Weston Super Saint Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 It's a pity we can't get the old posts back from TSF, I don't remember Alpine being overly complimentary about Pearson . He certainly was very anti-Burley, in fact probably the anti Burley poster.Is there no way of looking back at TSF?? TDD was / is THE anti Burley poster - even when we won Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 It's a pity we can't get the old posts back from TSF, I don't remember Alpine being overly complimentary about Pearson . He certainly was very anti-Burley, in fact probably the anti Burley poster.Is there no way of looking back at TSF?? i was very anti-burley...I thought he was terrible on the whole more so in the lead up to him leaving I thought pearson did ok and nothing special.... wotte is doing ok too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 It's a pity we can't get the old posts back from TSF, I don't remember Alpine being overly complimentary about Pearson . He certainly was very anti-Burley, in fact probably the anti Burley poster.Is there no way of looking back at TSF?? Once Pearson left he became Alpine's hero as he had been dismissed by evil Count Lowe. No doubt if Lowe had hired him in the first place Pearson would have got the usual treatment from the bunker in Austria. Let's fact it, Alpine isn't overly complimenatry about anyone is he? I suspect on his wedding day, when the Vicar asked if anyone objected to the marriage the, whole of Mrs Alpine's family rose to their feet as one and shouted "We do!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALWAYS_SFC Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 Once Pearson left he became Alpine's hero as he had been dismissed by evil Count Lowe. No doubt if Lowe had hired him in the first place Pearson would have got the usual treatment from the bunker in Austria. Let's fact it, Alpine isn't overly complimenatry about anyone is he? I suspect on his wedding day, when the Vicar asked if anyone objected to the marriage the, whole of Mrs Alpine's family rose to their feet as one and shouted "We do!" Cyber stalker!!!!! You really are obsessed with Alpine aren`t you...sad,sad man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 I will never get the anti Burley thing. In his one full season he did a good job. We were in no danger of going down at the point he left. He didn't throw his toys out of the pram when he lost Jones, Baird and Bale and if he was hacked off about it, kept his own counsel. And as much as Alpine would have us belive he was a rubbish manager, he manged to achieve an average of 1.54 points per game, the best performancer out of managers dating back to Ted Bates and probably before. If that is a rubbish manager give me another one like that please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 Cyber stalker!!!!! You really are obsessed with Alpine aren`t you...sad,sad man That is your opinion. If I was that obsessed with him why do you think he is on my ignorel list? Sadly though i still get to read his negative offerings through people's replies. I think the fact that you seem to have some kind of affinity with the wise words of our Austrain based friend that says for more about you than it does me. Frankly, if Alpine had been based in Austria in the 2nd World War I suspect that the Von Trapps would have handed themselves willingly over to the Nazis well before the closing credits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 Sorry, something CLEARLY doesnt add up here... 1. If we only needed to get rid of two of the big 3 wage earners, why did we get rid of Stern John (the last of the 3 to go on loan) at all ? 2. How did we fund the loans for : Pekhart Robertson Smith Pearce Gasmi Pulis Size Forecast All of whom (except Size) played or will play sod-all games, when we couldnt afford a striker ? 3. Variation of #2, how the f**k did we pay for Schneiderlin ? 4. Backroom staff - we've paid off Poortvillet, taken on Gorre, and another Dutchman lurks in the background 5. Our attendances have been loss-making all season So, just MAYBE, the finanical predicament is not as bad as the leaks coming out of SMS have inferred, and this has been simply a cover for some (failed) footballing theory experimentation. All this suggests to me that the chief architect of our downfall hasnt been finance, but the self-opinionateness of our plc Chairman. Yep. Probably some truth in that. OR Lowe - although he lacks the guts to announce publically that his plan was a sham - HAS realised he's incompetent and knows he needs to play him to stand a chance despite the cost? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 I will never get the anti Burley thing. In his one full season he did a good job. We were in no danger of going down at the point he left. He didn't throw his toys out of the pram when he lost Jones, Baird and Bale and if he was hacked off about it, kept his own counsel. And as much as Alpine would have us belive he was a rubbish manager, he manged to achieve an average of 1.54 points per game, the best performancer out of managers dating back to Ted Bates and probably before. If that is a rubbish manager give me another one like that please. but that is it..you have to judge them on their merits and not just stats... he had a better points per game thing than WGS so would you say he was better for than WGS..? of course you would not..why is that..? as you base it on the merit of the circumstances at the time.. when burley got us to the playoff (which imo was the bare minimum) he did ok but doing that, he spent the most that summer out of the whole league, had a huge squad, had the likes of jones, bale, baird, with rasiak etc...like I said, we WERE the big spenders that summer and was only caught up by sunderland and derby in jan...and I still think we spent the most... I dont think in my 28 year of living I have ever recalled a saints manager being backed in relative term like burley was.. add that to his reputation (which was great as I was happy we got him) I really thought he was quite disapointing for us...especially the season he left..the fact he seemed to give up.