Its Going To Get Ugly / Ganging up [MERGED]

[Beefymcfc]

Can anybody tell me why this isn't such a big story? Apart from a few write-ups in the media there has been little or no discussion on many of the radio stations; not sure about Sky?

I was listening to TS on the way back to work early hours Monday and as soon as the Moose mentioned it in the news round-up it was dropped in favour of the Kompany sending off. Listened for many hours since and hardly a peep. Why is that, this is one of the biggest stories for a while, even if it is only for them to talk about the proposed changes to current regualtions. This could shape the landscape for many years to come.

[Swales4ever]

Can anybody tell me why this isn't such a big story? Apart from a few write-ups in the media there has been little or no discussion on many of the radio stations; not sure about Sky?

I was listening to TS on the way back to work early hours Monday and as soon as the Moose mentioned it in the news round-up it was dropped in favour of the Kompany sending off. Listened for many hours since and hardly a peep. Why is that, this is one of the biggest stories for a while, even if it is only for them to talk about the proposed changes to current regualtions. This could shape the landscape for many years to come.

Don't be daft!
This is gonna be the major tragedy since Malvinians sieged Buckingham Palace....

[john68]

Beefers,
I have just read a wonderfully enlightening PM from Cocacolajojo. It covered a major part of this very subject. I should address your question to him, he has his finger on the pulse of this issue mate.

No coverage of this story in the popular or sports media.
No reportage of the changes from European Cup to Champions League
No reportage of the topics raised in 4 4 2 magazine by pro footballers regarding drugs and match fixing in particular.
The list is endless....Some of this is serious shit. Very serious shit.

[Beefymcfc]

Beefers,
I have just read a wonderfully enlightening PM from Cocacolajojo. It covered a major part of this very subject. I should address your question to him, he has his finger on the pulse of this issue mate.

No coverage of this story in the popular or sports media.
No reportage of the changes from European Cup to Champions League
No reportage of the topics raised in 4 4 2 magazine by pro footballers regarding drugs and match fixing in particular.
The list is endless....Some of this is serious shit. Very serious shit.

Come on then, spill the beans Coke head.

[Cocacolajojo1]

Beefers,
I have just read a wonderfully enlightening PM from Cocacolajojo. It covered a major part of this very subject. I should address your question to him, he has his finger on the pulse of this issue mate.

No coverage of this story in the popular or sports media.
No reportage of the changes from European Cup to Champions League
No reportage of the topics raised in 4 4 2 magazine by pro footballers regarding drugs and match fixing in particular.
The list is endless....Some of this is serious shit. Very serious shit.

Come on then, spill the beans Coke head.

Ok... I mean, I don't know if it's that good, just my opinion which John seemed to agree with. I'll just paste it.

"Dear John, I love you. I've always loved you. Well not always but ever since you wrote that recap of the 1968 season. Do you fancy me?"

[Cocacolajojo1]

It just occured to me that John might have been speaking about another PM. I'll post that as well.

[url]http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/mon-january-14-2013-roger-waters
[/url]

Does that one work then? It's the middle segment. Or does it perhaps have to do with the fact that I'm in Austria and you're in the UK?

Basiacally the clip shows how CNN scrapped their entire department for long term, investigative journalism last year. Then there's an interview with a news consultant, albeit cut to suit the agenda of the show, who clearly states that investigative journalism is not as lucrative as talking about news. I think that about sums it up for me and that's the main issue with football journalism as well.

Jamie Redknapp, Gary Neville, the Sunday Supplement, you, me,... I mean, we talk and talk and talk about football. The difference is that you and me don't get paid to think aloud about current football events. The football journalists do, and it's called news. Basically, just let the world happen and then talk about what just happened. It's easy, it's cheap and it's lucrative.

I think it was Simon Kuper that said that the average football fan nowadays spends a small friction of his or her time on watching the games of the supported club/s and the rest, the large majority of the time, on consuming football news and football talk. It think it's the same with news. Hence, football journalism is often a mere symptome of a bigger problem. And as you say, there's a large buck to be made by not asking too many questions and keeping the game the way the majority likes it. I.E, support the established clubs with the largest fanbases and fuck the rest, whenever possible at least. Make waves about the underdogs but then start dissing, albeit slyly, them when they actually start to threaten the establishment for real.

