| Is it Rotherham FC to blame? 17:58 - Oct 20 with 10397 views | SamWhiteUK |
See a lot of people saying that it's poor from Rotherham etc, but was it their decision? They said that they are not doing a pitch inspection as they have no questions as to the playability of the surface. However, the game wasn't called off due to the pitch or the stadium, but rather the roads etc around it. Did they ever offer "confirmation" that it will "definitely" go ahead, as I keep seeing bandied about?
For the record, I'm thoroughly pissed off as this is what I've looked forward to all week, and I was only going to watch on Sky. Feel so sorry for those that have travelled. |  | | |  |
| Is it Rotherham FC to blame? on 20:33 - Oct 20 with 3477 views | Kropotkin123 |
| Is it Rotherham FC to blame? on 18:21 - Oct 20 by MK1 |
I ain't no expert, but I think I am right in saying that when it rains, river levels go up. When it rains a lot, the rivers go up a lot. I think that's right. |
 Can't believe you foresaw that. I'm not worthy |  |
| Submit your 1-24 league prediction here -https://www.twtd.co.uk/forum/514096/page:1 - for the opportunity to get a free Ipswich top. | | Poll: | Would you rather | | Blog: | Round Four: Eagle |
| |
| Is it Rotherham FC to blame? on 20:43 - Oct 20 with 3443 views | Ryorry |
| Is it Rotherham FC to blame? on 19:17 - Oct 20 by peterleeblue |
There is no one to blame if you call it off early enough.
Additionally risk can be mitigated by scheduling fixtures that actually make sense for away fans on a Friday night. |
Well I suppose there's one positive to come out of this - Sky getting stung and coming away with nothing but a dollop of muddy river water in their eye.
And maybe a few more fans annoyed enough to stop handing their hard-earned over to them? [Post edited 20 Oct 2023 20:44]
|  |
| |
| Is it Rotherham FC to blame? on 22:04 - Oct 20 with 3381 views | Horsham |
I guess the facts as presented are that the River Don burst its banks and that it made it unsafe for supporters to use the stadium. Correct decision - call the game off.
If the reason for calling the game off was that the Don bursting its banks made things unsafe then whoever decides to green or red light the game was acting off the wrong signal. It shouldn’t have been a matter of making the decision to postpone based on that.
What if the Don didn’t burst? Then the game goes ahead presumably but then say when everyone is in it does burst then you’ve got a situation that is by the logic given for postponing‘dangerous’.
The decision to postpone for safety reasons should have been made on the probability of the Don bursting not waiting until it actually did.
Presumably Rotherham have a risk assessment relating to the safe access/egress of supporters and that risk assessment noticed the bloody great river.
Either the story isn’t straight or the decision making was very flawed (not In coming to the correct decision but in delaying the decision).
Who’s to blame? Don’t know. What could happen if decisions wait until the dangerous thing happens? Could be very nasty.
I think this deserves more scrutiny.
Boring sorry. |  | | |
| Is it Rotherham FC to blame? on 23:01 - Oct 20 with 3350 views | SheffordBlue |
| Is it Rotherham FC to blame? on 22:04 - Oct 20 by Horsham |
I guess the facts as presented are that the River Don burst its banks and that it made it unsafe for supporters to use the stadium. Correct decision - call the game off.
If the reason for calling the game off was that the Don bursting its banks made things unsafe then whoever decides to green or red light the game was acting off the wrong signal. It shouldn’t have been a matter of making the decision to postpone based on that.
What if the Don didn’t burst? Then the game goes ahead presumably but then say when everyone is in it does burst then you’ve got a situation that is by the logic given for postponing‘dangerous’.
The decision to postpone for safety reasons should have been made on the probability of the Don bursting not waiting until it actually did.
Presumably Rotherham have a risk assessment relating to the safe access/egress of supporters and that risk assessment noticed the bloody great river.
Either the story isn’t straight or the decision making was very flawed (not In coming to the correct decision but in delaying the decision).
Who’s to blame? Don’t know. What could happen if decisions wait until the dangerous thing happens? Could be very nasty.
I think this deserves more scrutiny.
