‘Surprise’ as Knights rugby chairman John Guildford hits out at ‘lack of detail’ in Monks Cross stadium move proposals (From York Press)

John Guilford has one interest in life and that's himself....

John Guilford has had his fun and got his publicity. Well done.

Now can the rest of the city get behind this fantastic project?

Looks like the marriage should not go ahead. Arranged marriages don't often work and end up in bitterness.
Personnally I would prefer football in a separate facility (due to problems with pitch).
Its all come at the wrong time given the economic climate and the lack of residential value in the Bootham Cresent land to both pay off the loan and have a surplus.
The only real investment coming in to town is the University and I've always thought this was the best avenue to pursue in terms of a joint sports project with teaching/conference facilities under the stands.

Taken for a Mug wrote:
John Guilford has one interest in life and that's himself....

Another way of looking at it would be that he DOESN'T have his head in the clouds like a lot of the YCFC people and fans do and that he realises the costs/benefit ratio is not as rosy as both Mr McGill and CofYC would have us believe. They both say they are surprised at his comments but I suspect they are more p***ed off with the "whistle blowing" comments that he has made.

And before you YCFC fans start braying at me that the stadium is needed, it will be good for the community etc, heed the words of Mr Guilford - he has a **** sight more experience of matters like this than myself, most other commentators on this site and Galloway and his mates. His club will benefit from improved facilities and yet he has identified serious concerns that SHOULD BE ADDRESSED before any more public money is poured into this project, especially in these times of extreme financial hardship.

"He also said the present plans lacked substance and would not benefit York City, the Knights or the community as a whole."



Spot on this will never happen, just one delay after another from Galloway and co to ensure that YCFC goes under. And Mr Sunbed will do nothing to stop it happening.

It's a fair point he makes IMO. All this time, and what have we got to show for it? Absolutely chuff all.

Guilford has a very thin grasp of the facts relating to the football club - for example, a profit was made last year, not a £400k loss. He also fails to account for the £2.2m grant and doesn't seem to realise why a 78yr old stadium, which is falling to bits, isn't a financial drain.
Not all his points are off the mark, the lack of progress for example, but this does seem a rather loose canon rant from a man, who lets face it, isn't exactly a stranger sounding off.

Why does Guilford want an identical increase in income as the football club when the Knights attract attendances a good 2000 lower than YCFC?
Some decent points about the delays, but the rest of it just looks like an ill thought through rant.

At last somebody is prepared to tell the truth about this unatainable project. Yet again a large amount of Council Tax Payers money has been spent on a project that won't happen. Another waste of cash by the lib Dems whose record is one of total disregard for our money. What a shower!!!!

Bishlad wrote:
At last somebody is prepared to tell the truth about this unatainable project. Yet again a large amount of Council Tax Payers money has been spent on a project that won't happen. Another waste of cash by the lib Dems whose record is one of total disregard for our money. What a shower!!!!

Galloway and co should be counting the days until they get booted out next May.

Lizzie Browning wrote:
Why does Guilford want an identical increase in income as the football club when the Knights attract attendances a good 2000 lower than YCFC? Some decent points about the delays, but the rest of it just looks like an ill thought through rant.

Generally, there are 2 ways of running a shared stadium. You either split all costs and profits equally (as intimated by Mr Guilford) or each party pay the running costs and claim the profit that their particular contribution has incurred/made.

Your comment has highlighted one of the biggest problems with shared stadia - you are already in the mode of, "we generate more income than you so we should have more profit" which ultimately leads to arguments and forensic accounting to see who has paid what and where, which generally leads to a breakdown in the relationship between the sharers. If YCFC want to run that argument, then that's fine but it is a double edged sword because larger crowds=more police and staff needed=greater wear and tear on facilities=greater share of the running costs. You may gain on profit, but you lose on expenditure.

Guildford is simply jockeying for position. It's not so long since he was quietly briefing against all the proposed sites except Huntington.
`
Now he's got his way on that, he's trying to up the ante.
`
None of this will have anything to do with his day job as a property developer of course.
`
Some of his comments may be valid, but I'd take everything he says with a huge pinch of salt.

What Mr. Guildford isn't making clear is that there is another sort of funding - one that I recommend that the Press checks out.

A deal is being done to build a massive new office development on land next to the Monks Cross site. Planning permission will be dependent on providing a substantial contribution to the new stadium. It's just up to the council to play hard ball and you'll have several million from private investors.

