Shepherd: Betrayed by my friends

[ChezGiven]

So this whole argument boils down to whether taking £300k out of the business a year for a warehouse service (and no one knows if this was an appropriate amount or not) basically means Shepherd was bad for the club???

 

Abramovich has laundered money stolen from the Russian people through Chelsea but we'd all take his immoral gotten gains at the drop of a hat if it meant increased investment and success.

 

Didnt Shepherd Offshore make money out the Bosnian and Serbian war at one point? There are no morals in business, just codes of conduct. Its naive to think otherwise.

 

Just think, whatever deals Ashley does with retail supplies and stocks across his numerous businesses, we wont hear a thing about the NUFC related activity.

 

We lived in an imperfect and immoral wolrd beforehand and we still do. The names have changed and thats it so far.

[Mick]

 

Have you answered my question to you "why were Leeds, Chelsea and Liverpool getting better crowds than us pre-1992 but aren't now" yet, as you brought this particular angle into the other discussion yourself  mackems.gif

 

I've got another one. Are you happy with our net outlay of 1.7m, the poorest since, eeeer, when exactly ? One of the lowest top league clubs, which hasn't happened since, eeerr, the days of McKeag etc ? If we buy a player or two in the last week before the deadline, will they be "panic signings" [like Shepherd and the Halls] or will they be OK because its not Shepherd and the Halls  mackems.gif

 

You're still a joke

 

 

 

In 2004 we made money from transfers, we brought more in than we spent, something like £10,400,000.

 

If you were a proper fan you would have known that.

[Guest Knightrider]

So this whole argument boils down to whether taking £300k out of the business a year for a warehouse service (and no one knows if this was an appropriate amount or not) basically means Shepherd was bad for the club???

 

No, that's far too simplistic. However (for me anyway) this one area, added with all the others, just adds to the case for why I was against his chairmanship at Newcastle United.

[Mick]

So this whole argument boils down to whether taking £300k out of the business a year for a warehouse service (and no one knows if this was an appropriate amount or not) basically means Shepherd was bad for the club???

 

Abramovich has laundered money stolen from the Russian people through Chelsea but we'd all take his immoral gotten gains at the drop of a hat if it meant increased investment and success.

 

Didnt Shepherd Offshore make money out the Bosnian and Serbian war at one point? There are no morals in business, just codes of conduct. Its naive to think otherwise.

 

Just think, whatever deals Ashley does with retail supplies and stocks across his numerous businesses, we wont hear a thing about the NUFC related activity.

 

We lived in an imperfect and immoral wolrd beforehand and we still do. The names have changed and thats it so far.

 

People kill others, it doesn't make it right for me to do the same.

[Guest Knightrider]

 

Anyway by money I'm talking about selling a club warehouse to his brother on the cheap then renting it back using fans' money at double the rate.

 

 

I've seen this allegation before, but never saw the original evidence of it. Where was it sourced from? It just seems to me to be very strange that the other shareholders would allow something like this if they or the club were not benefiting from it.

 

It's no "allegation". It's a matter of public record. Why did the rest of the board allow it? Because they were all friends and relatives. Nothing illegal about ripping fans off this way, either.

 

Here:

 

It is worth recalling here a few of the lowlights from Mr Shepherd's own career. Let's go back eight years, when his company, Shepherd Offshore plc, sold a warehouse, quite legally it should be said, to his brother, Bruce, for £175,000. Newcastle then did a 17-year deal with Bruce Shepherd to store their merchandise in the warehouse at an annual rent of £150,000. That is £2.5 million.

 

(Article includes many other lowlights from Shepherd's career.)

 

http://football.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,4284,1456030,00.html

 

 

 

That's a newspaper article. Where is the "public record" of this?

Even according to that article it wasn't a club owned warehouse which he sold to his brother on the cheap, it belonged to Shepherd Offshore.

Who's to say £150,000 isn't the going rate for the storage, and I'd assume distribution of stock?

 

Would you also be outraged if we were to ditch the Adidas kit sponsorship and replace it with a deal with, for example, Lonsdale?

 

Perhaps I should more correctly have said "in the public domain" rather than "matter of public record". It doesn't matter either way. The point is that the facts are out there, and undisputed.

 

As for the "going rate" for storage, let's think this one through, eh?

