Did Hibs pay off their bank debt?

[FilipinoHibs]

This keeps coming up from our Yamonomics' friends.


We paid the bank back in full. Farmer provided a £9.5 million loan to Hibs which went directly to the bank. This covered the principal of the loan plus the present value of future interest payments. Farmer turned £4.5 million of the loan into shares and the other £5 million into an interest free mortgage. Ron bought the shares and the outstanding mortgage which he turned into new shares.

http://www.hibernianfc.co.uk/news/5060

Bear in mind to, that Romanov wrote off/converted to shares £40 million of debt, not part of Hearts' final £30 million debt. These were loans from Ukio Bankas to UBIG, Romanov's investment vehicle, then on to Hearts. Romanov never paid the loans made to UBIG back to Ukio Bankas. This was part of the €300 million hole in Ukio Bankas's balance sheet that led to its' bankruptcy.

[Tyler Durden]

I can summarise what happened but would rather not then get into a debate about it. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out why there are both Hibs and Hearts fans in Edinburgh who knew the exact details. People will choose what they want to believe however.

Hibs owed c£6.3m to Lloyds. We also owed about £3m to the holding company. So over £9m debt in total.

Farmer/Petrie agreed a settlement for the bank debt, paying just under £2m for the £6.3m debt. Passing that saving on, this meant the clubs debt was now around £5m to Farmer/holdco, hence the new interest free loan.

Aberdeen did a similar deal. Although press reports would suggest that investors paid off their debt, their settlement was around £3m for a £9m+ debt. The bank were happy to do so, to clean up the balance sheet rather than holding capital against loans that were considered to be part of the “bad bank”.

Despite both clubs (and others) servicing their interest etc. All perfectly legitimate agreements.

Jambos might suggest it was taxpayer bailed out banks that we screwed over - it’s nonsense. Lloyds peaked at 40% taxpayer owned and returned a profit to the public purse overall.

[FilipinoHibs]

I can summarise what happened but would rather not then get into a debate about it. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out why there are both Hibs and Hearts fans in Edinburgh who knew the exact details. People will choose what they want to believe however.

Hibs owed c£6.3m to Lloyds. We also owed about £3m to the holding company. So over £9m debt in total.

Farmer/Petrie agreed a settlement for the bank debt, paying just under £2m for the £6.3m debt. Passing that saving on, this meant the clubs debt was now around £5m to Farmer/holdco, hence the new interest free loan.

Aberdeen did a similar deal. Although press reports would suggest that investors paid off their debt, their settlement was around £3m for a £9m+ debt. The bank were happy to do so, to clean up the balance sheet rather than holding capital against loans that were considered to be part of the “bad bank”.

Despite both clubs (and others) servicing their interest etc. All perfectly legitimate agreements.

Jambos might suggest it was taxpayer bailed out banks that we screwed over - it’s nonsense. Lloyds peaked at 40% taxpayer owned and returned a profit to the public purse overall.

That does not look consistent with the statement from Hibs. The loan of 4.5 million and 5 million where outstanding to the holding company, a total of 9.5 million.. This was outstanding after Farmer paid off the bank debt. Total debt prior to paying off he bank as you say was 9.3 million - 6.3m to the bank 3m to Farmer. This matches the debt to Farmer (Holding company) after the transaction, the extra 0.2 million was probably the present value of the remaining interest paymnets on the bank loan.. The holding company converted 4.5 million of the loans into shares and keeping 5 million as mortgage. The loans to the bank where completely paid off.

[Andy74]

That does not look consistent with the statement from Hibs. The loan of 4.5 million and 5 million where outstanding to the holding company, a total of 9.5 million.. This was outstanding after Farmer paid off the bank debt. Total debt prior to paying off he bank as you say was 9.3 million - 6.3m to the bank 3m to Farmer. This matches the debt to Farmer (Holding company) after the transaction, the extra 0.2 million was probably the present value of the remaining interest paymnets on the bank loan.. The holding company converted 4.5 million of the loans into shares and keeping 5 million as mortgage. The loans to the bank where completely paid off.

Yep, it’s been done a few times and the write off theory didn’t add up.

At the time there was also no reason at all for the bank to take such a hit on our loan.

Would be nice if Sir Tom could get some credit for this.

[Tyler Durden]

Im just telling you what happened.

