Jump to content
cambridgeshire canary

BBC article on our lack of money

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Slightly annoying comments on here that our current reliance on player sales is a risk and where would we be without the money from Maddison's sale, almost as if it were pure luck.

Since the last promotion we have spent a good proportion of our transfer budget on the academy and a significant number of up and coming talents. That's not luck, that's a calculated business decision to maximise the benefit we can get from the money we have available. It's low risk because if the youngsters don't make the grade there is still a likely sell on benefit. 

We are far more likely to succeed this way than by risking tens of millions on a one off go at survival, where failure would be disatrous. Last time we took this approach, after promotion with Alex Neil, we ended up sadled with masive wage commitments and nothing to show from all that Premier league cash. This time we have invested in youth and upgraded facilities which will give us continuing benefits for years ahead. The more often we are able to do this the stronger we will become.

Sure, it's a slow, two steps forward, one step back process but it's the only sensible way for a club of our stature and finances 

Edited by Hairy Canary
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 31/05/2021 at 11:03, cambridgeshire canary said:

Would rather live in Great Yarmouth than Burnley and I think that says enough

You ever been?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The BBC's "journalism" these days consists of a mish mash of other reports from local and independent reporters. Almost none of what they produce online is original. This is just a rehash of a rehash and is as useful to understanding Norwich City as Martin Samuel or Slaven Bilic. Much of it is out of date and some of it is just plain wrong, as is most of what they produce as news.

That the usual suspects have once again used it to reopen the same, tired old arguments about ownership is unsurprising and very boring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hairy Canary said:

Slightly annoying comments on here that our current reliance on player sales is a risk and where would we be without the money from Maddison's sale, almost as if it were pure luck.

Since the last promotion we have spent a good proportion of our transfer budget on the academy and a significant number of up and coming talents. That's not luck, that's a calculated business decision to maximise the benefit we can get from the money we have available. It's low risk because if the youngsters don't make the grade there is still a likely sell on benefit. 

We are far more likely to succeed this way than by risking tens of millions on a one off go at survival, where failure would be disatrous. Last time we took this approach, after promotion with Alex Neil, we ended up sadled with masive wage commitments and nothing to show from all that Premier league cash. This time we have invested in youth and upgraded facilities which will give us continuing benefits for years ahead. The more often we are able to do this the stronger we will become.

Sure, it's a slow, two steps forward, one step back process but it's the only sensible way for a club of our stature and finances 

It is risky in part- Webber himself mentioned how worried they were when Maddison got his knock at the end of his season here, it would be interesting to know what we'd have done if it was long term and meant we couldn't sell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, king canary said:

It is risky in part- Webber himself mentioned how worried they were when Maddison got his knock at the end of his season here, it would be interesting to know what we'd have done if it was long term and meant we couldn't sell.

Although arguably less risky than spunking 10's of millions and *praying* the rich owners don't decide to call it a day. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Of course all football clubs have suffereed from loss of income due to empty stadiums.

I read  on Bild that Bayern Munich have a £70m hole to fill. It seems that even Barcelona and our own Arsenal have struggles.

The bigger the club the bigger the loss it seems. Being run with a degree of high income, high wages and hign running costs in general depends upon success and massive gates and lucrative sponsorship and the sale of shirts, memorabilia.

I sometime think that Webber over eggs the pudding on occasions. I am likely wrong, but does his £30m deficit just include gate receipts whilst not taking into account IFollow money, highly incresed tv coverage money and money from the empty stands being filled with extra adverts? Who knows?

Delia has mentioned that the loss of restaurant business has hit turnover.

Billionaires apart it would seem that we have a decent financial level. Bettter than MOST. We have our "crown jewels," our prospective PL income, our significantly succesful training ground and youth policy and our great support base so we are therefore a massive fortune away from administration (as before) because of good management, which I do not consider based upon good luck. You make your own and from Madisson, to Webber, to Farke and the other stars that have emerged over the past season or so it is more miraculous than luck.

I feel that our club is healthier now than at any of the forty years I have been a supporter.

