|
Post by The Concept on Jun 11, 2019 17:45:19 GMT
How odd. Unless I am mistaken, there is no mention of the AGM on the official web-site. There is certainly nothing in latest news. www.bristolrovers.co.uk/fans/supporters-club/ "Annual General Meeting The meeting will normally be held in October each year". Poor communication? Bristol Rovers? It's bollocks isn't it. Can't say I ever recall Rovers notifying of their AGM on the website before. Can't say I ever recall coming across any football club notifying of their AGM on their website before.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2019 21:35:50 GMT
How odd. Unless I am mistaken, there is no mention of the AGM on the official web-site. There is certainly nothing in latest news. www.bristolrovers.co.uk/fans/supporters-club/ "Annual General Meeting The meeting will normally be held in October each year". Poor communication? Bristol Rovers? It's bollocks isn't it. Can't say I ever recall Rovers notifying of their AGM on the website before. Can't say I ever recall coming across any football club notifying of their AGM on their website before. Just guessed at Everton first, stuck it in to Google, and guess what, they do. For some reason that I can't explain, a club called Prescott Cables also came up in the search results, they do as well. Why wouldn't a club? Then of course, we have the situation where we have our representative on the BoD, swanning around off of the back of our million+ quid, so the date should be on the official site and on the SC site and every single person that both the FC and the SC hold email details for should be advised so that anybody can contact Mr Masters with any questions they may have before the event.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2019 6:55:22 GMT
So on a rating from 1 to f**ked, how’s it looking?
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,119
|
Post by eppinggas on Jun 12, 2019 7:04:01 GMT
How odd. Unless I am mistaken, there is no mention of the AGM on the official web-site. There is certainly nothing in latest news. www.bristolrovers.co.uk/fans/supporters-club/ "Annual General Meeting The meeting will normally be held in October each year". Poor communication? Bristol Rovers? It's bollocks isn't it. Can't say I ever recall Rovers notifying of their AGM on the website before. Just because they haven't done it before, no reason why they should not start doing it now. It would improve COMMUNICATION.
Can't say I ever recall coming across any football club notifying of their AGM on their website before. See Bamber's note below. 'Nuff said.
|
|
harrybuckle
Always look on the bright side
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 5,415
|
Post by harrybuckle on Jun 12, 2019 13:13:01 GMT
Spoke to two fans who attended last nights AGM. Apparently well over a hundred did attend. Both said it was shambolic and disorganised. No Hamer as on holiday and Mike Turner who chaired meeting had to leave before the end ! He was so softly spoken few could hear him and he had no microphone. Apparently the auditors were not invited as a fee would have had to be paid and Directors said rarely are they ever asked questions. Many of the audience said they wanted to ask them questions about accounts and the lateness being prepared.
Many of the motions were voted against or failed to get interest from many of the shareholders which was not normal for AGMs. There were exchanges with Supporters Club who have been asking the club for share certificates to confirm the BRSC Share Scheme actually owned them. Club said this was in hand to lots of amusement. Directors confirmed no more ground improvements planned.
Manager was away but Joe Dunne the new Assistant manager added some humour to proceedings. Both Wael and CEO said little or nothing till the final minutes of the meeting. Wael to assure fans not to listen to unfounded rumours stirred up by those trying to undermine him.
Widdrington confirmed two imminent signings one a young pro from a lower league club.
Many shareholders came away feeling our Club was being served by few if any who wanted to improve things.
|
|
|
Post by pirate49 on Jun 12, 2019 13:26:41 GMT
Thank you 'Harry''
'Apparently the auditors were not invited as a fee would have had to be paid and Directors said rarely are they ever asked questions.'
That's beyond a joke! Really hard to be optimistic about the future of our club.
