comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson #TaintedUEFA (U5901)
posted 3 minutes ago
https://www.express.co.uk/news/history/567490/Manchester-United-Liverpool-conspired-fix-First-Division-game
----------------------------------------------------------------------
105 years ago
This so desperate
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Doesnt take away the fact that it was cheating for financial benefit.
No one will deny it either. The instigators took their punishment and didnt cry about being victims of some agenda or other.
However, to this day, no definite evidence linking West to the offence of which he was accused has been produced and in 2003 I wrote a book called Free The Manchester United One, which endeavoured to support his claim of innocence and to secure a posthumous pardon.
Despite the claim being backed by his grandson Roger and the Professional Footballers’ Association the FA refused to reverse its decision.
---------------------------------------------------
I think there are parallels in that case.
You are saying it never happened or pointing to one person who may not have been in on it?
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 3 hours, 31 minutes ago
The market test was passed as per the same with PSG.
It is the case that there are communications that ADUG paid £50m+ themselves ie that the deal was a matter of convenience and wasnt really being paid by Etihad.
Which thereon means that it wasnt affordable ie poor value.
Whichever way you want to slice it, it was just use of the Etihad name for ADUG to pump more money into the club themselves.
Ie cooking the books to show greater revenue, which is literally financial fraud.
That would most definitely impact on the value of the entity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, PSG was not deemed market value.
You’ve no idea of the reason for it yet, no one does. The only perception of value is the market test though.
Just to add, if the emails are correct and the money still went through Etihad, then no, it is not financial fraud at all.
There is only the question of Uefa’s regulations here, nothing else.
UEFA seemed to have ignored PSG since Nasser Al-Khelaifi, PSG's President wangled himself a place on the Executive Committee.
I'm sure that must be purely coincidental as most on here think UEFA is beyond reproach.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 49 minutes ago
Just to add, if the emails are correct and the money still went through Etihad, then no, it is not financial fraud at all.
There is only the question of Uefa’s regulations here, nothing else.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If the email trial is correct:
a) ADUG paying the money directly into man city and recording it as coming from Etihad in order to boost revenue is financial fraud and against UEFA FFP.
b) ADUG routing the money through Etihad to boost revenue isnt classed as financial fraud, may come under money laundering, however, it is against UEFA FFP rules
No reason to doubt the emails arent true, man city have said they were obtained as a result of being hacked/stolen.
PSG next.
No, neither of them are fraud and it certainly isn’t money laundering.
I think you need to do a bit of reading up on what constitutes both as you’re insinuating there’s something illegal about what’s in the emails with saying both of those things. There isn’t at all.
Of course a) is fraud ffs..
If I put in a crapload of money from my own estate into a company and said it was as a result of business revenue and then proceeded to sell part of the business with valuation based on said revenue it would be fraud by way of inflating revenue.
That’s like someone selling a car changing the number plate to make it newer and selling it as a newer car.
It’s giving the business a false position.
jeez Man City fans are taking this hard.
No, I’m fine with the charge and if the emails are correct then absolutely we’ve done wrong via Uefa.
That doesn’t detract from it not being fraud or money laundering and you clearly not understanding what either actually means.
Why not just keep it to what it is? You’re making up a separate scenario to what this actually is, there’s no need to. If you just keep to accusing City of things they’ve actually been accused of, then you won’t get any disagreement from me at all.
Do you want me to explain the separate accusations so you can understand it? As you’re focussing on entitle the wrong sponsorship in making the point you think you’re making (which does make me question why you’re doing it anyway, but I get that )
Just to show that btw, this is the best analysis I’ve read of it all (warts and all). Read this from end to end and then you’ll realise that it is possible to be objective and critical at the same time and also not have to turn it into something different.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-soccer-files-fairplay-mancity-special/special-report-soccer-club-man-city-boosted-finances-through-creative-plays-documents-show-idUSKCN1NB2S5
Hi Melts.
So the company is paying out sponsorship money but in actual fact is receiving majority of this money from a different entity altogether. At the same time this company is representing to the world that this money is coming from their own coffers.
You don't think that's fraudulent?
ADUG routing the money through Etihad to boost revenue isnt classed as financial fraud, may come under money laundering
----------------------------------------
Money laundering
How is it money laundering?
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 1 hour, 4 minutes ago
Hi Melts.
So the company is paying out sponsorship money but in actual fact is receiving majority of this money from a different entity altogether. At the same time this company is representing to the world that this money is coming from their own coffers.
You don't think that's fraudulent?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dodgy as fack
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
Hi Melts.