Let's, for example comapre ourselves with the newly mega-rich (again) club some few miles down the road who are now even reduced to ridiculing the Farke-Bankys style wall art (quite brilliant, btw) at the pub.

A DeLorean type individual, who calls football soccer, has borrowed £40m to buy them. He has a few in the deal with and they therefore can give themselves a fancy label.

Perhaps they have their eyes on the training ground property that they bought from Evans. It's fishy, I wouldn't like it.

Their so-calle 'pot of gold' which will propel them to the Preier League within seasons must be already under stress because they will now have had 3/4 months and rising without income, but with expenses.

It could realistically reach £50m in cost (debt) by the start of the season. They are employing a massive backroom staff and virtually need a new squad. There is hardly anything to sell and have a frugal fanbase.

This all could be turn out to be worse than the Derby County fiasco, especially if Cook carries on with his paticualar form of man-management and his dinosaur tactics.

 

 

Edited by BroadstairsR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/06/2021 at 11:51, sgncfc said:

The BBC's "journalism" these days consists of a mish mash of other reports from local and independent reporters. Almost none of what they produce online is original. This is just a rehash of a rehash and is as useful to understanding Norwich City as Martin Samuel or Slaven Bilic. Much of it is out of date and some of it is just plain wrong, as is most of what they produce as news.

That the usual suspects have once again used it to reopen the same, tired old arguments about ownership is unsurprising and very boring.

What I find very boring, is the usual suspects inability to engage with other ideas. without questioning their support for the club or falling back on the usual patronising insults & tired links to failed clubs... hey ho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kenny Foggo said:

What I find very boring, is the usual suspects inability to engage with other ideas. without questioning their support for the club or falling back on the usual patronising insults & tired links to failed clubs... hey ho

Nobody has given any other ideas than "w3 n33ds M0r3z oV d4 MONEYZZ!!111!!!"

That has literally been it. No ideas or concepts about how to achieve that, requirements of a prospective new owner, what we'd potentially lose from our current setup, no comparison between our current owners vs similar size club owners, no acknowledgement of our over-achievement based on finances alone, no understanding of succession.

That's why @sgncfc likely referred to it as the 'same, tired old arguments', without putting words in his mouth.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Nobody has given any other ideas than "w3 n33ds M0r3z oV d4 MONEYZZ!!111!!!"

That has literally been it. No ideas or concepts about how to achieve that, requirements of a prospective new owner, what we'd potentially lose from our current setup, no comparison between our current owners vs similar size club owners, no acknowledgement of our over-achievement based on finances alone, no understanding of succession.

That's why @sgncfc likely referred to it as the 'same, tired old arguments', without putting words in his mouth.

As has been said on many an occasion, but is conveniently ignored, the current owners have done a good job in stabilising the club from the time they got the recruitment so wrong, leaving us a player sale away from major financial trouble (Maddison - all said by Farke & webber). They deserve great credit for the solid base we now have. They should be thanked for improving the training facilities (although I think that should have been done before it got to the point of putting off player recruitment) and getting us promoted last season. However, so far we have failed in our bid to compete at top level and have been left behind by clubs like Wolves / Leicester (and I also acknowledge that under the current owners we are not Pompey or Derby or Sheff Weds). This ultimately has to be the goal of any club to reach it's potential and I don't think we have. We are a one County club with massive potential for growth. We are not a small club that has reached our limit as many on here avocate in my opinion. And it's an opinion I will state as often as those that can not see past Delia, state theirs. 

Now many people bring up Naismith & RVW as a reason not to invest in players but now we have an excellent recruitment team, it seems stupid not to back them to achieve greater success. Absolutely no business grows with zero investment and every club that doesn't strengthen going up gets relegated. If your argument is that it's too risky then you don't have faith in the recruitment of Webber and his team.

I also feel that the current owners have a duty to look for owners that could potential invest more but also retain the sensible approach that works well in the second tier. The current round of publicity offering up our best talent for £30m each is mightily depressing. You do not replace a once in a lifetime player like Buendia. Look at his stats & see the hole we would have to fill whilst taking on the world's best (alongside Skipp and potentially Aarons).

