Jump to content
Heres Rixxy

SPFL declare league due to Covid ( Go to Arbitration )

Recommended Posts

Hagar the Horrible
9 minutes ago, gov said:

At least the speculation can ramp up even more tomorrow....its like the day before a big match😂

So  who has the greater pre-match nerves?

 

If we lose then we are no worse off than we are just now, but all hope is lost for the game, and indeed even though they wont agree, fans of all other clubs including those who will celebrate, it will be them next?  And we have accepted more of the same, and corruption succeeds?

 

If we win Compensation, then the panic and fall out as to who pays and how that is divvied up with be priceless to watch, and clubs will die, which will add more cost to those alive?

 

If we get a full bhuna court case, and lose then again we are no worse off but we have delayed the league and put some clubs under financial dificulty, small win for us?

 

If we get a full bhuna court case and win hands down and get reinstated, we get costs, we get our status back and football wins too, but at a cost to other clubs?

 

So who is the most nervous? 

1. Donkey

2. SFA

3 SPFL board

4. Maclennan

5. Lawwell

6. Dundee Utd

7. Cove and RR

8. Hibs

9. Stranraer and all other non affected clubs

10 Us and PT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
manaliveits105
30 minutes ago, Fozzyonthefence said:


The worst case scenario is we lose the case and don’t win the Championship or there is a 2nd wave of Covid and ends up being no promotion!  That’s why reinstatement is the much better and safer outcome for us.
 

Don’t think it will be reinstatement though and to be honest I like the compensation route and wiping out a few clubs in the process.  I can’t see an out of court settlement being of much use to us, assuming the clubs would have to vote on this and there’s probably 30 odd clubs that wouldn’t give us the steam off their pish right now, let alone a 7 figure settlement.  I think a lot of people on here are underestimating the complete resentment towards our club right now. 

FTH 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JimmyCant
49 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

 

Nothing to suggest that the SPFL QCs have a strong feeling they can win this case.

 

Tomorrow is effectively their last free hit at trying to wriggle out of this by playing the SFA Arbitration card.  When Lord Clark quite rightly decides the CoS own this case, the SPFL will cave very quickly.

 

The worst case scenario for Hearts is we lose the case and romp the Championship with a fully, healed and united support.

Sorry but that’s a wildly optimist view

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doogz
52 minutes ago, upgotheheads said:

Hearts and Rangers (presumably) voted no, which meant that if Aberdeen voted no the result would have been 9-3 But only if Dundee voted yes. And as we know Dundee's vote, (which mysteriously went missing) was a no, at least at first.

Dundee voted as a Championship side so aren't included in the 10-2 or 9-3 required 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
upgotheheads
Just now, Doogz said:

Dundee voted as a Championship side so aren't included in the 10-2 or 9-3 required 

 

:facepalm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Poseidon

I've emailed to ask for access to the hearing tomorrow. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doogz
1 minute ago, upgotheheads said:

 

:facepalm:

Not sure what the face palm is for: Aberdeen switching their vote had nothing to do with Dundee's vote: 

When Doncaster 'encouraged' Aberdeen to change their vote it was on the basis that the criteria to pass the vote at the premiership level had been met: 9-3, 10-2 it had no real impact on the overall vote, the overall vote was still dependant on the other leagues meeting their own required voting thresholds. All it did to help Doncaster was to use his "81% of clubs voted for this bs" - it had zero impact on the resolution being passed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wavydavy
2 hours ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

where is Thommo from Channel 4 when you need him

 

Too busy in Romania and Ukraine trying to save forests from being illegally felled to supply Ikea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seymour M Hersh
2 hours ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

I would say I am a good few pages further into the manual when it comes to criminal law, but like every other enthusiastc amatuer on here, corprate law is the dark arts, therefor is there anybody able to clarify the SPFL defence?

 

It just reads like their solitary defence is that the SFA should artibrate?  I am sure we will argue that is a fit up and a fait acompli.

 

So my question is to those better read so far on this subject?  If Lord Clark states that the CoS should hear the case, then as the SPFL have offered up no other defence, he can rule immediatly in the same manner as the SPFL not responding within the timescale allocated?  or:

further question they wont now be able to submit further answers?  were they using the sole answer as a delay to fabricate a defence?

 

That's nice for you but this is a Civil case. 😄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
upgotheheads
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Doogz said:

Not sure what the face palm is for: Aberdeen switching their vote had nothing to do with Dundee's vote: 

When Doncaster 'encouraged' Aberdeen to change their vote it was on the basis that the criteria to pass the vote at the premiership level had been met: 9-3, 10-2 it had no real impact on the overall vote, the overall vote was still dependant on the other leagues meeting their own required voting thresholds. All it did to help Doncaster was to use his "81% of clubs voted for this bs" - it had zero impact on the resolution being passed.

