Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Sandgaard ownership discussion 2022-3 onwards (Meeting with CAST p138)

1…2930323435…170

Comments

  • MikeBaileysFanClub
    MikeBaileysFanClub Posts: 309
    I get the feeling that TS only listens to his wife and his son. The depth of experience that he has chosen to ignore ( for whatever reason ) is incredible.
  • Airman Brown
    Airman Brown Posts: 15,734
    edited August 2022
    Clarky said:
    Might be missing something  here but as Roland owns the ground wouldn't he be the one to benefit from a name change and not the club?
    No. Roland isn’t in control of how the ground is identified by the club, media partners or the football authorities, Sandgaard is able to control that. Hence it’s his call. But again it’s unlikely this is worth hundreds of thousands in L1.

    I am against it per se but if it happened I’d ignore it, as would most fans, I assume.
  • Athletico Charlton
    Athletico Charlton Posts: 14,275
    edited August 2022
    superclive98 said:
    Athletico Charlton said:
    Should be sticking massive EV panels on the roof of the stands and using the electricity generated to cover our energy bills.  There must be a pretty quick pay back given the size of the roofs.  Would have though it would generate a meaningful short to medium term saving.
    Not too sure about short term gain and it depends on how long you mean by medium term.
    But take The Valley.  Stick a load of EV panels on the roof.  The roof space is enormous and it would have no impact on players, fans etc.  There MAY even be grants available (although suspect not currently).

    Then Stick a load of car chargers in our car park.  TS could then recoup significant cost by charging fans/players to charge their cars when parked there (do it at a reasonable rate slightly less than it would cost at home as it is all profit if you have generated the power yourself) = even quicker pay back. 

    He could even rent it out during the week when it would otherwise be under utilised.

    Landlords are doing this on offices and the like already, so the economics must work.

    Plus businesses will be taxed more on their carbon emissions in future years through sustainable taxonomy so it would be future proofing us from that too.

    Of course, not owning The Valley is not ideal but I still think the pay back would work.
  • swordfish
    swordfish Posts: 4,234
    Airman Brown said:
    Clarky said:
    Might be missing something  here but as Roland owns the ground wouldn't he be the one to benefit from a name change and not the club?
    No. Roland isn’t in control of how the ground is identified by the club, media partners or the football authorities, Sandgaard is able to control that. Hence it’s his call. But again it’s unlikely this is worth hundreds of thousands in L1.

    I am against it per se but if it happened I’d ignore it, as would most fans, I assume.
    I'd be 'against it'  but to rename the Valley via a sponsorship deal would be a red line crossed for some, as @UEAAddick said pushing him into the 'Sandgaard Out' camp. I guess posters set their red lines at different points, but if the proceeds facilitated admission price reductions, it would seem to make commercial sense to me. I just worry about the choice of Company if it ended up going to the highest bidder. Can't believe it's not being looked at, but I admit I've no idea what value there would be in it whilst we're in L1. 
  • Airman Brown
    Airman Brown Posts: 15,734
    edited August 2022
    swordfish said:
    Airman Brown said:
    Clarky said:
    Might be missing something  here but as Roland owns the ground wouldn't he be the one to benefit from a name change and not the club?
    No. Roland isn’t in control of how the ground is identified by the club, media partners or the football authorities, Sandgaard is able to control that. Hence it’s his call. But again it’s unlikely this is worth hundreds of thousands in L1.

    I am against it per se but if it happened I’d ignore it, as would most fans, I assume.
    I'd be 'against it'  but to rename the Valley via a sponsorship deal would be a red line crossed for some, as @UEAAddick said pushing him into the 'Sandgaard Out' camp. I guess posters set their red lines at different points, but if the proceeds facilitated admission price reductions, it would seem to make commercial sense to me. I just worry about the choice of Company if it ended up going to the highest bidder. Can't believe it's not being looked at, but I admit I've no idea what value there would be in it whilst we're in L1. 
    No matter how it’s dressed it up it’s not likely to be that material to changes in ticket revenue. There’s no reason to link the two either. The argument for lower ticket prices is that they would, of themselves, generate more revenue, through higher sales.


