Another ordinary preseason

  • We had an issue with background services between march 10th and 15th or there about. This meant the payment services were not linking to automatic upgrades. If you paid for premium membership and are still seeing ads please let me know and the email you used against PayPal and I cam manually verify and upgrade your account.
True. As we all know, Australia doesn't have a lot of fertile country. I don't like what's going on in some of the Hunter area.
Fracking is bad Juju too.
Money changes everything.
 
Kevinward777 said:
Hamster Huey said:
cherry_poppins said:
wedgetail eagle said:
I blame the Government.

Well they've killed local vehicle manufacturing so while pouring money into mining non stop, have you seen how much they've been giving that numpty industry? Strewth

Well at least it'll be a 1 term wonder lol #dislodgeabbott

Remind me again on who's watch we saw Mitsubishi and Ford say they were leaving. And under which government did we see Bridgestone leave our shores and leave us without a tyre manufacturer in this country.

Not sure if that numpty is the right term for an industry that consists of around 6% of our GDP (and over 2% of the workforce).

Hear hear....spoken like a true Liberal.

Apologies for adding facts to the initial point...


cherry_poppins said:
wedgetail eagle said:
I didn't say it was great.
I said I work in it.

Yeah i noticed after i replied

I'm just miffed as to why i had a friend lose work but as a whole the car making industry had about 5% the annual bailouts of mining, poorly balanced

Other markets buy our resources. They didn't want our cars. In fact, we didn't even want our locally produced cars. Why throw good money after bad?
 
you sure?

http://www.themotorreport.com.au/55972/holden-commodore-returns-to-us-2014-chevrolet-ss-unveiled
 
Reckon that limited market would sustain an industry? Hardly. That's why the companies moved as soon as the 'free' money from government dried up.
 
Hamster Huey said:
Kevinward777 said:
Hamster Huey said:
cherry_poppins said:
wedgetail eagle said:
I blame the Government.

Well they've killed local vehicle manufacturing so while pouring money into mining non stop, have you seen how much they've been giving that numpty industry? Strewth

Well at least it'll be a 1 term wonder lol #dislodgeabbott

Remind me again on who's watch we saw Mitsubishi and Ford say they were leaving. And under which government did we see Bridgestone leave our shores and leave us without a tyre manufacturer in this country.

Not sure if that numpty is the right term for an industry that consists of around 6% of our GDP (and over 2% of the workforce).

Hear hear....spoken like a true Liberal.

Apologies for adding facts to the initial point...


cherry_poppins said:
wedgetail eagle said:
I didn't say it was great.
I said I work in it.

Yeah i noticed after i replied

I'm just miffed as to why i had a friend lose work but as a whole the car making industry had about 5% the annual bailouts of mining, poorly balanced

Other markets buy our resources. They didn't want our cars. In fact, we didn't even want our locally produced cars. Why throw good money after bad?



If they buy these resources why are the mining industry always cap in hand suckling off tax dollars? It's strange they supposedly make so much but need continual bailouts

In the words of the 2nd worst politician in Australian history

Please explain
 
cherry_poppins said:
Hamster Huey said:
Kevinward777 said:
Hamster Huey said:
cherry_poppins said:
Well they've killed local vehicle manufacturing so while pouring money into mining non stop, have you seen how much they've been giving that numpty industry? Strewth

Well at least it'll be a 1 term wonder lol #dislodgeabbott

Remind me again on who's watch we saw Mitsubishi and Ford say they were leaving. And under which government did we see Bridgestone leave our shores and leave us without a tyre manufacturer in this country.

Not sure if that numpty is the right term for an industry that consists of around 6% of our GDP (and over 2% of the workforce).

Hear hear....spoken like a true Liberal.

Apologies for adding facts to the initial point...


cherry_poppins said:
wedgetail eagle said:
I didn't say it was great.
I said I work in it.

Yeah i noticed after i replied

I'm just miffed as to why i had a friend lose work but as a whole the car making industry had about 5% the annual bailouts of mining, poorly balanced

Other markets buy our resources. They didn't want our cars. In fact, we didn't even want our locally produced cars. Why throw good money after bad?



If they buy these resources why are the mining industry always cap in hand suckling off tax dollars? It's strange they supposedly make so much but need continual bailouts

In the words of the 2nd worst politician in Australian history

Please explain



You overplay the mining subsidies...seems a common attack during the last couple of years. It has been torn apart more than a few times now.

