Jayson Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 i have no problem with the job the scouts are doing to be honest, who does? problem is with the money (not) being spent nowt else "limitations breed creativity" i like that actually, sums it up pretty well Sorry not directly pointed at you, but the fact that we're not spending vast sums of money keeps coming up. I still find it strange that in every walk of life you look to spend the least amount of money to bring the greatest benefit, except for football. Of course I would love another striker brought in and a decent replacement/backup for Enrique as a minimum, but for some people it appears that would rather we had spent £15m on a striker of Ba's ability and another £15m on a player of Cabaye's ability, and then spent another £10m on a winger like Marveaux. I like the fact that we are looking outside of the UK for signings as they give much better value for money, and the fact we are exploiting clauses like are we is to me, a good thing. Everyone is happy we're looking for Bargains. People are not happy that we sold our best asset & then used the money to balance our finances. Which is what happened. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 what jayson said, bargains are great and i fully endorse them - they should not, however, be the sole focus of our team building plans as i've already stated i personally feel this will lead to us being fucked in the long run Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 Aye, another case of where it's somewhere in the middle ground. Most people are just asking for some form of significant investment in the team, given the money we've recouped from sales and the increased revenue we'll have since getting promoted and maintaining our PL position. In fairness, we have bid £10m+ for two players if reports are to be believed, so the money does appear to be there for the "right" target. It's basically just classic late July/early August type stuff. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 i have no problem with the job the scouts are doing to be honest, who does? problem is with the money (not) being spent nowt else "limitations breed creativity" i like that actually, sums it up pretty well Sorry not directly pointed at you, but the fact that we're not spending vast sums of money keeps coming up. I still find it strange that in every walk of life you look to spend the least amount of money to bring the greatest benefit, except for football. Of course I would love another striker brought in and a decent replacement/backup for Enrique as a minimum, but for some people it appears that would rather we had spent £15m on a striker of Ba's ability and another £15m on a player of Cabaye's ability, and then spent another £10m on a winger like Marveaux. I like the fact that we are looking outside of the UK for signings as they give much better value for money, and the fact we are exploiting clauses like are we is to me, a good thing. Everyone is happy we're looking for Bargains. People are not happy that we sold our best asset & then used the money to balance our finances. Which is what happened. So a company that has recently been losing money and has a bit of debt uses a windfall to plug some of the gaps? Whilst still recruiting new players in the summer window, exploiting contract loopholes/expirations to reduce these costs. And that's a bad thing? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 Aye, another case of where it's somewhere in the middle ground. Most people are just asking for some form of significant investment in the team, given the money we've recouped from sales and the increased revenue we'll have since getting promoted and maintaining our PL position. In fairness, we have bid £10m+ for two players if reports are to be believed, so the money does appear to be there for the "right" target. It's basically just classic late July/early August type stuff. this, no-one was expecting 35m in fees to be lashed out personally on the gameiro and gervihno bids i think they went in strong for 2 players they felt very strongly would increase in value, or at the very worst not depreciate once they were dead they didn't have anyone else with the same profile and thus haven't moved strongly for them, hence the tooing and froing with erdinc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 So a company that has recently been losing money and has a bit of debt uses a windfall to plug some of the gaps? Whilst still recruiting new players in the summer window, exploiting contract loopholes/expirations to reduce these costs. And that's a bad thing? it's certainly not a good thing when you're looking to progress as a football team and have manageable debt... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtype Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 To summarize, the problem is with the overall lack of investment, not the manner through which we're making the signings we are making. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Duper Branko Strupar Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 How much extra would it have cost to deploy a scout or two in the likes of Spain, Italy, Germany etc? I think there are a few football teams in those countries too. May have been worth a look. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayson Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 i have no problem with the job the scouts are doing to be honest, who does? problem is with the money (not) being spent nowt else "limitations breed creativity" i like that actually, sums it up pretty well Sorry not directly pointed at you, but the fact that we're not spending vast sums of money keeps coming up. I still find it strange that in every walk of life you look to spend the least amount of money to bring the greatest benefit, except for football. Of course I would love another striker brought in and a decent replacement/backup for Enrique as a minimum, but for some people it appears that would rather we had spent £15m on a striker of Ba's ability and another £15m on a player of Cabaye's ability, and then spent another £10m on a winger like Marveaux. I like the fact that we are looking outside of the UK for signings as they give much better