  • RonnieMoore
    RonnieMoore Posts: 4,496
    Callumcafc said:
    Given that Roland is the owner, it probably isn't Sandgaard's decision to make.
    TS has full control of the valley and training ground and can do any upgrades etc etc he wants 
  • swordfish
    swordfish Posts: 4,234
    Airman Brown said:
    swordfish said:
    Airman Brown said:
    Clarky said:
    Might be missing something  here but as Roland owns the ground wouldn't he be the one to benefit from a name change and not the club?
    No. Roland isn’t in control of how the ground is identified by the club, media partners or the football authorities, Sandgaard is able to control that. Hence it’s his call. But again it’s unlikely this is worth hundreds of thousands in L1.

    I am against it per se but if it happened I’d ignore it, as would most fans, I assume.
    I'd be 'against it'  but to rename the Valley via a sponsorship deal would be a red line crossed for some, as @UEAAddick said pushing him into the 'Sandgaard Out' camp. I guess posters set their red lines at different points, but if the proceeds facilitated admission price reductions, it would seem to make commercial sense to me. I just worry about the choice of Company if it ended up going to the highest bidder. Can't believe it's not being looked at, but I admit I've no idea what value there would be in it whilst we're in L1. 
    No matter how it’s dressed it up it’s not likely to be that material to changes in ticket revenue. There’s no reason to link the two either. The argument for lower ticket prices is that they would, of themselves, generate more revenue, through higher sales.


    Both initiatives potentially being sources of additional revenue of interest to the owner.
  • Airman Brown
    Airman Brown Posts: 15,734
    swordfish said:
    Airman Brown said:
    swordfish said:
    Airman Brown said:
    Clarky said:
    Might be missing something  here but as Roland owns the ground wouldn't he be the one to benefit from a name change and not the club?
    No. Roland isn’t in control of how the ground is identified by the club, media partners or the football authorities, Sandgaard is able to control that. Hence it’s his call. But again it’s unlikely this is worth hundreds of thousands in L1.

    I am against it per se but if it happened I’d ignore it, as would most fans, I assume.
    I'd be 'against it'  but to rename the Valley via a sponsorship deal would be a red line crossed for some, as @UEAAddick said pushing him into the 'Sandgaard Out' camp. I guess posters set their red lines at different points, but if the proceeds facilitated admission price reductions, it would seem to make commercial sense to me. I just worry about the choice of Company if it ended up going to the highest bidder. Can't believe it's not being looked at, but I admit I've no idea what value there would be in it whilst we're in L1. 
    No matter how it’s dressed it up it’s not likely to be that material to changes in ticket revenue. There’s no reason to link the two either. The argument for lower ticket prices is that they would, of themselves, generate more revenue, through higher sales.


    Both initiatives potentially being sources of additional revenue of interest to the owner.
    Indeed but there is no interdependency.
  • Callumcafc
    Callumcafc Posts: 63,765
    edited August 2022
    RonnieMoore said:
    Callumcafc said:
    Given that Roland is the owner, it probably isn't Sandgaard's decision to make.
    TS has full control of the valley and training ground and can do any upgrades etc etc he wants 
    So I can set up a company called "Roland Is A Wrong'un Holdings", pay to sponsor the ground, have it called "the Roland Is A Wrong'un Valley" and you think the bloke who owns the stadium would let it happen?
  • swordfish
    swordfish Posts: 4,234
    Airman Brown said:
    swordfish said:
    Airman Brown said:
    swordfish said:
    Airman Brown said:
    Clarky said:
    Might be missing something  here but as Roland owns the ground wouldn't he be the one to benefit from a name change and not the club?
    No. Roland isn’t in control of how the ground is identified by the club, media partners or the football authorities, Sandgaard is able to control that. Hence it’s his call. But again it’s unlikely this is worth hundreds of thousands in L1.

    I am against it per se but if it happened I’d ignore it, as would most fans, I assume.
    I'd be 'against it'  but to rename the Valley via a sponsorship deal would be a red line crossed for some, as @UEAAddick said pushing him into the 'Sandgaard Out' camp. I guess posters set their red lines at different points, but if the proceeds facilitated admission price reductions, it would seem to make commercial sense to me. I just worry about the choice of Company if it ended up going to the highest bidder. Can't believe it's not being looked at, but I admit I've no idea what value there would be in it whilst we're in L1. 
    No matter how it’s dressed it up it’s not likely to be that material to changes in ticket revenue. There’s no reason to link the two either. The argument for lower ticket prices is that they would, of themselves, generate more revenue, through higher sales.