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,119
|
Post by eppinggas on Jun 12, 2019 13:28:38 GMT
Spoke to two fans who attended last nights AGM. Apparently well over a hundred did attend. Both said it was shambolic and disorganised. No Hamer as on holiday and Mike Turner who chaired meeting had to leave before the end ! He was so softly spoken few could hear him and he had no microphone. Apparently the auditors were not invited as a fee would have had to be paid and Directors said rarely are they ever asked questions. Many of the audience said they wanted to ask them questions about accounts and the lateness being prepared. Many of the motions were voted against or failed to get interest from many of the shareholders which was not normal for AGMs. There were exchanges with Supporters Club who have been asking the club for share certificates to confirm the BRSC Share Scheme actually owned them. Club said this was in hand to lots of amusement. Directors confirmed no more ground improvements planned. Manager was away but Joe Dunne the new Assistant manager added some humour to proceedings. Both Wael and CEO said little or nothing till the final minutes of the meeting. Wael to assure fans not to listen to unfounded rumours stirred up by those trying to undermine him. Widdrington confirmed two imminent signings one a young pro from a lower league club. Many shareholders came away feeling our Club was being served by few if any who wanted to improve things. Thanks for finding time to post. So we still don't have an actual eye witness of the proceedings? Weird. Just really weird. But this is Bristol Rovers FC. We just expect sh*t, and have low expectations. We aren't mediocre. We don't even aspire to mediocrity. We don't hold our owners to account. We deserve what we get. "shambolic and disorganised". These things take time you know.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2019 13:32:25 GMT
Directors confirmed no more ground improvements planned. I agree. We don't need any more ground improvements, everything is splendid.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Jun 12, 2019 15:14:42 GMT
Thank you 'Harry'' 'Apparently the auditors were not invited as a fee would have had to be paid and Directors said rarely are they ever asked questions.' That's beyond a joke! Really hard to be optimistic about the future of our club. What is anyone going to ask the auditors/accountannts? (Grant Thornton and Taylor Wessing) Why were you late? At best you are going to get the technical accounting response that was given the other day, which 99% of the audience wouldn't understand
And I say that as an accountant.
Better off asking the club if they will change the auditors/accountants after the delays
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,119
|
Post by eppinggas on Jun 12, 2019 16:09:35 GMT
Two eye witness reports from the other place about the AGM (for those who don't go there). Depressing reading:
"There were questions asked about the late submissions of the finances, the dept of the club and the strategy going forward. Unfortunately it was done in a rather confrontational manner claiming Hanni wont do this or that, and that got defensive type answers that told us nothing new. Wael himself got very agitated and challenge the individual to provide proof of their accusations, which of course they could not. The whole tone of the meeting was very agitated and unpleasant. Because the meeting was taken up by asking the same questions over and over by a couple of individuals there really wasn't much time for general questions. Usual stuff about UWE pulling out of the deal in January at the 11th hour, training ground tied into whatever is happening with stadium etc, nothing new. Tom Widderington said new player announcement today and one tomorrow. Joe Dunne said his piece and that was it really".
"Well I went to the AGM last night and I have to say, from the outset you could have cut the atmosphere with a cricket stump and when it started, it turned more toxic. Wael attended, Hamer didn’t. There were objections raised from the outset from a slight change in the agenda, to the suspicion of a conflict of interest from having Micheal Turner as a director of BRFC and a partner of Taylor Wessing who have charged BRFC for services used. There were no real questions raised, more accusations levied, some made personally, which was inappropriate and rude, no matter how high emotionally matters were felt. At one point an accusation was made “were wasting money all over the place”. Martyn Starnes replied “where have we wasted it?” Ah well, oh well we’ve lost £3m. Wael then said well for every £100 we spend £97 on playing staff. There was an accusation that the reason the accounts were late was because Hani refused to underwrite the losses. Regardless of the reasons of why they were late, every one of them were refuted by the ringleaders of the SC. Tommy and Joe Dunn came across well. We seem to have a good assistant manager so hopefully that will grow as the season goes on. One thing that struck me last night was the SC has no confidence in the board but also offers little positivity or suggestions going forward to help. There wasn’t one person there under 50, all white and 90% male. There are about 3-4 ringleaders with the rest either head nodders or if an attempt was made to disagree with a comment then they were shouted down. Quite literally. As for KM, he said about 10 words, which related to why there was only 1 representative on the board. It’s no wonder there is such as chasm with the SC and board, why no one else wants to join it that’s younger and why it’s also no force for good anymore".