value for money, and the fact we are exploiting clauses like are we is to me, a good thing. Everyone is happy we're looking for Bargains. People are not happy that we sold our best asset & then used the money to balance our finances. Which is what happened. So a company that has recently been losing money and has a bit of debt uses a windfall to plug some of the gaps? Whilst still recruiting new players in the summer window, exploiting contract loopholes/expirations to reduce these costs. And that's a bad thing? Two types of owners. One sells your best asset, then finds bargains he could have found anyway and uses the money to cover their wages to stop any future loss. The other owner doesnt cover wages using that money, he accepts the potential for a little loss because of them. He reinvests the money back into the transfer fees for other players, with the potential to bring more success to the club & increase the clubs turnover because of that. Along with the bargains hes found, he gives himself a very good chance of achieving this. The 2nd one risks that because he loves football and he loves the club. That is why he bought into it. The first owner is Mike Ashley. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prophet Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 Good sides carry debt because they invest in quality. No one is asking them to break the bank but we're currently running at a profit this transfer winndow, which given previous assurances. is quite frankly unacceptable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 The Sunday Sun revealed Sturridge to be a target a fortnight ago and, while he remains on the list, United would prefer to tie up a permanent deal and are reluctant to wait until mid to late August to broker a deal for the Chelsea man. fucking great Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 So a company that has recently been losing money and has a bit of debt uses a windfall to plug some of the gaps? Whilst still recruiting new players in the summer window, exploiting contract loopholes/expirations to reduce these costs. And that's a bad thing? it's certainly not a good thing when you're looking to progress as a football team and have manageable debt... We could have spent £10m on Carlton Cole rather than Ba on a free. i know which i would rather have. We spent £4.5m on a French intenrational midfielded. Or we could have spent £20m on Henderson. Again, I know which I would prefer. Of course I'd have loved us to get Gameiro or Gervinho, and we do need a left back at least for the back 4. We do however have to accept that with no European football and not being in London we're not going to get the likes of G or G easily, £35m or no £35m in our pocket. Using it to plug a few financial holes, improving the training facilities (which in teurn will hopefully help our injury record) whilst still freshening up the team is the best way that we could have used the money imo. Again, I hope that we've kept some in reserve so that should we get Europa league football next year (or look like we're in with a shout of it in Jan), we have the ability to spent some more cash then. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 To summarize, the problem is with the overall lack of investment, not the manner through which we're making the signings we are making. sums up my feelings Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guinness_fiend Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 i have no problem with the job the scouts are doing to be honest, who does? problem is with the money (not) being spent nowt else "limitations breed creativity" i like that actually, sums it up pretty well Sorry not directly pointed at you, but the fact that we're not spending vast sums of money keeps coming up. I still find it strange that in every walk of life you look to spend the least amount of money to bring the greatest benefit, except for football. Of course I would love another striker brought in and a decent replacement/backup for Enrique as a minimum, but for some people it appears that would rather we had spent £15m on a striker of Ba's ability and another £15m on a player of Cabaye's ability, and then spent another £10m on a winger like Marveaux. I like the fact that we are looking outside of the UK for signings as they give much better value for money, and the fact we are exploiting clauses like are we is to me, a good thing. Everyone is happy we're looking for Bargains. People are not happy that we sold our best asset & then used the money to balance our finances. Which is what happened. So a company that has recently been losing money and has a bit of debt uses a windfall to plug some of the gaps? Whilst still recruiting new players in the summer window, exploiting contract loopholes/expirations to reduce these costs. And that's a bad thing? Two types of owners. One sells your best asset, then finds bargains he could have found anyway and uses the money to cover their wages to stop any future loss. The other owner doesnt cover wages using that money, he accepts the potential for a little loss because of them. He reinvests the money back into the transfer fees for other players, with the potential to bring more success to the club & increase the clubs turnover because of that. Along with the bargains hes found, he gives himself a very good chance of achieving this. The 2nd one risks that because he loves football and he loves the club. That is why he bought into it. The first owner is Mike Ashley. Just out of curiosity, how many teams in the Premiership are owned by the former type? (Serious question, as I have no idea.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prophet Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 The whole we'd of had to pay over inflated fee x for player y is frankly ridiculous when there is genuine qulaity going for reasonable prices. Yes we've improved the squad this summer on a shoe string budget, but it could be improved further if we bother to invest substantially. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtype Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 i have no problem with the job the scouts are doing to be honest, who does? problem is with the money (not) being spent nowt else "limitations breed creativity" i like that actually, sums it up pretty well Sorry not directly pointed at you, but the fact that we're not spending vast sums of money keeps coming up. I still find it strange that in every walk of life you look to spend the least amount of money to bring the greatest benefit, except for football. Of course I would love another striker brought in and a decent replacement/backup for Enrique as a minimum, but for some people it appears that would rather we had spent £15m on a striker of Ba's ability and another £15m on a player of Cabaye's ability, and then spent another £10m on a winger like Marveaux. I like the fact that we are looking outside of the UK for signings as they give much better value for money, and the fact we are exploiting clauses like are we is to me, a good thing. Everyone is happy we're looking for Bargains. People are not happy that we sold our best asset & then used the money to balance our finances. Which is what happened. So a company that has recently been losing money and has a bit of debt uses a windfall to plug some of the gaps? Whilst still recruiting new players in the summer window, exploiting contract loopholes/expirations to reduce these costs. And that's a bad thing? Two types of owners. One sells your best asset, then finds bargains he could have found anyway and uses the money to cover their wages to stop any future loss. The other owner doesnt cover wages using that money, he accepts the potential for a little loss because of them. He reinvests the money back into the transfer fees for other players, with the potential to bring more success to the club & increase the clubs turnover because of that. Along with the bargains hes found, he gives himself a very good chance of achieving this. The 2nd one risks that because he loves football and he loves the club. That is why he bought into it. The first owner is Mike Ashley. Just out of curiosity, how many teams in the Premiership are owned by the former type? (Serious question, as I have no idea.) Manchester City, Manchester United, Norwich City, Swansea City, Sunderland, and Wolves are the only teams with a net loss this transfer window so far Yes, yes, I know none of those teams sold Andy Carroll for 35m in the winter. Just saying. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 The whole we'd of had to pay over inflated fee x for player y is frankly ridiculous when there is genuine qulaity going for reasonable prices. Yes we've improved the squad this summer on a shoe string budget, but it could be improved further if we bother to invest substantially. right, it's always extremes - ask for investment and it gets answered with "we could have paid 10m for carlton cole" well aye, we could, but we could also maybe have scouted another player that might have been mint for the same price, or more, or less, if we were serious about wanting quality on the pitch Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 The whole we'd of had to pay over inflated fee x for player y is frankly ridiculous when there is genuine qulaity going for reasonable prices. Yes we've improved the squad this summer on a shoe string budget, but it could be improved further if we bother to invest substantially. right, it's always extremes - ask for investment and it gets answered with "we could have paid 10m for carlton cole" well aye, we could, but we could also maybe have scouted another player that might have been mint for the same price, or more, or less, if we were serious about wanting quality on the pitch We did - we got Ba on a free Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guinness_fiend Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 i have no problem with the job the scouts are doing to be honest, who does? problem is with the money (not) being spent nowt else "limitations breed creativity" i like that actually, sums it up pretty well Sorry not directly pointed at you, but the fact that we're not spending vast sums of money keeps coming up. I still find it strange that in every walk of life you look to spend the least amount of money to bring the greatest benefit, except for football. Of course I would love another striker brought in and a decent replacement/backup for Enrique as a minimum, but for some people it appears that would rather we had spent £15m on a striker of Ba's ability and another £15m on a player of Cabaye's ability, and then spent another £10m on a winger like Marveaux. I like the fact that we are looking outside of the UK for signings as they give much better value for money, and the fact we are exploiting clauses like are we is to me, a good thing. Everyone is happy we're looking for Bargains. People are not happy that we sold our best asset & then used the money to balance our finances. Which is what happened. So a company that has recently been losing money and has a bit of debt uses a windfall to plug some of the gaps? Whilst still recruiting new players in the summer window, exploiting contract loopholes/expirations to reduce these costs. And that's a bad thing? Two types of owners. One sells your best asset, then finds bargains he could have found anyway and uses the money to cover their wages to stop any future loss. The other owner doesnt cover wages using that money, he accepts the potential for a little loss because of them. He reinvests the money back into the transfer fees for other players, with the potential to bring more success to the club & increase the clubs turnover because of that. Along with the bargains hes found, he gives himself a very good chance of achieving this. The 2nd one risks that because he loves football and he loves the club. That is why he bought into it. The first owner is Mike Ashley. Just out of curiosity, how many teams in the Premiership are owned by the former type? (Serious question, as I have no idea.) Manchester City, Manchester United, Norwich City, Swansea City, Sunderland, and Wolves are the only teams with a net loss this transfer window so far Yes, yes, I know none of those teams sold Andy Carroll for 35m in the winter. Just saying. Sorry, I was being a 'tard. I meant the latter type (the "love the club" type). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 i have no problem with the job the scouts are doing to be honest, who does? problem is with the money (not) being spent nowt else "limitations breed creativity" i like that actually, sums it up pretty well Sorry not directly pointed at you, but the fact that we're not spending vast sums of money keeps coming up. I still find it strange that in every walk of life you look to spend the least amount of money to bring the greatest benefit, except for football. Of course I would love another striker brought in and a decent replacement/backup for Enrique as a minimum, but for some people it appears that would rather we had spent £15m on a striker of Ba's ability and another £15m on a player of Cabaye's ability, and then spent another £10m on a winger like Marveaux. I like the fact that we are looking outside of the UK for signings as they give much better value for money, and the fact we are exploiting clauses like are we is to me, a good thing. Everyone is happy we're looking for Bargains. People are not happy that we sold our best asset & then used the money to balance our finances. Which is what happened. So a company that has recently been losing money and has a bit of debt uses a windfall to plug some of the gaps? Whilst still recruiting new players in the summer window, exploiting contract loopholes/expirations to reduce these costs. And that's a bad thing? Two types of owners. One sells your best asset, then finds bargains he could have found anyway and uses the money to cover their wages to stop any future loss. The other owner doesnt cover wages using that money, he accepts the potential for a little loss because of them. He reinvests the money back into the transfer fees for other players, with the potential to bring more success to the club & increase the clubs turnover because of that. Along with the bargains hes found, he gives himself a very good chance of achieving this. The 2nd one risks that because he loves football and he loves the club. That is why he bought into it. The first owner is Mike Ashley. Just out of curiosity, how many teams in the Premiership are owned by the former type? (Serious question, as I have no idea.) Manchester City, Manchester United, Norwich City, Swansea City, Sunderland, and Wolves are the only teams with a net loss this transfer window so far Yes, yes, I know none of those teams sold Andy Carroll for 35m in the winter. Just saying. Man U are spending the Ronaldo money this summer in reality though Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 i have no problem with the job the scouts are doing to be honest, who does? problem is with the money (not) being spent nowt else "limitations breed creativity" i like that actually, sums it up pretty well Sorry not directly pointed at you, but the fact that we're not spending vast sums of money keeps coming up. I still find it strange that in every walk of life you look to spend the least amount of money to bring the greatest benefit, except for football. Of course I would love another striker brought in and a decent replacement/backup for Enrique as a minimum, but for some people it appears that would rather we had spent £15m on a striker of Ba's ability and another £15m on a player of Cabaye's ability, and then spent another £10m on a winger like Marveaux. I like the fact that we are looking outside of the UK for signings as they give much better value for money, and the fact we are exploiting clauses like are we is to me, a good thing. Everyone is happy we're looking for Bargains. People are not happy that we sold our best asset & then used the money to balance our finances. Which is what happened. So a company that has recently been losing money and has a bit of debt uses a windfall to plug some of the gaps? Whilst still recruiting new players in the summer window, exploiting contract loopholes/expirations to reduce these costs. And that's a bad thing? Two types of owners. One sells your best asset, then finds bargains he could have found anyway and uses the money to cover their wages to stop any future loss. The other owner doesnt cover wages using that money, he accepts the potential for a little loss because of them. He reinvests the money back into the transfer fees for other players, with the potential to bring more success to the club & increase the clubs turnover because of that. Along with the bargains hes found, he gives himself a very good chance of achieving this. The 2nd one risks that because he loves football and he loves the club. That is why he bought into it. The first owner is Mike Ashley. Just out of curiosity, how many teams in the Premiership are owned by the former type? (Serious question, as I have no idea.) Manchester City, Manchester United, Norwich City, Swansea City, Sunderland, and Wolves are the only teams with a net loss this transfer window so far Yes, yes, I know none of those teams sold Andy Carroll for 35m in the winter. Just saying. Sorry, I was being a 'tard. I meant the latter type (the "love the club" type). Randy Learner? But then even he has reigned in the spending. No-one should be folled with what's going on at Liverpool, there will be a 'cycle' where the club is forced to break even. If the Champs League doesn't reappear, then player sales will follow to balance things up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtype Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 i have no problem with the job the scouts are doing to be honest, who does? problem is with the money (not) being spent nowt else "limitations breed creativity" i like that actually, sums it up pretty well Sorry not directly pointed at you, but the fact that we're not spending vast sums of money keeps coming up. I still find it strange that in every walk of life you look to spend the least amount of money to bring the greatest benefit, except for football. Of course I would love another striker brought in and a decent replacement/backup for Enrique as a minimum, but for some people it appears that would rather we had spent £15m on a striker of Ba's ability and another £15m on a player of Cabaye's ability, and then spent another £10m on a winger like Marveaux. I like the fact that we are looking outside of the UK for signings as they give much better value for money, and the fact we are exploiting clauses