 

The facepalm is for me not you. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Edited by upgotheheads

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5tubo1

@David McCaig in your opinion, will hearts or the spfl be happier with the appointment of Lord Clark? Just thinking that all judges are different in nature and wondered if Clark suited one or the other?

 

Thanks in advance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nookie Bear
4 minutes ago, wavydavy said:

 

Too busy in Romania and Ukraine trying to save forests from being illegally felled to supply Ikea.


He’s barking up the wrong tree by pursuing that story. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lfhearts
1 minute ago, 5tubo1 said:

@David McCaig in your opinion, will hearts or the spfl be happier with the appointment of Lord Clark? Just thinking that all judges are different in nature and wondered if Clark suited one or the other?

 

Thanks in advance. 

Jesus, unbelievable, you are at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seymour M Hersh
Posted (edited)
38 minutes ago, PhoenixHearts said:

 

SJ is a real Hearts man, I can confirm.

 

Source: I'm printing his bloody t-shirts.

 

:munny::wonga:

Edited by Seymour M Hersh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bawheed
5 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

That's nice for you but this is a Civil case. 😄

The SFA's decision to bring Scottish Professional Football League chief executive Neil Doncaster onto its board is a "shocking appointment", believes ex-St Mirren chairman Stewart Gilmour.

Doncaster has replaced Partick Thistle managing director Ian Maxwell, who is favourite to succeed Stewart Regan as the Scottish FA's new chief executive.

Gilmour believes the move is the result of a "political fight" at the SFA.

"I think it is a shocking appointment," he told BBC Scotland's Sportsound.

"I think it shows a real lack of leadership in this day and age when we are supposed to be having new visions and new ways forward.

"Neil's integrity with supporters is so low, it is unbelievable. I just can't believe the SFA board members would appoint Neil to come onto their board. I take it he has been co-opted on at this time of year, as no-one else has voted for this.

"I think it is a dreadful appointment. I don't think it shows any way forward for Scottish football, any new broom. We keep getting told things are going to change. I really do think it is a poor appointment."

Applications for the vacant SFA chief executive post closed last Friday, with Adrian Bevington, the former English FA Club England Managing Director among those understood to have applied.image.gif.ea1d1f11a0b02f8b3989768f04dba5a1.gif

Hibs chief executive Leeann Dempster won early backing for the vacant SFA position but Partick Thistle general manager Ian Maxwell is now the favourite

But Gilmour believes board members have already decided to appoint Maxwell, a former professional with Queen's Park, Ross County, St Johnstone, St Mirren and Partick Thistle, who is now Thistle's managing director.

"We are searching for a good chief executive; we really do need one," he said. "But it would appear to all the world that Ian Maxwell is a shoo-in.

"I am not against Ian, I know him very well. I had him as a player [at St Mirren], I have seen what he has done at Thistle.

"But is this right? Have we got an HR company looking for the best people? Are we going to get the best people?

"I know someone who was interested in the post and he was approached by a company. They said to him, 'Your man [Maxwell] is a shoo-in'.

"That assures me that we are not going to get the best four or five candidates. Not a chance."

'It looks like 'you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours'

Maxwell has applied to be Regan's successor and was believed to have asked to be relieved of his responsibilities as a board member to avoid a conflict of interests.

Doncaster, who has been chief executive since 2009 of first the Scottish Premier League, and then the SPFL when it replaced the SPL and Scottish Football League organisations in 2013, was "elected unopposed" at the SFA's Professional Game Board meeting on Tuesday.

Former Scotland assistant coach Peter Houston also believes bringing Doncaster on board casts doubt on the governing body's appointment processes.

"There is a lot of politics within the SFA; It has been going on for years and years," Houston told Sportsound.

"If there was ever a chance for re-form and getting things moving forward, with no chief executive there was an opportunity to strip it all back and have a look to see if there was a better way forward," he said.

"Neil is a thoroughly fine guy; I've had several one-to-one conversations with him. But with him being appointed, it looks as if it is a case of 'you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours'."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fozzyonthefence
43 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

 

There is no club getting within 20 points of us, even in a truncated 27 game Championship season. The only way we are not getting promoted automatically is if there is a 2nd wave... and if there is a 2nd wave , there won’t be 12 clubs left in the Premiership.

 

Clubs can be as resentful as they went, but money rules and when the realisation dawns that no tv cheque will be landing in August, we might find people want to be our friends again.

