The Evolution of Manchester City: A Different Animal to Spurs or Everton.

by Jack Sumner

Follow BPF on Twitter for more news and views on City, Spurs and Everton.

This is not a false dawn in the blue-half of Manchester. Manchester City are a club on the up, and not just because of their recent FA Cup triumph, which brought about an end to a well-publicised thirty-five year trophy drought.

The FA Cup Final win over Stoke was a great occasion, and a rare moment to savour for Manchester City fans who surely won’t have had very many since their League Cup win in 1976. Of course in the form of a piece of silverware City fans can boast evidence of the club’s progression, but it is consistent improvement in league standings that is the real indicator of how far United’s noisy neighbours are going.

City narrowly missed out on Champions League qualification last season but fifth place showed a big improvement on the mid-table finishes the club had had in recent years; itself a world away from when, less than a decade ago, City were struggling in the second tier of English football. And by finishing in the top four this season City have improved their league position again.

The reason why City haven’t received so much praise for their achievements is, rightly or wrongly, because of their gargantuan investment. Everyone expects them to be challenging at the top because of the money they’ve spent, but you have to bear in mind that they are competing against much more established clubs who have a better infrastructure, a deeper history, and all had fantastic talent laden squads anyway. Breaking up the big clubs is not as easy as spending money; there was a huge gulf for years and no matter how much money you have spent on your squad, having to pick eleven out of a group of twenty-five talented individuals every week when there is no real nucleus to the side, is going to be problematic. Over the course of thirty-eight games you are at a disadvantage to sides who have been playing together for a couple of years and already have that team spirit, with everybody knowing what their job is, and new talent can be bedded into that without throwing it all together at once.

City were always going to take a year or two to gel, and Roberto Mancini and his players deserve credit for their achievements this season.

Take into account the appraisal of Tottenham; City’s conquerors last season at Eastlands in a thrilling decider for fourth spot. Much was made of how Tottenham were the first club since Everton in 2005 to break up the ‘Traditional Top Four’ – a rapidly fading expression in the past couple of seasons, of course referring to the general dominance of the Champions League places in recent years by Manchester United, Chelsea, Liverpool and Arsenal. Spurs of course went a few better than Everton did by making it into the Champions League proper, before embarking on a great run to the Quarter-finals, whilst Everton never made it through the qualifying round and have never really threatened the top four since.

Manchester City have now broken into that exclusive club. But City’s achievement is far more significant than that of Spurs or Everton, and here’s why. No one outside of that ‘Traditional Top Four’ had finished in third place since Bobby Robson’s Newcastle did it in 2003, something that seems to have passed under the radar since City secured fourth. Finishing above Arsenal in third this season means that City won’t have to play a qualifying round and will enter straight into the group stages, where, given their squad and the quality of some of the lesser Eastern-European sides present at that stage of the competition, you would have to say that City are a shoe-in for the last 16 already.

So for the first time in eight years, we have a new face in the top three, and with City’s level of investment I’ll stick my head on the block and bet that they stay there. To put it into prospective how the game has changed in the past eight seasons, 2003 was the year that Abramovich decided to buy Chelsea and change the face of English football forever, and incidentally, it was City’s first season back in the top-flight since their last visit to the Football League.

42 Responses

  1. John says:

    Ridiculous. Chelsea had no history or infrastructure before they were taking over by multi billionaire Abramovich and they had instant success so realistically Man City have under achieved. If there was any season for a team to take over it was this Season, Utd did unbelievably well but there squad is the worst united squad for years! Chelsea and Arsenal also both Faltering. Mancini is boring and lacks the guts to be a huge success.

  2. Jim says:

    City are like Michael Carroll lots of money no class. Just like Chelsea who have proved this week that money can’t buy class.

    There up there now good luck to them, but never expect anyone not a City supporter to give them credit.

    Just a small team that won the lottery, jealous of course, doesn’t make it not true though.

  3. Squirrel says:

    City are a club that until a year ago people hadn’t a clue they even existed outside the UK.

    Makes me sick that with money, everyone is now talking about them like they’ve been this huge club with pedigree for decades when in fact, they’re very much ike Chelsea, lods of money but souless.

    Still, the papers will begin to love the club, more fans will flock to the blue side of Manchester and they continue to buy players that until the Arabs came along wouldn’t have even contemplated going to the club.