So the company is paying out sponsorship money but in actual fact is receiving majority of this money from a different entity altogether. At the same time this company is representing to the world that this money is coming from their own coffers.
You don't think that's fraudulent?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which company are you talking about, Etihad? If so, potentially yes, that wouldn’t have anything to do with City though, which is the point here.
This is actually a real ongoing case btw! Open Skies it’s called, worth reading that if you really want to know about the Etihad side. They’ve said that it is being subsidised by the executive council in that case though, but through Etihad that if true would mean no, it wouldn’t be fraudulent.
Sorry, not ongoing, just checked again. Been a couple of years since I last had to take notice of it!
comment by Holland's big brother Europe (U1250)
posted 54 minutes ago
ADUG routing the money through Etihad to boost revenue isnt classed as financial fraud, may come under money laundering
----------------------------------------
Money laundering
How is it money laundering?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes it’s certainly not that, think that might be watching too many mafia films!
Why did the Sheikh contribute £59m of his company’s money towards the sponsorship deal, with the actual sponsors only contributing £8m themselves?
It’d be like FSG paying for the sponsorship and Standard Chartered paying a nominal fee. Ok yeah slight difference being FSG and SC are not run by the same entity.
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
Why did the Sheikh contribute £59m of his company’s money towards the sponsorship deal, with the actual sponsors only contributing £8m themselves?
It’d be like FSG paying for the sponsorship and Standard Chartered paying a nominal fee. Ok yeah slight difference being FSG and SC are not run by the same entity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Basically to show as revenue for man city. Inflating man city's earning potential.
If I invested in a company who's earning potential was fraudulently boosted I'd be mightily cheesed off.
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
Why did the Sheikh contribute £59m of his company’s money towards the sponsorship deal, with the actual sponsors only contributing £8m themselves?
It’d be like FSG paying for the sponsorship and Standard Chartered paying a nominal fee. Ok yeah slight difference being FSG and SC are not run by the same entity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Basically to show as revenue for man city. Inflating man city's earning potential.
If I invested in a company who's earning potential was fraudulently boosted I'd be mightily cheesed off.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s the impression I get. I was wondering what explanation City fans might have? I can’t recall seeing a single reason why from them.
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 18 minutes ago
Why did the Sheikh contribute £59m of his company’s money towards the sponsorship deal, with the actual sponsors only contributing £8m themselves?
It’d be like FSG paying for the sponsorship and Standard Chartered paying a nominal fee. Ok yeah slight difference being FSG and SC are not run by the same entity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No one knows yet, but I imagine the main argument that City will use is that he didn’t and even if he did, it’s none of Uefas business. In terms of why he (or someone) did, then to subsidise Etihad essentially. The AD government has been subsidising them for years, that’s what the open skies case was all about.
Just to be clear specifically on the Etihad deal, the accusation is not that City’s accounts show a different figure to the money received. If it did, that would be inflating revenue, which this isn’t. I’ve said a few times it’s a non sequitur, people need to stop saying it. There are other allegations that that may be relevant for.
Which company are you talking about, Etihad? If so, potentially yes, that wouldn’t have anything to do with City though, which is the point here.
-----
Hmm.
If it has nothing to do with City, then who does it have anything to do with?
I mean, since the money is coming from City's owner and the money is ending up at City, would that not mean that city's owner, Etihad and MCFC were all aware and complicit/abbetors in this fraudulent act? They all knew the real source of the money, didn't they?
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 18 minutes ago
Why did the Sheikh contribute £59m of his company’s money towards the sponsorship deal, with the actual sponsors only contributing £8m themselves?
It’d be like FSG paying for the sponsorship and Standard Chartered paying a nominal fee. Ok yeah slight difference being FSG and SC are not run by the same entity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No one knows yet, but I imagine the main argument that City will use is that he didn’t and even if he did, it’s none of Uefas business. In terms of why he (or someone) did, then to subsidise Etihad essentially. The AD government has been subsidising them for years, that’s what the open skies case was all about.
Just to be clear specifically on the Etihad deal, the accusation is not that City’s accounts show a different figure to the money received. If it did, that would be inflating revenue, which this isn’t. I’ve said a few times it’s a non sequitur, people need to stop saying it. There are other allegations that that may be relevant for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How is it non of UEFA’s business? If the allegations are true then basically City’s owners have sponsored themselves to boost club coffers and circumnavigate FFP.
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 25 minutes ago
Which company are you talking about, Etihad? If so, potentially yes, that wouldn’t have anything to do with City though, which is the point here.