It's a pretty simple concept, find owners (or the current owners find a way) that will keep the club running as it is (put it in a contract: many businesses do this) but with a sensible level of investment to achieve greater goals. You are happy being the Wycombe Wanderers of the premiership, I like to dream bigger and as a fan of the clubs since 1972, I have every right to and certainly won't stop.

As I said, myself & those with similar views (for example Jim Smith, articulate, respectful, as much as City fan as anyone on this site, constantly receives snarky petty comments just for voicing his views) are as much fans as you & anyone else that disagrees.

If we do not strengthen the side this year we will be looking at our 5th? relegation under the current owners... that to me is a real wasted opportunity to secure real investment in premiership cash, money that could improve so much and give us a brighter future.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a club of our size, just being in the PL is punching above our weight - but let's agree that no one accepts that is enough. Every supporter wants to achieve more, it's just this discussion about ownership goes round in the same circles, and it isn't an ownership issue, it's a funding issue. Different ownership changes nothing. Introducing capital into the business is the problem.

 The BBC article quotes Webber as saying, 

"We can only work within the parameters that we've got. It's not like we're sitting here with £100m in the bank and we don't want to spend it because we're tight-fisted.

"We're not spending it because we haven't got it. It's not a choice - it is what it is."

So given that we don't have it to spend, there are a few ways we can get it. It's really no different to any other business. Our current level of income, even with PL money, will mostly be spent on wages and housekeeping

a) Sell some assets (namely, players). That seems to be one strategy, but the naysayers again suggest that selling your best players is not the best way of achieving success. I don't agree with that, if I'm honest. If we could bank £60m by selling Aarons and Buendia I'd do it if I was SW, trusting in my ability to recruit well. Add that to the existing £30m budget and suddenly we have a pot to buy 7 or 8 players of real quality.

b) Borrow it. We've been here before, and we know how it might end if even then we don't achieve. But most businesses do run borrowing for cashflow and/or expansion. It especially makes sense when interest rates are so low as long as building value in our assets remains a critical part of our model. Why don't we have a manageable debt policy now that we have significant assets? I guess because the Board have short memories and are scared of failure again. Lots of clubs have had to resort to selling their grounds to raise cash - it's not somewhere the owners are willing to take us.

c) Increase our turnover. Hard to do with a limited fanbase and too slow to have any major impact., but the longer we are a PL club, the more money it will generate, especially in Asia. Buying a couple of Asian players would help. 

d) Issue some more shares i.e. re-capitalise. This would be my personal favourite, but I don't think it's ever been seriously suggested. Rather than a change of ownership I'd like to see us go for a reduction in the majority shareholding by issuing more shares and raising capital to fund success. I think there are plenty of Norwich fans who would like to "own" a part of the club, some of which are reasonably wealthy and could put up significant sums - the Academy Bond proved as much, although they did promise stupid interest and this would be more risky. But why would our current owners agree that their proportion should reduce just to provide additional capital, when we have never been as healthy financially as we are now?

We all know that spending money doesn't guarantee success. Equally we all know that not spending money guarantees relegation.

So, it would seem from all the official messages being given out that the current Board has opted for a), and on the basis that assets are replaceable it's not a bad strategy. The problem of course is that if no one comes up with the offers for Aarons and Buendia at the level required, we are pretty much screwed and we are back to our basic model of building slowly - our budget is £30m instead of £90m and we are fishing in a different pond - again. And staying up is 50/50 and dependent on how well we spend not how much we spend.

For £40m, we could have bought 1p5wich and used them as a feeder club.....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, sgncfc said:

For a club of our size, just being in the PL is punching above our weight - but let's agree that no one accepts that is enough. Every supporter wants to achieve more, it's just this discussion about ownership goes round in the same circles, and it isn't an ownership issue, it's a funding issue. Different ownership changes nothing. Introducing capital into the business is the problem.