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOTONS EAST SIDE Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 That's as may be, but how much would an extra 5000 on the gates due to being in the top half of the division have brought in ? Surely that would cover it ? ( EG 5000 extra bums on seats for 8 home games = 40000 paying 'customers'. If each of them paid £20 per ticket, thats £800K ).This is the CRUX of the question. A better team =better players=better results=a better league position= BETTER ATTENDANCE = BETTER INCOME!!!! Its not rocket science is it Mr Lowe & Co!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 no one has really answered how we can afford Saga, Euell and co NOW but could not, apparently, 4 weeks ago ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 no one has really answered how we can afford Saga' date=' Euell and co NOW but could not, apparently, 4 weeks ago ?[/quote'] dunno guess (and it is that)..lets not forget we are skint...and paying them now to the end of the season will be alot less than paying them 4-6 weeks ago till the end of the season..? (hasnt sagge featured since his return anyway)..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graffito Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 Why can we suddenly afford to play Saga ? Because somebody has suddenly realised we can't afford not to play him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 Why can we suddenly afford to play Saga ? Because somebody has suddenly realised we can't afford not to play him. Well we have to pay him anyway so why not play him? other than that I don't understand the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 Well we have to pay him anyway so why not play him? other than that I don't understand the question. i suppose the issue is that he and others had to go on loan because we could not afford to pay them, apparently. I agree we have to pay him now BUT is that payment going to push us into admin or not. If it does not have we been conned for the first half of the season Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidthesquid Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 Sorry, something CLEARLY doesnt add up here... 1. If we only needed to get rid of two of the big 3 wage earners, why did we get rid of Stern John (the last of the 3 to go on loan) at all ? 2. How did we fund the loans for : Pekhart Robertson Smith Pearce Gasmi Pulis Size Forecast All of whom (except Size) played or will play sod-all games, when we couldnt afford a striker ? 3. Variation of #2, how the f**k did we pay for Schneiderlin ? 4. Backroom staff - we've paid off Poortvillet, taken on Gorre, and another Dutchman lurks in the background 5. Our attendances have been loss-making all season So, just MAYBE, the finanical predicament is not as bad as the leaks coming out of SMS have inferred, and this has been simply a cover for some (failed) footballing theory experimentation. All this suggests to me that the chief architect of our downfall hasnt been finance, but the self-opinionateness of our plc Chairman. 1 We clearly had to reduce the wages and took any reasonable offers 2 I'm guessing but Pekhart, Robertson, Pearce, Cork & Gasmi were/are all having some or most of their wages paid by their parent clubs (Just as I fear we are paying part of John & Rasiak's wages) Smith, Pulis & Forecast are all on sod-all anyway & we do need a squad. Seijs I don't know 3 I don't know - maybe Schneiderlin was considered too good to miss as an investment (& Gasmi was a Bleidelis/Chala type) 4 Backroom staff are all on small wages 5 Attendances still are crap but ...? I reckon that Saga is back because a) no-one else would take him/pay his wages & that b) possibly the bank have relented short-term to help us (and them) beat the drop. I think we are still in the sh1t but it is obviously best for all concerned if we don't get relegated. Then again, maybe we have found a very shy benefactor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALWAYS_SFC Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 no one has really answered how we can afford Saga' date=' Euell and co NOW but could not, apparently, 4 weeks ago ?