UKC

OPINION: Premium Events - How they affect us, and our connection with wild places

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.

Would you pay thousands to compete in the stage managed adventure-lite of an exclusive organised race? Perhaps runners and hillwalkers hate that a big monetary value can be placed on things which many see as against the ethos of our sports. But if you don't like it, don't sweat it, suggests Ross Brannigan; put something positive into the outdoors instead.

Read more

 ianstevens 07 Mar 2022
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

£10 entry and a satsuma? In my day we paid sixpence to enter and the winner was lucky to get a pat on the back. Bloody inflation. 

 Andy Hardy 07 Mar 2022
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

I'm not a fell runner, but what irks is the presumption that these events have exclusive access to the "course" (i.e. our shared wild spaces), in much the same way as filming companies have recently blocked access to Windgather or Ilkley.

Seriously, what would stop a fell running club running a parallel event at the same time over the same hills?

Or a bunch of individuals "gate crashing"?

 duchessofmalfi 07 Mar 2022
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

You've missed my main complaint of the wild being clagged up with lots of premium branded challenge tw*ts...

What they get for the £££, they take from the rest of us. 

If you want a tough challenge run laps of a inner city multistory carpark on a wet and windy November night - you can even have a tepee and yurt massage experience on the top floor but watch out for the sharps and pools of piss.

I'm sure an impressive and branded back drop for you to be photographed in front can be arranged of so you can "impress" the office with your triumph on Monday.

Post edited at 10:45
4
In reply to Andy Hardy:

Nothing whatsoever; the mountain is public.  But some people like those bigger, more expensive events.  Why should they not?  What they're paying for is the high quality support, not access to the hills.

I've done a Rat Race event (the one on the Cornish coast) and while it was fairly expensive I could see where the money was spent so it didn't feel a rip-off.  There was no attempt to block anyone else from using the area.  These aren't super-premium but they're certainly pricey.

Fundamentally I think "snobbery" is bad just as genuine exclusivity is - the hills are for all of us, rich and poor.  All I'd be pushing for is that these expensive events do spend a decent amount on donating to conservation projects and similar in the area - those paying £500 for an event simply won't notice an extra £50 towards that, say.

Post edited at 10:48
1
 Tony Buckley 07 Mar 2022
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

"What worries me most about a number of these events is the gentrification of outdoor spaces."

It's the commercialisation of them that bothers me, and the subsequent association in the minds of others - most definitely not the UKC/H community, I should add - that our wilder places and activities in them are accessed by paying a fee; freedom to roam, as long as you bring your credit card.

Events like sponsored three peaks challenges are a different expression of the same idea.  I don't like them either.

T.

In reply to Tony Buckley:

The issue I have with the National Three Peaks is that it's more of a driving challenge than a walking challenge (there is far more scope to gain time on the road by speeding than to gain it on the hills).  My view tends towards the idea that it should only be the walking time (i.e. time out of vehicle, before anyone goes and bivvies) that counts, with driving taken out entirely, with the "rule" simply being they need to be completed within 48 hours with staying in a hotel or similar counting as cheating.  That applies whether it's done by a group of mates or a company - indeed, in some ways, a company will be better because they'll hire a coach with multiple drivers for it and thus it'll be safer.

The Yorkshire Three Peaks is a much better challenge as it's purely physical.

Post edited at 10:58

In reply to duchessofmalfi:

If someone feels good about themselves because of having done it, why should I be upset about that?

It's like getting bothered when people refer to "climbing Snowdon" when they are in fact walking up the Llanberis.  It's a big thing for them even if it would be a little bimble for most on here.  Let them have their glory.

1
 Howard J 07 Mar 2022

These events are held on private land, presumably by arrangement with the landowner, and both CRoW in England and Wales and the Scottish Outdoor Access Code allow for access rights to be temporarily suspended, although proper procedures have to be followed. Admittedly, it might be difficult to physically prevent access, but gatecrashers would probably be trespassing.

Any organised event is by definition exclusive, it's just a question of where the boundaries lie.  What I think the author is objecting to is that these are being run by outsiders for outsiders, rather than having developed organically from within the fell-running community.  Someone has taken their community's game and monetised it for different purposes, ones which seem to ignore their own community's ethos.  The author complains that those who pay silly money to participate in these events are doing so to join an invented tribe, but perhaps what bothers him is that they don't want to join his own tribe and accept the ethos that goes with it.