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Jun 12, 2019 16:56:00 GMT
Unfortunately it was done in a rather confrontational manner claiming Hanni wont do this or that, and that got defensive type answers that told us nothing new. Wael himself got very agitated and challenge the individual to provide proof of their accusations, which of course they could not. The whole tone of the meeting was very agitated and unpleasant. Because the meeting was taken up by asking the same questions over and over by a couple of individuals Wael wins by tko I think. He rocked up and held his accusers to account. Fair play to him but all a bit sad by the sound of it
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2019 17:37:21 GMT
Unfortunately it was done in a rather confrontational manner claiming Hanni wont do this or that, and that got defensive type answers that told us nothing new. Wael himself got very agitated and challenge the individual to provide proof of their accusations, which of course they could not. The whole tone of the meeting was very agitated and unpleasant. Because the meeting was taken up by asking the same questions over and over by a couple of individuals Wael wins by tko I think. He rocked up and held his accusers to account. Fair play to him but all a bit sad by the sound of it Doesn't sound that way at all. Winning in that situation is listening to what comes from the floor and responding to it with facts that refute untrue accusations, not just telling people to prove what they've said.
|
|
|
Post by The Concept on Jun 12, 2019 17:49:44 GMT
Can't say I ever recall Rovers notifying of their AGM on the website before. Can't say I ever recall coming across any football club notifying of their AGM on their website before. Just guessed at Everton first, stuck it in to Google, and guess what, they do. For some reason that I can't explain, a club called Prescott Cables also came up in the search results, they do as well. Why wouldn't a club? Then of course, we have the situation where we have our representative on the BoD, swanning around off of the back of our million+ quid, so the date should be on the official site and on the SC site and every single person that both the FC and the SC hold email details for should be advised so that anybody can contact Mr Masters with any questions they may have before the event. Thank you for pointing out Everton to me. www.evertonfc.com/news/2018/10/02/general-meetingPrior to relying to Epping last night I too carried out a straw poll. I looked on the websites of 6 further clubs, using 'AGM' and 'Annual General Meeting' in the search function: Bristol City; Swindon Town; Coventry City; Yeovil Town; Plymouth Argyle, and Cardiff City. A couple of clubs had articles in the past about their supporters AGM, but none of the returns came back with notification of the club's own AGM.
|
|
|
Post by The Concept on Jun 12, 2019 17:51:32 GMT
Can't say I ever recall Rovers notifying of their AGM on the website before. Just because they haven't done it before, no reason why they should not start doing it now. It would improve COMMUNICATION.
Can't say I ever recall coming across any football club notifying of their AGM on their website before. See Bamber's note below. 'Nuff said.Please see reply to Bamber's post above.
|
|
|
Post by realmancgas on Jun 12, 2019 18:07:14 GMT
Thank you 'Harry'' 'Apparently the auditors were not invited as a fee would have had to be paid and Directors said rarely are they ever asked questions.' That's beyond a joke! Really hard to be optimistic about the future of our club. What is anyone going to ask the auditors/accountannts? (Grant Thornton and Taylor Wessing) Why were you late? At best you are going to get the technical accounting response that was given the other day, which 99% of the audience wouldn't understand
And I say that as an accountant.
