dragon
First Teamer
Posts: 355
|
Post by dragon on Oct 23, 2008 20:22:23 GMT
As an interested observer-not yet a member of the Trust-I can only say that the Board seem to be achieving what they set out to do-divide and conquer.May be I be bold enough to offer a little advice and that is not to conduct the businees of the Trust -or WCFC for that matter-through the medium of a public banter board. There are far more appropriate ways to advance the cause.
|
|
|
Post by tim on Oct 23, 2008 20:55:18 GMT
Precisely. This is music to the board's ears, this thread.
|
|
cg
Squad Member
Posts: 279
|
Post by cg on Oct 23, 2008 21:14:31 GMT
Sorry Creaner but your yes is a bit ambiguous, is it yes we will work with the board or is it yes we will stand off and wait. The Trust will act on behalf of the supporters, whoever is in charge. That is our remit. After the agm/egm we will talk to who has carried the vote of the shareholders and act accordingly. This does not automatically backing the victors but listening to whatever they have to say. We have always tried to remain impartial even though the perception is somewhat different. We are newly formed and we have, and will no doubt again!, make mistakes but we are determined! Well it is nice try Rob and no one doubts your own good intentions but it isn't the perception of the Trust's independence that is the problem, it is the reality that there are key people at the heart of the Trust who do not share that independence - they are inextricably linked to the SHAG, will bat firstly and foremost for SHAG and will not consider any other way forward than SHAG. That is not their problem and it is their prerogative - but it is a problem for the Trust. The warning signs about this sacrifice were flashing way back in April, but were ignored by people who had their egos sufficiently massaged by being invited to attend behind-the-scenes meetings that were never reported to the wider Trust membership (or would-be membership). Now look where it has left the Trust? There is also a problem of accountability. I am a Trust member but unless I actively go looking for it I simply have no idea what is happening within the Trust. I am privy to certain emails passed around haphazard groupings that talk about what "we" will or can or should do - but who are "we"? The Trust? The SHAG? I'm sorry, but this is a mess which started way back when certain people for their own reasons decided that other people - and I will name one, Andy Bullock - should be left off emails lists because they were deemed not to be one of us. I may not agree with Andy on some things - but he is not an enemy of WCFC. Now there is a shocking lack of clarity in the Trust's aims - not what it should be or what Supporter Trusts are like elsewhere at other clubs or its constitution, but how this one is actually being run and arguably manipulated. I am not putting the blame on Creaner - he has done and is doing his very best - but the Trust needs to be truly independent, representative of and accountable to its membership, which it isn't at the moment so cannot therefore play an active role in helping to shape the future of WCFC...only to hang onto the coat tails of the SHAG.
|
|
|
Post by alwaysnextyear on Oct 23, 2008 22:28:36 GMT
The position of the Trust is perfectly clear to me. How could anyone ( individual or Trust representative ) even consider, let alone accept " an offer " to join the Board ? The "facts" of the ground move, the "latest" financial position, the lack of an AGM etc etc are hardly condusive to anyone making an informed decision and rushing out to join the Board. The non-acceptance of offers of Directorships by those privy to the above surely sends out the strongest answer. There's nothing to have a vote about, as there's nothing to consider. It's not undemocratic, it's common sense Dave.
|
|
niels
City Legend
Posts: 1,741
|
Post by niels on Oct 23, 2008 22:59:47 GMT
That is not their problem and it is their prerogative - but it is a problem for the Trust. The warning signs about this sacrifice were flashing way back in April, but were ignored by people who had their egos sufficiently massaged by being invited to attend behind-the-scenes meetings that were never reported to the wider Trust membership (or would-be membership). Now look where it has left the Trust? I'm sorry, but this is a mess which started way back when certain people for their own reasons decided that other people - and I will name one, Andy Bullock - should be left off emails lists because they were deemed not to be one of us. I may not agree with Andy on some things - but he is not an enemy of WCFC. You really do have no shame in your self promotion Mr Green! This is hypocrisy of the highest order. Below is an extract from a PM sent to me by Chris Green on March 7th when he arranged a secret meeting at the countryside centre. I have deleted most names. Everything the Trust has done has been above board, as far as I know. Yes there have been mistakes but these were always aired in open steering group meetings and accepted by people present, except by Mr Green. Recordings of these meetings were available online for all steering group members to listen to. Steering group membership was available to all who asked to join. As for the Trust accepting a place on the club board. The Trust board have been elected by the membership to make these decisions. If they choose to accept a place then Colin would only be a temporary representative until a democratic election of the membership choose the person to represent the Trust on the board of WCFC. This election process takes a minimum of 45 days I believe. There are many things to consider when weighing up whether to take up such an offer. I'm sure it's at the top of the agenda of their meetings.
