Jump to content

New CRT TV advert


rgreg

Featured Posts

11 hours ago, rgreg said:

This is featuring regularly on ITV tonight

That will bring in the hordes of visitors so the additional revenue they generate will be a welcome boost to CRT's coffer, (won't it?),:rolleyes: and I wonder which budget item has been reduced to pay for the advert, or am I just being a big old cynic?

 

 

Howard

Edited by howardang
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, howardang said:

That will bring in the hordes of visitors so the additional revenue they generate will be a welcome boost to CRT's coffer, (won't it?), and I wonder which budget item has been reduced to pay for the advert, or am I just being a big old cynic?

 

 

Howard

I struggle to see how people visiting canals puts money in CRTs coffers? They dont pay to walk/cycle/sit on the towpath. Any money that changes hands is to businesses located on/near the canals. I wonder if CRT are hoping that donations will increase but, if that were the case, you would think the advert would include something to encourage donation?

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No budget item will have been reduced to pay for the CRT advert.

 

That's not how budgets work!

Each and every department will have submitted a fictitious amount they claim will be needed to successfully achieve the targets that were handed them … sorry I meant jointly agreed.

They would have then been awarded a fraction of that amount and told non-achievement is not an option.  They are then given a date to report back their success several months hence, Happy Days!

 

As the financial year staggers along non-operational budgets (Marketing, Recruitment, Training, Capital Investment, I.T. Investment) will be invaded (yet again) and funds redirected as infrastructure fails, legislation changes or the two most common incidents happen at the same time … namely a gamble to ignore something backfires badly and/or something critical that was forgotten and left with a junior with no authority but total responsibility rears its ugly head. 

At this point everybody else says " I thought someone was handling that!? " 

Then the "someone" irritably replies "I was, and then you removed my budget and made me report to the non-executive Forward Planning Working Party, which you then disbanded last March."  

 

It's usually around now that The Board Members go into TSM (Teflon Shoulder Mode) and start criticising all and sundry for not preparing/informing/reporting/being diligent …. for this disaster could have been avoided if only!

Everyone below them in the structure starts muttering about this would not have happened if their part of the budget hadn't been slaughtered at the last moment, and what's the point of their telling them how much they'll need if their informed answer is ignored?

Now that disaster is unavoidable and screaming over the horizon towards them at Warp Speed The Board become reactive, and causing as much damage as they possibly can they destroy whatever little faith the workforce ever had in them by levelling a recruitment embargo, cancelling all training, forbidding any expenditure not signed off at Board level and leaving those whom are public and customer facing looking stupid by not being able to deliver what they openly said they would ... to the press ... to stake holders … customers etc.

 

Finally an interesting failure will undoubtedly happen.  Someone who had a full budget and just didn't do their job, suddenly feels vulnerable as the snipers' scopes start to swing in all directions looking for non achievers to pillory.  Misdirection is called for …

"And another thing!" he/she shouts to nobody in particular "Why on earth did you spend so much money on that TV advertisement?" While everybody stops and wonders if they can hang at least some of it on that, the protagonist surges on "It wasn't aimed at anyone, except a vague group who were never going to contribute any income anyway. Totally Pointless! Whose idea was that?"

The obvious whipping boy, The Recently Appointed Marketing Director is summoned and an explanation is demanded. His/her response of "I was following the brief I was given" is ridiculed and his/her situation is untenable.  The plug is pulled. 

So what's the interesting failure?

Everybody will have been so occupied fire fighting and scapegoating they don't see they're about to fail one of their critical Key Performance Indicators. 

As one of the conditions of their key funding from DEFRA was the requirement to raise the general profile of inland waterways to the general public. The suggestion being to run a gentle, easy to watch TV advert interesting to most people without inflicting an additional cost on  them.

Often things like this aren't adopted as a great idea but as a condition of something else really important ….. not saying I agree with it mind.

 

zenataomm (Ex Senior Human Resources Manager Railway Industry who annually had his budgets slaughtered and looted causing untold damage for a lot less than this)

 

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, zenataomm said:

No budget item will have been reduced to pay for the CRT advert.

 

That's not how budgets work!

