Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mike

Cowling the truth

Recommended Posts

So after all the rubbish about us acting like bullies and pushing a small club around the truth is beginning to emerge.....

City and United are at loggerheads over the way the Canaries recruited boss Paul Lambert from the Essex club back in August, with Cowling calling on a Football League Disciplinary Tribunal to dish out the most severe punishment - a loss of valuable League One points. "My feelings is that negotiations take two to tango," said Bowkett during last night''s annual meeting at Carrow Road when he and chief executive David McNally proved to a packed house that City''s Mr Nice Guy image is a thing of the past. "We made a lawful approach to Colchester United to ask permission to talk to Paul. The compensation required by Robbie Cowling in my view bordered on the ridiculous.
"This club is not a pushover and never will be while I am chairman." Bowkett revealed recently that he had received a frosty welcome from Cowling during the game at Colchester on January 16 - when City emerged 5-0 winners - and it appears the relationship between the two has changed little. "We have had meetings to try and settle it, we have tried to negotiate, we have offered mediation and to be perfectly blunt I think the only way to solve this is by going to a tribunal.
"The Football League have never had a tribunal on this and never deducted points. "We have made an over-generous offer to settle Colchester United''s claim. My view is that even the majority of Colchester United''s directors want to settle, but one individual needs to come to the table to negotiate."

Cowling needs to grow up! Simples

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Mike Grant"]

So after all the rubbish about us acting like bullies and pushing a small club around the truth is beginning to emerge.....

City and United are at loggerheads over the way the Canaries recruited boss Paul Lambert from the Essex club back in August, with Cowling calling on a Football League Disciplinary Tribunal to dish out the most severe punishment - a loss of valuable League One points. "My feelings is that negotiations take two to tango," said Bowkett during last night''s annual meeting at Carrow Road when he and chief executive David McNally proved to a packed house that City''s Mr Nice Guy image is a thing of the past. "We made a lawful approach to Colchester United to ask permission to talk to Paul. The compensation required by Robbie Cowling in my view bordered on the ridiculous.
"This club is not a pushover and never will be while I am chairman." Bowkett revealed recently that he had received a frosty welcome from Cowling during the game at Colchester on January 16 - when City emerged 5-0 winners - and it appears the relationship between the two has changed little. "We have had meetings to try and settle it, we have tried to negotiate, we have offered mediation and to be perfectly blunt I think the only way to solve this is by going to a tribunal.
"The Football League have never had a tribunal on this and never deducted points. "We have made an over-generous offer to settle Colchester United''s claim. My view is that even the majority of Colchester United''s directors want to settle, but one individual needs to come to the table to negotiate."

Cowling needs to grow up! Simples

 

[/quote]

So the truth emerges at long last.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With respect, it''s only one side of the story. 

"The Football League has never had a tribunal on this and never deducted points."  Well if they''ve never had a tribunal on it, no one knows whether they would deduct points or not.  I doubt if they would, especially not at Cowling''s request, but it''s a flawed argument.

Of course they think our offer is over-generous, but how can we judge if we don''t know what it is?

Don''t get me wrong, I''m all in favour of the new board members, but that''s not a reason to swallow everything they say without question.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="canary cherub "]

With respect, it''s only one side of the story. 

"The Football League has never had a tribunal on this and never deducted points."  Well if they''ve never had a tribunal on it, no one knows whether they would deduct points or not.  I doubt if they would, especially not at Cowling''s request, but it''s a flawed argument.

Of course they think our offer is over-generous, but how can we judge if we don''t know what it is?

Don''t get me wrong, I''m all in favour of the new board members, but that''s not a reason to swallow everything they say without question.

 

[/quote]

Seems like the other Col Board Members deemed the offer satisfactory. Only pipsqueak Cowling has an issue with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="canary cherub "]

With respect, it''s only one side of the story. 

"The Football League has never had a tribunal on this and never deducted points."  Well if they''ve never had a tribunal on it, no one knows whether they would deduct points or not.  I doubt if they would, especially not at Cowling''s request, but it''s a flawed argument.