like are we is to me, a good thing. Everyone is happy we're looking for Bargains. People are not happy that we sold our best asset & then used the money to balance our finances. Which is what happened. So a company that has recently been losing money and has a bit of debt uses a windfall to plug some of the gaps? Whilst still recruiting new players in the summer window, exploiting contract loopholes/expirations to reduce these costs. And that's a bad thing? Two types of owners. One sells your best asset, then finds bargains he could have found anyway and uses the money to cover their wages to stop any future loss. The other owner doesnt cover wages using that money, he accepts the potential for a little loss because of them. He reinvests the money back into the transfer fees for other players, with the potential to bring more success to the club & increase the clubs turnover because of that. Along with the bargains hes found, he gives himself a very good chance of achieving this. The 2nd one risks that because he loves football and he loves the club. That is why he bought into it. The first owner is Mike Ashley. Just out of curiosity, how many teams in the Premiership are owned by the former type? (Serious question, as I have no idea.) Manchester City, Manchester United, Norwich City, Swansea City, Sunderland, and Wolves are the only teams with a net loss this transfer window so far Yes, yes, I know none of those teams sold Andy Carroll for 35m in the winter. Just saying. Sorry, I was being a 'tard. I meant the latter type (the "love the club" type). Randy Learner? But then even he has reigned in the spending. No-one should be folled with what's going on at Liverpool, there will be a 'cycle' where the club is forced to break even. If the Champs League doesn't reappear, then player sales will follow to balance things up. I screwed up and left out Liverpool, obviously. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtype Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 Obviously the ideal owner is the one who takes on "manageable debt" and invests wisely to naturally grow the club. The vast majority of Premiership owners either tilt towards the extreme of being stubbornly unwilling to take financial risks or the other extreme of being Mr. Moneybags. Very few get that balance right, although ours is unique in that he manages to be extra unlikable in the process. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 The whole we'd of had to pay over inflated fee x for player y is frankly ridiculous when there is genuine qulaity going for reasonable prices. Yes we've improved the squad this summer on a shoe string budget, but it could be improved further if we bother to invest substantially. right, it's always extremes - ask for investment and it gets answered with "we could have paid 10m for carlton cole" well aye, we could, but we could also maybe have scouted another player that might have been mint for the same price, or more, or less, if we were serious about wanting quality on the pitch We did - we got Ba on a free ok so we got one good striker for free, and in response to asking for the club to spend you answer with "we could have pissed 10m away on carlton cole" it doesn't add up...why can we only be astute when there's no money involved? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 i have no problem with the job the scouts are doing to be honest, who does? problem is with the money (not) being spent nowt else "limitations breed creativity" i like that actually, sums it up pretty well Sorry not directly pointed at you, but the fact that we're not spending vast sums of money keeps coming up. I still find it strange that in every walk of life you look to spend the least amount of money to bring the greatest benefit, except for football. Of course I would love another striker brought in and a decent replacement/backup for Enrique as a minimum, but for some people it appears that would rather we had spent £15m on a striker of Ba's ability and another £15m on a player of Cabaye's ability, and then spent another £10m on a winger like Marveaux. I like the fact that we are looking outside of the UK for signings as they give much better value for money, and the fact we are exploiting clauses like are we is to me, a good thing. Everyone is happy we're looking for Bargains. People are not happy that we sold our best asset & then used the money to balance our finances. Which is what happened. So a company that has recently been losing money and has a bit of debt uses a windfall to plug some of the gaps? Whilst still recruiting new players in the summer window, exploiting contract loopholes/expirations to reduce these costs. And that's a bad thing? Two types of owners. One sells your best asset, then finds bargains he could have found anyway and uses the money to cover their wages to stop any future loss. The other owner doesnt cover wages using that money, he accepts the potential for a little loss because of them. He reinvests the money back into the transfer fees for other players, with the potential to bring more success to the club & increase the clubs turnover because of that. Along with the bargains hes found, he gives himself a very good chance of achieving this. The 2nd one risks that because he loves football and he loves the club. That is why he bought into it. The first owner is Mike Ashley. Just out of curiosity, how many teams in the Premiership are owned by the former type? (Serious question, as I have no idea.) Manchester City, Manchester United, Norwich City, Swansea City, Sunderland, and Wolves are the only teams with a net loss this transfer window so far Yes, yes, I know none of those teams sold Andy Carroll for 35m in the winter. Just saying. Sorry, I was being a 'tard. I meant the latter type (the "love the club" type). Randy Learner? But then even he has reigned in the spending. No-one should be folled with what's going on at Liverpool, there will be a 'cycle' where the club is forced to break even. If the Champs League doesn't reappear, then player sales will follow to balance things up. I screwed up and left out Liverpool, obviously. I didn't notice! And I screwed up in not being able to spell fooled! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts