| Academy Cat 1 - to Cat 3.. 18:28 - Feb 17 with 21118 views | TailGunner |
USA plan - Within 18 months if we don't go up.
|  | | |  |
| Academy Cat 1 - to Cat 3.. on 23:53 - Feb 25 with 2845 views | jasper_T |
| Academy Cat 1 - to Cat 3.. on 23:47 - Feb 25 by TNT |
Has anyone said to the hedge fund, ' Stump up some cash, so we can be competitive in this league'? |
Will the trust chip in their 21%? Huw and his 5? | | | |
| Academy Cat 1 - to Cat 3.. on 09:18 - Feb 26 with 2736 views | Blue_Blood |
| Academy Cat 1 - to Cat 3.. on 23:08 - Feb 25 by jasper_T |
I don't think you can ever stop investing in players in Cat One. You're competing with teams that spend literally millions on 15-18 year olds. Look at the beatings our u18s are taking, it's brutal without regular reinforcement. We've had to play older than average sides at u23s to succeed as we have (Leicester are doing the same) due to the recruitment disparity between us and the big Cat One academies.
Now those players have formed a younger than average Championship side, and our 18/19 year olds have struggled even with a few ringers in the mix.
We can't really afford to put a few hundred thousand quid away in the development side for a few years at the moment, even if it has the potential to pay off tenfold. Not like we can get an interest free loan from our owners to cover the hit to our cashflow. FFP won't be an issue yet (since years in the PL have more generous allowances for accounts losses) but if we're still in this league in 2021 our bottom line might have genuine footballing consequences. |
I'm not sure FFP touches your academy investment. (I could be wrong though)
Playing an older than average u23 team is not an issue as you're using a completely different strategy to the Man City's and Chelsea's of this world.
Their aim is either to unveil the next big thing in world football or to sell a Rabbi Matondo for 12 million when he hasn't started a first team game!
Your aim would be to prepare players to be able to compete at Championship level for less than it would cost to buy players in.
This approach has paid massive dividends for you this season when you compare it to other clubs in the championship.
If you look at some of the fees being thrown around in that league this season you'll see things like Assombolonga 15 million, Tom Ince 10 million, Martin Waghorn 5 million!!, Sam Vokes 7.5 million, Bamford 7 million, and many more ridiculous fees for players who have hardly pulled up trees in that division.
The money spent on Assombolonga would fund your Cat 1 academy for 5 years, and judging by your recent success I'd rather do that than sign 10 Assombolongas for the total of 15 million.
I watched your u23 game against Man City earlier this season and though City won 4-1 it was a really competitive game. City had a lot younger average age than you and though I thought players like Bernabe, Iker, Matondo were excellent, it couldn't have done your players any harm playing against such players. | | | |
| Academy Cat 1 - to Cat 3.. on 10:23 - Feb 26 with 2712 views | jasper_T |
There are allowances for academy spending, but £200k on a Falkirk player doesn't count as that. That's the type of spending that has enabled us to - with an older team - compete at the top of PL2. It's difficult to see where that money comes from when first team signings are being made at the half million mark (McKay, John). The kids coming up from the u18s have had a few more years of better coaching and facilities, but how much can that bridge the gap between us and the competition? It's a pretty big ask imo.
We beat City last season at their place when they had Matt Smith running the midfield (he was excellent). Matondo played as well. Late, late Kenji goal to win it. | | | |
| Academy Cat 1 - to Cat 3.. on 10:36 - Feb 26 with 2703 views | herbie |
| Academy Cat 1 - to Cat 3.. on 09:18 - Feb 26 by Blue_Blood |
I'm not sure FFP touches your academy investment. (I could be wrong though)
Playing an older than average u23 team is not an issue as you're using a completely different strategy to the Man City's and Chelsea's of this world.
Their aim is either to unveil the next big thing in world football or to sell a Rabbi Matondo for 12 million when he hasn't started a first team game!
Your aim would be to prepare players to be able to compete at Championship level for less than it would cost to buy players in.
This approach has paid massive dividends for you this season when you compare it to other clubs in the championship.
If you look at some of the fees being thrown around in that league this season you'll see things like Assombolonga 15 million, Tom Ince 10 million, Martin Waghorn 5 million!!, Sam Vokes 7.5 million, Bamford 7 million, and many more ridiculous fees for players who have hardly pulled up trees in that division.