Of course they think our offer is over-generous, but how can we judge if we don''t know what it is?

Don''t get me wrong, I''m all in favour of the new board members, but that''s not a reason to swallow everything they say without question.

[/quote]

Was going to say something very similar to this myself. The board aren''t going to come out before the tribunal is held and say something like "we''ve been very naughty boys and are unwilling to talk to Cowling".

Cowling made comments earlier in the season that he wanted to talk and Norwich wouldn''t, so it is one man''s word against another. I know none of us think very highly of Cowling, but we are nearly always more likely to favour our own, currently popular board, over that of another team''s; especially Colchester''s at the moment.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="canary cherub "]

With respect, it''s only one side of the story. 

"The Football League has never had a tribunal on this and never deducted points."  Well if they''ve never had a tribunal on it, no one knows whether they would deduct points or not.  I doubt if they would, especially not at Cowling''s request, but it''s a flawed argument.

Of course they think our offer is over-generous, but how can we judge if we don''t know what it is?

Don''t get me wrong, I''m all in favour of the new board members, but that''s not a reason to swallow everything they say without question.

[/quote]

No, we''ve heard the other side of the story as well. Let me refresh your memory:

This is an article dated the 23rd November 2009:

Colchester United chairman Robbie Cowling has urged the football authorities to make an example of Norwich City, after the two clubs failed to agree on a compensation package for Paul Lambert.

The U’s have elected to take their Coca-Cola League One rivals to a Football League tribunal and have reported them for a breach of league regulations and misconduct.

Colchester were unable to agree with Norwich over a compensation package for the departure of former manager Lambert – along with his assistants Ian Culverhouse and Gary Karsa – in August.

The Football League will now set up a Football Disciplinary Commission to hear Colchester’s complaint against all four parties, with a tribunal likely to take place in January.

That could lead to the U’s being awarded substantial compensation – possibly running into seven figures – or even the Canaries being deduced points.

Cowling wants the Football League to make an example of Norwich, for the good of the game.

He told the Gazette: “There are two key issues for us.

“The first is that Colchester United need to be compensated for what has happened.

“The second is that football has to sort itself out a bit and this is a chance for the authorities to do that and set an example.

“Football has to decide and our opinion is that a points deduction is fair, because they have damaged us.”

Cowling stressed that Lambert’s sudden departure at the start of the season was financially damaging to Colchester.

While he is understandably pleased with the impact current manager Aidy Boothroyd has made since his arrival in September, the U’s chairman said his club have been hit in the pocket by Lambert’s sudden departure.

He said: “We feel we have been damaged and we want to make sure that we’re properly compensated for what has happened.

“But I don’t think we ever will be, because to back any manager is an expensive thing to do.

“They naturally want different players and that costs money.

“I have allowed Aidy to bring in his own players but with that comes different wage bills.

“We got the best person we could have possibly hoped for in appointing Aidy.

“But the upset that was caused when Paul left, despite Joe Dunne doing a great on job in caretaker charge, was considerable and Norwich need to compensate us for that.

“And what is apparent is that Norwich have gained dramatically from what has happened.”

Cowling added that he had hoped that the matter could have been settled between the two East Anglian clubs, rather than go to an independent panel.

He said: “We felt it could be settled.

“I wanted to go to Paul Lambert with the idea of a money plus players agreement.

“I don’t want to elaborate any more than that but we were declined the chance to do that by Norwich City and we were not allowed to speak to him.”

Our side of the story, as you put it, is completely in line with what''s indicated here. Cowling wanting money and a player for Lambert and to negotiate with Lambert - not the powers that be at Norwich - is frankly ridiculous. It is clear that Cowling is being unreasonable and I feel the FA will look at our efforts to settle this situation, look at Cowling''s blatent attempts to railroad those efforts and deal accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"][quote user="canary cherub "]

With respect, it''s only one side of the story. 

"The Football League has never had a tribunal on this and never deducted points."  Well if they''ve never had a tribunal on it, no one knows whether they would deduct points or not.  I doubt if they would, especially not at Cowling''s request, but it''s a flawed argument.

Of course they think our offer is over-generous, but how can we judge if we don''t know what it is?

Don''t get me wrong, I''m all in favour of the new board members, but that''s not a reason to swallow everything they say without question.

[/quote]

Was going to say something very similar to this myself. The board aren''t going to come out before the tribunal is held and say something like "we''ve been very naughty boys and are unwilling to talk to Cowling".

Cowling made comments earlier in the season that he wanted to talk and Norwich wouldn''t, so it is one man''s word against another. I know none of us think very highly of Cowling, but we are nearly always more likely to favour our own, currently popular board, over that of another team''s; especially Colchester''s at the moment.

 

[/quote]

Cheers BGY - btw I''ve been meaning to ask you, whereabouts in Bethnal Green are you?  I spent 10 very happy years there 1990-2000 in the Wilmot Street/Corfield Street area.  How I miss Brick Lane curries!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="canary cherub "][quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"][quote user="canary cherub "]

With respect, it''s only one side of the story. 

"The Football League has never had a tribunal on this and never deducted points."  Well if they''ve never had a tribunal on it, no one knows whether they would deduct points or not.  I doubt if they would, especially not at Cowling''s request, but it''s a flawed argument.

Of course they think our offer is over-generous, but how can we judge if we don''t know what it is?

Don''t get me wrong, I''m all in favour of the new board members, but that''s not a reason to swallow everything they say without question.

[/quote]

Was going to say something very similar to this myself. The board aren''t going to come out before the tribunal is held and say something like "we''ve been very naughty boys and are unwilling to talk to Cowling".

Cowling made comments earlier in the season that he wanted to talk and Norwich wouldn''t, so it is one man''s word against another. I know none of us think very highly of Cowling, but we are nearly always more likely to favour our own, currently popular board, over that of another team''s; especially Colchester''s at the moment.

 

[/quote]

Cheers BGY - btw I''ve been meaning to ask you, whereabouts in Bethnal Green are you?  I spent 10 very happy years there 1990-2000 in the Wilmot Street/Corfield Street area.  How I miss Brick Lane curries!

 

[/quote]


Small world! i lived on Wilmott Street for a year in 2000.

Have driven through Bethnal Green a few tiomes recently and expected it to have been "gentrified" but if anything is more tatty than it was when I lived there. Always made me laugh how everyone you spoke to knew the Krays. They had more locals than Adnams!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don''t suppose this "money plus players" idea would have included Jamie do you? Wasn''t Lambert rumoured to be looking at him while he was managing Colchester? Seems a shame we couldn''t have obliged them. Still they probably would have demanded additional compensation when they realised what we''d left them with!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="canary cherub "][quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"][quote user="canary cherub "]

With respect, it''s only one side of the story. 

"The Football League has never had a tribunal on this and never deducted points."  Well if they''ve never had a tribunal on it, no one knows whether they would deduct points or not.  I doubt if they would, especially not at Cowling''s request, but it''s a flawed argument.

Of course they think our offer is over-generous, but how can we judge if we don''t know what it is?

Don''t get me wrong, I''m all in favour of the new board members, but that''s not a reason to swallow everything they say without question.

[/quote]

Was going to say something very similar to this myself. The board aren''t going to come out before the tribunal is held and say something like "we''ve been very naughty boys and are unwilling to talk to Cowling".

Cowling made comments earlier in the season that he wanted to talk and Norwich wouldn''t, so it is one man''s word against another. I know none of us think very highly of Cowling, but we are nearly always more likely to favour our own, currently popular board, over that of another team''s; especially Colchester''s at the moment.

 

[/quote]

Cheers BGY - btw I''ve been meaning to ask you, whereabouts in Bethnal Green are you?  I spent 10 very happy years there 1990-2000 in the Wilmot Street/Corfield Street area.  How I miss Brick Lane curries!

[/quote]

I live on Bethnal Green Road itself, near Barnet Grove. Nice to be within walking distance of Brick Lane, although I fear the quality of the curries is slipping these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"][quote user="canary cherub "][quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"][quote user="canary cherub "]

With respect, it''s only one side of the story. 

"The Football League has never had a tribunal on this and never deducted points."  Well if they''ve never had a tribunal on it, no one knows whether they would deduct points or not.  I doubt if they would, especially not at Cowling''s request, but it''s a flawed argument.

Of course they think our offer is over-generous, but how can we judge if we don''t know what it is?

Don''t get me wrong, I''m all in favour of the new board members, but that''s not a reason to swallow everything they say without question.

[/quote]

Was going to say something very similar to this myself. The board aren''t going to come out before the tribunal is held and say something like "we''ve been very naughty boys and are unwilling to talk to Cowling".

Cowling made comments earlier in the season that he wanted to talk and Norwich wouldn''t, so it is one man''s word against another. I know none of us think very highly of Cowling, but we are nearly always more likely to favour our own, currently popular board, over that of another team''s; especially Colchester''s at the moment.

 

[/quote]

Cheers BGY - btw I''ve been meaning to ask you, whereabouts in Bethnal Green are you?  I spent 10 very happy years there 1990-2000 in the Wilmot Street/Corfield Street area.  How I miss Brick Lane curries!

[/quote]

I live on Bethnal Green Road itself, near Barnet Grove. Nice to be within walking distance of Brick Lane, although I fear the quality of the curries is slipping these days.

[/quote]

Quality slipping [:O] . . . it''s the end of life as we know it!  There used to be a place called the Aladdin, it was more of a cafe than a restaurant, used by the locals, no liquor licence and they''d have two or three choices and used to close whenever they ran out of food! Very cheap, very hot, authentic.  Slightly more mainstream, have you tried the Lakshmi in Alie Street (if it''s still there), it used to be a cracker.

About a year ago I went for a walk round there, I wouldn''t say it had declined but it hadn''t improved either, it felt sort of static, nothing much had changed since I left.  It was really vibrant in the 90s.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="canary cherub "][quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"][quote user="canary cherub "][quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"][quote user="canary cherub "]

With respect, it''s only one side of the story. 

"The Football League has never had a tribunal on this and never deducted points."  Well if they''ve never had a tribunal on it, no one knows whether they would deduct points or not.  I doubt if they would, especially not at Cowling''s request, but it''s a flawed argument.

Of course they think our offer is over-generous, but how can we judge if we don''t know what it is?

Don''t get me wrong, I''m all in favour of the new board members, but that''s not a reason to swallow everything they say without question.

[/quote]

Was going to say something very similar to this myself. The board aren''t going to come out before the tribunal is held and say something like "we''ve been very naughty boys and are unwilling to talk to Cowling".

Cowling made comments earlier in the season that he wanted to talk and Norwich wouldn''t, so it is one man''s word against another. I know none of us think very highly of Cowling, but we are nearly always more likely to favour our own, currently popular board, over that of another team''s; especially Colchester''s at the moment.

 

[/quote]

Cheers BGY - btw I''ve been meaning to ask you, whereabouts in Bethnal Green are you?  I spent 10 very happy years there 1990-2000 in the Wilmot Street/Corfield Street area.  How I miss Brick Lane curries!

[/quote]

I live on Bethnal Green Road itself, near Barnet Grove. Nice to be within walking distance of Brick Lane, although I fear the quality of the curries is slipping these days.

[/quote]

Quality slipping [:O] . . . it''s the end of life as we know it!  There used to be a place called the Aladdin, it was more of a cafe than a restaurant, used by the locals, no liquor licence and they''d have two or three choices and used to close whenever they ran out of food! Very cheap, very hot, authentic.  Slightly more mainstream, have you tried the Lakshmi in Alie Street (if it''s still there), it used to be a cracker.

About a year ago I went for a walk round there, I wouldn''t say it had declined but it hadn''t improved either, it felt sort of static, nothing much had changed since I left.  It was really vibrant in the 90s.

[/quote]

I think it is about knowing the right places. The area has become full of tourists over the last few years; the book Brick Lane certainly added to its fame, many restaurants can get away with serving up average curries to the unknowing tourists from every corner of the globe. Also, the redevelopment of Spitalfield has brought more people to the area from within London, who are also easy targets for guys on the street to lure in with the promise of a free round of drinks.

 There are a few places I go to that are still top notch, but I can never remember the names. Beigel Bake is also getting worse, selling increasingly small bagels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Jim Smith"][quote user="canary cherub "][quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"][quote user="canary cherub "]

With respect, it''s only one side of the story. 

"The Football League has never had a tribunal on this and never deducted points."  Well if they''ve never had a tribunal on it, no one knows whether they would deduct points or not.  I doubt if they would, especially not at Cowling''s request, but it''s a flawed argument.

Of course they think our offer is over-generous, but how can we judge if we don''t know what it is?

Don''t get me wrong, I''m all in favour of the new board members, but that''s not a reason to swallow everything they say without question.

[/quote]

Was going to say something very similar to this myself. The board aren''t going to come out before the tribunal is held and say something like "we''ve been very naughty boys and are unwilling to talk to Cowling".

Cowling made comments earlier in the season that he wanted to talk and Norwich wouldn''t, so it is one man''s word against another. I know none of us think very highly of Cowling, but we are nearly always more likely to favour our own, currently popular board, over that of another team''s; especially Colchester''s at the moment.

 

[/quote]

Cheers BGY - btw I''ve been meaning to ask you, whereabouts in Bethnal Green are you?  I spent 10 very happy years there 1990-2000 in the Wilmot Street/Corfield Street area.  How I miss Brick Lane curries!

 

[/quote]


Small world! i lived on Wilmott Street for a year in 2000.

Have driven through Bethnal Green a few tiomes recently and expected it to have been "gentrified" but if anything is more tatty than it was when I lived there. Always made me laugh how everyone you spoke to knew the Krays. They had more locals than Adnams!

[/quote]

Ha ha! I was late for work twice because of Kray brothers funerals which were held at St Matthews Church just off BG Road.  The pavements were packed, the whole street was closed off and I had to take a detour.  I saw one of them, a procession with glass coach and black plumed horses as you would expect, the other brother behind handcuffed in a police car and a batallion of identikit heavies in long black coats and sunglasses walking behind, just like a gangster movie. 

Interestingly, after I moved to Attleborough in 2000 I learned that the Krays used to run a pub in the town in the 1950s.  That part of the South Norfolk/North Suffolk border was (and still is) one of the places gangsters use to lie low.  And the last Kray brother died in Norwich a short while after I moved back, they seemed to follow me around.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="canary cherub "]

With respect, it''s only one side of the story. 

"The Football League has never had a tribunal on this and never deducted points."  Well if they''ve never had a tribunal on it, no one knows whether they would deduct points or not.  I doubt if they would, especially not at Cowling''s request, but it''s a flawed argument.

Of course they think our offer is over-generous, but how can we judge if we don''t know what it is?

Don''t get me wrong, I''m all in favour of the new board members, but that''s not a reason to swallow everything they say without question.

 

[/quote]

I couldn''t have put it better myself.

If we have done nothing wrong - why are we being over generous with our offers. Looks like they are speaking tough but acting soft!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From what I can see the Col U chairman is making a lot of assumptions.How successful Lambert is here has nothing to do with the cost of the compensation. You can''t demand more just because its taken a little while to nogotiate and now he is doing well.We could easily argue that Aidy is getting better results for them than Lambert did . . . . . . and that as a whole both clubs have come out of this the better.What we should be compensating them for is his contract. I think the problem is is that he had a rolling one and that means its not worth as much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"][quote user="canary cherub "][quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"][quote user="canary cherub "][quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"][quote user="canary cherub "]

With respect, it''s only one side of the story. 

"The Football League has never had a tribunal on this and never deducted points."  Well if they''ve never had a tribunal on it, no one knows whether they would deduct points or not.  I doubt if they would, especially not at Cowling''s request, but it''s a flawed argument.

Of course they think our offer is over-generous, but how can we judge if we don''t know what it is?

Don''t get me wrong, I''m all in favour of the new board members, but that''s not a reason to swallow everything they say without question.

[/quote]

Was going to say something very similar to this myself. The board aren''t going to come out before the tribunal is held and say something like "we''ve been very naughty boys and are unwilling to talk to Cowling".

Cowling made comments earlier in the season that he wanted to talk and Norwich wouldn''t, so it is one man''s word against another. I know none of us think very highly of Cowling, but we are nearly always more likely to favour our own, currently popular board, over that of another team''s; especially Colchester''s at the moment.

 

[/quote]

Cheers BGY - btw I''ve been meaning to ask you, whereabouts in Bethnal Green are you?  I spent 10 very happy years there 1990-2000 in the Wilmot Street/Corfield Street area.  How I miss Brick Lane curries!

[/quote]

I live on Bethnal Green Road itself, near Barnet Grove. Nice to be within walking distance of Brick Lane, although I fear the quality of the curries is slipping these days.

[/quote]

Quality slipping [:O] . . . it''s the end of life as we know it!  There used to be a place called the Aladdin, it was more of a cafe than a restaurant, used by the locals, no liquor licence and they''d have two or three choices and used to close whenever they ran out of food! Very cheap, very hot, authentic.  Slightly more mainstream, have you tried the Lakshmi in Alie Street (if it''s still there), it used to be a cracker.

About a year ago I went for a walk round there, I wouldn''t say it had declined but it hadn''t improved either, it felt sort of static, nothing much had changed since I left.  It was really vibrant in the 90s.

[/quote]

I think it is about knowing the right places. The area has become full of tourists over the last few years; the book Brick Lane certainly added to its fame, many restaurants can get away with serving up average curries to the unknowing tourists from every corner of the globe. Also, the redevelopment of Spitalfield has brought more people to the area from within London, who are also easy targets for guys on the street to lure in with the promise of a free round of drinks.

 There are a few places I go to that are still top notch, but I can never remember the names. Beigel Bake is also getting worse, selling increasingly small bagels.

[/quote]

The Beigel Bake skimping on its portions?? [:@]. . . I hope it''s still open 24 hours at least.  I used to get back from midweek games about 2am and go in there on the way home, queue up with the taxi drivers then walk up the road munching a salt beef beigel with half a dead cow hanging out of it and slurping a plastic cup of scalding weak tea . . . happy days [:)]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talk is cheap; actions speak louder than words, so if your chairman really is so sure of himself let''s have this FDC hearing post-haste to sort the matter out once and for all. Why instruct your legal representation to stall proceedings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I always think people who use larger than average font are somehow making up for other inadequacies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="morty"]I always think people who use larger than average font are somehow making up for other inadequacies.
[/quote]

lol

large font, small . . . [;)]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Lt.Columbo"]Talk is cheap; actions speak louder than words, so if your chairman really is so sure of himself let''s have this FDC hearing post-haste to sort the matter out once and for all. Why instruct your legal representation to stall proceedings?[/quote]

 

You do know a bigger font doesn''t make your point any more valid don''t you? [:|]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="morty"]I always think people who use larger than average font are somehow making up for other inadequacies.
[/quote]

very good morty. Made me smile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Lt.Columbo"]Talk is cheap; actions speak louder than words, so if your chairman really is so sure of himself let''s have this FDC hearing post-haste to sort the matter out once and for all. Why instruct your legal representation to stall proceedings?[/quote]

Unless I have missed something the FA have put the enquiry off as it is low priority and they are not really sure why it has been referred. IE go away grow up and sort it out and stop wasting our time - Surely Robbie has not told you this tosh and we are being deducted points. He will have to explain it all to you soon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Lambert is King"][quote user="Lt.Columbo"]Talk is cheap; actions speak louder than words, so if your chairman really is so sure of himself let''s have this FDC hearing post-haste to sort the matter out once and for all. Why instruct your legal representation to stall proceedings?[/quote] Unless I have missed something the FA have put the enquiry off as it is low priority and they are not really sure why it has been referred. IE go away grow up and sort it out and stop wasting our time - Surely Robbie has not told you this tosh and we are being deducted points. He will have to explain it all to you soon[/quote]

lol agreed

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
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...