 The BBC article quotes Webber as saying, 

"We can only work within the parameters that we've got. It's not like we're sitting here with £100m in the bank and we don't want to spend it because we're tight-fisted.

"We're not spending it because we haven't got it. It's not a choice - it is what it is."

So given that we don't have it to spend, there are a few ways we can get it. It's really no different to any other business. Our current level of income, even with PL money, will mostly be spent on wages and housekeeping

a) Sell some assets (namely, players). That seems to be one strategy, but the naysayers again suggest that selling your best players is not the best way of achieving success. I don't agree with that, if I'm honest. If we could bank £60m by selling Aarons and Buendia I'd do it if I was SW, trusting in my ability to recruit well. Add that to the existing £30m budget and suddenly we have a pot to buy 7 or 8 players of real quality.

b) Borrow it. We've been here before, and we know how it might end if even then we don't achieve. But most businesses do run borrowing for cashflow and/or expansion. It especially makes sense when interest rates are so low as long as building value in our assets remains a critical part of our model. Why don't we have a manageable debt policy now that we have significant assets? I guess because the Board have short memories and are scared of failure again. Lots of clubs have had to resort to selling their grounds to raise cash - it's not somewhere the owners are willing to take us.

c) Increase our turnover. Hard to do with a limited fanbase and too slow to have any major impact., but the longer we are a PL club, the more money it will generate, especially in Asia. Buying a couple of Asian players would help. 

d) Issue some more shares i.e. re-capitalise. This would be my personal favourite, but I don't think it's ever been seriously suggested. Rather than a change of ownership I'd like to see us go for a reduction in the majority shareholding by issuing more shares and raising capital to fund success. I think there are plenty of Norwich fans who would like to "own" a part of the club, some of which are reasonably wealthy and could put up significant sums - the Academy Bond proved as much, although they did promise stupid interest and this would be more risky. But why would our current owners agree that their proportion should reduce just to provide additional capital, when we have never been as healthy financially as we are now?

We all know that spending money doesn't guarantee success. Equally we all know that not spending money guarantees relegation.

So, it would seem from all the official messages being given out that the current Board has opted for a), and on the basis that assets are replaceable it's not a bad strategy. The problem of course is that if no one comes up with the offers for Aarons and Buendia at the level required, we are pretty much screwed and we are back to our basic model of building slowly - our budget is £30m instead of £90m and we are fishing in a different pond - again. And staying up is 50/50 and dependent on how well we spend not how much we spend.

For £40m, we could have bought 1p5wich and used them as a feeder club.....

 

You forgot 

e) look for new owners. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd personally argue that football as a whole should be taking our approach, rather than unsustainable financing provided by ultra-rich, owners, with players having crazy power to hold clubs to hostage, and even crazier wages that nobody can sensibly justify no matter how hard they try.

We should be trying to move the sport away from 100 million pound transfer fees, and 500k a week wages, not insisting that a clubs measure of ambition is based purely on how rich their owner is...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Midlands Yellow said:

You forgot 

e) look for new owners. 

Who will bring what exactly, given the restrictions of FFP?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely no reason we can’t do b, c or d, all of which might actually enable us to retain players long enough to compete and then do more of c.

your question as to why they won’t do d is pertinent given their oft stated claim they are “custodians” of the club and have no interest in personal financial returns. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Indy_Bones said:

I'd personally argue that football as a whole should be taking our approach, rather than unsustainable financing provided by ultra-rich, owners, with players having crazy power to hold clubs to hostage, and even crazier wages that nobody can sensibly justify no matter how hard they try.

We should be trying to move the sport away from 100 million pound transfer fees, and 500k a week wages, not insisting that a clubs measure of ambition is based purely on how rich their owner is...

Exactly my view. I can see Norwich in this guise under Webber as being a bit of a St. Pauli in Germany - a counter-culture club with a cult following abroad. The longer we can stay in the Premiership or even be a yo-yo club, the more we can demonstrate that it is pretty effective. Especially if more clubs have financial trouble.