[/quote'] We could have it`s just that those players did not fit in with Lowe`s idiotic youth only policy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidthesquid Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 I will never get the anti Burley thing. In his one full season he did a good job. We were in no danger of going down at the point he left. He didn't throw his toys out of the pram when he lost Jones, Baird and Bale and if he was hacked off about it, kept his own counsel. And as much as Alpine would have us belive he was a rubbish manager, he manged to achieve an average of 1.54 points per game, the best performancer out of managers dating back to Ted Bates and probably before. If that is a rubbish manager give me another one like that please. We were saying back before Christmas last season that even though we were upper mid-table there was something very shaky about that squad and a relegation fight was as likely as the play-offs. We won two or three home games - WBA, Cardiff & Blackpool spring to mind where we got damned lucky ( a far cry from this season at home) as well as getting turned over at Preston & Sheff Wed - and it was clear that all was not well. Burley had assembled a very highly paid & seriously undeperforming squad & he managed to escape in a nick of time because it was just waiting to unravel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidthesquid Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 We could have it`s just that those players did not fit in with Lowe`s idiotic youth only policy... You still don't get it, do you - the idiotic youth policy was window dressing to hide just how far up sh1tcreek we were. Even Crouch admitted he'd have done something similar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALWAYS_SFC Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 That is your opinion. If I was that obsessed with him why do you think he is on my ignorel list? Sadly though i still get to read his negative offerings through people's replies. I think the fact that you seem to have some kind of affinity with the wise words of our Austrain based friend that says for more about you than it does me. Frankly, if Alpine had been based in Austria in the 2nd World War I suspect that the Von Trapps would have handed themselves willingly over to the Nazis well before the closing credits. He may as you say be on you ignore list but you still cannot stop yourself stalking him or just cannot accept his opinion...which is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorpie the sinner Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 Whatever the reasons! Saga is an absolute Godsend!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 You still don't get it, do you - the idiotic youth policy was window dressing to hide just how far up sh1tcreek we were. Even Crouch admitted he'd have done something similar Thats' not what Crouch said at the AGM!!!!!!!!!!! We did not have to go the whole hog with regards the youth policy at the start of the season and even given our financial constraints then we still had some leeway over who we bought in and over who we played. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALWAYS_SFC Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 You still don't get it, do you - the idiotic youth policy was window dressing to hide just how far up sh1tcreek we were. Even Crouch admitted he'd have done something similar And now we can suddenly afford to abandon it....why?...PR..Bull****...you seem to have some kind of inside knowledge or blind alliegance to Lowe so i guess you must be right..:roll: Crouch may as you say have done something similar but with a sensible blend of youth and experience and no one in their right mind would have sent out all three of our main goalscorers on loan... Goals win games and we had no one capable of scoring enough did we? Thankfully no team came in with an offer for Saga and we now have a chance, albeit a slim one, of staying up as long as Wotte continues to pick him.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 You still don't get it, do you - the idiotic youth policy was window dressing to hide just how far up sh1tcreek we were. Even Crouch admitted he'd have done something similar so , for my simple mind, are you saying we were in sh1tcreek but are not now and that is why we are playing these older players. It does not stack up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorpie the sinner Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 I definitely think in hindsight we should have gone down a different route!! a bit of money spent on experienced players could have meant we were safely ensconsed in Mid table!1 We might be pulling in 18000 instead of 14000 and recovering the money that way!!! If you read the profound 'Road not taken' by Robert Frost, we definitely took the wrong road!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 You still don't get it, do you - the idiotic youth policy was window dressing to hide just how far up sh1tcreek we were. Even Crouch admitted he'd have done something similar Are you saying the chairman has been lying to the people that pay his wages :shock: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 Are you saying the chairman has been lying to the people that pay his wages :shock: i think most companies do...look at the banks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 i think most companies do...look at the banks christ surely saints are not responsible for the credit crunch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 christ surely saints are not responsible for the credit crunch no....just lowe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legod Third Coming Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 There's a story on http://www.southampton-mad.co.uk to this effect. What is the cost of not playing Saggy? Had we won more games maybe we would have another 10,000 on the gate?