 

Newcastle United plc has warehousing needs, and Shepherd Offshore pic has a warehouse it doesn't need, market value £175,000. Hmm. Tricky one. Hey, I've got an idea! How about Shepherd Offshore pic sells the warehouse to Newcastle United plc, thus sorting the club's warehousing needs for the forseeable future – and avoiding a solution that diverts £2.5 million of the club's revenues into the chairman's brother's bank account.

 

Shepherd, the chairman of a public company, was not, in short, acting in the best interests of that company.

 

I can't believe anyone is trying to defend this shit, tbh.

 

As for your last question, the situation is different now. It's no longer a public company. What does it matter if Ashely chooses not to take Adidas money and instead puts Lonsdale on the shirt? It's just him shuffling his own money around within his own private business.

 

If a local council was caught doing the same thing there would be a public enquiry and an outrage.

 

It isn't a local council, its a business. Its the way of the world, people who run business do this sort of thing all over the world. And the amount of money involved is completely insignificant. I don't know why you think it has an impact, and if you accept it doesn't, why are you bothered ?

 

Far worse would be directors who didn't attempt to capitalise on the potential support of the club, now that is what I call taking the piss out of supporters and letting them down.

 

 

 

So why did you use Souness' links with Rangers against him over Boumsong, wasn't he just helping his mates too? Sorry but I just can't accept these things, even though I know it's common and nothing illegal, doesn't mean I should be happy with it though which I wasn't, I thought it showed FS's true intentions which were to keep himself, his brother and son and their cronies in a cushy job at the expense of NUFC's best interests if so, otherwise he wouldn't have spunked away club money like that, or rather fans' money.

 

When you read about how KK paid his entire staff's wages for something like 4 months back when it was uncertain whether we'd stay up or go down/go bust and told the club if he couldn't keep us up, to not pay him, you kind of get a dislike for carry on like that. And he wasn't even a Geordie...

 

Souness was an employee, hired and fired by the Halls and Shepherd. They were the major shareholders, they OWNED the club. In all walks of life, people who OWN business do things like this. I'm not saying I approve of it at all, its just life.

 

If YOU ran a business, would you not look after your own family by giving them business which was profitable to both parties ?

 

 

 

You had a go at Souness for helping out Rangers, yet give FS a pass for helping out his brother using the club's money, it wasn't his money, but the club's. As a PLC he was Chairman and major shareholder, he didn't own the club though, he was very much an employee like Souness.

 

As for your other question, no I wouldn't try and help my family out, I'd help them out using my own money. It isn't as if FS's brother wasn't drawing a very good wage from the club anyway, he was, and he is a director, a well paid one, of his own company too.

 

I think the word I'm looking for is: Greed!

 

It is business. It happens everywhere. If it benefits both parties, and they are owners of the business, its business. It is also above board and legal.

 

When employees do it, its basically stealing, fraud or cheating your employer. This is why the transfer is allegedly being investigated.

 

 

 

You've just skimmed over my post, FS was an employee of the club, an employee of shareholders and the fans who paid him a salary to make money for the business, not divert some of it away into his brother's bank account. What he did is no better than Souness helping out Rangers which you used against him like a stick, as did many others rightly or wrongly. You can't hang one and then pardon the other for the same "crime".

[Mick]

 

You've just skimmed over my post, FS was an employee of the club, an employee of shareholders and the fans whp paid him a salary to make money for the business, not divert some of it away into his brother's bank account. What he did is no better than Souness helping out Rangers which you used against him like a stick, as did many others rightly or wrongly. You can't hang one and then pardon the other for the same "crime".

 

Trim your posts.  

 

Edit, he did it while claiming to be a fan first, Chairman second, aye right.

[Guest Knightrider]

 

You've just skimmed over my post, FS was an employee of the club, an employee of shareholders and the fans whp paid him a salary to make money for the business, not divert some of it away into his brother's bank account. What he did is no better than Souness helping out Rangers which you used against him like a stick, as did many others rightly or wrongly. You can't hang one and then pardon the other for the same "crime".

 

Trim your posts. 

 

Edit, he did it while claiming to be a fan first, Chairman second, aye right.

 

FS is very much like your typical player, cares only about his own end, i.e. in his case money, ego, his family and associates.