Fact is, we went down the spend, spend, spend route when we bought the likes of RvW and Naismith and nearly lost the club. Yes, our recruitment is more targeted and arguably more effective nowadays, but even loans cost a fair chunk of cash. The Gibson and Giannoulis deals have been very well thought-out and justified themselves based on this season's performances, and the fact we DIDN'T take on the likes of Roberts and Duda with their loans show the benefits of such an approach, otherwise we would essentially have been left with two players hoping they'd basically do a Vrancic, Rupp or Stiepermann and get moving in their second season with us with commensurate wages.

This model is a sign that we've lived and learned from our mistakes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

St Pauli are an average second division club in terms of footballing legal. That should not be the extent of our aspirations.

As stated above, we are a one county club with a large catchment area and have considerable scope to grow if we can stick around at the top level for a while.

The fundamental principles of the model are not in dispute. The interesting debate above is how can we perhaps be less reliant on player sales at key moments to help with cash flow or enable us to retain or acquire key players on occasion. As has been referred to, the club seems to have chosen to rely exclusively on player sales rather than consider borrowing or attracting extra investment. Are these other routes worthy of consideration. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Exactly my view. I can see Norwich in this guise under Webber as being a bit of a St. Pauli in Germany - a counter-culture club with a cult following abroad. The longer we can stay in the Premiership or even be a yo-yo club, the more we can demonstrate that it is pretty effective. Especially if more clubs have financial trouble.

I can get on board with this but I think the club needs to lean more into it if that's what they want to be. Delia & Michael are very public about their distain for the finances of modern football but outside of not spending much I don't see much 'counter-culture' about us.

Longer term I'd be fully behind the club committing to some sort of 'manifesto' of what they will do differently to other clubs. Things like a commitment to a certain % of fan ownership, supporter representation at board level, committing to using Premier League money to bring down ticket prices, certain numbers of tickets set aside for younger people from lower income families so they can experience live football.

I understand this wouldn't be popular with all fans but at least we'd be clear what we're standing for an fans can take or leave that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, king canary said:

I can get on board with this but I think the club needs to lean more into it if that's what they want to be. Delia & Michael are very public about their distain for the finances of modern football but outside of not spending much I don't see much 'counter-culture' about us.

Longer term I'd be fully behind the club committing to some sort of 'manifesto' of what they will do differently to other clubs. Things like a commitment to a certain % of fan ownership, supporter representation at board level, committing to using Premier League money to bring down ticket prices, certain numbers of tickets set aside for younger people from lower income families so they can experience live football.

I understand this wouldn't be popular with all fans but at least we'd be clear what we're standing for an fans can take or leave that.

Our “self funding” stance is currently just the fact they are not prepared to/able to put any money into the club but want to continue to own it dressed up to sound like some kind of principled stand in my view. It’s born out of necessity given our lack of access to or willingness to explore access to other funding streams. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

St Pauli are an average second division club in terms of footballing legal. That should not be the extent of our aspirations.

As stated above, we are a one county club with a large catchment area and have considerable scope to grow if we can stick around at the top level for a while.

The fundamental principles of the model are not in dispute. The interesting debate above is how can we perhaps be less reliant on player sales at key moments to help with cash flow or enable us to retain or acquire key players on occasion. As has been referred to, the club seems to have chosen to rely exclusively on player sales rather than consider borrowing or attracting extra investment. Are these other routes worthy of consideration. 

St. Pauli are also one of Germany's most popular teams, but the comparison was less in sporting terms and more regarding its position within sporting and indeed general culture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 02/06/2021 at 16:11, Kenny Foggo said:

As has been said on many an occasion, but is conveniently ignored, the current owners have done a good job in stabilising the club from the time they got the recruitment so wrong, leaving us a player sale away from major financial trouble (Maddison - all said by Farke & webber).

 

This is certainly a one-eyed way of looking at things Kenny. Now I really rate Webber, higher than his predecessors, but it's never stated that those who got the recruitment so wrong brought in Madison, Lewis and Godfrey. Webber also inherited, from those who got it so wrong, the Murphy twins, Howson, Pritchard and Cantwell. While it's right to criticise the previous regimes for the bad buys that got us into trouble in 2017 we surely also have to credit them with the players who were sold to get us out of trouble. And the ones who stayed and helped us win two championships.

Edited by nutty nigel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

This is certainly a one-eyed way of looking at things Kenny. Now I really rate Webber, higher than his predecessors, but it's never stated that those who got the recruitment so wrong brought in Madison, Lewis and Godfrey. Webber also inherited, from those who got it so wrong, the Murphy twins, Howson, Pritchard and Cantwell. While it's right to criticise the previous regimes for the bad buys that got us into trouble in 2017 we surely also have to credit them with the players who were sold to get us out of trouble. And the ones who stayed and helped us win two championships.

This is the truth. Those that purchased Naismith (booo) also signed Maddison (hurrah) 

Its the old “well run /badly run” analogy . Based around league position. 
 

It’s isn’t as simple as we all like to think. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/06/2021 at 09:00, Badger said:

You may well believe what you say but it is unfair to misrepresent the views of others.

1. "i know lots of our fans seem to prefer to be “well run” than actually give the top flight a proper crack." It is certainly my view and I suspect that of others, that our best long term chances of giving the top flight a proper crack, are precisely by the model we are following now. Getting into debt  (euphemistically described as absorb losses) has been shown time and time again not to work in the long run. Sooner or later the debt becomes a problem.

2. If we have to sell Buendia, it will be nothing to do with "the ownership model:" it will be because an extremely talented player wants to play on a "higher stage." It is a logical career move that many of us will have taken in our own lives. It makes no sense to create unhappy players regardless of how good they are.

Bloody well said 

too many whine merchants on here who are unable to grasp the bigger picture 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Norwich have bounced between the top two divisions over the past decade - promoted to the Premier League in 2011, 2015, 2019 and 2021, and relegated to the Championship in 2014, 2016 and 2020.

That says it all,  Norwich fans  have have had some interesting times,  compare it with a team like Everton the best the fans can hope for is top half of the Premiership !

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SwindonCanary said:

Norwich have bounced between the top two divisions over the past decade - promoted to the Premier League in 2011, 2015, 2019 and 2021, and relegated to the Championship in 2014, 2016 and 2020.

That says it all,  Norwich fans  have have had some interesting times,  compare it with a team like Everton the best the fans can hope for is top half of the Premiership !

Yep, boring it has not been ! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Counter culture? every club is a slave to the woke agenda don't kid yourself thinking norwich is anything special.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, SwindonCanary said:

Norwich have bounced between the top two divisions over the past decade - promoted to the Premier League in 2011, 2015, 2019 and 2021, and relegated to the Championship in 2014, 2016 and 2020.

That says it all,  Norwich fans  have have had some interesting times,  compare it with a team like Everton the best the fans can hope for is top half of the Premiership !

Always find it amuing and rather ironic when fans of clubs who have spent the last decade midtable in a divison doing pretty much nothing being all

 

'Wow being a yo yo club must be so awful, nothing but nonstop pain I bet probably super boring'

Edited by cambridgeshire canary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03/06/2021 at 09:10, king canary said:

I can get on board with this but I think the club needs to lean more into it if that's what they want to be. Delia & Michael are very public about their distain for the finances of modern football but outside of not spending much I don't see much 'counter-culture' about us.

Longer term I'd be fully behind the club committing to some sort of 'manifesto' of what they will do differently to other clubs. Things like a commitment to a certain % of fan ownership, supporter representation at board level, committing to using Premier League money to bring down ticket prices, certain numbers of tickets set aside for younger people from lower income families so they can experience live football.

I understand this wouldn't be popular with all fans but at least we'd be clear what we're standing for an fans can take or leave that.

Absolutely!. The reality is though that at the same time they announce a Supporters Panel, they announce THEIR decisio  to retain unpopular away membership fees.

How about some genuine supporter representation courtesy of the custodians?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...