Jump to content

Latest FOH email - have your say on supermajority


Bull's-eye

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

They all have their own reasons, and the reasons are all for their benefit not the club's.


I agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 573
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Beast Boy

    38

  • Francis Albert

    31

  • Jambo-Fox

    27

  • Saint Jambo

    22

Footballfirst
25 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

75% one would imagine. 

Yes. It would just require a special resolution with a 75% vote to change the AoA requirement to 90%, if it was deemed necessary. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
44 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

75% one would imagine. 

Thanks and to FF. So going to 75% is more readily reversible than sticking with 90%. Since the future is uncertain reinforces the case for 75%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

scott herbertson
1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

Another point occurs to me on which advice would be welcome (FF?).

If we leave disposal of FoH shares as a  supermajority (90%) issue then I understand it would require a 90% vote to change it to a 75% issue.

If we change it to a 75% issue and we change our minds in light of experience can it be moved back to a 90% issue by a 75% vote or does that require a 90% vote? 

 

 

 

In the light of experience? If the experience was a transfer of shares which we regretted, then changing it back would be too late surely? 

 

To me the 'votes cast' bit is critical. Assuming the quorum for a General meeting is still 51 members there is too much scope to me for a decision which could be taken hastily and in effect by a few active people (not necessarily malicious but without real general consent). Remembering that any proposal transfer presented to us by FOH is likely to be backed by the FOH board and therefore a big proportion of the active members I remain unconvinced that the longer term interests would be safeguarded  by a '75% of votes cast' option.


But I guess i am probably in the minority here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Psychedelicropcircle said:

Seen as no one else will answer this likely the FOH contributors will need to take a haircut back to zero  but don’t worry as sheikh bin Jamtart will invest the 2.4m & no one will be out of pocket. 

 

No even sure what that means but thanks for the solitary response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ToqueJambo
5 minutes ago, scott herbertson said:

 

In the light of experience? If the experience was a transfer of shares which we regretted, then changing it back would be too late surely? 

 

To me the 'votes cast' bit is critical. Assuming the quorum for a General meeting is still 51 members there is too much scope to me for a decision which could be taken hastily and in effect by a few active people (not necessarily malicious but without real general consent). Remembering that any proposal transfer presented to us by FOH is likely to be backed by the FOH board and therefore a big proportion of the active members I remain unconvinced that the longer term interests would be safeguarded  by a '75% of votes cast' option.


But I guess i am probably in the minority here.

 

Exactly that. If you're at all worried transferring shares might go wrong - as that poster seems to be - then you should vote for the 90% option. Otherwise the damage will have been done.

 

Romanov came in recommended by people at the club and even an SFA guy. There were no negative stories about him in the press I can remember. Proper due diligence did not seem to have been done, for example into how he ran his other sports teams. So I was excited when he arrived and probably would have voted to let him in if I'd had the chance. Then look what happened...

 

If due diligence is done and potential investors are presented to shareholders and members, I'm sure 90% will vote for someone who genuinely seems good for the club. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went for 90% if it’s a controlling interest being sold 

 

in the comments I said I would be happy with 75% to sell a minority interest. Personally I like the German model where fans own 50.1% and other investors can still buy in / invest as minority partners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
19 minutes ago, scott herbertson said:

 

In the light of experience? If the experience was a transfer of shares which we regretted, then changing it back would be too late surely? 

 

To me the 'votes cast' bit is critical. Assuming the quorum for a General meeting is still 51 members there is too much scope to me for a decision which could be taken hastily and in effect by a few active people (not necessarily malicious but without real general consent). Remembering that any proposal transfer presented to us by FOH is likely to be backed by the FOH board and therefore a big proportion of the active members I remain unconvinced that the longer term interests would be safeguarded  by a '75% of votes cast' option.


But I guess i am probably in the minority here.

By experience I meant seeing how football in Scotland develops and the likelihood of some of the developments FOH see as drivers for the switch to 75% occurrimg. With 90% we are stuck with 90% whatever happens.

 

I agree your point about the risk of a small minority of members voting something through as a result of apathy or non-participation or a "they know best" reverence for the FOH board by others. This could perhaps be addressed by a further change providing some threshold percentage of members voting in favour. The details would take longer to work through than the very short time FOH has made available and I think the priority is not to lock in a 90% rule which would be very difficult to amend in future. In any event I'd hope the traditional.apathy about governance would not survive an attempt to sell FOH's share.

