All change of ownership and Red Knights related posts here please

i think the glazers will want to sell. i wouldnt want anything that made 70 000 people chant about killing me every week.

eventually they will not want the hassell or the risk of the club, if we can find a bid they want then they will sell
 
gambit28 said:
They saw a business opportunity.
Click to expand...

Thank you, a business opportunity to make money. To receive dividends on there investment to kick out those Glazers who have run up so much debt and is costing the club so much interest. The Red Knights will have no interest,there will be no money going to some banks to pay of debts it will go to these Red Knights has dividends.Excuse Mr Red Knight but isn't that still taking money out of our club, yes you has share holders will also get some dividends on the 25% of the club that the fans own. Why do we only get 25%not 100% because there is money to be made.

The Red Knights are not the solution, there in it for the money playing on fans emotions to smooth over a take over.Turn them against the Glazer and jump in when fans are running a campaign, what a coincident. We don't need the Red Knights what we need is a sugar daddy or for The Glazers re-list the club but limit the amount of shares individuals can buy thus resulting in not a JP McManus and John Magnier scenario.
 
SAred said:
Thank you, a business opportunity to make money. To receive dividends on there investment to kick out those Glazers who have run up so much debt and is costing the club so much interest. The Red Knights will have no interest,there will be no money going to some banks to pay of debts it will go to these Red Knights has dividends.Excuse Mr Red Knight but isn't that still taking money out of our club, yes you has share holders will also get some dividends on the 25% of the club that the fans own. Why do we only get 25%not 100% because there is money to be made.

The Red Knights are not the solution, there in it for the money playing on fans emotions to smooth over a take over.Turn them against the Glazer and jump in when fans are running a campaign We don't need the Red Knights what we need is a sugar daddy or for The Glazers re-list the club but limit the amount of shares individuals can buy thus resulting in not a JP McManus and John Magnier scenario
Click to expand...

Of course they will want to make money. Name me one investor who will invest such a large sum of money and not expect anything in return? This is the real world, snap out of it. I would rather have the RK's than the Glazers who are just sucking the bone marrow out of the club. The RK's on the other hand at least want to offer the fans a say in the club and a share of the spoils. I think you will be hard pressed to find a better investor.
 
Stretch said:
Of course they will want to make money. Name me one investor who will invest such a large sum of money and not expect anything in return? This is the real world, snap out of it. I would rather have the RK's than the Glazers who are just sucking the bone marrow out of the club. The RK's on the other hand at least want to offer the fans a say in the club and a share of the spoils. I think you will be hard pressed to find a better investor.
Click to expand...

Very nice of them to offer the fans a small slice of the pie. Although 25% is a big slice but the reailty how much are we has fans individually going to have. And how much are they the Red Knights going to take out the club. 1.2 billion if thats what it takes to move the Glazers, is a big investment so what amount of returns are they going to want to get yearly on that investment. They, has the Glazers know that United will be making bigger and bigger profits in years to come.

But the play the emotional card has if they keep telling me they are going to be given the club back to me has a fan but the reality is that they will be lining there on pockets and given me a few shares in my club to keep me happy.
 
We want Glazers in, say we want Glazers in.

Hmmmmm, nope, doesn't quite work.

Kylie needed.



Red and Whites against the Knights?

We'd be better off with Bill Gates or Coca Cola using us as a marketing vehicle.
 
I think you first off, you have too many questions which you need to research yourself. The best place would be to visit the MUST site, or maybe try emailing Drasdo, he's very approachable, I've emailed him and had replies the next day. Maybe your questions and his answers will add new light on the RKs and MUST.

Before you ask any question, try reversing the point you wish to make behind the question, this will lead to a either a better question or a more specific question, or point. I’m not intending to belittle or anything, I’m just making a point, as too many questions put off someone answering as it seems you’ve not put much thought in to what you’ve asked.

I will try to answer the five questions in you first paragraph best to my knowledge.

I kept the above statement which you quoted in mind to your questions

We being the fans would have no say in any bid without MUST. We couldn’t reject any bid anyway. What I think Drasdo is saying, as a United fan and head of MUST, is that they wouldn’t want any bid for the club from anyone who would want to own the club outright, as MUST want United owned by and run by the fans.

Are you asking ‘do we want a say in who runs our club?’, if so then the answer would be yes, as the Glazers running of the club is threatening its future and highlighting their ethics/goals.