Personally I felt Hibs approach was a bit disingenuous but it was their prerogative to present it in that fashion. What I’ve outlined does match Hibs statement, they have been very particular with their wording.

The holdco “bought” the bank debt, meaning the clubs debt was technically then c£9.5m to holdco. So it wasn’t inaccurate for Hibs to then claim they’d decided to halve the debt and create shares. Arguably they could have been more transparent but it was a confidential commercial agreement.

The bank debt was not paid off in full - that’s a fact.

[Keith_M]

Im just telling you what happened.

Personally I felt Hibs approach was a bit disingenuous but it was their prerogative to present it in that fashion. What I’ve outlined does match Hibs statement, they have been very particular with their wording.

The holdco “bought” the bank debt, meaning the clubs debt was technically then c£9.5m to holdco. So it wasn’t inaccurate for Hibs to then claim they’d decided to halve the debt and create shares. Arguably they could have been more transparent but it was a confidential commercial agreement.

The bank debt was not paid off in full - that’s a fact.


I think the important point is that Hibs had been paying the loans back, on time, over many years, including interest. The lender had already made a lot of money out of the loan and agreed to an early settlement.

Hibs did not, at any point, fail to pay back money to any creditors and did not siphon money off from a bank in which Hibs owner was illegaly engaged in diverting slush funds from questionable sources


What Hibs did was all above board.

What Hearts did was deceitful and criminal.

[FilipinoHibs]

Im just telling you what happened.

Personally I felt Hibs approach was a bit disingenuous but it was their prerogative to present it in that fashion. What I’ve outlined does match Hibs statement, they have been very particular with their wording.

The holdco “bought” the bank debt, meaning the clubs debt was technically then c£9.5m to holdco. So it wasn’t inaccurate for Hibs to then claim they’d decided to halve the debt and create shares. Arguably they could have been more transparent but it was a confidential commercial agreement.

The bank debt was not paid off in full - that’s a fact.

It must of been as the club was left with £9.5 million of loans to the holding company at the end of the transaction of which they converted £4.5 million to shares. If the bank had written off the debt then the loan to the holding would have been less than £9.5 million. Hibs were a going concern with a wealthy major share holder. There is no way a bank would have taken such a write off.

Farmer took a hit on the share conversion although he did get some of his money back when Ron bought them.

[Tyler Durden]

Yep, it’s been done a few times and the write off theory didn’t add up.

At the time there was also no reason at all for the bank to take such a hit on our loan.

Would be nice if Sir Tom could get some credit for this.

I recall explaining this previously Andy and you choose to believe your own version of events, which is not accurate.

Hibs security was considered worthless by the banks model. It was discounted to zero value. So in simple terms Hibs were a bad debt whereby it was disproportionately expensive to hold capital required against this debt to mitigate a potential default. The fact that Hibs were servicing the interest is not disputed, however it wasn’t relevant.

Lloyds went through a 3 year deleveraging plan to offload this type of non core debt, which cleaned the balance sheet and freed up capital for new investments. It was very successful. Businesses across multiple sectors - real estate, retail etc - were part of this and hundreds of millions of pounds of debt was written off. Hibs were a drop in the ocean.

It’s not a theory. This is what happened.

[Tyler Durden]

I think the important point is that Hibs had been paying the loans back, on time, over many years, including interest. The lender had already made a lot of money out of the loan and agreed to an early settlement.

Hibs did not, at any point, fail to pay back money to any creditors and did not siphon money off from a bank in which Hibs owner was illegaly engaged in diverting slush funds from questionable sources


What Hibs did was all above board.

What Hearts did was deceitful and criminal.

Absolutely

[Keith_M]

Absolutely



:aok:

[Speedy]

I recall explaining this previously Andy and you choose to believe your own version of events, which is not accurate.

Hibs security was considered worthless by the banks model. It was discounted to zero value. So in simple terms Hibs were a bad debt whereby it was disproportionately expensive to hold capital required against this debt to mitigate a potential default. The fact that Hibs were servicing the interest is not disputed, however it wasn’t relevant.

Lloyds went through a 3 year deleveraging plan to offload this type of non core debt, which cleaned the balance sheet and freed up capital for new investments. It was very successful. Businesses across multiple sectors - real estate, retail etc - were part of this and hundreds of millions of pounds of debt was written off. Hibs were a drop in the ocean.

It’s not a theory. This is what happened.

Certainly ties up with what I've heard.

[Jock O]

I recall explaining this previously Andy and you choose to believe your own version of events, which is not accurate.

Hibs security was considered worthless by the banks model. It was discounted to zero value. So in simple terms Hibs were a bad debt whereby it was disproportionately expensive to hold capital required against this debt to mitigate a potential default. The fact that Hibs were servicing the interest is not disputed, however it wasn’t relevant.

Lloyds went through a 3 year deleveraging plan to offload this type of non core debt, which cleaned the balance sheet and freed up capital for new investments. It was very successful. Businesses across multiple sectors - real estate, retail etc - were part of this and hundreds of millions of pounds of debt was written off. Hibs were a drop in the ocean.

It’s not a theory. This is what happened.

It wasn't just Hibs though, it was most football clubs where the liability was written down to zero, and I also don't think it is correct to call it a bad debt. As you said it was more to do with the Banks capital requirements, and the fact that so many football clubs had large debts repayable over long terms, and in Rangers case before blowing up with no repayment term agreed, they took an opportunity, with a number of clubs to improve their Balance Sheet, effectively agreeing a lower amount to repay. its not that an unusual practice in some capital markets. It was beneficial, in the long term, to the Banks and immediately to the football clubs, My understanding was lots of the smaller clubs also negotiated the amount to be paid back, but it was obviously on much smaller amounts.

You seem to be trying to paint a negative view on what is a not uncommon practice in certain markets. The real issue was the Bank having allowed such massive liabilities to build up in the first place to football clubs, with little management of the liquidity built in, in a market where it shouldn't have been normal practice. Lloyds basically demanded correction of that position in the sub that had created them, which arguably was what brought Rangers, correctly, down!

And Tom Farmer and Rod Petrie still had to negotiate this with the Bank, and agree the share issue, so making out it was something done to them i also think is inaccurate.

[Tyler Durden]

It wasn't just Hibs though, it was most football clubs where the liability was written down to zero, and I also don't think it is correct to call it a bad debt. As you said it was more to do with the Banks capital requirements, and the fact that so many football clubs had large debts repayable over long terms, and in Rangers case before blowing up with no repayment term agreed, they took an opportunity, with a number of clubs to improve their Balance Sheet, effectively agreeing a lower amount to repay. its not that an unusual practice in some capital markets. It was beneficial, in the long term, to the Banks and immediately to the football clubs, My understanding was lots of the smaller clubs also negotiated the amount to be paid back, but it was obviously on much smaller amounts.

You seem to be trying to paint a negative view on what is a not uncommon practice in certain markets. The real issue was the Bank having allowed such massive liabilities to build up in the first place to football clubs, with little management of the liquidity built in, in a market where it shouldn't have been normal practice. Lloyds basically demanded correction of that position in the sub that had created them, which arguably was what brought Rangers, correctly, down!

I completely agree with you and I was not intending to paint this negatively. It’s an approach I’m very familiar with.

I was simply trying to answer the question of “why would the bank write off a debt that was being repaid?” Andy74 has heard this all before but doesn’t want to accept this.

As you say it was a common arrangement - I mentioned Aberdeen being another to benefit. Along with Killie IIRC amongst others. The idea that Tom Farmer and Petrie negotiated to repay in full during that period, is absurd.

EDIT - one negative for me personally, was that STF could have chosen to write off the Holdco debt. IMO that was debt run up due to mismanagement of the club by Petrie. Anyway it’s water under the bridge and STF was entirely within his rights to choose the route he did. I’m sure he put much more into the club over the years than he walked away with.

[CockneyRebel]

I can summarise what happened but would rather not then get into a debate about it. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out why there are both Hibs and Hearts fans in Edinburgh who knew the exact details. People will choose what they want to believe however.

Hibs owed c£6.3m to Lloyds. We also owed about £3m to the holding company. So over £9m debt in total.

Farmer/Petrie agreed a settlement for the bank debt, paying just under £2m for the £6.3m debt. Passing that saving on, this meant the clubs debt was now around £5m to Farmer/holdco, hence the new interest free loan.

Aberdeen did a similar deal. Although press reports would suggest that investors paid off their debt, their settlement was around £3m for a £9m+ debt. The bank were happy to do so, to clean up the balance sheet rather than holding capital against loans that were considered to be part of the “bad bank”.