-----
Hmm.
If it has nothing to do with City, then who does it have anything to do with?
I mean, since the money is coming from City's owner and the money is ending up at City, would that not mean that city's owner, Etihad and MCFC were all aware and complicit/abbetors in this fraudulent act? They all knew the real source of the money, didn't they?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, no, because it’s not fraudulent. The allegation is that we misled Uefa. It still doesn’t make it in anyway fraudulent though. If it did, then we’d have a lot worse things to worry about than Uefa (as would our auditors, PWC)
Like I said earlier, don’t make it into something it’s not.
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 18 minutes ago
Why did the Sheikh contribute £59m of his company’s money towards the sponsorship deal, with the actual sponsors only contributing £8m themselves?
It’d be like FSG paying for the sponsorship and Standard Chartered paying a nominal fee. Ok yeah slight difference being FSG and SC are not run by the same entity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No one knows yet, but I imagine the main argument that City will use is that he didn’t and even if he did, it’s none of Uefas business. In terms of why he (or someone) did, then to subsidise Etihad essentially. The AD government has been subsidising them for years, that’s what the open skies case was all about.
Just to be clear specifically on the Etihad deal, the accusation is not that City’s accounts show a different figure to the money received. If it did, that would be inflating revenue, which this isn’t. I’ve said a few times it’s a non sequitur, people need to stop saying it. There are other allegations that that may be relevant for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How is it non of UEFA’s business? If the allegations are true then basically City’s owners have sponsored themselves to boost club coffers and circumnavigate FFP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because it depends where the money comes from directly to City. If it doesn’t come directly from Etihad in the accounts then we have misled Uefa. In terms of Etihad though, Uefa can’t investigate them, they have no jurisdiction to. That’s why this is all very messy.
It’s also why I have a feeling this won’t just stop at CAS, the club statement indicates it won’t either.
Sign in if you want to comment
The Sheiks Extended family finances
Page 7 of 10
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
posted on 16/2/20
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson #TaintedUEFA (U5901)
posted 3 minutes ago
https://www.express.co.uk/news/history/567490/Manchester-United-Liverpool-conspired-fix-First-Division-game
----------------------------------------------------------------------
105 years ago
This so desperate
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Doesnt take away the fact that it was cheating for financial benefit.
No one will deny it either. The instigators took their punishment and didnt cry about being victims of some agenda or other.
posted on 16/2/20
However, to this day, no definite evidence linking West to the offence of which he was accused has been produced and in 2003 I wrote a book called Free The Manchester United One, which endeavoured to support his claim of innocence and to secure a posthumous pardon.
Despite the claim being backed by his grandson Roger and the Professional Footballers’ Association the FA refused to reverse its decision.
---------------------------------------------------
I think there are parallels in that case.
posted on 16/2/20
You are saying it never happened or pointing to one person who may not have been in on it?
posted on 16/2/20
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 3 hours, 31 minutes ago
The market test was passed as per the same with PSG.
It is the case that there are communications that ADUG paid £50m+ themselves ie that the deal was a matter of convenience and wasnt really being paid by Etihad.
Which thereon means that it wasnt affordable ie poor value.
Whichever way you want to slice it, it was just use of the Etihad name for ADUG to pump more money into the club themselves.
Ie cooking the books to show greater revenue, which is literally financial fraud.
That would most definitely impact on the value of the entity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, PSG was not deemed market value.
You’ve no idea of the reason for it yet, no one does. The only perception of value is the market test though.
posted on 16/2/20
Just to add, if the emails are correct and the money still went through Etihad, then no, it is not financial fraud at all.
There is only the question of Uefa’s regulations here, nothing else.
posted on 16/2/20
UEFA seemed to have ignored PSG since Nasser Al-Khelaifi, PSG's President wangled himself a place on the Executive Committee.
I'm sure that must be purely coincidental as most on here think UEFA is beyond reproach.
posted on 16/2/20
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 49 minutes ago
Just to add, if the emails are correct and the money still went through Etihad, then no, it is not financial fraud at all.
There is only the question of Uefa’s regulations here, nothing else.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If the email trial is correct:
a) ADUG paying the money directly into man city and recording it as coming from Etihad in order to boost revenue is financial fraud and against UEFA FFP.
b) ADUG routing the money through Etihad to boost revenue isnt classed as financial fraud, may come under money laundering, however, it is against UEFA FFP rules
No reason to doubt the emails arent true, man city have said they were obtained as a result of being hacked/stolen.