Better off asking the club if they will change the auditors/accountants after the delays
The suggestion that the Auditors should have been in attendance or could have for a fee shows the degree of nonsense and complete lack of knowledge some people have about how company's work. Due to nature of my employment I probably attended 1500 at least AGMs as given no choice, and not once ever have I seen the external Audit firm in attendance. Even if they were (and they wouldnt) they could say absolutely nothing due to client confidentiality and would limit comment to the audit opinions already in the accounts. If GT the 5th largest audit firm in country went to AGMs of audit clients they'd go to 100000 meetings across the UK every year!! I have no idea what some people think an auditor does. In respect of the accounts they test the entries against ledgers and perform statutory tests to enable them to to draft their opinion. They do not provide assurance that everything is ok, veracity of the figures (assuming tests are ok) or comment on the organisations future, other than the going concern opinion which is a requirement of the professional standards. I have seen Rovers accounts for over 40 years I doubt I have seen a single one where the auditors opinion didnt require the owner to say that they are willing to fund the business for a further 12 months. That is not to say that they WILL ONLY support for 12 months as some have concluded. The auditor only needs to know about 12 months and further than that is out of scope of this type of audit. Why people think this line in the accounts means a definite cut and run in 12 months is beyond ridiculous. Which takes me to the next point. you simply cant rock up to a meeting and slander people unless you have hard facts to support the accusation. Im sich of hearing Hani wont do this, Mr AQ senior wants that from people who have never spoken to either of these people, or if they had they never asked these question and even if they did never got an answer!! Frankly if people want to see what happens when the AQs get sick of club, the quickest way to find out is make unsubstantiated allegation based on no truth or evidence and what some trouble maker has started as a rumour, probably for entertainment purposes. For goodness sake those involved, grow up, find a hobby or at least tie your 'sauce' to a lie detector before you start spreading their words....... Ive left the forum for many months to avoid nonsense like this, and hope never to return...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2019 18:13:13 GMT
Just guessed at Everton first, stuck it in to Google, and guess what, they do. For some reason that I can't explain, a club called Prescott Cables also came up in the search results, they do as well. Why wouldn't a club? Then of course, we have the situation where we have our representative on the BoD, swanning around off of the back of our million+ quid, so the date should be on the official site and on the SC site and every single person that both the FC and the SC hold email details for should be advised so that anybody can contact Mr Masters with any questions they may have before the event. Thank you for pointing out Everton to me. www.evertonfc.com/news/2018/10/02/general-meetingPrior to relying to Epping last night I too carried out a straw poll. I looked on the websites of 6 further clubs, using 'AGM' and 'Annual General Meeting' in the search function: Bristol City; Swindon Town; Coventry City; Yeovil Town; Plymouth Argyle, and Cardiff City. A couple of clubs had articles in the past about their supporters AGM, but none of the returns came back with notification of the club's own AGM. I no longer care as I support Prescott Cables.
|
|
|
Post by johnmalyckyj on Jun 12, 2019 21:40:29 GMT
What is anyone going to ask the auditors/accountannts? (Grant Thornton and Taylor Wessing) Why were you late? At best you are going to get the technical accounting response that was given the other day, which 99% of the audience wouldn't understand
And I say that as an accountant.
Better off asking the club if they will change the auditors/accountants after the delays
The suggestion that the Auditors should have been in attendance or could have for a fee shows the degree of nonsense and complete lack of knowledge some people have about how company's work. Due to nature of my employment I probably attended 1500 at least AGMs as given no choice, and not once ever have I seen the external Audit firm in attendance. Even if they were (and they wouldnt) they could say absolutely nothing due to client confidentiality and would limit comment to the audit opinions already in the accounts. If GT the 5th largest audit firm in country went to AGMs of audit clients they'd go to 100000 meetings across the UK every year!! I have no idea what some people think an auditor does. In respect of the accounts they test the entries against ledgers and perform statutory tests to enable them to to draft their opinion. They do not provide assurance that everything is ok, veracity of the figures (assuming tests are ok) or comment on the organisations future, other than the going concern opinion which is a requirement of the professional standards. I have seen Rovers accounts for over 40 years I doubt I have seen a single one where the auditors opinion didnt require the owner to say that they are willing to fund the business for a further 12 months. That is not to say that they WILL ONLY support for 12 months as some have concluded. The auditor only needs to know about 12 months and further than that is out of scope of this type of audit. Why people think this line in the accounts means a definite cut and run in 12 months is beyond ridiculous. Which takes me to the next point. you simply cant rock up to a meeting and slander people unless you have hard facts to support the accusation. Im sich of hearing