Despite both clubs (and others) servicing their interest etc. All perfectly legitimate agreements.

Jambos might suggest it was taxpayer bailed out banks that we screwed over - it’s nonsense. Lloyds peaked at 40% taxpayer owned and returned a profit to the public purse overall.




If you all agree the bit in bold above then surely we can put this to bed and move on?

[Tyler Durden]

If you all agree the bit in bold above then surely we can put this to bed and move on?

Agreed - I was just trying to clarify some misconceptions that the debt was repaid in full.

Last post from me.

[Andy74]

I completely agree with you and I was not intending to paint this negatively. It’s an approach I’m very familiar with.

I was simply trying to answer the question of “why would the bank write off a debt that was being repaid?” Andy74 has heard this all before but doesn’t want to accept this.

As you say it was a common arrangement - I mentioned Aberdeen being another to benefit. Along with Killie IIRC amongst others. The idea that Tom Farmer and Petrie negotiated to repay in full during that period, is absurd.

EDIT - one negative for me personally, was that STF could have chosen to write off the Holdco debt. IMO that was debt run up due to mismanagement of the club by Petrie. Anyway it’s water under the bridge and STF was entirely within his rights to choose the route he did. I’m sure he put much more into the club over the years than he walked away with.
It is relevant because of comments like your last paragraph.

If the bank just wrote it off then STF has done little other than negotiating with the bank.

If we paid it or most of it then he did decide to write a significant amount off.

As an executive at a major bank I don’t really need any lessons on how banks operate on debts. Banks might write down the value of debts to certain sectors but you can be very sure they do their level best to nevertheless extract as much value as possible from those arrangements. Writing off debt that is being serviced fully is pretty much unheard of.

We ended up £9.5m in debt to the Holding company after the payments it made to the bank. You can see the following loan to share transaction and the fact we were left with £5m ongoing debt to them.

Exaggerating the level of initial debt that they then got value from in shares and debt would be worthy of investigation....

[Future17]

Agreed - I was just trying to clarify some misconceptions that the debt was repaid in full.

Last post from me.

Personally grateful for your contributions. Makes perfect sense to me. :aok:

[Speedy]

It is relevant because of comments like your last paragraph.

If the bank just wrote it off then STF has done little other than negotiating with the bank.

If we paid it or most of it then he did decide to write a significant amount off.

As an executive at a major bank I don’t really need any lessons on how banks operate on debts. Banks might write down the value of debts to certain sectors but you can be very sure they do their level best to nevertheless extract as much value as possible from those arrangements. Writing off debt that is being serviced fully is pretty much unheard of.

We ended up £9.5m in debt to the Holding company after the payments it made to the bank. You can see the following loan to share transaction and the fact we were left with £5m ongoing debt to them.

Exaggerating the level of initial debt that they then got value from in shares and debt would be worthy of investigation....


That makes sense, c£3m original debt to the holding company plus the c£6m bought from the bank.

That £9.5m balance doesn't give any indication how much the holding company actually paid the bank for the debt though.

Could very well have been £2m.

[Tyler Durden]

It is relevant because of comments like your last paragraph.

If the bank just wrote it off then STF has done little other than negotiating with the bank.

If we paid it or most of it then he did decide to write a significant amount off.

As an executive at a major bank I don’t really need any lessons on how banks operate on debts. Banks might write down the value of debts to certain sectors but you can be very sure they do their level best to nevertheless extract as much value as possible from those arrangements. Writing off debt that is being serviced fully is pretty much unheard of.

We ended up £9.5m in debt to the Holding company after the payments it made to the bank. You can see the following loan to share transaction and the fact we were left with £5m ongoing debt to them.

Exaggerating the level of initial debt that they then got value from in shares and debt would be worthy of investigation....

It sounds like you do need some lessons Andy because to suggest that banks never write off debt that is being serviced is just wrong.

I’m not sure what your field is but I was a Senior Manager at a major bank for several years, spending 3-4 years working on debt restructures and impairments. Many banks spent several years winding down or selling off non performing debt. Football clubs fell into that bracket.

[stantonhibby]

It sounds like you do need some lessons Andy because to suggest that banks never write off debt that is being serviced is just wrong.

