or at least give him a serious, realistic challenge) from outside the current board. As the current board have already had a chance to put someone in Barry's position, and some of the comments from certain board members have suggested that Barry is the only viable candidate in their eyes, it suggests to me that Barry is unremovable by the current trust set-up.

 

However, if you were to have a free election where all those people who have paid to be a trust member could vote, and included a RON vote then even if Barry was the only candidate he might not win. You might even make more money as I think quite a few people would join the trust so they can have their say (I know I'd be tempted). At the moment the position of chair IS just a popularity contest as it only takes into account the opinions of 9 people.

Edited by rudemedic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO, you've not done the first one- if Corney leaves or has to pull his money out, or stop funding the club over the next season and we can't find a replacement quickly we are going to be up a creek without a paddle and the buckets will be out again in order to stop the club going under.

You've not done the second one either- the move to Failsworth was very unpopular with a large section of the fans, and Barry has himself said he doesn't give the board the fans views he gives them his views. Not to mention the number of times he has come on here and posting some frankly ridiculous comments about the fans and turning up.

The third- not sure on, you've bought the club a new tractor and a minibus, not sure how that is really investing in the future of the club

The fourth- yes you've done that.

 

Re the first one, its a different situation than it was with Moore. Basically, Moore owned 100 percent of the club, and we easilly had players with a culmilative value of 3 million plus if they would have been sold at their going rate as opposed to Moore's firesale rate

 

Re the second one, on the point of failsworth, there are also a large segment of fans who are in favor of the move, and another large segment who are sitting on the fence. So we have to take all views to the table, not just who is shouting the loudest.

 

Re the third, also add as well as the money the trust spent on the 3 percent stake (which people are perfectly entitled to debate on how it should and should not have been spent) that safeguards the club in the following ways

- guarantees a seat on the board and access to the books

- would any person with bad intentions want anything to do with the football club knowing that although the share is minimal, we could request access to the books as a shareholder, and spot any potential misdealings. If ant future investor is really that fussed over the 3 percent, in my opinion you have to ask, what have they got to hide?

 

also add the 25k towards the beckett loan at a time when we were desperately short on firepower up front and looked like we could very well be relegated as well as the minibus, tractor and vital equipment for the groundsman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re the first one, its a different situation than it was with Moore. Basically, Moore owned 100 percent of the club, and we easilly had players with a culmilative value of 3 million plus if they would have been sold at their going rate as opposed to Moore's firesale rate

 

Re the second one, on the point of failsworth, there are also a large segment of fans who are in favor of the move, and another large segment who are sitting on the fence. So we have to take all views to the table, not just who is shouting the loudest.

 

Re the third, also add as well as the money the trust spent on the 3 percent stake (which people are perfectly entitled to debate on how it should and should not have been spent) that safeguards the club in the following ways

- guarantees a seat on the board and access to the books

- would any person with bad intentions want anything to do with the football club knowing that although the share is minimal, we could request access to the books as a shareholder, and spot any potential misdealings. If ant future investor is really that fussed over the 3 percent, in my opinion you have to ask, what have they got to hide?

 

also add the 25k towards the beckett loan at a time when we were desperately short on firepower up front and looked like we could very well be relegated as well as the minibus, tractor and vital equipment for the groundsman

 

I'm not sure how the first one is all that different a situation if Corney leaves the club in the lurch it doesn't matter what the players are worth we ain't got any money, we have to sell and we take what we can get. That could be a bag of washers. If corney goes we have to have enough money so that we can complete the fixtures, if we can't then we go, it doesn't matter that we have a million pound player (which we don't). The value of players is dictated by what the buying club are prepared to pay.

 

I'm aware that people are for the move to Failsworth, people are happy sitting on the fence (I'm not too bothered if its better for the club then I like it), but I think the view of those people who were unhappy with the move (and are threatening not to go if we do move) hasn't been fully explained to the board by its fans representative. There is a difference in putting across the views of the people who shout the loudest and the more popular view (if there wasn't our front line would consist of Macken, Suffo, Hughes, etc. Whereas the likes of Smalley, Lewis and a few others would be playing elsewhere, and we'd have sacked Penney in February)

 

3% doesn't guarantee you a seat on the board anywhere, I hope someone at the trust is having a good long look at that bit of the contract. Plus anyway, 3% of nothing is nothing and if the club doesn't exist then there is no board.

