Club Mgmt. Board of Directors as led by President Dave Barham

Remove this Banner Ad

 
Last edited:
ghostdog said:
I don't doubt his passion for the club at all. Not a bit, actually. But I'm nowhere near as confident as you that he'll have the experience necessary to get us winning again, let alone to change the culture of the club itself.

Rutten had his struggles but it was clear that he came in with a program for a full cultural overhaul. That's obviously still needed, given Rutten's program for change was undermined in the way that it was.

Hird has ability. No question. Will he have the push or the want to continue Rutten's work, or will he be surrounded by sycophants who will treat him like Sheedy 2.0? Will it be more of the same old shitshow at the board/coterie level?

Will he get the buy-in he needs from the players given the careers that were damaged under his previous tenure? Zach's comments may have been "taken out of context" but the truth is usually somewhere in the middle, and interestingly, we still don't know what the 'context' was.

The masochist in me wants Hird to be parachuted in and to fail, just so the board might stop being so insular and recognise there is a cultural problem at the board and coterie level. In reality, if he gets the gig and has gone through the process to get it, I'll still support, but like many others I'm despairing a bit at the moment and I don't see how Hird gives us the fresh restart we need.
Click to expand...
I agree with some of your points and It may not sound like a strong counter argument but I think some leaders are far stronger than others And in this case it will make all the difference in many areas.

Btw If Hird gets up none of this process reflects well on on club IMO- but that doesn't mean he's not the man to take us to success. In many ways I think he's actually uniquely positioned to do so.
 
CBombers17 said:
I agree with some of your points and It may not sound like a strong counter argument but I think some leaders are far stronger than others And in this case it will make all the difference in many areas.

Btw If Hird gets up none of this process reflects well on on club IMO- but that doesn't mean he's not the man to take us to success. In many ways I think he's actually uniquely positioned to do so.
Click to expand...
It seems a bit inconsistent to be baying for blood because the process is unprofessional and then rubber stamping it when it accidentally comes up with a romantic candidate...
 
Lore said:
It seems a bit inconsistent to be baying for blood because the process is unprofessional and then rubber stamping it when it accidentally comes up with a romantic candidate...
Click to expand...
As I've previously mentioned I would have been happy if the club wound up with a Pyke or Lyon or Clarkson or Scott but for some reason they've disappeared like a scene from goodfellas.

I reckon the club is up to its old tricks but I still back Hird and am more than happy for him to get another shot. On top of that I think he would be an outstanding coach this time round. I'll unashamedly be among first aboard the Hird train if he gets the nod!
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Zach Package said:
Full organisational overhaul is far, far more important than the coach search despite the coach search being far more high profile.

The coach is a spoke, no matter who we end up picking they are essentially assured of failure if we do not get the house in order and it may mean that the coach after the next coach is the one that really reaps the benefit. The hope was always that Worsfold was that bridging person but because of all the prolonged shithousery Rutten has become collateral damage as well. Hird was doomed to fail last time through no fault of his own, will be doomed to fail again too unless other wrongs are remedied.

As far as I'm concern unless this external review really does the business and the recommendations set us on the path to becoming a model outfit then we're in the wilderness for the next 5 at least. It needs to identify the right key people to take us forward and then those key people need carte blanche.

Whoever the new footy director is probably needs a HR background as much as they need a footy background to examine the lifecycle from pre draft interviews all the way to exit interviews and every step in between with a fine tooth comb before we go out and make a splash on a gun list manager or a gun strength and conditioning guru, which we obviously need but the approach needs to have laser focus.
Click to expand...
this is essentially why I have no opposition to the Hird appointment, If Hird fails we simply need to blow the joint up, if he succeeds then they look like saviours. Win / win
 
Yoda_ said:
this is essentially why I have no opposition to the Hird appointment, If Hird fails we simply need to blow the joint up, if he succeeds then they look like saviours. Win / win
Click to expand...

Apart from a couple of years and a couple of million bucks and inability to attract players and players continuing to walk and just our general self respect, sure, win/win.

I’m not saying any of that is good or desired at all.
 
Zach Package said:
Apart from a couple of years and a couple of million bucks and inability to attract players and players continuing to walk and just our general self respect, sure, win/win.

