NESV - OUR NEW OWNERS - Official Thread
by Bad Bob » Fri Sep 30, 2011 10:26 pm
These guys just fired the Red Sox manager today after their historic collapse. Virtual certainties to make the playoffs in early September, they just imploded and fell short on the last day of the season (in dramatic fashion). Obviously, that sounds like plenty of justification for sacking the manager but bear in mind that this is the same manager that led them to two World Series victories in the past decade. Word is, they were getting frustrated with his inability to motivate the players and his easy-going manner and had decided he was out a few weeks ago (when they still looked like making the playoffs). Just a little insight into our owners' ruthless streak and will to win.
Last edited by Bad Bob on Fri Sep 30, 2011 10:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Bad Bob - LFC Guru Member
- Posts: 11269
- Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 10:03 pm
- Location: Canada
by The Good Yank » Fri Sep 30, 2011 10:56 pm
Bad Bob wrote:These guys just fired the Red Sox manager today after their historic collapse. Virtual certainties to make the playoffs in early September, they just imploded and fell short on the last day of the season (in dramatic fashion). Obviously, that sounds like plenty of justification for sacking the manager but bear in mind that this is the same manager that led them to two World Series victories in the past decade. Word is, they were getting frustrated with his inability to motivate the players and his easy-going manner and had decided he was out a few weeks ago (when they still looked like making the playoffs). Just a little insight into our owners' ruthless streak and will to win.
To be fair Bob, They were a bit slow on firing Francona. When they lost to LA in 09 (ALDS) I thought he'd be gone. Then surely after missing the playoffs last year he had to go. They stuck with him again and it didn't pay off. If anything I think they have shown that they will not make knee jerk decisions and will show patience.
s@int - 13 December 2009
I won't celebrate Rafa going........ but I will be over the moon if Dalglish comes in. League within 2 years if he gets the job, AND YOU CAN QUOTE ME ON THAT.
I won't celebrate Rafa going........ but I will be over the moon if Dalglish comes in. League within 2 years if he gets the job, AND YOU CAN QUOTE ME ON THAT.
-
The Good Yank - LFC Super Member
- Posts: 2725
- Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 8:16 pm
- Location: North Brunswick, New Jersey
by The Good Yank » Fri Sep 30, 2011 11:03 pm
Sorry to post after my post but i think I mentioned the Francona thing back when NESV took over and people thought they would immedietely sack Roy. It may have been in the takeover thread.
s@int - 13 December 2009
I won't celebrate Rafa going........ but I will be over the moon if Dalglish comes in. League within 2 years if he gets the job, AND YOU CAN QUOTE ME ON THAT.
I won't celebrate Rafa going........ but I will be over the moon if Dalglish comes in. League within 2 years if he gets the job, AND YOU CAN QUOTE ME ON THAT.
-
The Good Yank - LFC Super Member
- Posts: 2725
- Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 8:16 pm
- Location: North Brunswick, New Jersey
by parchpea » Fri Sep 30, 2011 11:12 pm
It suits me that the owners will not accept anything they deem as below par compared against their investment and competition. You can only take loyalty or nostalgia so far in football and when all said and done results matter, the here and now is key, and so it should be. If push came to shove with the current regime I doubt the owners would need to jump ahead of a resignation, and with that in mind I am comfortable in the notion that the club is in honest hands, top to bottom, and no individual should ever stand in the way of the best interests of this football club.
- parchpea
- LFC Super Member
- Posts: 4040
- Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2004 11:13 am
by The Good Yank » Fri Sep 30, 2011 11:53 pm
kawaton wrote:Heard they are going to pump $200m into the team next year. Hope that isnt to our detriment.
It's directly from what the Red Sox made, they keep it seperate. LFC money stays with LFC. Red Sox money stays with the Red Sox.
s@int - 13 December 2009
I won't celebrate Rafa going........ but I will be over the moon if Dalglish comes in. League within 2 years if he gets the job, AND YOU CAN QUOTE ME ON THAT.
I won't celebrate Rafa going........ but I will be over the moon if Dalglish comes in. League within 2 years if he gets the job, AND YOU CAN QUOTE ME ON THAT.