 

The 25k to help sign Beckett is another thing, the owners haven't been shy in putting their hands in their pocket since, in order to try and stop relegation (Guy springs to mind) and I for one would much rather the club be playing football in League 2/Conference/Blue Square north etc. than be out of business. The fact the trust (or I think it would be more accurate to say Barry) gets to have a look at the books and potentially has a say on who the club gets sold to when it eventually gets sold is in some ways a good thing. But didn't Notts County's supporters trust sell their stake to those random business men and look how much it got them. Not to mention that if Mr. X says he will pay £2,000,000 for the club but his business plan looks dodgy whereas Mr. Y will pay £2 for it but his business plan looks sound I think I know who gets to own the club ( as far as I'm aware the trust doesn't have final say in who gets to own the club- if it does then the person responsible should be lauded as a God). Plus, who at the trust is a trained accountant, if someone has enough money to tempt the owner(s) to sell I think they may have a jolly good accountant who can get the nefarious dealings of their client beyond the eyes of the trust scrutaneers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK then despite thinking I had made myself clear- if you don't like being called a mason and see it as petty name-calling, then make the election process of the trust (in particular the chairman) fairer and more democratic different and differently democratic. Given that it is so undemocratic now it shouldn't be too hard. When you do that maybe some people won't "name-call" you masons.

 

 

Fixed it for you. It's not really that different to the UK government. You vote for a bunch of people, but they are the ones who elect the leader. And as we have seen in the past 20 years, they can swap the leader by their own vote, without reference to "us".

 

Democracy does not take one simple form, except for in the mind of someone who does not understand it fully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fixed it for you. It's not really that different to the UK government. You vote for a bunch of people, but they are the ones who elect the leader. And as we have seen in the past 20 years, they can swap the leader by their own vote, without reference to "us".

 

Democracy does not take one simple form, except for in the mind of someone who does not understand it fully.

But you don't. If you want to use that analogy it's as if the MPs were awarded the job in the first place and they decided on who else becomes an MP. You get proposed and seconded by a member and then wait to see if Barry blackballs you. Dr Medic's insult did actually have a ring of truth to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fixed it for you. It's not really that different to the UK government. You vote for a bunch of people, but they are the ones who elect the leader. And as we have seen in the past 20 years, they can swap the leader by their own vote, without reference to "us".

 

Democracy does not take one simple form, except for in the mind of someone who does not understand it fully.

Seems a bit simplistic.

 

Isn't the whole point that the Trust elections have been seen to be subversively handled and behind the scenes? As I understand the debate this is all about the fact that people are not understanding properly the system of joining the Trust board, and for those that do understand it they find it difficult to get proper information on how to get themselves in the right place to vote / be elected etc.

 

Democracy does come in more than one form, but it needs to be transparent enough that everyone gets to cast their vote in the first place otherwise it is fundamantally undemocratic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my experience, voluntary groups need to be able to "co-opt" key people in order to operate effectively. Otherwise they run out of volunteers (or just get well meaning nice people with little to offer standing for election - NB that's not a dig at The Trust).

 

The system isn't necessarily unreasonable - especially when an organisation would like to operate effectively without spending lots of money on excessive elections in the name of democracy.

 

One of the problems the Trust has had in recent years is that the club hasn't been in danger of collapse. So there has been little for it to do and little for it to make a song and dance about.

 

Current times may be a little bit different. There is clearly a lot for the Trust to influence that can be for the longer term benefit of supporters. I think it's more important that they do this, and communicate how, what and why they are doing to members and the wider fan base, than it is to change the way people are appointed to the hierarchy of the Trust.

 

If the organisation is seen to be open, then comparisons to freemasons etc will simply fade away. That change needs to be driven from within.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my experience, voluntary groups need to be able to "co-opt" key people in order to operate effectively. Otherwise they run out of volunteers (or just get well meaning nice people with little to offer standing for election - NB that's not a dig at The Trust).

 

The system isn't necessarily unreasonable - especially when an organisation would like to operate effectively without spending lots of money on excessive elections in the name of democracy.

 

One of the problems the Trust has had in recent years is that the club hasn't been in danger of collapse. So there has been little for it to do and little for it to make a song and dance about.

 

Current times may be a little bit different. There is clearly a lot for the Trust to influence that can be for the longer term benefit of supporters. I think it's more important that they do this, and communicate how, what and why they are doing to members and the wider fan base, than it is to change the way people are appointed to the hierarchy of the Trust.

If the organisation is seen to be open, then comparisons to freemasons etc will simply fade away. That change needs to be driven from within.

 

The term 'hit the nail bang on the head' springs to mind

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The term 'hit the nail bang on the head' springs to mind

 

That's funny becuase the way I read the following (it could be a grammatical misunderstanding) is that the esteemed leader of the trust disagrees.

 

People talk about funds for a rainy day. I diasgree strongly. We could never raise sufficient funds that would be meaningful in a major crisis.

 

In any event we do not have such a crisis and we need to assist the club to operate at this time. Its all hands to the pump as they say and I would hope fans can help along the way.

 

Barry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joining Trust Oldham is one of the easy ways at the moment you can help the club.

 

When you join the Trust, the membership donation helps to support the club in a variety of ways. The money is used to provide assistance where and when needed to help not just the club itself but the youth set up and groundstaff.

 

 

We plan to raise money in many different ways over the next few months, all with the intension of supporting the club if needed.

 

Your £5 donation will help the club in many ways. Your Trust Membership will also help you the fan !

 

Coming soon will be a list of a number of places and companies were being a Trust Member will give you discounts and extra offers. You will also recieve discounts at all trust events.

 

 

 

Join the Trust in 3 different EASY ways

 

 

New Trust Website www.trustoldham.co.uk

 

I'm struggling to take you guys seriously!!

 

Do you really think you have a function within the club, does the club either need or want you, that includes us, the supporters, do we want you?. I doubt that you have ever had a real strategy and are clinging onto some sort of deluded idea that you are a vital cog in the mechanism of our football club.

 

Have the club ever asked you for any of 'your' money, have they asked you to buy any machinery, kit, financial support? Is it that you've just thought, it'd be a good idea if we bought this or that!! Would the club have bought them anyway, if they needed them?

 

You ask us to sign up and when asked what we're signing up to, you come back with something along the lines of, we're gonna save the club if we need to, not quite sure how but we're working on it!! Brilliant forsight, a well thought out strategy.

 

Your 'ideas' for raising money are of a standard that you'd expect from a junior school looking to fund a day trip for the kids. What are you raising money for, whatever amount you raise will never save the club if we've not got an investor or chairman with the financial clout to sustain our journey.

 

I'll tell you what to do with 'your' money!!! Fund a couple of players wages for the season and then sit back with the rest of us and hope like hell that we've got a 'strategic' plan in place to take this club forward. If we haven't then at least you'll have put 'our' money to good use instead of sitting on it because you don't know what to do with it.

Hey, why not get yourselves a comfort blanket of your own and stop clinging onto the one that we all contributed to!!!

 

I'd better stop there because i could go on forever, i don't have any gripe with any of you individually, i'm just sick to the back teeth of your worthless crusade!!!

 

That's my opinion and i'm entitled to air it on here or anywhere else i choose, i'm not looking for any support from anyone, just getting it off my chest!!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm struggling to take you guys seriously!!

 

Do you really think you have a function within the club, does the club either need or want you, that includes us, the supporters, do we want you?. I doubt that you have ever had a real strategy and are clinging onto some sort of deluded idea that you are a vital cog in the mechanism of our football club.

 

Have the club ever asked you for any of 'your' money, have they asked you to buy any machinery, kit, financial support? Is it that you've just thought, it'd be a good idea if we bought this or that!! Would the club have bought them anyway, if they needed them?

 

You ask us to sign up and when asked what we're signing up to, you come back with something along the lines of, we're gonna save the club if we need to, not quite sure how but we're working on it!! Brilliant forsight, a well thought out strategy.

 

Your 'ideas' for raising money are of a standard that you'd expect from a junior school looking to fund a day trip for the kids. What are you raising money for, whatever amount you raise will never save the club if we've not got an investor or chairman with the financial clout to sustain our journey.

 

I'll tell you what to do with 'your' money!!! Fund a couple of players wages for the season and then sit back with the rest of us and hope like hell that we've got a 'strategic' plan in place to take this club forward. If we haven't then at least you'll have put 'our' money to good use instead of sitting on it because you don't know what to do with it.

Hey, why not get yourselves a comfort blanket of your own and stop clinging onto the one that we all contributed to!!!

 

I'd better stop there because i could go on forever, i don't have any gripe with any of you individually, i'm just sick to the back teeth of your worthless crusade!!!

 

That's my opinion and i'm entitled to air it on here or anywhere else i choose, i'm not looking for any support from anyone, just getting it off my chest!!

 

 

Fair enough.

 

It is your opinion and one been you have gained by not asking any of the question you have self answered and unfortunately got wrong.

 

As for funding a Players wage comment, tongue in cheek or not an announcement on that will be made this week!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough.

 

It is your opinion and one been you have gained by not asking any of the question you have self answered and unfortunately got wrong.

 

As for funding a Players wage comment, tongue in cheek or not an announcement on that will be made this week!

It is your opinion and one been you have gained by not asking any of the question you have self answered and unfortunately got wrong

 

For instance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...