I’m not saying any of that is good or desired at all.
Click to expand...

players probably won't be wanting to come to us after the cesspit we've become over the past few months anyways. The money needs to be paid to someone in regards to the coach
 
Zach Package said:
Apart from a couple of years and a couple of million bucks and inability to attract players and players continuing to walk and just our general self respect, sure, win/win.

I’m not saying any of that is good or desired at all.
Click to expand...
This. If the joint must be blown up (and I strongly believe it needs to be) then I’d rather it happens now.

That we apparently still need confirmation that short circuiting or predetermining the process because ‘CLUB LEGEND! 2000!!!’ is fundamentally insane says everything you need to know about the club’s unwillingness to face its modern reality.
 
Doss said:
This. If the joint must be blown up (and I strongly believe it needs to be) then I’d rather it happens now.

That we apparently still need confirmation that short circuiting or predetermining the process because ‘CLUB LEGEND! 2000!!!’ is fundamentally insane says everything you need to know about the club’s unwillingness to face its modern reality.
Click to expand...
I would be ok with this; the one thing that makes me nervous is the people with control half bake it and don't do it properly this time.

If Hird of all people can't get whatever they are trying to do to work then it's time those long standing people in power (both publicly and behind the scenes) need to be removed from there positions.


IF the chatter is true and these reviews and process' are all optics driven then the next coach is a walking target anyways
 
Yoda_ said:
I would be ok with this; the one thing that makes me nervous is the people with control half bake it and don't do it properly this time.

If Hird of all people can't get whatever they are trying to do to work then it's time those long standing people in power (both publicly and behind the scenes) need to be removed from there positions.


IF the chatter is true and these reviews and process' are all optics driven then the next coach is a walking target anyways
Click to expand...

I think you need a shandy and a long lie down.
 
If appointing Hird and him failing is what it takes to force the club and a large portion of its fanbase to look in the mirror and take stock then I’m okay with it. But that’s pretty much the only way to reconcile myself to it, I think.

I’d much prefer they interviewed him and then didn’t appoint him, as this would indicate that they had already looked in the mirror.

That said, if he happens to drag the club up by its bootstraps and win 🏆 then it’s hard not to be okay with it retrospectively, if it happens. At that point I guess it’s a stroke of genius.

I still can’t get a read on the likelihood of that though. I almost feel like we’re being trolled by the club’s new caretakers, particularly the member survey graphic.

Surely they can’t go on about a not-thorough-enough internal review, chase Clarkson like they did because of his credentials and experience (shambolic), sack Rutten for his lack of it, appoint a 6-person reasonably impartial panel that takes the time to reframe “experience” to include experienced assistant coaches and football administrators, and then walk away from that for what, lols?

I don’t know how Mahoney survives the parachuting of Hird if the selection panel he’s chairing with the support of Hisgrove and Thorburn recommends someone else.

For that matter I don’t know where that leaves the external review that Hisgrove is facilitating through Thorburn, or her position on the board.

The panel recommendation really has to be accepted by the board, or it’ll be another massacre—the Red and Black Wedding Mk II.

So the question is, how does this panel recommend Hird without losing their integrity in the process? How do they justify it, especially if Brad Scott is available?
 
CBombers17 said:
I think he's a great leader and the club, the supporters and most importantly the playing group will respond very well if he is appointed.

In terms of his experience he like all second time coaches will come with the benefits and learning from his first go. And all the derogatory comments in the world won't have stopped a very smart man like Hird from coming back bigger and better than the first time around. Undestimate winners like Hird at your peril IMO.
Click to expand...
All except Merrett of course. ;)
 
Yoda_ said:
this is essentially why I have no opposition to the Hird appointment, If Hird fails we simply need to blow the joint up, if he succeeds then they look like saviours. Win / win
Click to expand...
Except for the 3 further years we've wasted. I'm sure the players are fine with that.
 
boncer34 said:
Except for the 3 further years we've wasted. I'm sure the players are fine with that.
Click to expand...
Yep.

At what point do we stop pissing years down the drain?

Obviously there is no guarantee any new coach, whether Hird or someone else, is going to be successful. In fact the overwhelming likelihood is they won’t be.

But I’d much rather not effectively pre-emptively write off years in advance because of some vague notion that doing so will see us hit rock bottom. There’s no guarantee the club will see it that way, because We Are Essendon.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Lore said:
If appointing Hird and him failing is what it takes to force the club and a large portion of its fanbase to look in the mirror and take stock then I’m okay with it. But that’s pretty much the only way to reconcile myself to it, I think.