Boring sorry. |
I think it's Highly Likely that when the people who were communicating the probability of it being unsafe to hold the game were talking to each other they weren't using any kind of standardised probability language. I'd wager a decent amount that people were using words like 'could' and 'might' rather than clearly defined terms. Add into that the fear of making a decision to call it off and it then subsequently turning out to be totally fine and you can see why these things get messed up.
Even more boring. Not sorry!
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/defence-intelligence-communicating-probabilit |  |
| |
| Is it Rotherham FC to blame? on 23:04 - Oct 20 with 3343 views | NthQldITFC |
No. Don't ignore it for comfort.
Face it, and see if we can mitigate the scale of the problem for the sake of our children.
(not directed at you vwh, good on you for posting it)
'And the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded last year that extreme coastal floods that are currently expected once every 100 years could strike every year by 2050.' |  |
| |
| Is it Rotherham FC to blame? on 23:52 - Oct 20 with 3305 views | lizzibee |
Yes and no. Its seems they were just focused on pitch and other partners on the outside issues. They should all have a joined up approach - both clubs, police, highways, env agency, EFL and council and made a collective decision rather than each working independently. The club were too positive in their messages to our fans and should have sought other advice, particularly the river bursting its bank (which was inevitable).
Too many isolated partners, and at the end is sky - and they work for no fans | | | |
| Is it Rotherham FC to blame? on 00:30 - Oct 21 with 3273 views | DinnernotTea |
I might be too dim or too drunk (we all still went to the pub). But what exactly was the risk of the river bursting? For instance 7 hours on from the decision what happened in Rotherham? Do you really think in 2023 humans can't navigate around large puddles upon entrance? Of course it's far from ideal but was anyone really at risk and why? The water would at very worst be ankle deep upon entering the stadium.
Could be dim or drunk who knows. But 30 years ago I don't think this gets postponed given pitch was fine. | |
| |
| Is it Rotherham FC to blame? on 00:37 - Oct 21 with 3271 views | DinnernotTea |
Tell me right now how many houses got evacuated within 1 mile of the ground because the river bursts it's bank. I'm guessing 0. I'm guessing absolutely no instances happened within 1 mile of the ground from 5pm - 10pm.
It's a complete ball ache to get to the ground I get that. But the pitch is more important than fans. If it's playable then play on. If you get there brilliant if you don't it is what it is. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Is it Rotherham FC to blame? on 05:51 - Oct 21 with 3211 views | Horsham |
| Is it Rotherham FC to blame? on 23:01 - Oct 20 by SheffordBlue |
I think it's Highly Likely that when the people who were communicating the probability of it being unsafe to hold the game were talking to each other they weren't using any kind of standardised probability language. I'd wager a decent amount that people were using words like 'could' and 'might' rather than clearly defined terms. Add into that the fear of making a decision to call it off and it then subsequently turning out to be totally fine and you can see why these things get messed up.
Even more boring. Not sorry!
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/defence-intelligence-communicating-probabilit |
My understanding is risk is calculated in health and safety terms on the basis of probability and potential consequence and should be done in clearly measured ways. So if the catalyst for deciding to not play was the river bursting its banks then the decision was made too late and made irresponsibly and potentially dangerously. [Post edited 21 Oct 2023 7:08]
| | | |
| Is it Rotherham FC to blame? on 07:11 - Oct 21 with 3182 views | Lord_Mac |
What do the authorities think amber weather warnings are for? It should be automatic for games to be postponed if there is an amber weather warning in force on the day of a match. Whereas the pressures are always on keeping things running, rather than taking a pragmatic view. A plane even skidded off the runway at Leeds because of the pressures of keeping things running. How we enjoy watching big jets struggling to fight crosswinds on landing, just to keep the planes running. Quite apart from the cost and inconvenience, safety and common sense are being sacrificed in a quest for profit.
In the summer of 2022, we had excessive heat around 42C. I cancelled games and training for our junior cricketers on the grounds of safety. Some local clubs disagreed and preferred to have their 11-year-olds running around in helmets and pads. Fortunately, the local league quickly implemented rules based on safety and established practice in Australia and South Africa.