-
The Good Yank - LFC Super Member
- Posts: 2725
- Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 8:16 pm
- Location: North Brunswick, New Jersey
by neil » Tue Oct 11, 2011 10:38 pm
Liverpool seek TV breakaway from Premier League
Tony Barrett
1 minute ago
Liverpool have signalled their desire to break away from the rest of the Premier League and negotiate their own overseas TV rights deal.
The club believe that they are not getting a fair deal from the collective bargaining model that shares the £1.4 billion, three-year contract evenly between all 20 top-flight sides, who each received £17.9 million last season.
Liverpool argue that they would be able to negotiate a far more lucrative contract independently and, if they are successful, they could pave the way for other high-profile clubs, such as Manchester United, to follow suit.
Smaller clubs will be dismayed by the plans, though, feeling that the end of collective bargaining will only widen the gap in wealth.
Liverpool and United counter this by saying their prime motive is to stay competitive with the other leading clubs in Europe, such as Real Madrid and Barcelona, who are able to negotiate lucrative individual contracts for global TV rights. On top of that, Liverpool warn of the threat to the Premier League’s status as world football’s most profitable and popular league unless its biggest clubs are able to keep pace with the Spanish giants.
Ian Ayre, the Liverpool managing director, said: “If Real Madrid or Barcelona or other big European clubs have the opportunity to truly realise their international media value, where does that leave Liverpool and Man United? We’ll just share ours because we’ll all be nice to each other?
“But the whole phenomenon of the Premier League could be threatened. If they just get bigger and bigger and they generate more and more, then all the players will start drifting that way, won’t they, and will the Premier League bubble be burst because we are sticking to this equal-sharing model? It’s a real debate that has to happen.”
The league’s international television rights deal expires at the end of the 2012-13 season and Ayre has questioned whether it should be renewed. A recent report by Sport+Markt estimated that the Premier League’s global fanbase is 1.46 billion strong — 70 per cent of the world’s estimated 2.08 billion football fans — and that the television audience for games has risen to 4.7 billion across 212 countries.
But with Real and Barcelona having deals with Mediapro until at least 2012-13 that will contribute broadcasting revenues of, on average, approximately £136 million each season, Ayre fears that such dominance could come under threat.
Ayre is happy to see the status quo maintained where domestic TV rights are concerned, readily conceding that take-up of the Sky package is not dependent on the popularity of particular clubs. But he insists the situation is different overseas given the massive following that Liverpool and United boast abroad, in Asia and the Far East especially.
“Maybe the path will be individual TV rights like they do in Spain,” he said. “There are so many things moving in that area. What is certain is that, with the greatest of respect to our colleagues in the Premier League, if you’re a Bolton fan in Bolton, then you subscribe to Sky because you want to watch Bolton, and everyone gets that.
“Likewise, if you’re a Liverpool fan from Liverpool, you subscribe. But if you’re in Kuala Lumpur there isn’t anyone subscribing to Astro or ESPN to watch Bolton, or if they are it’s a very small number. The large majority are subscribing because they want to watch Liverpool, Manchester United, Chelsea or Arsenal. So is it right that the international rights are shared equally between all the clubs?”
Liverpool are likely to raise the issue at the next Premier League meeting. For the present situation to be changed, the proposition would be voted on by the 20 clubs and would need a two-thirds majority — 14 clubs in favour — for any amendments to be implemented.
At present there does not appear to be a groundswell of support for what would amount to a revolution. In a recent interview Mr. Ferguson claimed that “whatever we get [in TV revenue] is not enough”, but the United manager qualified his statement with an admission that “it is fair” that the proceeds are shared evenly.
Ayre, though, believes that the present situation should be debated at least and while Ferguson may not be supportive, the Glazer family, who own United, could be natural allies given their determination to maximise the club’s revenue potential overseas.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto....498.ece
Liverpool hold heads up higher after walking through storm
Tony Barrett
1 minute ago
What a difference a year makes. This time 12 months ago, Liverpool were in the midst of their worst start to a season for 57 years having just lost at home to Blackpool. That, though, was not even the worst of it. At the High Court in London, a battle for the ownership of the club was taking place in the knowledge that debts in excess of £200 million were putting them at risk of going into administration.