|
|
|
Post by birdfeeder on Oct 23, 2008 23:40:06 GMT
That is not their problem and it is their prerogative - but it is a problem for the Trust. The warning signs about this sacrifice were flashing way back in April, but were ignored by people who had their egos sufficiently massaged by being invited to attend behind-the-scenes meetings that were never reported to the wider Trust membership (or would-be membership). Now look where it has left the Trust? I'm sorry, but this is a mess which started way back when certain people for their own reasons decided that other people - and I will name one, Andy Bullock - should be left off emails lists because they were deemed not to be one of us. I may not agree with Andy on some things - but he is not an enemy of WCFC. You really do have no shame in your self promotion Mr Green! Below is an extract from a PM sent to me by Chris Green on March 7th when he arranged a secret meeting at the countryside centre. I have deleted most names. Everything the Trust has done has been above board, as far as I know. Yes there have been mistakes but these were always aired in open steering group meetings and accepted by people present, except by Mr Green. Recordings of these meetings were available online for all steering group members to listen to. Steering group membership was available to all who asked to join. As for the Trust accepting a place on the club board. The Trust board have been elected by the membership to make these decisions. If they choose to accept a place then Colin would only be a temporary representative until a democratic election of the membership choose the person to represent the Trust on the board of WCFC. This election process takes a minimum of 45 days I believe. There are many things to consider when weighing up whether to take up such an offer. I'm sure it's at the top of the agenda of their meetings. I was not invited then.
|
|
|
Post by dave on Oct 24, 2008 7:47:44 GMT
It is the lack of transparency and the secretive approach being adopted by the Trust Board that I am most angry about.
There is so little information getting out to the members about what is going on and then we find out that an offer of a seat on the Board was made and rejected and if I had not started this thread, nobody would be any the wiser! The majority of Trust Members are still none the wiser.
I do not agree with that way of doing things and so I have decided to distance myself from the Trust for the time being.
I like creaner a lot and have a lot of respect for him and I sincerely hope the Trust Board can change their approach and demonstrate that they are not simply a SHAG puppet.
|
|
|
Post by Tony is not to despondent now. on Oct 24, 2008 7:52:28 GMT
As I read the situation a verbal approach has been made to a member of the Trust committee.
No formal letter of approach to the Trust has been made.
Am I correct?
If so the Board are at fault by not following a proper approach to the situation.
They should have written to the Trust on the matter formerly, not an informal approach to a member.
This to me shows that the present Board do not know how to conduct there business properly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2008 8:12:53 GMT
Camper wrote: "I assure you gentlemen that it is now that we need to be working together for the the better of the club."
I'm delighted to hear that the present board is indeed working for the betterment of the club, and is looking to open up WCFC to some fan involvement. I was talking to a friend of mine who writes sports articles for several national newspapers. He's heard of a number of clubs where the directors have run down the club; presented plans for a ground move; shared a ground for "the interim"; run out of money and then finally folded.
It's good to know that WCFC aren't run by such incompetents/sharks. Anyway, I've given him the club's details and the names of all those involved at WCFC both on the board and behind the scenes. Hopefully he'll be in touch with you all to discuss how a football club should be run.
|
|
niels
City Legend
Posts: 1,741
|
Post by niels on Oct 24, 2008 8:27:33 GMT
Dave
The Trust board, and the Trust for that matter, is fairly new. They are working on a business plan and organising the Anti-racism day next week, as you know. This takes time and consequently other things may be missed. Communication is very important but give them a chance to get structures in place.