PSG next.
posted on 16/2/20
No, neither of them are fraud and it certainly isn’t money laundering.
I think you need to do a bit of reading up on what constitutes both as you’re insinuating there’s something illegal about what’s in the emails with saying both of those things. There isn’t at all.
posted on 16/2/20
Of course a) is fraud ffs..
If I put in a crapload of money from my own estate into a company and said it was as a result of business revenue and then proceeded to sell part of the business with valuation based on said revenue it would be fraud by way of inflating revenue.
That’s like someone selling a car changing the number plate to make it newer and selling it as a newer car.
It’s giving the business a false position.
jeez Man City fans are taking this hard.
posted on 17/2/20
No, I’m fine with the charge and if the emails are correct then absolutely we’ve done wrong via Uefa.
That doesn’t detract from it not being fraud or money laundering and you clearly not understanding what either actually means.
Why not just keep it to what it is? You’re making up a separate scenario to what this actually is, there’s no need to. If you just keep to accusing City of things they’ve actually been accused of, then you won’t get any disagreement from me at all.
Do you want me to explain the separate accusations so you can understand it? As you’re focussing on entitle the wrong sponsorship in making the point you think you’re making (which does make me question why you’re doing it anyway, but I get that )
posted on 17/2/20
Just to show that btw, this is the best analysis I’ve read of it all (warts and all). Read this from end to end and then you’ll realise that it is possible to be objective and critical at the same time and also not have to turn it into something different.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-soccer-files-fairplay-mancity-special/special-report-soccer-club-man-city-boosted-finances-through-creative-plays-documents-show-idUSKCN1NB2S5
posted on 17/2/20
Hi Melts.
So the company is paying out sponsorship money but in actual fact is receiving majority of this money from a different entity altogether. At the same time this company is representing to the world that this money is coming from their own coffers.
You don't think that's fraudulent?
posted on 17/2/20
ADUG routing the money through Etihad to boost revenue isnt classed as financial fraud, may come under money laundering
----------------------------------------
Money laundering
How is it money laundering?
posted on 17/2/20
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 1 hour, 4 minutes ago
Hi Melts.
So the company is paying out sponsorship money but in actual fact is receiving majority of this money from a different entity altogether. At the same time this company is representing to the world that this money is coming from their own coffers.
You don't think that's fraudulent?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dodgy as fack
posted on 17/2/20
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
Hi Melts.
So the company is paying out sponsorship money but in actual fact is receiving majority of this money from a different entity altogether. At the same time this company is representing to the world that this money is coming from their own coffers.
You don't think that's fraudulent?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which company are you talking about, Etihad? If so, potentially yes, that wouldn’t have anything to do with City though, which is the point here.
This is actually a real ongoing case btw! Open Skies it’s called, worth reading that if you really want to know about the Etihad side. They’ve said that it is being subsidised by the executive council in that case though, but through Etihad that if true would mean no, it wouldn’t be fraudulent.
posted on 17/2/20
Sorry, not ongoing, just checked again. Been a couple of years since I last had to take notice of it!
posted on 17/2/20
comment by Holland's big brother Europe (U1250)
posted 54 minutes ago
ADUG routing the money through Etihad to boost revenue isnt classed as financial fraud, may come under money laundering
----------------------------------------
Money laundering
How is it money laundering?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes it’s certainly not that, think that might be watching too many mafia films!
posted on 17/2/20
Why did the Sheikh contribute £59m of his company’s money towards the sponsorship deal, with the actual sponsors only contributing £8m themselves?
It’d be like FSG paying for the sponsorship and Standard Chartered paying a nominal fee. Ok yeah slight difference being FSG and SC are not run by the same entity.
posted on 17/2/20
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
Why did the Sheikh contribute £59m of his company’s money towards the sponsorship deal, with the actual sponsors only contributing £8m themselves?
It’d be like FSG paying for the sponsorship and Standard Chartered paying a nominal fee. Ok yeah slight difference being FSG and SC are not run by the same entity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Basically to show as revenue for man city. Inflating man city's earning potential.
If I invested in a company who's earning potential was fraudulently boosted I'd be mightily cheesed off.
posted on 17/2/20
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
Why did the Sheikh contribute £59m of his company’s money towards the sponsorship deal, with the actual sponsors only contributing £8m themselves?
It’d be like FSG paying for the sponsorship and Standard Chartered paying a nominal fee. Ok yeah slight difference being FSG and SC are not run by the same entity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Basically to show as revenue for man city. Inflating man city's earning potential.