I’d much prefer they interviewed him and then didn’t appoint him, as this would indicate that they had already looked in the mirror.

That said, if he happens to drag the club up by its bootstraps and win 🏆 then it’s hard not to be okay with it retrospectively, if it happens. At that point I guess it’s a stroke of genius.

I still can’t get a read on the likelihood of that though. I almost feel like we’re being trolled by the club’s new caretakers, particularly the member survey graphic.

Surely they can’t go on about a not-thorough-enough internal review, chase Clarkson like they did because of his credentials and experience (shambolic), sack Rutten for his lack of it, appoint a 6-person reasonably impartial panel that takes the time to reframe “experience” to include experienced assistant coaches and football administrators, and then walk away from that for what, lols?

I don’t know how Mahoney survives the parachuting of Hird if the selection panel he’s chairing with the support of Hisgrove and Thorburn recommends someone else.

For that matter I don’t know where that leaves the external review that Hisgrove is facilitating through Thorburn, or her position on the board.

The panel recommendation really has to be accepted by the board, or it’ll be another massacre—the Red and Black Wedding Mk II.

So the question is, how does this panel recommend Hird without losing their integrity in the process? How do they justify it, especially if Brad Scott is available?
Click to expand...
if this is their end game they have failed spectacularly!

how could they recommend Brad Scott, an obvious AFL plant, who hasn’t been through the independent external process over Hird, an experienced Senior Coach?

i’m taking the piss by the way (mostly)
 
One thing in all this that I'd like to know is who devised the parameters for the interview process and weighting of different aspects (previous senior coaching experience and so on). Normally you would expect the CEO to be a big part of this - but in this case could the board and have nutted it out with Mahoney - or provided directives to Mahoney?

These requirements parameters can guide the panel significantly.

There is also a lot of group think in these settings. It's very easy to see Hird come out in front with unanimous agreement - especially if they made the parameters and weighting friendly. You would imagine much of the interview would come down to answering questions around people management. Someone like Hird could draw on a considerable amount of business experience as well as senior coaching for this stuff. It starts to look big in comparison to some lifetime assistant coach.

Bottom line is really the outstanding candidates are pretty clear to all on a panel
There's rarely too much disagreement on the best - even when on paper beforehand it looks like it could be tight. And Someone like Hird is built to smash these situations. He could easy be head and shoulders the standout over a much better group than this current batch we know about.

All talk on here aside if you had to sit and have a mind like Hird (and presence) walk you through his vision for the team and club it's easy to picture it being be a deeply impressive presentation. That takes some denying in the panel discussions afterwards.
 
Last edited:
CBombers17 said:
One thing in all this that I'd like to know is who devised the parameters for the interview process and weighting of different aspects (previous senior coaching experience and so on). Normally you would expect the CEO to be a big part of this - but in this case could the board and have nutted it out with Mahoney - or provided directives to Mahoney?

These requirements parameters can guide the panel significantly.

There is also a lot of group think in these settings. It's very easy to see Hird come out in front with unanimous agreement - especially if they made the parameters and weighting friendly. You would imagine much of the interview would come down to answering questions around people management. Someone like Hird could draw on a considerable amount of business experience as well as senior coaching for this stuff. It starts to look big in comparison to some lifetime assistant coach.

Bottom line is really the outstanding candidates are pretty clear to all on a panel
There's rarely too much disagreement on the best - even when on paper beforehand it looks like it could be tight. And Someone like Hird is built to smash these situations. He could easy be head and shoulders the standout over a much better group than this current batch we know about.
Click to expand...
XC was still hanging around a bit after he announced he was leaving, he’s visible in debut announcement for Alex Morcom, for example, which is in the cafe at the club.

We also have an acting CEO, who is facilitating the external review (Nick Ryan, previously Chief Commercial Officer), though I dunno if they had any input.

I suspect Mahoney and the board would be the main people.
 
Last edited:
Lore said:
XC was still hanging around a bit after he announced he was leaving, he’s visible in debut announcement for Alex Morcom, for example, which is in the cafe at the club.

We also have an acting CEO, who is facilitating the external review (Nick Ryan, previously Chief Marketing Officer), though I dunno if they had any input.

I suspect Mahoney and the board would be the main people.
Click to expand...
So - IF - they decide that they favour senior coaching experience (even by a bit) then Hirds already in front before he even fires up the PowerPoint. He'd be very hard to beat from there.

None if this may have happened of course - but it is how these things normally work. I was on a small panel yesterday (with a CEO and one Board Member) and expectation/requirements for experience in role had to be reduced because the salary didn't get us the level they hoped for from the market. But they wanted proven experience in the position (director of Finance). A candidate that had that would have had a pretty big head start.
 
CBombers17 said:
So - IF - they decide that they favour senior coaching experience (even by a bit) then Hirds already in front before he even fires up the PowerPoint. He'd be very hard to beat from there.

None if this may have happened of course - but it is how these things normally work. I was on a small panel yesterday (with a CEO and one Board Member) and expectation/requirements for experience in role had to be reduced because the salary didn't get us the level they hoped for from the market. But they wanted proven experience in the position (director of Finance). A candidate that had that would have had a pretty big head start.
Click to expand...
If their process is going to be determined solely by years with the title Senior Coach then Kevin should be a shoo in.

It’s not though, and I think logically anyone who thinks about it for a nanosecond knows that.

What experience gives you is the ability to say “this is what I did before, this is what I learned, this is what I think about this group and this context, and this is what I’d do next year with this group if given the opportunity”.

I’d prefer someone who can say “I taught 12 players how to kick straight and run smart leads without excessively exhausting themselves, and motivated them to do it under pressure, when they’re exhausted, at the end of the game in a grand final” than someone who can say “I took 45 players who were wearing a red sash to 6th on the ladder at the end of round 15 eight years ago”.
 
Lore said:
If appointing Hird and him failing is what it takes to force the club and a large portion of its fanbase to look in the mirror and take stock then I’m okay with it. But that’s pretty much the only way to reconcile myself to it, I think.

I’d much prefer they interviewed him and then didn’t appoint him, as this would indicate that they had already looked in the mirror.

That said, if he happens to drag the club up by its bootstraps and win 🏆 then it’s hard not to be okay with it retrospectively, if it happens. At that point I guess it’s a stroke of genius.

I still can’t get a read on the likelihood of that though. I almost feel like we’re being trolled by the club’s new caretakers, particularly the member survey graphic.

Surely they can’t go on about a not-thorough-enough internal review, chase Clarkson like they did because of his credentials and experience (shambolic), sack Rutten for his lack of it, appoint a 6-person reasonably impartial panel that takes the time to reframe “experience” to include experienced assistant coaches and football administrators, and then walk away from that for what, lols?

I don’t know how Mahoney survives the parachuting of Hird if the selection panel he’s chairing with the support of Hisgrove and Thorburn recommends someone else.

For that matter I don’t know where that leaves the external review that Hisgrove is facilitating through Thorburn, or her position on the board.

The panel recommendation really has to be accepted by the board, or it’ll be another massacre—the Red and Black Wedding Mk II.

So the question is, how does this panel recommend Hird without losing their integrity in the process? How do they justify it, especially if Brad Scott is available?
Click to expand...
Just my opinion and not interested in re-hashing this too much as it has been discussed a lot, but specifically regarding this post:

The flaw is to think Hird could not win a legitimate process IF they simply base it on who is the best person to coach Essendon.

Whenever you hire someone for any organisation, resume is important, experience in the same role is important, experience in a similar role matters, recent experience is a factor.

But you’re also looking for best fit in the organisation you’re hiring for.

I’m aware others don’t agree and laugh at it, but all that matters is whether the panel and Essendon:
  • rate Hird’s experience as senior coach
  • rate his ability to coach
  • think his work at GWS is enough to bring him up to date
  • think he interviews well and presents the most convincing plan for Essendon
  • think he is the best fit for Essendon compared with the other applicants
Against Yze, Solomon and Lade, Hird has a very good chance. Any rumours of the Scott situation might indicate AFL House agree and believe the panel might select Hird if a better candidate doesn’t step forward.
 
Lore said:
If their process is going to be determined solely by years with the title Senior Coach then Kevin should be a shoo in.

It’s not though, and I think logically anyone who thinks about it for a nanosecond knows that.

What experience gives you is the ability to say “this is what I did before, this is what I learned, this is what I think about this group and this context, and this is what I’d do next year with this group if given the opportunity”.

I’d prefer someone who can say “I taught 12 players how to kick straight and run smart leads without excessively exhausting themselves, and motivated them to do it under pressure, when they’re exhausted, at the end of the game in a grand final” than someone who can say “I took 45 players who were wearing a red sash to 6th on the ladder at the end of round 15 eight years ago”.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying it would be 'soley'weighted on experience. I'm saying if they value senior coaching experience and that adds even a 10 percent weighting then this would be over as a contest in favour of Hird IMO.

These are the little gifts the board could have thrown his way.

In terms of head to head I'd back Hird to perform well against every current senior coach in the AFL if that happened
Very Impressive people are very hard to resist when you have to sit there and make the decision. I could picture him walking out if the room and the panel look at each other and say well there's the best presentation by 100 miles. What do we do now?
 
Mr Mojo Risin said:
Just my opinion and not interested in re-hashing this too much as it has been discussed a lot, but specifically regarding this post:

The flaw is to think Hird could not win a legitimate process IF they simply base it on who is the best person to coach Essendon.

Whenever you hire someone for any organisation, resume is important, experience in the same role is important, experience in a similar role matters, recent experience is a factor.

But you’re also looking for best fit in the organisation you’re hiring for.

I’m aware others don’t agree and laugh at it, but all that matters is whether the panel and Essendon:
  • rate Hird’s experience as senior coach
  • rate his ability to coach
  • think his work at GWS is enough to bring him up to date
  • think he interviews well and presents the most convincing plan for Essendon
  • think he is the best fit for Essendon compared with the other applicants
Against Yze, Solomon and Lade, Hird has a very good chance. Any rumours of the Scott situation might indicate AFL House agree and believe the panel might select Hird if a better candidate doesn’t step forward.
Click to expand...
Sure, but remember that these judgments are in the opinion of a group of people who haven’t spent the last fifteen years drinking the red and black bathwater.

They may still conclude that he’s the best candidate, because theoretically anything is possible and you can’t deny the charisma, but I think it’s really difficult for us as Essendon supporters to put ourselves in the shoes of this coaching panel, and precious few well-informed neutrals find the idea anywhere near as compelling as Essendon fans seem to.

Most of the ones that seem to think it’s likely or a good fit start from the point of view that Essendon is so incompetent and arrogantly egocentric that he’s the only one who can drag us out of the quagmire, which is a ****ing awful starting point really.




And I mean the external review is supposed to be about “what are Geelong doing, what are Richmond doing that we aren’t doing? Why are they successful in the 21st century and we aren’t?”

I highly doubt the answer to that question is “bring back the guy who was in charge during the biggest **** up in club history”.

And I don’t know how Hisgrove and Thorburn can recommend Hird as part of the selection panel and not be scathing of the same decision in the review. The gymnastics they have to do to make that work will be worth Olympic gold.
 
Lore said:
Sure, but remember that these judgments are in the opinion of a group of people who haven’t spent the last fifteen years drinking the red and black bathwater.

They may still conclude that he’s the best candidate, because theoretically anything is possible and you can’t deny the charisma, but I think it’s really difficult for us as Essendon supporters to put ourselves in the shoes of this coaching panel, and precious few well-informed neutrals find the idea anywhere near as compelling as Essendon fans seem to.

Most of the ones that seem to think it’s likely or a good fit start from the point of view that Essendon is so incompetent and arrogantly egocentric that he’s the only one who can drag us out of the quagmire, which is a ******* awful starting point really.




And I mean the external review is supposed to be about “what are Geelong doing, what are Richmond doing that we aren’t doing? Why are they successful in the 21st century and we aren’t?”

I highly doubt the answer to that question is “bring back the guy who was in charge during the biggest * up in club history”.

And I don’t know how Hisgrove and Thorburn can recommend Hird as part of the selection panel and not be scathing of the same decision in the review. The gymnastics they have to do to make that work will be worth Olympic gold.
Click to expand...
There are countless people who work in the industry who have never supported Essendon who rave about Hird’s ability to understand and break down the game and explain it to others. I don’t get why people constantly ignore this and assume that anyone who thinks he might actually be a skilled coach has to drink Essendon bath water.
 