[NE5]

 

Have you answered my question to you "why were Leeds, Chelsea and Liverpool getting better crowds than us pre-1992 but aren't now" yet, as you brought this particular angle into the other discussion yourself  mackems.gif

 

I've got another one. Are you happy with our net outlay of 1.7m, the poorest since, eeeer, when exactly ? One of the lowest top league clubs, which hasn't happened since, eeerr, the days of McKeag etc ? If we buy a player or two in the last week before the deadline, will they be "panic signings" [like Shepherd and the Halls] or will they be OK because its not Shepherd and the Halls  mackems.gif

 

You're still a joke

 

 

 

In 2004 we made money from transfers, we brought more in than we spent, something like £10,400,000.

 

If you were a proper fan you would have known that.

 

I knew you wouldn't reply

 

 

[OzzieMandias]

 

Anyway by money I'm talking about selling a club warehouse to his brother on the cheap then renting it back using fans' money at double the rate.

 

 

I've seen this allegation before, but never saw the original evidence of it. Where was it sourced from? It just seems to me to be very strange that the other shareholders would allow something like this if they or the club were not benefiting from it.

 

It's no "allegation". It's a matter of public record. Why did the rest of the board allow it? Because they were all friends and relatives. Nothing illegal about ripping fans off this way, either.

 

Here:

 

It is worth recalling here a few of the lowlights from Mr Shepherd's own career. Let's go back eight years, when his company, Shepherd Offshore plc, sold a warehouse, quite legally it should be said, to his brother, Bruce, for £175,000. Newcastle then did a 17-year deal with Bruce Shepherd to store their merchandise in the warehouse at an annual rent of £150,000. That is £2.5 million.

 

(Article includes many other lowlights from Shepherd's career.)

 

http://football.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,4284,1456030,00.html

 

 

 

That's a newspaper article. Where is the "public record" of this?

Even according to that article it wasn't a club owned warehouse which he sold to his brother on the cheap, it belonged to Shepherd Offshore.

Who's to say £150,000 isn't the going rate for the storage, and I'd assume distribution of stock?

 

Would you also be outraged if we were to ditch the Adidas kit sponsorship and replace it with a deal with, for example, Lonsdale?

 

Perhaps I should more correctly have said "in the public domain" rather than "matter of public record". It doesn't matter either way. The point is that the facts are out there, and undisputed.

 

As for the "going rate" for storage, let's think this one through, eh?

 

Newcastle United plc has warehousing needs, and Shepherd Offshore pic has a warehouse it doesn't need, market value £175,000. Hmm. Tricky one. Hey, I've got an idea! How about Shepherd Offshore pic sells the warehouse to Newcastle United plc, thus sorting the club's warehousing needs for the forseeable future ? and avoiding a solution that diverts £2.5 million of the club's revenues into the chairman's brother's bank account.

 

Shepherd, the chairman of a public company, was not, in short, acting in the best interests of that company.

 

I can't believe anyone is trying to defend this shit, tbh.

 

As for your last question, the situation is different now. It's no longer a public company. What does it matter if Ashely chooses not to take Adidas money and instead puts Lonsdale on the shirt? It's just him shuffling his own money around within his own private business.

 

If a local council was caught doing the same thing there would be a public enquiry and an outrage.

 

It isn't a local council, its a business. Its the way of the world, people who run business do this sort of thing all over the world. And the amount of money involved is completely insignificant. I don't know why you think it has an impact, and if you accept it doesn't, why are you bothered ?

 

Far worse would be directors who didn't attempt to capitalise on the potential support of the club, now that is what I call taking the piss out of supporters and letting them down.

 

 

 

So why did you use Souness' links with Rangers against him over Boumsong, wasn't he just helping his mates too? Sorry but I just can't accept these things, even though I know it's common and nothing illegal, doesn't mean I should be happy with it though which I wasn't, I thought it showed FS's true intentions which were to keep himself, his brother and son and their cronies in a cushy job at the expense of NUFC's best interests if so, otherwise he wouldn't have spunked away club money like that, or rather fans' money.

 

When you read about how KK paid his entire staff's wages for something like 4 months back when it was uncertain whether we'd stay up or go down/go bust and told the club if he couldn't keep us up, to not pay him, you kind of get a dislike for carry on like that. And he wasn't even a Geordie...

 

Souness was an employee, hired and fired by the Halls and Shepherd. They were the major shareholders, they OWNED the club. In all walks of life, people who OWN business do things like this. I'm not saying I approve of it at all, its just life.

 

If YOU ran a business, would you not look after your own family by giving them business which was profitable to both parties ?

 

 

 

You had a go at Souness for helping out Rangers, yet give FS a pass for helping out his brother using the club's money, it wasn't his money, but the club's. As a PLC he was Chairman and major shareholder, he didn't own the club though, he was very much an employee like Souness.

 

As for your other question, no I wouldn't try and help my family out, I'd help them out using my own money. It isn't as if FS's brother wasn't drawing a very good wage from the club anyway, he was, and he is a director, a well paid one, of his own company too.

 

I think the word I'm looking for is: Greed!

 

It is business. It happens everywhere. If it benefits both parties, and they are owners of the business, its business. It is also above board and legal.

 

When employees do it, its basically stealing, fraud or cheating your employer. This is why the transfer is allegedly being investigated.

 

 

 

It didn't help out "both parties", though, did it? It helped out the chairman's brother at the expense of the club, a public company.

[NE5]

 

It is business. It happens everywhere. If it benefits both parties, and they are owners of the business, its business. It is also above board and legal.

 

When employees do it, its basically stealing, fraud or cheating your employer. This is why the transfer is allegedly being investigated.

 

 

 

You've just skimmed over my post, FS was an employee of the club, an employee of shareholders and the fans who paid him a salary to make money for the business, not divert some of it away into his brother's bank account. What he did is no better than Souness helping out Rangers which you used against him like a stick, as did many others rightly or wrongly. You can't hang one and then pardon the other for the same "crime".

 

I'm not. Shepherd was the chairman, he was the 2nd major shareholder. He and the Halls ie dogless, owned the club. If you own the company, you can set up whatever business structure that you like. It is legal and above board. It isn't theiving, fraud or cheating in any shape or form.

 

It might not be maximising profits in the best way possible, but then again, it might. You don't know. I'm not defending anybody. It is a small insignificant amount, and most people in business would run it in this way with family as partners and associates. If I was running a business and could help out a family member with his business, with no major detriment to my own, then I would. Most people would. When businessmen offer discounts to friend and family, it is the same thing. It is the way of the world.

 

Souness was a paid employee, nothing else. He had no say in how the club was run. His job was to win football games. Nothing more.

 

 

[Mick]

 

Have you answered my question to you "why were Leeds, Chelsea and Liverpool getting better crowds than us pre-1992 but aren't now" yet, as you brought this particular angle into the other discussion yourself  mackems.gif

 

I've got another one. Are you happy with our net outlay of 1.7m, the poorest since, eeeer, when exactly ? One of the lowest top league clubs, which hasn't happened since, eeerr, the days of McKeag etc ? If we buy a player or two in the last week before the deadline, will they be "panic signings" [like Shepherd and the Halls] or will they be OK because its not Shepherd and the Halls  mackems.gif

 

You're still a joke

 

 

 

In 2004 we made money from transfers, we brought more in than we spent, something like £10,400,000.

If you were a proper fan you would have known that.

 

I knew you wouldn't reply

 

 

 

I see what I did mention went straight over your head.    

 

We get better gates now than Leeds, Liverpool and Chelsea because they have shite boards and we had Shepherd. 

[OzzieMandias]

 

It is business. It happens everywhere. If it benefits both parties, and they are owners of the business, its business. It is also above board and legal.

 

When employees do it, its basically stealing, fraud or cheating your employer. This is why the transfer is allegedly being investigated.

 

 

 

You've just skimmed over my post, FS was an employee of the club, an employee of shareholders and the fans who paid him a salary to make money for the business, not divert some of it away into his brother's bank account. What he did is no better than Souness helping out Rangers which you used against him like a stick, as did many others rightly or wrongly. You can't hang one and then pardon the other for the same "crime".

 

I'm not. Shepherd was the chairman, he was the 2nd major shareholder. He and the Halls ie dogless, owned the club.

 

 

No they didn't. The club was a public company.

 

Look, there was a clue in the name: "Newcastle United plc".

 

What does "plc" stand for? "Public limited company."

[NE5]

 

Have you answered my question to you "why were Leeds, Chelsea and Liverpool getting better crowds than us pre-1992 but aren't now" yet, as you brought this particular angle into the other discussion yourself  mackems.gif

 

I've got another one. Are you happy with our net outlay of 1.7m, the poorest since, eeeer, when exactly ? One of the lowest top league clubs, which hasn't happened since, eeerr, the days of McKeag etc ? If we buy a player or two in the last week before the deadline, will they be "panic signings" [like Shepherd and the Halls] or will they be OK because its not Shepherd and the Halls  mackems.gif

 

You're still a joke

 

 

 

In 2004 we made money from transfers, we brought more in than we spent, something like £10,400,000.

If you were a proper fan you would have known that.

 

I knew you wouldn't reply

 

 

 

I see what I did mention went straight over your head.    

 

We get better gates now than Leeds, Liverpool and Chelsea because they have shite boards and we had Shepherd.   

 

It didn't go over my head, it just wasn't a reply. As expected. The question, which you posed yourself, was "Leeds, Liverpool and Chelsea were getting bigger crowds than us before 1992 but don't now". Why is this ?

 

However part of your 2nd line is on the right track, amazingly, unless you wish to retract it and think of anything else. Think now, there must be a reason  mackems.gif

 

 

[NE5]

 

It is business. It happens everywhere. If it benefits both parties, and they are owners of the business, its business. It is also above board and legal.

 

When employees do it, its basically stealing, fraud or cheating your employer. This is why the transfer is allegedly being investigated.

 

 

 

You've just skimmed over my post, FS was an employee of the club, an employee of shareholders and the fans who paid him a salary to make money for the business, not divert some of it away into his brother's bank account. What he did is no better than Souness helping out Rangers which you used against him like a stick, as did many others rightly or wrongly. You can't hang one and then pardon the other for the same "crime".

 

I'm not. Shepherd was the chairman, he was the 2nd major shareholder. He and the Halls ie dogless, owned the club.

 

 

No they didn't. The club was a public company.

 

Look, there was a clue in the name: "Newcastle United plc".

 

What does "plc" stand for? "Public limited company."

 

To clarify, you know for a fact that this warehouse deal, which prevented NUFC from being successful on the pitch, was not a good deal for the club and a better one could have been found elsewhere ?

 

And, you are defending Souness again  mackems.gif

 

To be perfectly honest, I don't give a toss about a poxy warehouse, the cost of which is a couple of weeks pay for Kieron Dyer or whatever.

 

 

 

[Mick]

 

It didn't go over my head, it just wasn't a reply. As expected. The question, which you posed yourself, was "Leeds, Liverpool and Chelsea were getting bigger crowds than us before 1992 but don't now". Why is this ?

 

However part of your 2nd line is on the right track, amazingly, unless you wish to retract it and think of anything else. Think now, there must be a reason  mackems.gif

 

 

 

OK then, it didn't go over your head, do you now feel a bit daft that you made a statement which was totally wrong yet it was made to look like a fact?

 

Do you think Shepherd was better than Chairman who brought trophies to Liverpool and Chelsea?

[NE5]

 

It didn't go over my head, it just wasn't a reply. As expected. The question, which you posed yourself, was "Leeds, Liverpool and Chelsea were getting bigger crowds than us before 1992 but don't now". Why is this ?

 

However part of your 2nd line is on the right track, amazingly, unless you wish to retract it and think of anything else. Think now, there must be a reason  mackems.gif

 

 

 

OK then, it didn't go over your head, do you now feel a bit daft that you made a statement which was totally wrong yet it was made to look like a fact?

 

Do you think Shepherd was better than Chairman who brought trophies to Liverpool and Chelsea?

 

 

wtf are you on about  mackems.gif

 

you are trying to explain why we got lower crowds than Leeds, Chelsea and Liverpool pre-1992 and now we don't 

[OzzieMandias]

 

It is business. It happens everywhere. If it benefits both parties, and they are owners of the business, its business. It is also above board and legal.

 

When employees do it, its basically stealing, fraud or cheating your employer. This is why the transfer is allegedly being investigated.

 

 

 

You've just skimmed over my post, FS was an employee of the club, an employee of shareholders and the fans who paid him a salary to make money for the business, not divert some of it away into his brother's bank account. What he did is no better than Souness helping out Rangers which you used against him like a stick, as did many others rightly or wrongly. You can't hang one and then pardon the other for the same "crime".

 

I'm not. Shepherd was the chairman, he was the 2nd major shareholder. He and the Halls ie dogless, owned the club.

 

 

No they didn't. The club was a public company.

 

Look, there was a clue in the name: "Newcastle United plc".

 

What does "plc" stand for? "Public limited company."

 

To clarify, you know for a fact that this warehouse deal, which prevented NUFC from being successful on the pitch, was not a good deal for the club and a better one could have been found elsewhere ?

 

And, you are defending Souness again  mackems.gif

 

To be perfectly honest, I don't give a toss about a poxy warehouse, the cost of which is a couple of weeks pay for Kieron Dyer or whatever.

 

 

 

 

No, no. Surprisingly, you haven't engaged your brain before posting.

 

The cost of buying the warehouse would have been a couple of weeks of Dyer's current wages (probably about five weeks of Shearer's at the time). But the cost to the club (then a public company, by the way) of renting the exact same space ended up at about half of Bellamy's transfer fee.

[NE5]

 

It is business. It happens everywhere. If it benefits both parties, and they are owners of the business, its business. It is also above board and legal.

 

When employees do it, its basically stealing, fraud or cheating your employer. This is why the transfer is allegedly being investigated.

 

 

 

You've just skimmed over my post, FS was an employee of the club, an employee of shareholders and the fans who paid him a salary to make money for the business, not divert some of it away into his brother's bank account. What he did is no better than Souness helping out Rangers which you used against him like a stick, as did many others rightly or wrongly. You can't hang one and then pardon the other for the same "crime".

 

I'm not. Shepherd was the chairman, he was the 2nd major shareholder. He and the Halls ie dogless, owned the club.

 

 

No they didn't. The club was a public company.

 

Look, there was a clue in the name: "Newcastle United plc".

 

What does "plc" stand for? "Public limited company."

 

To clarify, you know for a fact that this warehouse deal, which prevented NUFC from being successful on the pitch, was not a good deal for the club and a better one could have been found elsewhere ?

 

And, you are defending Souness again  mackems.gif

 

To be perfectly honest, I don't give a toss about a poxy warehouse, the cost of which is a couple of weeks pay for Kieron Dyer or whatever.

 

 

 

 

No, no. Surprisingly, you haven't engaged your brain before posting.

 

The cost of buying the warehouse would have been a couple of weeks of Dyer's current wages (probably about five weeks of Shearer's at the time). But the cost to the club (then a public company, by the way) of renting the exact same space ended up at about half of Bellamy's transfer fee.

 

Whatever. The latest post in the "zoggy" thread is just for you. That cost a lot more than a warehouse.

 

 

[OzzieMandias]

Well that wasn't very clever, was it? I've taken no part in that discussion and so will not see your doubtless extremely interesting post.

[NE5]

Well that wasn't very clever, was it? I've taken no part in that discussion and so will not see your doubtless extremely interesting post.

 

Excellent.

 

Thank you and good night.

 

 

[Mick]

 

wtf are you on about  mackems.gif

 

you are trying to explain why we got lower crowds than Leeds, Chelsea and Liverpool pre-1992 and now we don't 

 

Zero credibility, I'll leave it at that, you talk rubbish and when proven wrong just act as if you haven’t.

[NE5]

 

wtf are you on about  mackems.gif

 

you are trying to explain why we got lower crowds than Leeds, Chelsea and Liverpool pre-1992 and now we don't 

 

Zero credibility, I'll leave it at that, you talk rubbish and when proven wrong just act as if you haven’t.

 

hum hum.....still waiting for your reply

 

 

[Mick]

 

hum hum.....still waiting for your reply

 

 

 

http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/1937/owlhooters6hksj7.jpg

[NE5]

You asked the question yourself, yet have not responded when I asked you to clarify and tell us why this was the case, and not the case now :

 

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php?topic=43146.246

 

Why did Leeds who were 4th top of the 1st division only have 12,000 on average more than we did in 1991?  Why did Villa only have 9,000 more in the same division as Leeds?  Why did Chelsea who were 5th in the 1st Division only average 5,000 more than we did in 1991?

 

And you say I have no credibility, you won't even expand on your own questions  mackems.gif mackems.gif

[Guest Invicta_Toon]

HTT being totally hypocritical tbh.

 

with shepherd it's fans money, with Ashley, he can do what he likes (not that you can find out what he does anyway)