Hani wont do this, Mr AQ senior wants that from people who have never spoken to either of these people, or if they had they never asked these question and even if they did never got an answer!! Frankly if people want to see what happens when the AQs get sick of club, the quickest way to find out is make unsubstantiated allegation based on no truth or evidence and what some trouble maker has started as a rumour, probably for entertainment purposes. For goodness sake those involved, grow up, find a hobby or at least tie your 'sauce' to a lie detector before you start spreading their words....... Ive left the forum for many months to avoid nonsense like this, and hope never to return... Well I was there last night. Like Manc for the sake of my own mental health I now try to avoid the message boards as much as I can. I went into the meeting "cold" because I didn't know what the latest rumour or popular opinion was. Very quickly it became apparent that there were a few people with a clear agenda against the current Board. It is also clear now that the Supporters Club and Presidents Club have issues with the Board. The reality is that the owners may do what they want, the days of lobbying individual members of the Board with a particular point of view to further a cause are long gone. The simple fact is that both of these supporters groups need to find a new role to make themselves relevant not just to the Board but to the fan base. It wasn't the best presented AGM I have attended and if I am honest a bit toe curling at times, this feeling came both from the floor and the top table who did not cover themselves in glory. However when a Board of Directors is faced with a few individuals who seem hell bent on causing the maximum amount of embarrassment then you have recipe for disaster. When an individual suggests to the President of a company that he knows what his brother thinks about the internal affairs of that organisation then inevitably things will be difficult. I say that as a vociferous critic of the previous regime, but my opinions and questions to them were evidence based. None of the criticisms or questions I heard last night were evidenced based. In the end I felt that the Board dealt with most of the questions fairly and honestly but there were a couple of gaps that I felt were left hanging. The Supporters Club had a legitimate question about the issue of their share certificates in respect of the Share Scheme but they should have raised it within the official business and they should have insisted it be recorded within that time, I didn't find the response entirely convincing. I was concerned about the lack of participation by the Supporters Club Board representative during the meeting and would suggest that there maybe a link between that and the issue of the certificates, why has he not been able to resolve that issue? We had a passage during the meeting when a couple of individuals complained about spending, but when challenged about what their specific worries were they were not able to explain them. Did they really want a return to the rank incompetence of the previous regime.....errr no coherent response. There was also criticism that Board members were not actually Rovers supporters, well welcome to the new reality of professional football...... I found myself thinking that if I was in the position of Wael given the level of hostility from a few individuals I would be asking myself what I was doing wasting my time and money in this enterprise. Well he gave the answer towards the end of the meeting rounding on his critics. I still feel that the club is now in better hands then it was under the previous regime, but I felt less easy than I did 12 months ago last night but that was partly due to what I consider to be a poorly chaired meeting. The simple fact is that there are no local business people who are willing to fund Football League clubs incurring the level of annual losses that a club such as ours as was the case in the "old days". if you can find them, then good luck. Kind regards John Malyckyj
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Jun 12, 2019 21:46:38 GMT
That's a good read thank you Mr Scrabble
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2019 22:26:20 GMT
The suggestion that the Auditors should have been in attendance or could have for a fee shows the degree of nonsense and complete lack of knowledge some people have about how company's work. Due to nature of my employment I probably attended 1500 at least AGMs as given no choice, and not once ever have I seen the external Audit firm in attendance. Even if they were (and they wouldnt) they could say absolutely nothing due to client confidentiality and would limit comment to the audit opinions already in the accounts. If GT the 5th largest audit firm in country went to AGMs of audit clients they'd go to 100000 meetings across the UK every year!! I have no idea what some people think an auditor does. In respect of the accounts they test the entries against ledgers and perform statutory tests to enable them to to draft their opinion. They do not provide assurance that everything is ok, veracity of the figures (assuming tests are ok) or comment on the organisations future, other than the going concern opinion which is a requirement of the professional standards. I have seen Rovers accounts for over 40 years I doubt I have seen a single one where the auditors opinion didnt require the owner to say that they are willing to fund the business for a further 12 months. That is not to say that they WILL ONLY support for 12 months as some have concluded. The auditor only needs to know about 12 months and further than that is out of scope of this type of audit. Why people think this line in the accounts means a definite cut and run in 12 months is beyond ridiculous. Which takes me to the next point. you simply cant rock up to a meeting and slander people unless you have hard facts to support the accusation. Im sich of hearing Hani wont do this, Mr AQ senior wants that from people who have never spoken to either of these people, or if they had they never asked these question and even if they did never got an answer!! Frankly if people want to see what happens when the AQs get sick of club, the quickest way to find out is make unsubstantiated allegation based on no truth or evidence and what some trouble maker has started as a rumour, probably for entertainment purposes. For goodness sake those involved, grow up, find a hobby or at least tie your 'sauce' to a lie detector before you start spreading their words....... Ive left the forum for many months to avoid nonsense like this, and hope never to return... Well I was there last night. Like Manc for the sake of my own mental health I now try to avoid the message boards as much as I can. I went into the meeting "cold" because I didn't know what the latest rumour or popular opinion was. Very quickly it became apparent that there were a few people with a clear agenda against the current Board. It is also clear now that the Supporters Club and Presidents Club have issues with the Board. The reality is that the owners may do what they want, the days of lobbying individual members of the Board with a particular point of view to further a cause are long gone. The simple fact is that both of these supporters groups need to find a new role to make themselves relevant not just to the Board but to the fan base. It wasn't the best presented AGM I have attended and if I am honest a bit toe curling at times, this feeling came both from the floor and the top table who did not cover themselves in glory. However when a Board of Directors is faced with a few individuals who seem hell bent on causing the maximum amount of embarrassment then you have recipe for disaster. When an individual suggests to the President of a company that he knows what his brother thinks about the internal affairs of that organisation then inevitably things will be difficult. I say that as a vociferous critic of the previous regime, but my opinions and questions to them were evidence based. None of the criticisms or questions I heard last night were evidenced based. In the end I felt that the Board dealt with most of the questions fairly and honestly but there were a couple of gaps that I felt were left hanging. The Supporters Club had a legitimate question about the issue of their share certificates in respect of the Share Scheme but they should have raised it within the official business and they should have insisted it be recorded within that time, I didn't find the response entirely convincing. I was concerned about the lack of participation by the Supporters Club Board representative during the meeting and would suggest that there maybe a link between that and the issue of the certificates, why has he not been able to resolve that issue? We had a passage during the meeting when a couple of individuals complained about spending, but when challenged about what their specific worries were they were not able to explain them. Did they really want a return to the rank incompetence of the previous regime.....errr no coherent response. There was also criticism that Board members were not actually Rovers supporters, well welcome to the new reality of professional football...... I found myself thinking that if I was in the position of Wael given the level of hostility from a few individuals I would be asking myself what I was doing wasting my time and money in this enterprise. Well he gave the answer towards the end of the meeting rounding on his critics. I still feel that the club is now in better hands then it was under the previous regime, but I felt less easy than I did 12 months ago last night but that was partly due to what I consider to be a poorly chaired meeting. The simple fact is that there are no local business people who are willing to fund Football League clubs incurring the level of annual losses that a club such as ours as was the case in the "old days". if you can find them, then good luck. Kind regards John Malyckyj Thanks for that John.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2019 23:24:48 GMT
What is anyone going to ask the auditors/accountannts? (Grant Thornton and Taylor Wessing) Why were you late? At best you are going to get the technical accounting response that was given the other day, which 99% of the audience wouldn't understand
And I say that as an accountant.
Better off asking the club if they will change the auditors/accountants after the delays
The suggestion that the Auditors should have been in attendance or could have for a fee shows the degree of nonsense and complete lack of knowledge some people have about how company's work. Due to nature of my employment I probably attended 1500 at least AGMs as given no choice, and not once ever have I seen the external Audit firm in attendance. Even if they were (and they wouldnt) they could say absolutely nothing due to client confidentiality and would limit comment to the audit opinions already in the accounts. If GT the 5th largest audit firm in country went to AGMs of audit clients they'd go to 100000 meetings across the UK every year!! Good to hear from you Manc. These things get lost in translation, but from what Mike wrote it sounded as if the top table put forward the suggestion that the auditors were not there as they ''were seldom asked questions and would have charged a fee''? Can anyone who was actually there shed any light on this? BTW, I get equally frustrated with the same couple of people constantly stating that these owners saved us from administration. They have no evidence to support that, but they've been saying it for years. Welcome to the internet, where in a lot of people's minds opinion is the same thing as fact.
|
|