 

And if clubs won’t agree out of court compensation, this trial goes the duration

 

 

 


I think with all the action being off field at the moment, some people are forgetting how pish we actually are.  We were the worst team after 30 games with a group of players unable to beat the Premiership dross like Hamilton and Ross County and even in our very last game, managed to lose our final must win game against St Mirren, a result that puts us in the predicament we now find ourselves in. 
 

I do expect to win the Championship but that is more based on how much weaker the Championship clubs could be because of Covid, rather than any confidence I have in this group of losers we have. 
 

That said, we’ve just signed Craig Gordon - had he been with us last season, even as a shadow of the keeper he used to be, he would have had us at least a place higher in the league and effectively safety, so it’s all very frustrating. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
David McCaig
1 minute ago, 5tubo1 said:

@David McCaig in your opinion, will hearts or the spfl be happier with the appointment of Lord Clark? Just thinking that all judges are different in nature and wondered if Clark suited one or the other?

 

Thanks in advance. 

All just guesswork on my part and I’m sure they are all equally good, but my feeling is that with Lord Clark being an ex-lecturer, he will be intrigued by the potential precedent of this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5tubo1
Just now, Lfhearts said:

Jesus, unbelievable, you are at it.

Just a question. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lfhearts
Just now, 5tubo1 said:

Just a question. 

Not really a normal question and you are at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5tubo1
1 minute ago, David McCaig said:

All just guesswork on my part and I’m sure they are all equally good, but my feeling is that with Lord Clark being an ex-lecturer, he will be intrigued by the potential precedent of this case.

Thanks David. Was just curious, that's all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seymour M Hersh
2 minutes ago, 5tubo1 said:

Just a question. 

 

Hope you don't have a follow up question asking which foot he kicks with. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5tubo1
1 minute ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

Hope you don't have a follow up question asking which foot he kicks with. 

😂How did you know? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Victorian
11 minutes ago, Riccarton3 said:

I was going to ask about that but was fearful of being expelled to page whatever. It does not end if the SF A cannot achieve a resolution. There is no mechanism to stop the clubs seeking court rulings again

 

You could argue that the 'head in the sand' strategy to kick the can down the road a bit will only increase the prospect of an interdict being sought.    They cannot be deluded enough to believe that any SFA arbitration is the end of the road.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Victorian

Glad it isn't Lord Matthew Gerard Clarke though.    If you know what I mean...

 

::troll::

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SUTOL
5 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

You could argue that the 'head in the sand' strategy to kick the can down the road a bit will only increase the prospect of an interdict being sought.    They cannot be deluded enough to believe that any SFA arbitration is the end of the road.     

 

Should that not read;

 

They cannot be deluded enough to believe that SFA arbitration is the place to defend/debate company law. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Victorian
1 minute ago, SUTOL said:

 

Should that not read;

 

They cannot be deluded enough to believe that SFA arbitration is the place to defend/debate company law. 

 

Same thing.    It could,   quite feasibly,   be for the SFA to deal with in order to prevent the court from having to rule over our complaint.    But the complaint extends well beyond footballing decisions.    It will have to go back to court unless we are satisfied by a footballing resolution.     

 

We just aren't going to fail to see it to the end.    They must realise that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doogz
33 minutes ago, upgotheheads said:

 

The facepalm is for me not you. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Ah gotcha mate- no worries!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RobNox
2 hours ago, Jambo314 said:

I emailed them, below is their reply ...

 

There is both media and public access to this case. Those requesting media access must provide proof that they are a bona fide journalist.

 

That rules Keith Jackson out then

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dusk_Till_Dawn

Just got to cross fingers really. Not a lot of point second guessing 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bickfest
9 minutes ago, RobNox said:

That rules Keith Jackson out then

🤣🤣🤣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jam Tartlet
38 minutes ago, Doogz said:

Not sure what the face palm is for: Aberdeen switching their vote had nothing to do with Dundee's vote: 

When Doncaster 'encouraged' Aberdeen to change their vote it was on the basis that the criteria to pass the vote at the premiership level had been met: 9-3, 10-2 it had no real impact on the overall vote, the overall vote was still dependant on the other leagues meeting their own required voting thresholds. All it did to help Doncaster was to use his "81% of clubs voted for this bs" - it had zero impact on the resolution being passed.

Directly it had no impact. However if you read the Dundee statement at the time they state that they saw two Premier League clubs had modified their position, which was (if you believe them) the reason why they stalled and took the opportunity to change their vote. If one of those clubs was Aberdeen - or if Doncaster had phoned another club to say the same - and they decided to vote yes (as it didn’t matter) based on that conversation then Doncaster may actually inadvertently have impacted it (by setting the wheels in motion for Dundee to have their rethink). 

 

Dundee “This raised an immediate red flag for us; not only was our vote missing, but we discovered that at least two Premiership clubs had modified their position from the understanding we had the day prior. It was then that we decided to put our foot on the ball and pause.  We conveyed that decision to the centre and ceased taking calls on the subject.  We needed time to develop a clearer DFC view on the situation.”


So their original vote was a no. They say the two clubs modifying their position led to the rethink. The outcome was then a yes vote. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fitba' broke my Heart

I am a little bit lost on all this and perhaps foolishly looking for some enlightenment here.

Does anyone know whom exactly proposed to the shareholders/members that the lower leagues season should end and that the SPFL Board should have the authority to declare the Premier League over too, thus declaring the current leaders as champions?

 

Surely the SPFL Board cannot act independently as they act on behalf of the shareholders/members or whatever the football clubs want to call themselves.

I am expecting to find a proposer and a second. I have yet to find either.

I could have easily missed this, so I am lifting my head above the parapets in my quest to find out: which clubs started the ball rolling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ex member of the SaS
3 hours ago, Jambo314 said:

I emailed them, below is their reply ...

 

There is both media and public access to this case. Those requesting media access must provide proof that they are a bona fide journalist.

 

Some time ago I looked into joining the NUJ but decided it was not worth the bother. TBH I was thinking more along the lines of free movement during the pandemic as Journalists were allowed to go anywhere in search of a story. However a member would just need to quoted his reg number to gain access to the court. A bit late for tomorrow but maybe someone could do this for any future court hearing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ex member of the SaS
1 minute ago, Fitba' broke my Heart said:

I am a little bit lost on all this and perhaps foolishly looking for some enlightenment here.

Does anyone know whom exactly proposed to the shareholders/members that the lower leagues season should end and that the SPFL Board should have the authority to declare the Premier League over too, thus declaring the current leaders as champions?

 

Surely the SPFL Board cannot act independently as they act on behalf of the shareholders/members or whatever the football clubs want to call themselves.

I am expecting to find a proposer and a second. I have yet to find either.

I could have easily missed this, so I am lifting my head above the parapets in my quest to find out: which clubs started the ball rolling.

Celtic. seconded by His or St Midden. ( joking, as I think it was all down to Doncaster doing Lawwell bidding. ) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jambodoug

My real worry is that regardless of what happens tomorrow, Doncaster is still seeking "absolute power".

 

If he does get that mandate from all clubs, what would stop him changing the rules (as he may then be able to do without any vote) to say that promotion from Championship, League 1 and League 2 can't happen unless a full league campaign is completed in those leagues?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Wrinkly Ninja
1 hour ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

So  who has the greater pre-match nerves?

 

If we lose then we are no worse off than we are just now, but all hope is lost for the game, and indeed even though they wont agree, fans of all other clubs including those who will celebrate, it will be them next?  And we have accepted more of the same, and corruption succeeds?

 

If we win Compensation, then the panic and fall out as to who pays and how that is divvied up with be priceless to watch, and clubs will die, which will add more cost to those alive?

 

If we get a full bhuna court case, and lose then again we are no worse off but we have delayed the league and put some clubs under financial dificulty, small win for us?

 

If we get a full bhuna court case and win hands down and get reinstated, we get costs, we get our status back and football wins too, but at a cost to other clubs?

 

So who is the most nervous? 

1. Donkey

2. SFA

3 SPFL board

4. Maclennan

5. Lawwell

6. Dundee Utd

7. Cove and RR

8. Hibs

9. Stranraer and all other non affected clubs

10 Us and PT

 

I think McKenzie will be. It’s his articles and resolution that are being scrutinised.

 

He will be the fall guy for Doncaster I reckon.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Deevers
2 hours ago, AllyjamboDerbyshire said:

I would say that's how it should be, but doubt it is always the case, ie he may yet hand the case to the SFA or just interpret the law differently from what we might think he would/should.

I think our QCs will pointing out the inappropriateness of the SFA in dealing with this. Too many duel interests involved to be completely impartial in this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Smith's right boot
3 hours ago, jock _turd said:

There is gathering concern that the court will, for some reason, direct a matter of company law to a football association to arbitrate. To me, someone who has no knowledge of legal matters, It would not make any sense at all to do this . If I was a shareholder who had the same issues I would expect my complaint to be dealt with by an authority who had the knowledge and powers to right the wrongs I felt where done to me... not be pushed back to the very people who had wronged me in the first instance. It is very plain to see that the SFA and the SPFL are quite clearly linked in thinking and attitude. Now I have heard it said that it would not be the SFA but an independent panel put together by ... the SFA ! Why should we put through that when a court of law is an independent authority which has the necessary experience and powers to correct any wrong doing that may have occurred?  