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulwantsapint Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 Whatever has gone on before just fank thuck that somebody has found Saga & Euell & are playing both of our experienced attackers DMG has been shafted by club by forcing him to shoulder goal scoring responsibillity when he needed a experienced partner or goal scoring team mate to help him out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eelpie Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 Sorry, something CLEARLY doesnt add up here... 1. If we only needed to get rid of two of the big 3 wage earners, why did we get rid of Stern John (the last of the 3 to go on loan) at all ? 2. How did we fund the loans for : Pekhart Robertson Smith Pearce Gasmi Pulis Size Forecast All of whom (except Size) played or will play sod-all games, when we couldnt afford a striker ? 3. Variation of #2, how the f**k did we pay for Schneiderlin ? 4. Backroom staff - we've paid off Poortvillet, taken on Gorre, and another Dutchman lurks in the background 5. Our attendances have been loss-making all season So, just MAYBE, the finanical predicament is not as bad as the leaks coming out of SMS have inferred, and this has been simply a cover for some (failed) footballing theory experimentation. All this suggests to me that the chief architect of our downfall hasnt been finance, but the self-opinionateness of our plc Chairman. Crowd pressure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ooohTerryHurlock Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 "And engineering degree" ? hehehehehe. People in glass houses........ ...appear on grand designs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eelpie Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 I definitely think in hindsight we should have gone down a different route!! a bit of money spent on experienced players could have meant we were safely ensconsed in Mid table!1 We might be pulling in 18000 instead of 14000 and recovering the money that way!!! If you read the profound 'Road not taken' by Robert Frost, we definitely took the wrong road!! Most of us were saying this with foresight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 There's a story on www.southampton-mad.co.uk to this effect. What is the cost of not playing Saggy? Had we won more games maybe we would have another 10,000 on the gate?? Great article which resonates with me. Recommended reading IMHO, does anyone know thye author???? "Whichever way you cut it, the decision to exclude experience for youth, has undoubtedly cost us far more than it has saved, including quite possibly our status in the division, however less likely that looks this morning." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ooohTerryHurlock Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 Whatever has gone on before just fank thuck that somebody has found Saga & Euell & are playing both of our experienced attackers DMG has been shafted by club by forcing him to shoulder goal scoring responsibillity when he needed a experienced partner or goal scoring team mate to help him out ... I agree entirely with your comment - lunacy in setting a young lad up for that sort of fall. If saga (or one of the other two frontline strikers) had been in the squad for the whole season we would not be in this mess - saga's record is about 2 goals every three games? It is all we have needed - we in the stands knew that at the start of the season - so why the **** it has taken those allegedly in the know until January to figure it out is beyond belief. 4 4 2 at home - the total football system away and we would have been touching the play offs - not ****ing sweating our knackers off at the other end!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorpie the sinner Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 Most of us were saying this with foresight. I know, but what do we know!!??! we just pay the wages!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 Most of us were saying this with foresight. Anyone who knows anything about football was saying it. Unfortunatley we have a penny counter running the club who know naff all. there is no problem in having a chairman who knows litle about the game - until they start making footballing descisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 22 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 22 February, 2009 In response to money to pay off Portvliet, he resigned so no pay off needed. And this weeks Mr. Gullible award goes to........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ewell Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 Fine you think that, but it isnt in agreement with me. I have been clamouring loudly and persistently against the crass stupidity that befell Lowe back in August/September It must be very hard being right all the time. You tend to find you become full of yourself and get an ego similar in size to Rupert Lowe, oh! :smt115 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 22 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 22 February, 2009 That is your opinion. If I was that obsessed with him why do you think he is on my ignorel list? Sadly though i still get to read his negative offerings through people's replies. I think the fact that you seem to have some kind of affinity with the wise words of our Austrain based friend that says for more about you than it does me. Frankly, if Alpine had been based in Austria in the 2nd World War I suspect that the Von Trapps would have handed themselves willingly over to the Nazis well before the closing credits. A post that says all it needs to about this pathetic individual.... And the highlighted part is about the bizarre case of irony I have ever come across......