The club board has talked to the Trust about having a member on the board for some time, even when the original Trust was set up. However the club board wanted to choose the Trust representative themselves so the talks always stalled there. Now it seems the club are ready to let the Trust choose their own candidate but now may not be the right time accept. Uncertainty about the clubs finances would be one reason. If the place was accepted and WCFC goes belly up in a couple of months then the Trust would be as liable as the other board members. As far as I'm concerned, and I play no part in the decision making process, they are right to want more information before commiting the Trust to this. We have democratically elected the Trust board to make decisions like this. Let them get on with it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2008 8:41:34 GMT
Blimey, Judean Popular Front or what???
Firstly, to quote Jesus (who doesn't get quoted that often on football forums) "He who is not with me is against me" This idea of "independence" is unfortunately bumkum, no-one can ever be independent, just a waiverer across both sides on micro-issues, like the Lib Dems. When it comes to the Board of WCFC, I think the argument is being missed, its not about The Present Board v SHAG, its about Change v As Is. That is why SHAG were entirely happy to accept the compromise deal, it would have brought about change - it wouldn't have brought about a whole new Board made up of SHAG, it would just have brought about change, and the ability to create open dialogue. Just a point about SHAG, its not a takeover group, its not a bunch of people wishing to purchase the club, its not a coup, its just a number of shareholders (at least 10%) who feel that the present Board is not being accountable to them. In order to effect a change, there has to be due process, that due process involves shareholders, who have to take an action. The only action open in the due process is to call an EGM (in the absence of the Board calling an AGM) and that is what a group of shareholders have done.
I am in total agreement with dragon - most of what is being played out at the present time is not being published on the message board, quite rightly! Maybe dave should pick up the phone to a Trust Board member directly.
|
|
cg
Squad Member
Posts: 279
|
Post by cg on Oct 24, 2008 10:54:09 GMT
Oo-er Neils, am I sooo upset. “Mr Green”, Wow I’m really hurt. Grow up.
I will leave it to others to judge why you have chosen to copy sections of a private email on a public messageboard - but perhaps you would care to put some of the quotes in their true context? Or perhaps not.
The email you have printed was sent in reference to a small proposed meeting called in the very early days of the Trust being reformed after a couple of people got wind of disturbing developments that, as we saw it, completely changed things regarding WCFC and the speed the Trust might need to get into gear. These were:
1 That there was an irrevocable split on the club board – which led to three resignations and others since.
2 That the club had heavy bills which threatened to plunge them into administration
3 That a report had been commissioned, which called into question the viability of the Nunnery Way ground move.
With this in mind, it is fair to say that some of us felt we needed to hasten the reformation of the Trust – a sensible initial plan for a gentle build up for the new season suddenly seemed inappropriate.
But without a Trust meeting planned and time being of the essence (the season ending etc), and just wanting to check with some like-minded souls if this was the right thing to suggest (always a wise thing to do), we arranged a small informal meeting - why a café otherwise?
At that point it is fair to say I did not know most of the people who had attended the one or two trust meetings that had taken place – and certainly did not have access to their email addresses other than a few folks that myself and Rich Widdowson asked to attend.
This was not instigated solely by me – the four of us who met are all regular contributors to this MB. The aim was, as you well know Neils, not to form a clique and exclude people – rather the opposite – to ponder if we should push for a big public meeting to get the Trust up and running as soon as possible witha groundswell of support - that was why we met on a Saturday so we could get a proper trust meeting fixed during the following week.
Within three weeks we had a meeting attended by 200 people at WCCC – everyone who helped arrange it should feel proud and give themselves a huge pat on the back.
We managed this even though you chose Neils, as ad hoc chairman with the email addresses of trust meeting attendees and others who had expressed an interest, to sit on the contacts list for a week which endangered a leaflet drop at the next home game – the last but one of the season, I think (hence the time constraints).
The reason I suggested it might be inappropriate to ask Andy Bullock to that small meeting was because we did not want this to get back to the board, and at the time Andy was very close to many of them. Wayne Henley, I think, was – and remained - in an awkward position as the club website editor. However, I am genuinely sorry we did not ask Wayne to attend
To compare and contrast that small meeting with the real “hypocrisy” of people deliberately being left off email circulars sent out by the trust steering committee and some of the communication problems and confusion since is ludicrous.