With extreme weather an increasing risk, football should be implementing rules based on the safety of individuals, both on and off the pitch. That includes not just the risks associated with spectators travelling into flood zones, but also having elite athletes performing in conditions of extreme heat - this is happening increasingly at the start and end of the season, as temperatures are increasing, along with the length of the season. | |
| |
| Is it Rotherham FC to blame? on 07:58 - Oct 21 with 3132 views | bluelagos |
| Is it Rotherham FC to blame? on 07:11 - Oct 21 by Lord_Mac |
What do the authorities think amber weather warnings are for? It should be automatic for games to be postponed if there is an amber weather warning in force on the day of a match. Whereas the pressures are always on keeping things running, rather than taking a pragmatic view. A plane even skidded off the runway at Leeds because of the pressures of keeping things running. How we enjoy watching big jets struggling to fight crosswinds on landing, just to keep the planes running. Quite apart from the cost and inconvenience, safety and common sense are being sacrificed in a quest for profit.
In the summer of 2022, we had excessive heat around 42C. I cancelled games and training for our junior cricketers on the grounds of safety. Some local clubs disagreed and preferred to have their 11-year-olds running around in helmets and pads. Fortunately, the local league quickly implemented rules based on safety and established practice in Australia and South Africa.
With extreme weather an increasing risk, football should be implementing rules based on the safety of individuals, both on and off the pitch. That includes not just the risks associated with spectators travelling into flood zones, but also having elite athletes performing in conditions of extreme heat - this is happening increasingly at the start and end of the season, as temperatures are increasing, along with the length of the season. |
100%
To go ahead the pitch has to be playable and safe for the players. The stadium access needs to be safe hence why sometimes games are called off in winter.
But it also needs to be safe for those travelling. When you have 2000k coming around 4 hours in treacherous conditions, surely the weather warning should be enough to cancel the game?
Countless fans have travelled in dangerous conditions which could easily have been avoided. Leave aside the cost, for me it's the disregard for spectator safety that s so appalling. Those who made the decision made the right call...but it should haave been made at least 5 hours earlier.
Your decision on the cricket was spot on, some people need protecting and it would be irresponsible to put on an event knowing the risks were high of serious problems.
Am a whole I am quite risk averse and believe people should be free to make their own decisions. But I still think the authorities fcked up yesterday and we had the worst of all worlds, no game and many spectators taking needless risks on the roads that were easily avoidable.
When you have planes sliding off a runway, a flooded train station, Suffolk police declaring a major incident and Suffolk fire and rescue stating "essential journeys only" - how on earth can it be appropriate to have 2000 fans on the roads? |  |
| |
| Is it Rotherham FC to blame? on 08:10 - Oct 21 with 3102 views | HatStand |
Isn't it a force majeure | |
| |
| Scandalous innit on 09:55 - Oct 21 with 3042 views | Dyland |
| Is it Rotherham FC to blame? on 07:58 - Oct 21 by bluelagos |
100%
To go ahead the pitch has to be playable and safe for the players. The stadium access needs to be safe hence why sometimes games are called off in winter.
But it also needs to be safe for those travelling. When you have 2000k coming around 4 hours in treacherous conditions, surely the weather warning should be enough to cancel the game?
Countless fans have travelled in dangerous conditions which could easily have been avoided. Leave aside the cost, for me it's the disregard for spectator safety that s so appalling. Those who made the decision made the right call...but it should haave been made at least 5 hours earlier.
Your decision on the cricket was spot on, some people need protecting and it would be irresponsible to put on an event knowing the risks were high of serious problems.
Am a whole I am quite risk averse and believe people should be free to make their own decisions. But I still think the authorities fcked up yesterday and we had the worst of all worlds, no game and many spectators taking needless risks on the roads that were easily avoidable.
When you have planes sliding off a runway, a flooded train station, Suffolk police declaring a major incident and Suffolk fire and rescue stating "essential journeys only" - how on earth can it be appropriate to have 2000 fans on the roads? |
A fooking total joke.
I hate humans. Well not you and me, but da system and The Man. |  |
| |
| Is it Rotherham FC to blame? on 10:20 - Oct 21 with 3010 views | SitfcB |
| Is it Rotherham FC to blame? on 07:58 - Oct 21 by bluelagos |
100%
To go ahead the pitch has to be playable and safe for the players. The stadium access needs to be safe hence why sometimes games are called off in winter.
But it also needs to be safe for those travelling. When you have 2000k coming around 4 hours in treacherous conditions, surely the weather warning should be enough to cancel the game?