Lore said:
Sure, but remember that these judgments are in the opinion of a group of people who haven’t spent the last fifteen years drinking the red and black bathwater.

They may still conclude that he’s the best candidate, because theoretically anything is possible and you can’t deny the charisma, but I think it’s really difficult for us as Essendon supporters to put ourselves in the shoes of this coaching panel, and precious few well-informed neutrals find the idea anywhere near as compelling as Essendon fans seem to.

Most of the ones that seem to think it’s likely or a good fit start from the point of view that Essendon is so incompetent and arrogantly egocentric that he’s the only one who can drag us out of the quagmire, which is a ******* awful starting point really.




And I mean the external review is supposed to be about “what are Geelong doing, what are Richmond doing that we aren’t doing? Why are they successful in the 21st century and we aren’t?”

I highly doubt the answer to that question is “bring back the guy who was in charge during the biggest * up in club history”.

And I don’t know how Hisgrove and Thorburn can recommend Hird as part of the selection panel and not be scathing of the same decision in the review. The gymnastics they have to do to make that work will be worth Olympic gold.
Click to expand...
Is they the actual deliverables of the external review? Or just what it should be?
 
CBombers17 said:
I'm not saying it would be 'soley'weighted on experience. I'm saying if they value senior coaching experience and that adds even a 10 percent weighting then this would be over as a contest in favour of Hird IMO.

These are the little gifts the board could have thrown his way.

In terms of head to head I'd back Hird to perform well against every current senior coach in the AFL if that happened
Very Impressive people are very hard to resist when you have to sit there and make the decision. I could picture him walking out if the room and the panel look at each other and say well there's the best presentation by 100 miles. What do we do now?
Click to expand...
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a set of KSCs that involved a formal percentage weighting of different criteria.

I would expect it to be a qualitative process, where what you did and how you did it matter, not just tick the senior coach box and you get 10% added to your score.

From what we’ve been told “experienced” includes football administration and assistant coaching, which is a prerequisite to even get into the process.

We also know that there is an additional process for candidates who haven’t been senior coaches before, and I would say that’s the main advantage Hird has — not having to do the first process. But that also assumes that he didn’t do the first process, if his experience is too long ago they might have put him through that part as well anyway (especially if it’s psych evals).
 
Mr Mojo Risin said:
There are countless people who work in the industry who have never supported Essendon who rave about Hird’s ability to understand and break down the game and explain it to others. I don’t get why people constantly ignore this and assume that anyone who thinks he might actually be a skilled coach has to drink Essendon bath water.
Click to expand...
Sure, I’m not saying they don’t. I’m saying you have to convince 6 people, three of which are not football people, and all six of which supported other teams 3 years ago, of your ability to do all aspects of the job next year.

Your experience counts insofar as you can use it to show you are qualified and capable — the most qualified and the most capable candidate — for the position.

Anyway idk why this keeps getting back to Hird’s pro/con list. We have two whole threads about that already.

This thread is supposed to be about the board’s ineptitude and how they reconcile the various processes they have put into action.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Club Mgmt. Board of Directors as led by President Dave Barham

Similar threads

Lore
  • Sticky
  • Poll
Win Prizes The Scales 2024 Essendon Board Poster of the Year - Congratulations Bonce!
Replies
19
Views
1K
Beerfish
Beerfish
Lore
  • Locked
Win Prizes The Scales 2024 Essendon Board Poster Of The Year - Nomination Thread
Replies
18
Views
876
Lore
Lore
Nuggs Bunny
Competitions 2025 Essendon Board My Boy Draft
Replies
22
Views
330
ant555
ant555
BrunoV
Win Prizes The Essendon Board Talks 9/11
2 3 4 5
Replies
100
Views
2K
Kong
Kong
VelvetSledge
  • Locked
MVP 2024 BigFooty Essendon Board POTY Award - ZACH MERRETT wins again!
Replies
24
Views
3K
VelvetSledge
VelvetSledge
Lore
Mod. Notice Welcome Nuggs Bunny, new Essendon board mod!
Replies
13
Views
1K
Vindicater
Vindicater
Sporno 4 Pyros
Sport The Essendon Board’s Paris 2024 Olympics Thread
2 3
Replies
63
Views
2K
Sporno 4 Pyros
Sporno 4 Pyros

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top