Each and every department will have submitted a fictitious amount they claim will be needed to successfully achieve the targets that were handed them … sorry I meant jointly agreed.

They would have then been awarded a fraction of that amount and told non-achievement is not an option.  They are then given a date to report back their success several months hence, Happy Days!

 

As the financial year staggers along non-operational budgets (Marketing, Recruitment, Training, Capital Investment, I.T. Investment) will be invaded (yet again) and funds redirected as infrastructure fails, legislation changes or the two most common incidents happen at the same time … namely a gamble to ignore something backfires badly and/or something critical that was forgotten and left with a junior with no authority but total responsibility rears its ugly head. 

At this point everybody else says " I thought someone was handling that!? " 

Then the "someone" irritably replies "I was, and then you removed my budget and made me report to the non-executive Forward Planning Working Party, which you then disbanded last March."  

 

It's usually around now that The Board Members go into TSM (Teflon Shoulder Mode) and start criticising all and sundry for not preparing/informing/reporting/being diligent …. for this disaster could have been avoided if only!

Everyone below them in the structure starts muttering about this would not have happened if their part of the budget hadn't been slaughtered at the last moment, and what's the point of their telling them how much they'll need if their informed answer is ignored?

Now that disaster is unavoidable and screaming over the horizon towards them at Warp Speed The Board become reactive, and causing as much damage as they possibly can they destroy whatever little faith the workforce ever had in them by levelling a recruitment embargo, cancelling all training, forbidding any expenditure not signed off at Board level and leaving those whom are public and customer facing looking stupid by not being able to deliver what they openly said they would ... to the press ... to stake holders … customers etc.

 

Finally an interesting failure will undoubtedly happen.  Someone who had a full budget and just didn't do their job, suddenly feels vulnerable as the snipers' scopes start to swing in all directions looking for non achievers to pillory.  Misdirection is called for …

"And another thing!" he/she shouts to nobody in particular "Why on earth did you spend so much money on that TV advertisement?" While everybody stops and wonders if they can hang at least some of it on that, the protagonist surges on "It wasn't aimed at anyone, except a vague group who were never going to contribute any income anyway. Totally Pointless! Whose idea was that?"

The obvious whipping boy, The Recently Appointed Marketing Director is summoned and an explanation is demanded. His/her response of "I was following the brief I was given" is ridiculed and his/her situation is untenable.  The plug is pulled. 

So what's the interesting failure?

Everybody will have been so occupied fire fighting and scapegoating they don't see they're about to fail one of their critical Key Performance Indicators. 

As one of the conditions of their key funding from DEFRA was the requirement to raise the general profile of inland waterways to the general public. The suggestion being to run a gentle, easy to watch TV advert interesting to most people without inflicting an additional cost on  them.

Often things like this aren't adopted as a great idea but as a condition of something else really important ….. not saying I agree with it mind.

 

zenataomm (Ex Senior Human Resources Manager Railway Industry who annually had his budgets slaughtered and looted causing untold damage for a lot less than this)

 

Not a fan then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, magictime said:

 

I assume the idea, of this advert and much of what CRT do in general, is essentially to promote the waterways to the general public as something of value to them even if they don't happen to own a £50,000 boat or have a fascination with 18th century goods-carrying infrastructure. The more CRT can do to attract visitors to the canals and then demonstrate the value people place on them and the positive impacts they have on people's wellbeing, the better their chances of winning future support from the Government and perhaps other grant-giving bodies.

That's my assumption too

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, magictime said:

I assume the idea, of this advert and much of what CRT do in general, is essentially to promote the waterways to the general public as something of value to them even if they don't happen to own a £50,000 boat or have a fascination with 18th century goods-carrying infrastructure. The more CRT can do to attract visitors to the canals and then demonstrate the value people place on them and the positive impacts they have on people's wellbeing, the better their chances of winning future support from the Government and perhaps other grant-giving bodies.

No - I don't think so The funding all stops in a few years and their will be no more.

The reasons are 'more immediate'.

 

The reason for the advert is that C&RT have a number of KPI's which must be achieved or they get the funding by DEFRA reduced.

One of the several KPI' which so far they have failed miserably top achieve is "Public Awareness". The target is 40% of people asked at random if they have heard of C&RT and who / what they are. Currently - Seriously behind target.

 

Worth spending £1,000,000 on a TV advert if it means you don't lose £10,000,000 in funding.

I'd do it as well - It is a pretty good return.

 

Other "public facing" KPI's which could be helped by the advert are :

 

Number of individual visitors to our waterways in typical two-week period (over last 12 months) - Behind targets

Customer satisfaction rating of visitors and towpath users - On target

% of prompted people (living in close proximity of a waterway) that are aware of/recognise the value of their local waterway - Behind target

Number of volunteer hours per annum - Behind target

№ of active Friends attracted and retained, regularly donating - Seriously behind target

 

 

The main KPI that affects us as boaters is "№ of days of unplanned closures to navigation within our control (individual instances over 48 hours)" which at the last published figures was running about 25% above target

 

Considering that C&RT must become self-funding by (I think) 2025 they have a long way to go.

 

Another KPI is "£ million secured from restricted statutory and voluntary funding, philanthropic and individual giving and contributions in kind" which is running at about 66% of target and has so far actually cost more than it has generated.

 

Voluntary income was £3.4m last year. Expenditure raising that income was £3.9m. Loss £500,000. 

 

The cumulative loss for fund-raising over the first six years of the Trust is £5.5m 

 

If they hadn't tried to rise donations etc, they would have had £5.5m more to spend

 

The Trust target was to have recruited 100,000 Friends in 10 years, in which case they should have about 60,000 by the end of the 2017/18 financial year. In different reports they have provided two different figures - the higher of which is in the annual report - 24,100.

 

All figures and KPI's available in C&RT reports, annual accounts, minutes of Trustee meetings etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

No - I don't think so The funding all stops in a few years and their will be no more.

The reasons are 'more immediate'.

 

The reason for the advert is that C&RT have a number of KPI's which must be achieved or they get the funding by DEFRA reduced.

One of the several KPI' which so far they have failed miserably top achieve is "Public Awareness". The target is 40% of people asked at random if they have heard of C&RT and who / what they are. Currently - Seriously behind target.

 

Worth spending £1,000,000 on a TV advert if it means you don't lose £10,000,000 in funding.

I'd do it as well - It is a pretty good return.

 

Other "public facing" KPI's which could be helped by the advert are :

 

Number of individual visitors to our waterways in typical two-week period (over last 12 months) - Behind targets

Customer satisfaction rating of visitors and towpath users - On target

% of prompted people (living in close proximity of a waterway) that are aware of/recognise the value of their local waterway - Behind target

Number of volunteer hours per annum - Behind target

№ of active Friends attracted and retained, regularly donating - Seriously behind target

 

 

The main KPI that affects us as boaters is "№ of days of unplanned closures to navigation within our control (individual instances over 48 hours)" which at the last published figures was running about 25% above target

 

Considering that C&RT must become self-funding by (I think) 2025 they have a long way to go.

 

Another KPI is "£ million secured from restricted statutory and voluntary funding, philanthropic and individual giving and contributions in kind" which is running at about 66% of target and has so far actually cost more than it has generated.

 

Voluntary income was £3.4m last year. Expenditure raising that income was £3.9m. Loss £500,000. 

 

 

The cumulative loss for fund-raising over the first six years of the Trust is £5.5m 

 

If they hadn't tried to rise donations etc, they would have had £5.5m more to spend

 

The Trust target was to have recruited 100,000 Friends in 10 years, in which case they should have about 60,000 by the end of the 2017/18 financial year. In different reports they have provided two different figures - the higher of which is in the annual report - 24,100.

 

All figures and KPI's available in C&RT reports, annual accounts, minutes of Trustee meetings etc.

Most of that seems pretty consistent with what I said, just broken down into specific targets. (Not the bits about volunteers and donations, but the bits about visitor numbers, awareness etc.). And given the extent to which CRT are falling short, especially on the targets directly related to their ability to self-fund ('Friends', donations), I do wonder if they've got one eye on a future where they have to say to the Government, "We gave it our best shot, it wasn't enough, BUT here's a compelling case for you continuing to plug that financial gap" - with the ability to demonstrate public support/benefit a large part of that.

 

Personally I don't know why the Government finds it so hard to reconcile itself to the idea of just stumping up £50 million a year (or whatever it is) on an ongoing basis. It's a drop in the ocean in terms of Government spending, and surely offers at least as much benefit as comparable spending on other public spaces like parks and recreation grounds.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, magictime said:

And given the extent to which CRT are falling short, especially on the targets directly related to their ability to self-fund ('Friends', donations), I do wonder if they've got one eye on a future where they have to say to the Government, "We gave it our best shot, it wasn't enough, BUT here's a compelling case for you continuing to plug that financial gap"

 

There are two classes of members ;

 

28. Classes of Member
28.1 There shall be two classes of Members, as follows:
28.1.1 “A Members” shall be those individuals who serve on the Council, appointed in accordance with Article 29 and the Rules, and collectively the A Members shall be known as the Council.
28.1.2 The “B Member” who shall be the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs;

 

 

The B Member (Secretary of state) has certain powers that can be implemented if the charity fail to achieve their KPI's to retain the grants, he can do anything from removing the council to transferring C&RT to another charity to manage.

 

 

Exercise of the Special Powers
30.4 The Special Powers are as follows:
30.4.1 the B Member may remove any or all of the Trustees of the Trust and may make such replacement appointments as the B Member considers fit by serving notice on the Trust in writing (“the Trustee Replacement Power”);
30.4.2 the B Member may remove any or all of the A Members and may make such replacement appointments as the B Member considers fit by serving notice on the Trust in writing (“the A Member Replacement Power”); and
30.4.3 the B Member may direct that the Protected Assets (subject to attendant liabilities) shall be transferred to another institution which is regarded as charitable under the law of England and Wales with objects compatible with those of the Trust or to be held upon trust for the objects of the Trust by a person or institution which has been appointed as trustee of the Waterways Infrastructure Trust on such terms as the B Member thinks fit (subject to the requirements of charity law) (“the Transfer of Assets Power”).

 

 

It was suggested that an inability to balance income and expenditure could typically result in Member B implementing his special powers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

There are two classes of members ;

 

28. Classes of Member
28.1 There shall be two classes of Members, as follows:
28.1.1 “A Members” shall be those individuals who serve on the Council, appointed in accordance with Article 29 and the Rules, and collectively the A Members shall be known as the Council.
28.1.2 The “B Member” who shall be the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs;

 

 

The B Member (Secretary of state) has certain powers that can be implemented if the charity fail to achieve their KPI's to retain the grants, he can do anything from removing the council to transferring C&RT to another charity to manage.

 

 

Exercise of the Special Powers
30.4 The Special Powers are as follows:
30.4.1 the B Member may remove any or all of the Trustees of the Trust and may make such replacement appointments as the B Member considers fit by serving notice on the Trust in writing (“the Trustee Replacement Power”);
30.4.2 the B Member may remove any or all of the A Members and may make such replacement appointments as the B Member considers fit by serving notice on the Trust in writing (“the A Member Replacement Power”); and
30.4.3 the B Member may direct that the Protected Assets (subject to attendant liabilities) shall be transferred to another institution which is regarded as charitable under the law of England and Wales with objects compatible with those of the Trust or to be held upon trust for the objects of the Trust by a person or institution which has been appointed as trustee of the Waterways Infrastructure Trust on such terms as the B Member thinks fit (subject to the requirements of charity law) (“the Transfer of Assets Power”).

 

 

It was suggested that an inability to balance income and expenditure could typically result in Member B implementing his special powers.

But he's only going to bother, surely, if he thinks a new set of trustees, or another institution (the IWA? The National Trust?), is going to do a better job of meeting essentially the same targets. What if he concludes that there just aren't enough potential donors out there to make another round of recruitment under a new set of trustees worthwhile (for instance)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On this public awareness thing, I meet a LOT of members of the public with whom I have the opportunity to chat in some depth about stuff. I would say when chatting with a customer 100% of them are aware of the existence of canals, and 99% of them think living on a narrow boat is completely brilliant. 

 

I would however say 100% of them have never heard of Canal and Rivers Trust or CRT, and this is what the TV advert is aiming to put right I reckon. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, magictime said:

But he's only going to bother, surely, if he thinks a new set of trustees, or another institution (the IWA? The National Trust?), is going to do a better job of meeting essentially the same targets. What if he concludes that there just aren't enough potential donors out there to make another round of recruitment under a new set of trustees worthwhile (for instance)?

 

All good questions.

Should he decide that the "management" is unable to achieve self-sufficiency, or any other reason that he sees fit, he may decide to hand it over to one that has proven, (in a similar field), that  they can (The national Trust being a prime example)

200 year old infrastructure, country-wide responsibilities, daily maintenance, major renovation projects etc etc.

 

It would probably mean some big changes (and charges) for canal users.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

On this public awareness thing, I meet a LOT of members of the public with whom I have the opportunity to chat in some depth about stuff. I would say when chatting with a customer 100% of them are aware of the existence of canals, and 99% of them think living on a narrow boat is completely brilliant. 

 

I would however say 100% of them have never heard of Canal and Rivers Trust or CRT, and this is what the TV advert is aiming to put right I reckon. 

...although it doesn't really manage to say anything about what CRT actually do. You wouldn't glean from that advert that CRT are actually responsible for maintaining infrastructure, managing navigation, running museums, etc. They could just be a sort of 'tourist board for the waterways' for all the ad spells out. (I'm not saying this a bad thing, necessarily, but I suspect a lot of people could see the advert and yet walk along the towpath the next day thinking 'the council should come and trim these verges' or 'I wish Bristish Waterways would do something about the graffiti on those lock gates'.)

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume the idea, of this advert and much of what CRT do in general, is essentially to promote the waterways to the general public as something of value to them even if they don't happen to own a £50,000 boat or have a fascination with 18th century goods-carrying infrastructure. The more CRT can do to attract visitors to the canals and then demonstrate the value people place on them and the positive impacts they have on people's wellbeing, the better their chances of winning future support from the Government and perhaps other grant-giving bodies.

That's my assumption too

 

 

magic time is right.

 

Look in the CRT's financial statement which, if you are a boat license payer and have given your e mail address you will have been sent a copy of, and you find that the CRT receives about 50 million quid a year from central government. This grant is due to end in roughly 10 years time when presumably the CRT will apply for further funding. They assume (almost certainly justifiably) that if the canal network is seen to benefit a broad section of the demographic as opposed to the 35000 or so boat license payers then they will get more money from  government. This is what last years re-branding exercise is all about. Love it / hate it, its still a fact and one that should be remembered next time you are reading a pejorative post about inconsiderate cyclists, dog walkers, fishermen, hire boaters, runners, walkers  and crawlers or any other group of the thousands of people who use the canals but don't own a boat. 

 

Vive la difference

Don't live in the past

God save the King

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, 36national said:

I assume the idea, of this advert and much of what CRT do in general, is essentially to promote the waterways to the general public as something of value to them even if they don't happen to own a £50,000 boat or have a fascination with 18th century goods-carrying infrastructure. The more CRT can do to attract visitors to the canals and then demonstrate the value people place on them and the positive impacts they have on people's wellbeing, the better their chances of winning future support from the Government and perhaps other grant-giving bodies.

That's my assumption too

 

 

magic time is right.

 

Look in the CRT's financial statement which, if you are a boat license payer and have given your e mail address you will have been sent a copy of, and you find that the CRT receives about 50 million quid a year from central government. This grant is due to end in roughly 10 years time when presumably the CRT will apply for further funding. They assume (almost certainly justifiably) that if the canal network is seen to benefit a broad section of the demographic as opposed to the 35000 or so boat license payers then they will get more money from  government. This is what last years re-branding exercise is all about. Love it / hate it, its still a fact and one that should be remembered next time you are reading a pejorative post about inconsiderate cyclists, dog walkers, fishermen, hire boaters, runners, walkers  and crawlers or any other group of the thousands of people who use the canals but don't own a boat. 

 

Vive la difference

Don't live in the past

God save the King

 

Full details of the Grant, how it calculated and when it scales back is listed in the :

 

GRANT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS
AND
CANAL & RIVER TRUST

 

Appendix 1

 

1. From the financial year 2015/16, the Part A Core Grant of £39,000,000 will be indexed ex ante in three-year cycles according to annual projections of the GDP deflator for the following three financial years.1
2. For each of the financial years 2015/16 to 2017/18 inclusive (years four to six of this Grant Agreement), the Part A Core Grant will be adjusted, relative to the preceding financial year, at the rate for the financial year in question set out in the most recently published GDP deflator projections available at 31 March 2015.
3. For each of the financial years 2018/19 to 2020/21 inclusive (years seven to nine of this Grant Agreement), the Part A Core Grant will be further adjusted, relative to the preceding financial year, at the rate for the financial year in question set out in the most recently published GDP deflator projections available at 31 March 2018.
4. Subject to paragraph 6 of this Schedule, for each of the financial years 2021/22 to 2023/24 inclusive (years 10 to 12 of this Grant Agreement), the Part A Core Grant will be further adjusted, relative to the preceding financial year, at the rate for the financial year in question set out in the most recently published GDP deflator projections available at 31 March 2021.
5. Subject to paragraph 6 of this Schedule, for each of the financial years 2024/25 to 2026/27 inclusive (years 13 to 15 of this Grant Agreement), the Part A Core Grant will be further adjusted relative to the preceding financial year, at the rate for the financial year in question set out in the most recently published GDP deflator projections as at 31 March 2024.
6. The amount of Part A Core Grant payable in any of the financial years 2022/23 to 2026/27 inclusive (years 11 to 15 of this Grant Agreement) shall in no event exceed the amount of Part A Core Grant calculated in accordance with paragraph 4 of this Schedule for the financial year 2021/22, plus £10,000,000.

 

 

 

It is a 47 page document and goes onto describe the actions that DEFRA will take is there is any breech (failure to achieve) targets which can be anything from demanding ab action plan to rectify the situation to withholding in part or in full the grant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, 36national said:

to raise the awareness of the general public to the activities of the CRT. DOH

 

 

 

Doh indeed !!!

 

From what I can see the short advert / video does not promote ANY activities undertaken by C&RT, in fact it says nothing until the punch-line right at the end "Making life better by water".

 

Would you care to point out where in the 30 seconds it mentioned any of these :

 

Objectives as detailed in their "Articles of Association" 

The Trust’s objects are:
2.1 to preserve, protect, operate and manage Inland Waterways for public benefit:
2.1.1 for navigation;
2.1.2 for walking on towpaths; and
2.1.3 for recreation or other leisure-time pursuits of the public in the interest of their health and social welfare;
2.2 to protect and conserve for public benefit sites, objects and buildings of archaeological, architectural, engineering or historic interest on, in the vicinity of, or otherwise associated with Inland Waterways;
2.3 to further for the public benefit the conservation protection and improvement of the natural environment and landscape of Inland Waterways;
2.4 to promote, facilitate, undertake and assist in, for public benefit, the restoration and improvement of Inland Waterways;
2.5 to promote and facilitate for public benefit awareness, learning and education about Inland Waterways, their history, development, use, operation and cultural heritage by all appropriate means including the provision of museums;
2.6 to promote sustainable development in the vicinity of any Inland Waterway for the benefit of the public, in particular by:
2.6.1 the improvement of the conditions of life in socially and economically disadvantaged communities in such vicinity; and
2.6.2 the promotion of sustainable means of achieving economic growth and regeneration and the prudent use of natural resources;

Edited by Alan de Enfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes DOH indeed 

because cutting and pasting tranches of legaleese ain't the way to get the support of anybody. No one can be bothered to read it let alone care about it so the CRT decided that a computer generated animation of a buzzy bee thingy  might be a bit more accessible. As stated previously; love it / hate it, its still a fact.  Maybe you could take y list of regulations, ordinances, directives, stipulations or whatever the f y callem and stick em on a church wall, or some other place that nobody goes anymore, bung a begging box underneath and watch the cash come rolling in

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.