I’m not sure what your field is but I was a Senior Manager at a major bank for several years, spending 3-4 years working on debt restructures and impairments. Many banks spent several years winding down or selling off non performing debt. Football clubs fell into that bracket.

100% correct

[Andy74]

It sounds like you do need some lessons Andy because to suggest that banks never write off debt that is being serviced is just wrong.

I’m not sure what your field is but I was a Senior Manager at a major bank for several years, spending 3-4 years working on debt restructures and impairments. Many banks spent several years winding down or selling off non performing debt. Football clubs fell into that bracket.

They did and there were a range of ways in which banks got out. I’m sure doing debt restructures you weren’t in the habit of just writing off debts to business where you were going to get your money back.

The HFC Holdings accounts show significant loans coming in from STF and his companies and the £4.5 being paid out for shares as well as the £5m mortgage.

The reality of deals being done with clubs isn’t in doubt. There’s certainly plenty evidence in Hibs case that we did not get any significant write off at the bank and that STF paid for a big chunk himself.

[PaulSmith]

I can summarise what happened but would rather not then get into a debate about it. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out why there are both Hibs and Hearts fans in Edinburgh who knew the exact details. People will choose what they want to believe however.

Hibs owed c£6.3m to Lloyds. We also owed about £3m to the holding company. So over £9m debt in total.

Farmer/Petrie agreed a settlement for the bank debt, paying just under £2m for the £6.3m debt. Passing that saving on, this meant the clubs debt was now around £5m to Farmer/holdco, hence the new interest free loan.

Aberdeen did a similar deal. Although press reports would suggest that investors paid off their debt, their settlement was around £3m for a £9m+ debt. The bank were happy to do so, to clean up the balance sheet rather than holding capital against loans that were considered to be part of the “bad bank”.

Despite both clubs (and others) servicing their interest etc. All perfectly legitimate agreements.

Jambos might suggest it was taxpayer bailed out banks that we screwed over - it’s nonsense. Lloyds peaked at 40% taxpayer owned and returned a profit to the public purse overall.

Thanks TD.

Certainly makes the comments in The Vault interesting reading as when this was muted at the time it was treated like blasphemy.

It appears that LBG that took the haircut and the cost of their pay out was simply put onto the total owed to the parent company by the club.

[Andy74]

Thanks TD.

Certainly makes the comments in The Vault interesting reading as when this was muted at the time it was treated like blasphemy.

It appears that LBG that took the haircut and the cost of their pay out was simply put onto the total owed to the parent company by the club.

It ignores the fact though that we ended up with £9.5m debt to the Holding Company and there was a £5m and a £4.5m debt for share swap.

If the debt to the bank was reduced by £4m there would be no need for the share deal. That’s all in the Holding company accounts.

There are also significant additional loans that came into the Holding company that year from STF.

We have the accounts, we have the announcements at the time and the fact the bank would have got their money back.

I’ve seen nothing at all except for this poster to back up that we got a significant reduction from the bank. The transactions through the accounts suggest it’s pretty much as announced at the time.

[Caversham Green]

I did a bit of research on this at the time and, while I couldn't be absolutely certain because there were other transactions within the group my gut feel was that the bank got the £4.5m that STF loaned to the holding company during the year in question and the other transactions were red herrings.

One thing is for sure, Hibs paid much more to settle their £6.3m debt than HoMFC did to settle their £70+m debt. Of course that's a very low bar - I paid more to Barclaycard last month then the Duncans paid in total back then.

[Andy74]

I did a bit of research on this at the time and, while I couldn't be absolutely certain because there were other transactions within the group my gut feel was that the bank got the £4.5m that STF loaned to the holding company during the year in question and the other transactions were red herrings.

One thing is for sure, Hibs paid much more to settle their £6.3m debt than HoMFC did to settle their £70+m debt. Of course that's a very low bar - I paid more to Barclaycard last month then the Duncans paid in total back then.

I think the £4.5m transaction through the holding company was part of it. There was also some paid direct to the bank per the Hibs statement, presumably by STF. The Bank will have got the bulk of their money.

[Hibs4185]

The loan repayments of £40k a month for 10 years were to repay STF for paying off the bank and the bank releasing security against the club’s assets.

The debt to the bank was £6.2 million. STF and BOS came to a deal that was amicable to both sides. STF would’ve been delighted to get a deal and LLoyds the parent company of BOS would’ve been jumping for joy at getting the vast majority of a high risk debt back.

