| Non-motoring > Football lowlife | Accessories and Parts |
| Thread Author: No FM2R | Replies: 41 |
|
New Mon 3 May 21 14:19
Football lowlife - No FM2R
|
|
Bring on the Superleague. I quite understand why the clubs think they can manage without these knuckle draggers. www.bbc.com/sport/football/56966096 |
|
New Mon 3 May 21 14:23
Football lowlife - No FM2R
|
|
"The Manchester United Supporters' Trust has urged co-chairman Joel Glazer to engage with fans to avoid a repeat of the protest at Old Trafford on Sunday" What's that? Do what we want or we'll do it again? If the Glazers left then who do the knuckle draggers think would take over? Screw them. They're not even the continuing major source of revenue for the club. Bring on the Superleague. www.bbc.com/sport/football/56969755 Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 3 May 21 at 14:23
|
|
New Mon 3 May 21 14:54
Football lowlife - Robin O'Reliant
|
|
I don't agree. Unfortunately a minority of hooligans attached themselves to what was intended as a peaceful protest (What's new there?). I don't think you quite get the anger felt by lifelong supporters who have spent years standing on the terraces and are seeing the game taken away from it's roots by investors who know nothing and care even less about football and are only interested in how much they can make out of it. People like the glaziers have been emboldened by Covid which has convinced them that match attending fans are nothing more than a nuisance and the big clubs can happily survive by selling airtime around the world. If that means wrecking the league, then tough. Old Trafford is falling to bits with a leaking roof and several instances of rat infestation. The Glaziers got the club with with a leveraged buyout, loading the debt onto the club, this after assuring people that they would not do that when they first made their move. They have stripped millions out of Man U in dividend payments while the club is reported to be around 500 million in debt. I fully support the action of the fans, as do many of their former (And probably current) players, along with virtually everyone else in the game. |
|
New Mon 3 May 21 15:09
Football lowlife - Terry
|
|
The fantasy that major football teams are local went 30 years with the premier league. Man U are a case in point - they list 41 current players. Less than half are English (18). Of those 7 have made less than 5 appearances. How many of them are "local lads" I haven't a clue - I suspect not many! The athletcism and skill levels displayed by todays footballers is massively ahead of the 60's and 70's when I started watching. But as enterprises they are international businesses - local counts for very little and the fans are delusional. |
|
New Mon 3 May 21 16:15
Football lowlife - Zero
|
|
>> and 70's when I started watching. But as enterprises they are international businesses - local >> counts for very little and the fans are delusional. Except of course the fans are the customers. Without them, there is no enterprise or international business. |
|
New Mon 3 May 21 16:13
Football lowlife - Zero
|
|
>> Bring on the Superleague. You completely dont understand Football, the fans or anything about why the super league was so contentious to the managers, the players or the fans. |
|
New Mon 3 May 21 16:28
Football lowlife - henry k
|
|
European Super League: Premier League brings in new owners' rule to stop repeat www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/56972776 All owners will have to sign up to the new rule "committing them to the core principles" of the league with breaches punished by "significant" sanctions. |
|
New Mon 3 May 21 17:05
Football lowlife - No FM2R
|
|
>> You completely dont understand Football, the fans or anything about why the super league >> was so contentious to the managers, the players or the fans. Of course I do. I also understand why it was done, what it achieved and that it will return. 'Fans' love the idea of rich owners, they just think it should all be flowing one way out of love. Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 3 May 21 at 17:05
|
|
New Mon 3 May 21 17:37
Football lowlife - Netsur
|
|
The fans dislike the owners of ManU and a***nal mainly because the money they have paid for the club and the money invested has not resulted in either improved facilities at the stadium and improved results on the pitch. The Glazers have extracted huge sums from ManU to pay back loans and interest. If they couldn't afford the buy the club they should not have bought it. That money could have been better used. Whilst Man City supporters (and Chelsea and to a greater extent Liverpool) were disgruntled, at least we have benefitted from silverware and good facilities. In the case of ManCity, the club has a huge outreach and charity programme. The owners have invested tens of millions in new training and academy facilities, remediating a large contaminated site opposite the Etihad and regenerating a swathe of east Manchester which had very low house values and there was little desire to live there. There is a genuine feel that the attending and locally based fans are important to the club. Agreeing to join the ESL was a mistake but given that we have one piece of silverware already this season, one hand on a second and hopefully going into the final of the Champions League - I for one, am not complaining about our owners, now that they have admitted their mistake. Last edited by: Netsur on Mon 3 May 21 at 17:38
|
|
New Mon 3 May 21 18:27
Football lowlife - sooty123
|
|
I also understand why it was done, what it achieved and that it will return. >> > Do you think it'll ever happen though? I don't see how they sell it, especially after the ham fisted effort they made this time around. |
|
New Mon 3 May 21 19:54
Football lowlife - No FM2R
|
|
>>Do you think it'll ever happen though? I don't see how it could be avoided or stopped? Fundamentally the physical fans that actually live in the city with a team are of no huge value in the world of football going forward. Business Challenge 1: Risk management; We were screwed over by the removal of fans. How do we mitigate this in the future? Ensure that physical presence of fans is not on our critical path. Business Challenge 2: Revenue recognition; We need to increase our revenue. Can we get any more revenue out of our existing physical fan base? No. So where can we recognise more revenue? International televised audiences, branding, advertising and merchandising. Business Challenge 3: Advertising revenue; will an advertiser pay more for an advert seen by a global audience or a physical bunch of "fans". Would an advertiser prefer to be associated with a bunch of ground-wrecking knuckle draggers or a nice sterile TV audience? Business Challenge 4: Cost management; Where are we spending most of our money in non-revenue producing areas - ground maintenance, seating, knuckle-dragger control, etc. etc. I guess there are some entirely love oriented, genies, but the majority of investors are not. How can it not happen? Of course you could make it an unattractive investment proposition. So there goes most of your money. Remember the pitches and stadiums of the 70s? There goes your ability to bring in the really big names. So down goes your TV, marketing and branding revenue. And immediately the knuckle draggers with their appreciation of high finance would despise the FA or the Government or someone else. And did they make a ham-fisted mess of it? Or did they chuck it out there as the worst that it could be, breach a taboo subject, and now invite conversation on something slightly more palatable that 3 months ago would have been reviled? I love all this flat cap, down the ground with my dad, grass-root supports, tradition of football shtie. It's a pity it's irrelevant b*******. Look at how well various gobby pub locals have been able to protect their pubs against the influx of gastro pubs by threatening to buy their bottle of brown ale somewhere else. Nobody cares, they don't want them anyway. Genuinely, how will it be stopped? And in whose interest is it to stop it? And what sway do thos einterested parties have anyway? [MU = Manchester United FC] MU Revenue 2005 €240m Euros MU Revenue 2019 €712m Euros MU Transfer spending 2010 - 2020 €1.26bn MU Revenue split 2009 Matchday Revenue £115m Commercial £66m Broadcasting £98m MU Revenue split 2019 Matchday Revenue £111m [essentially unchanged despite price increases] Commercial £275m [x4 growth] Broadcasting £241m [x2.7 growth] Surely a real "wake up and smell the coffee" moment? Oh yes, those pesky Glazers. They have no idea what they're doing and the knuckle-draggers would do so much of a better job. My a***. It wasn't their fault when the small minority were rioting in the 70s and 80s and it's not their fault the ground is being attacked today. Like it or not, even the genuine, decent, valuable physical, in-presence supporters need to understand their value to their own clubs. And financially it's low. And arguably their behaviour becomes a negative as their scarf covered, firework burning thuggery starts to tarnish the fairy tale image sold on TV. Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 3 May 21 at 19:59
|
|
New Mon 3 May 21 20:06
Football lowlife - No FM2R
|
| p.s. welcome the Superleague, you might as well. |
|
New Mon 3 May 21 20:10
Football lowlife - No FM2R
|
|
I could, and probably will, go on at length. But for now here are the main points of MUFC's business strategy.... EXPAND OUR PORTFOLIO OF SPONSORS FURTHER DEVELOP OUR RETAIL, MERCHANDISING, APPAREL & PRODUCT LICENSING BUSINESS EXPLOIT NEW MEDIA & CONTENT OPPORTUNITIES ENHANCE THE REACH AND DISTRIBUTION OF OUR BROADCASTING RIGHTS I can see how the Superleague fits in there, but I am struggling to see the value of the local fans other than matchday atmosphere. And I can give you the same information from all the other major clubs, but it is all much the same. Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 3 May 21 at 20:11
|
|
New Mon 3 May 21 20:12
Football lowlife - Bobby
|
|
Of course, the futire of football really relies on the costs coming down, principally the player salaries. Clubs that are funded by dodgy owners whether that be the businesses they are in, the country they are from or in some cases, just downright money laundering. The amount of sponsorship that comes from the gambling industry which of course is funded by Joe Bloggs. The TV deals that are funded by Joe Bloggs. Too many fans are happy for things to continue as long as their club is alright. UEFA and FIFA are anti ESL but at the same time running a corrupt game (financial fair play anyone?) Qatar World Cup anyone? Sky had huge focus on the ESL with their chief pundits slaughtering it without a hint of irony that it was Sky themselves who set this ball rolling with their involvement in football and in particular, bankrolling the English game. I love football, but it is one of these things that when you look too closely or deeply into it, it can really hiss you off. |
|
New Mon 3 May 21 20:23
Football lowlife - No FM2R
|
|
>> The amount of sponsorship that comes from the gambling industry which of course is >> funded by Joe Bloggs. >> The TV deals that are funded by Joe Bloggs. etc. etc. And the problem that it doesn't have to be a local and troublesome Joe Bloggs. Any Joe Bloggs anywhere in the world is great. >> UEFA and FIFA are anti ESL Well are they? I suspect that in fact they are not. They are worried that they might not be in charge of it. >> Sky had huge focus on the ESL with their chief pundits slaughtering it without a >> hint of irony that it was Sky themselves who set this ball rolling with their >> involvement in football and in particular, bankrolling the English game. Sky came out almost immediately and said that they would not be involved. My suspicion is that they see an opportunity to represent something else as a better alternative and themselves as saviours. |
|
New Mon 3 May 21 22:45
Football lowlife - Terry
|
|
Not only is matchday revenue the smallest element of income, it is the most complex and expensive to maintain - stewards, ticket administration, police, health and safety, ground investment, congestion etc etc. The pandemic may have shown them the way forward - smaller stadia, premium priced tickets only, hospitality. It would be much better if the local support went into genuinely local teams who (a) need to money to survive, and (b) are worthy of local support. |
|
New Mon 3 May 21 22:51
Football lowlife - No FM2R
|
|
Precisely. Your lowly, local football fan is about as much use as a brown ale drinker in a country pub. I suspect that the bigger half of the premier league sodding off would benefit the entire British game. Though still not for the local entitled knuckle draggers. Mind you, I suspect the top 10 would take most of those morons with them. But it won't happen. I would probably guess a smaller premier, premier league, like 12 teams where 8 of those teams also played in the Superleague. And then the other teams shuffling up/down behind them. Something like that I suspect. Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 3 May 21 at 22:52
|
|
New Mon 3 May 21 22:55
Football lowlife - Zero
|
|
>> The pandemic may have shown them the way forward - smaller stadia, premium priced tickets >> only, hospitality. Not. Revenue is through the floor for all the clubs during the pandemic, including the mega ones. Not only is match day revenue at the ground considerable, no-one wants to watch football at empty soulless environments on the tele. The European Superleague collapsed when the fans protested big time. |
|
New Mon 3 May 21 23:50
Football lowlife - No FM2R
|
|
> The European Superleague collapsed when the fans protested big time. I very much doubt it. What were they going to do? Refuse to watch football? Refuse to support their team? Invade the ground and get the games postponed? The Superleague did not need support from the fans. |
|
New Tue 4 May 21 05:47
Football lowlife - sooty123
|
|
>> > The European Superleague collapsed when the fans protested big time. >> >> I very much doubt it. Who or what caused the current proposed version of the super league to get binned? |
|
New Tue 4 May 21 15:50
Football lowlife - Zero
|
|
>> > The European Superleague collapsed when the fans protested big time. >> >> I very much doubt it. What were they going to do? Refuse to watch football? >> Refuse to support their team? Invade the ground and get the games postponed? >> >> The Superleague did not need support from the fans. Again you are wrong and merely showing your misunderstanding of the whole substance of football. Last edited by: Zero on Tue 4 May 21 at 15:51
|
|
New Tue 4 May 21 16:04
Football lowlife - No FM2R
|
|
I'm not sure that "you are wrong" and "you don't understand" are the most convincing rebuttals I've ever had. Why would you think I understand less than you? Or do you simply mean you don't like what I say? I assure you that this is a model I am very familiar with. More than you might expect. But I'm not, and never have been, an ignorant knuckle dragger. Is that what you mean? |