If I invested in a company who's earning potential was fraudulently boosted I'd be mightily cheesed off.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s the impression I get. I was wondering what explanation City fans might have? I can’t recall seeing a single reason why from them.
posted on 17/2/20
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 18 minutes ago
Why did the Sheikh contribute £59m of his company’s money towards the sponsorship deal, with the actual sponsors only contributing £8m themselves?
It’d be like FSG paying for the sponsorship and Standard Chartered paying a nominal fee. Ok yeah slight difference being FSG and SC are not run by the same entity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No one knows yet, but I imagine the main argument that City will use is that he didn’t and even if he did, it’s none of Uefas business. In terms of why he (or someone) did, then to subsidise Etihad essentially. The AD government has been subsidising them for years, that’s what the open skies case was all about.
Just to be clear specifically on the Etihad deal, the accusation is not that City’s accounts show a different figure to the money received. If it did, that would be inflating revenue, which this isn’t. I’ve said a few times it’s a non sequitur, people need to stop saying it. There are other allegations that that may be relevant for.
posted on 17/2/20
Which company are you talking about, Etihad? If so, potentially yes, that wouldn’t have anything to do with City though, which is the point here.
-----
Hmm.
If it has nothing to do with City, then who does it have anything to do with?
I mean, since the money is coming from City's owner and the money is ending up at City, would that not mean that city's owner, Etihad and MCFC were all aware and complicit/abbetors in this fraudulent act? They all knew the real source of the money, didn't they?
posted on 17/2/20
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 18 minutes ago
Why did the Sheikh contribute £59m of his company’s money towards the sponsorship deal, with the actual sponsors only contributing £8m themselves?
It’d be like FSG paying for the sponsorship and Standard Chartered paying a nominal fee. Ok yeah slight difference being FSG and SC are not run by the same entity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No one knows yet, but I imagine the main argument that City will use is that he didn’t and even if he did, it’s none of Uefas business. In terms of why he (or someone) did, then to subsidise Etihad essentially. The AD government has been subsidising them for years, that’s what the open skies case was all about.
Just to be clear specifically on the Etihad deal, the accusation is not that City’s accounts show a different figure to the money received. If it did, that would be inflating revenue, which this isn’t. I’ve said a few times it’s a non sequitur, people need to stop saying it. There are other allegations that that may be relevant for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How is it non of UEFA’s business? If the allegations are true then basically City’s owners have sponsored themselves to boost club coffers and circumnavigate FFP.
posted on 17/2/20
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 25 minutes ago
Which company are you talking about, Etihad? If so, potentially yes, that wouldn’t have anything to do with City though, which is the point here.
-----
Hmm.
If it has nothing to do with City, then who does it have anything to do with?
I mean, since the money is coming from City's owner and the money is ending up at City, would that not mean that city's owner, Etihad and MCFC were all aware and complicit/abbetors in this fraudulent act? They all knew the real source of the money, didn't they?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, no, because it’s not fraudulent. The allegation is that we misled Uefa. It still doesn’t make it in anyway fraudulent though. If it did, then we’d have a lot worse things to worry about than Uefa (as would our auditors, PWC)
Like I said earlier, don’t make it into something it’s not.
posted on 17/2/20
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 18 minutes ago
Why did the Sheikh contribute £59m of his company’s money towards the sponsorship deal, with the actual sponsors only contributing £8m themselves?
It’d be like FSG paying for the sponsorship and Standard Chartered paying a nominal fee. Ok yeah slight difference being FSG and SC are not run by the same entity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No one knows yet, but I imagine the main argument that City will use is that he didn’t and even if he did, it’s none of Uefas business. In terms of why he (or someone) did, then to subsidise Etihad essentially. The AD government has been subsidising them for years, that’s what the open skies case was all about.
Just to be clear specifically on the Etihad deal, the accusation is not that City’s accounts show a different figure to the money received. If it did, that would be inflating revenue, which this isn’t. I’ve said a few times it’s a non sequitur, people need to stop saying it. There are other allegations that that may be relevant for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How is it non of UEFA’s business? If the allegations are true then basically City’s owners have sponsored themselves to boost club coffers and circumnavigate FFP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because it depends where the money comes from directly to City. If it doesn’t come directly from Etihad in the accounts then we have misled Uefa. In terms of Etihad though, Uefa can’t investigate them, they have no jurisdiction to. That’s why this is all very messy.
It’s also why I have a feeling this won’t just stop at CAS, the club statement indicates it won’t either.
Page 7 of 10
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10