What the organisers of these events seem to have done is found a way to package the activity in a more attractive way than the mainstream sport has done.  They've found a way to add value to it which the mainstream sport has failed (or perhaps chosen not) to do. As the author says, if a gap exists it will be filled.

6
 timjones 07 Mar 2022
In reply to Andy Hardy:

Is there any presumption that they have exclusive access to the course?

 Andy Hardy 07 Mar 2022
In reply to Howard J:

[...]  What I think the author is objecting to is that these are being run by outsiders for outsiders, rather than having developed organically from within the fell-running community.  Someone has taken their community's game and monetised it for different purposes, ones which seem to ignore their own community's ethos.  The author complains that those who pay silly money to participate in these events are doing so to join an invented tribe, but perhaps what bothers him is that they don't want to join his own tribe and accept the ethos that goes with it.

Partly (for me at least), it feels a bit similar to watching (vicariously) the massive queues on the Hilary step as punters are winched up to the summit of Everest for the likes on Instagram. I guess this is what football fans mean when deriding "plastic fans"

> What the organisers of these events seem to have done is found a way to package the activity in a more attractive way than the mainstream sport has done.  They've found a way to add value to it which the mainstream sport has failed (or perhaps chosen not) to do. As the author says, if a gap exists it will be filled.

First time I've heard of fell running as the mainstream sport. "Adding value" and "packaging" are not really what I think running around hills should be about.

 Andy Hardy 07 Mar 2022
In reply to timjones:

There's a point. Let's say there is a minted cross-fit fanatic who is also into obstacle races (tuff mudder, say). This mythical person lives in a big town and has never done any fell walking or similar. They have paid £00s to run around a marshalled course, I think they may well expect it to be exclusively for people who paid their entry fee.

2
In reply to Neil Williams:

> It's like getting bothered when people refer to "climbing Snowdon" when they are in fact walking up the Llanberis.  It's a big thing for them even if it would be a little bimble for most on here. 

I climbed Scafell and then walked up Scafell Pike afterwards on Saturday. My thighs, even today, tell me that it was no bimble!  

> Let them have their glory.

Can I have a bit too please? My thighs will appreciate it at least. 

In reply to Andy Hardy:

> There's a point. Let's say there is a minted cross-fit fanatic who is also into obstacle races (tuff mudder, say). This mythical person lives in a big town and has never done any fell walking or similar. They have paid £00s to run around a marshalled course, I think they may well expect it to be exclusively for people who paid their entry fee.

They can think that if they like but it doesn't give them any rights, and the marshalls of any such event know full well too.

The issue of filming is certainly one I have an issue with; they tend to like to use "heavies" to "convince" people to go out of "their area" (I'm also a "heavy" so am inclined to ignore them).  But I've seen no evidence that these races are doing this any more than some climbers hog routes by leaving top-ropes on them.

Obviously large events do cause some challenges in shared space, but I don't see a particular reason to have an objection to just the high-priced ones.  Parkrun causes disruption to other park users just like a premium race does.  Yes, Parkrun does a lot of good, and I think it's a great thing, but I don't think the "reverse snobbery" is helpful.

In the end the thing you're paying for with premium races like these is a fancy heated jurt for the night and a nice dinner as well as caviar at every checkpoint (OK, I might be exaggerating but you know what I mean).  I think people do "get" that.  If you do a Rat Race event, say, it's obvious what they're spending on.

Post edited at 12:38
 Howard J 07 Mar 2022
In reply to Andy Hardy:

>First time I've heard of fell running as the mainstream sport.

Perhaps I should have said "established sport".  My point is that these events are encouraging people to take part in an activity which they presumably hadn't previously considered. Maybe they hadn't heard of it, or perhaps they weren't attracted by what it had to offer.  Both are arguably show a failure to promote it properly.  These organisers are providing something which the established sport apparently does not, and which some apparently value and are prepared to pay for.  Almost by definition, these are probably things which established participants don't value and may even reject.  That doesn't mean that others are wrong to value them or that it is wrong for someone to provide them.