If you can share fact-based stories of mining companies being 'bailed out' with Fed Govt monies, feel free to share.
 
Hamster Huey said:
cherry_poppins said:
Hamster Huey said:
Kevinward777 said:
Hamster Huey said:
Remind me again on who's watch we saw Mitsubishi and Ford say they were leaving. And under which government did we see Bridgestone leave our shores and leave us without a tyre manufacturer in this country.

Not sure if that numpty is the right term for an industry that consists of around 6% of our GDP (and over 2% of the workforce).

Hear hear....spoken like a true Liberal.

Apologies for adding facts to the initial point...


cherry_poppins said:
wedgetail eagle said:
I didn't say it was great.
I said I work in it.

Yeah i noticed after i replied

I'm just miffed as to why i had a friend lose work but as a whole the car making industry had about 5% the annual bailouts of mining, poorly balanced

Other markets buy our resources. They didn't want our cars. In fact, we didn't even want our locally produced cars. Why throw good money after bad?



If they buy these resources why are the mining industry always cap in hand suckling off tax dollars? It's strange they supposedly make so much but need continual bailouts

In the words of the 2nd worst politician in Australian history

Please explain



You overplay the mining subsidies...seems a common attack during the last couple of years. It has been torn apart more than a few times now.

If you can share fact-based stories of mining companies being 'bailed out' with Fed Govt monies, feel free to share.



HH I'm only a dumb pleb and I'm sure an intelligent person could be alot more thorough in the detail than me. But BHP, as just 1 example, syphoned billions of taxpayers dollars out of us, for over 50 years.

As I say, a smart person could better explain just how much of a burden the mining industry (and the M-vehicle industry and many others) has been on honest taxpayers, through decades of subsidies and other benefits.
 
Here is an interesting article. Be sure to read it through to the end.

Mining industry receives billions of dollars in state subsidies: report
AM By Simon Frazer, Rachael Brown and staff
Updated 24 Jun 2014, 4:34pmTue 24 Jun 2014, 4:34pm


The astounding profitability of mining has helped drive Australia's prosperity over the past decade, but a report released today shows the sector has also been a major recipient of state government largesse.

While the states' coffers are boosted by royalties, analysis by the Australia Institute think tank shows that, in some cases, well over half of that money is handed straight back through direct and indirect grants.

The Australia Institute has pored over the past six budgets from each state and territory, finding at least $17.6 billion worth of assistance for the mining sector.

"They support the mining and fossil fuels industry more generally in quite a wide range of ways," said the institute's executive director Richard Denniss.

"There are direct subsidies exempting them from taxes, for example. There's the infrastructure that they build and supply to the mining industry, and then there's the more indirect ways, like providing cheap services."

Unsurprisingly, the mining states of Queensland and Western Australia top the list for mining hand-outs, spending $9.5 and $6 billion respectively.

If there's a strategy that underpins this incredible tax payer generosity to the industry, it's not apparent from the numbers.

Australia Institute executive director Richard Denniss

Dr Denniss says in the current financial year almost 60 per cent of Queensland's mining royalties will be given back to the industry.

"The Queensland Government has spent about as much money supporting its mining industry as it's spent on building new hospitals," he observed.

"The Western Australian Government has spent about as much money as it spent on its police force. So, these are enormous sums of money."

'Wrong government priorities'

Iron ore is Australia's biggest export earner, but it doesn't receive the bulk of mining assistance from state governments.

"There's no doubt the coal industry is the biggest recipient of tax payer subsidies – both directly and indirectly," Dr Denniss added.

"So even the idea that this assistance is proportionate to the contribution to the industry just doesn't hold up, which again suggests that, if there's a plan, if there's a strategy that underpins this incredible tax payer generosity to the industry, it's not apparent from the numbers."

Dr Denniss says there is no logic to subsidising mining, as the companies will go to whichever state has the best natural resource deposits.

"Of all the industries that states should want to use subsidies to attract, the mining industry would be the last," he added.

"The thing that attracts the mining industry to a state is the quality and the quantity of the mineral resources, they can't threaten to take their mines elsewhere."

Queensland Nurses Union secretary Beth Mohle is among those who has been given a sneak peak at the report.

