Championship Football Play By Mail PBM

Football Club Management Simulation
 
HomeSiteLog inRegister

 

 TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS

Go down 
Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next
AuthorMessage
Paul Hemmings
Games Master
Games Master
Paul Hemmings

Posts : 31158
Reputation : 1832
Join date : 2009-12-02
Location : Cornwall

TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS Empty
PostSubject: TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS   TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS Icon_minitimeThu 25 Aug - 19:08

TV income to the real-life Premier league for the coming season is :-

1992-96 = 304m = 60m per year = 3m per club
1997-00 = 670m = 168m per year = 8m per club
2001-03 = 1b = 333m per year = 16m per club
2004-06 = 1.7b = 566m per year = 28m per club
2007-10 = 2.7b = 900m per year = 45m per club
2011-13 = 3.2b = 1066m per year = 50m per club

income is given to clubs
50% divided equally between 20 clubs
25% final league positions
25% to clubs whose games are shown live

So next season parent clubs will get :-

part1 = 50% spread over 24 weeks which gives 1.1m per week
part2 = 25% to live games of which there are 3 a week gives 66 games @ 180,000 per game so the more successful you are the more tv money you get
part3 = 25% in prize money at the end added to the normal prize money so again the more successful you are the more tv income you get.

Parent clubs relegated from the Premiership will receive 50% of part 1 for the first year following relegation.

feeder clubs will still rely on their parent clubs for money so they wont receive part1 of this tv sponsorship money.


Last edited by Paul Hemmings on Fri 26 Aug - 8:14; edited 5 times in total
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS Empty
PostSubject: Re: TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS   TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS Icon_minitimeThu 25 Aug - 23:35

Paul. Question, seriously.

What will feeder clubs get?.

I'm running Betis to try and make them competitive. It's giving me alot of pleasure.

We've already got ...

no overdraft.
no stadium sponsor
no takeovers
and now no tv money...

with respect this costs me the same real money as my parent club...with whom I've done about two deals due to the restrictions on player movement between the two.

So...what possible income do feeder clubs have?

can we still sell shirts?, where does it end???

there must be some income for them!

If I can't have some sort of income, then there really isnt any point in me having a feeder club. I'm not asking for the same money for feeder clubs, but christ, there's limiting and then there's out and out total restriction.

I for one am saying if there's no income at all...I will just stick with Leicester.

Back to top Go down
Rob@Barcelona
World Star - 99/99
World Star - 99/99
Rob@Barcelona

Posts : 2888
Reputation : 1017
Join date : 2009-11-29
Age : 48
Location : London

TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS Empty
PostSubject: Re: TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS   TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS Icon_minitimeThu 25 Aug - 23:38

I agree with Rich on this. A feeder is still a club in it's own right.
Back to top Go down
Phil@Watford
World Star - 99/99
World Star - 99/99
Phil@Watford

Posts : 1555
Reputation : 648
Join date : 2009-11-28
Age : 31
Location : Kendal

Order Sheet
CLUB:

TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS Empty
PostSubject: Re: TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS   TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS Icon_minitimeThu 25 Aug - 23:40

I would like a feeder club rule book! Lol. I'm hopeless.

Clarification on feeder income would be nice.
Back to top Go down
Tom
World Star - 99/99
World Star - 99/99


Posts : 2352
Reputation : 41
Join date : 2009-11-28
Age : 40

TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS Empty
PostSubject: Re: TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS   TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS Icon_minitimeThu 25 Aug - 23:42

agree.

imo i think the feeder should get some revenue of each type. maybe they only get 50% of what everybody else gets in the league, they atleast need to be able to compete with the other teams. there's no point really rich turning up to play real madrid and barcelona if he's having to sell players every week, and its no good for the league if he's forced to do that, otherwise an unmanaged club may aswell take their place.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS Empty
PostSubject: Re: TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS   TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS Icon_minitimeThu 25 Aug - 23:53

im happy to exist with no overdraft, and no sponsorship...and no this and no the other.

It's there to stop people taking the piss and asset stripping their feeder club for the benifit of their parent club.