    A complete facre and a joke.

  4. archduke sexxe-mint says:

    what a load of absolute rubbish. i imagine you are related to sting – another peddler of lowest common denominator arse-waste. and what is a shoe-in? shoo-in maybe…. city’s third place is an utter irrelevance in the scheme of this season, and their achievement in no way matches the cavalier performance of spurs last term. be gone, and take your drivel with you

  5. JimmyPearce7 says:

    What insight does this column offer? Man City have and will make much more impact on the top of the league because they have much more money than everyone else. Is that news?

  6. Alan Greenwood says:

    Well Jack Sumner –
    for a ‘Journalism graduate’
    I suggest you
    lose no time in improving your study of the English language.

    “To put it into perspective how the game has changed in the past eight seasons…”

    That of course is what you should have said !

  7. James Nash says:

    Thank you for a balanced article that acknowledges the massive amount of catch-up that City have had to do.

    Remember all the brouhaha about City’s negative performance at Arsenal in January this year? Check the final table – if City had lost that game, we would have ended up fourth behind Arsenal on goal difference. That performance at The Emirates was the right one at the right time and only fools lambasted it at the time.

  8. the pope says:

    Thanks for that article, so refreshing to see a view from another football fan that is not dripping in venomous bile !

  9. Neal says:

    Jack, as a graduate of journalism , I think you need to learn the difference between prospective and perspective…unless of course you plan on working for the Guarniad?

    Secondly, I like your feeble excuse of other teams without so much money having small established squads with great team spirit… I presume this was a carefully veiled reference to the reason why Everton did the double over City? ‘You can’t buy team spirit’!!

    One thing which appears evident however is that money does buy success!!

  10. London Mike says:

    Hi there,

    Interesting article and as a Spurs fan I first of all want to Congratulate City in getting into the CL. Couple of things I wanted to mention though not to take the shine off of the achievement but to put things into perspective.

    It’s no coincidence that the leap into 3rd position was on the back of Arsenal’s relegation form over the last 6 games. In fact only Bolton, West Ham and Birmingham gathered less points than Arsenal’s abysmal 5 points out of 18.

    This coincided with City’s championship run of points, 15 out of 18 and that also draws comparisons with Spurs season run in last year.

    I also believe you need to have a reality check regarding comments like “Last 16 of the CL is a shoe in already”…

    City has the lowest coefficiency rating in Pot 3 (47.157) so there is no chance you can sneak into Pot 2. This means like Spurs, you will have 2 higher seeded teams in your group.

    Pot 1 is likely to contain Barca, Bayern, Real, Porto and Inter with Pot 2 holding, AC, Shaktar, Valencia, Benfica, Villareal, CKSA, Olympique and Kiev or Lyon.

    Given those teams, their experience in the CL and the fact that most of them will improve their squads over the summer City has to be on top of their game to progress.

    The other point I take issue with is this rubbish about history and infrastructure of other clubs. In this day and age Money talks, simple fact. You pay £100-200K per week and you’ll get the top players which has been City’s approach.

    So for all City Fans, good luck, wave the flag for England and enjoy the buzz, I certainly have this year with Spurs :)



  11. Spurs_est1882 says:

    This article makes it sound like City have earnt the year-on-year improvement. City have spent almost half a billion pounds in 3 years, and look to spend more. If they were not in the top 3 there should be questions asked. they have gone one step further than us and the toffies, I admit, and will stay up there, but lets face it, in the past 3 years City have spent more than Everton have in their ENTIRE history, and probably more than Spurs too. That doesnt even take into account the wages. I honestly cant wait until the financial fair play comes in. i lived in Manchester for 4years, and one thing I learnt is that City fans are more ficle than us, and think they deserve to win everything. their one saving grace was the fact they filled Maine Road while still in the lower leagues, yet in the PL they couldnt even half fill their new home until a shiek bought them. I cant wait for the £200 a match tickets to pay the £200k a week wages. :-)

  12. simon curtis says:

    And out come the ner-ner brigade once again. Those who wish for the Old Top Four status quo to withstand any uprising, fair-do’s, you must like tedious sameness in your life as a sort of default comfort zone. Those, who don’t, should try to cast aside the “money question” for a second (show me a side who has been successful without large amounts of money being spent on them first) and enjoy a different look to the league table. As for the old chestnut, a lack of class, I take it nobody has bothered to take a quick glance at City’s brilliant social media set-up, it’s willingness to interact with and listen to the supporters and the hugely impressive development of non-first team squad activities. The parade last night, the unlimited free video coverage on the website, the incredible work put in by City in the Community, award winning groundstaff, the ever-productive Academy , award winning matchday programme, platform given to supporters to have their say and the unparalleled social facilities for arriving fans to eat, drink and mix outside the stadium. These are marks of a club well embedded in its community, well aware of its responsibilities and very comfortable in its skin. Modern football is sometimes a pretty tasteless affair but Manchester City are working extremely hard on doing things the right way.

  13. Hardy says:

    What man city have achieved this year is due to hard work good coaching staff and a team of players that stuck together and fought the battles through out the season,ok some of them had big names before city signed them but for all the people saying they were just there to take the money,this was a giant UP YOURS!Every successful PL side has invested lots of money,City arent the first.Infact spurs have outspent most of them.City have a huge loyal fan base a great stadium and will grow over the next five years.Also The PL is watched by 2.5 billion people weekly so to say theyve never been heard of outside the uk is unbelievable.

  14. John says:

    Mike hit the nail on the head perfectly.

    Given City’s meek exit in the Eurpa, I won’t be counting any chickens regarding a place in the last 16 for them.

    As for the green eyed monster comment…

    I doubt I speak for just myself when I say I couldn’t think of a worse way for my club to gain success to be honest.
    I know Chelsea fans who don’t go anymore because of what that place has become and I suspect a few old City stalwarts feel the same.

    Building something special, in the traditional sense is far more enjoyable and something to be proud of. Simply throwing money at everyone and everything would leave a sour taste in my mouth.

    Good luck to them next season though. However crass the whole episode is, it’s nice to see a new name competing at the top.

    Incidently, it’s extremely lazy and ignorant to label anyone who disagrees with how City or Chelsea have gone about getting success as simply being jealous.

  15. Spurs_est1882 says:

    Yes, doing things the right way, spending money they didnt earn, buying progress and telling everybody its fair because other clubs do it. With the exception of Chelski, no they dont. They may have guys in charge that invest a few million, but you are talking over £500m in transfers alone. Yes congratulations to the club for their social side it is obviously enough to set aside their over spending of money they didnt earn, much like their hardship is enough to warrant their new rise to success. I as a Spurs fan, am not a fan of the usual big 4, I hated the fact all the money was at the top, but clubs can break it, Newcastle, Spurs and Everton did it without spending beyond their footballing means.

  16. PGH Everton says:

    You’re one massive bell who hasn’t got a clue about the game, probably bores the living daylights out of twitter and writes articles with controversial views trying to emulate the crap articles you read in the tabloids every day.

    Typical Liverpool fan with huge, huge blindspots in their supposed rational thinking.

    In short: you won’t make the grade and will turn to crack by 31.

  17. Thomas Gaunt says:

    I started to read the comments so as not to repeat anything but got bored when people started correcting your grammer – try doing that in the pub and you would rightly get a slap.

    Anyway – I agree that City will be the ones that manage to keep pace. Mainly because of the money. There seems to be a large number of fans that think that a club who has not had decades of success have no “History” or are “Souless” – I am not quite sure how that works…. Is History defined as a period of time in the past or a successfuly period of time in the past?? the former i think.

    So would everyone prefer it if United and Arsenal and Liverpool jsut kept exchanging the league for the rest of time or some businessmen came in and invested in other clubs and leveled the playing field – the initial investment is necessary to catch up then you just match the spending of United, Liverpool and previously before the purse strings got tightened Arsenal….. The only major difference between the Arabs and Abromovich with the other Chairmen (like Sullivan, Gold, Whelan etc…) is that they have shit loads more money….

    ps. apologies to anyone i have offended with incorrect spelling or grammer.

  18. Big Mal says:

    I do not think Mancini or the Manchester City players deserve any credit at all. The failed to challenge for the title in the weakest league in premiership history even though they had spent about £500,000,000 on players. They had the largest and most expensive squad and, at no stage, threatened Manchester United. If Ferguson had managed them they would have won the league easily. They failed to win games against poor sides because they were incredibly negative. They will probably win the league next year even with Mancini as manager because they will buy another 6 or 7 players, probably defenders who will make them virtually unbeated, but so what – it’s all down to one person’s money and nothing to do with Manchester City.

  19. Andy says:

    Decent article. Some people clearly would like the Prem to degenerate into something like the SPL, with 2 teams slugging it out and the rest picking up the crumbs.

    The fact that City (and teams like Everton, Villa and Spurs) have consistently taken points off the top 4 have compressed the league more and given us a far more enjoyable, competative season. Even the bottom half benefited by this, with 2 of the bottom 3 not decided until virtually the final whistle.

    Sours’ challenge only diminished because they couldnt sustain the constant injuries, nor had quite the strength in depth to be able to simply rotate and still be 100%

    Yes this spending has “changed the face of English football”, but relatively, no more than, say, Arsenal did in the late 50’s

    Chelski were already fairly well-established in the prem & CL before Abramovic took over (Ranieri finished top 6 for 3 years prior to Abramovic). It took another 2 years before they peaked with 2nd place in 03-04 and finally winning in 04-05

    Interestingly, the Chelsea points tally that season was a whopping 95 – United finished 3rd on 77pts, a feat that would have seen them win the title this year.

  20. I think the stick given out to Jack is somewhat over the top. It’s a good article.

    The problem you have got with City, is that no matter whatever they achieve, people will put it down to the money they have. They are in a No Win situation.

    They will keep pace with United and Chelsea because of the money they have. The more successful they get the stronger they will become as the very top players will want to join them.

    Whether their fortune is fair or not is another matter. What I do know is that, if given the chance, we would all go the City route if it meant our team was successful.

  21. simon curtis says:

    Hands up if you think Chelsea were the only ones overspending to be successful before City came into their wealth? Nonsense, obviously. Utd have been throwing 20-30 million around on the likes of Veron, Rooney, Carrick, Ferdinand for years. Liverpool used to win the league every year then buy the best player for the top price of the day to get even stronger. You could argue that it is thse clubs, who have pushed the whole shabang along at this wretchedly fast pace, in fact. Investment in football on a large scale will continue as long as there are megalomaniacs, mulit-millionaires and a thirsty tv audience. It’s called greed, unfortunately. I look at Everton and see City from 7 years ago. More stable, more successful than City of 7 years, but with the same precarious finances, the same stone-in-the-stomach feeling as they’re beaten to their transfer targets by overspending upstarts and chancers, beaten to the trophies by the megaliths, beaten to the media limelight by the shiny ones. Then the manager’s given patronising praise by all and sundry for being a staunch man with no money to spend. The people’s Club. A truly traditional place. But if they are next to catch the investor’s eye, will everyone run for the hills squealing? Or will people give it a cautious chance, tut tut at the state of football and then start dreaming of seeing Kun Aguero wearing John Ebbrell’s old shirt? Football’s not what it was, doesn’t look like going back to what it was either. It will eat itself eventually and then the playing field will be levelled off a tiny bit. Until that moment, we’d be well-off to accept that, at the very least, slight change to the Elite is refreshing and necessary.

  22. james says:

    thanks, a breath of fresh air…. wish there were more straight talking open mined jernos like you jack….. & simon. I read web news every day and all you see is random headlines and silly sensationlist attention grabers like..(“man city have ruined our game”) etc… man city have bought a team! ok , is it our fault the price of players are what thay are? of course not, infact, united ,chelsea, real madrid, and many other clubs pushed the prices up to what that are currently! so we get ripped off!

  23. The criticism that Jack is receiving is completely unfounded. Those of you being puerile enough to mock the article based on infrequent grammatical errors shows just how many football supporters are void of any practical intelligence when it comes to offering a valid response.

    The article has generated high levels of debate, which many aspiring journalists set out to do so in that sense Jack has fulfilled his requirements.

    Good to see that this piece has captured the attention of football fans both here at BP Football and at Our Beautiful Game

  24. London Mike says:

    For me its like this…

    Every team that has won the Prem or old first division did it by investing significant funds on personel either through Transfer and salaries or just big salaries.

    I don’t go in for all this “souless” rubbish either. Man City fans had years in the doldrums and I for one do not begrudge them for having wealthy owners who are now pumping money into the club to chase success.

    Although I despise a lot of Chelsea fans it’s hilarious to hear people still talking about Abramovic getting bored and leaving them in a mess. It’s a fact that all the money in the world will not guarantee success but it does bring it closer.

    The financial fair play will not really do too much to these teams either. Clubs can invest in stadiums and other revenue generating business (such as a hotel next door) and the profits from those ventures will offset the crazy salaries and transfer fee’s.

    Furthermore will Uefa allow teams such as Man U, Chelsea, Real, Man City or Barca to be removed from the CL because of this? I will be amazed and will eat my old boot if it ever happens :)

    I am very happy with the approach and commitment adopted by Spurs over the last several years (although our transfer purchases and sales have infuriated me at times). What we need is managerial stability which has been our downfall, but that is another blog discussion :)

    Do I feel better knowing we’ve not had to rely on a sugar daddy? Sure I do, especially after our own Lord Sugar left with his pockets lined when leaving…

    For me the best thing is the future looks to have more teams fighting for the much coveted top 4 positions and even the league.

    Beating Man C to get into the CL was a priceless moment I witnessed in a Tel-Aviv Bar. Simply looking forward to challenging again and who knows, with one or two gems in the summer perhaps the real evolution will be seen rather than a 2 year revolution we have witnessed with Man C.



  25. John says:

    Sorry Robert Nevitt but you do not speak for all fans when you say we would all like to have that money and take the City route.

    I couldn’t think of many worse things.

    I actually pity some of their fans and certainly Chelsea’s. It doesn’t seem enjoyable to the blues anymore and in a few years it willl be the same for the City fans no doubt.

    Talking about two sets of fans who used to worry that their sides would stay in the top flight yet you now hear them moaning that they haven’t won the league or haven’t bought the latest overpriced mercenary etc.

    City have underachieved in reality. Look at their squad. They have a dozen players who cost more than Arsenal’s record transfer! These sugar daddies ruin it for the likes of Arsenal infact. A club that has been run superbly for decades and were reaping the rewards yeyt in one swoop, a no mark in the football world turns up and splashes his billions, accumulated through sheer luck ( oil, gas etc ) and changes the landscape of the british game!

    As I said before, good luck to City next season, and their fans are a very loyal bunch but I won’t shed too many tears if these upcoming financial fair play rules hit them and Chelsea very hard and costs them European Football.

  26. Pablo says:


    I reckon Uefa will be looking for every loop hole to make the new financial fair play rules work. Building a hotel in London might bring in the bucks, but in cities like Manchester and Liverpool, the income will be limited.

  27. Ash says:

    With the level of investment would expect any less than the champions league for city? There is an obvious correlation between money spent and performance, and will continue to be, so Man City’s performance is the least that can be expected.

    The issue of team spirit and taking time to bond is marginal. Yes it’s an issue but a minor one as shown by pretty much instant success after spending (Chelsea’s title challenge after they initially invested). The majority of the squad werent new additions in the summer, I know a fair few were

    I would say City under performed last year as they should of qualified for the champions league then and continued qualification should be a minimum benchmark. The reason why people are critical of City is the manner in which the play and approach the game. The best demonstration of this was the games against the bigger teams (save possibly man u because of the rivalry), especially the draws against spurs and arsenal when the games were embarrassingly one sided. You could argue that they achieved their objective of a point but to make the investments they have dine a point should not be their objective, this is what teams facing delegation hope for. This situation has improved over the last few months and I hope it continues to do so.

    People shouldn’t knock City’s achievement (like the article said) but at the same time they shouldn’t applaud it (in the way that people may when spurs or everton qualified) as the investment they have made warrants champions league qualification.

  28. mtm says:

    i hope they’ll fail financial fair play rules, because it makes me sick this concept that some lucky guys can buy football clubs and annoy all fans in the world (of other clubs) by infliating prices of players and making complete mockery of football – its just good for this minority of fans base(v small btw) of these obscene clubs

  29. Neil Sherwin Neil Sherwin says:

    Actually, your first line is incorrect. It was up until three years ago that no one knew about City. The takeover was in 2008.

  30. tublu says:

    squirrel, not only are you bitter and twisted you are also factually disadvantaged. keep up the good work. :¬)

  31. Neil Sherwin Neil Sherwin says:

    Great comment Mike, and spot on with everything.

    Pity the folk above suffer largely from green eyed monster syndrome.

  32. James Nash says:

    This response from John is so staggeringly ill-informed it needs to be commented upon.

    Before Abramovich arrived at Chelsea, they had a remarkably similar history of honours compared to City. At the point he arrived however, they were winning trophies every couple of years and had just qualified to the Champions League.

    Compare that to tenth place and 35 trophy-free years at City when the big money arrived and only a simpleton would refute that a massive catch-up was needed. This we have now done, I think, and in a reasonable period of time. There was a lack of progress under Mark Hughes but Roberto Mancini came in and corrected that.

    We should now aim to win the title in the next couple of seasons. However we don’t assume that money will buy success. Mancini realises we need to build from the back and create a team that can consistently challenge for honours, which does take time to gel. I think next season may be asking a bit too much but hopefully we can be in the mix until the end this time.

    To label the sublime football we’ve played at times this season as “boring” is plain wrong. Yes we set our stall out as defence-first but, if we’re on form or you let us play, we’ll tear you apart. As the team bonds more and more, there will be less of the bus parking, of that you can be sure.

    Maybe that’s our real “lack of class” showing right there? Taking the long view of team-building rather than the goldfish view of instant success, which is so prevalent amongst invidious internet trolls and querrelsome tabloid hacks. We’re quite happy to see these zealots continue to rage against the wind, laughing at them as their bile splashes back into their contorted faces.

  33. Albert says:

    Check your facts before opening your mouth, dolt! Chelsea were already established in the prem & CL before Abramovic took over. Ranieri finished 6th, 6th and 4th before Abramovic. It took another 2 years before they won, finishung 2nd in 03-04 and winning in 04-05

  34. Neil Sherwin Neil Sherwin says:

    I think you mean ‘grammar’.


  35. FrankieF says:

    I think it is a bit rich for Spurs fans to suggest that they didn’t buy their success, granted they didn’t spend on the scale that city did and may have done it in a more sustainable manner but…

    Net spend 06/07 £23,800,000
    Net Spend 07/08 £33,950,000
    Net Spend 08/09 £19,450,000
    Net Spend 09/10 £500,000 (!)
    Net Spend 10/11 £17,500,000

    In 5 seasons that is £95,000,000… serious money.. if you look at the gross spend it’s £230,000,000 there aren’t many teams who could compete with that!

  36. Neil Sherwin Neil Sherwin says:

    Is it the weakest league? Or is it actually the strongest given that so many teams were capable of taking points off each other?

  37. Spurs_est1882 says:

    Yes, your right, there arent. HOWEVER, they have earnt that money. Not many teams could have kept up with that, but that is what football (in the modern era) is about. Some clubs earn their money and buy progress, others develop talent. Now with city and chelski we have a new twist, teams that neither earn nor develop. Just because some clubs have a good financial model, they should not be punished, especially by badly managaed clubs being taken over by rich benefactors, financially City were in turmoil 4 years ago, chelski were struggling too before Abromavich, and now, well, we will see when in 2 years clubs are made to act in a financial fair play. Oh, not sure where you are getting your figures from either, but I am pretty sure they are Gross spend, not net.

  38. Squirrel says:

    Yep but its money that Spurs generated; can’t see the problem with that. If I earn a big salary, I will want the best, if you don’t; then live within your means.

    City could never generate the revenue to buy the players they have and pay the salaries.

  39. Squirrel says:

    Bitter and twsited about City? Nope. So, what in my post was wrong? Try and prove otherwise.

    I doubt you can…

  40. Sorry John. I stand corrected. Should have put most fans, not all. I take your point.

  41. London Mike says:

    Hi Pablo,

    They may look at loopholes, they may implement fines but banning clubs from Euro competitions is something I doubt we’ll ever see especially related to the established top 10 and or wealthier clubs.

    Below is an excellent article I’ve read on the topic and a direct statement on the blog (respect and ownership to The Swiss Rambler)…

    “As a rule, revenue from non-football operations is excluded from the break-even calculation, but clause B. (k) in Annex X allows you to included revenue from “Operations based at, or in close proximity to, a club’s stadium and training facilities such as a hotel, restaurant, conference centre, business premises (for rental), health-care centre, other sports teams.”

    So effectively, Uefa have given every team a wonderful loop to jump through.

  42. Thomas Gaunt says:

    Dammit! I would like to say I did that on purpose….

Leave a Reply

Leave a Reply