The money spent on Assombolonga would fund your Cat 1 academy for 5 years, and judging by your recent success I'd rather do that than sign 10 Assombolongas for the total of 15 million.
I watched your u23 game against Man City earlier this season and though City won 4-1 it was a really competitive game. City had a lot younger average age than you and though I thought players like Bernabe, Iker, Matondo were excellent, it couldn't have done your players any harm playing against such players. |
I totally agree with you. Investment in the Academy is exciting and interesting and a good investment. It is also less hit and miss than buying in players from outside at high prices who may not work for us. They can be developed to play a particular style and the coaches will know when they are ready to step up to first team set up. | | | |
| Academy Cat 1 - to Cat 3.. on 21:44 - Feb 26 with 2592 views | BytholWyn |
I find it pretty amazing that there's even a debate on this issue. There's never been a better time for us to have a Category One academy. Here's why:
Category one academies involve a minimum investment of £2.5 million a year, but also attract about 1 million in funding from the Premier League. Not a massive outlay even for a Championship club - especially if the big up-front infrastructure costs of pitches, indoor barn and indoor facilities have already been made.
Set these modest costs against the massive appreciation in player values this season alone. A very modest assessment of the appreciation in value of McBurnie, James, Rodon, Grimes and Byers would probably be £20 million - and that's a conservative estimate. Hopefully we will hang on to most of the above, but even if we sell James or Rodon we will probably pay for the running costs of the academy for three or four years.
Assuming we can hang on to Potter his track record at Ostersunds and ourselves give every reason for us to think that this appreciation in value of academy products will continue going forwards. Not only that, because of what's happened this season we will be a very attractive proposition for any young players impatient for game time and development. If Brentford can bring in cast-offs from other academies and under-appreciated European leagues then there's no reason that we can't do the same without big investment.
It's also worth noting that when Southampton were relegated to League One they retained their category one academy - and provided the bulk of the talent that took them back to the Premier League. Blackburn have likewise hung on to their category one academy, and they're already demonstrating the wisdom of that long-term approach.
Downgrading the academy would be an utterly moronic act, of breathtaking stupidity. Surely the American owners are not that thick? I think not, and can't help but wonder if these rumours are being circulated in a cynical attempt to disuade the Trust from legal action. [Post edited 26 Feb 2019 21:45]
|  | | |
| Academy Cat 1 - to Cat 3.. on 22:02 - Feb 26 with 2574 views | jackrmee |
| Academy Cat 1 - to Cat 3.. on 10:23 - Feb 26 by jasper_T |
There are allowances for academy spending, but £200k on a Falkirk player doesn't count as that. That's the type of spending that has enabled us to - with an older team - compete at the top of PL2. It's difficult to see where that money comes from when first team signings are being made at the half million mark (McKay, John). The kids coming up from the u18s have had a few more years of better coaching and facilities, but how much can that bridge the gap between us and the competition? It's a pretty big ask imo.
We beat City last season at their place when they had Matt Smith running the midfield (he was excellent). Matondo played as well. Late, late Kenji goal to win it. |
Is it about bridging gaps though? Or is it purely to get the kids ready for playing at the level we're at?
OK, they don't want to get hammered every game, but the actual matches they play are really quite meaningless in the grand scheme of things right?
I do think we need to invest in the academy. I also think we will have to put up with on or 2 of our good youngsters being sold in order to fund it. Don't think people will be able to take that, but if it means keeping the best academy possible then it has to be the answer. |  |
| |
| Academy Cat 1 - to Cat 3.. on 22:03 - Feb 26 with 2574 views | jackrmee |
| Academy Cat 1 - to Cat 3.. on 21:44 - Feb 26 by BytholWyn |
I find it pretty amazing that there's even a debate on this issue. There's never been a better time for us to have a Category One academy. Here's why:
Category one academies involve a minimum investment of £2.5 million a year, but also attract about 1 million in funding from the Premier League. Not a massive outlay even for a Championship club - especially if the big up-front infrastructure costs of pitches, indoor barn and indoor facilities have already been made.
Set these modest costs against the massive appreciation in player values this season alone. A very modest assessment of the appreciation in value of McBurnie, James, Rodon, Grimes and Byers would probably be £20 million - and that's a conservative estimate. Hopefully we will hang on to most of the above, but even if we sell James or Rodon we will probably pay for the running costs of the academy for three or four years.
Assuming we can hang on to Potter his track record at Ostersunds and ourselves give every reason for us to think that this appreciation in value of academy products will continue going forwards. Not only that, because of what's happened this season we will be a very attractive proposition for any young players impatient for game time and development. If Brentford can bring in cast-offs from other academies and under-appreciated European leagues then there's no reason that we can't do the same without big investment.
It's also worth noting that when Southampton were relegated to League One they retained their category one academy - and provided the bulk of the talent that took them back to the Premier League. Blackburn have likewise hung on to their category one academy, and they're already demonstrating the wisdom of that long-term approach.
Downgrading the academy would be an utterly moronic act, of breathtaking stupidity. Surely the American owners are not that thick? I think not, and can't help but wonder if these rumours are being circulated in a cynical attempt to disuade the Trust from legal action. [Post edited 26 Feb 2019 21:45]
|
Amazing post.
Surely we could get someone in (or maybe you) who could put points like this across, as surely it's a no brainer.
If they're thinking of floggin it, shutting it, or downgrading, surrely they don't know the ins and outs, and don't know what they are throwing away?
As you said, this academy, with GP at the helm could make us great. | |
| |
| Academy Cat 1 - to Cat 3.. on 22:04 - Feb 26 with 2571 views | jasper_T |
The debate is clearly important as there seems to be an impression that without Category One we would be incapable of producing players for the first team, and watching them increase in value from exposure to senior football.
Hull are operating a decent pipeline from Cat Two. Brentford are renowned for bringing through young players with no academy at all. Category ratings are only a part of the player development picture.
We'd be vulnerable to poaching (see Emyr Huws) but we managed to bring through players pre-EPPP, some of whom sold for decent sums if memory serves.
Our attractiveness to these players leaving other academies at 18/19/20 might even be greater now as we can offer a chance at Championship football rather than a chance at PL2 football. We won't be offering the wages top starlets will want regardless of our category. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Academy Cat 1 - to Cat 3.. on 22:12 - Feb 26 with 2558 views | jasper_T |
| Academy Cat 1 - to Cat 3.. on 22:02 - Feb 26 by jackrmee |
Is it about bridging gaps though? Or is it purely to get the kids ready for playing at the level we're at?
OK, they don't want to get hammered every game, but the actual matches they play are really quite meaningless in the grand scheme of things right?
I do think we need to invest in the academy. I also think we will have to put up with on or 2 of our good youngsters being sold in order to fund it. Don't think people will be able to take that, but if it means keeping the best academy possible then it has to be the answer. |
The games are treated as important, as that's how you build the proper mentality in players. Tell our lads in the first team now that their PL Cup win with the u23s didn't matter.
Or that winning Division 2 wasn't an accomplishment. Who cares that it meant they could play against the biggest academies in the UK the next season? Meaningless for them to go and finish 4th amongst them, right?
Relegation this season will be a blow for the u23s setup. [Post edited 26 Feb 2019 22:13]
| | | |
| Academy Cat 1 - to Cat 3.. on 22:14 - Feb 26 with 2556 views | BytholWyn |
| Academy Cat 1 - to Cat 3.. on 22:04 - Feb 26 by jasper_T |
The debate is clearly important as there seems to be an impression that without Category One we would be incapable of producing players for the first team, and watching them increase in value from exposure to senior football.
Hull are operating a decent pipeline from Cat Two. Brentford are renowned for bringing through young players with no academy at all. Category ratings are only a part of the player development picture.
We'd be vulnerable to poaching (see Emyr Huws) but we managed to bring through players pre-EPPP, some of whom sold for decent sums if memory serves.
Our attractiveness to these players leaving other academies at 18/19/20 might even be greater now as we can offer a chance at Championship football rather than a chance at PL2 football. We won't be offering the wages top starlets will want regardless of our category. |
But what sort of message would it send out to downgrade our academy now? Especially given that the outlay, now that the infrastructure costs are in the past, are pretty modest? Also, we would stand to get a lower level of compensation for players poached from our academy. As things stand we have the top academy in south Wales, which wouldn't be the case if we downgrade.
I can't see any argument for downgrading that stands up to any sort of balanced scrutiny. | | | |
| Academy Cat 1 - to Cat 3.. on 22:18 - Feb 26 with 2544 views | jasper_T |
| Academy Cat 1 - to Cat 3.. on 22:14 - Feb 26 by BytholWyn |
But what sort of message would it send out to downgrade our academy now? Especially given that the outlay, now that the infrastructure costs are in the past, are pretty modest? Also, we would stand to get a lower level of compensation for players poached from our academy. As things stand we have the top academy in south Wales, which wouldn't be the case if we downgrade.
I can't see any argument for downgrading that stands up to any sort of balanced scrutiny. |
As I said at the start of the thread it only makes sense to me if the owners have a buyer for a significant chunk of the required facilities. The differences in upkeep costs aren't nothing, but they're obviously not massive either, if we have the rest of our finances in order.
Selling off land and buildings when we have Landore and Fairwood in place as training centres might be a realistic and lucrative option for the club. | | | |
| Academy Cat 1 - to Cat 3.. on 23:08 - Feb 26 with 2506 views | BytholWyn |
I really don't see this at all. Who would want to buy the facilities, unless they intend to tear them down and build something completely new? I very much doubt that would be permitted out at Fairwood for starters. And the loss of facilities would result in a significant hit on the valuation of the club. The training facilities and the academy are just about the only things that make the club an attractive long-term proposition to prospective new owners. There is simply no business case for downgrading the academy. [Post edited 26 Feb 2019 23:09]
| | | |
| Academy Cat 1 - to Cat 3.. on 23:29 - Feb 26 with 2492 views | jasper_T |
The valuation of the club has to be a secondary concern compared to the prospect of rapidly mounting debt. We're not in a position to borrow interest free sums to cover annual losses, so the more debt we accrue the more expensive and difficult it becomes to run. Things can escalate very quickly outside the PL safety net. | | | |
| Academy Cat 1 - to Cat 3.. on 23:36 - Feb 26 with 2479 views | Joe_bradshaw |
| Academy Cat 1 - to Cat 3.. on 13:04 - Feb 20 by Captain_Sham |
Its is owned by Swansea City Association Football Club Limited |
Are you sure?
I’ve been told different today. |  |
| |
| Academy Cat 1 - to Cat 3.. on 23:56 - Feb 26 with 2466 views | BytholWyn |
| Academy Cat 1 - to Cat 3.. on 23:29 - Feb 26 by jasper_T |
The valuation of the club has to be a secondary concern compared to the prospect of rapidly mounting debt. We're not in a position to borrow interest free sums to cover annual losses, so the more debt we accrue the more expensive and difficult it becomes to run. Things can escalate very quickly outside the PL safety net. |
You think it would be hard to arrange a £2.5 million loan to cover the costs of the academy for a year when that academy has generated an increase in assets worth about £20 million in one year, and is likely to generate assets well in excess of £2.5 million every year as long as we have a Category One academy and a manager with the development capabilities of Graham Potter? This is assuming of course that we don't sell any players that have appreciated in value this season - in which case we wouldn't need to resort to loans at all. | | | |
| Academy Cat 1 - to Cat 3.. on 00:13 - Feb 27 with 2461 views | Dyfnant |
Not forgetting the club don’t own Fairwood anyway. |  |
| |
| Academy Cat 1 - to Cat 3.. on 05:26 - Feb 27 with 2397 views | Captain_Sham |
| Academy Cat 1 - to Cat 3.. on 23:36 - Feb 26 by Joe_bradshaw |
Are you sure?
I’ve been told different today. |
Well you have been told wrong. The information is freely available. Look it up. |  |
| |
| Academy Cat 1 - to Cat 3.. on 07:14 - Feb 27 with 2365 views | jackrmee |
| Academy Cat 1 - to Cat 3.. on 22:12 - Feb 26 by jasper_T |
The games are treated as important, as that's how you build the proper mentality in players. Tell our lads in the first team now that their PL Cup win with the u23s didn't matter.
Or that winning Division 2 wasn't an accomplishment. Who cares that it meant they could play against the biggest academies in the UK the next season? Meaningless for them to go and finish 4th amongst them, right?
Relegation this season will be a blow for the u23s setup. [Post edited 26 Feb 2019 22:13]
|
I would never say the games are not important. I probably worded it wrong. Of course relegation would be a blow. But surely staying in that league for a club our size is a massive achievement. They should be proud of that.
It will be much more difficult now we are fast-tracking players into our first team.
All I'm saying is that we don't need to be challenging at the top at youth level, we just need to be competing.
My point is, money isn't being pumped into the academy so that we can challenge for the PL2 title is it. | |
| |
| Academy Cat 1 - to Cat 3.. on 07:22 - Feb 27 with 2363 views | jackrmee |
I wonder if someone is knowledgeable enough to do a reasonably accurate pros and cons list?
a) Keeping the cat1 status and facilities.
d) Downgrading to cat 2.
c) Selling the facilities.
*how much would we be gaining money wise.
*how would it affect players coming in to the community.
*how it would affect output of footballers.
*etc | |
| |
| Academy Cat 1 - to Cat 3.. on 10:56 - Feb 27 with 2313 views | jasper_T |
| Academy Cat 1 - to Cat 3.. on 23:56 - Feb 26 by BytholWyn |
You think it would be hard to arrange a £2.5 million loan to cover the costs of the academy for a year when that academy has generated an increase in assets worth about £20 million in one year, and is likely to generate assets well in excess of £2.5 million every year as long as we have a Category One academy and a manager with the development capabilities of Graham Potter? This is assuming of course that we don't sell any players that have appreciated in value this season - in which case we wouldn't need to resort to loans at all. |
We can get a loan but we'd have to pay interest on it, on top of the loans we're already taking out to pay for other things now we're in the Championship.
Cardiff are running a loss but have Vincent Tan cover it and then gradually convert to equity as and when he feels like it. We don't have that luxury. A loss for us creates debt which creates more loss, especially as the parachute payments fall. Buying money is expensive. | | | |
| Academy Cat 1 - to Cat 3.. on 17:04 - Feb 27 with 2219 views | BytholWyn |
This is only looking at one side of the balance sheet. I'm no accountant but it doesn't take one to see that if you can build your asset base at a far greater rate than your debts accumulate that you're going to be in a stronger financial position, not a weaker one.
If we downgrade the academy we will in all probability kill two golden geese with one stone. First the academy - which is only now laying the golden eggs, which was inevitable given the considerable lead times involved. Secondly, Potter, needed to nurture the goslings (or rather cygnets) and realise their potential, for whom the academy's downgrading/closure would surely be the final straw, leading to his departure.
It's this narrow line of reasoning that cost us the services of Martinez all those years ago. The board were obsessed with the dangers of taking out a loan to enable us to sign Jordi Gomez on a permanent deal, whilst ignoring Martinez' fantastic track-record of building the asset value of the players on our books (Leon, Ashley, Angel, Freddie, to name but few). We got lucky on that occasion, I doubt it will pan out that way again. | | | |
| Academy Cat 1 - to Cat 3.. on 17:13 - Feb 27 with 2213 views | Blue_Blood |
| Academy Cat 1 - to Cat 3.. on 17:04 - Feb 27 by BytholWyn |
This is only looking at one side of the balance sheet. I'm no accountant but it doesn't take one to see that if you can build your asset base at a far greater rate than your debts accumulate that you're going to be in a stronger financial position, not a weaker one.
If we downgrade the academy we will in all probability kill two golden geese with one stone. First the academy - which is only now laying the golden eggs, which was inevitable given the considerable lead times involved. Secondly, Potter, needed to nurture the goslings (or rather cygnets) and realise their potential, for whom the academy's downgrading/closure would surely be the final straw, leading to his departure.
It's this narrow line of reasoning that cost us the services of Martinez all those years ago. The board were obsessed with the dangers of taking out a loan to enable us to sign Jordi Gomez on a permanent deal, whilst ignoring Martinez' fantastic track-record of building the asset value of the players on our books (Leon, Ashley, Angel, Freddie, to name but few). We got lucky on that occasion, I doubt it will pan out that way again. |
I agree completely. If you did sell on product a year for 3.5million then it would pay for itself.
Looking at the last couple of performances at u23 level there doesn't appear to be a dearth of talent coming through so you have to provide them and the management team the highest possible opportunity of bringing these kids through, and that has to be sustaining a cat 1 academy. | | | |
| Academy Cat 1 - to Cat 3.. on 17:37 - Feb 27 with 2192 views | Thornburyswan |
| Academy Cat 1 - to Cat 3.. on 21:44 - Feb 26 by BytholWyn |
I find it pretty amazing that there's even a debate on this issue. There's never been a better time for us to have a Category One academy. Here's why:
Category one academies involve a minimum investment of £2.5 million a year, but also attract about 1 million in funding from the Premier League. Not a massive outlay even for a Championship club - especially if the big up-front infrastructure costs of pitches, indoor barn and indoor facilities have already been made.
Set these modest costs against the massive appreciation in player values this season alone. A very modest assessment of the appreciation in value of McBurnie, James, Rodon, Grimes and Byers would probably be £20 million - and that's a conservative estimate. Hopefully we will hang on to most of the above, but even if we sell James or Rodon we will probably pay for the running costs of the academy for three or four years.
Assuming we can hang on to Potter his track record at Ostersunds and ourselves give every reason for us to think that this appreciation in value of academy products will continue going forwards. Not only that, because of what's happened this season we will be a very attractive proposition for any young players impatient for game time and development. If Brentford can bring in cast-offs from other academies and under-appreciated European leagues then there's no reason that we can't do the same without big investment.
It's also worth noting that when Southampton were relegated to League One they retained their category one academy - and provided the bulk of the talent that took them back to the Premier League. Blackburn have likewise hung on to their category one academy, and they're already demonstrating the wisdom of that long-term approach.
Downgrading the academy would be an utterly moronic act, of breathtaking stupidity. Surely the American owners are not that thick? I think not, and can't help but wonder if these rumours are being circulated in a cynical attempt to disuade the Trust from legal action. [Post edited 26 Feb 2019 21:45]
|
This with bells on, nice post   | | | |
| Academy Cat 1 - to Cat 3.. on 17:47 - Feb 27 with 2181 views | jasper_T |
| Academy Cat 1 - to Cat 3.. on 17:04 - Feb 27 by BytholWyn |
This is only looking at one side of the balance sheet. I'm no accountant but it doesn't take one to see that if you can build your asset base at a far greater rate than your debts accumulate that you're going to be in a stronger financial position, not a weaker one.
If we downgrade the academy we will in all probability kill two golden geese with one stone. First the academy - which is only now laying the golden eggs, which was inevitable given the considerable lead times involved. Secondly, Potter, needed to nurture the goslings (or rather cygnets) and realise their potential, for whom the academy's downgrading/closure would surely be the final straw, leading to his departure.
It's this narrow line of reasoning that cost us the services of Martinez all those years ago. The board were obsessed with the dangers of taking out a loan to enable us to sign Jordi Gomez on a permanent deal, whilst ignoring Martinez' fantastic track-record of building the asset value of the players on our books (Leon, Ashley, Angel, Freddie, to name but few). We got lucky on that occasion, I doubt it will pan out that way again. |
Again, downgrading the academy doesn't kill the "golden goose". Category Two/Three academies lay eggs, and we've needed to spend money on other academy geese to lay what we're using right now.
Potter's not involved in the academy enough for it to be a "final straw", that's ridiculous. He's first team head coach. He may well be happier having some money to buy cheap young players to integrate them straight into his first team setup, as he did in Sweden (and has been doing here given the absences from u23s duty of most of his fringe players like Dhanda and Asoro).
The prospect of having to sell players every season to fund an academy that would suddenly be under enormous pressure to create first team replacements every year doesn't sound nearly as exciting to me as it does to others, apparently. Particularly as I don't see another DJ or McBurnie in the pro or scholar ranks right now, and it's unlikely we splash the cash to bring one in (Oli cost almost as much as McKay). And while we've got some good centrebacks coming through none are the modern ball-playing types that might theoretically attract big clubs one day like Rodon might.
Youth development is always a gamble, there are no guarantees regardless of how much you spend, or how good your coaching/facilities are. That's why for the big clubs it's a numbers game, with hundreds of kids falling by the wayside each year. We're incredibly unlikely to have another year like this one in terms of bringing through talent. This season is the result of 3/4 years of investment and work having the opportunity to all pay off at once. The flow will be more of a trickle from here on (unless by some miracle we go up and then the stopper goes back in again) because we won't have another 15 player exodus making room, and we don't have a crop aged 20-22 ready to step up. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