Well....what about the people that dont want to take the piss...and who want to play the game properly??
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS Empty
PostSubject: Re: TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS   TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS Icon_minitimeThu 25 Aug - 23:54

i do like pauls idea and agree with it.


however,

if there is a mutiny and come the end of it feeder clubs are given some sort of money i would feel a bit pieved if feyanoord get less than its spanish or french counterparts just cos i selected a different division.

my prefernce as iv stated b4 is a total performance related payment scheme, but failing that same for all if it has to be that
Back to top Go down
Tom
World Star - 99/99
World Star - 99/99


Posts : 2352
Reputation : 41
Join date : 2009-11-28
Age : 40

TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS Empty
PostSubject: Re: TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS   TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS Icon_minitimeThu 25 Aug - 23:57

maybe there should be a thing in the game where each club has a net value? maybe paul already has one. so...your players, buildings all added together with your bank balance = net worth. clubs who's net worth goes down get less revenue/sponsor money, those whose net worth goes up get more.

idea?
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS Empty
PostSubject: Re: TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS   TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS Icon_minitimeThu 25 Aug - 23:59

like it stu, very good idea.

ie: build the club get rewarded, makes sense

strip them bare get less.

Back to top Go down
Tom
World Star - 99/99
World Star - 99/99


Posts : 2352
Reputation : 41
Join date : 2009-11-28
Age : 40

TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS Empty
PostSubject: Re: TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS   TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS Icon_minitimeFri 26 Aug - 0:01

it'd be unfair to base everything on squad value because i sold players firstly to clear a debt but also to then build almost every building you can get ( apart from the really expensive ones ) so you could say i've sacrificied squad building so that i can build the club up properly so that they can make money going forward ( portsmouth i mean ).
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS Empty
PostSubject: Re: TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS   TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS Icon_minitimeFri 26 Aug - 0:22

my gripe is this.

Leicester. will get about £5m prize money, maybe £5m stadium sponsor and about £3m tv rights.

Total Leicester budget for year = £13m

Betis as it stands ... = £0m


How the fuck am I supposed to get anywhere anything, when Frank Lampard, aged 33, is sold for £50m, and Roque Santa Cruz has a buycost of £56m.

Roque Santa fucking Cruz!!!!!, imagine if he was any good!


Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS Empty
PostSubject: Re: TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS   TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS Icon_minitimeFri 26 Aug - 0:28

Will@Fulham wrote:
i do like pauls idea and agree with it.


however,

if there is a mutiny and come the end of it feeder clubs are given some sort of money i would feel a bit pieved if feyanoord get less than its spanish or french counterparts just cos i selected a different division.

my prefernce as iv stated b4 is a total performance related payment scheme, but failing that same for all if it has to be that


I thought you were in favour of realism Will? You were harping on at me about it being daft that Atletico or Betis or Sevilla be a feeder club to Leicester...and I think you just said "it's a bit daft"

Well, the Dutch league is the piss poor brother to the Premiership, to La Liga and to Seria A...but now you want it to be the same?.

And performance related pay...is it any coincidence that you'll absolutely walk the Eredivisie?, or are you expecting Ajax to put up a fight?


Last edited by Rich@Leicester on Fri 26 Aug - 0:30; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS Empty
PostSubject: Re: TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS   TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS Icon_minitimeFri 26 Aug - 0:29

anyway...sorry. My gripe isnt with you Willy...for once.

I just want to know what income feeder clubs will get so

a) I can budget.
b) I can decide whether or not to bother carrying on with Betis
Back to top Go down
Tom
World Star - 99/99
World Star - 99/99


Posts : 2352
Reputation : 41
Join date : 2009-11-28
Age : 40

TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS Empty
PostSubject: Re: TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS   TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS Icon_minitimeFri 26 Aug - 0:32

you're right rich. but then not too many championship clubs in real life would either. is roque still 56m even now paul has made the trib value the only true value in the game? ive noticed that most values look more sensible now. all that can he hoped is that paul takes things on board and comes up with something. I definitely think as far as feeder clubs are concerned they should get some money. a good thing going forward would be a net worth related income for feeders. if their net worth goes down then you only get 33% of what others in the league are getting, if it goes up then you get 66%. like you said somewhere, if you manage your feeder club properly why should you be penalised and classed in the same bracket as all the other feeder clubs. a well run club should be rewarded. a poorly run one should be penalised.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS Empty
PostSubject: Re: TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS   TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS Icon_minitimeFri 26 Aug - 0:36

Stuart@Roma wrote:
you're right rich. but then not too many championship clubs in real life would either. is roque still 56m even now paul has made the trib value the only true value in the game? ive noticed that most values look more sensible now. all that can he hoped is that paul takes things on board and comes up with something. I definitely think as far as feeder clubs are concerned they should get some money. a good thing going forward would be a net worth related income for feeders. if their net worth goes down then you only get 33% of what others in the league are getting, if it goes up then you get 66%. like you said somewhere, if you manage your feeder club properly why should you be penalised and classed in the same bracket as all the other feeder clubs. a well run club should be rewarded. a poorly run one should be penalised.

absolutely spot on.

Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS Empty
PostSubject: Re: TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS   TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS Icon_minitimeFri 26 Aug - 0:38

thing is Stu...I'm not unhappy with Leicester's income.

I'm unhappy with effectively being told that no matter what I achieve with Betis, I'll never have any money to continue to improve them.
Back to top Go down
Tom
World Star - 99/99
World Star - 99/99


Posts : 2352
Reputation : 41
Join date : 2009-11-28
Age : 40

TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS Empty
PostSubject: Re: TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS   TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS Icon_minitimeFri 26 Aug - 1:15

yeah. you're right and there's really not much that can be said in response tbh. paul has his reasons for doing what he's done and you can only assume one or two things have happened meaning the management of feeder clubs being ruined for others. its wrong really tho that everyone is just lumped under one bracket and rather than try and kerb the problem feeder clubs paul's obviously decided it's easier to just clamp down on everybody. its a shame cos you look at what rob's done at boca and that's probably the perfect blue print for how to run a feeder club and probably how paul envisages them being run.

Everyone will have their own idea on how to run their club but i think it would be a good idea if paul could maybe read this and try and see a little sense. a good way - imo - is to allow revenues for feeder clubs but either have them getting as i described above - 66% of a normal club in the same division if the club is run properly i.e where the asset value - squad, buildings and bank balance being higher or upto -10% of the previous season. feeder clubs with a decreasing asset value above the -10% threshold getting only 33% of a normal club. or paul could just make it that all feeder clubs revenues is league position based. if they are doing well then there's no reason why they shouldn't be able to get the same level of revenue as a normal club does. i said it before, but is it really fair that gaz finishes above me in the league in italy and gets nothing just because he's a feeder club.

So, the best thing paul can do, imo, is find a way where he is promoting and encouraging feeder clubs to do well with income levels rewarded for success, instead of just stopping everything and saying all feeder clubs are being run corruptly and not actually trying to solve the problem and instead creating a new one wherby it becomes pointless managing one. the trouble with possibly having a league position based system as Will suggested is that you penalise the clubs who might actually be managing their feeder properly by investing in buildings etc rather than the team, so an asset value based thing for feeder club revenue is probably the way to go. i mean, portsmouth are bottom of their league but their asset value is actually greater than it was 1 year ago, which isn't necessarily a measured failure, which it would be considered if you just based it on league position.
Back to top Go down
Tom
World Star - 99/99
World Star - 99/99


Posts : 2352
Reputation : 41
Join date : 2009-11-28
Age : 40

TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS Empty
PostSubject: Re: TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS   TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS Icon_minitimeFri 26 Aug - 1:57

or maybe make it simpler - if you made a profit in the current tax year then you get tv/sponsors revenue next season, if you made a loss you get nothing. either that or those in profit get 66% of what a normal club gets and those losing money get only 33% of what a normal club gets. "profit for the year" on the finance page shows your profit for the year. now thats possibly the best way to do it.
Back to top Go down
Paul Hemmings
Games Master
Games Master
Paul Hemmings

Posts : 31158
Reputation : 1832
Join date : 2009-12-02
Location : Cornwall

TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS Empty
PostSubject: Re: TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS   TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS Icon_minitimeFri 26 Aug - 8:27

Rich, im not saying feeders dont get any tvincome they will still receive the usual prizemoney and live game tvincome as they always have done. ( equates to about 50% depending on your success )


A few of my thoughts on feeder clubs which may be worth discussing...

originally feeder clubs were envisaged to be somewhere for you to send and nurture young players or a place where you could 'new' home country youngsters at a cheaper price than you could 'new' them for at your parent club. this doesnt seem to be happening much ?

it seems to me that some of you ( or is it all of you ? ) want feeder clubs to become fully competitive second clubs and not really feeder clubs at all, and if thats the case then we need to discuss it and come up with a new set of parameters for second clubs.
Back to top Go down
Tom@Charlton
World Star - 99/99
World Star - 99/99
Tom@Charlton

Posts : 4403
Reputation : 1586
Join date : 2009-11-29
Location : Nottingham

TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS Empty
PostSubject: Re: TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS   TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS Icon_minitimeFri 26 Aug - 9:39

I can see both sides of the argument here.

I think the thing with feeder clubs that a lot of managers want to use the clubs like Paul has suggested, with NEW ins from the relevant country and building up a good youth structure.

However, whilst doing this I personally still want my first team to be competitive.

So in a way, I think we are trying to do both.

If I used my feeder for purely younger players who got beat heavily every week, then I wouldn't enjoy opening my turn nearly as much.

I can't see Jamie@Torino itching to open his turn every week, although he does run that club the way Paul sees feeder clubs being run.

I personally would like a balance between the two if possible, a feeder that should be used for blooding youngsters in, but also their first team remaining competitive with the clubs around them.
Back to top Go down
Tom@Charlton
World Star - 99/99
World Star - 99/99
Tom@Charlton

Posts : 4403
Reputation : 1586
Join date : 2009-11-29
Location : Nottingham

TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS Empty
PostSubject: Re: TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS   TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS Icon_minitimeFri 26 Aug - 9:50

I don't want my feeder to be an equal to my main club, but I do want them to remain competitive in their league.

Maybe this is unrealistic actually, as maybe we all have feeder clubs who are bigger than they should be.

Strictly speaking feeder clubs shouldn't be in the Copa Lib final, winning the brazilian league, in La Liga, in Eredivisie, in Serie A. We can't expect these clubs to be competitive in these leagues realistically without running them as a seperate entity like Paul has suggested we are doing.

Feeder clubs should be clubs like Genk in Belgium or some Romanian club that no-one has heard of, not clubs like Santos, Betis or Feyenoord. If that was the case then they would be competitive with purely kids in the squad.


The trouble is, nobody would enjoy managing these teams, and so we plump for bigger clubs in bigger leagues and then it starts to become unrealistic.

I do wonder, if the problem has been highlighted more because we have lost a lot of lower leagues in the game. i know why Paul did it, and i can imagine it would save a lot of work.

If our feeder clubs were still in the lower leagues like Serie B/C or Segunda Liga, then it wouldn't be so much of an issue maybe, as Rich wouldn't be competing against clubs like Real or Barca?



Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS Empty
PostSubject: Re: TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS   TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS Icon_minitimeFri 26 Aug - 9:57

Tom, this is by far and away the most sensible thing you've ever said.

Paul, in response to the original plan for feeder clubs. Yes, newing in local talent is still very much part of any clubs plans, not just feeder clubs.

But like Tom says, I'd also like to be competitive. Do I see Betis as a 'Second Club'?, absolutely I do, I care about Betis results, and I care how the club is run.

In fact, this week, I checked my Betis result before I checked my Leicester result...

In addition, it's so hard to new players in England anyway...often those that are worth newing and would get into my feeder clubs side...more often than not are probably good enough for a squad place at Leicester.

Due to lack of funds on both sides, I'd rather spend money on the first team, that spend £250,000 on some 15 year old who may or may not be any good.

Glad to hear Paul that feeder clubs will still get prize money, and hopefully that's performance based.

One thing I must ask though. When you say 'Live TV Money', is that from appearances each week?. How much is that in the top flight in Spain? (you say it's upto 50%), I only ask cos the only 'Live TV money' I've ever seen has been at Cheivo and Leicester...which was £50k per game. Even if I was on TV every week this would equate to £1m over the season..

I like Stu's idea of rewarding well run clubs, and making TV money based on league position. Paul, is this something we can look at?

In real life, if a clubs results are shocking, they lose fans, they lose TV appearances, it's a results based industry.

I would find it a bitter pill to swallow if during this next season, I finish 3rd behind Barca & Real, and they get £25m TV money, and I get nothing!

I'm not asking for parity. I'm just asking for something.








Back to top Go down
Rob@Barcelona
World Star - 99/99
World Star - 99/99
Rob@Barcelona

Posts : 2888
Reputation : 1017
Join date : 2009-11-29
Age : 48
Location : London

TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS Empty
PostSubject: Re: TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS   TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS Icon_minitimeFri 26 Aug - 13:03

Good idea.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS Empty
PostSubject: Re: TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS   TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS Icon_minitimeFri 26 Aug - 15:12

Rich@Leicester wrote:
Will@Fulham wrote:
i do like pauls idea and agree with it.


however,

if there is a mutiny and come the end of it feeder clubs are given some sort of money i would feel a bit pieved if feyanoord get less than its spanish or french counterparts just cos i selected a different division.

my prefernce as iv stated b4 is a total performance related payment scheme, but failing that same for all if it has to be that


I thought you were in favour of realism Will? You were harping on at me about it being daft that Atletico or Betis or Sevilla be a feeder club to Leicester...and I think you just said "it's a bit daft"

Well, the Dutch league is the piss poor brother to the Premiership, to La Liga and to Seria A...but now you want it
to be the same?.

And performance related pay...is it any coincidence that you'll absolutely walk the Eredivisie?, or are you expecting Ajax to put up a fight?

Maybe I didn't emphasise how big an ' IF ' that was.

Iv said to u in conversation and to all on here that imo any monies should be on a performance basis regardless of league.

I do agree with toms last two posts and that maybe we've all got a bit lost in translation with regard to the role of feed clubs or what we would like from them

There are some good suggestions and ideas being batted about, particularly stu's reward for growth idea so all being well we can find a good solution that suits all needs
Back to top Go down
Tom
World Star - 99/99
World Star - 99/99


Posts : 2352
Reputation : 41
Join date : 2009-11-28
Age : 40

TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS Empty
PostSubject: Re: TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS   TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS Icon_minitimeFri 26 Aug - 16:10

tom is right in that we have the feeder clubs that we have because maybe we see them more as second clubs than feeder clubs. and want the bigger ones aswell, unless you're me and you just fancied playing a couple of knobheads in league one instead of a bunch of nobodys in a league on your own. i think the seeing them as second clubs comes down to the fact that we are of course paying a turn fee for these teams and we've all said it i think on here countless times " i pay to manage so-and-so so why should they have more money/whatever than me just because they're a parent club "etc etc. words to those effects. so, my belief is that we all see feeders as second clubs as we are paying for that privildige. im not saying make it free or anything btw, just stating a fact and what i believe goes into our make-up of our attitudes to these feeder clubs.

maybe tom has a point about leagues being reduced highlighting the problem further now that people notice the gap in revenue and realise that our feeder clubs * cough second clubs * ( and i probably mean all of us here by the way not any one individual ) become disadvantaged and feel disadvantaged because we are paying to manage them. i guess thats natural. rich has already mentioned:

Rich@Leicester wrote:

I would find it a bitter pill to swallow if during this next season, I finish 3rd behind Barca & Real, and they get £25m TV money, and I get nothing!

i know paul made the leagues smaller, and i was one of the ones who approved of it when he said about it, because it would get rid of the chaffe among the lower divisions - which there was a lot, especially in italy and some of it playing in the top flight. and getting rid of it meant paul could spread the best leftovers from those sides to the other unmanaged clubs and i think it has made some small difference to some of the unmanaged clubs, aswell as a sudden wealth of players available from former league clubs.

anyway, im droaning on now but maybe there's scope for their to be a Serie B and for their to be a Segunda Liga. not sure its worth having a second division outside those two european countries as there generally are'nt more than 3 or 4 decent teams in most other countries except germany, maybe france. tbh though, if Second leagues did come back in just certain setups like spain and italy then i think it needs to be harder for the 'feeder clubs' - and weaker unmanaged clubs - to elevate into the top division. what i'm saying is, maybe only the top team and bottom teams exchange places each season in such a setup ( outside england this is ). so, if a feeder team does promote to a top division then they have really earnt their cheddar. i just dont beleive you'd honestly ever have 24 good, competitive teams in italy or spain - not enough really for 3 teams to relegate and promote each season.

Of course i'm going to say this you might think cos Roma currently occupy a 'potential' relegation position but i'm just being totally honest when i say that if roma were in Serie B then i'd be bored out of my fucking brains and go another year without talking to anybody. it doesnt necessarily bother me that much to play their, but lets face it there's no human managers their so where is the competition? you might say its a fate that i'd deserve and i'd go along with that but the gulf between Serie A and B before was always massive.....i dont know what solution their could be to make sure the league had some strength. maybe a Serie B and a Segunda Liga could have just 6 teams in them ? All i know is im not paying £200 a year to twiddle my thumbs.


Last edited by Stuart@Roma on Fri 26 Aug - 16:30; edited 4 times in total
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS Empty
PostSubject: Re: TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS   TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS Icon_minitime

Back to top Go down
 
TV SPONSORSHIP AMOUNTS
Back to top 
Page 1 of 3Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Championship Football Play By Mail PBM :: General Game Discussion-
Jump to: