Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
norfolkngood

Mcnally / Hughton meeting ?

Recommended Posts

Does anyone know do they have weekly meetings ? and when eg Mondays or after the match ,

I wonder if the tone is unlucky chris keep going your on track or what the hell are we doing away from home !

I know it will be peoples opinions as only dm and ch will only know what goes on in these meetings but if I was ceo I would be asking questions now about team tactics away from home to make sure the manager knows this away form cannot continue !

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davey Mac''s opinion is, really, the only one that matters.... if he backs hughton then like it or not there''s sod all anyone can do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="jas the barclay king"]Davey Mac''s opinion is, really, the only one that matters.... if he backs hughton then like it or not there''s sod all anyone can do.[/quote]

 

Heck yes. Even if the chairman, the deputy chairman, the two joint owners and the other two directors all vote to sack Hughton McNally can veto that decision. That is absolutely the way boardroom democracy works in multi-million-pound companies.

Share this post


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

[quote user="jas the barclay king"]Davey Mac''s opinion is, really, the only one that matters.... if he backs hughton then like it or not there''s sod all anyone can do.[/quote]

 

Heck yes. Even if the chairman, the deputy chairman, the two joint owners and the other two directors all vote to sack Hughton McNally can veto that decision. That is absolutely the way boardroom democracy works in multi-million-pound companies.

[/quote]Delia and MWJ wont vote to sack... they usually leave it too late anyway!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Schlong Connery"]Didn''t you know PC?  McNasty became chancellor 6 days after D-Day in ''09. Then took total control in ''12 when King Paul abdicated. [/quote]why not post under your real name wiz ?something ti hide ..................... from ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="City1st"][quote user="Schlong Connery"]Didn''t you know PC?  McNasty became chancellor 6 days after D-Day in ''09. Then took total control in ''12 when King Paul abdicated. [/quote]why not post under your real name wiz ?something ti hide ..................... from ?

[/quote]
Why have you got a bee in your bonnet about me?  Trust me I think most on here know you''re barking up the wrong tree.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Schlong Connery"][quote user="City1st"][quote user="Schlong Connery"]Didn''t you know PC?  McNasty became chancellor 6 days after D-Day in ''09. Then took total control in ''12 when King Paul abdicated. [/quote]why not post under your real name wiz ?something ti hide ..................... from ?

[/quote]
Why have you got a bee in your bonnet about me?  Trust me I think most on here know you''re barking up the wrong tree.  
[/quote]

just giving young BW a few practical lessonsthat''s all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, that is exactly how it works in a small company. The shareholders may be directors so they can propose motions at board meetings (like sack the manager), and they can unanimously vote to do that in both board meetings and shareholder meetings, but never ever forget that Delia is a cook and Michael is a publisher, whereas McNally is a VERY successful and experienced CEO of several football clubs now. In the space of 3 years, he took us from Division 1 to Premiership survival, and had decent form at his previous clubs (Fulham and Celtic). If he gets over-ruled on something as fundamental as the manager, he will walk, and Delia and Michael would never allow that, let alone provoke that. They might try and persuade him, but if he is adamant that Hughton stays, that is what will happen.

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="jas the barclay king"]Davey Mac''s opinion is, really, the only one that matters.... if he backs hughton then like it or not there''s sod all anyone can do.[/quote]

 

Heck yes. Even if the chairman, the deputy chairman, the two joint owners and the other two directors all vote to sack Hughton McNally can veto that decision. That is absolutely the way boardroom democracy works in multi-million-pound companies.

[/quote]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AGM''s probably a couple of months away. Plenty of time for a Pink Un resolution to come together. Are any of the Hought Outers shareholders?

 

Delia is a corker of a cook and Wynnie''s a peach of a publisher but of course together they are two of the most experienced and respected football club owners in the country. I think we can trust in them.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Owners, not managers. They know how to appoint a good CEO and back him, and keep him. They then leave the job of CEO to the guy they have appointed.

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

AGM''s probably a couple of months away. Plenty of time for a Pink Un resolution to come together. Are any of the Hought Outers shareholders?