She says the figures fly in the face of the small government rhetoric coming from politicians and others, including mining magnate Gina Rinehart.

"The health system has suffered because the priorities of government are all wrong," she argued.

"It's not to say that there isn't a need for some form of subsidies, but really, surely the priorities must be in terms of essential service provision, and not in largesse to big business."

Even if such assistance can be justified, after spending weeks going through the fine print of budget papers, the Australia Institute says governments of all persuasions should provide that information up front.



Industry rejects 'Greens' report

The peak mining lobby, the Minerals Council of Australia, is hotly contesting the report's findings.

Its chief executive Brendan Pearson says regular analysis by the Commonwealth Government's Productivity Commission finds mining does not receive public largesse.

"The most independent analysis of assistance to industry sectors in Australia is that done by the Productivity Commission. It has found, year after year, that the mining industry receives no subsidies," he responded.

Mr Pearson argues the mining industry is in fact a substantial contributor to government revenues.

"The Australian mining industry spend more on infrastructure and on building the towns, the networks, the infrastructure that service our mines than any other sector," he argued.

"It is an affront to the mining industry for the research arm of the Greens Party to again suggest that the industry is receiving billions of dollars in subsidies, when in the last six years alone, the mining industry's contributed $121 billion in federal and state revenues."

Report 'would embarrass North Korea'

The Queensland Resources Council (QRC), representing mining companies in the state that the Australia Institute report says has the biggest subsidies, says the report is full of "howlers" and "would embarrass the North Korean government."

The council's chief executive Michael Roche says most of the Queensland projects included in the study were paid for by mining companies, a fact he says is ignored in the study.

"Almost every capital project undertaken by government-owned businesses for resources sector power supply and distribution, water, rail and port capacity gets a headline," he said.

"These projects were executed on a fully commercial basis, with resources companies entering into commercial contracts that underwrote the capital expenditure and provided commercial returns to government-owned businesses."

Mr Roche argues that the state governments involved actually profited from much of the infrastructure investment.

"Not only were these projects undertaken at no cost or risk to taxpayers but their commercial returns were served up as government-owned business dividends in successive state budgets," he added.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-24/mining-industry-receives-billions-of-dollars-in-state-subsidies/5545714
 
And another. The last paragraph says it all...

Why Australian Car Industry on its Deathbed

The Australian Automotive sector has certainly come a long way. Back in the days however, many Australians chose locally manufactured car models as opposed to the imported makes. During those good old days, Ford Falcon and Holden Commodore were quite popular among Australian citizens. This is no longer the case today, and the main reason has been due to the rising costs of manufacturing cars in Australia. Although the government has made efforts to rescue the ailing industry by pumping cash, there is still no sign that the industry can recover and be able to compete with global manufacturers.

If you can take the most recent example, where Mercedes Class A was found to be less expensive than Holden Commodore, which is locally made, then you realize how bad the situation has got to. This is not to forget that a Mercedes Benz has better features and also has more standard models than Commodore.

This is why car sales figures for Holden continue their decline as better model European vehicles find their way in the Australian market at even cheaper prices. In fact, the problem has got to a very worrying level. At the present, imported cars stand at 90% of the total number of cars sold in Australia. Just over ten years ago, this used to stand at 75%. If you go back a little bit, half a century back, only 50% of cars were imported. This is indeed worrying.

The questions that many people are asking is whether Australians are developing greater tastes for European cars and therefore abandoning their big fuel guzzling vehicles that they have so used to in the last 50years? The answer to this question is a resounding yes. In the older days, Mercedes manufactures would consider a godsend any sales above 100 cars a week in Australia. Today, they are doing over 500 cars in just a week.

Sadly though, this worrying trend is not just restricted to car sales and manufacturing but also several other industries. This is exemplified by the fact that now most industries are relocating their operations to far off regions especially in Asia’s countries of Thailand and China, where it is cheaper to manufacture them.

The future is bleak for this fledgling industry, as it is projected that Australians will continue to buy imported vehicles. This is not helped by their ever-increasing appetite for overseas vehicles which are not only cheaper but also nicer.

Officially, it may be said that Australia has escaped recession thanks mainly to its robust mining industry. However, because mining resources will eventually be exhausted, the demise of its car manufacturing industry poses serious challenges to its future economic survival. The only hope is that when a new government is elected later in 2013, it will be able to bring a new lease of life into an industry that is currently on its deathbed.

However, the mood in the industry is that the damage may already have been done, and that it is beyond redemption. But as they say, only time and time alone will tell.

http://www.autopartsmate.com.au/n/why-australian-car-industry-on-its-deathbed/4
 
mozgrame said:
Here is an interesting article. Be sure to read it through to the end.

Mining industry receives billions of dollars in state subsidies: report
AM By Simon Frazer, Rachael Brown and staff
Updated 24 Jun 2014, 4:34pmTue 24 Jun 2014, 4:34pm


The astounding profitability of mining has helped drive Australia's prosperity over the past decade, but a report released today shows the sector has also been a major recipient of state government largesse.

While the states' coffers are boosted by royalties, analysis by the Australia Institute think tank shows that, in some cases, well over half of that money is handed straight back through direct and indirect grants.

The Australia Institute has pored over the past six budgets from each state and territory, finding at least $17.6 billion worth of assistance for the mining sector.

<snip>

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-24/mining-industry-receives-billions-of-dollars-in-state-subsidies/5545714

The AI have been trying this tact for a few years now, without understanding what the actual assistance means, or why it's applied (and if they know, they conveniently fail to make the point in their releases).

To punch some holes in the basics of their data;

◾$3.6 billion (about 20 per cent) isn’t associated with the mining and resources sector and “appear(s) to have been incorrectly categorised”.
◾$3.7 billion (about 21 per cent) is general government expenditure “socialised across all sectors of the economy or subject to fees and charges” and therefore “there isn’t any explicit or inherent subsidy”.
◾$10.3 billion (about 59 per cent) is government investment in infrastructure/services via Public Trading Enterprises which are legally bound to charge commercial rates for their use. The cost of industry’s use is therefore “fully recoverable” and “there is no subsidy”.
◾On the Australia Institute’s claim that government funds invested in Public Trading Enterprises could be better spent on government services such as health and education, the report explains that each is supported by separate funding sources and “capital expenditure in one sector is not at the expense of capital expenditure in the other sector” and that “far from being a major receiver of State funds, the mining and resources sector is actually a substantial source of State and Territory revenues”.

There are no doubt some subsidies provided to mining, that are not warranted. But the AI's aggressive overreach on the subject leaves them looking stupid, once the broader facts are applied. Perhaps if they stuck to the basics (and perhaps got somebody with some actual knowledge on the finances involved), we'd have a decent discussion on this matter.

As it is, the monies stated are simply not true.
 
Hamster Huey said:
mozgrame said:
Here is an interesting article. Be sure to read it through to the end.

Mining industry receives billions of dollars in state subsidies: report
AM By Simon Frazer, Rachael Brown and staff
Updated 24 Jun 2014, 4:34pmTue 24 Jun 2014, 4:34pm


The astounding profitability of mining has helped drive Australia's prosperity over the past decade, but a report released today shows the sector has also been a major recipient of state government largesse.

While the states' coffers are boosted by royalties, analysis by the Australia Institute think tank shows that, in some cases, well over half of that money is handed straight back through direct and indirect grants.

The Australia Institute has pored over the past six budgets from each state and territory, finding at least $17.6 billion worth of assistance for the mining sector.

<snip>

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-24/mining-industry-receives-billions-of-dollars-in-state-subsidies/5545714

The AI have been trying this tact for a few years now, without understanding what the actual assistance means, or why it's applied (and if they know, they conveniently fail to make the point in their releases).

To punch some holes in the basics of their data;

◾$3.6 billion (about 20 per cent) isn’t associated with the mining and resources sector and “appear(s) to have been incorrectly categorised”.
◾$3.7 billion (about 21 per cent) is general government expenditure “socialised across all sectors of the economy or subject to fees and charges” and therefore “there isn’t any explicit or inherent subsidy”.
◾$10.3 billion (about 59 per cent) is government investment in infrastructure/services via Public Trading Enterprises which are legally bound to charge commercial rates for their use. The cost of industry’s use is therefore “fully recoverable” and “there is no subsidy”.
◾On the Australia Institute’s claim that government funds invested in Public Trading Enterprises could be better spent on government services such as health and education, the report explains that each is supported by separate funding sources and “capital expenditure in one sector is not at the expense of capital expenditure in the other sector” and that “far from being a major receiver of State funds, the mining and resources sector is actually a substantial source of State and Territory revenues”.

There are no doubt some subsidies provided to mining, that are not warranted. But the AI's aggressive overreach on the subject leaves them looking stupid, once the broader facts are applied. Perhaps if they stuck to the basics (and perhaps got somebody with some actual knowledge on the finances involved), we'd have a decent discussion on this matter.

As it is, the monies stated are simply not true.
The flaw in your argument is that our industries, be they mining manufacturing, agriculture or other, are not 'our' industries. They are simply industries operating within this country, but the wealth generated is siphoned off into the pockets of private owners both local and foreign.

The workers get a wage, that is until they are laid off due to 'restructuring' or other 'adjustments'. At that point they become the unemployed and won't even be entitled to the dole any more, effectively being punished for not having a job which hardly seems fair when the jobs do not exist.

Corruption reigns at every level, from parliament down to trade unions, yet you would have us believe the system is working just fine? Well it's obviously working fine for the rich, but what about the rest of the world's population?
 
This is why I come on Silvertails. Otherwise I wouldn't have even known the mining industry was taking on the automotive industry!

I must say though that based on the figures thrown around in this thread it sounds like both teams are over the cap, and it is disgraceful that these 2 basically unknown teams get so much government support when we are still waiting for an upgrade to Brookie.

How will Greenberg explain this one?
 
SeaEagleRock8 said:
Hamster Huey said:
mozgrame said:
Here is an interesting article. Be sure to read it through to the end.

Mining industry receives billions of dollars in state subsidies: report
AM By Simon Frazer, Rachael Brown and staff
Updated 24 Jun 2014, 4:34pmTue 24 Jun 2014, 4:34pm


The astounding profitability of mining has helped drive Australia's prosperity over the past decade, but a report released today shows the sector has also been a major recipient of state government largesse.

While the states' coffers are boosted by royalties, analysis by the Australia Institute think tank shows that, in some cases, well over half of that money is handed straight back through direct and indirect grants.

The Australia Institute has pored over the past six budgets from each state and territory, finding at least $17.6 billion worth of assistance for the mining sector.

<snip>

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-24/mining-industry-receives-billions-of-dollars-in-state-subsidies/5545714

The AI have been trying this tact for a few years now, without understanding what the actual assistance means, or why it's applied (and if they know, they conveniently fail to make the point in their releases).

To punch some holes in the basics of their data;

◾$3.6 billion (about 20 per cent) isn’t associated with the mining and resources sector and “appear(s) to have been incorrectly categorised”.
◾$3.7 billion (about 21 per cent) is general government expenditure “socialised across all sectors of the economy or subject to fees and charges” and therefore “there isn’t any explicit or inherent subsidy”.
◾$10.3 billion (about 59 per cent) is government investment in infrastructure/services via Public Trading Enterprises which are legally bound to charge commercial rates for their use. The cost of industry’s use is therefore “fully recoverable” and “there is no subsidy”.
◾On the Australia Institute’s claim that government funds invested in Public Trading Enterprises could be better spent on government services such as health and education, the report explains that each is supported by separate funding sources and “capital expenditure in one sector is not at the expense of capital expenditure in the other sector” and that “far from being a major receiver of State funds, the mining and resources sector is actually a substantial source of State and Territory revenues”.

There are no doubt some subsidies provided to mining, that are not warranted. But the AI's aggressive overreach on the subject leaves them looking stupid, once the broader facts are applied. Perhaps if they stuck to the basics (and perhaps got somebody with some actual knowledge on the finances involved), we'd have a decent discussion on this matter.

As it is, the monies stated are simply not true.
The flaw in your argument is that our industries, be they mining manufacturing, agriculture or other, are not 'our' industries. They are simply industries operating within this country, but the wealth generated is siphoned off into the pockets of private owners both local and foreign.

The workers get a wage, that is until they are laid off due to 'restructuring' or other 'adjustments'. At that point they become the unemployed and won't even be entitled to the dole any more, effectively being punished for not having a job which hardly seems fair when the jobs do not exist.

Corruption reigns at every level, from parliament down to trade unions, yet you would have us believe the system is working just fine? Well it's obviously working fine for the rich, but what about the rest of the world's population?

Hmmm, without the "rich" to employ people we would all be unemployed. The challenge for those of us who are not "rich" is to work hard and save enough to then risk everything trying to become "rich."

Otherwise we could be satisfied with being rich in other ways and enjoying life.
 
SeaEagleRock8 said:
Hamster Huey said:
mozgrame said:
Here is an interesting article. Be sure to read it through to the end.

Mining industry receives billions of dollars in state subsidies: report
AM By Simon Frazer, Rachael Brown and staff
Updated 24 Jun 2014, 4:34pmTue 24 Jun 2014, 4:34pm


The astounding profitability of mining has helped drive Australia's prosperity over the past decade, but a report released today shows the sector has also been a major recipient of state government largesse.

While the states' coffers are boosted by royalties, analysis by the Australia Institute think tank shows that, in some cases, well over half of that money is handed straight back through direct and indirect grants.

The Australia Institute has pored over the past six budgets from each state and territory, finding at least $17.6 billion worth of assistance for the mining sector.

<snip>

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-24/mining-industry-receives-billions-of-dollars-in-state-subsidies/5545714

The AI have been trying this tact for a few years now, without understanding what the actual assistance means, or why it's applied (and if they know, they conveniently fail to make the point in their releases).

To punch some holes in the basics of their data;

◾$3.6 billion (about 20 per cent) isn’t associated with the mining and resources sector and “appear(s) to have been incorrectly categorised”.
◾$3.7 billion (about 21 per cent) is general government expenditure “socialised across all sectors of the economy or subject to fees and charges” and therefore “there isn’t any explicit or inherent subsidy”.
◾$10.3 billion (about 59 per cent) is government investment in infrastructure/services via Public Trading Enterprises which are legally bound to charge commercial rates for their use. The cost of industry’s use is therefore “fully recoverable” and “there is no subsidy”.
◾On the Australia Institute’s claim that government funds invested in Public Trading Enterprises could be better spent on government services such as health and education, the report explains that each is supported by separate funding sources and “capital expenditure in one sector is not at the expense of capital expenditure in the other sector” and that “far from being a major receiver of State funds, the mining and resources sector is actually a substantial source of State and Territory revenues”.

There are no doubt some subsidies provided to mining, that are not warranted. But the AI's aggressive overreach on the subject leaves them looking stupid, once the broader facts are applied. Perhaps if they stuck to the basics (and perhaps got somebody with some actual knowledge on the finances involved), we'd have a decent discussion on this matter.

As it is, the monies stated are simply not true.
The flaw in your argument is that our industries, be they mining manufacturing, agriculture or other, are not 'our' industries. They are simply industries operating within this country, but the wealth generated is siphoned off into the pockets of private owners both local and foreign.

The workers get a wage, that is until they are laid off due to 'restructuring' or other 'adjustments'. At that point they become the unemployed and won't even be entitled to the dole any more, effectively being punished for not having a job which hardly seems fair when the jobs do not exist.

Corruption reigns at every level, from parliament down to trade unions, yet you would have us believe the system is working just fine? Well it's obviously working fine for the rich, but what about the rest of the world's population?

Where did I say it 'works fine'?

It is far from perfect, but there are billions in industry earnings returned to the various governments in this country, to support other spending on health, education, defence, etc.

Ideas for the improvements in the flow of finances are better supported if those claims avoid hyperbole and emotional rhetoric, rife in items like that from above. Even some of your points veer into the false and misleading, re: dole, for example.
 
I thought that if you were terminated, made redundant or laid off due to any form of restructuring, your were immediately entitled to claim unemployment benefits.

If you up and quit your job, I think there is a six week time period where you can't claim any benefits. That seems fair. Circumstances are always taken into account however. I could be wrong...
 

Latest posts

Team P W L PD Pts
3 3 0 48 6
3 2 1 45 4
3 2 1 28 4
3 2 1 22 4
3 2 1 15 4
3 2 1 14 4
2 1 1 13 4
3 2 1 10 4
2 1 1 6 4
3 2 1 -3 4
3 1 2 0 2
3 1 2 -5 2
3 1 2 -15 2
3 1 2 -22 2
3 1 2 -36 2
2 0 2 -56 2
3 0 3 -64 0
Back
Top Bottom