Play Nice 2019 Non AFL Admin, Crowds, Ratings, Participation etc thread

Remove this Banner Ad

jatz14 said:
I think the years they squandered on the W league created an image or view of it that is now acting like a dead weight. How they treated it was consistent with the general view of women's sport, but you cannot have a relatively amateur, relatively low key and unpublicised league run for years, and then just turn the dial up.

This is where the AFL, being late to the party, worked in their favour. They were able to create a narrative and buzz from the start, without any baggage.

Cricket probably came from a similar place to soccer, but they spent up big, and created a brand new shiny comp to highlight.

I followed the W league for a number of years, moreso than the A league. It's what actually got me interested in women's footy before it become the next big thing. I wanted to find out where women's footy was compared to the W league, which was no where pretty much.

It did mean I knew of most of the key people and players prior to the AFLW being announced, and the contrast between the birth of the AFLW and the W league was stark.

It's always been pretty clear to me that women's sport was the new codewars battleground.

Around here, there was no women's teams 4 years ago, last year there was 6, next year there will be more.

There used to be the odd girl playing in a boy's comp, now there are girls comps.

A large portion of these women/girls came from soccer.

I dont have any figures to back it up, but I wouldn't mind betting girls soccer here has gone backwards, maybe enough that soccer overall has gone backwards a little bit, note that I don't think this is a trend.

I do think there are parts of the country that will see the same effect.

WA now has over 60 women playing in the AFLW, a couple come from here. That's a powerful draw, as powerful as Sam Kerr imop. She is a great role model, but seeing a girl from your club, or school, or neighbourhood make it into the AFLW is a huge draw for the league, and there are lots and lots of girls in the AFLW.

I think the FFA still don't really get the W league, and what's at stake.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I can't really disagree with most of this. After all, the FFA had the Matildas striking and the W-league players getting changed in public toilets not so long ago. Only now are they giving the Matildas the coverage they deserve. Sadly, that increased interest cost the team greatly at the world cup due to FFA stupidity and politics.

The AFL/NRL timing couldn't have been more perfect in hindsight. Been a huge push in womens sport all around the world at the same time the leagues started. But that is another topic for another day
 
Last edited:
Our Game said:
Talk about piss poor crowds the International TEST Cricket on Sunday at the Gabba got less than 5000!
Click to expand...
That is the headline grabber but I think the 41K for the 4 days is the more relevant and worrisome number for Brisbane test crowds. They have been going downhill for years now.

A lot of talk is about how outdated the GABBA is and how it is a hot concrete bowl to watch test cricket at. If Queensland misses yet another India test next year, then that might be the motivation to upgrade the facilities at GABBA. I know a couple of posters wanted that when the Lions were selling out home games this year.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

The launch of the AFLW unleashed a landscape changing force that was always going break Australian women's soccer. It was never going to be able to keep up
 
The Ausplay survey data is fascinating reading, and requires lots of reading between the lines. The numbers it shows, and what is actually happening in the Australian sporting landscape are at complete odds. Its a classic warning of the dangers in over interpreting survey data.

If you know nothing about Australia, and just looked at the survey, you would conclude that soccer was by far the biggest game in Australia, in terms of everything, playing numbers, crowds, money, TV rights, viewers. The numbers are that stark.

Of course, we know the numbers must be misrepresenting reality somehow, because of, you know, reality.

People that associate strongly with Footy is 3.9%, with 7.5% for men and 0.4% for women. For Soccer, its 6.3%, with 10.1% for men and 2.5% for women.
Participation is 2.6% for footy total, with 4.4% for men and 0.8% for women. Soccer its 5.4%, with 8.4% for men and 2.4% for women.

By state, a greater proportion strongly associate with soccer in every state bar Vic, SA and Tas.
A greater proportion play soccer in every state bar SA.

I think its this sort of data that has lead Soccer to make some of the pronouncements they have, they look at the surveys and think, Any moment now, we will take over.

So, why haven't they? on the numbers they should have. With all the Soccer loving immigrants coming to a country the numbers say is skewed to soccer already, the FFT board should be breaking out the champagne at the long hoped for death of Australian football.

Firstly, the data itself, if you look at the data over time, the fluctuations from year to year are just not possible. If you look at club participation charts for footy, it appears clubs dropped 36k participants one year, and gained 106k the next. Thats a rise of about a third 1 year after numbers declined? Total bullshit, and utterly not possible. So the numbers are really rubbery.