 

Delia is a corker of a cook and Wynnie''s a peach of a publisher but of course together they are two of the most experienced and respected football club owners in the country. I think we can trust in them.

 

 

[/quote]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Bobzilla"]Actually, that is exactly how it works in a small company. The shareholders may be directors so they can propose motions at board meetings (like sack the manager), and they can unanimously vote to do that in both board meetings and shareholder meetings, but never ever forget that Delia is a cook and Michael is a publisher, whereas McNally is a VERY successful and experienced CEO of several football clubs now. In the space of 3 years, he took us from Division 1 to Premiership survival, and had decent form at his previous clubs (Fulham and Celtic). If he gets over-ruled on something as fundamental as the manager, he will walk, and Delia and Michael would never allow that, let alone provoke that. They might try and persuade him, but if he is adamant that Hughton stays, that is what will happen.

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="jas the barclay king"]Davey Mac''s opinion is, really, the only one that matters.... if he backs hughton then like it or not there''s sod all anyone can do.[/quote]

 

Heck yes. Even if the chairman, the deputy chairman, the two joint owners and the other two directors all vote to sack Hughton McNally can veto that decision. That is absolutely the way boardroom democracy works in multi-million-pound companies.

[/quote][/quote]

 

Nonsense, Bobzilla. But you are welcome to believe it. I can''t be bothered to point out the errors both factual and judgmental.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry but i''m with Bobzilla on this. Of course Mcnally cannot unilaterally make the decision on whether or not to sack the manager but I assume what happens on this (and many other key decisions/strategies) is that he will make/formulate them and then obtain wider board approval via a resolution before exercising them. Given that our renaissance appears (to me anyway) to have coincided with a recognition on the part of Delia and MWJ (after the Doncaster/Roeder/Gunn/relegation shambles) that they needed to get in an experienced CEO and to let him get on with things I would think that in most cases the board are more likely than not to go with the judgment/recommendation of that CEO, Of course it is open to them not to but I bet its rare that they go against his recommendation, especially on such a crucial matter. I therefore 100% agree that Mcnally is likely to be the key decision maker should Hughton''s future come up for debate.

Share this post


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

[quote user="jas the barclay king"]Davey Mac''s opinion is, really, the only one that matters.... if he backs hughton then like it or not there''s sod all anyone can do.
[/quote]

 

Heck yes. Even if the chairman, the deputy chairman, the two joint owners and the other two directors all vote to sack Hughton McNally can veto that decision. That is absolutely the way boardroom democracy works in multi-million-pound companies.

[/quote]

 

Purple (blue again I see!), are you trying to have us believe that a CEO is untouchable?[:^)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wondering more of at what stage do you turn the heat up ! did worthy know he was being sacked that day if he lost  or did sir alex know  he was one game away from being sacked at man utd ?

I wonder if it is a more yes chris keep us up at all costs and it will be a success or a more of what the hell is happening away from home this can not continue , I would like your ( CH ) thoughts on how you are going to change this and what timeline ,

I don''t know how it works between ceo and manager of a club you see the unhappy faces on tv and think the manager is going to get a bashing here but is it after the game every Monday morning ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Jim Smith"]Sorry but i''m with Bobzilla on this. Of course Mcnally cannot unilaterally make the decision on whether or not to sack the manager but I assume what happens on this (and many other key decisions/strategies) is that he will make/formulate them and then obtain wider board approval via a resolution before exercising them. Given that our renaissance appears (to me anyway) to have coincided with a recognition on the part of Delia and MWJ (after the Doncaster/Roeder/Gunn/relegation shambles) that they needed to get in an experienced CEO and to let him get on with things I would think that in most cases the board are more likely than not to go with the judgment/recommendation of that CEO, Of course it is open to them not to but I bet its rare that they go against his recommendation, especially on such a crucial matter. I therefore 100% agree that Mcnally is likely to be the key decision maker should Hughton''s future come up for debate.[/quote]