He knows this. So why's he playing dumb and talking about funding shortfalls?

"the council are spending all this time and money just to get a private limited company (York City) out of trouble through state aid."

Whilst I don't particularly like the man, he has a fair point here and this is something we see happening all over the country with our local football clubs.

"It is a fact that new stadia attract increased attendances of up to 35 per cent" Also a fact that YCFC are no longer a professional, league club, so should maybe be a bit more realistic. I play for a team only a tier below York,and there's no way our local council would build us a ground!

Even as a York City fan it is hard to criticise Mr Guildford's views on where the project currently stands. Nothing has come to fruition in 7 or so years except identifying a site (Monks Cross) which most Minstermen fans fear will be the death knell for the club anyhow. All we've been fed is an enormous amount of hyperbole via the media from our short-sighted Council and overpaid 'project managers', to keep the topic in the spotlight. If several parties can not agree to a NEW stadium rather than a redeveloped Huntington Stadium (which is 99.9% more likely, I reckon), then it's time to say we'll put up with what we've got and stay at Bootham Crescent and maintain/develop it the best we can.

I must be missing something here, but what exactly will the knights be putting into this project, they rent the ground now have nothing in the bank and get crowds of between 400 and 800, so what is Guildfords reasoning.
looking for a free ride maybe

josephheller wrote:
What Mr. Guildford isn't making clear is that there is another sort of funding - one that I recommend that the Press checks out. A deal is being done to build a massive new office development on land next to the Monks Cross site. Planning permission will be dependent on providing a substantial contribution to the new stadium. It's just up to the council to play hard ball and you'll have several million from private investors. He knows this. So why's he playing dumb and talking about funding shortfalls?

No it wont at the moment itll be a little while yet before YCC can get that sort of planning gain. Other cities will offer much better deals to businesses.

Whilst the loyalty of YCFC fans is commendable, I think some apologies are now due from some of the commenters on this forum. It is clear from this story that the concerns that have been expressed many times by me and others on this forum are also held by others who are in a much stronger position to express those concerns.

Whilst the Knights by their own admission cannot stop the development, they are in a position to frustrate it to such and extent that the development will be potentially untenable.

Some of Mr Guildfords facts may or may not be accurate, but his assertion that Bootham Crescent may have no equity or be in negative equity against the loans secured against it mirrors concerns I raised over a week ago.

If I was A YCFC supporter (which I am not) I would be looking very hard at the company management here and asking some difficult questions before it's too late.

This 'commenter' (sic) won't be making any apologies simply because someone who should know better rants in public, hurling a load of half truths around. Very strange that this was done via the media of the Press rather than at the meetings upon which he sits.
I would also question the motivations of Mr Guildford who illogically doesn't want a new facility to replace the liability of a stadium his team now inhabit. I do wonder whether Knights fans share his ambitions for their club. Finally, when property developers start making rather strange public statements and want to deprive a city of potentially a wonderful asset, I begin to wonder whether some investigative journalism might well be called for as the poster above suggests.

I think he is bang on. ANY project COYC stick their noses into ends up in disasterI can see the cost of this running into millions without a brick even being laid. I cant see this project going ahead, so we will just be lumbered with another bill for Steve Galloways cloud cuckoo land fantasies.

Lizzie Browning wrote:
This 'commenter' (sic) won't be making any apologies simply because someone who should know better rants in public, hurling a load of half truths around. Very strange that this was done via the media of the Press rather than at the meetings upon which he sits. I would also question the motivations of Mr Guildford who illogically doesn't want a new facility to replace the liability of a stadium his team now inhabit. I do wonder whether Knights fans share his ambitions for their club. Finally, when property developers start making rather strange public statements and want to deprive a city of potentially a wonderful asset, I begin to wonder whether some investigative journalism might well be called for as the poster above suggests.

Unless you are very well connected and attended the meetings, I would be very careful about making statements about whether or not Mr Guildford raised these issues at the meetings he attended. It is a fact that politicians and well connected business people up and down the country try to bury bad news or put "spin" on issues that do not suit them. For all we know, he may have raised reservations which were not initially in the public domain. What I find interesting is that neither Galloway or Mcgill have actually denied any of the comments he has made - they are just stating that they are surprised and are skirting round the issue.