Countless fans have travelled in dangerous conditions which could easily have been avoided. Leave aside the cost, for me it's the disregard for spectator safety that s so appalling. Those who made the decision made the right call...but it should haave been made at least 5 hours earlier.
Your decision on the cricket was spot on, some people need protecting and it would be irresponsible to put on an event knowing the risks were high of serious problems.
Am a whole I am quite risk averse and believe people should be free to make their own decisions. But I still think the authorities fcked up yesterday and we had the worst of all worlds, no game and many spectators taking needless risks on the roads that were easily avoidable.
When you have planes sliding off a runway, a flooded train station, Suffolk police declaring a major incident and Suffolk fire and rescue stating "essential journeys only" - how on earth can it be appropriate to have 2000 fans on the roads? |
This should’ve surely have been the trigger for postponing the game due to ‘supporter safety’ surely, tweeted at 9:34!
Also a video on twitter of the river (on Don Street) starting to breach posted at 14:47…
|  |
| |
| Is it Rotherham FC to blame? on 10:41 - Oct 21 with 2978 views | Pinewoodblue |
| Is it Rotherham FC to blame? on 10:20 - Oct 21 by SitfcB |
This should’ve surely have been the trigger for postponing the game due to ‘supporter safety’ surely, tweeted at 9:34!
Also a video on twitter of the river (on Don Street) starting to breach posted at 14:47…
|
It is worth pointing out that at no time did the Environment Agency upgrade from Flood Alert to Flood warning.
Seems to me , yet again, people making decisions are seeking worst case scenarios. Happened all the time with Covid.
Incidentally a flood warning is in place for River Gipping from Needham Market through to London Road bridge in Ipswich. |  |
| |
| Is it Rotherham FC to blame? on 11:04 - Oct 21 with 2957 views | You_Bloo_Right |
| Is it Rotherham FC to blame? on 10:41 - Oct 21 by Pinewoodblue |
It is worth pointing out that at no time did the Environment Agency upgrade from Flood Alert to Flood warning.
Seems to me , yet again, people making decisions are seeking worst case scenarios. Happened all the time with Covid.
Incidentally a flood warning is in place for River Gipping from Needham Market through to London Road bridge in Ipswich. |
This is the Flood Alert advice (and the third point seems most pertinent in this case):
Advice to the public/media
• Be prepared to act on your flood plan.
• Prepare a flood kit of essential items.
• Avoid walking, cycling or driving through flood
water.
• Farmers should consider moving livestock and
equipment away from areas likely to flood.
• Call Floodline on 0845 988 1188 for
up-to-date flooding information.
• Monitor local water levels on the Environment
Agency website
www.environment-agency.gov.uk
And this is for a Flood Warning:
Advice to the public/media
• Protect yourself, your family and help others.
• Move family, pets and valuables to a safe
place.
• Turn off gas, electricity and water supplies
if safe to do so.
• Put flood protection equipment in place.
• If you are caught in a flash flood, get to higher
ground.
• Call Floodline on 0845 988 1188 for
up-to-date information.
Not sure what point you're making about the EA warning levels.
Oh, and worst case surely is Severe Flood Warning for which the advice is:
Advice to the public/media
• Stay in a safe place with a means of escape.
• Be ready should you need to evacuate from
your home.
• Co-operate with the emergency services.
• Call 999 if you are in immediate danger.
• Call Floodline on 0845 988 1188 for
up-to-date flooding information. [Post edited 21 Oct 2023 11:06]
|  |
| |
| Is it Rotherham FC to blame? on 11:16 - Oct 21 with 2938 views | Wickets |
For me yes it's poor as most where assuming it was off until they released a statement giving the impression it was on ! |  | | |
| Is it Rotherham FC to blame? on 11:36 - Oct 21 with 2934 views | LegendofthePhoenix |
The events of yesterday are disgraceful but sadly not even surprising. Whilst we can all moan on here, that doesn't achieve anything.
I'd encourage more to join and support the Football Supporters Association who campaign for better fan engagement.