If you are asking do we want MUST involved, then that raises two other questions in my mind; firstly, who else would speak for us fans, and secondly; who are MUST and what do they stand for.
The second question is partly answered below, in what I suspect was the question you was really asking. Without MUST I’m not sure how else we would really have a body to speak up for the united fans.

If you are questioning the ethics of MUST then you’d have to, or did have to consult the MUST website. They did want United run and owned by the fans as a NPO, where the fans had a say who runs the club, but now it seems a stake in the club will suffice. This is a point which now pisses me off, and maybe we should start a campaign to get MUST to change their goals back to what they wanted before the RKs. The dropping of the NPO may show the true colours of the RKs. But maybe the dropping of the NPO step is needed so MUST can gain us a step on the ladder.

MUST wanted the fans to buy and own United, but lately they said they would back any bid which would let the fans have a say in the club, the new MUST site isn’t too specific and states “Our goal is to ensure that the next owners share the supporters' priorities of investing in the club”. A large step back from what they originally advocated

As MUST is a NPO, he shouldn’t be making a killing, but let’s see if he has that extension done, or buys a bigger house, maybe even watch out for Raphie arriving at OT by limo.

I don’t feel you are, but many are, if you believe the MUST site, then 139,397 fans are supporting it. Like you, I am now questioning what MUST and the RK’s are about, but then if they’re pledging 25.1% of the club to a NPO supporters trust, then it got to be better than the Glazers. We would be able to read where the money we invest into United is going, and maybe even have some sort of say. If they run the club as bad as the Glazers then we could always start another internet revolution and get them out.
 
MUST's membership prior to them backing the Red Knights was around 50,000. After that it has increased to 140,000. United fans aren't distancing themselves from "the MUST mob", they are joining them. I know you find this unpalatable but I'm afraid it's a fact.

He speaks for the Supporters Trust. He's an elected representative for the biggest organisation of United fans. If you're not happy with him, vote against him in the next election. Or simply don't join MUST. There are other United organisations you can join instead - IMUSA, FCUM, SEF for example. Or start up your own!

You have always been an exceptionally ignorant poster on these matters ciderman, but on this occasion your post isn't just 100% wrong, it's also libel. As Robbo states above, MUST is a not-for-profit organisation, run by volunteers who don't take a penny for the hard work they put in. You do realise that Drasdo has essentially put his career on hold to keep MUST ticking over? The idea that he's somehow in it for the money is both ludicrous and morally reprehensible and you should be ashamed of both your ignorance and your narrow-mindedness.
 
BRobson said:
If you are questioning the ethics of MUST then you’d have to, or did have to consult the MUST website. They did want United run and owned by the fans as a NPO, where the fans had a say who runs the club, but now it seems a stake in the club will suffice. This is a point which now pisses me off, and maybe we should start a campaign to get MUST to change their goals back to what they wanted before the RKs. The dropping of the NPO may show the true colours of the RKs. But maybe the dropping of the NPO step is needed so MUST can gain us a step on the ladder.

MUST wanted the fans to buy and own United, but lately they said they would back any bid which would let the fans have a say in the club, the new MUST site isn’t too specific and states “Our goal is to ensure that the next owners share the supporters' priorities of investing in the club”. A large step back from what they originally advocated
Click to expand...

You bring up some interesting points here - MUST have clearly changed their 'manifesto' recently and moved away from their original goal of total fan ownership and making the club a NonProfitOrganisation.

Are those who have supported them as an organisation in the past happy with this change?
The dropping of the NPO in particular is a serious ideological move - reminds me of when Blair removed Clause IV from the Labour Party constitution.

Doesn't really sound like the socialist revolution that some have been talking about anymore.
 
ralphie88 said:
MUST's membership prior to them backing the Red Knights was around 50,000. After that it has increased to 140,000. United fans aren't distancing themselves from "the MUST mob", they are joining them. I know you find this unpalatable but I'm afraid it's a fact.
Click to expand...

An irrelevance. Most of those 140,000 will have clicked simply because they were told to, they'll have no strong feelings one way or another; much like those wearing green and gold at the moment - they're doing it because it's the 'in' thing to do, it takes no effort and has no cost.