There have been endless people who have complained about this on this MB as you well know, Neils. You should address them, not me. They are your members or would-be members. I am no longer involved.
You talk of democracy, yet took it upon yourself to arrange meetings on behalf of the trust with David Hallmark and a particularly disastrous one with Dave Boddy, without consulting your supposed colleagues. Where is the democracy in that?
The emails I have said that fly around (and, no, unlike you Neils I would not dream of copying their content - they remain personal views) are vague – I am not sure why they are being sent but they are not addressed from either the trust committee to its members, or from the SHAG to shareholders. It IS genuinely confusing. Clarity is needed.
Personally I have nothing against the SHAG – they all seem decent folks to me - but only an idiot could fail to recognize from the concerns expressed here and I dare say elsewhere (not least among some trust committee members themselves!) that the SHAG and the Trust seem inextricably linked and that has its potential problems.
It is okay shooting the messenger, Neils – and you can pompously call me ”Mr Green” or anything else you like (I think most people who know me on here would fail to recognise the character assassination you have attempted a couple of times now) - but as the guardian of wisdom precisely what is you answer to what should have been a thoroughly foreseeable problem (perception or reality?).
Dave’s point in this thread is surely less about the Trust accepting a seat on the board – rather what if a plan C, D or E came along? Where would the trust stand? It looks hamstrung.
I am not against the Trust as you imply, Neils – I think my track record in supporting Trusts around the country is second to none and few journalists have written as much about them as I have – but I don’t particularly like being called a**hole on a tape of a meeting which I didn't attend (at least say it to my face) and then seek to ‘break bread‘ with them. But I genuinely wish the Trust well.
Dave’s point about communicating offers to members is even more apt – you carp at me for arranging what was a meeting among friends, no more (you didn’t attend, what is your problem?), yet appear to be saying it is okay for the committee not even to mention that the current club board have made this offer. It is maybe an unacceptable offer – and we might each of us have our problems with the board – but surely when they are copping the stick they are getting, (ok, probably deserved), not least on this messageboard, surely there is some sort of duty to at least point out they have made some compromises? Isn't that just common decency? As for “self promotion” – I realise that writing on here is as big as gets for you Neils but, hey, I wouldn’t assume anyone else expressing an opinion on here is seeking to “promote” themselves…I think that says far more about you than me, or anyone else.
|
|
niels
City Legend
Posts: 1,741
|
Post by niels on Oct 24, 2008 12:11:32 GMT
Chris
It seems that being an author of a million selling selling book has given you the skill of twisting things to suit whatever point of view you are expressing this week. Good work.
I'd like to point out a couple of inaccuracies in your post above. There are many, as it is a primarily a work of fiction, but I will stick to a couple.
The meetings with Hallmark and Boddy were not arranged by me.
Andy Bullock was not a member of the steering group (having not requested to be so) and was therefore had no reason to receive any emails.
The only person who had any problem with me supposedly sitting on the contacts list for a week was you. If you had any idea of the amount of work I had at the time (Trust, business and family) then you might have understood. You would have passed out, as later events proved.
I am not involved with the running of the Trust now. I am just an ordinary member like yourself.
I posted your letter above in anger last night as you have yet again set out to discredit WCFC Trust with a twisted story in which you are the exiled hero.
I have many other emails from you that could be used to highlight hyprocrisies in your attacks on WCFC Supporters Trust but as others have said arguing on here is not very clever so this will be my final post on this matter.
My opinion is that you are nothing but a bitter and hypocritical little man with a grudge against WCFC Trust because some members of the steering group got fed up with your tantrums and said so.
Good luck with your high profile media career. Everyone has to start somewhere, even if it's in Redditch. I'll get back to my insignificant life and carry on processing my family company's two orders worth well over quarter of a million pounds.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2008 12:19:16 GMT
I'll get back to my insignificant life and carry on processing my family company's two orders worth well over quarter of a million pounds. Does your families company support WCFC, through sponsorship etc. They sound like just the kind of local business who should be involved within the club! PS. A quarter of a million pound order is useless when the client (formerly known as NTL) doesn't pay!!!! Thats when you wish you had 25 orders worth £10k each
|
|
niels
City Legend
Posts: 1,741
|
Post by niels on Oct 24, 2008 13:48:47 GMT
Only I support City but we sponsored George Clegg last year. Not much I know but a start. Still haven't claimed my match in the Directors box or received my shirt. Ultimately I would like to be main shirt sponsor. A couple of months ago Agnes' suggested that we buy the club a new kit in exchange for our name on the front. I told her it might take a bit more than that, but thinking of it perhaps they'll snap our hand off in a month or two.
We also have many orders worth £10K and less but when it comes to larger ones insist on 1/3 on order, 1/3 before delivery and 1/3 within 30 days of delivery. Works well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2008 14:02:26 GMT
Yep, those big ones can kill you if you're not careful.
Good news on the sponsor front, its the thought that counts, and in time I believe plenty of small businesses like yours will engage far more with WCFC. I should be surprised that you havent been approached already, but I'm not.
|
|
cg
Squad Member
Posts: 279
|
Post by cg on Oct 24, 2008 14:19:45 GMT
Neils
You are wrong – and you know it - but that is by the by.
What I would point out is that you should engage your brain before writing. For example, regarding work commitments – I am sure you work hard and do your level best for your family as we all do – but please do not insinuate that I have EVER denigrated your work or described it as "insignificant" or that mine is somehow important...and I never would. Whatever disagreements we have had, I would ask to retract that allegation because it is simply unfair, untrue and quite scurrilous, and you should be ashamed of yourself for implying it.
As for my work - for the record, I am not "starting out" on my career as again you dmisssively suggest. In Beijing, I was Senior Editor of the English version of the Beijing 2008 website – the world’s biggest live sports event website produced so far, that attracted easily in excess of 50 million hits each day of the Games (higher peaks at times obviously). Work-wise I routinely did 17-plus hours days, 21 on one particularly manic day. Could you handle that? I very much doubt it. The responsibility was immense and the diplomacy staggering – but it was hugely enjoyable. I had the best team of willing workers anyone editor could wish for. They were magnificent. It was a very senior journalistic post which doesn't just fall in your lap - there is a process to getting these posts. If you have attained such heights in your career Neils or you get to - congratulations – but don’t dismiss the achievements of others just because you don't like the cut of their jib. It is uncalled for.
I am also hugely proud to have won a SONY Radio Academy gold award for Radio 4’s The Reunion in 2007, which attracts 2 million listeners a show.
I have a new book on the way - I wish they did sell millions, but the sort of books I write don’t (few books do) as they are not autobiographies - but each of my previous three books have received excellent critical acclaim and have made a healthy profit. The Sack Race was a Sunday Times Book of the Week. Do you know what that means to someone who used to work in a car factory?
I am also in the process of launching a new media business and have a Radio 2 series about British new wave film in production.
Where you have got me, fair cop, is covering Redditch United a few times on BBC H&W of-late….but this is not career stuff... I have just offered to help out if and when they are short staffed, and if I have the spare time..which, sadly, looks unlikely in the foreseeable future as I will too busy as, strangely, I have actually enjoyed the few games I’ve done. I am also finding time to do some charity work to balance my life. But nothing I do is important in comparison to the work of doctors, nurses, soldiers and police...and neither, might I suggest Neils, is yours quite probably.
I’ll leave you to pushing pins into your effigy. Have fun.
|
|
|
Post by gobby cow on Oct 24, 2008 14:35:20 GMT
Everybody who works is making a contribution to society regardless of their job, I am fed up of hearing about nurses etc, where would we be if there was no food production, no electricity and gas, no water.
