Visit Victoria to Sponsor Netball Australia

Trying2SaveABuck on 31/10/2022 - 14:27
Last edited 31/10/2022 - 17:28

So Dan Andrews ALP has announced that 'Visit Victoria' will be sponsoring Netball Australia after the Hancock controversy.

How do people feel about the Victorian tax payers footing the bill, at a time when Victoria is the most in debt state per-capita

also keeping in mind Victorian Health is in the worst shape it i has been in over 5 decades with waiting lists blowing up and ambulance wait times resulting in people needing urgent care dying…..

with that said there is nothing wrong with supporting Australian sport and the Diamonds do need the money….they will be playing a few more games in Victoria which might give 'some' boost however i am unsure how many people 'attend' Diamonds matches im assuming it would be 10-20k which will bring some money back into the state.

https://www.news.com.au/sport/netball/netball-australia-anno…

this is a follow up from
https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/732268

my 2 cents - i personally do not support Victorian tax payers footing the bill, spin it anyway you like this is a waste of tax payer money - i probably would be as fussed if the deal was a more 'reasonable' 5-7m but 15m is simply too expensive and the money could be better used else where.

i would support this if this was going into 'grass roots' netball or grass roots sport mens and/or womens but not a professional outfit that 'had' a sponsor from the private sector for me it is just insulting

Poll Options

  • 149
    I support tax payers bailing out Netball Australia
  • 598
    I do not support Tax payers bailing out Netball Australia
  • 16
    Im unsure
Sports & Outdoors

Related Stores

Visit Melbourne, Victoria
Visit Melbourne, Victoria

Comments

      • brendanm on 31/10/2022 - 18:00
        +20

        Oh my, you are relentless aren't you.

          • brendanm on 31/10/2022 - 18:01
            +12

            @[Deactivated]: Nope, just posting in this thread, same as you. Though you seem to be obsessed with turning everything into sexism.

            • [Deactivated] on 31/10/2022 - 18:03
              -8

              @brendanm: Nah, just calling it out.

              • brendanm on 31/10/2022 - 18:04
                +14

                @[Deactivated]: You do realise that there are male nurses, surely? You also aren't calling it out, you're imagining it everywhere.

                • [Deactivated] on 31/10/2022 - 18:05
                  -7

                  @brendanm: whoosh

                • cookie2 on 31/10/2022 - 21:06
                  +16

                  @brendanm: Some people can't help themselves. Victim mentality is a disease.

                  • [Deactivated] on 31/10/2022 - 22:43
                    -3

                    @cookie2: Look at you go wild with your label maker.

      • cookie2 on 31/10/2022 - 21:09
        +11

        You seem quite sexist. Do you not think fire fighters and paramedics deserve more money? Do you think that one group that's female dominated, deserve more than another? Do you talk like this when you have a face to face conversation with others or does that rarely happen?

        • [Deactivated] on 31/10/2022 - 22:36
          -2

          It's funny that you responded to this comment but not OP.

          You should ask OP about his views on nurses.

          Also, you seem quite gifted on the labelling front yet take umbrage on behalf of the OP - very revealing.

          • cookie2 on 31/10/2022 - 23:09
            +5

            @[Deactivated]: Yes, you're enlightening and so so right in everything you believe and feel.

            • [Deactivated] on 31/10/2022 - 23:11

              @cookie2: Thanks for the downvotes

    • Lord Fart Bucket on 31/10/2022 - 15:55

      You may actually be supporting ambulances. Sure, there will be an injury here or there, but a good focus on community sport is great.
      Add to that the benefit to the economy, meaning more tax dollars…

    • lysp on 01/11/2022 - 20:49
      +5

      That's not how the budget works.

      Hospital spending comes out the health budget.

      Other spending will come out of the emergency services budget.

      This spending is coming out of the tourism budget.

      You're giving a false equivalence.

    • arcticmonkey on 01/11/2022 - 22:47
      +2

      Dan and Labor are doing that too. Australia's first heart hospital to open shortly

      https://www.monash.edu/research/vic-heart-institute/news/202…

  • DashCam AKA Rolts on 31/10/2022 - 16:05
    +11

    How do people feel about the Victorian tax payers footing the bill, at a time when Victoria is the most in debt state per-capita

    Sounds like Victoria could do with more tourists and their $$$.

    • Nebargains on 01/11/2022 - 11:09
      +1

      And that's going to come from sinking millions of dollars of tax payer money into a sport that no one watches?

      I like netball, a number of my family members play or have played, but let's not kid ourselves, it's financially stuffed because there is no money in it, who are they advertising Victoria to if no one is watching?

  • GG57 on 31/10/2022 - 16:08
    +20

    To be clear, isn't the $15m. sponsorship over the next 4.5 years?
    In terms of government 'spending', that doesn't equate to much.

    • CrowReally on 31/10/2022 - 16:17
      +23

      No issue is too trivial or small to fuel the perpetual culture/politics wars.

    • lancesta on 03/11/2022 - 23:35
      +1

      Oh lol. That's almost laughable. Honestly not even that much. It's almost worth the advertising it's gotten already.

  • big1964 on 31/10/2022 - 16:41
    +4

    I am sure newscorp sky news and 3aw will have a field day here, surprisingly with all that’s gone on here in vic in the last few years he is still popular according to some polls, and “maybe” he will win the next election coming up next month, the trouble is the opposition isn’t much chop!!

    • Mechz on 31/10/2022 - 23:14
      +7

      Opposition? What opposition? Pretty sure they're all home in bed with long covid.

  • TheGhost on 31/10/2022 - 16:49
    -2

    This would have never happened if miss Hanson(or the like was incharge). She is the true politician with people’s interests in heart. Not some charity bull crappe.

  • TheAviator on 31/10/2022 - 17:30
    +16

    Under the deal the Diamonds will wear Visit Victoria branding for all games, players and coaches will front tourism campaigns, the 2023 Super Netball grand final will be played in Victoria and multiple test matches and training camps will be held between 2023 and 2026. And on top of this economic benefit, they have also secured great ambassadors for being healthy and active as well as encouraging women and girls in sport.

    $15m isn't expensive. $15m here is an absolute bargain.

    • jjjaar on 31/10/2022 - 17:54
      +16

      Would love to see the multiverse where a government agency sponsored a men’s sports team…

      Oh wait. Hawthorn football club and Tasmania.

      Where’s that outage?

      • Trying2SaveABuck on 31/10/2022 - 18:28
        -3

        Hawthorn football club and Tasmania.

        in fairness this is 'equally' is shit and as wasteful but i dare say the main reason is so the AFL gives Tasmanian a AFL team of their own. Not saying it is acceptable i'll keep the same energy professional outfits should be treaded like private enterprise - im all for grass roots up to semi-pro level to have support as the are usually 'community' run and funded but at the top level were 'sport is a business' i cannot support that in any code bar the 'regular funding from the commonwealth' - ie funding to compete like we have in the World cups of Soccer/Cricket/Rugby is a bit different.

        it wasnt until this 'thread' that i even knew Hawthorn F.C was sponsored by Tas but i find that just as incompetent and stupid probably more so because it isn't like Hawthorne is 'struggling for cash' - it might be 'somewhat' understandable if Tasmania had its own team and the government was trying to help get it off the ground in its early years but to sponsor a long time established and i dare sa RICH Victorian AFL team is a bit of a FN joke - no disrespect to Hawthorne the club or the supporters but it just 'feels wrong'

        • arcticmonkey on 01/11/2022 - 22:50
          +6

          You realise Vic Tourism have a marketing budget? Money already pre-allocated and set aside for promotions and the like. Funds are not being stripped from health services or public utilities. All State Governments advertise by way of tourism promotion. Its investing in youth health.

      • AustriaBargain on 31/10/2022 - 21:12
        +1

        I'd love to see the multiverse where a professional men's sport can be wholly sponsored for just 15 million. $15 million won't even buy you a single km of three lane highway, at a cost of $5.4 million per lane km (bitre.gov.au).

      • jhaley3180 on 01/11/2022 - 09:27

        I believe the Victorian Government has also sponsored the Melbourne Renegades in the past.

  • jjjaar on 31/10/2022 - 17:53
    +5

    Government tourism agencies sponsor a lot of wacky things, but the one that always gets me is tv shows.

    Tourism NT sponsored the 2021 Australian Amazing Race. Tourism Australia sponsors the Fishing Australia tv show and they and several state tourism agencies also sponsored Oprah Winfrey coming to Aus back in like 2010 for like four episodes of tv. Of all the rich people in the world, they gave Oprah money to come here…

    • cookie2 on 31/10/2022 - 21:10

      Wow. I didn't know any of that. Now I'm just further depressed with our government.

    • saltysalt on 03/11/2022 - 11:44
      +1

      Honestly I feel like some of those are smart moves. Oprah promoting Aus has an insane effect on tourism. Shows like MasterChef too have massive international reach and effects on where people travel and spend $$.

  • Drakesy on 31/10/2022 - 18:50
    +6

    This is a sh1tstorm waiting to happen.

    Government tourism bodies should not be sponsoring private organisations.
    Daniel kind of needs to step in and call out visit Victoria on this one, not a good look.

    Whoever signed off on this decision will definitely need to go. Doesn't pass the public fund spending pub test. Chances are the negotiations were rushed anyway and would've ended up with a pretty poor value for money. But yeah, surely the players will still find something wrong with the deal.

    And as ironic as i want to be in saying this, for the first time in a while HOW COULD DAN ANDREWS DO THIS!?

    • p1 ama on 31/10/2022 - 21:14
      +14

      HOW COULD DAN ANDREWS DO THIS!?

      Except the decision has nothing to do with Dan Andrews.

      Visit Victoria is a statutory authority, not a government department. The minister has portfolio responsibility over Visit Victoria, but it was created to act as an independent body which does what it thinks would do best to bring in tourism to Victoria.

      • Drakesy on 01/11/2022 - 08:55
        +2

        But he would be able to bring his minister in line and direct them that this isnt the correct use of public funds

        • ThithLord on 01/11/2022 - 11:21
          +7

          The minister has portfolio responsibility over Visit Victoria, but it was created to act as an independent body

          You want the Premier to step in where has no authority, to clip the relevant Minister over the head … like a dictator?

          • BobLim on 01/11/2022 - 11:35
            +3

            @ThithLord: He had no problems fronting up to the media every day with no authority when the state of emergency was in effect - nothing to do with him, all on the CHO and health minister

            • ThithLord on 01/11/2022 - 11:38

              @BobLim: Bahaha righto let's move the goalposts again, eh

              • BobLim on 01/11/2022 - 11:56
                +4

                @ThithLord: Don't see how - it's a prime example of where Mr Andrews is happy to step in whenever he decides he wants to, despite having no legal authority over the situation or expertise in the field.

                • ThithLord on 01/11/2022 - 12:01
                  +6

                  @BobLim: Let me get this right, so we're on the same page:

                  Mr Andrews should have stepped in in this case to interfere with an independent body who are capitalising on the situation to great affect, ensuring their 'bang-for-buck' dollars-wise is getting the best mileage possible (which is a given, seeing how much publicity is being generated here) - something that is absolutely and positively in their remit to do, and is highly encouraged and is a KPI for Visit Victoria… so you wish Mr Andrews stepped in and directly meddled in this process because …. well you haven't even told us why. Just because it hurts your feelings.

                  Man, conservatives sure are snowflakes.

                  • BobLim on 01/11/2022 - 12:11
                    +4

                    @ThithLord: I want him (and everyone) to be consistent - if it's outside your authority then you shouldn't be involved.

                    I agree with your implication that VV is and should therefore operate independently, but the Premier has made it clear from his actions that such a distinction is no barrier to stepping in, therefore your argument is poor based on the evidence available. He was more than happy to "clip the relevant Minister over the head … like a dictator" when it suited him, so why not now?

                    As an aside, being a wholly office-based executive, I see no reason why he wasn't working from home as required for the whole of each lockdown like everyone else in a similar role.

                    • ThithLord on 01/11/2022 - 12:16
                      +1

                      @BobLim:

                      I want him (and everyone) to be consistent - if it's outside your authority then you shouldn't be involved.

                      Another goalpost shift. You're on fire.

                      • BobLim on 01/11/2022 - 12:27

                        @ThithLord: Ah yes - consistency, the eternal ally of goalpost-shifting

                  • arcticmonkey on 01/11/2022 - 22:53
                    +3

                    @ThithLord: Snowflakes is putting it nicely

                    It would be great if conservatives did not have access to the same hospitals as us as they were clearly breaking Covid guidelines yet had to be saved by the health workers (the same ones they are up in arms about now)

        • p1 ama on 01/11/2022 - 14:14
          +3

          What you're proposing is political hackery.

          In other words, you are saying that the Premier should direct his minister to interfere in the decisions of an independent statutory body?

          The entire reason why we have independent statutory bodies (e.g. Visit Victoria) is that they are meant to be making objective decisions and are not "controlled" by the government of the day.

  • franco cozzo on 31/10/2022 - 19:43
    +2

    makes perfect sense coming from the most debt ridden state & government in australia!

    • jhaley3180 on 01/11/2022 - 09:31
      +9

      You know that money borrowed to invest in infrastructure and cover reconstruction (aka Victorian 'debt') isn't a bad thing right? The debt isn't funding operating expenditure, it's building and growing the state…. If you thimk that's bad debt, never ever borrow to buy or build a house.

      • franco cozzo on 01/11/2022 - 11:11
        +3

        $149 billion and counting…..
        why stop now? just keep printing more money…what could possibly go wrong???

        • ThithLord on 01/11/2022 - 11:21
          +3

          lmao. States can't print money, wiseguy. Put the Age down.

      • BobLim on 01/11/2022 - 11:44
        +2

        Only if it's invested in effective projects. For any of the big "megaprojects", i.e.

        • Suburban Rail Loop
        • North East Link
        • West Gate Tunnel

        has anyone ever seen:

        • a problem statement / broad aim and KPIs for success
        • cost-benefit analysis methodology
        • an options analysis
        • detailed costing and ROI for those options
        • public consultation to inform how to formulate the above?
        • ThithLord on 01/11/2022 - 12:02
          +3

          has anyone ever seen:

          a problem statement / broad aim and KPIs for success
          cost-benefit analysis methodology
          an options analysis
          detailed costing and ROI for those options
          public consultation to inform how to formulate the above?

          Are you seriously suggesting these don't exist, purely because no one has located them and plopped them in front of you?

          • BobLim on 01/11/2022 - 12:23
            -1

            @ThithLord: Not necessarily, but I doubt they've been conducted to the level of rigour and independence we have a right to expect, with each of the examples I've given being seemingly being either market-led or dreamed up by the party independent of any formal planning process.

            Why do you apparently think it's best for all decisions to be made behind closed doors, then only announce to the public once everything has been locked in?

            If it's so easy, take an example of the SRL by answering me a few simple questions:

            • what is the aim of the project
            • what other options were considered
            • how was the route and the station locations chosen
            • p1 ama on 01/11/2022 - 14:17
              +4

              @BobLim: Wowzers, how can you say something so uninformed…

              If it's so easy, take an example of the SRL by answering me a few simple questions:

              There is literally a 400+ page investment case for the SRL:

              https://bigbuild.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/5782…

              Have you taken the time to read it?

              • BobLim on 01/11/2022 - 15:13
                -3

                @p1 ama: Not entirely, have you? Is there any point given that no one is willing to accept or genuinely consider feedback? This document was released long after the project was announced, committed, and commenced. Admittedly there is more detail provided about the route and precincts than I thought in that link. I would describe it as "buried" though.

                I'm not sure you have a genuine interest, but just in case, I'll be more specific about the gaps in that document and others I've seen:

                • what alternative population contexts were considered (it's not a given that growth will continue)
                • what alternatives to the rail system option were considered
                • how was demand management of the road system and other demand-based incentives considered
                • if SRL is used to shift modes from road to rail, why is significant major road investment continuing to occur?
                • who decided that bored tunnels were the preferred option and how (this is simply assumed in the business case)?
                • who set the aims of the project and how (short journey times are prioritised over connectivity, otherwise there would be more stations which seems to more closely align with the stated benefits of the project to improve mode share and connectivity)?
                • what is the opportunity cost of the project compared to alternatives (e.g. Metro Tunnel 2, Rowville rail, tram network extensions, bus improvements)?
                • why was the project not added to an existing list of potential projects for evaluation and comparison, rather than commencing immediately?
                • what happens if SRL East fails to deliver its expected outcomes -will the entire project stop there or SRL North continue regardless?
                • who can I go to if I want an answer to these sorts of questions? It's a significant amount of taxpayers' money and we deserve to understand why it's being spent how it is, along with committing to fundamentally reshaping communities within 1-2 terms without consulting them
            • jackspratt on 04/11/2022 - 12:45

              @BobLim: Have you considered an FOI request?

              Probably get more answers than questions to random strangers on a social media site.

        • BeamMeUp on 02/11/2022 - 07:53
          +2

          “North East Link”…. Try living in the Eastern Suburbs and wanting to drive to the West, or get to the Airport or the Hume Hwy.

          • t-money on 03/11/2022 - 12:06

            @BeamMeUp: the north east link will link the m3 to the m80 which goes straight to… the hume and aiport!!

            • BobLim on 03/11/2022 - 20:52

              @t-money: And massively boost capacity on much of the M3 for reasons which aren't clear - I guess we must be just crying out for more induced demand on the freeway network

              • t-money on 03/11/2022 - 22:24

                @BobLim: Seems like a different complaint to your first… maybe you just like to whinge

                • BobLim on 04/11/2022 - 01:46

                  @t-money: Different project, different set of ridiculously expensive issues, same common denominator. Glad I'm underwriting the whole lot hey.

                  If you're replacing a surface-level arterial route with a freeway-standard one, fine if that's paid for largely by tolling the users of said new road. How does the massive and equally costly expansion of other roads factor into the project? Someone is intent on over-scoping and overspending when the state is broke.

                  • t-money on 04/11/2022 - 09:43

                    @BobLim: i think you and i have different definitions of broke… how is that state broke? has victoria run out of income? is it not servicing its debt? is it not providing expected services?

  • OzzyOzbourne on 31/10/2022 - 20:15
    -2

    Don't forget Dan Andrews also fully supported the removal of Andrew Thornburn as Essendon manager due to the devout Christian beliefs of a priest at a church he had connections with.
    Now I'm forced to sponsor the netball team.
    I think the Victorian government has historically done significantly more damage to the aboriginal community over the past few hundred years than the statement from Gina's father did 40 years ago, yet Netball Australia doesn't seem to have a problem with that.
    This guy has to go.

    • GourmetFoodie on 01/11/2022 - 20:37
      -1

      I can’t understand why people are begging your reasonable comment?!

  • [Deactivated] on 31/10/2022 - 20:30
    -6

    DisabledUser in 3….2….1

    • cookie2 on 31/10/2022 - 21:11
      +8

      You're obsessed. And a troll.

      • [Deactivated] on 31/10/2022 - 21:31
        -1

        tee hee - if only you guys weren't so obvious

        • cookie2 on 31/10/2022 - 22:18
          +6

          You assume I'm a guy? Or that I'm part of a mob? I can't tell. You label and group ppl together. Basic.

          • [Deactivated] on 31/10/2022 - 22:19
            -2

            @cookie2: You do realise that the definition of a guy can also be a person of any sex, right?

            • cookie2 on 31/10/2022 - 22:23
              +3

              @[Deactivated]: So you are grouping ppl together as 1? P.s the definition of guy, is a guy, though it can also be used casually to mean a group. Interesting word choice when you're bringing sex and misogyny into a conversation. Attention seeking behaviour. It's important to look inward and consider how you interact with the environment around you and how that impacts the environment around you.

              • [Deactivated] on 31/10/2022 - 22:25

                @cookie2: Oh my, this has really got to you. Rent free is a bargain!

                • cookie2 on 31/10/2022 - 23:10
                  +4

                  @[Deactivated]: Same as you honey. Same as you :)

                • Assburg on 01/11/2022 - 11:06
                  +1

                  @[Deactivated]: I was having a pretty rough morning, and had almost given up the good fight. That is until I saw your valiant efforts towards looking after our nurses. Really hope they get the next sponsorship deal with Vic gov as they deserve it.

                  Thank you.

    • franco cozzo on 01/11/2022 - 01:45

      i also like froot-loops for breakfast…

  • AustriaBargain on 31/10/2022 - 21:09
    +5

    Visit Victoria plastered on every Netball stadium, uniform, and signage around games will more than pay for itself in tourism. Netball families love visiting places.

  • donkcat on 31/10/2022 - 21:45
    +2

    I would have liked to see a bit more time elapse to see if a private company come to the party, Netball Australia said they were in talks with several partners so it sounds like another offer would have come about.

    In saying that it's really not unusual for Victorian government agencies to sponsor sporting teams. TAC has a history of sponsoring AFL teams, Victoria responsible gambling foundation sponsors all AFL football clubs , Victoria government sponsor Melbourne Victory. But $15 million seems like a lot, in the early 2000s TAC were sponsoring Collingwood for 500k a year who are one of the biggest sporting clubs in the country.

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 31/10/2022 - 22:03

      TAC i'd argue is a 'bit different' as there whole job is 'raising awareness about road safety

      sports events are notorious for people 'drink driving' so i can see the logic in that one probably one of the rare exceptions though….

      • donkcat on 31/10/2022 - 22:08

        True, it's backfired every time. I think they had to tear up 3 different sponsorship deals after individual players lost their licenses. They currently sponsor Melb United NBL.

        • Trying2SaveABuck on 31/10/2022 - 22:09

          True, it's backfired every time. I think they had to tear up 3 different sponsorship deals after individual players lost their licenses

          the issue is players are generally young men and women in there early 20s - im not an expert but i'd say that would be the age group most likely to drink drive….so it is easy to get caught out thus sending a 'very bad' message to those people who look up to athletes as role models

  • FlyingMiffy on 31/10/2022 - 22:04
    +4

    I dont support having to pay 45 cents to every dollar in taxes either yet here we are. Taxes get spent for alot worst reasons. At risk of putting some facts on the table. Visit Victoria is a government entity with about 160 FTEs and an average marketing budget of about 50 million every two years (you can see the published annual reports on the government website) with KPIs based on visitor expenditure and tourism numbers etc. The real question is whether Netball Australia is a good branding vehicle worth $15M… now which national team can say that they are world champions?

    • sss333 on 01/11/2022 - 15:14

      Why are you paying 45 cents on every dollar? Should only be paying that from your 180,000th dollar onward if you're an Australian resident for tax purposes

  • Trying2SaveABuck on 31/10/2022 - 22:06
    +1

    The real question is whether Netball Australia is a good branding vehicle worth $15M… now which national team can say that they are world champions?

    1st sensible comment i've read supporting the sponsorship

    this is a fair point, im not an expert on netball but i know it has a large participation rate esp amongst girls, if there is an argument to be made the sponsorship will 'really' be worth the cost i'd probably accept that

    my only question would be how come 'no other' private company was willing to front up the money….if it was worth it…. but you make a 'fair argument'

    • jhaley3180 on 01/11/2022 - 09:34
      -1

      Another private company was… They were called Hancock mining…. Their owner just couldn't distance herself (despite repeated opportunities) from genocidal comments her father made.

      • brendanm on 01/11/2022 - 09:41
        +4

        She doesn't have to. Would only open herself up to more whining.

        • Tleyx on 01/11/2022 - 10:06
          +1

          She has to if she wanted to do the sponsership, she chose not time cause she wanted to virtue signal

          • brendanm on 01/11/2022 - 11:10
            +3

            @Tleyx: She doesn't have to do anything obviously, she's not the one losing out, it's netball Australia.

            • Tleyx on 01/11/2022 - 11:14
              +1

              @brendanm: She doesnt get to advertise her business which is why she was sponsoring

              • brendanm on 01/11/2022 - 13:35
                +3

                @Tleyx: Not sure if many people watching netball were in the market for copper ore to be honest.

                • Tleyx on 01/11/2022 - 14:04
                  +1

                  @brendanm: So it was all a show to get her face in the news and she didnt even want to actually sponsor. That would be right

                  • brendanm on 01/11/2022 - 14:18
                    +2

                    @Tleyx: Might want to look up some of the things she gives money to…

  • Morphio25 on 31/10/2022 - 22:07

    Needs to be a poll option for 'I'm not from Victoria so I don't really care if Victorian taxpayers foot the bill'.

    • jhaley3180 on 01/11/2022 - 09:36

      Needs to be a poll option that isn't completely loaded with negativity… Like "I support tourism Victoria sponsoring international sports teams if assessed on it's merits"

      • Morphio25 on 01/11/2022 - 14:58

        Again I'm not from Victoria so I don't give a rats!

  • ozhunter on 31/10/2022 - 22:09
    +6

    Lol, government bailout. Wouldn't be half as bad if they did before the Hancock controversy. Now they look like they are just giving them money because NA couldn't get another sponsor.

    • Tleyx on 01/11/2022 - 10:07
      +1

      It stacks up better now as more publicity.

  • skidexa on 31/10/2022 - 22:53
    +7

    lol the salt here

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join