My point remains the same though, all those thousands upon thousands who blindly clicked on the MUST website because it seemed the 'in' thing to do need to reconsider, because Duncan Drasdo and MUST think now that they can control us - they're making statements in which they make decisions for us, decisions which, though may further Duncan Drasdo's political position amongst the Red Knights, have no benefit to the club whatsoever. Namely, he's decided that the fans are going to, "Be against any bid unless it was run by supporters." - reading the subtext here, they're against any bid unless it's the Red Knights - Well that's just not true; most fans, with very few exceptions, would consider the merits of any new owners, whether they involved Duncan Drasdo in their bids or not, and, if they seemed wealthy and committed enough, then they would be welcomed to the club. Though Duncan Drasdo, for his own personal reasons, may be prepared to fully back the Red Knights and disregard any other options, this is not a sentiment shared by the majority of fans - he has no right to be making these claims on our behalf, and he should not be allowed to do so.

ralphie88 said:
You have always been an exceptionally ignorant poster on these matters ciderman, but on this occasion your post isn't just 100% wrong, it's also libel. As Robbo states above, MUST is a not-for-profit organisation, run by volunteers who don't take a penny for the hard work they put in. You do realise that Drasdo has essentially put his career on hold to keep MUST ticking over? The idea that he's somehow in it for the money is both ludicrous and morally reprehensible and you should be ashamed of both your ignorance and your narrow-mindedness.
Click to expand...

Believe what you will of your messiah. He's also the founder of another organisation called 'Reds In Business'; if you choose not to believe that he's heading towards an almighty pay-off should the Red Knights be successful, then that's your prerogative.
 
cider, do you really believe the things you're saying, or do you just have an aversion to crowds and movements and prefer to be a lone voice of dissent?

Not having a go, I just get the impression you're venting here.
 
Plechazunga said:
cider, do you really believe the things you're saying, or do you just have an aversion to crowds and movements and prefer to be a lone voice of dissent?

Not having a go, I just get the impression you're venting here.
Click to expand...

I believe that there's another side to the story that we're not being told.
 
ciderman9000000 said:
An irrelevance. Most of those 140,000 will have clicked simply because they were told to, they'll have no strong feelings one way or another; much like those wearing green and gold at the moment - they're doing it because it's the 'in' thing to do, it takes no effort and has no cost.
Click to expand...

How do you know that? Have you taken a poll of those 140,000 members?

Implying that most people have just joined MUST because they are following the heard is an insult to those peoples intelligence.
 
gaffs said:
How do you know that? Have you taken a poll of those 140,000 members?

Implying that most people have just joined MUST because they are following the heard is an insult to those peoples intelligence.
Click to expand...

An assumption based on many of the comments in this thread https://www.redcafe.net/f6/join-must-save-united-287601/ -

post#11 sums it up.

R.Nilsson7 said:
I joined, even though i'm not sure what the site is all about.
Click to expand...

I'm not insulting their intelligence at all, simply questioning their judgement and commitment.
 
gaffs said:
So just because one guy blindly joins then its safe to assume that most that joined did the same?
Click to expand...

That was an example, of which there are many more. It's safe to assume that most that joined did the same, yes, it's human-nature. Also, most will be unaware that MUST has changed it's stance on fan-ownership; they'll be unaware that Duncan Drasdo has suddenly altered his long-standing principles in order for them to more nicely fit-in with those of the Red Knights group - did the principles of those 140,000 fans all change at the same time? Are they all committed to the MUST cause, even when the cause itself can be altered, at any time, at the whim of their enterprising leader?
 
Spoony Youngblood said:
The existence of businessmen, now explain to me Ciderman, what's the other side of the story that we don't know about, yet you suspect?

er. . .
Click to expand...

Well, at risk of repeating myself, that certain parties are using the animosity of the fans toward the current owners as leverage in order to manipulate us toward their own ends, and that that animosity is being - for a long time has been - constantly fuelled through a well-concieved propaganda campaign instigated by the parties involved.
 
ciderman9000000 said:
That was an example, of which there are many more. It's safe to assume that most that joined did the same, yes, it's human-nature. Also, most will be unaware that MUST has changed it's stance on fan-ownership; they'll be unaware that Duncan Drasdo has suddenly altered his long-standing principles in order for them to more nicely fit-in with those of the Red Knights group - did the principles of those 140,000 fans all change at the same time? Are they all committed to the MUST cause, even when the cause itself can be altered, at any time, at the whim of their enterprising leader?
Click to expand...

So your saying that most people that are members of MUST have no idea what its all about? Most, by definition, means over half. I very much doubt that 70,000+ people have joined without knowing the first thing about what MUST represent.

If a few people have joined MUST without understanding what they stand for then so be it - people vote for political parties without knowing any of their policies.

MUST want fans to have a "meaningful ownership stake" in the club. If would quite foolish of them to be looking to obtain total fan control because of the current value of the club. They have had to change their objectives over the years.

MUSTs stance has been the same for a while now so all those people that have joined should have done so because they support what MUST stands for.

If your not happy with MUST, why don’t you let them know? As a fan group, im sure they would be willing to talk to you about your concerns.

If your genuinely worried about MUST or care about the future of United, then take some action. Blowing hot air on a forum wont change anything.
 
ciderman9000000 said:
Well, at risk of repeating myself, that certain parties are using the animosity of the fans toward the current owners as leverage in order to manipulate us toward their own ends, and that that animosity is being - for a long time has been - constantly fuelled through a well-concieved propaganda campaign instigated by the parties involved.
Click to expand...

So if these parties which have manipulated all folk less smarter than you, actually do get hold of the club and rid of debts, will you stick your head again up your own arse?
 
First, let's get away from this idea that MUST's CEO has some dictatorial control over MUST and its members. MUST is completely democractic and whilst Drasdo more often than not speaks for the organisation, he does this following consultation with an Exec and a Committee that - like him - are democractically appointed by the membership.

Personalising this is very convenient for ciderman as it enables him to avoid the uncomfortable truth that MUST is a large organisation run by its members - all United supporters.

But it also makes him look like someone with an unhealthy personal obsession (although I notice he's stopped calling him "Duncan Dildo" - which shows a certain development in his maturity which should be applauded) and a paranoia complex.

ciderman9000000 said:
Namely, he's decided that the fans are going to, "Be against any bid unless it was run by supporters." - reading the subtext here, they're against any bid unless it's the Red Knights
Click to expand...

No, they are against any bid that does not provide MUST with its aims - a meaningful stake in the club for United supporters. If another bid comes on to the table that also provides that, MUST will look at that.

ciderman9000000 said:
he has no right to be making these claims on our behalf, and he should not be allowed to do so.
Click to expand...

Drasdo and the rest of the MUST Executive/Committee speak for the members of MUST. Nothing more, nothing less.

Not all United fans are members of MUST. That's fair enough. If they have problems with MUST, they should make them known. All I see on here are a few misinformed bleatings from you.

ciderman9000000 said:
He's also the founder of another organisation called 'Reds In Business'; if you choose not to believe that he's heading towards an almighty pay-off should the Red Knights be successful, then that's your prerogative.
Click to expand...

It's not just "my prerogative", it's also an informed opinion drawn from knowing the facts. A successful Red Knights takeover of United would deliver NOTHING tangible to MUST or its officers because MUST is a not-for-profit organisation and its officers are volunteers. Suggesting otherwise is simply wrong.

It's also libel. Personally if I was DD, my lawyers would be currently talking to Niall about obtaining your IP address in order to launch civil law proceedings for defamation.
 
ralphie88 said:
It's not just "my prerogative", it's also an informed opinion drawn from knowing the facts. A successful Red Knights takeover of United would deliver NOTHING tangible to MUST or its officers because MUST is a not-for-profit organisation and its officers are volunteers. Suggesting otherwise is simply wrong.

It's also libel. Personally if I was DD, my lawyers would be currently talking to Niall about obtaining your IP address in order to launch civil law proceedings for defamation.
Click to expand...

:lol: libel ffs! I'd like to see anyone try to get that through court!
 
Ralphie, if posts on here were subject to claims of libel, nevermind Duncan Dildo, Malcolm Glazer would tear you a new fecking arsehole :wenger:
 
ralphie88 said:
No, they are against any bid that does not provide MUST with its aims - a meaningful stake in the club for United supporters. If another bid comes on to the table that also provides that, MUST will look at that.
Click to expand...

So they want some stake in the club that they've never had in the past and have no real way of paying for? A freebie if you like?

Supporters have never had a big enough stake in the club to have any real say.
 
ralphie88 said:
I notice he's stopped calling him "Duncan Dildo" - which shows a certain development in his maturity which should be applauded
Click to expand...

ciderman9000000 said:
Ralphie, if posts on here were subject to claims of libel, nevermind Duncan Dildo, Malcolm Glazer would tear you a new fecking arsehole :wenger:
Click to expand...

Thought it sounded too good to be true. I got suspicious when I saw "ciderman" and "maturity" in the same sentence.
 
UnitedRoadRed said:
So they want some stake in the club that they've never had in the past and have no real way of paying for? A freebie if you like?

Supporters have never had a big enough stake in the club to have any real say.
Click to expand...

I doubt the RK would give a stake of 25.1% to the fans (MUST?) for free. Fans would have to come up with some money, which probably wont be possible. Or they make promises to get the fans behind them but wont make them happen once they took over the club
 
A1Dan said:
Thought it sounded too good to be true. I got suspicious when I saw "ciderman" and "maturity" in the same sentence.
Click to expand...

x13149136.jpg
 
UnitedRoadRed said:
Supporters have never had a big enough stake in the club to have any real say.
Click to expand...

That's right. Which is why we've ended up in this situation with the Glazers - it was always a possibility, all the way back through the Edwards and the PLC.

This is precisely what MUST want to see changed going forwards, sot hat the long-term future of the club is secured, without the possibility of an unwelcome take-over being possible in future. Yes it's new, and yes it is very, very desirable.

No, we don't have details of how MUST, or the Red Knights propose to set this up yet, and it clearly isn't simple. But it isn't impossible either, both of those parties are working on it and that is to be applauded.

Escobar said:
I doubt the RK would give a stake of 25.1% to the fans (MUST?) for free. Fans would have to come up with some money, which probably wont be possible. Or they make promises to get the fans behind them but wont make them happen once they took over the club
Click to expand...

I also doubt they have said that is what they are planning without thinking about the basis of an idea of how it can be achieved.
People get slagged off for saying the Glazers are dumb and haven't planned anything, but do you really think people such as Jim O'Niel and Kieth Harris got where they are today by floating random ideas and then thinking "oh hang on, that's not possible is it..."?

I really can't see them planning to pull a fast one with promises to the fans they have no intention of keeping either - imagine what they'd be letting themselves in for - you've seen the backlash against the Glazers, this would be twice as bad. The fact is both Harris and O'Niel are genuine United fans - why would they possibly put themselves in that situation?
 
ciderman9000000 said:
Ralphie, if posts on here were subject to claims of libel, nevermind Duncan Dildo, Malcolm Glazer would tear you a new fecking arsehole :wenger:
Click to expand...

Of course posts on internet forums are subject to libel. A few years old this article but still pretty accurate. I'd pay particular attention to point 3.

Warning to chatroom users after libel award for man labelled a Nazi

· High court orders lecturer to pay £10,000 damages
· Lawyers say case confirms existing law applies on net

* The Guardian, Thursday 23 March 2006

A political argument that erupted in a remote corner of cyberspace and descended into vicious name-calling could lead to a spate of libel actions by contributors to internet message boards, the man at the centre of the case claimed yesterday.

The dark side of the blogosphere was revealed by a libel action brought by Michael Keith-Smith, a former Conservative party member who stood for Ukip in Portsmouth North at the last election. He said he was moved to sue after a woman with whom he was debating the merits of military action in Iraq began a campaign of name-calling that started by describing him as "lard brain" and culminated in falsely labelling him a "Nazi", a "racist bigot" and a "nonce".

Tracy Williams, a college lecturer from Oldham, was ordered by a high court judge to pay £10,000 in damages, as well as Mr Keith-Smith's £7,200 costs, and told never to repeat the allegations.

The case is one of the first of its kind between two private individuals to go to court and, said lawyers, highlighted issues that would become more prominent as internet usage continued to grow and blogging, social networking and community sites became yet more popular.

Mr Keith-Smith told the Guardian that he took action after a debate about the Iraq war in 2003 on a Yahoo! message board with about 100 members turned ugly. "She was very pro-Bush. Initially, she called me lard brain and I wasn't particularly concerned about that. Then she called me a Nazi," he said.

He has also taken action against a second poster, he said, with whom he claimed to have settled for a sum "in the region of £30,000".

"They started saying I was on a sex offenders' list and that people shouldn't let me near their children," said Mr Keith-Smith, who is also chairman of the Conservative Democratic Alliance, which bills itself as "the leading voice of the radical Tory right".

He resolved to take legal action after the pair accused his wife of being a prostitute. But once his solicitors petitioned the court to find out the identity of Ms Williams, who contributed to the forum under a pseudonym, the abuse got worse.

"It's a matter of principle. I had no proof that anyone who read this took it seriously. I just didn't see why she should be allowed to get away with it," he said.

Legal experts said the case should be taken as a warning to the millions of people in the UK debating contentious issues on message boards, in chatrooms and on their own blogs that the laws of libel applied just as they would if the comments were published in a leaflet or newsletter.

But despite claims from some that Judge Alistair MacDuff's high court decision would hamper freedom of speech, most said the case merely provided confirmation of the existing law.

"You can't say this is something that should just be allowed to carry on. I don't think it is going to open any floodgates; it's a quite sensible application of the law," said Caroline Keane, a partner at media law firm Wiggin LLP.

But Mark Stephens, head of media law at Finer Stephens Innocent, said the case should trigger a wider debate about whether the libel law was best suited to deal with such cases. If a chatroom was self-moderating and had a limited circulation, he questioned whether such cases should ever reach court.

Most such cases never reach court because most complaints tend to be to an ISP or site owner, which would take down the defamatory content as soon as it was notified and the person making the libellous allegations would back down.

FAQ: Internet libel

1. Should internet service providers be worried about libel?

The issue of liability was a grey area for ISPs, but a workable system has developed through European and UK law whereby ISPs are not generally considered liable as long as they act to take down potentially libellous material when notified.

2. Does this affect freedom of speech?

Some have argued that in ISPs' haste to take down material complained about, they are in effect curtailing freedom of speech.

3. Why haven't more of these cases come to court?

Lawyers say cases between individuals have tended to be settled before reaching court.

4. What about site owners?

Uncertainty remains over whether a site owner such as the BBC would be liable, particularly if it claimed to moderate comments before they were added to a website.

As for Glazer, I've not said anything about him that's not true. Because, as you say, his lawyers could come down on me, or the site owners, like a ton of bricks.
 
ralphie88 said:
Of course posts on internet forums are subject to libel. A few years old this article but still pretty accurate. I'd pay particular attention to point 3.

He said he was moved to sue after a woman with whom he was debating the merits of military action in Iraq began a campaign of name-calling that started by describing him as "lard brain" and culminated in falsely labelling him a "Nazi", a "racist bigot" and a "nonce".
Click to expand...

Ok, stop me when i start calling Drasdo a nazi, a racist or a nonce, will you.

You fecking drama-queen, i'm questioning his political motives, not telling everyone that he's not safe to be around children.

:rolleyes:

ralphie88 said:
As for Glazer, I've not said anything about him that's not true.
Click to expand...

:lol:
 
ciderman9000000 said:
Ok, stop me when i start calling Drasdo a nazi, a racist or a nonce, will you.

You fecking drama-queen, i'm questioning his political motives, not telling everyone that he's not safe to be around children.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Libel does extend beyond the realms of calling somebody a racist or a nonce.
You said that "he's heading towards an almighty pay-off should the Red Knights be successful".
If that's not true, it's libelous.
Pretty simple really.

But don't get your knickers in a twist, I don't think you're really going to get sued - the way I read it, Ralphie's original point was just to emphasise how far from teh facts you've strayed.
 
ciderman9000000 said:
Ok, stop me when i start calling Drasdo a nazi, a racist or a nonce, will you.

You fecking drama-queen, i'm questioning his political motives, not telling everyone that he's not safe to be around children.
Click to expand...

You are saying that he is manipulating fans in order to "make a killing" for himself.

This is both (a) untrue, and (b) lowers the estimation of the said individual in the eyes of the public. Those are the only tests for defamation.
 
ralphie88 said:
You are saying that he is manipulating fans in order to "make a killing" for himself.

This is both (a) untrue, and (b) lowers the estimation of the said individual in the eyes of the public. Those are the only tests for defamation.
Click to expand...

Like i said, i'd like to see how that'd go in court. Tell me, why are you clutching at straws, again?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.