spyinthesky Posted 13 February, 2011 Share Posted 13 February, 2011 From Day 1 there has been speculation that part of the club's takeover by the Liebherrs was the possible development potential both on and off the field of play Part of this was getting hold of land in the proximity of the Stadium, including the water frontage and the gasometers. I know for a fact that Mr Cortese originally had cursory discussions with the relevant authorities about developing along the River Itchen but these didnt seem to get very far on the basis that companies, such as Hanson operating the aggegates wharves, were on long term Council leases, or owned the land Freehold, and would have nowhere else to go In view of this, from an outsiders perspective, there didnt see too much mileage in this particular opportunity However heard a little rumour recently (from a decent source) that discussions are underway to relocate some, or all, of the Aggregate business to the, soon to be vacated, Town Depot closer to the Itchen Bridge and the necessary permissions for the land and waterside activity were in the pipeline. Previously this was going to be the site of a new Snow Dome but apparently potential developers have been stalling on offers If the Aggregate businesses could be relocated this would allow interested parties (SFC?) some interesting development possibilities on the vacated waterfront site. In addition this may link into a separate rumour that the club are keen to take on the Lease of Unit 17 on the Trading Estate to the back of the Chapel end which is currently available. If they were also able to obtain this and the adjacent building, and possibly the Gasometer site at some stage in the future, all of a sudden the current stadium footprint increases substantially and adds value to the Liebherr family investment. I suppose it is a case of 'watch this space' Would be interested to know if any one else has picked this up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfc1971 Posted 13 February, 2011 Share Posted 13 February, 2011 Yeah I read that post on footymad to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holepuncture Posted 13 February, 2011 Share Posted 13 February, 2011 just you wait until Cameron and his boys lift the green belt on Jacksons Farm! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 13 February, 2011 Share Posted 13 February, 2011 Any mention of monkeys or chickens from your source? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 13 February, 2011 Share Posted 13 February, 2011 someone posted on the UI board during the week that the club were at advanced stages to buy the industrial units around SMS and turn it into a mini gunwharf quay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 13 February, 2011 Share Posted 13 February, 2011 Any mention of monkeys or chickens from your source? I think Holepuncture referred to these in his post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 13 February, 2011 Share Posted 13 February, 2011 I was aware from my dealings with Meridian, the City Council and SEEDA that the whole of the waterfront from the Television Studios down to the Itchen Bridge were earmarked for regeneration. As far as I was aware, almost all of the waterfront could have been made available to any developers who were willing to finance it (and the council and the relevant authorities would be only too willing to roll over to achieve it). Obviously a few years out of date (and SEEDA are on the way out), but given the current economic climate, I would have thought the City Council would still be up for greasing the planning wheels etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted 13 February, 2011 Share Posted 13 February, 2011 American Wharf has been For sale for ages. I would guess that buying that though would alert others of the seriousness of the plan, prices might rise accordingly as there is a common held view that the club have so much money that they will pay any price to acquire their desired assets. I do'nt think that Mr Cortese was put in place for being a spendthrift though, as we have all seen. Purchasing property in the chapel ind est might mean that the club could build a decent rail platform perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted 13 February, 2011 Share Posted 13 February, 2011 someone posted on the UI board during the week that the club were at advanced stages to buy the industrial units around SMS and turn it into a mini gunwharf quay. ..with direct rail link and covered walkway right down to waterfront bars. Is that plan for fleets of water taxis still going ahead to and from the development of the old Vosper's yard, anyone know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger Posted 13 February, 2011 Share Posted 13 February, 2011 I was aware from my dealings with Meridian, the City Council and SEEDA that the whole of the waterfront from the Television Studios down to the Itchen Bridge were earmarked for regeneration. As far as I was aware, almost all of the waterfront could have been made available to any developers who were willing to finance it (and the council and the relevant authorities would be only too willing to roll over to achieve it). Obviously a few years out of date (and SEEDA are on the way out), but given the current economic climate, I would have thought the City Council would still be up for greasing the planning wheels etc. Wasn't this the theory behind Paul Allen's (alleged) interest ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 13 February, 2011 Share Posted 13 February, 2011 Purchasing property in the chapel ind est might mean that the club could build a decent rail platform perhaps? It'll never happen. There is no demand for another station. Even on matchdays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger Posted 13 February, 2011 Share Posted 13 February, 2011 (edited) Going back even further, I remember the rumour that Saints wanted to buy the houses in Burton Road immediately behind the old east stand at The Dell in order to develop. Such rumours are nothing new,although I expect NC is more focussed and driven than the good old board of gentlemen from yesteryear. Edited 13 February, 2011 by Badger Realised name of Burton road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
verlaine1979 Posted 13 February, 2011 Share Posted 13 February, 2011 Wasn't this the theory behind Paul Allen's (alleged) interest ? Heh, no it was because he apparently saw 'the value in taking the brand global'. Whichever pompey fan put together the whole Paul Allen scam showed an unusual degree of literacy and imagination. Kudos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 13 February, 2011 Share Posted 13 February, 2011 (edited) Can't have a thread about development and expansion without this video made by Dalton Crawley Architects... Interesting they have some Tall Ships on the river next to the stadium along with some other surrounding buildings that don't currently exist. Edited 13 February, 2011 by Matthew Le God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up and away Posted 13 February, 2011 Share Posted 13 February, 2011 There was an original paper put out for the development of St Marys before Liebherr bought the club. Since then the club have been in discussions with the council and that includes development of the gasworks and the waterside frontage, along with increasing the capacity of St Marys. The capacity can be increased by 8000 seats per main stand at a go, giving the option of an extra 8 or 16k as desired. The costs are heavy and only look viable going hand in hand with the remainder of the development. The council are very keen to see that any project involves the club staying where it is, along with the planning permission such a step would require. I get the feeling the planning guidelines would be stretched to whatever is neccessary, with innovative transport and procedures used to bridge the gap. I can see no way a railway station would be on the cards. This is only viable if Saints are in the Premier, so whether that means waiting until we are established there you can only guess, but certainly no earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted 13 February, 2011 Share Posted 13 February, 2011 There is no demand for another station. Even on matchdays. currently, yes. forget matchdays dune, think access to waterfront development 7 days a week. imho the sale of JF is the singlemost important factor in the development of either the sms area (or just the stadium). with JF being an SFC assett it would (most importantly) balance the books ie no capital gain as the proceeds are re-inversted and no interest payments on a loan. all possible without dependency on Prem League income or player sales. it's genius really Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwsaint Posted 13 February, 2011 Share Posted 13 February, 2011 When St Mary's was built there was discussion with the council about reopening the docks line for passengers. As well as at St Mary's, a station would also be reopened next to the old Terminus station. The idea was that it would be used during the week for commuters working in the offices at Ocean Village, as well as on matchdays. The sticking point was that the cost of electrification of the line, as well as the development costs, made the idea a non-starter. In fact, the old Northam station used to be on the line just behind the Chapel Stand. Long since demolished. The place to put a station was on the main line the other side of Northam bridge, so that regular passenger trains could stop there on match days. Unfortunately some muppet in South West Trains decided that this was a good place to put a carriage workshop, so this is no longer an option. So don't expect a rail link directly to St Mary's any time soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Stimp Posted 13 February, 2011 Share Posted 13 February, 2011 Can't have a thread about development and expansion without this video made by Dalton Crawley Architects... (were they asked to make it by the club as a proposal last year?) Interesting they have some Tall Ships on the river next to the stadium along with some other surrounding buildings that don't currently exist. If they were asked they probably should have remembered that the Itchen is the one stand that can't be expanded.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 13 February, 2011 Share Posted 13 February, 2011 The Itchen is the one stand that can't be expanded.. Source? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 13 February, 2011 Share Posted 13 February, 2011 Source? Probably logic based on the offices/boxes being in there. Any work on top of the stand would effectively compromise the club infrastructure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 13 February, 2011 Share Posted 13 February, 2011 Probably logic based on the offices/boxes being in there. Any work on top of the stand would effectively compromise the club infrastructure. But it is a relatively small steel structure, surely it could cope with loads on top? I'd imagine makers of the video (Dalton Crawley Architects) would have a better idea than any of us not in the construction industry what can and can't be done with such structures. I keep seeing people say the Itchen Stand can't be expanded, but have seen no evidence other than a paragraph on Wikipedia, which of course cannot be taken seriously as anyone in the world can edit it. Does anyone have any credible evidence that it can't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 13 February, 2011 Share Posted 13 February, 2011 But it is a relatively small steel structure, surely it could cope with loads on top? I'd imagine makers of the video (Dalton Crawly Architects) would have a better idea than any of us not in the construction industry what can and can't be done with such structures. I keep seeing people say the Itchen Stand can't be expanded, but have seen no evidence other than a paragraph on Wikipedia, which of course cannot be taken seriously as anyone in the world can edit it. Health and Safety may play a part, i'm not an expert but surely removing a roof/adding steel work to an existing structure would require the tenants within to find alternative arrangements before completion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger Posted 13 February, 2011 Share Posted 13 February, 2011 Does anyone have any credible evidence that it can't? Not 'evidence' as such, but it was certainly a point made when the ground was first opened, and nothing has been said or written to correct it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 13 February, 2011 Share Posted 13 February, 2011 Health and Safety may play a part, i'm not an expert but surely removing a roof/adding steel work to an existing structure would require the tenants within to find alternative arrangements before completion. The key parts of preventing that being an issue "may" be able to be completed between May and August meaning that construction then continues into the season. Not 'evidence' as such, but it was certainly a point made when the ground was first opened, and nothing has been said or written to correct it. Is this not rumour and myth going back 10 years and because it has been continually repeated in numerous fans forums it is taken to be true? Does anyone have a link to something that Rupert Lowe, Andrew Cowan, Barr Construction etc have actually said to confirm this? It may well be true, but I'd like some evidence from a credible source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwsaint Posted 13 February, 2011 Share Posted 13 February, 2011 The old lady who took a group of us on a stadium tour a couple of weeks after SMS opened said that the the three sides could be expanded, but not the Itchen. It looks fairly obvious just looking at the stadium. She also said that there were enough toilets for 50,000. Not sure that I believe that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alehouseboys Posted 13 February, 2011 Share Posted 13 February, 2011 I believe it's more a case of expanding the Itchen was possible but more problematic and expensive than the 3 other stands. When expansion was talked about in the Lowe era cost was everything so there was no chance of the Itchen changing as the required increase in seats was easily obtainable from expanding the Kingsland and/or the Chapel/Northam. Even then it didn't really stack up on our then budget. Aesthetically (as MLGs vid shows) and for symmetry keeping the ends the same and developing the side stands would be preferable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 13 February, 2011 Share Posted 13 February, 2011 What was cost effective under Lowe would be vastly different to what would be now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 13 February, 2011 Share Posted 13 February, 2011 I'm not sure whether I'd trust a firm of Architects with extending the Stadium if they can't even spell Extension correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Red Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 But it is a relatively small steel structure, surely it could cope with loads on top? I'd imagine makers of the video (Dalton Crawley Architects) would have a better idea than any of us not in the construction industry what can and can't be done with such structures. I keep seeing people say the Itchen Stand can't be expanded, but have seen no evidence other than a paragraph on Wikipedia, which of course cannot be taken seriously as anyone in the world can edit it. Does anyone have any credible evidence that it can't? You probably imagine wrongly. Nearly every architect I've met has no idea about what steel structures can and can't do. FWIW, if you've got enough money and space you can do just about anything, but if we ever expand we'd do it a stand at a time. The symmetry would be lost which is a shame but the stadium would become unique and could look great... I can't see it happening for a while yet though!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Red Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 Also, I can't imagine that a proper architects would use google sketchup (and seemingly a google basemap) for their designs. Looks like something a work experience kid pieced together. (Not meaning to be rude, it's better than anything I could do) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Mockles Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 But it is a relatively small steel structure, surely it could cope with loads on top? I'd imagine makers of the video (Dalton Crawley Architects) would have a better idea than any of us not in the construction industry what can and can't be done with such structures. I keep seeing people say the Itchen Stand can't be expanded, but have seen no evidence other than a paragraph on Wikipedia, which of course cannot be taken seriously as anyone in the world can edit it. Does anyone have any credible evidence that it can't? The stadium was built with capability to increase the capacity as was clearly stated at the time. Some sweaty company (Jocks), same that did Derby which is very similar to ours. The same model. I didn't work on St Mary's personally but the company I was working for were the planning supervisors. In fact, I still have the original drawing plans somewhere as I do for Wembley & Emirates. Interesting projects. Apologies for the name drop but had to say. Definitely capacity to increase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Mockles Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 The key parts of preventing that being an issue "may" be able to be completed between May and August meaning that construction then continues into the season. Is this not rumour and myth going back 10 years and because it has been continually repeated in numerous fans forums it is taken to be true? Does anyone have a link to something that Rupert Lowe, Andrew Cowan, Barr Construction etc have actually said to confirm this? It may well be true, but I'd like some evidence from a credible source. See below. I can confirm myself it is true & regularly heard my colleague liaise with AC but it's hardly confidential, it was in the public domain. WSP were the planning supervisors & dealt with Andrew Cowan. Some people get narky on this forum to any volunteered info. so make your own judgements but this is so trivial & I assumed common knowledge. Sadly, I suppose the plethora of trolls that now seem to plague the aether have this effect. Muddy the waters. As for the structural comments, all buildings would be vacacnt during works & as someone rightly suggested, this would likely begin May time anyway (end of season). Obviously, any new terracing would involve significant structural work (which is always over engineered anyway) but the original model was designed as part of that concept. Let's just be thankful no Aussie companies will be near St Mary's as Multiplex couldn't have made Wembley a bigger mess if they'd tried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamster Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 try to visualise st mary's as a sort of stadium mk decelopment, not a lot different but with much nicer clothes on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Mockles Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 try to visualise st mary's as a sort of stadium mk decelopment, not a lot different but with much nicer clothes on. Yeah, and finished (as in the stadium build - if that isn't what you meant!) unlike MK (not knocking it though, loved the set up at MK, the auto turnstiles & the way the concourse was set up so near the seating/viewable bar a partition. Preferred that to our/the usual set up (down steps, away from view/daylight) ;0) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 (edited) So St Mary's might end up like this...(with the single tier Itchen Stand on the right and Chapel, Kingsland and Northam all two tiered) Maybe on the Itchen Stand you could match the height of the other three stands by raising the roof and putting more boxes in on top, similar(ish) to Leyton Orient below but on a larger scale... Now that wold be one hell of a stadium! Edited 14 February, 2011 by Matthew Le God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMike Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 From Day 1 there has been speculation that part of the club's takeover by the Liebherrs was the possible development potential both on and off the field of play Part of this was getting hold of land in the proximity of the Stadium, including the water frontage and the gasometers. I know for a fact that Mr Cortese originally had cursory discussions with the relevant authorities about developing along the River Itchen but these didnt seem to get very far on the basis that companies, such as Hanson operating the aggegates wharves, were on long term Council leases, or owned the land Freehold, and would have nowhere else to go In view of this, from an outsiders perspective, there didnt see too much mileage in this particular opportunity However heard a little rumour recently (from a decent source) that discussions are underway to relocate some, or all, of the Aggregate business to the, soon to be vacated, Town Depot closer to the Itchen Bridge and the necessary permissions for the land and waterside activity were in the pipeline. Previously this was going to be the site of a new Snow Dome but apparently potential developers have been stalling on offers If the Aggregate businesses could be relocated this would allow interested parties (SFC?) some interesting development possibilities on the vacated waterfront site. In addition this may link into a separate rumour that the club are keen to take on the Lease of Unit 17 on the Trading Estate to the back of the Chapel end which is currently available. If they were also able to obtain this and the adjacent building, and possibly the Gasometer site at some stage in the future, all of a sudden the current stadium footprint increases substantially and adds value to the Liebherr family investment. I suppose it is a case of 'watch this space' Would be interested to know if any one else has picked this up? ahhh did wonder what happened to that, would love it if we had one down here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iansums Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 Or perhaps we could have a stadium like this: I couldn't stop laughing at it whilst watching the rugby yesterday, superb stadium totally ruined at one end, three tiers of seating but at one end only about ten rows, hilarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenevaSaint Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 Or perhaps we could have a stadium like this: I couldn't stop laughing at it whilst watching the rugby yesterday, superb stadium totally ruined at one end, three tiers of seating but at one end only about ten rows, hilarious. Yeh, wondered what the hell was going on with that, didn't Lansdowne road also look similar though. A lovely stadium even though it's a bit odd! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toomer Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 I have not got the time to go back over threads and details around the time SMS was built but if my memory is correct I think it was stated that the ground was built in a way that it could be extended apart from the Itchen stand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 Yeh, wondered what the hell was going on with that, didn't Lansdowne road also look similar though. A lovely stadium even though it's a bit odd! Don't they have a rather inconveniently located railway line behind it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
100%Red&White Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 I have not got the time to go back over threads and details around the time SMS was built but if my memory is correct I think it was stated that the ground was built in a way that it could be extended apart from the Itchen stand. I seem to remember hearing/reading that the stadium was built in a way it could easily be extended as the footings were substantial enough to take another tier and an increase of capacity up to 50,000 was possible. I think it was a simple(ish) job of bolting onto 3 stands but to get up to 50k would have included the Itchen which was a far more complicated and expensive project - but could be done. In them days we had a great big mortgage and it was far too risky (as it proved!) to push ahead with expansion but circumstances have obviously changed and if development of the area and the sell of JF comes to fruition then I'm sure Cortese wouldn't skimp on the stadium makeover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 I couldn't stop laughing at it whilst watching the rugby yesterday, superb stadium totally ruined at one end, three tiers of seating but at one end only about ten rows, hilarious. Yeh, wondered what the hell was going on with that, didn't Lansdowne road also look similar though. A lovely stadium even though it's a bit odd! The view from behind the goal is the worst in the stadium. Makes more sense to make the main stand and the one opposite large as that is where the best views are. The smaller number of away fans can then be put behind the goal and if in future the stadium needs to be expanded they can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFrost Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 Don't they have a rather inconveniently located railway line behind it? Possibly they were saying it was something to do with restrictions on local planning permission Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 Possibly they were saying it was something to do with restrictions on local planning permission Just checked and there seems to be a residential estate a few meters behind were the pitch finishes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 Heh, no it was because he apparently saw 'the value in taking the brand global'. Whichever pompey fan put together the whole Paul Allen scam showed an unusual degree of literacy and imagination. Kudos. You know for a fact this was COMPLETELY unfounded and there was never even an inquiry, despite the fact that Paul Allen now owns a football club ? Seattle Sounders in MLS, for those who don't know... who didn't even exist when Saints were first mooted for sale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLINK Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 that stadium animation is laughable, what did they use google sketchup? lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamesaint Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 See below. I can confirm myself it is true & regularly heard my colleague liaise with AC but it's hardly confidential, it was in the public domain. WSP were the planning supervisors & dealt with Andrew Cowan. Some people get narky on this forum to any volunteered info. so make your own judgements but this is so trivial & I assumed common knowledge. Sadly, I suppose the plethora of trolls that now seem to plague the aether have this effect. Muddy the waters. As for the structural comments, all buildings would be vacacnt during works & as someone rightly suggested, this would likely begin May time anyway (end of season). Obviously, any new terracing would involve significant structural work (which is always over engineered anyway) but the original model was designed as part of that concept. Let's just be thankful no Aussie companies will be near St Mary's as Multiplex couldn't have made Wembley a bigger mess if they'd tried. As you seem to know what you are talking about (informed comment is rare on this forum!!) how long would it take to expoand St Marys? What could be done during a close season? eg Could the Kingsland be extended adequately between say May to August or would it take longer. If longer, how long would it take? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 As you seem to know what you are talking about (informed comment is rare on this forum!!) how long would it take to expoand St Marys? What could be done during a close season? eg Could the Kingsland be extended adequately between say May to August or would it take longer. If longer, how long would it take? This is 'British' workmen we are talking about, so think of a period of time, then quadruple it, whilst doubleling the costs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 Don't they have a rather inconveniently located railway line behind it? think it is houses. hence the glass backing , it was all about light being deprived if they built any higher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
COMEONYOUREDS Posted 14 February, 2011 Share Posted 14 February, 2011 Also, I can't imagine that a proper architects would use google sketchup (and seemingly a google basemap) for their designs. Looks like something a work experience kid pieced together. (Not meaning to be rude, it's better than anything I could do) LOL! I work at a structural engineering practice. I have worked with many architects and I can assure you they do use sketchup! 99% of them have no idea how a steel structure behaves so I wouldn't read too much into it, that is just a concept. To be honest they have done a pretty good job compared to some of the things I've seen architects produce. What I understand is that SMS was built so that that the chapel, kingsland and northam stand could have a second tier built behind them, all you really need to do is remove the roof, remove the cladding from the outside, build the new structure and roof and reclad. The reason the itchen can't be expanded is the offices built where the new stand would go, to expand it you would have to demolish the front part of the stadium and rebuild. Im not sure if that's even possible as the stand itself may be supported off it. As for the concept that architect has proposed, it is feasible that that could be built, the extra stands would have to be supported off the arches spanning over the ground. However the cost of this would massively outweigh the the other method. If we see SMS expanded its going to be the first option Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now