This is an extract from the 2022/23 report:
"Fans indicated they are not in favour of the multitude of subscriptions required to watch the Premier League fixtures –
two thirds (63%) said they would prefer a direct-to-consumer Netflix-style app rather than having to subscribe to multiple broadcasters. Almost half of respondents (44.6%) had not been able to attend a match because it had been moved for TV in the last year, while one in five (20.4%) had lost money on travel/accommodation because a game had been moved. Two-fifths (41.8%) of supporters said that football on TV is losing its appeal."
The link to the FSA is
https://thefsa.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/FSA-Annual-Review-2023.pdf
It costs nothing to join, and hopefully we will soon have a new government that listens more to the FSA. One thing I'd love to see is that the fans actually have a say in the moving of matches for TV. One day...... |  |
| |
| Is it Rotherham FC to blame? on 11:42 - Oct 21 with 2922 views | Plums |
| Is it Rotherham FC to blame? on 10:20 - Oct 21 by SitfcB |
This should’ve surely have been the trigger for postponing the game due to ‘supporter safety’ surely, tweeted at 9:34!
Also a video on twitter of the river (on Don Street) starting to breach posted at 14:47…
|
Whilst the EFL and Sky are clearly at fault here, it would be really interesting to know how much the insurance position of Rotherham comes into play. i.e. what circumstances are required for them to be able to claim on business interruption insurance for what was presumably a sizeable payday.
The answer won't help of course but it's pretty clear that finance drove the lack of an early and inevitable public safety decision. |  |
| |
| Is it Rotherham FC to blame? on 11:56 - Oct 21 with 2902 views | SheffordBlue |
| Is it Rotherham FC to blame? on 11:42 - Oct 21 by Plums |
Whilst the EFL and Sky are clearly at fault here, it would be really interesting to know how much the insurance position of Rotherham comes into play. i.e. what circumstances are required for them to be able to claim on business interruption insurance for what was presumably a sizeable payday.
The answer won't help of course but it's pretty clear that finance drove the lack of an early and inevitable public safety decision. |
Without knowing who said what to whom when and who was responsible for decision making I think it's difficult to say it's pretty clear that finance drove it
E.g At what point did the club the notify the league that there was a risk of the river breaching and the impacts of this on the immediate area around the ground? Who was responsible for providing clear advice that the river would breach and who was this advice provided to? What were the interactions between the local authority/police and the club? | |
| |
| Is it Rotherham FC to blame? on 12:01 - Oct 21 with 2891 views | Ryorry |
| Is it Rotherham FC to blame? on 00:30 - Oct 21 by DinnernotTea |
I might be too dim or too drunk (we all still went to the pub). But what exactly was the risk of the river bursting? For instance 7 hours on from the decision what happened in Rotherham? Do you really think in 2023 humans can't navigate around large puddles upon entrance? Of course it's far from ideal but was anyone really at risk and why? The water would at very worst be ankle deep upon entering the stadium.
Could be dim or drunk who knows. But 30 years ago I don't think this gets postponed given pitch was fine. |
"Could be dim or drunk who knows."
Reckon I'll go with both, based on the contents of your posts. | |
| |
| Is it Rotherham FC to blame? on 13:01 - Oct 21 with 2853 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Is it Rotherham FC to blame? on 22:04 - Oct 20 by Horsham |
I guess the facts as presented are that the River Don burst its banks and that it made it unsafe for supporters to use the stadium. Correct decision - call the game off.
If the reason for calling the game off was that the Don bursting its banks made things unsafe then whoever decides to green or red light the game was acting off the wrong signal. It shouldn’t have been a matter of making the decision to postpone based on that.
What if the Don didn’t burst? Then the game goes ahead presumably but then say when everyone is in it does burst then you’ve got a situation that is by the logic given for postponing‘dangerous’.
The decision to postpone for safety reasons should have been made on the probability of the Don bursting not waiting until it actually did.
Presumably Rotherham have a risk assessment relating to the safe access/egress of supporters and that risk assessment noticed the bloody great river.
Either the story isn’t straight or the decision making was very flawed (not In coming to the correct decision but in delaying the decision).
Who’s to blame? Don’t know. What could happen if decisions wait until the dangerous thing happens? Could be very nasty.
I think this deserves more scrutiny.