Secondly, there may be a clue in the conversion numbers, which is the relationship between people associated with a sport, the number that participate, and the number that participate at club level. The conversion numbers are significantly higher for footy across the board. People associated with footy are more likely to play and more likely to be involved in a club than for soccer.

Thirdly, immigration. Immigrants with a love of soccer bring that love with them, but mostly it will be a love of the game back home, many, especially the older ones, will never engage with the local game, and this may be a reason for the lower conversion rates.

Fourthly, the slogan for soccer in Australia, Simple, Safe, Fun (or something to that affect), means it may become the team sport of choice for people not super into sport that want something to do that isnt to hard, or perceived as to dangerous, but is more strenuous than a good walk, or a game of golf (basically the same thing, minus the frustration). The physical commitment to play footy, and the relative lack of easy social leagues to play in means soccer may have a relatively high proportion of participants that may see it as their strongest associated sport, but who arent actually that much into sport. They dont watch the A league because they do not particularly watch any sport.

Fifth, The AFL is the highest form of the game, almost everybody into footy is into the AFL. They may be into other leagues as well, but there are relatively few who follow a local league, but not the AFL. This isnt true of soccer. Broadcast data makes it pretty clear there are a lot of people that watch EPL etc, that do not watch the A league. I think time has put to bed the notion that a slick add campaign will get that to change.

Sixth, the simple weight of history. People into footy generally grew up in households into footy, they have a culture of watching the AFL, and going to games, and the same isnt true of soccer in this country. Time may change this, but we are talking generations, not years. Simple crowd and viewer data says that is true. There arent a large number of children at A league games on an average weekend. I would hazard a guess and say the number of kids at a round of AFL would be close to the total numbers at a round of A league.

For those that questioned the move into womens footy by the AFL, they should look at the engagement and participation rates for women. Its this area that footy can make the greatest gains. The percentage of women strongly associated with footy is 1/19th what it is for men, but for soccer, its 1/4th.

Fun fact, twice as many women play footy as consider it there most strongly associated sport. Where for soccer its about even.

If soccer catches up to footy, its womens soccer that will drive it. Men going to soccer tend to go with mates, but women with families that go, tend to go with the family.
 
NoobPie said:
The launch of the AFLW unleashed a landscape changing force that was always going break Australian women's soccer. It was never going to be able to keep up
Click to expand...
It isnt a done deal if you look at the Ausplay data. The AFL has to do a better job selling the game to women, or the AFLW could run out of steam. Participation numbers are skewed towards adults compared to soccer, or mens footy. This is due to the number of women that took up the game as adults after not really playing as juniors, but the AFL still needs to keep priming the junior pumps for females hard. Soccer still has a big lead nationally, and its no certainty that AFL bridges the gap.

However, I do think it is due in part to mummy thinking darling Petunia Turtle Dove is far to delicate to play footy. If she thinks that, she is probably right. AS in the rather large comment above, I think soccer gets an inordinate amount of the kids that arent that sporty and who do not take it seriously, or have the makeup to take sport any further than a kids league. My experience locally is, the girls switching from soccer to footy are the better players. A friends daughter, who was well into soccer (and still is), made state squads etc, switched because the girls in her local team were into giggling and playing around. They saw soccer as a bit of a fun run around, which grated on her as she is hugely into sport and highly competitive. Footy, even womens footy, is to hard to treat it as a giggle when you run on the ground, your going to get hurt (and quit). It also helps that the clubs are older, bigger, get bigger crowds. They have more 'gravitas' for want of a word, which suits those that want serious sport, not just some exercise.
 
jatz14 said:
It isnt a done deal if you look at the Ausplay data. The AFL has to do a better job selling the game to women, or the AFLW could run out of steam. Participation numbers are skewed towards adults compared to soccer, or mens footy. This is due to the number of women that took up the game as adults after not really playing as juniors, but the AFL still needs to keep priming the junior pumps for females hard. Soccer still has a big lead nationally, and its no certainty that AFL bridges the gap.