I''ll take the time to reply, Jim, because I respect you as a poster. There are two different points here. How companies - legally - have to work. And what might happen in practice.Firstly, to deal with the errors in Bobzilla''s post. McNally has not been a "very successful and experienced CEO of several football clubs". He was in marketing at Celtic, not the football side. And at Fulham the situation is unclear. It appeared when he left that it was of his own volition because he had been lined up for the Arsenal job. But that never happened. He may well have been "let go" by Fayed. I am not making a point;  possibly he did a good job there. After all it appears he was recommended by Hodgson. As to his time here, that has been mixed. On balance A GOOD THING, but hardly a flawless performance. So that is two clubs rather than several, and not a perfect record.To denigrate Smith and Jones as a know-nothing cook and a publisher is beyond infantile. They have overall been successful owners/controllers of the club. They have built up a great store of knowledge (and respect, as with Hodgson making a recommendation) on the subject.As to the law, we are a plc. We are not "a small company". We have to abide by company law. The idea that McNally could override or simply face down a boardroom or shareholder vote is even more beyond infantile. You would not be able to move for law suits.That said, of course you are right that McNally''s view on keeping or sacking a manager would carry great weight, but Bobzilla''s idea that if McNally was in a minority of one then the other directors would fold like a road may is - again- idiotic. No CEO, no matter how well-regarded, could ever be allowed to dictate to the other directors and shareholders in that way. There would be a few tears, but McNally would be the one walking out the door. Bowkett has a tough reputation, but Smith and Jones are also far more ruthless than people imagine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I''ll bite PC.

1 - Difference of opinion as to what success is and how many clubs. I''ll concede he wasn''t CEO at Celtic, but he wasn''t exactly a failure I''m guessing.

2 - Not dismissing Smith and Jones, but would we be where we are if they were the executive board? Hell no. They are very good owners, but they are owners with a decent handle on business in general, not football. You remember the Doomcaster years?

3 - We are a small company. We may be a plc, but do you have any idea what the difference in constitution between a plc and Ltd is? The only necessary difference is that a plc must maintain share capital equal to £50k. That''s the only difference. There are source of finance advantages to being a plc - you can widely market your shares and securities rather than just to private individuals, but I suspect that there would be ways to enable the supporters trust to invest in the way that they have even if we were a Ltd. We do not need to be a plc - there is absolutely no financial advantage.

Net assets - £16m. Fair value of the company? Probably nothing on a break-up basis - our entire value is wrapped up on us staying in the premiership. At the end of 2011, we had net assets of £3m, and would have left outstanding liabilities if we''d ceased trading.

Like it or not, we are a small company. We would be nowhere on AIM, and absolutely nowhere on an LSE listing. Sure, we''re no owner-managed-business, but don''t kid yourself as to our size or value. (If we were an OMB, McNally would matter less and S&J would have more actual power as chances are they would be able to run the business themselves without the specific football experience that McNally brings).

My point was not that McNally could force the board. My point was that if McNally was forced to act against his wishes, the first thing he would be doing is resigning. And there would be plenty of clubs willing to snap him up just like that.

You underestimate the power of the man who has turned us from very very nearly insolvent into a club that would at least wipe its own face if it were to fold. And I think you underestimate the consequences of McNally walking. I don''t think that either Smith or Jones would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Bobzilla"]OK, I''ll bite PC.

1 - Difference of opinion as to what success is and how many clubs. I''ll concede he wasn''t CEO at Celtic, but he wasn''t exactly a failure I''m guessing.

2 - Not dismissing Smith and Jones, but would we be where we are if they were the executive board? Hell no. They are very good owners, but they are owners with a decent handle on business in general, not football. You remember the Doomcaster years?

3 - We are a small company. We may be a plc, but do you have any idea what the difference in constitution between a plc and Ltd is? The only necessary difference is that a plc must maintain share capital equal to £50k. That''s the only difference. There are source of finance advantages to being a plc - you can widely market your shares and securities rather than just to private individuals, but I suspect that there would be ways to enable the supporters trust to invest in the way that they have even if we were a Ltd. We do not need to be a plc - there is absolutely no financial advantage.

Net assets - £16m. Fair value of the company? Probably nothing on a break-up basis - our entire value is wrapped up on us staying in the premiership. At the end of 2011, we had net assets of £3m, and would have left outstanding liabilities if we''d ceased trading.

Like it or not, we are a small company. We would be nowhere on AIM, and absolutely nowhere on an LSE listing. Sure, we''re no owner-managed-business, but don''t kid yourself as to our size or value. (If we were an OMB, McNally would matter less and S&J would have more actual power as chances are they would be able to run the business themselves without the specific football experience that McNally brings).

My point was not that McNally could force the board. My point was that if McNally was forced to act against his wishes, the first thing he would be doing is resigning. And there would be plenty of clubs willing to snap him up just like that.

You underestimate the power of the man who has turned us from very very nearly insolvent into a club that would at least wipe its own face if it were to fold. And I think you underestimate the consequences of McNally walking. I don''t think that either Smith or Jones would.[/quote]

 

At last, Bobzilla! Someone has finally twigged that I know nothing[*-)] about all this business/finance/shareholder/boardroom[8-|] stuff. That I have just been faking it. You cannot imagine what a relief[:)] that is. To stop living a lie. So I just want to say good luck[Y] with taking on the role. Not that you''ll need it. The annual accounts are coming up in a coupe of months, and posters expect around 20 paragraphs or so, but that will be a doddle. You will find lapps will ask a few vaguely[:P] pertinent questions from time to time, but they normally don''t involve that much research. And occasionally you will have to settle arguments about how much Watling walleted, or whether Smith and Jones might have been involved in the peculation of funds. They haven''t, of course, but it still gets mooted! Aprops that and other issues, a working knowledge of the law of defamation[8-|] is pretty necessary, but I assume that isn''t a problem either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I''m not going to start a willy waving response on this, but suffice it to say I know a thing about company law, accounting, business, how companies actually work in practice etc. I''m not going to tell you what I actually do, and what my academic background is, but suffiice it to say that I have more letters after my name than in the whole of my birth names (not that I use any of them - the quality of my work says far more than my letters ever will), and the cost of my grad and post grad education (even the stuff borne by me personally rather than my employers) would buy a mid-range beemer.

I''m not saying you don''t know what you are doing, I''ve seen your comments on the annual accounts and very often (for the most part) agree with your analysis and insight. What I''m saying is that I too know what I am doing, and have a decent amount of experience and education in this field. My opinions are as equally valid as yours - they are just that, opinions.

I''d be interested to see where you think I have defamed someone - I have more than a working knowledge of that one, albeit from a few years ago, and am very careful not to defame people on the internet. We''ve all seen the consequences of that one, and whilst I am well remunerated for what I do, I don''t have £50k of hush money I can just drop to a charity in someone''s name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Damn, no edit function. Having re-read, I might have mis-read first time round.

We need more people on the forum who actually know what they are talking about on the finance side of things - there are enough people spouting rubbish about our finances without really having any sort of clue as to what they are talking about. The more people offering an informed view, the better imho.

BTW, I think my smallest client (proper) was worth about £1bn when it sold recently. Might have a few slightly smaller ones, but not much. I reckon S&J would be lucky to get NAV for the club given that the majority of the ''value'' is intangible - players contracts - where the accounting doesn''t really match up with reality in terms of value. No idea what your usualy practice is, but for me the club is very small.

[quote user="Bobzilla"]I''m not going to start a willy waving response on this, but suffice it to say I know a thing about company law, accounting, business, how companies actually work in practice etc. I''m not going to tell you what I actually do, and what my academic background is, but suffiice it to say that I have more letters after my name than in the whole of my birth names (not that I use any of them - the quality of my work says far more than my letters ever will), and the cost of my grad and post grad education (even the stuff borne by me personally rather than my employers) would buy a mid-range beemer.

I''m not saying you don''t know what you are doing, I''ve seen your comments on the annual accounts and very often (for the most part) agree with your analysis and insight. What I''m saying is that I too know what I am doing, and have a decent amount of experience and education in this field. My opinions are as equally valid as yours - they are just that, opinions.

I''d be interested to see where you think I have defamed someone - I have more than a working knowledge of that one, albeit from a few years ago, and am very careful not to defame people on the internet. We''ve all seen the consequences of that one, and whilst I am well remunerated for what I do, I don''t have £50k of hush money I can just drop to a charity in someone''s name.[/quote]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Bobzilla"]I''m not going to start a willy waving response on this, but suffice it to say I know a thing about company law, accounting, business, how companies actually work in practice etc. I''m not going to tell you what I actually do, and what my academic background is, but suffiice it to say that I have more letters after my name than in the whole of my birth names (not that I use any of them - the quality of my work says far more than my letters ever will), and the cost of my grad and post grad education (even the stuff borne by me personally rather than my employers) would buy a mid-range beemer.

[/quote]

 

Crafty? Is that your willy being waved?

 

I hope you''re not a professor Bob. I''m not conceited or anything, and I like to keep my willy tucked away, but I would like to remain the only professor on this board.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Bobzilla"]

 I have more letters after my name than in the whole of my birth names (not that I use any of them - the quality of my work says far more than my letters ever will)

[/quote]

Not everybody shows such modesty on here you know Bobzilla. [:D]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Bobzilla"]I''m not going to start a willy waving response on this, but suffice it to say 1) I know a thing about company law, accounting, business, how companies actually work in practice etc. I''m not going to tell you what I actually do, and what my academic background is, but suffiice it to say that I have more letters after my name than in the whole of my birth names (not that I use any of them - the quality of my work says far more than my letters ever will), and the cost of my grad and post grad education (even the stuff borne by me personally rather than my employers) would buy a mid-range beemer.

I''m not saying you don''t know what you are doing, I''ve seen your comments on the annual accounts and very often (for the most part) agree with your analysis and insight. What I''m saying is that I too know what I am doing, and have a decent amount of experience and education in this field. My opinions are as equally valid as yours - they are just that, opinions.

2) I''d be interested to see where you think I have defamed someone - I have more than a working knowledge of that one, albeit from a few years ago, and am very careful not to defame people on the internet. We''ve all seen the consequences of that one, and whilst I am well remunerated for what I do, I don''t have £50k of hush money I can just drop to a charity in someone''s name.[/quote]

 

1) I was right, Bobzilla. You are perfect to take over from me.2) I didn''t suggest or think that.3)  My expert view is that this thread is now only going to go one way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Jim Smith"]Sorry but i''m with Bobzilla on this. Of course Mcnally cannot unilaterally make the decision on whether or not to sack the manager but I assume what happens on this (and many other key decisions/strategies) is that he will make/formulate them and then obtain wider board approval via a resolution before exercising them. Given that our renaissance appears (to me anyway) to have coincided with a recognition on the part of Delia and MWJ (after the Doncaster/Roeder/Gunn/relegation shambles) that they needed to get in an experienced CEO and to let him get on with things I would think that in most cases the board are more likely than not to go with the judgment/recommendation of that CEO, Of course it is open to them not to but I bet its rare that they go against his recommendation, especially on such a crucial matter. I therefore 100% agree that Mcnally is likely to be the key decision maker should Hughton''s future come up for debate.[/quote]

I''ll take the time to reply, Jim, because I respect you as a poster. There are two different points here. How companies - legally - have to work. And what might happen in practice.Firstly, to deal with the errors in Bobzilla''s post. McNally has not been a "very successful and experienced CEO of several football clubs". He was in marketing at Celtic, not the football side. And at Fulham the situation is unclear. It appeared when he left that it was of his own volition because he had been lined up for the Arsenal job. But that never happened. He may well have been "let go" by Fayed. I am not making a point;  possibly he did a good job there. After all it appears he was recommended by Hodgson. As to his time here, that has been mixed. On balance A GOOD THING, but hardly a flawless performance. So that is two clubs rather than several, and not a perfect record.To denigrate Smith and Jones as a know-nothing cook and a publisher is beyond infantile. They have overall been successful owners/controllers of the club. They have built up a great store of knowledge (and respect, as with Hodgson making a recommendation) on the subject.As to the law, we are a plc. We are not "a small company". We have to abide by company law. The idea that McNally could override or simply face down a boardroom or shareholder vote is even more beyond infantile. You would not be able to move for law suits.That said, of course you are right that McNally''s view on keeping or sacking a manager would carry great weight, but Bobzilla''s idea that if McNally was in a minority of one then the other directors would fold like a road may is - again- idiotic. No CEO, no matter how well-regarded, could ever be allowed to dictate to the other directors and shareholders in that way. There would be a few tears, but McNally would be the one walking out the door. Bowkett has a tough reputation, but Smith and Jones are also far more ruthless than people imagine.
[/quote]

Thanks for the reply Purple. for what its worth I was never suggesting Mcnally could force the boadr into a decision. my point was more the "in practice" point you refer to which is that is Mcnally decides its time for Hughton to go then that will most likely be that because I would think the board will go with his judgment. i know MWJ and Delia are more clued up than some realise but my own perception is that they were quite badly stung by the Gunn episode and the mess Doncaster got us into. They actually told me themselves in a pub pre-match a few seasons ago that they had very little hands on involvement in Lambert''s appointment other than having backed their new CEO''s judgment and given the nod at the end of the process. If Mcnally decides Hughton has to go (not that I think he will any time soon but you never know) I would expect it to be the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Jim Smith"]

Thanks for the reply Purple. for what its worth I was never suggesting Mcnally could force the boadr into a decision. my point was more the "in practice" point you refer to which is that is Mcnally decides its time for Hughton to go then that will most likely be that because I would think the board will go with his judgment. i know MWJ and Delia are more clued up than some realise but my own perception is that they were quite badly stung by the Gunn episode and the mess Doncaster got us into. They actually told me themselves in a pub pre-match a few seasons ago that they had very little hands on involvement in Lambert''s appointment other than having backed their new CEO''s judgment and given the nod at the end of the process. If Mcnally decides Hughton has to go (not that I think he will any time soon but you never know) I would expect it to be the same.[/quote]

 

Jim, I agree with most of that. The only point I would make is this. I don''t doubt that McNally was the prime mover in getting rid of Gunn and hiring Lambert, probably backed by Bowkett. If I had been McNally in that position that is what I would have done. Made certain privately I had Bowkett''s support. Bear in mind that at that point McNally either wasn''t a director or had only just become one. He didn''t join the board as soon as he walked in the door..But these were unique circumstances. If there is a next time McNally will not be the newcomer with clean hands. He will in effect be arguing that his own judgment, his recommendation of Hughton, was wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it is great to get the insight of supporters that may work in the financial or legal sectors. The more the better. In this respect, Purple, there is room for a range of views on this subject, although I fully appreciate that the issue at heart (McNally''s real infleuce over decision making) is likley to be pure speculation (no matter how well informed the posters may be of normal commercial practice) unless of course they are club insiders. So please dont let the debate get side tracked by whose opinion is more valid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I also forgot to add that as well as Purple Canary and Bobzilla, I think ShefCanary is a professional in this area too as he/she usualy has some good insights on the commercial stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="Bobzilla"]I''m not going to start a willy waving response on this, but suffice it to say I know a thing about company law, accounting, business, how companies actually work in practice etc. I''m not going to tell you what I actually do, and what my academic background is, but suffiice it to say that I have more letters after my name than in the whole of my birth names (not that I use any of them - the quality of my work says far more than my letters ever will), and the cost of my grad and post grad education (even the stuff borne by me personally rather than my employers) would buy a mid-range beemer.

[/quote]

 

Crafty? Is that your willy being waved?

 

 

[/quote]

No, that would be a two woman job!

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...