    Both initiatives potentially being sources of additional revenue of interest to the owner.
    Indeed but there is no interdependency.
    Agreed. I should have said any additional sponsorship proceeds could go to help finance any number of initiatives, although simply reducing the losses would seem the most likely application of them at present.
  • Sponsored links:



  • Airman Brown
    Airman Brown Posts: 15,734
    edited August 2022
    Callumcafc said:
    RonnieMoore said:
    Callumcafc said:
    Given that Roland is the owner, it probably isn't Sandgaard's decision to make.
    TS has full control of the valley and training ground and can do any upgrades etc etc he wants 
    So I can set up a company called "Roland Is A Wrong'un Holdings", pay to sponsor the ground, have it called "the Roland Is A Wrong'un Valley" and you think the bloke who owns the stadium would let it happen?
    You’re missing the bit where TS accepts that sponsorship, which is why it wouldn’t happen. But the naming rights for the ground will not belong to the freeholder unless that is a specific term of the lease, which it won’t be. Apart from anything rise, the freeholder can’t enforce the use of any name he might sell as he has no relationship with the media partners or the football authorities.

    Take the example of a local authority lease. The council lets a building to a business, which for argument’s sake is a cafe. The council has no interest in what the business calls the cafe or what title it gives to parts of the building to facilitate its use.
  • jimmymelrose
    jimmymelrose Posts: 9,753
    paulfox said:
    Airman Brown said:
    paulfox said:
    Airman Brown said:
    paulfox said:
    nice to see the fans are as one and looking forward to the new season!!!. Not sure of peoples end game🤔😂
    Yes, because a discussion on social media a week earlier about something wholly unrelated is going to seriously affect the players and fans at the opening games. How can anyone be expected to cope?
    Alright touchy, you’ve noticed we have players and fans and not just a terrible owner have you?🤣
    Haven’t said he’s a terrible owner, but I’d prefer one who stuck to the facts it at least acknowledged them. As so often your posts add nothing, just that others shouldn’t.
    As so often you try and belittle people that do not agree with you. You are divisive and a shit stirrer, it’s what you do. You NEVER have anything positive to say. Is that enough info. For you?. You rely on a few whom think you walk on water to support you’re bollox.
    Errrrr, ok. 30 years of VOTV really got us in-fighting didn't it? 

    Anyway, what's positive and united about your tone? Seems like the pot calling the kettle black to me.
  • shirty5
    shirty5 Posts: 19,228
    jimmymelrose said:
    paulfox said:
    Airman Brown said:
    paulfox said:
    Airman Brown said:
    paulfox said:
    nice to see the fans are as one and looking forward to the new season!!!. Not sure of peoples end game🤔😂
    Yes, because a discussion on social media a week earlier about something wholly unrelated is going to seriously affect the players and fans at the opening games. How can anyone be expected to cope?
    Alright touchy, you’ve noticed we have players and fans and not just a terrible owner have you?🤣
    Haven’t said he’s a terrible owner, but I’d prefer one who stuck to the facts it at least acknowledged them. As so often your posts add nothing, just that others shouldn’t.
    As so often you try and belittle people that do not agree with you. You are divisive and a shit stirrer, it’s what you do. You NEVER have anything positive to say. Is that enough info. For you?. You rely on a few whom think you walk on water to support you’re bollox.
    Errrrr, ok. 30 years of VOTV really got us in-fighting didn't it? 

    Anyway, what's positive and united about your tone? Seems like the pot calling the kettle black to me.
    You might be hard pushed to get a response back 
  • Rothko
    Rothko Posts: 18,807
    So is the Valley getting a sponsor, or is this something someone has gone off on a tangent about? 
  • AndyG
    AndyG Posts: 5,906
    shirty5 said:
    jimmymelrose said:
    paulfox said:
    Airman Brown said:
    paulfox said:
    Airman Brown said:
    paulfox said:
    nice to see the fans are as one and looking forward to the new season!!!. Not sure of peoples end game🤔😂
    Yes, because a discussion on social media a week earlier about something wholly unrelated is going to seriously affect the players and fans at the opening games. How can anyone be expected to cope?
    Alright touchy, you’ve noticed we have players and fans and not just a terrible owner have you?🤣
    Haven’t said he’s a terrible owner, but I’d prefer one who stuck to the facts it at least acknowledged them. As so often your posts add nothing, just that others shouldn’t.
    As so often you try and belittle people that do not agree with you. You are divisive and a shit stirrer, it’s what you do. You NEVER have anything positive to say. Is that enough info. For you?. You rely on a few whom think you walk on water to support you’re bollox.
    Errrrr, ok. 30 years of VOTV really got us in-fighting didn't it? 

    Anyway, what's positive and united about your tone? Seems like the pot calling the kettle black to me.
    You might be hard pushed to get a response back 
    Hey I just wondered what u meant by that so checked his profile. Wtf did he do to get banned ? I know he gave a bit out but plenty on here do more ! Unless I have missed something ? The guy had been a member since 2011 ! Who did he upset all of a sudden ? Or am I risking a ban asking 😂😂
  • thenewbie
    thenewbie Posts: 11,001
    Rothko said:
    So is the Valley getting a sponsor, or is this something someone has gone off on a tangent about? 
    You might very well think that in true Charlton Life fashion some idle and entirely baseless speculation has somehow created several pages of waffle... But I couldn't possibly comment.
  • swordfish
    swordfish Posts: 4,234
    AndyG said:
    shirty5 said:
    jimmymelrose said:
    paulfox said:
    Airman Brown said:
    paulfox said:
    Airman Brown said:
    paulfox said:
    nice to see the fans are as one and looking forward to the new season!!!. Not sure of peoples end game🤔😂
    Yes, because a discussion on social media a week earlier about something wholly unrelated is going to seriously affect the players and fans at the opening games. How can anyone be expected to cope?
    Alright touchy, you’ve noticed we have players and fans and not just a terrible owner have you?🤣
    Haven’t said he’s a terrible owner, but I’d prefer one who stuck to the facts it at least acknowledged them. As so often your posts add nothing, just that others shouldn’t.
    As so often you try and belittle people that do not agree with you. You are divisive and a shit stirrer, it’s what you do. You NEVER have anything positive to say. Is that enough info. For you?. You rely on a few whom think you walk on water to support you’re bollox.
    Errrrr, ok. 30 years of VOTV really got us in-fighting didn't it? 

    Anyway, what's positive and united about your tone? Seems like the pot calling the kettle black to me.
    You might be hard pushed to get a response back 
    Hey I just wondered what u meant by that so checked his profile. Wtf did he do to get banned ? I know he gave a bit out but plenty on here do more ! Unless I have missed something ? The guy had been a member since 2011 ! Who did he upset all of a sudden ? Or am I risking a ban asking 😂😂
    It was his decision.
  • ElfsborgAddick
    ElfsborgAddick Posts: 29,039
    shirty5 said:
    jimmymelrose said:
    paulfox said:
    Airman Brown said:
    paulfox said:
    Airman Brown said:
    paulfox said:
    nice to see the fans are as one and looking forward to the new season!!!. Not sure of peoples end game🤔😂
    Yes, because a discussion on social media a week earlier about something wholly unrelated is going to seriously affect the players and fans at the opening games. How can anyone be expected to cope?
    Alright touchy, you’ve noticed we have players and fans and not just a terrible owner have you?🤣
    Haven’t said he’s a terrible owner, but I’d prefer one who stuck to the facts it at least acknowledged them. As so often your posts add nothing, just that others shouldn’t.
    As so often you try and belittle people that do not agree with you. You are divisive and a shit stirrer, it’s what you do. You NEVER have anything positive to say. Is that enough info. For you?. You rely on a few whom think you walk on water to support you’re bollox.
    Errrrr, ok. 30 years of VOTV really got us in-fighting didn't it? 

    Anyway, what's positive and united about your tone? Seems like the pot calling the kettle black to me.
    You might be hard pushed to get a response back 
    Classic :D
  • AndyG
    AndyG Posts: 5,906
    swordfish said:
    AndyG said:
    shirty5 said:
    jimmymelrose said:
    paulfox said:
    Airman Brown said:
    paulfox said:
    Airman Brown said:
    paulfox said:
    nice to see the fans are as one and looking forward to the new season!!!. Not sure of peoples end game🤔😂
    Yes, because a discussion on social media a week earlier about something wholly unrelated is going to seriously affect the players and fans at the opening games. How can anyone be expected to cope?
    Alright touchy, you’ve noticed we have players and fans and not just a terrible owner have you?🤣
    Haven’t said he’s a terrible owner, but I’d prefer one who stuck to the facts it at least acknowledged them. As so often your posts add nothing, just that others shouldn’t.
    As so often you try and belittle people that do not agree with you. You are divisive and a shit stirrer, it’s what you do. You NEVER have anything positive to say. Is that enough info. For you?. You rely on a few whom think you walk on water to support you’re bollox.
    Errrrr, ok. 30 years of VOTV really got us in-fighting didn't it? 

    Anyway, what's positive and united about your tone? Seems like the pot calling the kettle black to me.
    You might be hard pushed to get a response back 
    Hey I just wondered what u meant by that so checked his profile. Wtf did he do to get banned ? I know he gave a bit out but plenty on here do more ! Unless I have missed something ? The guy had been a member since 2011 ! Who did he upset all of a sudden ? Or am I risking a ban asking 😂😂
    It was his decision.
    Phew ! I thought Putin had been made a mod 😳😳😳
  • Airman Brown
    Airman Brown Posts: 15,734
    thenewbie said:
    Rothko said:
    So is the Valley getting a sponsor, or is this something someone has gone off on a tangent about? 
    You might very well think that in true Charlton Life fashion some idle and entirely baseless speculation has somehow created several pages of waffle... But I couldn't possibly comment.
    Not sure why it’s not a legitimate topic for discussion in the week we played at something called the Poundland Stadium. I suspect nobody would pay enough for it to happen though.
  • Sponsored links:



  • Rothko
    Rothko Posts: 18,807
    Airman Brown said:
    thenewbie said:
    Rothko said:
    So is the Valley getting a sponsor, or is this something someone has gone off on a tangent about? 
    You might very well think that in true Charlton Life fashion some idle and entirely baseless speculation has somehow created several pages of waffle... But I couldn't possibly comment.
    Not sure why it’s not a legitimate topic for discussion in the week we played at something called the Poundland Stadium. I suspect nobody would pay enough for it to happen though.
    We played at the WHAM stadium on the first day; we played at sponsored grounds through pre season and last season. It’s the equivalent of a phone in presenter doing an hour on parking tickets, gets the phones ringing, doesn’t really change the world 
  • addickson
    addickson Posts: 891
    Airman Brown said:
    Clarky said:
    Might be missing something  here but as Roland owns the ground wouldn't he be the one to benefit from a name change and not the club?
    No. Roland isn’t in control of how the ground is identified by the club, media partners or the football authorities, Sandgaard is able to control that. Hence it’s his call. But again it’s unlikely this is worth hundreds of thousands in L1.

    I am against it per se but if it happened I’d ignore it, as would most fans, I assume.

    This. Dumbarton left Boghead in 2000 (after 121 years there) and moved to a new ground beside Dumbarton Rock.  We have had seven different stadium sponsors since then but to this day you'll hear people say "are you going to Boghead on Saturday?"
  • thenewbie
    thenewbie Posts: 11,001
    Airman Brown said:
    thenewbie said:
    Rothko said:
    So is the Valley getting a sponsor, or is this something someone has gone off on a tangent about? 
    You might very well think that in true Charlton Life fashion some idle and entirely baseless speculation has somehow created several pages of waffle... But I couldn't possibly comment.
    Not sure why it’s not a legitimate topic for discussion in the week we played at something called the Poundland Stadium. I suspect nobody would pay enough for it to happen though.
    Not saying it could never happen. But I don't see that anyone has any suggestion that it's on the cards, so far until then it is purely speculation.

    Perhaps baseless was a bit strong but until we hear it's an actual possibility it's not really that big a deal compared to the things that actually are happening IMO.
  • Weegie Addick
    Weegie Addick Posts: 16,521
     Crewe’s Ice Cream Van Stand takes a lot of beating imho. 


  • Ormiston_Addick
    Ormiston_Addick Posts: 8,810
    DubaiCAFC said:
    Personally, I am not fussed about the cost-cutting (apart from people losing jobs), clearly the club can't continue to run the way it is.. Fans also need to an element of responbility.. If we are not going to go to games, the budget is only going to get smaller.. I understand club needs to excite us to go to matches.. But I believe this could be one of our better seasons, our identity and style of play has changed hugely, to a positive exciting way of playing! 