 

 

The "for some reason" could be the judge disagrees agree with our petitions merit. 

 

There is a reason petions are reviewed before going forward. 

I and others don't think that he'll agree with out petitions merit then send it back to the sporting bodies, the concern is that he disregards our points as he doesn’t think there has been any possible breech, therefor it goes no further forward in the courts 

 

Time will tell what he thinks. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ex member of the SaS
2 minutes ago, Deevers said:

I think our QCs will pointing out the inappropriateness of the SFA in dealing with this. Too many duel interests involved to be completely impartial in this.

The simple fact that Doncaster is on both boards will barr them from taking this route. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Findlay
3 minutes ago, The Wrinkly Ninja said:

 

I think McKenzie will be. It’s his articles and resolution that are being scrutinised.

 

He will be the fall guy for Doncaster I reckon.

 

Hearts win this, the present SPFL board will fold. Lawell will already be trying to line up his replacements. He must be stopped at the pass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ex member of the SaS
1 minute ago, Smith's right boot said:

 

 

The "for some reason" could be the judge disagrees agree with our petitions merit. 

 

There is a reason petions are reviewed before going forward. 

I and others don't think that he'll agree with out petitions merit then send it back to the sporting bodies, the concern is that he disregards our points as he doesn’t think there has been any possible breech, therefor it goes no further forward in the courts 

 

Time will tell what he thinks. 

 

 

 

 

The fact that other member clubs are curtailing our prospective income means this is not a sporting dispute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fitba' broke my Heart
1 minute ago, Ex member of the SaS said:

The fact that other member clubs are curtailing our prospective income means this is not a sporting dispute.

 

Added to the fact that they were enhancing their own!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taffin

Whether the vote passed or failed because of Dundee is a bit of red herring imo. That argument could be solved by just voting again and doing it properly. The issue is what was put to vote by the SPFL. There were no options as an alternative and they tied the money to the vote, meaning clubs had to vote in self-interest to get the money which in turn isn't acting in good faith or avoiding harm for all 42 members.

 

The vote result was still a total sham though. But it's not illegal to be incompetent, otherwise the SPFL leaders would have long since been removed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Smith's right boot
3 minutes ago, Ex member of the SaS said:

The fact that other member clubs are curtailing our prospective income means this is not a sporting dispute.

 

Hopefully, I think so too, the judge will decide tommorow if it is or is not tho. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
martoon

How's the tabloids today?

 

No need for links etc., just wondered if there was anything about big bad Hearts and all the clubs we've enraged.

 

Who knew a wish for decency and fair play could illicit such ill will? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
manaliveits105

Our resident hobos all over this thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiger
3 hours ago, Jambo314 said:

I emailed them, below is their reply ...

 

There is both media and public access to this case. Those requesting media access must provide proof that they are a bona fide journalist.

 

 

What difference is there between the media and public access? I understand if this was physically in a court room media would possibly get preferential seating etc, but online im struggling to see what the difference would be?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SUTOL
11 minutes ago, Ex member of the SaS said:

The simple fact that Doncaster is on both boards will barr them from taking this route. 

 

Why would that prevent it going to independent arbitration? 

 

 

10 minutes ago, Ex member of the SaS said:

The fact that other member clubs are curtailing our prospective income means this is not a sporting dispute.

 

That is the essence of our court case, not the Dundee vote, which I can't see the judge setting a precedent on. He may well comment on it though as it is part of the case, but not why were are going to court. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jambof3tornado
27 minutes ago, Ex member of the SaS said:

The simple fact that Doncaster is on both boards will barr them from taking this route. 

Doncaster to stand down from SFA role 9am tomorrow morning, to be reinstated after the SFA have dealt with us!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
henryheart

At the end of the day and once she steps down, I'm looking forward to reading Ann Budge's autobiograpy. With a working title "Swimming with Sharks" it will be explained to all how she traded in sailing round the clear blue waters of Med in her yacht for swimming with the sharks in the murky water of the SPFL. No stone left unturned, no stories left untold, just imagine how much the coffers of FOH could be boosted, especially with a lucrative serialisation in the Daily Record. Here's hoping that this is one book with a happy ending. I cannot wait!    

Share this post


Link to post
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...