However, I do think it is due in part to mummy thinking darling Petunia Turtle Dove is far to delicate to play footy. If she thinks that, she is probably right. AS in the rather large comment above, I think soccer gets an inordinate amount of the kids that arent that sporty and who do not take it seriously, or have the makeup to take sport any further than a kids league. My experience locally is, the girls switching from soccer to footy are the better players. A friends daughter, who was well into soccer (and still is), made state squads etc, switched because the girls in her local team were into giggling and playing around. They saw soccer as a bit of a fun run around, which grated on her as she is hugely into sport and highly competitive. Footy, even womens footy, is to hard to treat it as a giggle when you run on the ground, your going to get hurt (and quit). It also helps that the clubs are older, bigger, get bigger crowds. They have more 'gravitas' for want of a word, which suits those that want serious sport, not just some exercise.
Click to expand...

The "sport you are most strongly associated with" still refers to participation.
 
NoobPie said:
The "sport you are most strongly associated with" still refers to participation.
Click to expand...
No, it doesnt, and it specifically says so. If you are into watching soccer, and consider yourself a fan, then you are strongly associated with it. There are separate participation, and club participation numbers.
 
jatz14 said:
The Ausplay survey data is fascinating reading, and requires lots of reading between the lines. The numbers it shows, and what is actually happening in the Australian sporting landscape are at complete odds. Its a classic warning of the dangers in over interpreting survey data.

If you know nothing about Australia, and just looked at the survey, you would conclude that soccer was by far the biggest game in Australia, in terms of everything, playing numbers, crowds, money, TV rights, viewers. The numbers are that stark.

Of course, we know the numbers must be misrepresenting reality somehow, because of, you know, reality.

People that associate strongly with Footy is 3.9%, with 7.5% for men and 0.4% for women. For Soccer, its 6.3%, with 10.1% for men and 2.5% for women.
Participation is 2.6% for footy total, with 4.4% for men and 0.8% for women. Soccer its 5.4%, with 8.4% for men and 2.4% for women.

By state, a greater proportion strongly associate with soccer in every state bar Vic, SA and Tas.
A greater proportion play soccer in every state bar SA.

I think its this sort of data that has lead Soccer to make some of the pronouncements they have, they look at the surveys and think, Any moment now, we will take over.

So, why haven't they? on the numbers they should have. With all the Soccer loving immigrants coming to a country the numbers say is skewed to soccer already, the FFT board should be breaking out the champagne at the long hoped for death of Australian football.

Firstly, the data itself, if you look at the data over time, the fluctuations from year to year are just not possible. If you look at club participation charts for footy, it appears clubs dropped 36k participants one year, and gained 106k the next. Thats a rise of about a third 1 year after numbers declined? Total bullshit, and utterly not possible. So the numbers are really rubbery.

Secondly, there may be a clue in the conversion numbers, which is the relationship between people associated with a sport, the number that participate, and the number that participate at club level. The conversion numbers are significantly higher for footy across the board. People associated with footy are more likely to play and more likely to be involved in a club than for soccer.

Thirdly, immigration. Immigrants with a love of soccer bring that love with them, but mostly it will be a love of the game back home, many, especially the older ones, will never engage with the local game, and this may be a reason for the lower conversion rates.

Fourthly, the slogan for soccer in Australia, Simple, Safe, Fun (or something to that affect), means it may become the team sport of choice for people not super into sport that want something to do that isnt to hard, or perceived as to dangerous, but is more strenuous than a good walk, or a game of golf (basically the same thing, minus the frustration). The physical commitment to play footy, and the relative lack of easy social leagues to play in means soccer may have a relatively high proportion of participants that may see it as their strongest associated sport, but who arent actually that much into sport. They dont watch the A league because they do not particularly watch any sport.

Fifth, The AFL is the highest form of the game, almost everybody into footy is into the AFL. They may be into other leagues as well, but there are relatively few who follow a local league, but not the AFL. This isnt true of soccer. Broadcast data makes it pretty clear there are a lot of people that watch EPL etc, that do not watch the A league. I think time has put to bed the notion that a slick add campaign will get that to change.

Sixth, the simple weight of history. People into footy generally grew up in households into footy, they have a culture of watching the AFL, and going to games, and the same isnt true of soccer in this country. Time may change this, but we are talking generations, not years. Simple crowd and viewer data says that is true. There arent a large number of children at A league games on an average weekend. I would hazard a guess and say the number of kids at a round of AFL would be close to the total numbers at a round of A league.

For those that questioned the move into womens footy by the AFL, they should look at the engagement and participation rates for women. Its this area that footy can make the greatest gains. The percentage of women strongly associated with footy is 1/19th what it is for men, but for soccer, its 1/4th.

Fun fact, twice as many women play footy as consider it there most strongly associated sport. Where for soccer its about even.

If soccer catches up to footy, its womens soccer that will drive it. Men going to soccer tend to go with mates, but women with families that go, tend to go with the family.
Click to expand...

rubbery figures no doubt.

also
half the country live in states where football is a minor sport

About 30% of Australians are born overseas, over twice the rate as in America and England for instance. Almost half the country are first or second generation Australians. These figures are absolutely incredible compared to the vast majority of the world. People don’t just change overnight so no doubt there are a hell of a lot of support for sports and leagues where they have came from. (I think it’s something like a 700% increase in first to second generation Australians playing in the AFL. This is not the best data but it does show people integrate rather quickly)
It is actually quite incredible how dominant Football and Rugby league have continued to be all things considered and if these migration rates haven’t changed the countries sporting culture by now it never will. I’d say from a decade ago to now they have actually pulled further away
 
jatz14 said:
No, it doesnt, and it specifically says so. If you are into watching soccer, and consider yourself a fan, then you are strongly associated with it. There are separate participation, and club participation numbers.
Click to expand...

Where does it say that?
 
NoobPie said:
Where does it say that?
Click to expand...
You have to work a bit to get the definition.

Firstly, this is the how they determined participation. 'All adults (aged 15 and over) were asked whether they had participated in any physical activities for sport, for exercise, or for recreation in the last 12 months.'

So if you took part in any footy over 12 months, you are a participant. They then asked about the participation to decide if it was organised club participation.

The provided explanation for strongly associated with footy is '793,547 Adults 15+ (3.9% of the Adult 15+ population) considered Australian Football the sport they most strongly associate with. The total number of Adults ‘loyal’ to Australian Football was quite a bit higher than the number of players.'

For footy, total participation ie The total number of people that had undertaken any physical activity in footy is 517k people.
The number `strongly associated with` is 797k. ie Strongly associated with must include non participants as it is so much bigger than the participant figure, and the definition of participant seems pretty exhaustive.

This figure is used as an assessment of loyalty and association, not participation.
 
NoobPie said:
Where does it say that?
Click to expand...

This is what the question asks... Screenshot_20191126-171536~2.png

The relatively low "association" by women to Australian football makes sense if alot of them have just taken it up after playing say netball, basketball or soccer for most of their lives

Another thing to note is Australian football at a club level is higher in all three southern states at both junior and senior level.
 
jatz14 said:
You have to work a bit to get the definition.

Firstly, this is the how they determined participation. 'All adults (aged 15 and over) were asked whether they had participated in any physical activities for sport, for exercise, or for recreation in the last 12 months.'

So if you took part in any footy over 12 months, you are a participant. They then asked about the participation to decide if it was organised club participation.

The provided explanation for strongly associated with footy is '793,547 Adults 15+ (3.9% of the Adult 15+ population) considered Australian Football the sport they most strongly associate with. The total number of Adults ‘loyal’ to Australian Football was quite a bit higher than the number of players.'

For footy, total participation ie The total number of people that had undertaken any physical activity in footy is 517k people.
The number `strongly associated with` is 797k. ie Strongly associated with must include non participants as it is so much bigger than the participant figure, and the definition of participant seems pretty exhaustive.

This figure is used as an assessment of loyalty and association, not participation.
Click to expand...

It includes people that played it at some point. And the question is premised on participation in a survey where all the questions are about participation
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

NoobPie said:
This is what the question asks...View attachment 784986

The relatively low "association" by women to Australian football makes sense if alot of them have just taken it up after playing say netball, basketball or soccer for most of their lives

Another thing to note is Australian football at a club level is higher in all three southern states at both junior and senior level.
Click to expand...
That makes sense then. They didnt provide a neat definition of association in the definition list.

The figure is low for women because you needed to be a participant at some point, thats the bit I missed. I hadnt figured a way to reconcile historically high female attendance at footy matches with the low strongly associated number. The number should rise as the number of women that have played at some point rises.

Another issue with surveys. You need to understand the question. A woman attending a footy game every weekend for decades isnt 'strongly associated' with footy, if she never played, but if she did Auskick, she is 'strongly associated'.
 
jatz14 said:
That makes sense then. They didnt provide a neat definition of association in the definition list.

The figure is low for women because you needed to be a participant at some point, thats the bit I missed. I hadnt figured a way to reconcile historically high female attendance at footy matches with the low strongly associated number. The number should rise as the number of women that have played at some point rises.

Another issue with surveys. You need to understand the question. A woman attending a footy game every weekend for decades isnt 'strongly associated' with footy, if she never played, but if she did Auskick, she is 'strongly associated'.
Click to expand...

It's a poor question really. "Which sport are you most strongly associated with as a participant" and "which sport are you most strongly associated with (period)" are two very different questions.

I'd think most people would answer that based primarily on participation. So somebody who is a rabid fan of an AFL club who had only done Auskick would more likely answer with a sport they participated a lot in.
 
jatz14 said:
The Ausplay survey data is fascinating reading, and requires lots of reading between the lines. The numbers it shows, and what is actually happening in the Australian sporting landscape are at complete odds. Its a classic warning of the dangers in over interpreting survey data.

If you know nothing about Australia, and just looked at the survey, you would conclude that soccer was by far the biggest game in Australia, in terms of everything, playing numbers, crowds, money, TV rights, viewers. The numbers are that stark.

Of course, we know the numbers must be misrepresenting reality somehow, because of, you know, reality.

People that associate strongly with Footy is 3.9%, with 7.5% for men and 0.4% for women. For Soccer, its 6.3%, with 10.1% for men and 2.5% for women.
Participation is 2.6% for footy total, with 4.4% for men and 0.8% for women. Soccer its 5.4%, with 8.4% for men and 2.4% for women.

By state, a greater proportion strongly associate with soccer in every state bar Vic, SA and Tas.
A greater proportion play soccer in every state bar SA.

I think its this sort of data that has lead Soccer to make some of the pronouncements they have, they look at the surveys and think, Any moment now, we will take over.

So, why haven't they? on the numbers they should have. With all the Soccer loving immigrants coming to a country the numbers say is skewed to soccer already, the FFT board should be breaking out the champagne at the long hoped for death of Australian football.

Firstly, the data itself, if you look at the data over time, the fluctuations from year to year are just not possible. If you look at club participation charts for footy, it appears clubs dropped 36k participants one year, and gained 106k the next. Thats a rise of about a third 1 year after numbers declined? Total bullshit, and utterly not possible. So the numbers are really rubbery.

Secondly, there may be a clue in the conversion numbers, which is the relationship between people associated with a sport, the number that participate, and the number that participate at club level. The conversion numbers are significantly higher for footy across the board. People associated with footy are more likely to play and more likely to be involved in a club than for soccer.

Thirdly, immigration. Immigrants with a love of soccer bring that love with them, but mostly it will be a love of the game back home, many, especially the older ones, will never engage with the local game, and this may be a reason for the lower conversion rates.

Fourthly, the slogan for soccer in Australia, Simple, Safe, Fun (or something to that affect), means it may become the team sport of choice for people not super into sport that want something to do that isnt to hard, or perceived as to dangerous, but is more strenuous than a good walk, or a game of golf (basically the same thing, minus the frustration). The physical commitment to play footy, and the relative lack of easy social leagues to play in means soccer may have a relatively high proportion of participants that may see it as their strongest associated sport, but who arent actually that much into sport. They dont watch the A league because they do not particularly watch any sport.

Fifth, The AFL is the highest form of the game, almost everybody into footy is into the AFL. They may be into other leagues as well, but there are relatively few who follow a local league, but not the AFL. This isnt true of soccer. Broadcast data makes it pretty clear there are a lot of people that watch EPL etc, that do not watch the A league. I think time has put to bed the notion that a slick add campaign will get that to change.

Sixth, the simple weight of history. People into footy generally grew up in households into footy, they have a culture of watching the AFL, and going to games, and the same isnt true of soccer in this country. Time may change this, but we are talking generations, not years. Simple crowd and viewer data says that is true. There arent a large number of children at A league games on an average weekend. I would hazard a guess and say the number of kids at a round of AFL would be close to the total numbers at a round of A league.

For those that questioned the move into womens footy by the AFL, they should look at the engagement and participation rates for women. Its this area that footy can make the greatest gains. The percentage of women strongly associated with footy is 1/19th what it is for men, but for soccer, its 1/4th.

Fun fact, twice as many women play footy as consider it there most strongly associated sport. Where for soccer its about even.

If soccer catches up to footy, its womens soccer that will drive it. Men going to soccer tend to go with mates, but women with families that go, tend to go with the family.
Click to expand...
Did the AFL commission the survey?
Just asking
 
jatz14 said:
It was silly more than civil. As in, not sure you didn't actually know the answer, and were just stirring the pot, so you could react negatively to any comment.
Click to expand...
No i was asking a civil question as i didn't know the answer.
Don't go down the road of Noob pie you are a far better poster than him.
 
Aussie in exile said:
No i was asking a civil question as i didn't know the answer.
Don't go down the road of Noob pie you are a far better poster than him.
Click to expand...
Its the Ausplay survey. https://www.clearinghouseforsport.gov.au/research/smi/ausplay/results/sport

Its the big government annual survey of sport, its been out for a while and is much discussed, hence the doubt as to the seriousness of your question.

On a side note, it has attached a report on the margin of error associated with it.

For children, a reported activity with 100k participants has a national error rate of 35% (it varies a bit by state)
For 500k participants its 15.6%
For 50k, its has a 52% error rate (all at a 95% confidence interval)
For those not up on their stats, this means if an activity is reported as having 100k participants, we can be 95% confident the real number is between 65k and 135k.

This also means that if you track participation numbers using this survey, the imprecision effectively doubles. If there are 100k participants in an age group one year, and 100k the next (ie, no change), the real number could be 70k one year, and 130k the next, or vice versa. This means it could have almost doubled, or almost halved, with the same survey results.
 
My own observation of my local area northern suburbs which should be very much a soccer loving place with huge amounts of second generation European migrants but the numbers I see on sat mornings tell a different story.

The soccer program gets about 15 to 20 kids at the local High School and the Auskick on the sports oval next door has 50 - 60 kids.The first time I noticed this I was surprised and it hasent changed much over the years.The Catholic school a couple of KMS away get the same sort of numbers.
 
Our Game said:
My own observation of my local area northern suburbs which should be very much a soccer loving place with huge amounts of second generation European migrants but the numbers I see on sat mornings tell a different story.

The soccer program gets about 15 to 20 kids at the local High School and the Auskick on the sports oval next door has 50 - 60 kids.The first time I noticed this I was surprised and it hasent changed much over the years.The Catholic school a couple of KMS away get the same sort of numbers.
Click to expand...


These are the top 10 sports by organsied participation in Victoria for kids 14 and under. Note that the soccer numbers include futsal and summer competitions as well.

Victorian kids are still playing football over soccer in large numbers.

1574806545270.png


Gap is narrower for adults (15 and over) but it is wider when you look at "club only" (which presumably excludes a lot of the futsal activity).

1574806864044.png


Raw participation (eg including non-organised) it is about the same

1574807073680.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The_Wookie
Play Nice 2024 Non AFL Crowds/Ratings and other Industry thread
12 13 14 15 16
Replies
386
Views
19K
Rob
Rob
The_Wookie
  • Sticky
Play Nice 2024 AFL TV Ratings
2 3 4 5
Replies
107
Views
8K
The_Wookie
The_Wookie
The_Wookie
  • Locked
2024 AFL TV Ratings and Streaming
2
Replies
46
Views
2K
The_Wookie
The_Wookie
Football Tragic
  • Poll
Does the AFL have anything to fear from the Matilda's recent success and the NRL's TV ratings?
2 3 4
Replies
76
Views
6K
Tandy
Tandy
The_Wookie
Play Nice 2023 Non AFL (or lower league) Sports Industry Discussion
47 48 49 50 51
Replies
1K
Views
64K
threenewpadlocks
threenewpadlocks
The_Wookie
2023 Crowds and TV/Streaming
191 192 193 194 195
Replies
5K
Views
214K
Consolaçao
C
Bjo187
Play Nice The Reach is King thread
2 3
Replies
65
Views
3K
threenewpadlocks
threenewpadlocks

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top