|
New Tue 4 May 21 16:25
Football lowlife - Zero
|
|
>> I'm not sure that "you are wrong" and "you don't understand" are the most convincing >> rebuttals I've ever had. Its not meant to be a rebuttal, Its merely an accurate conclusion based on your statements. The/A fan base is the fundamental building block to the financial success of football. You mess with it at your peril, the owners know it, heads rolled, abject apologies were made, fan reaction was the primary reason for the collapse of the ESL. Poo poo it if you wish (you will because that is your way and satisfies your generaly football hostile proclivities) but you will be wrong because you dont understand the fundamental building block. American soccer leagues have failed because they dont have a fan base. Football is not a spectacle for those who do not have a partisan interest. Teams travel to new markets to play games to try and create that fan base. You are as wrong as a wrong person in the wrong place at the wrong time about the wrong subject for the wrong reasons. |
|
New Tue 4 May 21 19:28
Football lowlife - No FM2R
|
|
>> The/A fan base is the fundamental building block to the financial success of football Well, obviously. Without fans there is no demand. But "fans" does not equal "people who go to the matches". In fact, there is far, far more revenue available from people who do not, and far more revenue growth potential >> fan reaction was the primary reason for the collapse of the ESL. Very "power to the people". But the ESL has not collapsed so that might spoil the fairy tale a little. >> Poo poo it if you wish (you will because that is your way and satisfies >> your generaly football hostile proclivities) but you will be wrong because you dont >> understand the fundamental building block. "generally football hostile proclivities"? What are you on about? And what is it that I don't understand? >>American soccer leagues have failed because they don't have a fan base. Failed? By what metric(s) or standard(s)? >> Football is not a spectacle for those who do not have a partisan interest. Teams >> travel to new markets to play games to try and create that fan base. Quite. Rather reinforcing my point about fans who visit the grounds and those who do not and their respective value to the clubs.. >> You are as wrong as a wrong person in the wrong place at the wrong >> time about the wrong subject for the wrong reasons. If only you were capable of explaining how I'm wrong beyond the tired old battle cries. |
|
New Tue 4 May 21 06:04
Football lowlife - sooty123
|
|
And did they make a ham-fisted mess of it? Or did they chuck it out there as the worst that it could be, breach a taboo subject, and now invite conversation on something slightly more palatable that 3 months ago would have been reviled? There is that, I'd be surprised though if they anticipated the level of criticism that came their way. The proposal managed to unite, pretty much every league, player/management/club association in Europe. They even had governments, the EU, members of the Royal family come out against it. Now I know the reply to that is many of them can't do anything apart from complain. However the way several clubs got colg feet very quickly seems to suggest that they weren't ready for it all. Of course many of them will change their tune if they were given a cut of some extra cash. One thing that stuck me as odd was that all the clubs signed up to the new format of the champions league very shortly before this announcement. I guess they weren't really happy but signed up anyway. I guess we'll see whathappens if the CL format is revisited in the near future, it's a good indicator of what who has the upper hand in all the power play stuff in European football. |
|
New Tue 4 May 21 11:06
Football lowlife - Terry
|
|
The top clubs make most of their money from TV and commercial activities. Brand perceptions and image are key to future income. If the effect of the protests were to damage that image it would hit income. Income is also understated as I suspect personal sponsorship and endorsement earnings of top footballers are on top of whatever the clubs make. Damage the club brand and ultimately the personal brand is undermined. It may just be that had the ESL better sold their proposition, rather than spring it on an unsuspecting public, they may have had a better reception. The issue is not going to go away! |
|
New Tue 4 May 21 12:24
Football lowlife - Manatee
|
|
The fact that Man U etc. get most of their revenue from sources other than physical attendees on match days doesn't mean that the fans' response to the superleague was irrelevant to their rapid change of tune. All those avid TV followers and buyers of licensed merchandise are fans too. Maybe they will still want to watch football but who they want to watch and whose shirts they buy is presumably at least partly a matter of fashion rather than logic. Then again, I know not a lot about fitbal either. |
|
New Tue 4 May 21 13:50
Football lowlife - Netsur
|
|
If we continue with no fans in the ground, eventually football will die. No atmosphere, no singing, no flags and banners. It's OK for one season like that but we can see the effects on the percentage of away wins. Just go to Wembley with 90,000 seats but 30,000 given to the Club Wembley level, most of whom have no affiliaiton to either team. No team colours permitted. It's like a morgue compared to the levels with real fans. If Mark thinks that the clubs don't care about fans in the stadium, think again. Each home game at ManCity generates £1.5M of ticket sales and probably a similar amount in merchandise and food/drink. If we play at home 25 times a season (19 Premier League and then FA Cup/League Cup/Champions League matches) that is £75M of income which goes a long way to maintain a ground in decent condition and pay a lot of wages. Without fans turning up the soul disappears and you end up in the USA, watching dancing girls rather than eating pies. |
|
New Tue 4 May 21 14:15
Football lowlife - Runfer D'Hills
|
|
I think I've mentioned here before that on a couple of occasions, I was invited to Man City matches by a friend who had hospitality tickets. Poshest seats in the ground, personal parking space, hostess escort to your seats, 5 course Michelin star meal, champagne etc. Lots of dignitaries working the room, all that. Tunnel club I think they call it. But once outside watching the match, the language and demeanour of these so called fans, even in that sector of the ground, was nothing short of disgusting. Primevally so. Don't get it. What is wrong with these people? Booing and hissing every time the opposition got the ball, e***** and blinding at the referee ( even the women ) just horrible behaviour in the name of a sporting event. Weird. |
|
New Tue 4 May 21 14:25
Football lowlife - Runfer D'Hills
|
|
Further to the above, while in New York, I was invited by an American supplier to a Yankees v Redsox game one evening. Alcohol being served, but a friendly mixed crowd and a fun atmosphere. Very pleasant experience once I'd worked out the rules! My host asked if he could come to a good football match next time he was in the UK. Frankly, I'd be too embarrassed to invite him to one with the conduct of the "fans" I witnessed. |
|
New Tue 4 May 21 14:46
Football lowlife - henry k
|
|
>>Just go to Wembley with 90,000 seats but 30,000 given to the Club Wembley level, most of whom have no affiliaiton to either team. >> No team colours permitted. It's like a morgue compared to the levels with real fans. Been there and well very close to that scene I got tickets for the Olympics football final and my adult son came wih me. Some noise, but all quite subdued. IIRC The most noise was from the Mexican bands outside the stadium. I have not been to a football match for 50+ years so perhaps I am not a good judge. A reminder. www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ze8AgkB64U I was born within the sound of Twickenham so my support is still there. |
|
New Tue 4 May 21 14:41
Football lowlife - No FM2R
|
|
>> The proposal managed to unite, pretty much every league, player/management/club association in Europe. Did it. Really? So, using them as an example, the Manchester United fans would never have attended a football match again, nor bought any merchandise, nor vocally supported their team again? All the footballers and managers would have turned down huge sums of money to go play as part of it? THe clubs bringing the money would have been thrown from the Premier LEague along with all their money? etc. etc. Not a chance in hell. >>the way several clubs got colg feet very quickly seems to suggest that they weren't ready for it all. Ready for what? To create and join a Superleague? Maybe not yet. Or to create a storm and put the wind up everybody, make everybody realise that things needed to change? That they were prepared to carry out extreme moves? Because it sounds to me like that is exactly what they were ready for and planned? >> Of course many of them will change their tune if they were given a cut >> of some extra cash. How many do you think would not? And all this silly talk about empty desolate games? Really, don't be daft. The supporters will still go, they will adjust and life will go on. Man Utd's revenue has tripled in 15 years, yet even in absolute numbers the matchday contribution has actually reduced. The stadiums will be filled with those able to accept and fit in the new world and supplemented by those who now feel the new world is more attractive. Because, Netsur, no matter what, absolutely no matter what, the Man City 'supporters' will turn up to watch the games. There is no higher morality or integrity which would discourage them from doing so. They'll wreck the odd stadium, but that too shall pass. Because Man City, like all the others, care about a minor part of their revenue which they are unable to further grow and which causes them reputational, brand and cost difficulties just exactly as much as you would expect. Wake up, smell the coffee. |
|
New Tue 4 May 21 15:59
Football lowlife - sooty123
|
|
>> Did it. Really? As far as I'm aware yes, i didn't have a list or anything. But it seemed so yes. >> So, using them as an example, the Manchester United fans would never have attended a >> football match again, nor bought any merchandise, nor vocally supported their team again? All of them? Unlikely. >> Not a chance in hell. It's a nuclear option alright, I wouldn't have ruled it out at least to use as a lever the other way. >> Because it sounds to me like that is exactly what they were ready for and >> planned? I think agree to disagree on that. >> How many do you think would not? All three of the German teams turned down the option when presented with it, from what I've read anyway. Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 5 May 21 at 11:21
|
|
New Tue 4 May 21 16:12
Football lowlife - No FM2R
|
|
>>All three of the German teams turned down the option when presented with it, from what I've read anyway Different ownership model. |
|
New Tue 4 May 21 16:17
Football lowlife - sooty123
|
| Absolutely, although you did ask who would turn it down. |
|
New Tue 4 May 21 16:26
Football lowlife - Zero
|
|
>> >>All three of the German teams turned down the option when presented with it, from >> what I've read anyway >> >> Different ownership model. Yes its a fan based ownership model........... A ESL without German teams would ultimately fail. Last edited by: Zero on Tue 4 May 21 at 16:27
|
|
New Tue 4 May 21 16:13
Football lowlife - No FM2R
|
|
>>think agree to disagree on that. Of course. We'll find out for sure in due course, no doubt. |
|
New Tue 4 May 21 16:26
Football lowlife - sooty123
|
|
Very much, just to be clear I think it'll come back in some manner but I'm not convinced by that model of a breakaway/rebel competition. Nor do I believe this was a dry run. The thing to watch is how quickly they are allowed back into the leading club association and when the CL negotiations are reopened. |
|
New Tue 4 May 21 17:03
Football lowlife - Robin O'Reliant
|
|
The people who tried to set this up have no real understanding of what makes football so popular. Manchester United v Barcelona is special because it is at very most a once a year event. Man U v Barcelona v Real Madrid v Juventus every other week would not be. Lowly Sheffield United turning Manchester United over or some third tier team going on a cup run is what makes the game so special among the grass roots supporters. As Jurgen Klopp said, "I don't like West Ham being ahead of us in the league, but I like that they can be". Lose the grass roots at your peril, but when the armchair Liverpool this year, Chelsea the year before "Supporters" move on to the next big thing you'll see how much they mattered. If the top clubs do break away, so be it. But they should have to leave the EPL as a consequence, with the provisio that if it doesn't work out and they want to come back they can start in the bottom tier ten leagues down and work there way back. The football governing bodies have a duty to protect the game for everyone and not let it be highjacked by the wealthy few. Unless of course you think money trumps everything. |
|
New Tue 4 May 21 19:34
Football lowlife - No FM2R
|
|
>>The people who tried to set this up have no real understanding of what makes football so popular I think to an extent that is true. Or rather they know what makes it popular, just not necessarily why it does so. What they are well able to understand though is how best to exploit it in any timescale that matters to them. >>they should have to leave the EPL as a consequence Won't happen. The broadcast revenue and commercial revenue related tot hose clubs would not return the rest of thee Premier LEague, it would disappear. I'd think something alongs the lines of a reduced size Premier League permitting time & space for ESL involvement. Performance and financial contribution guarantees in the home leagues and a method of transitioning either up into or down out of the ESL on competitive results, along with preserving the current power structure. |
|
New Tue 4 May 21 19:29
Football lowlife - No FM2R
|
|
>>Very much, just to be clear I think it'll come back in some manner but I'm not convinced by that model of a breakaway/rebel competition. Nor do I believe this was a dry run. I'd bet money on an action plan that said "we'll announce this, in this way, at this time. If the reaction is this we'll do that, if the reaction is that we'll do this. After it's all died down we'll then do this". >>The thing to watch is how quickly they are allowed back into the leading club association and when the CL negotiations are reopened. Agreed. And also why. |
|
New Fri 7 May 21 21:26
Football lowlife - sooty123
|
|
www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/57031372 9 of the esl clubs allowed back into the ECA. The other 3 are still on the naughty step. |
Forum Version 3.0 - By Khoosys
Car4play Forum