All those who look after sick or elderly relatives who dont work are making just as much a contribution, so dont start me off!
|
|
niels
City Legend
Posts: 1,741
|
Post by niels on Oct 24, 2008 14:37:13 GMT
Work-wise I routinely did 17-plus hours days, 21 on one particularly manic day. Could you handle that? I very much doubt it. You very much doubt wrong. Those kind of hours are unremarkable when you work for yourself or a small business.
|
|
cg
Squad Member
Posts: 279
|
Post by cg on Oct 24, 2008 14:45:37 GMT
Work-wise I routinely did 17-plus hours days, 21 on one particularly manic day. Could you handle that? I very much doubt it. You very much doubt wrong. Those kind of hours are unremarkable when you work for yourself or a small business. I work for myself and I am a small business... so I know the ropes .....what I meant was the pressure and intensity, and sorry but yes I do doubt you work 21 hours a day!!! GC is on the money though - care workers are absolute angels
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2008 14:58:59 GMT
Those kind of hours are stupid - you guys need to work a bit smarter!!!
|
|
cg
Squad Member
Posts: 279
|
Post by cg on Oct 24, 2008 15:02:37 GMT
Those kind of hours are stupid - you guys need to work a bit smarter!!! Couldn't agree more Jem - you are in charge of the schedule at the 2012 Olympics!
|
|
|
Post by dave on Oct 24, 2008 15:07:03 GMT
Those kind of hours are stupid - you guys need to work a bit smarter!!! Too right guys. Perhaps if you worked a bit smarter, you would have more time available to make 1600+ posts on this forum (some of them pretty lengthy) in the space of just over 12 months. Now that is smart working!
|
|
cg
Squad Member
Posts: 279
|
Post by cg on Oct 24, 2008 15:10:17 GMT
Ouch - who's for bribing Jem? Anyone got his bosses phone number....don't tell me he's based in the States!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2008 15:31:44 GMT
Those kind of hours are stupid - you guys need to work a bit smarter!!! Too right guys. Perhaps if you worked a bit smarter, you would have more time available to make 1600+ posts on this forum (some of them pretty lengthy) in the space of just over 12 months. Now that is smart working! Exactly - I mean it takes less than 30 seconds to make most posts, and averaging 7 a day, thats around 10 minutes work - dead easy. Its even easier when you're an insomniac, who also works US time And its even easier when you delegate to others
|
|
niels
City Legend
Posts: 1,741
|
Post by niels on Oct 24, 2008 15:43:10 GMT
and sorry but yes I do doubt you work 21 hours a day!!! September 8th. Away from hotel 3am. 250 miles driving along dirt tracks. Site visit. 250 miles back. Back 8.45pm. 9pm Meeting at hotel. Finish 10.30pm. half an hour for food. 11-12 preparation for next day. September 9th away from hotel 3am. drive 250 miles along equivalent to UK B roads. Site meeting. Drive 100 miles. Site meeting. Drive 200 miles back. Back at hotel 11pm. Food from Supermarket over the road. 11.30 til 1am preparation for next day. September 10th leave hotel at 6am. Drive 1 hour. Site visits and meetings until 5.30pm. Watch Iceland v Scotland from outside the fence. 8.30 -10.30pm meeting at hotel. Eat. 11.30-1am preparation for next day. First two days done with food poisoning. Jan 2008. Leave house 4am. Drive to Newcastle. Work until 11pm to finish job. 1 hour dinner at Indian. Back home at 4.30am. Ditto on many other occassions. I wouldn't think this is very remarkable. I bet there are several other who post on this board who do similar hours frequently.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2008 15:54:12 GMT
As my wife says to me when I do those kinds of days - thats not work, you spent most of the day sat on your a**e in the car!!!
|
|
niels
City Legend
Posts: 1,741
|
Post by niels on Oct 24, 2008 15:56:15 GMT
She ain't driven on Icelandic roads!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2008 16:07:47 GMT
She's hardly driven on UK roads!!!!
|
|
cg
Squad Member
Posts: 279
|
Post by cg on Oct 24, 2008 16:21:07 GMT
You've picked two days several months apart Neils - and I could lists dozens of days like that a year (not 24 hours, that is simply unhealthy and dangerous) but it isn't a competition and, as I have said, I am sure you do what is best for your family (I hope so) - and you must derive an element of enjoyment from whatever it is you do otherwise I guess you wouldn't do it - but I dare say the point you are trying to make is that somehow you work harder than me... afteral in your mind all I do is drive to Redditch once in a while - yeah, right) so what does that make you? Clever, stupid, hard working, more admirable, what? But it proves nothing - eight hours on construction in Doha or Dubia would kill all of us... Personally, I'm actually quite envious of 9- 5-ers - but many people I know who work regular office hours are bored rigid.....I was.
|
|