Edited by Francis Albert
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not read all the posts on this subject but have gone back and read the FOH email again. I get the feeling that the FOH are not being impartial on this but are attempting to point the membership in the direction of 75% ( I may be wrong but that is my opinion). Suddenly we are told of approaches from potential external investors in a one liner comment.
Is there a hidden agenda here ?

I have personally voted for 90% and think that if a Vote goes ahead that a ballot should be taken of all FOH Members as not everyone is able to attend a meeting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
16 hours ago, JyTees said:

This is probably a stupid question, but should Sheikh Bin Jamtart decide his heart lies in Gorgie, and wants to plough his billions into the club, where does the money go that purchases the FoH shares?

Into the club I assume. OR maybe into a ring fenced trust fund to be used if another rescue is required?

Edited by Francis Albert
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ToqueJambo
28 minutes ago, BERWICK TART said:

I have not read all the posts on this subject but have gone back and read the FOH email again. I get the feeling that the FOH are not being impartial on this but are attempting to point the membership in the direction of 75% ( I may be wrong but that is my opinion). Suddenly we are told of approaches from potential external investors in a one liner comment.
Is there a hidden agenda here ?

I have personally voted for 90% and think that if a Vote goes ahead that a ballot should be taken of all FOH Members as not everyone is able to attend a meeting.

 

They said postal and online voting would be available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

fabienleclerq

Who's going to invest nearly £2 million a year into hearts with no financial return ever expected? 

 

Our money saved it, its our club I'd hate to give it away. 90% for me, if it does change I would hope it we can always hold at least 51%. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ToqueJambo
8 minutes ago, fabienleclerq said:

Who's going to invest nearly £2 million a year into hearts with no financial return ever expected? 

 

Our money saved it, its our club I'd hate to give it away. 90% for me, if it does change I would hope it we can always hold at least 51%. 

 

Exactly, and no-one is the answer. We should be focusing on talking about how we can expand the FoH membership and turn fan ownership into something even better, instead of discussing scenarios when we abandon it before we've even properly taken control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
6 minutes ago, fabienleclerq said:

Who's going to invest nearly £2 million a year into hearts with no financial return ever expected? 

 

Our money saved it, its our club I'd hate to give it away. 90% for me, if it does change I would hope it we can always hold at least 51%. 

In answer to your first question ... no-one. But in principle someone might invest say £10m a year if they thought the investment would generate a return on that investment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, fabienleclerq said:

Who's going to invest nearly £2 million a year into hearts with no financial return ever expected? 

 

Our money saved it, its our club I'd hate to give it away. 90% for me, if it does change I would hope it we can always hold at least 51%. 


:spoton:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

In answer to your first question ... no-one. But in principle someone might invest say £10m a year if they thought the investment would generate a return on that investment. 


How would they get that “return”? A return on £10m p/a, we’’d need to make more than £10m p/a on top of our regular profits, in order for this investor to make a profit. How would that work? 
 

 

Edited by Special Officer Doofy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Francis Albert said:

In answer to your first question ... no-one. But in principle someone might invest say £10m a year if they thought the investment would generate a return on that investment. 

 

Far more likely is someone might promise to do that and fail to deliver. If they were convincing enough and the team was performing poorly they could easily dupe 75%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Into the club I assume. OR maybe into a ring fenced trust fund to be used if another rescue is required?

 

Thanks FA. The latter was exactly what went through my head. The Foundation would obviously still exist so could be used to hold on to funds.

 

With a wee bit creative investment we could turn Easter Rd into a shopping centre 🤔🤪

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Special Officer Doofy said:


How would they get that “return”? A return on £10m p/a, we’’d need to make more than £10m p/a in order for this investor to make a profit. How would that work? 
 

 

 

There's soon likely to be two Champions League places absolute in Scotland. 👍🏻

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ToqueJambo
9 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

In answer to your first question ... no-one. But in principle someone might invest say £10m a year if they thought the investment would generate a return on that investment. 

 

10m a year with one CL spot at stake and the club in that spot capable of spending 3 times that a year, plus the next richest club willing to spend to keep up. You'd have to be a madman to think you'd make money from Hearts. But yeah let's make it easier for that madman to take control...

 

Listen if someone can't convince 90% of FoH members that they'll be good for Hearts then maybe they're not good for Hearts.

Edited by ToqueJambo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, JyTees said:

 

There's soon likely to be two Champions League places absolute in Scotland. 👍🏻


In this unlikely dream scenario, if two teams qualified, they would half the prize money, is that right? So approx £16m if two teams make it, and £32m if one does?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ToqueJambo
19 minutes ago, JyTees said:

 

There's soon likely to be two Champions League places absolute in Scotland. 👍🏻

 

Whether we like to admit it or not, if that happens it will seal the return of Rangers as a competitor to Celtic and restore the OF duopoly in Scottish football. With access to the CL, every single investor looking at Scotland will look at Rangers as a much more viable investment. Several million on top of the millions already spent on Rangers would be enough to get them that CL spot most if not every season, and even challenge Celtic. Several million pumped into Hearts, Hibs or Aberdeen (or all three) won't be enough to close the gap. One of those teams might have a great season, but won't be able to compete with Rangers and Celtic long-term without continual investment.

 

We've literally just lived through this scenario.

Edited by ToqueJambo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, scott herbertson said:

 

In the light of experience? If the experience was a transfer of shares which we regretted, then changing it back would be too late surely? 

 

To me the 'votes cast' bit is critical. Assuming the quorum for a General meeting is still 51 members there is too much scope to me for a decision which could be taken hastily and in effect by a few active people (not necessarily malicious but without real general consent). Remembering that any proposal transfer presented to us by FOH is likely to be backed by the FOH board and therefore a big proportion of the active members I remain unconvinced that the longer term interests would be safeguarded  by a '75% of votes cast' option.


But I guess i am probably in the minority here.

Good guess!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, fabienleclerq said:

Who's going to invest nearly £2 million a year into hearts with no financial return ever expected? 

 

Our money saved it, its our club I'd hate to give it away. 90% for me, if it does change I would hope it we can always hold at least 51%. 

Someone that wants a reasonable 2-4% return!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Special Officer Doofy said:


How would they get that “return”? A return on £10m p/a, we’’d need to make more than £10m p/a on top of our regular profits, in order for this investor to make a profit. How would that work? 
 

 

Low single figure % return would be ok

Edited by Jambo-Fox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Special Officer Doofy said:


In this unlikely dream scenario, if two teams qualified, they would half the prize money, is that right? So approx £16m if two teams make it, and £32m if one does?

 

 

No that’s not how the Champions League works

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ToqueJambo
4 minutes ago, Jambo-Fox said:

Someone that wants a reasonable 2-4% return!

 

You mean they'd be buying us to turn a profit by selling? Or they're planning to take money out of the club for themselves instead of investing it back into the team? What could possibly go wrong!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Jambo-Fox said:

No that’s not how the Champions League works


Cool. Genuinely thought it was. :lol:

 

Thought the prize money for qualification was split between all the clubs that qualify from each league. So the £30m pot for qualifying would go to one team, if say Celtic qualified, but if two teams make it through, say Celtic and Rangers, then that £30m would be split between them. Live and learn. :thumbsup:


 

Edited by Special Officer Doofy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Psychedelicropcircle said:

We should go the other way & buy up the 24.9 % take us off the market

 

a fair sized chuck of **** you investors

Firstly, we're not 'on the market', and secondly, after Ann Budge's remaining shareholding, the rest of the shares are pretty much all small holdings held by individual supporters, most of whom own shares for purely sentimental reasons, but have no influence at all. Why spend money just to take away those supporters' holdings?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

You mean they'd be buying us to turn a profit by selling? Or they're planning to take money out of the club for themselves instead of investing it back into the team? What could possibly go wrong!

NO - a return per annum on the investment figure would be reasonable what they do with the return is their choice!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Special Officer Doofy said:


Cool. Genuinely thought it was. :lol:

 

Thought the prize money for qualification was split between the clubs all the clubs that qualify from each league. So the £30m pot for qualifying would go to one team, if day Celtic qualifies, but if two teams make it through, then that £30m would be split between them. Live and learn. :thumbsup:

It’s more complicated than that  ... lots

of factors come into play

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having just 10.01% or so being able to control the direction the club will take in the future is too low a figure.

 

There are enough people who will never look to 'sell' no matter how good the offer and guarantees

 

Now of course it is unlikely to ever happen but if there was a genuine bidder willing and able to fund the club to another level then it has to be considered,

Of course subject to guarantees etc that the 'genuine' would not object to

 

You cannot tie the future of the club to such a small minority

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ToqueJambo
4 minutes ago, Jambo-Fox said:

NO - a return per annum on the investment figure would be reasonable what they do with the return is their choice!

 

Anyone investing in a Scottish football club with the expectation of a 2-4% annual return would have to be bonkers!

Edited by ToqueJambo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ToqueJambo
2 minutes ago, CJGJ said:

Having just 10.01% or so being able to control the direction the club will take in the future is too low a figure.

 

There are enough people who will never look to 'sell' no matter how good the offer and guarantees

 

Now of course it is unlikely to ever happen but if there was a genuine bidder willing and able to fund the club to another level then it has to be considered,

Of course subject to guarantees etc that the 'genuine' would not object to

 

You cannot tie the future of the club to such a small minority

 

 

 

That would get over 90% IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jambo-Fox said:

It’s more complicated than that  ... lots

of factors come into play


Cool. Did not know that... basically because it’s never really been something a Hearts supporter has had to concern himself with too much. Except that one season 15 years ago of course! 😄

 

Your other team will have had an enjoyable more recent experience of such things, right enough. 👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Special Officer Doofy said:


In this unlikely dream scenario, if two teams qualified, they would half the prize money, is that right? So approx £16m if two teams make it, and £32m if one does?

 

 

 

 

15 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

Whether we like to admit it or not, if that happens it will seal the return of Rangers as a competitor to Celtic and restore the OF duopoly in Scottish football. With access to the CL, every single investor looking at Scotland will look at Rangers as a much more viable investment. Several million on top of the millions already spent on Rangers would be enough to get them that CL spot most if not every season, and even challenge Celtic. Several million pumped into Hearts, Hibs or Aberdeen (or all three) won't be enough to close the gap. One of those teams might have a great season, but won't be able to compete with Rangers and Celtic long-term without continual investment.

 

We've literally just lived through this scenario.

 

I might've misplaced the tongue in cheek smilie lads. I'm not being completely serious. It would need to take serious investment from a seriously mega rich investor for the membership to even consider "living the dream". 

 

I believe 75% of the membership is more than enough to come to that decision. 76% wouldn't sell us to anyone that wouldn't pass the fans fit and proper exam. We won't ever be backed into a corner again. 

 

No tire kickers need apply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ToadKiller Dog

Keeping it at 90% sends out a stronger message to any wouldbe investor ,that they would have to win over Hearts and minds if they wanted the club .

Reducing it to me says come and get us we are open to a deal ,I'm not .

A populist vlad type campaign could easy hit 75% no probs ,defence if fan ownership against promises of gold would be near impossible, that's why the betting and lottery industry make so much money .

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Footballfirst
46 minutes ago, Special Officer Doofy said:


In this unlikely dream scenario, if two teams qualified, they would half the prize money, is that right? So approx £16m if two teams make it, and £32m if one does?

That is correct in part. The TV pool cash element is distributed on a UK wide basis, as the current BT deal covers the whole of the UK. 

 

Scotland's share is 10%. If no Scottish side reaches the group stages then that 10% is distributed among the EPL qualifiers. 

 

If Scotland had two qualifiers for the group stage then the 10% would be split, although not necessarily 50/50. The EPL distributes their pool dependent on where the teams finished in the league the previous season. 

Edited by Footballfirst
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack Torrance
12 minutes ago, CJGJ said:

Having just 10.01% or so being able to control the direction the club will take in the future is too low a figure.

 

There are enough people who will never look to 'sell' no matter how good the offer and guarantees

 

Now of course it is unlikely to ever happen but if there was a genuine bidder willing and able to fund the club to another level then it has to be considered,

Of course subject to guarantees etc that the 'genuine' would not object to

 

You cannot tie the future of the club to such a small minority

 

 

 

It's absolutely the right thing to tie the club to a small minority. What's the point in the past few years and the FOH if we don't?

 

We've just saved our club from "genuine bidders willing to take the club to a new level". The option to sell even a tiny part of the club should never be on the table again. 90% is the way forward and the FOH focus should then be on attracting investment for other returns. We should be focusing on growing organically and always living within our means instead of chasing $$$. I want the club to be there for my grandson and future generations. I'm not bothered about big investors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ToqueJambo

Something else maybe worth discussing regarding the pros and cons of fan ownership.

 

If Scottish football, and Hearts, is suddenly such a great investment. Why don't we, as the fans and owners, invest more so we can benefit instead of American millionaires? What's stopping us for example reducing ticket prices as they've done in Germany to make it more affordable and improve attendances? We would then benefit financially. Or we can try to raise 2m one year ourselves with incentives or the opportunity to earn a return built in. Why hand this amazing opportunity to someone else?

 

If I had a grand kicking around to invest and there was some sort of way to invest it in Hearts and get some sort of financial return down the line, plus help the team in the short-term (which is basically what these mythical investors will be doing, right?) I'd be all over that if I could afford it and get permission from the wife.

Edited by ToqueJambo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Psychedelicropcircle
26 minutes ago, FarmerTweedy said:

Firstly, we're not 'on the market', and secondly, after Ann Budge's remaining shareholding, the rest of the shares are pretty much all small holdings held by individual supporters, most of whom own shares for purely sentimental reasons, but have no influence at all. Why spend money just to take away those supporters' holdings?

Off the market to investors, regarding shares I know I’m one of them. As stated the FOH haven’t taken to their throne & are asking to lower the bar for the next round of us bailing out the next shister.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jack Torrance said:

 

It's absolutely the right thing to tie the club to a small minority. What's the point in the past few years and the FOH if we don't?

 

We've just saved our club from "genuine bidders willing to take the club to a new level". The option to sell even a tiny part of the club should never be on the table again. 90% is the way forward and the FOH focus should then be on attracting investment for other returns. We should be focusing on growing organically and always living within our means instead of chasing $$$. I want the club to be there for my grandson and future generations. I'm not bothered about big investors.

Sorry but if I am part of the 89.9% then I see the others as a small minority stopping progress for my club should a scenario come to pass that is acceptable

 

Of course we are talking about scenarios that will in all probability never come around but we should not be tied to such a small number having an out of proportion influence on events

 

Oh and when we were 'purchased' what was the % figure required for acceptance ?

 

You see had it been just 10% to stop the deal...…………………………….

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, JyTees said:

 

 

 

I might've misplaced the tongue in cheek smilie lads. I'm not being completely serious. It would need to take serious investment from a seriously mega rich investor for the membership to even consider "living the dream". 

 

I believe 75% of the membership is more than enough to come to that decision. 76% wouldn't sell us to anyone that wouldn't pass the fans fit and proper exam. We won't ever be backed into a corner again. 

 

No tire kickers need apply.


I’m probably on the 75% page too I think. I’m more concerned about an OF style tail wagging the dog scenario, than anyone getting 75% of voting pledgers to agree to something stupid. 👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

That is correct in part. The TV pool cash element is distributed on a UK wide basis, as the current BT deal covers the whole of the UK. 

 

Scotland's share is 10%. If no Scottish side reaches the group stages then that 10% is distributed among the EPL qualifiers. 

 

If Scotland had two qualifiers for the group stage then the 10% would be split, although not necessarily 50/50. The EPL distributes their pool dependent on where the teams finished in the league the previous season. 


Ah, thanks. Bit brutal if a team survived relegation one season and then had a dream one in a million season where they qualified for the CL, and got only a very small share of the pot compared to a team that finished a place above or below them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack Torrance
6 minutes ago, CJGJ said:

Sorry but if I am part of the 89.9% then I see the others as a small minority stopping progress for my club should a scenario come to pass that is acceptable

 

Of course we are talking about scenarios that will in all probability never come around but we should not be tied to such a small number having an out of proportion influence on events

 

Oh and when we were 'purchased' what was the % figure required for acceptance ?

 

You see had it been just 10% to stop the deal...…………………………….

 

 

I get what you're saying about the past but all the more reason not to be in that position again.

 

I want the club to progress but not at the risk of losing even part of it again. That's why I signed up in the first place.

 

If things change and the FOH becomes a less-secure option, maybe that could have an impact on future contributions. 

 

I can't believe we're even talking about making the FOH a less-secure proposition. 

 

It's all opinions and everyone's entitled to one. We'll see how things pan out. We all want what's best for our club 👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ToqueJambo
7 minutes ago, Special Officer Doofy said:


I’m probably on the 75% page too I think. I’m more concerned about an OF style tail wagging the dog scenario, than anyone getting 75% of voting pledgers to agree to something stupid. 👍

 

Totally different. The OF vote for self-interest. All Hearts fans want the same - a successful club - even if they differ in how to do it. So a great offer will have no problem getting 90%. There's no financial or other benefit for someone to just block an offer that is getting 75,85,89% support. They'd surely be convinced by everyone else? I just can't see who these imaginary fans are who care about fan ownership so much that they would vote against something everyone else thinks is in the club's best interest. They must be very involved right now if it means so much to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

Totally different. The OF vote for self-interest. All Hearts fans want the same - a successful club - even if they differ in how to do it. So a great offer will have no problem getting 90%. There's no financial or other benefit for someone to just block an offer that is getting 75,85,89% support. They'd surely be convinced by everyone else? I just can't see who these imaginary fans are who care about fan ownership so much that they would vote against something everyone else thinks is in the club's best interest. They must be very involved right now if it means so much to them.


Basically, I find it easier to imagine 10% of our pledgers doing something stupid, than I do 75%. If anything it’s a compliment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Special Officer Doofy said:


Basically, I find it easier to imagine 10% of our pledgers doing something stupid, than I do 75%.

 

Bingo 

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...