Boring sorry. |
It’s not boring, don’t worry. There should be a review of what happened leading up to calling the game off. I think we can all agree that the process and communication didn’t work well. A wasted journey for thousands and during bad conditions deserves a proper investigation. |  |
| |
| Is it Rotherham FC to blame? on 13:08 - Oct 21 with 2848 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Is it Rotherham FC to blame? on 11:36 - Oct 21 by LegendofthePhoenix |
The events of yesterday are disgraceful but sadly not even surprising. Whilst we can all moan on here, that doesn't achieve anything.
I'd encourage more to join and support the Football Supporters Association who campaign for better fan engagement.
This is an extract from the 2022/23 report:
"Fans indicated they are not in favour of the multitude of subscriptions required to watch the Premier League fixtures –
two thirds (63%) said they would prefer a direct-to-consumer Netflix-style app rather than having to subscribe to multiple broadcasters. Almost half of respondents (44.6%) had not been able to attend a match because it had been moved for TV in the last year, while one in five (20.4%) had lost money on travel/accommodation because a game had been moved. Two-fifths (41.8%) of supporters said that football on TV is losing its appeal."
The link to the FSA is
https://thefsa.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/FSA-Annual-Review-2023.pdf
It costs nothing to join, and hopefully we will soon have a new government that listens more to the FSA. One thing I'd love to see is that the fans actually have a say in the moving of matches for TV. One day...... |
Good post. The proliferation of broadcasters used to really get my goat. They even have the cheek to frame is as offering more choice. I couldn’t give a monkeys who shows the game, but I don’t want to have to sign up to multiple providers. Luckily, this is becoming less of a thing now with clubs streaming their own matches. But the next step we need is for TownTV to have cup games. | |
| |
| Is it Rotherham FC to blame? on 13:14 - Oct 21 with 2842 views | Plums |
| Is it Rotherham FC to blame? on 11:36 - Oct 21 by LegendofthePhoenix |
The events of yesterday are disgraceful but sadly not even surprising. Whilst we can all moan on here, that doesn't achieve anything.
I'd encourage more to join and support the Football Supporters Association who campaign for better fan engagement.
This is an extract from the 2022/23 report:
"Fans indicated they are not in favour of the multitude of subscriptions required to watch the Premier League fixtures –
two thirds (63%) said they would prefer a direct-to-consumer Netflix-style app rather than having to subscribe to multiple broadcasters. Almost half of respondents (44.6%) had not been able to attend a match because it had been moved for TV in the last year, while one in five (20.4%) had lost money on travel/accommodation because a game had been moved. Two-fifths (41.8%) of supporters said that football on TV is losing its appeal."
The link to the FSA is
https://thefsa.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/FSA-Annual-Review-2023.pdf
It costs nothing to join, and hopefully we will soon have a new government that listens more to the FSA. One thing I'd love to see is that the fans actually have a say in the moving of matches for TV. One day...... |
Thanks. I have joined and it's long overdue. | |
| |
| Is it Rotherham FC to blame? on 13:26 - Oct 21 with 2828 views | bluelagos |
| Is it Rotherham FC to blame? on 11:36 - Oct 21 by LegendofthePhoenix |
The events of yesterday are disgraceful but sadly not even surprising. Whilst we can all moan on here, that doesn't achieve anything.
I'd encourage more to join and support the Football Supporters Association who campaign for better fan engagement.
This is an extract from the 2022/23 report:
"Fans indicated they are not in favour of the multitude of subscriptions required to watch the Premier League fixtures –
two thirds (63%) said they would prefer a direct-to-consumer Netflix-style app rather than having to subscribe to multiple broadcasters. Almost half of respondents (44.6%) had not been able to attend a match because it had been moved for TV in the last year, while one in five (20.4%) had lost money on travel/accommodation because a game had been moved. Two-fifths (41.8%) of supporters said that football on TV is losing its appeal."
The link to the FSA is
https://thefsa.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/FSA-Annual-Review-2023.pdf
It costs nothing to join, and hopefully we will soon have a new government that listens more to the FSA. One thing I'd love to see is that the fans actually have a say in the moving of matches for TV. One day...... |
Fair points
Am wondering why the Ipswich Supporters club or whatever it's called are silent. Surely they should be making some noise about this or what on earth is the point of them as an organisation?
If they are to have any credibility as a voice for fans, then they need to engage asap | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