As I hinted in my first posting, unless you are closely involved in the real world with this matter, we do not have the expertise or knowledge that Mr Guildford has and I for one think he raises some very important issues that need to be addressed before YCFC offload their ground and the council offload any more public funds. Whislt I appreciate that there are those that are YCFC at all costs, it would be entirely regrettable if the quest for a new stadium ultimately lead to the demise of the club.

My observations about Guildford not voicing concerns at the meetings were an echo of what the Council and Jason McGill are quoted as saying - they of course were there! Or are you suggesting they are both lying?
But either way its becoming a sorry fiasco. All I would hope is that all those involved have the good of the city and its sporting heritage at heart.
I would also be interested to hear what Knights fans make of it all.

This has been a total balls up from the start. Just like everything Galloway and co get involved in.
This should be named Barbican 2

Lizzie Browning wrote:
My observations about Guildford not voicing concerns at the meetings were an echo of what the Council and Jason McGill are quoted as saying - they of course were there! Or are you suggesting they are both lying? But either way its becoming a sorry fiasco. All I would hope is that all those involved have the good of the city and its sporting heritage at heart. I would also be interested to hear what Knights fans make of it all.

Read the article again - Mcgill denies Guildford has ever said those things, but Galloway hasn't. He states that Guildford gave support for the Huntington site, but as Guildford said, it was the only site that could have been chosen. Not once does Galloway state that Guildford gave his unconditional support for the scheme. Maybe it's because Galloway is painfully aware that as a politician, he IS accountable to the people of York if he is caught telling mistruths whereas as a private businessman, Mcgill isn't.

"All I would hope is that all those involved have the good of the city and its sporting heritage at heart. "

Lizzie, I couldn't agree more but at the end of the day, none of the 3 parties have your sentiments in mind. The only thing that they will be interested in is money - how much it will cost but more importantly, how much they will make. Anyone thinking that this is being done for the good of the City or YCFC must be very naive.

Just a thought...did Mr Guilford help out the community facility that once was the Promanade Working Mens Club?

Taken for a Mug - I'm glad you brought this up - Mr Guildford promised the members of the Promenade club another smaller club alongside his nice new development. There is no sign of the new club (even though work has finally started on the site - by another developer I believe) and I know several members who ended up several thousand pounds out of pocket due to empty promises. I wouldnt trust him or anything he says. If he is making waves then it probably means there is nothing in it for him.

chesterfield have just had a new stadium built at cost of £13m with seating for 10,000, yet ours is going to cost twice that amount and hold 4,000 less.

chesterfield have just had a new stadium built at cost of £13m with seating for 10,000, yet ours is going to cost twice that amount and hold 4,000 less.

sciencefan wrote:
Whilst the loyalty of YCFC fans is commendable, I think some apologies are now due from some of the commenters on this forum. It is clear from this story that the concerns that have been expressed many times by me and others on this forum are also held by others who are in a much stronger position to express those concerns. Whilst the Knights by their own admission cannot stop the development, they are in a position to frustrate it to such and extent that the development will be potentially untenable. Some of Mr Guildfords facts may or may not be accurate, but his assertion that Bootham Crescent may have no equity or be in negative equity against the loans secured against it mirrors concerns I raised over a week ago. If I was A YCFC supporter (which I am not) I would be looking very hard at the company management here and asking some difficult questions before it's too late.

Here we go again with the serial stalker of York City. You seem to spend your life looking for every City story in order to yet again have a go at the club. The fact half of what he says shows a complete lack of understanding of new builds and how clubs all over the country have moved forward with larger crowds and far better revenue streams seems to be ignored. The only thing worth reading is his comments on the disgraceful waste of money by the council who have spent a fortune and done nothing with it. This is not the fault of the football club but the council and shows without doubt that they have no real belief in the project and their words are completely hollow. They should have sorted the new ground out years ago.
Why not start a new campaign against them and for heaven sakes get a new hobby and STOP WHINING.

duffy wrote:

sciencefan wrote:
Whilst the loyalty of YCFC fans is commendable, I think some apologies are now due from some of the commenters on this forum. It is clear from this story that the concerns that have been expressed many times by me and others on this forum are also held by others who are in a much stronger position to express those concerns. Whilst the Knights by their own admission cannot stop the development, they are in a position to frustrate it to such and extent that the development will be potentially untenable. Some of Mr Guildfords facts may or may not be accurate, but his assertion that Bootham Crescent may have no equity or be in negative equity against the loans secured against it mirrors concerns I raised over a week ago. If I was A YCFC supporter (which I am not) I would be looking very hard at the company management here and asking some difficult questions before it's too late.

Here we go again with the serial stalker of York City. You seem to spend your life looking for every City story in order to yet again have a go at the club. The fact half of what he says shows a complete lack of understanding of new builds and how clubs all over the country have moved forward with larger crowds and far better revenue streams seems to be ignored. The only thing worth reading is his comments on the disgraceful waste of money by the council who have spent a fortune and done nothing with it. This is not the fault of the football club but the council and shows without doubt that they have no real belief in the project and their words are completely hollow. They should have sorted the new ground out years ago.
Why not start a new campaign against them and for heaven sakes get a new hobby and STOP WHINING.

I don't believe I was whining. If anything I was admittedly gloating a little with a great big "I told you so". The die hard YCFC fans are fine to stay in their little bubble. The rest of us will have our say to the Council when the time comes.

I work in the development industry and like Mr Guildford have some experience and knowledge in these areas. AngryandFrustrated is spot on!

sciencefan wrote:

duffy wrote:

sciencefan wrote: Whilst the loyalty of YCFC fans is commendable, I think some apologies are now due from some of the commenters on this forum. It is clear from this story that the concerns that have been expressed many times by me and others on this forum are also held by others who are in a much stronger position to express those concerns. Whilst the Knights by their own admission cannot stop the development, they are in a position to frustrate it to such and extent that the development will be potentially untenable. Some of Mr Guildfords facts may or may not be accurate, but his assertion that Bootham Crescent may have no equity or be in negative equity against the loans secured against it mirrors concerns I raised over a week ago. If I was A YCFC supporter (which I am not) I would be looking very hard at the company management here and asking some difficult questions before it's too late.

Here we go again with the serial stalker of York City. You seem to spend your life looking for every City story in order to yet again have a go at the club. The fact half of what he says shows a complete lack of understanding of new builds and how clubs all over the country have moved forward with larger crowds and far better revenue streams seems to be ignored. The only thing worth reading is his comments on the disgraceful waste of money by the council who have spent a fortune and done nothing with it. This is not the fault of the football club but the council and shows without doubt that they have no real belief in the project and their words are completely hollow. They should have sorted the new ground out years ago. Why not start a new campaign against them and for heaven sakes get a new hobby and STOP WHINING.

I don't believe I was whining. If anything I was admittedly gloating a little with a great big "I told you so". The die hard YCFC fans are fine to stay in their little bubble. The rest of us will have our say to the Council when the time comes. I work in the development industry and like Mr Guildford have some experience and knowledge in these areas. AngryandFrustrated is spot on!

"Gloating" ?

Take a look at yourself for heavens sake that's pretty shameful.

Can anyone please clarify how many times Mr Guilford has reportedly quit YCK over the years....?

It'll settle down in a day or two...

Lets face it the LibDems/CoYC do not have a very good track record just think of the Hungate towers fiasco, the Barbican centre which according to the LibDems last election manifesto should have been sorted years ago, and the lack of replacement swimming pool either at the University or the Barbican site, all hot air with little action. Therefore someone needed to sound a word of caution as to whether it will ever happen or just money being wasted again. I hope the stadium goes ahead however I will belive it when I see it given the past track record.

There are days I treasure my naivety of sports. This article is one of them, when someone who supports an idea says they have some doubts shouldn't someone try to assuade these doubts?
From what you've said it's upto the council to do this. Yet from what I've read they skimmed it. Surely this means John Guildford might be right?
I'm not taking sides but saying there is a valid point to be looked at here. That and the simplest way to sort this out is for a Councillor to just take him through the ins and outs of their plan.....

sciencefan is a weirdo. Don't feed the troll.

Guildford is just upset because YCFC won't let them play at Bootham Crescent in August

Poxy minority support with 10 percent the fanbase of YCFC. Even if they do have more going on than the athletics.

Boycott the Rugby team.

Ah heck - its just depressing isn't it? The usual fiasco and in-fighting. Citizens and those empowered to serve them should be working together to (for once) get something for the residents; a community asset. But no - we get people with no real understanding of the football club wishing it dead, we get a chairman bickering publicly with his opposite number and we get political leaders frozen by inaction.
We must be the only city in the world where residents actively protest against something which will be an asset. You can imagine our forbears - nah, don't want an ampitheatre here - will only attract those pagans from Hull!
Seriously - come on folks - wind in the vitriol and think positively for once. An excuse 'not to bother' with something for those other than students and tourists, is exactly what some people want.

DarrenMiles wrote:
sciencefan is a weirdo. Don't feed the troll.

Guildford is just upset because YCFC won't let them play at Bootham Crescent in August

Poxy minority support with 10 percent the fanbase of YCFC. Even if they do have more going on than the athletics.

Boycott the Rugby team.

Is that really the best you can come up with "don't feed the troll". The poet laureate's job is safe for the moment then. How am I the weirdo here? Try scrolling back up and reading the posts above. The majority of the comments on here that aren't from you or lizzie echo many if not all of the concerns Mr Guildford has raised. Leaving aside the merits of YCFC, the whole stadium idea is in a mess. This council struggle to project manage their way out of a cardboard box at the best of times. Now at the same time you want them to successfully develop a 6, 10 or 20,000 seat stadium with dubious financial backing at the same time they are developing their own new offices in West Offices. What do you think the council will be concentrating on? I had no idea that YCFC had refused to let the Knights use Bootham Crescent. When you are looking to house share with someone, don't be surprised if the deal goes sour because you told them they can't kip on your floor for the night.

As for the Knights being a minority, take a good look inward fella. Their attendances may be a bit less than YCFC but not by much in the great scheme of things. YCFC is a struggling football club in the lowest echelons of professional football, teetering on the abyss of financial meltdown. The club is supported by a tiny minority of local residents. So you try and suggest a boycott. People in glass houses.....!

Reading that, I wonder how Mr Guildford got to be executive chairman of anything tbh.

Give it up Darren. Sciencefan has a personal crusade against YCFC for some undisclosed reason, he won't listen to reason, nor make any attempt to meet acknowledge others' opinions.
He isn't interested in facts, only distorting the truth. Note how even this last post tries to suggest YCFC and Knights gates are similar when the latter is less than 25% of the former.
The more balanced of us, without agendas recognise that some of what Mr Guildford said is accurate - mainly re the delays, but that a lot or the remainder, had the air of an ill considered rant. Perhaps by someone who isn't used to not getting his own way. Maybe over the Bootham Cres. refusal. Who knows, although that situation does make you wonder about pitch sharing in the future.
Lets move on however and those who are not interested in a stadium for the city, perhaps respect those of us who are. I've no interest (for example) in municipal swimming pools - haven't used one for 30yrs, but you don't see me ranting about taxpayers money being used to pay for them. Its called democracy, its called tolerance but most of all, its called respect. One can't always merely have just ones' own interests catered for.

My final comment on the whole thing is this:
Why does the chairman of the rugby club not want a new stadium for his club at no cost to himself? Despite his words - its not 'his ground' it belongs to the council. The lease I believe expires in 2012. Unlike the football club, who are at least bringing £2.2m to the party, if not more - the Knights are bringing nothing.
So I ask again - why is he against something which will provide his club with a new stadium for zip all investment. They own nothing now, they are bringing nothing to the deal.
Should we even listen to them? Yes we should - because there are rugby fans in this city too. But to take centre stage and not play ball - well, you have to wonder at his motives.

Lizzie Browning wrote:
Give it up Darren. Sciencefan has a personal crusade against YCFC for some undisclosed reason, he won't listen to reason, nor make any attempt to meet acknowledge others' opinions.
He isn't interested in facts, only distorting the truth. Note how even this last post tries to suggest YCFC and Knights gates are similar when the latter is less than 25% of the former.
The more balanced of us, without agendas recognise that some of what Mr Guildford said is accurate - mainly re the delays, but that a lot or the remainder, had the air of an ill considered rant. Perhaps by someone who isn't used to not getting his own way. Maybe over the Bootham Cres. refusal. Who knows, although that situation does make you wonder about pitch sharing in the future.
Lets move on however and those who are not interested in a stadium for the city, perhaps respect those of us who are. I've no interest (for example) in municipal swimming pools - haven't used one for 30yrs, but you don't see me ranting about taxpayers money being used to pay for them. Its called democracy, its called tolerance but most of all, its called respect. One can't always merely have just ones' own interests catered for.

I think you need to take a long hard look at some of your statements darling. You are the one that is ranting, accusing everyone else but yourself of having an agenda. I understand you are YCFC through and through, but that is your agenda, don't criticise others for having theirs. I check my facts. The Knights average attendance is about 1100 per game and has been for the last three years, whereas YCFC's average is about 2600. I realize you struggle with numbers, but that is not less than 25%. However the Knights attendances have been far more stable than YCFC with YCFC attendances dropping as low as 600 people in the last 2 years. Overall when looking at attendances versus the population of the city (200,000), they are all very, very minority.

So if you can't make a reasoned and factually correct argument before you go around libeling people. And I do require a retraction.

Perhaps Mr Guildford is concerned that the Rugby Club will not get equal billing here. The FA's own ground sharing rules for ground grading require that the football club must have fixture priority in ground shares, if I was in Mr Guildford's position I wouldn't be very happy about that. Mr McGill has made a monumental gaff by snubbing the people he needs to help him get a new ground. He may just have killed the whole thing dead judging by Mr Guildforfds comments this morning. Be in no doubt, whether the Rugby club own the stadium or not, without their input this project will never get out of the ground.

Out attendances have never dropped to 600 for any meaningful match! I would be surprised if there is more than the odd case of lower than 2000 for league games. The odd friendly maybe, or local/non-league cup comp, but that is about it. This is what I mean about bending the truth.
But look - wasting both our lives. You stick to your opinions and I'll do the same. And don't call me 'darling'!

Lizzie Browning wrote:
Out attendances have never dropped to 600 for any meaningful match! I would be surprised if there is more than the odd case of lower than 2000 for league games. The odd friendly maybe, or local/non-league cup comp, but that is about it. This is what I mean about bending the truth.
But look - wasting both our lives. You stick to your opinions and I'll do the same. And don't call me 'darling'!

608 (against Mansfield Town), Conference League Cup third round, 4 November 2008. So your wrong. Again

If you don't like being condescended to, don't do it to other people. Darling

The Conference League cup was a short lived tournament that fans had no interest in. It folded and no longer exists for that very reason.
This is why I said 'meaningful' matches - the Conf. Cup barely had the status of a friendly and was very poorly attended at each and every Conf. club.
Our home attendance for last season was over 2600 and one must recall that this figure will not include many away fans - in the Conference, only a small handful of teams bring more than 100. Minnows like Forest Green bring less than ten.
The Knights have averaged 814 (excluding friendlies) in 2010. So 25% isn't far out at all and a long way from the parity you intimated.
But really, where I was wrong was putting emphasis on pure attendances. The Knights, like ourselves, doubtless have their own latent historic fan base and have the ability to rise again with higher attendances. Which is why I am surprised that their chairman isn't grabbing the opportunity to have their aging ground rebuild.
Seriously - we've heard lots from YCFC fans, any Knights follows out there- what do you lot make of it all? And what about the pitch issues - could we use the same turf week in week out?

Lizzie Browning wrote:
The Conference League cup was a short lived tournament that fans had no interest in. It folded and no longer exists for that very reason.
This is why I said 'meaningful' matches - the Conf. Cup barely had the status of a friendly and was very poorly attended at each and every Conf. club.
Our home attendance for last season was over 2600 and one must recall that this figure will not include many away fans - in the Conference, only a small handful of teams bring more than 100. Minnows like Forest Green bring less than ten.
The Knights have averaged 814 (excluding friendlies) in 2010. So 25% isn't far out at all and a long way from the parity you intimated.
But really, where I was wrong was putting emphasis on pure attendances. The Knights, like ourselves, doubtless have their own latent historic fan base and have the ability to rise again with higher attendances. Which is why I am surprised that their chairman isn't grabbing the opportunity to have their aging ground rebuild.
Seriously - we've heard lots from YCFC fans, any Knights follows out there- what do you lot make of it all? And what about the pitch issues - could we use the same turf week in week out?

So what we can take from this is that YCFC fans will only turn out if they think it is interesting or worth their while. Very die hard.

science fan.
I believe i,ve got to the bottom of your problem.
You,re constipated, i believe!
Take yourself, and your opinions, half truths, and strange comments to the little boys room,
and work on them.
Darling

velcro wrote:
science fan.
I believe i,ve got to the bottom of your problem.
You,re constipated, i believe!
Take yourself, and your opinions, half truths, and strange comments to the little boys room,
and work on them.
Darling

Brilliant, love it!

Awwww! thanks s f !
I knew a proper poo would sort you!
x