    I know I am supporting from afar, but I still can't get over how poor our crowd was for the QPR match.. If I was sitting in TS shoes, I would be like, F*&K them, if they can't support the club, why should I keep putting my hand in my pocket! 

    Time to stop with negitivity, and get back to supporting the team again.. It is going to be a good season!
    Good evening Thomas.
  • Airman Brown
    Airman Brown Posts: 15,734
    edited August 2022
    Rothko said:
    Airman Brown said:
    thenewbie said:
    Rothko said:
    So is the Valley getting a sponsor, or is this something someone has gone off on a tangent about? 
    You might very well think that in true Charlton Life fashion some idle and entirely baseless speculation has somehow created several pages of waffle... But I couldn't possibly comment.
    Not sure why it’s not a legitimate topic for discussion in the week we played at something called the Poundland Stadium. I suspect nobody would pay enough for it to happen though.
    We played at the WHAM stadium on the first day; we played at sponsored grounds through pre season and last season. It’s the equivalent of a phone in presenter doing an hour on parking tickets, gets the phones ringing, doesn’t really change the world 
    Not sure you understand the function of this board. Very little said on here is going to “change the world” so I’m not sure what point you are making.

    I commented because the repeated assertion that it can’t happen because RD owns the ground is nonsense in my opinion. It hasn’t happened because no one wants to pay enough to interest the club. So it’s a hypothetical discussion, like much else on here (see also transfer gossip). But the substantive point is that it’s an option open to the club’s owner and not the landlord.
  • shine166
    shine166 Posts: 13,918
    UEAAddick said:
    The key aim to get new fans is doing it by not pissing off your core support. Duchatalet and Meire did this and Sandgaard has been doing it as well although in a less offensive way and more ignorant one. Its no surprise one failed and one is failing.

    So the aim is to appeal to everyone. Its a tough thing to do, but with proper planning and research over time you can. I honestly think we just need to follow simple steps of "Plan, Risk Assess, Do, Review". With Sandgaard at the moment it's "Do, Do, Do". 

    I work in a Museum and although they are far more diverse than a lot of people think they are, the biggest group of people less likely to visit museums are 18-25 year olds. They may be more likely to go for internships and jobs in the field, but in terms of general visiting they are the lowest. Its interesting to find why, but what you do is you work out Why That Might Be?, What We Can Do To Change That?, How We Can Change That?, What Are The Risks Involved?, Let's Pilot Some Ideas?

    In other words, Plan, Risk Assess, Do, Review.

    Just by thinking about things a bit more and not rushing from one failed idea to another I think we would be better off. That requires listening to people though and Sandgaard thinks he doesn't need to.




    Look how many spare seats are available in J BLOCK NU. It's usually packed out and very few seats left. This year its maybe 20% full with ST holders, I'd say the core (noise wise anyway) have certainly been pissed off.
  • Rothko
    Rothko Posts: 18,807
    Airman Brown said:
    Rothko said:
    Airman Brown said:
    thenewbie said:
    Rothko said:
    So is the Valley getting a sponsor, or is this something someone has gone off on a tangent about? 
    You might very well think that in true Charlton Life fashion some idle and entirely baseless speculation has somehow created several pages of waffle... But I couldn't possibly comment.
    Not sure why it’s not a legitimate topic for discussion in the week we played at something called the Poundland Stadium. I suspect nobody would pay enough for it to happen though.
    We played at the WHAM stadium on the first day; we played at sponsored grounds through pre season and last season. It’s the equivalent of a phone in presenter doing an hour on parking tickets, gets the phones ringing, doesn’t really change the world 
    Not sure you understand the function of this board. Very little said on here is going to “change the world” so I’m not sure what point you are making.

    I commented because the repeated assertion that it can’t happen because RD owns the ground is nonsense in my opinion. It hasn’t happened because no one wants to pay enough to interest the club. So it’s a hypothetical discussion, like much else on here (see also transfer gossip). But the substantive point is that it’s an option open to the club’s owner and not the landlord.
    Ah cheers for the education, in such a supercilious way
  • J BLOCK
    J BLOCK Posts: 8,312
    edited August 2022
    .
  • J BLOCK
    J BLOCK Posts: 8,312
    edited August 2022
    Been sent this, doesn’t look good (if true) (@RuiPin2022): https://twitter.com/RuiPin2022?t=b1LJuBGjiePEWCPnKTK9jA&s=08

Categories

“Marketplace”