[Swales4ever]

Once again Coke Head proves his smart.
That's bang on the money if anything ever was; it's a global trend that embrace every ambit of journalism and - sadly - reflect how far and worse the "culture/attitude" of maximizing profits throughout simple cuts of supposed "deadwoods" has infected the contemporary world.
The evidence that even the Leading News Media has gone through that path speak very sad volume.
I'd say, marketing/profit oriented conformity.

thanks for sharing Your brilliant considerations

[mr_nool]

Once again Coke Head proves his smart.
That's bang on the money if anything ever was; it's a global trend that embrace every ambit of journalism and - sadly - reflect how far and worse the "culture/attitude" of maximizing profits throughout simple cuts of supposed "deadwoods" has infected the contemporary world.
The evidence that even the Leading News Media has gone through that path speak very sad volume.
I'd say, marketing/profit oriented conformity.

thanks for sharing Your brilliant considerations

This is where broadsheet newspaper should find their new niche, though.
They can't compete with selling "news" any longer. When the papers hit the stand, all the news in them are either obsolete or have been reported ad absurdum elsewhere. What they should do, is instead to focus on analysis, on in-depth journalism, on discourse, and on debate. Why they aren't is beyond me.

[Beefymcfc]

It just occured to me that John might have been speaking about another PM. I'll post that as well.

[url]http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/mon-january-14-2013-roger-waters
[/url]

Does that one work then? It's the middle segment. Or does it perhaps have to do with the fact that I'm in Austria and you're in the UK?

Basiacally the clip shows how CNN scrapped their entire department for long term, investigative journalism last year. Then there's an interview with a news consultant, albeit cut to suit the agenda of the show, who clearly states that investigative journalism is not as lucrative as talking about news. I think that about sums it up for me and that's the main issue with football journalism as well.

Jamie Redknapp, Gary Neville, the Sunday Supplement, you, me,... I mean, we talk and talk and talk about football. The difference is that you and me don't get paid to think aloud about current football events. The football journalists do, and it's called news. Basically, just let the world happen and then talk about what just happened. It's easy, it's cheap and it's lucrative.

I think it was Simon Kuper that said that the average football fan nowadays spends a small friction of his or her time on watching the games of the supported club/s and the rest, the large majority of the time, on consuming football news and football talk. It think it's the same with news. Hence, football journalism is often a mere symptome of a bigger problem. And as you say, there's a large buck to be made by not asking too many questions and keeping the game the way the majority likes it. I.E, support the established clubs with the largest fanbases and fuck the rest, whenever possible at least. Make waves about the underdogs but then start dissing, albeit slyly, them when they actually start to threaten the establishment for real.

Nicely put mate and also goes to show how we as supporters have changed within our own views. That's why I ask the question, because nobody really cares as long as they get enough of a fix on the day-to-day stuff.

Cheers mate.

[Swales4ever]

Once again Coke Head proves his smart.
That's bang on the money if anything ever was; it's a global trend that embrace every ambit of journalism and - sadly - reflect how far and worse the "culture/attitude" of maximizing profits throughout simple cuts of supposed "deadwoods" has infected the contemporary world.
The evidence that even the Leading News Media has gone through that path speak very sad volume.
I'd say, marketing/profit oriented conformity.

thanks for sharing Your brilliant considerations

This is where broadsheet newspaper should find their new niche, though.
They can't compete with selling "news" any longer. When the papers hit the stand, all the news in them are either obsolete or have been reported ad absurdum elsewhere. What they should do, is instead to focus on analysis, on in-depth journalism, on discourse, and on debate. Why they aren't is beyond me.

Yet again, majority of people are not interested to in-depth going. it does not pay off anymore, marketing wise. That is why.
The current world is sadly ran by the polls. that is why and deffo not beyond a smart arse like You, Bud.... :-)

[mr_nool]

Once again Coke Head proves his smart.
That's bang on the money if anything ever was; it's a global trend that embrace every ambit of journalism and - sadly - reflect how far and worse the "culture/attitude" of maximizing profits throughout simple cuts of supposed "deadwoods" has infected the contemporary world.
The evidence that even the Leading News Media has gone through that path speak very sad volume.
I'd say, marketing/profit oriented conformity.

thanks for sharing Your brilliant considerations

This is where broadsheet newspaper should find their new niche, though.
They can't compete with selling "news" any longer. When the papers hit the stand, all the news in them are either obsolete or have been reported ad absurdum elsewhere. What they should do, is instead to focus on analysis, on in-depth journalism, on discourse, and on debate. Why they aren't is beyond me.