Such a scenario might have been unthinkable at the time and unimaginable now given Liverpool’s sporting renaissance and return to fiscal health under the guidance of Fenway Sports Group (FSG). But Ian Ayre, the Liverpool managing director, admits that the threat of RBS, the club’s creditor, calling in its debts in the event of Tom Hicks and George Gillett Jr thwarting FSG’s takeover bid was very real.
“Certainly the bank had the power to call in the debt and at the time there wasn’t anyone ready to take on that debt,” Ayre said. “So I guess the answer to that is yes we could have gone into administration. It’s hypothetical but based on where we were and based on the circumstances at the time, that was a very real threat.
“The most difficult part of it was that it was a financial issue — the ability of the club to continue to invest in the team with the growing level of debt that existed. The commercial part of the business was continuing to grow but the disenfranchising of fans started to kill even that. What you had was a domino effect of things. Debt was going up and the cost of servicing the debt was beyond what we felt was reasonable.”
It was the determination of Ayre and his fellow board members, Martin Broughton and Christian Purslow, respectively the chairman and chief executive at the time, to push through the sale to FSG that triggered the court battle that took Liverpool to the brink. Almost a year on from their date with destiny, the trio have already received a first anniversary present from Hicks and Gillett.
“We were all served with papers seeking damages for £1 billion and those lawsuits are ongoing,” Ayre said. “They continue the litigation process. They seem intent on following that. We still feel very confident that we did the right thing and will defend that position.
“The next stage in that, I believe, is October 31, when our latest responses to their claims will be heard. The sad thing about it is that they have lost twice yet continue. It’s just a distraction when everyone is moving on, moving forward and making progress.”
The strides that have been taken since then are marked, with the rebirth of the club book-ended by a defeat by Everton and a victory over their local rivals (both fixtures ended 2-0). FSG’s decision to replace the hugely unpopular Roy Hodgson as manager with the hugely popular Kenny Dalglish may not have required much imagination or vision but, at a stroke, it restored harmony and offered Liverpool a route out of an on-pitch malaise that had threatened to consume them.
“I think Kenny’s appointment is the catalyst to what we have achieved,” Ayre said. “It wasn’t lucky. The owners made a very wise decision. It brought everyone together.”
For Ayre, such improvements represent the base level of his and FSG’s ambitions — “What has happened since is what should exactly be happening at this club no matter who owns it,” is his way of describing their shared expectations.
The next stage of the rebirth is to give Liverpool a platform to compete with their rivals at home and abroad, with a conclusion to their stadium saga one of their most pressing concerns. The possibility of refurbishing Anfield appears increasingly remote, thereby escalating the need to find a naming rights partner to sponsor a proposed new stadium on Stanley Park.
“It is essential for us to do something on the stadium,” Ayre said. “We have been in discussions here and in other parts of the world with a small group of people that we have narrowed down for naming rights.
“But just like the deal we have done with Standard Chartered and some other deals, you don’t go and ask for that size of opportunity overnight. We have to weed through the people who realistically could do it and then work through their organisation before getting to the guy who hopefully is going to write the cheque.
“What a new stadium does is get us on par. If we are back in Europe, back in the Champions League, back being a top-four club on a consistent basis, then we’d still have a hole without it.”
Number crunching
£184.5m
Liverpool’s annual turnover, according to their most recent financial report.
£418m
Real Madrid’s recently announced annual turnover, a world record.
80,000
The number of fans who attended Liverpool’s pre-season friendly against a Malaysian XI in Kuala Lumpur last summer.
45,276
The capacity of Anfield, 30,000 less than Old Trafford and the Bernabéu, and 54,000 fewer seats than the Nou Camp.
6m
Fans using Liverpool’s official Facebook page.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto....374.ece
Tony Barrett
1 minute ago
Liverpool have signalled their desire to break away from the rest of the Premier League and negotiate their own overseas TV rights deal.
The club believe that they are not getting a fair deal from the collective bargaining model that shares the £1.4 billion, three-year contract evenly between all 20 top-flight sides, who each received £17.9 million last season.
Liverpool argue that they would be able to negotiate a far more lucrative contract independently and, if they are successful, they could pave the way for other high-profile clubs, such as Manchester United, to follow suit.
Smaller clubs will be dismayed by the plans, though, feeling that the end of collective bargaining will only widen the gap in wealth.
Liverpool and United counter this by saying their prime motive is to stay competitive with the other leading clubs in Europe, such as Real Madrid and Barcelona, who are able to negotiate lucrative individual contracts for global TV rights. On top of that, Liverpool warn of the threat to the Premier League’s status as world football’s most profitable and popular league unless its biggest clubs are able to keep pace with the Spanish giants.
Ian Ayre, the Liverpool managing director, said: “If Real Madrid or Barcelona or other big European clubs have the opportunity to truly realise their international media value, where does that leave Liverpool and Man United? We’ll just share ours because we’ll all be nice to each other?
“But the whole phenomenon of the Premier League could be threatened. If they just get bigger and bigger and they generate more and more, then all the players will start drifting that way, won’t they, and will the Premier League bubble be burst because we are sticking to this equal-sharing model? It’s a real debate that has to happen.”
The league’s international television rights deal expires at the end of the 2012-13 season and Ayre has questioned whether it should be renewed. A recent report by Sport+Markt estimated that the Premier League’s global fanbase is 1.46 billion strong — 70 per cent of the world’s estimated 2.08 billion football fans — and that the television audience for games has risen to 4.7 billion across 212 countries.
But with Real and Barcelona having deals with Mediapro until at least 2012-13 that will contribute broadcasting revenues of, on average, approximately £136 million each season, Ayre fears that such dominance could come under threat.
Ayre is happy to see the status quo maintained where domestic TV rights are concerned, readily conceding that take-up of the Sky package is not dependent on the popularity of particular clubs. But he insists the situation is different overseas given the massive following that Liverpool and United boast abroad, in Asia and the Far East especially.
“Maybe the path will be individual TV rights like they do in Spain,” he said. “There are so many things moving in that area. What is certain is that, with the greatest of respect to our colleagues in the Premier League, if you’re a Bolton fan in Bolton, then you subscribe to Sky because you want to watch Bolton, and everyone gets that.
“Likewise, if you’re a Liverpool fan from Liverpool, you subscribe. But if you’re in Kuala Lumpur there isn’t anyone subscribing to Astro or ESPN to watch Bolton, or if they are it’s a very small number. The large majority are subscribing because they want to watch Liverpool, Manchester United, Chelsea or Arsenal. So is it right that the international rights are shared equally between all the clubs?”
Liverpool are likely to raise the issue at the next Premier League meeting. For the present situation to be changed, the proposition would be voted on by the 20 clubs and would need a two-thirds majority — 14 clubs in favour — for any amendments to be implemented.
At present there does not appear to be a groundswell of support for what would amount to a revolution. In a recent interview Mr. Ferguson claimed that “whatever we get [in TV revenue] is not enough”, but the United manager qualified his statement with an admission that “it is fair” that the proceeds are shared evenly.
Ayre, though, believes that the present situation should be debated at least and while Ferguson may not be supportive, the Glazer family, who own United, could be natural allies given their determination to maximise the club’s revenue potential overseas.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto....498.ece
Liverpool hold heads up higher after walking through storm
Tony Barrett
1 minute ago
What a difference a year makes. This time 12 months ago, Liverpool were in the midst of their worst start to a season for 57 years having just lost at home to Blackpool. That, though, was not even the worst of it. At the High Court in London, a battle for the ownership of the club was taking place in the knowledge that debts in excess of £200 million were putting them at risk of going into administration.
Such a scenario might have been unthinkable at the time and unimaginable now given Liverpool’s sporting renaissance and return to fiscal health under the guidance of Fenway Sports Group (FSG). But Ian Ayre, the Liverpool managing director, admits that the threat of RBS, the club’s creditor, calling in its debts in the event of Tom Hicks and George Gillett Jr thwarting FSG’s takeover bid was very real.
“Certainly the bank had the power to call in the debt and at the time there wasn’t anyone ready to take on that debt,” Ayre said. “So I guess the answer to that is yes we could have gone into administration. It’s hypothetical but based on where we were and based on the circumstances at the time, that was a very real threat.
“The most difficult part of it was that it was a financial issue — the ability of the club to continue to invest in the team with the growing level of debt that existed. The commercial part of the business was continuing to grow but the disenfranchising of fans started to kill even that. What you had was a domino effect of things. Debt was going up and the cost of servicing the debt was beyond what we felt was reasonable.”
It was the determination of Ayre and his fellow board members, Martin Broughton and Christian Purslow, respectively the chairman and chief executive at the time, to push through the sale to FSG that triggered the court battle that took Liverpool to the brink. Almost a year on from their date with destiny, the trio have already received a first anniversary present from Hicks and Gillett.
“We were all served with papers seeking damages for £1 billion and those lawsuits are ongoing,” Ayre said. “They continue the litigation process. They seem intent on following that. We still feel very confident that we did the right thing and will defend that position.
“The next stage in that, I believe, is October 31, when our latest responses to their claims will be heard. The sad thing about it is that they have lost twice yet continue. It’s just a distraction when everyone is moving on, moving forward and making progress.”
The strides that have been taken since then are marked, with the rebirth of the club book-ended by a defeat by Everton and a victory over their local rivals (both fixtures ended 2-0). FSG’s decision to replace the hugely unpopular Roy Hodgson as manager with the hugely popular Kenny Dalglish may not have required much imagination or vision but, at a stroke, it restored harmony and offered Liverpool a route out of an on-pitch malaise that had threatened to consume them.
“I think Kenny’s appointment is the catalyst to what we have achieved,” Ayre said. “It wasn’t lucky. The owners made a very wise decision. It brought everyone together.”
For Ayre, such improvements represent the base level of his and FSG’s ambitions — “What has happened since is what should exactly be happening at this club no matter who owns it,” is his way of describing their shared expectations.
The next stage of the rebirth is to give Liverpool a platform to compete with their rivals at home and abroad, with a conclusion to their stadium saga one of their most pressing concerns. The possibility of refurbishing Anfield appears increasingly remote, thereby escalating the need to find a naming rights partner to sponsor a proposed new stadium on Stanley Park.
“It is essential for us to do something on the stadium,” Ayre said. “We have been in discussions here and in other parts of the world with a small group of people that we have narrowed down for naming rights.
“But just like the deal we have done with Standard Chartered and some other deals, you don’t go and ask for that size of opportunity overnight. We have to weed through the people who realistically could do it and then work through their organisation before getting to the guy who hopefully is going to write the cheque.
“What a new stadium does is get us on par. If we are back in Europe, back in the Champions League, back being a top-four club on a consistent basis, then we’d still have a hole without it.”
Number crunching
£184.5m
Liverpool’s annual turnover, according to their most recent financial report.
£418m
Real Madrid’s recently announced annual turnover, a world record.
80,000
The number of fans who attended Liverpool’s pre-season friendly against a Malaysian XI in Kuala Lumpur last summer.
45,276
The capacity of Anfield, 30,000 less than Old Trafford and the Bernabéu, and 54,000 fewer seats than the Nou Camp.
6m
Fans using Liverpool’s official Facebook page.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto....374.ece
-
neil - >> LFC Elite Member <<
- Posts: 3397
- Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 11:24 am
by tubby » Wed Oct 12, 2011 7:48 am
Why is it stupid? If it means more revenue for the club then that means we can be more competitive on and off the field. What's the use of creating huge fan bases in Asia if we are not going to fully exploit it? Shirt sales alone is not enough.
But outside the top4/5 I can't see any other clubs voting to allow an amendment from the existing deal.
But outside the top4/5 I can't see any other clubs voting to allow an amendment from the existing deal.
Last edited by tubby on Wed Oct 12, 2011 7:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
tubby - >> LFC Elite Member <<
- Posts: 22442
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 2:05 pm
by neil » Wed Oct 12, 2011 8:01 am
tubby wrote:But outside the top4/5 I can't see any other clubs voting to allow an amendment from the existing deal.
If your correct we can clearly expect a European super league in a few years consisting of liverpool, man u, bayern, RM, barca, liverpool, Ac, inter etc
-
neil - >> LFC Elite Member <<
- Posts: 3397
- Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 11:24 am
by tubby » Wed Oct 12, 2011 8:53 am
neil wrote:tubby wrote:But outside the top4/5 I can't see any other clubs voting to allow an amendment from the existing deal.
If your correct we can clearly expect a European super league in a few years consisting of liverpool, man u, bayern, RM, barca, liverpool, Ac, inter etc
Sounds good in principle but potentially a headache for fans, not to mention expensive. Traveling in and out of Europe every other week?
I suppose it's what that G14 wanted all along before they disbanded. I think Ayres is right though to ask the question.
-
tubby - >> LFC Elite Member <<
- Posts: 22442
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 2:05 pm
by SupitsJonF » Wed Oct 12, 2011 12:33 pm
So is Everton the peoples club now? Why would the peoples club be looking to be the greediest team in the PL?
Extra revenue is never a bad thing, and thats the one positive thing from this idea. Look at La Liga, it is pretty
, 2 teams at the top making extreme amounts of money, having a field day with almost the entire rest of the competition. The way the prem is set up now is pretty fair for everyone, I personally dont want to see it ending up like La Liga.
If it was set up how domestic revenue was set up then maybe, but anything under 50% shared for international makes us look like a bunch of. Im sure if Chelsea or United were the first to come up with this idea youd all be out saying greedy .
Extra revenue is never a bad thing, and thats the one positive thing from this idea. Look at La Liga, it is pretty
, 2 teams at the top making extreme amounts of money, having a field day with almost the entire rest of the competition. The way the prem is set up now is pretty fair for everyone, I personally dont want to see it ending up like La Liga. If it was set up how domestic revenue was set up then maybe, but anything under 50% shared for international makes us look like a bunch of
. Im sure if Chelsea or United were the first to come up with this idea youd all be out saying greedy .- SupitsJonF
- Posts: 2798
- Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 5:35 am
- Location: USA: NJ
by metalhead » Wed Oct 12, 2011 12:51 pm
SupitsJonF wrote:So is Everton the peoples club now? Why would the peoples club be looking to be the greediest team in the PL?
Extra revenue is never a bad thing, and thats the one positive thing from this idea. Look at La Liga, it is pretty
If it was set up how domestic revenue was set up then maybe, but anything under 50% shared for international makes us look like a bunch of
Why do people compare with La Liga? There are only 2 teams in La Liga that makes a shed load of money (well now Malaga is in the mix) compared to the Premier League where you have Mancs, Arsenal, Tottenham and Chelsea making shed load of money. Do you really think it will turn into La Liga? of course not, again you have 4 or 5 teams who are financially strong and will keep competing at top level.
Why do we have to keep being 2nd fiddle to the likes of Chelsea, Man City, Mancs and Arsenal in financial terms? If this individual TV rights is going to help us compete financially and give us more incentives to invest in the team and invest in our academy then its a good idea to pursue it! Fine, smaller teams will be affected, but should we be nice and help others when the most we need is help ourselves getting back to the top? I'm sure smaller teams will figure out a way to compensate. Ian Ayre is looking whats best for Liverpool Football Club. FYI, if the Mancs and Chelsea got the idea then I would be livid for our club not to have thought of it in the first place. We have been lagging behind for too long, its time we do something about it.
-
metalhead - >> LFC Elite Member <<
- Posts: 17476
- Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 6:15 pm
- Location: Milan, Italy
Return to Liverpool FC - General Discussion
-
- Related topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
- Mr john henry and nesv
by Benny The Noon » Fri Oct 15, 2010 4:24 pm - 4 Replies
- 2343 Views
- Last post by burjennio
Fri Oct 15, 2010 5:58 pm
- Mr john henry and nesv
-
- Ben Woodburn - Official Thread
1, 2by redshade » Wed Nov 30, 2016 1:06 am - 23 Replies
- 4997 Views
- Last post by redshade
Fri Jan 05, 2018 1:58 am
- Ben Woodburn - Official Thread
-
- All new official Klopp thread
1 ... 36, 37, 38
by Ghost of Shankly » Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:33 pm
- 557 Replies
- 58007 Views
- Last post by kazza
Fri May 24, 2024 7:16 pm
- All new official Klopp thread
-
- Joe Gomez Official Thread
1 ... 12, 13, 14by red till i die!! » Fri Jul 17, 2015 10:49 am - 200 Replies
- 32893 Views
- Last post by UvS xR4GEx
Sat Oct 29, 2022 7:58 pm
- Joe Gomez Official Thread
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 82 guests
-
- Advertisement