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 22 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 22 February, 2009 Crowd pressure. Lowe doesnt do crowd pressure. He does do pressure from fellow board members or the pressure from the bank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 i think most companies do...look at the banks Fortunately [unfortunately for us], the people in those other companies tend to lose their jobs when they get found out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 Fortunately [unfortunately for us], the people in those other companies tend to lose their jobs when they get found out or get knight hoods.. :smt048 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorpie the sinner Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 does anybody that knows people inside club know what Saga's thoughts on Saints are? Are we just another club? Does he feel let down by club? Or does he really care about us? stupid thought really, he just looks like he cares, but we have treated him shabbily!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thefuriousb Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 This is the CRUX of the question. A better team =better players=better results=a better league position= BETTER ATTENDANCE = BETTER INCOME!!!! Its not rocket science is it Mr Lowe & Co!!! Again, I refer to my question which no one has commented on, and that is I thought that the 5000 or so were not staying away because of our league position but because of our plc and football club chairman? Is my understanding of "the view of the majority of this board" not correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 Lowe doesnt do crowd pressure. He does do pressure from fellow board members or the pressure from the bank. Not exactly true. Crowd pressure turns the board and bank if not puts Lowe under pressure personally. He hates criticism, which is why he searches us for banners against him. He hates the songs against him on matchdays. What's more I think crowd pressure had alot to do with him standing down last time. AND it will again. Lowe's battered and bruised, we can get him out for good soon ... and MUST Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 Again, I refer to my question which no one has commented on, and that is I thought that the 5000 or so were not staying away because of our league position but because of our plc and football club chairman? The drop in average attendances from 22,000 last season to 16,000 is about 6,000 of which 5,000 is down to the Chairman;) Another 5,000+ which would take the attendance up to circa 27,000 are staying because of performances. HTH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 In answer to the original question i think we simply cannot afford not to play Saganowski. That said it's probably a case of shuting the stable door with the horse already bolted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micky Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 Why can we suddenly afford to play Saga ? Because somebody has suddenly realised we can't afford not to play him. Exactly - hardly rocket science is it, shouldn't really take too many Masters Degrees in order to work it out...!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintwarwick Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Sorry, something CLEARLY doesnt add up here... 1. If we only needed to get rid of two of the big 3 wage earners, why did we get rid of Stern John (the last of the 3 to go on loan) at all ? 2. How did we fund the loans for : Pekhart Robertson Smith Pearce Gasmi Pulis Size Forecast All of whom (except Size) played or will play sod-all games, when we couldnt afford a striker ? 3. Variation of #2, how the f**k did we pay for Schneiderlin ? 4. Backroom staff - we've paid off Poortvillet, taken on Gorre, and another Dutchman lurks in the background 5. Our attendances have been loss-making all season So, just MAYBE, the finanical predicament is not as bad as the leaks coming out of SMS have inferred, and this has been simply a cover for some (failed) footballing theory experimentation. All this suggests to me that the chief architect of our downfall hasnt been finance, but the self-opinionateness of our plc Chairman. Maybe losing Davies, Dyer, Idiakez, Licka, Claus, Makin, Ostland, Powell, Poke, Safri, Viafara, Vignal, Jermaine Wright, Richard Wright, Luketti and Hamill. I think the wages of these have far exceeded by a country mile the likes of what we brought in and I have not included the three strikers in question + Euell and Skacel who are obviously on high wages. I don't disagre that we should of kept at least one if not more of our strikers but to suggest your list of players you posted was an alternative option just for this role is completely wide of the mark. If 14-15 players leave for one reason or another they have to be replaced by some others at least, whether they are good enough or not is a different story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now