>"Adding value" and "packaging" are not really what I think running around hills should be about.

Actually, you do. It's just that your and the author's idea of how the activity should be "packaged" are different from that of the organisers and participants in these events.  You want fell races to be organised in a particular way, they want something different.

I'm not sure whether these premium events actually adversely affect other users of the hills any more than any other fell race might.  If my walk is interrupted by a horde of runners it makes no difference to me what entry fee they've paid or what bragging rights they may think they get from it.  The objections seem more to do with a feeling that those taking part are not doing so in a manner and with the moral attitude that the author considers to be the right ones.

Look, I agree that some of the marketing associated with these events is ludicrous.  I understand the annoyance when someone comes along and disregards what you regard as the proper way of doing things.  I understand the disbelief that someone might consider that good value for money when they could get the same, perhaps better, experience for less by doing it your way.  But how other people spend their money or their time is nobody's business but theirs.

1
 timjones 07 Mar 2022
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> There's a point. Let's say there is a minted cross-fit fanatic who is also into obstacle races (tuff mudder, say). This mythical person lives in a big town and has never done any fell walking or similar. They have paid £00s to run around a marshalled course, I think they may well expect it to be exclusively for people who paid their entry fee.

Is this mythical person  a figment of your imagination?

 StuPoo2 07 Mar 2022
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Good article UKC/Ross ... 

If I'm honest ... this particular issue hasn't irked me that much.  If someone wants to pay to access our wild spaces in a certain manner - let them pay for it .. its jobs for the rest of us if take their money and give them an experience they value.  As others have said ... maybe they'll leave their millions to a national park to preserve these spaces for future generations.  In the mean time ... I will simply go about my business at a fraction of the price.

I can't help but feel that there is an air of "these are my hills, you're inauthentically using them and you shouldn't be allowed to access them as  a result" about this topic ... I don't like that.

I will hold my hand up an admit that I occasionally disapprove of/frown upon how others use our wild spaces ... but it's much bigger jump though to actually say you want to deny them access to our wild spaces simply because it annoys you how they choose to exercise their right - the exact same right I have - to access that space. 

(My personal grump .. its the big groups.  Really annoys me when I see a large group, 20+(?), half way up a Munro.  Just walk in 3-4's .. its not hard!!!! #grrrrrr)

It's a line. I think as long as one persons use of our wild spaces doesn't unnecessarily impinge upon another's use .. then we're fine.  Lighting a fire = we should deny you access.  Road side camping and leaving a mess = I would probably fine you if I had the option.  Running in a massive group & paying for that privilege = probably not crossing the line .. for me anyway.

1
 deepsoup 07 Mar 2022
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

"Community is a sense of belonging, and a feeling of trust, respect and collective consciousness among others. You can't buy into that. Often, what I see with these premium events, is an opportunity for people without a community to buy into one, commodifying something many of us are freely a part of."

Nah. 

The author is hanging way too much on the peg of participating in a 'local' fell race here.  Of course you can "buy into that" - you turn up in your running kit, pay your fiver or whatever, pin on your number and away you go.  Building your whole 'identity' around it is completely optional.

I would hesitate to call myself a fell runner, I have never and probably would never join a fell running club and don't look much like any kind of an athlete, but I have wheezed along and finished somewhere towards the back of the pack of a few Peak District races.  So I can say from first hand experience that around here at least that sense of camaraderie and 'belonging' on the day is available to all comers, whether they're members of a club or not and whether they're contenders to win the thing or merely finishing before everyone else has gone home is challenge enough. 

If a 'commercial' operator is providing something akin to the experience of taking part in a non-commercial fell race at many times the price, perhaps they are exploiting the fact that most of their punters don't know just how friendly and accessible 'community' fell races generally are.  What's weird is that the author doesn't seem to know it either. 

 Nic Barber 07 Mar 2022
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

One main issue big commercial ventures bring is access rights.

There was the case last year of a classic Lakeland fell race having to drastically alter its course at the last minute when access was revoked.

However, a big charity fundraising walk and the Helvellyn Tri - both run by commercial ventures (though the former for charity purposes) - had used the same land in a similar time period.

Fell races are now seeing more requests for payment for use of land above the previous admin fees to the likes of the forestry commission/united utilities. Access permission for races is becoming trickier to get (and for ecological purposes I have to admit this isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it is a shame some classic have disappeared/changed way beyond their original), but if you're a professional commercial venture putting money into your own pockets (maybe a local donation here and there), it's easier to absorb inflating fees with your wider marketing and targeted USP, than it is if you're a local club with volunteers putting on a race to raise funds for the local village hall/MRT etc.

In reply to Andy Hardy:

> I'm not a fell runner, but what irks is the presumption that these events have exclusive access to the "course" (i.e. our shared wild spaces), in much the same way as filming companies have recently blocked access to Windgather or Ilkley.

> Seriously, what would stop a fell running club running a parallel event at the same time over the same hills?

> Or a bunch of individuals "gate crashing"?

I'm slightly uneasy with this, although I largely agree with you.

There have been a couple of issues where people have turned up to fell races and just run the course without entering, (which in this case is usually a couple of quid).

It's additional hassle for the volunteer marshals trying to keep count of runners at checkpoints, they're possibly not carrying mandatory kit or have no nav skills, and to be frank they're just taking the piss out of people who volunteer to organise and run fell races.

Now stopping access to an area of the countryside for an event is a different matter in that case I'd have no problem 'trespassing' on the route, but I wouldn't join in.

 deepsoup 07 Mar 2022
In reply to Ridge:

> Now stopping access to an area of the countryside for an event is a different matter..

Indeed that would be a concern, but I'm not at all convinced that "the presumption that these events have exclusive access to the "course" (i.e. our shared wild spaces)" that Andy mentions is something that actually exists.

There may be a few exceptions out there and god knows what was going on with that bizarre megabucks Kings of Bling ultra thingy, but I'm pretty sure the organisers of the vast majority of 'commercial' events make it abundantly clear to participants that access land and rights of way forming parts of the 'course' are not closed to the public.

In reply to Ridge:

> I'm slightly uneasy with this, although I largely agree with you.

> There have been a couple of issues where people have turned up to fell races and just run the course without entering, (which in this case is usually a couple of quid).

> It's additional hassle for the volunteer marshals trying to keep count of runners at checkpoints, they're possibly not carrying mandatory kit or have no nav skills, and to be frank they're just taking the piss out of people who volunteer to organise and run fell races.

> Now stopping access to an area of the countryside for an event is a different matter in that case I'd have no problem 'trespassing' on the route, but I wouldn't join in.

I'd agree that joining in is probably not the thing to do any more than it'd be right to park up, go and find a group of hillwalkers and tell them that you're joining them for the day, but if you rocked up for a run where the route genuinely happened to partly (or even fully) coincide then that's fine.

I recently walked up Fairfield when one of the Nav4 races was going on - I had no idea it was, I turned up, they turned up and we shared the path just fine.

Post edited at 16:03
 Andy Hardy 07 Mar 2022
In reply to timjones:

> Is this mythical person  a figment of your imagination?

Yes, but it's based on people I know (apart from the minted bit).

1
 HeMa 07 Mar 2022
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

as others, I’n torn on this issue. the nature should be Accessable to the public. And actually it is. The thing that changes is the event, it creates more traffic causing erosion or Possibly problems. So a pricetag is Ok for events, provided some of the money flows back to repair the ”damage@ they cause. 
 

unfortunately, I’m not sure If this really happens or not. 
 

but as said, to take part in an event you often end up paying something. That is ’cause you actually get all the facilities and services… not just Access to the path. 
 

fancy doing a mountain marathon, but not pay dime. Wait a week After the event and do it for free. Want to get some service on the way, a certificate and shirt. Better pay up.

 Nic Barber 07 Mar 2022
In reply to Ridge:

Re. unning alongside a race:

As you say this is a major safety risk. Miscounting runners, thinking everyone's off the hill safe when someone is actually still out there, is the stuff of nightmares for race organisers. Deaths have occurred.

If you run alongside a race the FRA will throw the book at you and a big ban from FRA-registered races will come your way.

(Nic Barber, FRA committee member)

6
 Howard J 07 Mar 2022
In reply to HeMa:

>  The thing that changes is the event, it creates more traffic causing erosion or Possibly problems.

I suspect that a £15k a head event is likely to attract far few entries than the sort of event the author enthuses about, and the environmental impact will be far lower.  It will also have a higher budget for mitigation works, and its clients might actually expect that, if only to keep their Range Rovers from getting muddy.

 lithos 07 Mar 2022
In reply to Nic Barber:

> Re. running alongside a race:

> If you run alongside a race the FRA will throw the book at you and a big ban from FRA-registered races will come your way.

only if you are in the FRA otherwise that book is gonner miss its target surely ?

1
 timjones 07 Mar 2022
In reply to Nic Barber:

There are always going to be incidents where runners on their own independent routes pass through race checkpoints.

If it causes so many problems it may be better to be more robust about entrants that don't clearly display their race number.

1
 Qwertilot 07 Mar 2022
In reply to timjones:

Less so with fell races of course, but a bunch of these events do like to use really popular areas.

Like the thing we ran into one year walking round Kinder Scout/the great ridge. Obviously they couldn't hope to shut that off and mostly it provided good sport chasing competitors on the uphills rather than being a problem. 

Did feel very slightly intrusive, and I do find all the arrows a little bit annoying/often rather baffling when they're put where no one would think to take a wrong turning. Shrug.

 mgce25c 07 Mar 2022
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

I am also torn, I realise that I am looking from my perspective but some of the things that I value are countered by these premium events. 
 

I greatly value open access to our mountains and that anyone could go for an adventure and it won’t cost them much more than their fuel. When paying a substantial amount to enter an event, it becomes normal for that person to expect to pay for access. They may also learn to expect exclusivity if the area they are using is closed to others for the event. 
 

I also value resilience on oneself and leaving no impact. When people pay a large amount for others to look after them, they expect an all star service and become less responsible themselves. As a vast generalisation, the amount of rubbish I have seen after races is often inversely proportional to the entry fee…

1
 ablackett 07 Mar 2022
In reply to mgce25c:

> I also value resilience on oneself and leaving no impact. When people pay a large amount for others to look after them, they expect an all star service and become less responsible themselves. As a vast generalisation, the amount of rubbish I have seen after races is often inversely proportional to the entry fee…

Do you mean ‘proportional to’ ie. The amount of rubbish doubles as the entry fee doubles.

 Dave Ferguson 07 Mar 2022
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

what annoys me is having to clear up after these "events", when its over the competitors and organisers just piss off and leave their rubbish for the locals to clear up. I cleared up at least 12 yellow and black plastic arrows cable tied to fences and gates on a local public right of way, these were up 3 months after they had been left by the event organisers.

And they wonder why they don't get local support?

 Nic Barber 08 Mar 2022
In reply to lithos:

There is only a certain amount that can be done, but circulating banned runners to all FRA race organisers so they can't run an FRA event mean's they are no longer under their jurisdiction.

If they chose to enter another commercial event then so be it!

People will always cross an event's path - this is only for egregious 'running without a number' breaches.

 wercat 08 Mar 2022
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> I'm not a fell runner, but what irks is the presumption that these events have exclusive access to the "course" (i.e. our shared wild spaces), in much the same way as filming companies have recently blocked access to Windgather or Ilkley.

> Seriously, what would stop a fell running club running a parallel event at the same time over the same hills?

> Or a bunch of individuals "gate crashing"?

or a wall of gritty ramblers from Manchester Way

 fred99 08 Mar 2022
In reply to Nic Barber:

> Fell races are now seeing more requests for payment for use of land above the previous admin fees to the likes of the forestry commission/united utilities. Access permission for races is becoming trickier to get (and for ecological purposes I have to admit this isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it is a shame some classic have disappeared/changed way beyond their original), but if you're a professional commercial venture putting money into your own pockets (maybe a local donation here and there), it's easier to absorb inflating fees with your wider marketing and targeted USP, than it is if you're a local club with volunteers putting on a race to raise funds for the local village hall/MRT etc.

Similar with road races.

Athletics/Running clubs now have great difficulty organising races for the benefit of RUNNERS (with profits generally going towards the youth of the sport), but commercial concerns who charge the earth for entries from joggers/walkers/charity runners in silly suits can afford the cost of road closures. (This has in turn led to a deterioration in the quality of club runners due to the lack of true racing opportunities).

The ridiculous thing is that the (old-fashioned) races never needed road closures, due to the fact that the combination of lower numbers and runners greater pace meant they weren't really necessary. Whereas when you have the majority of "runners" walking after a time, then road closures do become a necessity.

 gethin_allen 08 Mar 2022
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Slightly off topic but relate. I did a few cycling sportives and found in most events theres a certain group that get super serious about it. Usually turning up in posh castelli or pro team kit, pretending they are on the pro tour (despite them being strictly not a race) throwing their gel wrappers and punctured tubes in hedges etc.

They seem to think that because they are paying for it they are free to be tw*ts and do whatever they like. It's also a bit frowned upon I've found if you just happen to be out riding part of the course that day without paying.

The only sportive I've done that really felt different was the Grindleford goat which was great fun and the cash goes to the village.

Post edited at 19:36
 neuromancer 08 Mar 2022
In reply to gethin_allen:

You should try a Yorkshire 'Cafe Bash'. You won't have time to get a gel out of your pocket, let alone throw it away following ingest. 

 gethin_allen 08 Mar 2022
In reply to neuromancer:

> You should try a Yorkshire 'Cafe Bash'. You won't have time to get a gel out of your pocket, let alone throw it away following ingest. 

I'm too unfit now to be riding in groups and since becoming coeliac I can't even enjoy eating cake at most cafés.

In reply to Nic Barber:

You seem to be assuming that anyone who is running wants to take part in races. I'm sure there are plenty of people who run because they enjoy running, not racing.

You also seem to be assuming that these people can be identified. I doubt if they run around with their names prominently displayed. Makes a note to wear a 'Nic Barber' name badge next time I'm out running...

Post edited at 23:08
In reply to captain paranoia:

> You seem to be assuming that anyone who is running wants to take part in races. I'm sure there are plenty of people who run because they enjoy running, not racing.

Nic is talking about people who deliberately turn up at the start of an organised fell race and join in the event, no registration, no number, no mandatory kit and cause disruption at checkpoints where volunteers are checking to ensure safety of competitors. It's completely different from walkers or other runners just happening to be on part of the route. It's rare, but it does happen.

1
 Anna Fleming 11 Mar 2022
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Great article Ross. Excellent nuanced exploration of the economics and politics of outdoor events, and the ways that commercialisation undermines community.

Reminds me of the Indigenous speakers I heard at COP26, who was talking about windfarms being placed on their territory, with the promise of money to compensate them. She explained that they did not want the money because when money enters the community, community is undermined and starts to disentegrate. Food for thought.

In reply to Ridge:

> Nic is talking about people who deliberately turn up at the start of an organised fell race and join in the event, no registration, no number, no mandatory kit and cause disruption at checkpoints where volunteers are checking to ensure safety of competitors. It's completely different from walkers or other runners just happening to be on part of the route. It's rare, but it does happen.

I would 100% agree that that is not on.  There is a clear difference between the route happening to coincide in part (very rarely would it in full) and you actually joining in without paying.

Post edited at 09:44
 derryclimbs 11 Mar 2022
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

[Moreover, as someone with a passion for wild places and nature, I get concerned over the language around 'warriors' and 'conquering' a challenge in the Scottish 'wilderness'.]

^^ This is one of my main concerns about these events. Long have I had to repute Mr B Grylls 'Man vs Wild' attitude to my friends & colleagues; challenging them that the wilderness is not something that you need to survive, but you can actually enjoy being out there (perhaps not drinking your own piss though). This attitude further enhances peoples inclination to shy away from nature-based experiences imho.

The fact they market it as 'untouched nature' also irks me. What, like no-one has been there before?

 Toccata 11 Mar 2022
In reply to derryclimbs:

The majority of the route looks exceedingly dull and planned for the convenience of the organisers and no doubt significant entourage requiring accommodation, feeding etc. For £15k I would want to be running the 'wilderness' in the Islands, Torridon, Sutherland etc not plodding along a dreary road for 2.5 of the 4 days. I suspect the hassle of getting permision and the equipment into the truely wild places would hit the bottom line too much.


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...