Yet again, majority of people are not interested to in-depth going. it does not pay off anymore, marketing wise. That is why.
The current world is sadly ran by the polls. that is why and deffo not beyond a smart arse like You, Bud.... :-)

The majority of people aren't buying newspapers anymore, either. That's why the whole industry is bleeding.
Ergo, they need to find a new niche to survive. You are probably correct in assuming that the general public isn't interested in in-depth going, but that's at least a niche where they can compete. When it comes to news-reporting, there're countless of competitors (internet, TV, teletext) that offer the same product much faster / instantly and much cheaper (or even free of charge).

[john68]

The subject matter of the media and the nod back to that 1968 recap brings to mind how significantly the media coverage has changed.
I went into Manchester Central Library to peruse some old MuEM copies and was amazed at the paucity of the coverage compared to now. That significant media change is well worth a mention.

Now, it is usual on a weeknight to have at least 2 full pages, sometimes 3 dedicated each to City and the rags. Not long ago, the sports section was a pull out of several pages. Coverage of lower local sides often fills another couple of pages, with passing nod to non league sides. That is a lot of media space on nightly basis, that needs to be filled....Often in desperation for a story it is abject nonsense. Try transposing usually for often.
In 1968, on a Friday evening before the games, if memory serves, it was usually one single written piece, covering both City and the rags, with a paragraph each for the other local sides. Inside there was an"In Town Tomorrow section, usually only 3/4 inches deep and maybe 3 columns wide. That was basically it, unless there was a major story of particular topical interest. Occasionally, we would be treated to a "Special"....WoW!

That paucity of space and coverage meant no room for idle speculation or lies. No space for the abject nonsense we are served up now. I am uncertain how it changed. Was it our demand that caused this media explosion of rubbish to fill tons of space, or was it their rubbish coverage of tons of space that created our appetite.

Either way, I don't feel we are any better or well informed. We just seem to know much more about shit.

[City64]

Imho "serious shit" in football will never ever be reported by a newspaper or Sky or whoever . Simple reason being there is so much colossol wealth and power in the game anyone reporting such "misdemeanors" would be libelled or sued within hours by very wealthy organisations and individuals. The fact is we will never know the truth about what really goes on even if we all have a good idea that corruption is within our game . It is also a simple fact that wherever there is huge amounts of money there is corruption anywhere in the world we live in , the FA also would never ever allow the English game to be tarnished with any suggestion of corruption even if it is there ...... for fuck sake even Harry Redknapp got off with his tax fiddling , spurs soon dumped him though ! Lastly BLATTER just does whatever he wants to do he is that powerfull and untouchable ..... godfather stylie , get my drift LOL

[Swales4ever]

Once again Coke Head proves his smart.
That's bang on the money if anything ever was; it's a global trend that embrace every ambit of journalism and - sadly - reflect how far and worse the "culture/attitude" of maximizing profits throughout simple cuts of supposed "deadwoods" has infected the contemporary world.
The evidence that even the Leading News Media has gone through that path speak very sad volume.
I'd say, marketing/profit oriented conformity.

thanks for sharing Your brilliant considerations

This is where broadsheet newspaper should find their new niche, though.
They can't compete with selling "news" any longer. When the papers hit the stand, all the news in them are either obsolete or have been reported ad absurdum elsewhere. What they should do, is instead to focus on analysis, on in-depth journalism, on discourse, and on debate. Why they aren't is beyond me.

Yet again, majority of people are not interested to in-depth going. it does not pay off anymore, marketing wise. That is why.
The current world is sadly ran by the polls. that is why and deffo not beyond a smart arse like You, Bud.... :-)

The majority of people aren't buying newspapers anymore, either. That's why the whole industry is bleeding.
Ergo, they need to find a new niche to survive. You are probably correct in assuming that the general public isn't interested in in-depth going, but that's at least a niche where they can compete. When it comes to news-reporting, there're countless of competitors (internet, TV, teletext) that offer the same product much faster / instantly and much cheaper (or even free of charge).

My view does not differ from Yours on what should be, Erik, but sadly it doesn't matter.
This is the world of percentages, not of top quality.
To enlarge the point, I'd reckon only 68 is old enough to remember when he was living the world whereas a fridge was almost forever, because designed and manufactured no differently than a cannon.

And yes there are still very niche products on the info market, and I reckon they will prosper quite easily, but necessarily relegated to the upper minds audience, too small to constitute a market.
there are few reviews I do enjoy, but very focused on international foreign affairs/geo-politics, economics and matters like that. Those in turn are very small business, whose sustainability is almost entirely reliants on high subscription fees with little difference from the Academics / Doctrinal reviews of the past.

The in-depth info, never mind on general info or sporting info, are not only a non-attractive business but simply a non-business, cause there are a very little audience for top quality products, irrespectively on the actual wealth of such audience. I may be cynic but it's true.
You are gonna make infinitely more profit simply by hiring Me and Ted to endlessly debate the Marwoodshite rather than sending out investigative, even juniors, to find out what dirty dust is hidden under the carpet of doping, matchfixing, lobbying and so on.
Try and guess Yourself: wasn't really a wealth businessman in the whole UK who couldn't afford purchasing and running down Aston Martin? or an Italian who couldn't afford Ducati? The sad answer is that top quality products do not produce enough revenue to stand as attractive business in the world of percentages.
Imho.

[patrickblue]

Nice article by Stuart Brennan in the MEN (I decline to call them the MuEN in this instance).

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchesterevening ... a-bit-rich


Manchester United's FFP stance a bit rich

Stuart Brennan

January 17, 2013

United couldn’t beat City on the pitch or in the title race last season, so it seems they have hatched a dastardly plot to undermine them off the field.

The Reds have teamed up with Arsenal, Liverpool and Tottenham to press for the Premier League to adopt its own financial fair play rules, specifically targeting clubs with rich benefactors – just like Chelsea and City, by sheer coincidence!

United are suddenly worried that all this money being pumped into unnamed clubs is bad for the game, as it creates ‘inflationary spending’.

They want to adapt Uefa’s new rules, aimed at stopping clubs spending beyond the money they generate themselves, to our domestic league.

Of course, by a happy twist of fate, this would mean United – whose revenue is way ahead of everyone else in the league – could buy all the best players, give them the best wages, and win everything, from here to eternity.

And, by another weird coincidence, it would also mean Liverpool, Arsenal and Spurs would suddenly edge ahead of City and Chelsea in chasing lucrative Champions League places.

We could even stop playing each other at football altogether, re-name the Premier League the Manchester United League, hand them all the trophies in August and fly off somewhere warm for the winter.

This self-interested foursome are now trying to sell their idea to the rest of the Premier League, to get the 14 votes, out of 20, they would need to change the rules.

“It’s a debate – we’re having a discussion on financial fair play,” said Gill. “The impact of the new TV money has clearly focused the minds. Seven or eight clubs are going to have to abide by UEFA’s regulations in any case.

“The league are working on this and will put a paper together to be discussed at the February meeting. Whatever’s decided is dictated by 14 clubs.”

United need to hope that, if their plan for world domination goes through, that the Premier League doesn’t start applying it retrospectively.

The Reds were one of the main movers behind the Greedy League which aimed to concentrate the wealth in the hands of the few at a time when football was turning from a sport into a multi-billion pound business.

As the richest club in the country, they drove the agenda as English football underwent the biggest inflation – of transfer fees, player wages and, as a consequence, ticket prices – in football history.

They more than quadrupled the record fee paid by an English club – which they already held for the 1981 signing of Bryan Robson – in 1995 when they paid £7m for Andy Cole.

They almost doubled the record by paying over £28m for Seba Veron in 2001, only to break it again a year later to bring in Rio Ferdinand.

They happily paid top dollar to their squad of top players, forcing other clubs to either take financial risks to try and catch them, or simply be content to sit back and admire as United won everything.

It was natural law, they thought. They were earning their own money and spending it. Only Blackburn, who briefly found a rich owner, and moneyed Arsenal interrupted their dominance, and they were just a temporary irritation.

It was a great arrangement. Then along came Chelsea, and more latterly, City to mess up this perfect world, by finding wealthy foreign owners who were prepared to pour money into the clubs they bought.

At the same time, United – despite a brave effort by a minority of their fans – found an American owner who did the exact opposite and began leeching money OUT of their club.

Suddenly, clubs throwing their money around are doing a bad thing, says Gill.

It is not their own money, so they shouldn’t spend it, goes the new mantra.

But the market doesn’t care whether Gill made the money by grafting at a coal face for 12 hours a day, or was handed it by a friendly Arab.

Spending more than the others inflates, wherever the cash come from.

Leeds nose-dived, financially and in football terms, by trying to keep up with United, long before Roman Abramovich and Sheikh Mansour came on the scene.

City and Chelsea have played the game by rules which United liked when it suited them. Now the rules suit other clubs more, United and the other three want to change them.

If they truly want financial fair play, all revenue should be centrally pooled and dished out, preferably with the Football League and grassroots football getting a fair share.

Chances of United going for something truly fair? Don’t hold your breath.

[john68]

CONGRATULATIONS MEN, PETER SPENCER AND STUART BRENNAN. That is a very very brave piece of journalism and the courage to take this stance on our behalf against one of their main benefactors should not be underestimated. It may not bother the rags on global scale but will hurt them badly locally...and they will respond. Will the MEN stand firm or wilt? It took a lot of bollocks to write and publish that piece, much easier to sit on the fence and merely report events than take an active part. Will the MEN have the bollocks to stand firm when the rags go kicking and screaming at their door? That remains to be seen. We live in hope.

As brave as it is, I cannot see this being done by the MEN for simple journalistic reasons. they have too much to lose with a major benefactor and local readership. Too many faces to put out of joint. To my mind it can only have been done at the request (insistence) of City and that opens up another whole new sphere of debate. Why?

Whatever the common view of the domestic FFPR debate, workable,legal or otherwise, City obviously see it as an imminent and major danger to our short and medium term progress. All through the previous European FFPR debate, City have followed a path of trying to comply and have never entered into a public debate. This is a major change in club policy.

Major questions emerge...
1...Is this an admission by City that they are unable to balance the books and cannot comply?
2...Have our considered corrupt media come to the conclusion that this outrages bid for total control of domestic football by a group of 4 elitist clubs is a step too far even for them to consider and decided enough is enough, these clubs MUST be stopped?
3...Is it because the time frame (weeks rather that months or years), means it is imperative to act quickly with any fair and just means at our disposal?
4...Is it a policy change by City, taken by our new CEO Soriano, to come out in public and fight our corner more aggressively and publicly?

This is one battle we HAVE to win, Losing is NOT an option.

[Swales4ever]

given its broader audience, we should also CONGRATS the Time, as well, shant we?
Or shoudda said the upgraded professionalism at The Club, Dad?.... :-)

anyways, here the take from OS:
http://www.mcfc.co.uk/News/What-the-pap ... TMS-17-Jan

We start this morning with an interesting perspective by sports economist Stefan Szymanski on the subject of Financial Fair Play.

Writing in The Times today, Szymanski puts forward the following.

"Adopting Uefa’s rules will only make it harder for small clubs to break into the elite," he claims.

"Manchester United, Spurs, Liverpool and Arsenal are quietly lobbying the chief executive of the Premier League to limit the spending power of Chelsea and Manchester City. It is no surprise that some of the big clubs advocate the adoption of Uefa’s Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules. Clubs are struggling to be profitable and insolvency is rife.

"Under FFP, clubs have to maintain solvency and must not spend more than their football income — the so-called break-even rule — which restricts the ability of owners to cross-subsidise the team from other business income. According to Uefa, this would “protect the long-term viability and sustainability of European club football”. Worthy goals indeed, but the rules may have less virtuous consequences.

"Given that the more successful teams generate the largest incomes, the only way lesser teams can challenge them is for someone to inject money from outside. It’s no coincidence that the only teams to break the dominance of the established clubs in the past 20 years have been Blackburn Rovers, Chelsea and Manchester City, all of whom had “sugar daddies”. FFP would make it harder for upstart clubs to challenge those already at the top.

"Uefa presents itself as a benevolent regulator with the best interests of football as its sole objective. But it has a financial interest as well. According to its 2010-11 accounts it generated €1.4 billion from the sale of rights, primarily to the Champions League, and paid out €1 billion to clubs, thus keeping 28 per cent to spend as it sees fit. The relationship is analogous to that between a car manufacturer and its dealers, a brewer and the pubs that sell its beer or a newspaper publisher and the corner shops that sell papers.

"EU competition law prohibits companies competing in the same industry from making agreements that restrain competitive behaviour. This protects consumers from conspiracies to raise prices or lower the quality of goods and services, and protects workers from employers ganging together to cut wages.

"Restrictions imposed from above can be good for consumers if they ensure that the product is delivered to them in good condition. Joaquín Almunia, the European Commissioner in charge of competition, appears to have approved FFP, thinking that it will benefit fans. This may be true when it comes to requiring clubs to pay their debts (including players’ wages) and maintain solvency. But by appearing to endorse the break-even rule the European Commission is failing to uphold the best interests of the fans.

The likely effect will be to ossify competition and maintain the dominance of established clubs (ironically, Chelsea and Manchester City may be the greatest beneficiaries, having already paid to join the elite). Less competition will reduce the pressure to spend on players’ salaries. While few may shed a tear for multimillionaire footballers, the quality of competition will also fall, as owners funnel their income into profits, not players.

"The Premier League case seems even simpler. Chapter One of the Competition Act prohibits agreements between undertakings that “have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the United Kingdom” and this applies to agreements that “limit or control production, markets, technical development or investment”. This move by some of the Premier League clubs would appear to be an open-and-shut agreement to limit investment, and therefore illegal.

"To those who say that these rules are necessary to preserve the fabric of English football I would ask how many professional clubs have gone out of business in the past hundred years. Of the 88 members of the Football League in 1923, 85 still exist today, most still in the top four divisions (the exceptions being Aberdare Athletic, Merthyr Town and South Shields). Insolvency and restructuring of the limited liability companies that own football clubs are commonplace but should not be confused with the termination of the club, which almost never happens.

"English football is healthier than it has been for decades — the quality of the game has risen immeasurably in the past 20 years, attendances have almost doubled despite astronomic increases in ticket prices, upwards of £2 billion has been invested in stadiums. The Premier League is a global phenomenon, generating as much money from selling rights overseas as at home. And foreign investors have flocked to put their money in.

"Having thrived in a competitive environment, why on earth should the big clubs now be allowed to end that competition? If they manage to persuade the rest of the Premier League to adopt FFP it will be time to call in the Office of Fair Trading."

[Swales4ever]

[highlight]This is one battle we HAVE to win, Losing is NOT an option.[/highlight]

I
Don't stress Your GoodSelf, my Lord, Mentor, Beloved Friend and preferred target of my FFPR piss takings: WE WILL NEVER LOSE IT, actually we NOT EVEN have to win as I tried hard to stamp on You, we just have to keep it going for another two seasons..... You know?

[john68]

Mancio,
I have not mentioned you or your argument in my recent posts on this because I simply gave up bashing my head against a brick wall.
Sorry my pal but you really don't get any of this mate...honestly...you really don't seem to have a clue.

If the answer to the FFPR (prem and Europe) was as simple as you suggest, That Sheik Mansour uses his political clout or Khaldhoon wanders round on his fuclin camel handing out sweeties to the children to pay them off, or that Soriano will replace Jimmy fuclin Saville as Sorry'll fix it...then why the fuck have they spent the last 3 years pulling their arses over their heads trying to comply? Why the fuck haven't they taken your advice aleady and said fuck the FFPR and carried on as though it doesn't exist? Why the fuck are they now considering putting a case together to fight it in court?...and why the fucl am I having this same fuckin conversation with a brick fuckin wall?

With all the love I have for you, are you Balotelli in disguise? Answer the simple question Why the fuck haven't City, with all their teams of accountants, advisors and lawyers, with all their business partners and political contacts just taken your advice and sorted it all out 3 fuclin years ago?

Now please for the love of God give up.

[Swales4ever]

Yeah Matey,
I do not have a clue.
despite everything is revolving as I keep saying since more than two years.
I lay it down to my language barriers... :-)

I have surrendered as well, just keep enjoying piss taking of one of the smartest arse I ever bumped into.... :-)
Meanwhile, I cannot wait for the next pansotti and human cannonballs.

God bless Your blood pressure and sleeps. any distress of them, due to this NON ISSUE, would be a shame that I'll never forgive You... :-)

xxx
M4e