Both parties were winners and a common commercial deal was struck. No bumping, no sour taste and good business practice.

I’d go as far to say that hibs could approach any main stream bank and still borrow, whereas hearts would be laughed out if the office.

The £9.5 million would have been made up of £6.2 million bank debt and £3.3 million holding company debt.

The hibs statement from 2014 uses the word ‘settlement’ which in my eyes shows there was a deal. But again it was an agreement that suited both parties.

It is interesting though because all my family are yams and they have hundreds of conspiracies about how much STF pumped into us and how we bumped the banks as well.

They can’t stand that we are a well run professional club and that acts with integrity and have achieved this whilst living within our means.

Instead of spending £6 a week on Boyce, they be better spending £2k a week on a competent CEO.

[Speedy]

It ignores the fact though that we ended up with £9.5m debt to the Holding Company and there was a £5m and a £4.5m debt for share swap.

If the debt to the bank was reduced by £4m there would be no need for the share deal. That’s all in the Holding company accounts.

There are also significant additional loans that came into the Holding company that year from STF.

We have the accounts, we have the announcements at the time and the fact the bank would have got their money back.

I’ve seen nothing at all except for this poster to back up that we got a significant reduction from the bank. The transactions through the accounts suggest it’s pretty much as announced at the time.

It doesn't, they are separate transactions.

Transaction 1 - Holding company buys c£6m of debt from Lloyds for £x (only Lloyds and the Holding co will know this value, could be £6m but could be £6 for all we know)

Transaction 2 - Holding co now owns additional c£6m of debt but reduces this via share/loan transactions

[Sammy7nil]

The loan repayments of £40k a month for 10 years were to repay STF for paying off the bank and the bank releasing security against the club’s assets.

The debt to the bank was £6.2 million. STF and BOS came to a deal that was amicable to both sides. STF would’ve been delighted to get a deal and LLoyds the parent company of BOS would’ve been jumping for joy at getting the vast majority of a high risk debt back.

Both parties were winners and a common commercial deal was struck. No bumping, no sour taste and good business practice.

I’d go as far to say that hibs could approach any main stream bank and still borrow, whereas hearts would be laughed out if the office.

The £9.5 million would have been made up of £6.2 million bank debt and £3.3 million holding company debt.

The hibs statement from 2014 uses the word ‘settlement’ which in my eyes shows there was a deal. But again it was an agreement that suited both parties.

It is interesting though because all my family are yams and they have hundreds of conspiracies about how much STF pumped into us and how we bumped the banks as well.

They can’t stand that we are a well run professional club and that acts with integrity and have achieved this whilst living within our means.

Instead of spending £6 a week on Boyce, they be better spending £2k a week on a competent CEO.

Ha ha :aok: :greengrin :wink:

[whiskyhibby]

Does this win the award for the most irrelevant self flagellation thread ever..........

[jacomo]

Does this win the award for the most irrelevant self flagellation thread ever..........


Ha! Yes probably!

It’s all irrelevant. Pishy wee Yams need to ask some questions of their own club. They are being mismanaged horrifically.

[Kato]

I think the important point is that Hibs had been paying the loans back, on time, over many years, including interest. The lender had already made a lot of money out of the loan and agreed to an early settlement.

Hibs did not, at any point, fail to pay back money to any creditors and did not siphon money off from a bank in which Hibs owner was illegaly engaged in diverting slush funds from questionable sources


What Hibs did was all above board.

What Hearts did was deceitful and criminal.That's how I remember it. If the bank was willing to take less money in the long run in lieu of taking a one off lump sum that's perfectly legal and must have made business sense to them at the time.

The only people who dont want it represented that way are Hearts fans who know their club was run like a Moscow Casino for the better part of a decade.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[jacomo]

That's how I remember it. If the bank was willing to take less money in the long run in lieu of taking a one off lump sum that's perfectly legal and must have made business sense to them at the time.

The only people who dont want it represented that way are Hearts fans who know their club was run like a Moscow Casino for the better part of a decade.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk


And it’s now being run into the ground. Judging by Budges behaviour and demeanour, things are really serious for them.

[whiskyhibby]

And it’s now being run into the ground. Judging by Budges behaviour and demeanour, things are really serious for them.

Couldn't agree more, house of cards springs to mind, once one benefactor defaults the rest will follow