[Don_Mahaffey]

In the thread about putts from above the hole staying on the green, a short discussion on Wolf Point broke out. Tom Doak just visited and it was fun to play a round with him and spend some time afterward talking about the golf course. We didn't spend hours and hours, but generally I'd say his take was the course was fun to play, but too wild, and maybe difficult, for the mainstream golfer.
Peter Pallotta chimed in with the following post.

"Sometimes I think we in golf over value our percieved knowledge of golfers, and under value the opinion of the everyday golfer in favor of the expert player who knows what a good course should be."

Don - one man's opinion, but for me truer words were never spoken. I think in most cases, it is the way that "we" explain away our own lack of courage and creativity.

I worked once on a television documentary for Canada's national broadcaster, and I'll always remember the initial screening with the clients, who in reference to all the parts I thought were best would say "I think that's great, but you'd better change it/make it clearer -- the audience out there just won't get it".  In my mind, then and now, there is no such "audience".  There are only creative types and decision-makers who don't have the talent to pull off something great and who don't have the courage of their convictions, respectively.

That's not a crime, grant it -- but let's at least recognize the true factors/dynamics involved instead of continually foisting off failures on the average golfer/audience.

Plus, why is it that architects and owners alike seems to accept (and build their business model on the fact that) a rather bland but high end country club for a day will attract only a certain segment/fraction of all golfers; and that a solid but just basically maintained and less expensive golf course will attract only a certain segment/fraction of all golfers; and that a rather scruffy and very basic but dirt cheap 18 hole layout will attract only a certain segment/fraction of all golfers -- and yet we seem to demand that a very interesting set of greens and  a classic layout has to attract MORE than its share/fraction of all golfers?

Peter's post got me thinking. I've heard that sentiment about Wolf Point a lot, that the course is great fun to play, but would generally be unacceptable to the mainstream golfer...lots of stuff like that.
What's interesting though, is that sentiment is most often said by those from the golf industry, or raters. The golfers who come out that have no attachment to the golf business, usually just say, "Can I come back".  For sure part of that is the personal nature of the course and the fact you're out there all alone, but I believe its really about the golf. In fact we just renovated 9 greens for an area muni, and their instructions to me were, "Wolf Point Light". The greens have been so well received that they've already hired us to do the next 9 (27 hole course) next year, and have said its OK to spice them up even more. They were scared that the first 9 would be too crazy for their customers, but its by far the busiest 9.

Heavily contoured greens seem to be OK at higher end courses, which is sort of ironic as those are the courses that have the ability to keep them too fast. If you listen to the golf business types, they'll always be saying the lower end courses need to have simple greens, that the high handicappers will not accept the challenge of wild greens, that they will slow play....and on and on. My face to face observations tell me the exact opposite. My observations are the golfer with money, who carries a low handicap and fancies himself "educated" is the guy who thinks greens should be "fair". That's the guy who says things like clown mouths and windmills when a contoured green frustrates him. The average Joe, the guy who plays once in a while and just likes to have fun, he loves something different, something interesting. I know, because those are the guys I play with.

Wanna know something else, they don't use the term firm and fast, but they like their golf courses firm and fast. Probably because they grew up playing on courses that couldn't afford to over water and over fertilize. They like green grass, but tire quickly of sticky conditions. My first Superintendent job was at a lower end club in AZ. I'd been working as an assistant at a nice resort with a big budget and large crew. We overseeded wall to wall, and we kept it green. The first problems I had at my new job was when I tried to bring that mentality to my new course. They didn't mind if it looked good, but if they couldn't run the ball onto the green, they were after my butt.

I wonder if we really know what golfers want. I'm not so sure. We know what the tour players want, and we know what the big money places want, but the golfers we need to keep, the ones we are losing all the time, is it really about service and pristine course conditions? Or is it about fun and interest?

[Tom_Doak]

Don:

I don't know.  I've been told a million times that what average golfers want is good conditioning, which they take to mean green grass.  Then again, I've been told a million times that golf magazine readers want instructional tips, and I'm still not buying that.

I hope you aren't misrepresenting what I thought about Wolf Point.  The only thing I thought was too difficult for the mainstream golfer was the rough yesterday.  I didn't think it was too wild for them.  I think most mainstream golfers would have a blast out there [unless they are also getting beaten badly by Robert].

What I said was that the course was wilder than I would have built it, because I know how much good players would criticize the design and put pressure on the client to change it.  You and Mike had a client who wouldn't listen to that, and more power to him.  By the same token, I would guess that the design has scared off some of Mike's potential clients because it is so uncompromising.  But, Peter is also right, such a course only has to attract enough of a following to support it, and if it can then it was the right thing after all.

I think you are right that golfers want fun and interest.  I think most architects are scared to do it, either because they have swallowed the conventional wisdom whole, or because they want to move on to bigger and better things.

P.S.  One reason Wolf Point works so well is that you steer guests around yourself, and make sure they play tees where they'll have fun.  I don't have any idea how long a course we played yesterday, but I would guess it was not all that long, and that another group left to their own devices would have played it further back, and had less fun doing so.

[Ben Sims]

Don,

I'll be honest, and I'm not sure if I ever have said this before or not, but Wolf beat me up pretty good that first day a few years ago.  I was wondering what all the fuss was about it being wide and forgiving.  Subsequent visits have made her more Little Red Riding Hood rather than Wolf.  And that's what Al wanted right?  A course that he could enjoy time after time and love more with age?  I have never loved her more than our latest round without skycaddies a couple weeks back.  As you know, very few courses are worth losing a transmission. 

That's partly why I think you're off in your post.  I agree that golfers want fun.  Problem is, I don't think they know how to define it.  They just know it when they have it.  There is a very fine line between making a golf course fun on the first play, and making it weird on the first play.  Bandon has universally been praised by first-timers as a resort.  But many have read where the concepts at Old Mac haven't been as universally accepted by the "retail golfer."  Oddly enough, Old Mac is a course that you could play 100 times and not see what it's all about.  You can't universally say that about all the courses there.  You and I have spoken before about how ridiculous it is form solid analysis on a golf course from one play.

That's why I could care less what people say about severity.  I think someone like you on your muni site, or Tom on his sites has to just build what you espouse.  Plenty have found Tom's version of golf fun, enough to make Renaissance successful.  Some people won't think you and Mike's vision at WP is fun, but enough people (in this case one guy) think it's fun.  And that's all that matters. 

Oh, and on the conditioning piece.  I think it's the greens.  High end, low end, military, private, public, it doesn't matter.  All golfers want good greens.

[Mike Sweeney]

I wonder if we really know what golfers want. I'm not so sure. We know what the tour players want, and we know what the big money places want, but the golfers we need to keep, the ones we are losing all the time, is it really about service and pristine course conditions? Or is it about fun and interest?

My last two rounds have been on:

1. Quaker Ridge - Golf Digest Top 100 Tillinghast course in Westchester, perfect conditioning, played with a caddy, played from a reasonable distance on the member tees. In relative terms a very expensive course to play and/or be a member.

2. Springbrook GC in Leeds, Maine - See the Maine Island Tour thread. $20 mom and pop where we carried our bag for the 6060 yard course with fantastic terrain, very nice conditioning, very good greens.

At this stage of life, I commented to my playing partner at Springbrook that it is more fun to play. He commented correctly that if I was playing well and on my game, I might feel differently.

Thus, my answer to your question as a retail golfer to the industry leaders is, "it depends". That of course is the problem for you in the industry and the fun as a golfer. There are lots of options, price points, green speeds and bunkering styles to choose from. Don't try to satisfy "golfers", rather create your niche and be the best at that niche.

I still say there is a huge market for the public golfer that wants to play in 4 hours. Do a Mucci and throw 2 groups off a course per day, and a following for real 4 hour golf would follow, I think.

[Adam Lawrence]

I would go further. My last two rounds have been at clubs that enforce a rigorous two ball only policy, Woking and Huntercombe. At both, as a group of four, we played foursomes, and, although it's not my favourite way of playing, it does mean that a three hour round is standard, perhaps even a little bit slow.

This goes back to something I wrote in GCA magazine a couple of years ago, but I really believe that if a way can be found of making a round of golf three hours, not four or five, it'll be transformational for the golf business. Suddenly, if playing takes three hours, it becomes a half day, not a full day activity. I reckon that'd be huge in this day and age. Suddenly, you can get up a little bit early on a Saturday morning, go play, and be back in time for lunch, and spend the rest of the day with the family. Or, if you have the whole day, you can eat lunch at the course and play again!

If I were the owner of a public golf course, I would be trying everything I could to get pace of play up. I'm under no illusions how difficult it would be to achieve it, but I do believe the Campaign for the Three Hour Round is something the industry should embrace.

[Sean_A]

Isn't Wolf Point a destination course?  I ask because its a different world of opinions when folks travel to play golf.  First off - most golfers don't travel (or don't travel by plane) so Wolf Point isn't really about what most golfers want.  To be straight forward, most golfers want a cheap day out.  Everything else is cream on the cake.  This issue is probably the single biggest problem with this site - many folks here spend an inordinate amount of money on golf and golf travel so naturally their opinions are skewed toward that set of experiences.  The bar is set far too high for "most golfers". 

Ciao

[Jon Wiggett]

To me, the average golfer (90%ish) want is:

-okay conditions with the greens but don't really care about fairways or tees.
-They want to play at a decent pace (3 hours).
-have the odd par each round
-never look for balls.

The way to do this is courses of 5000-6000 yards and no rough. Though I agree that 2 balls are quicker than 4 balls it should be no problem for a 4ball to do 18 holes in 3 hours.

Jon

[Mark Pearce]

This goes back to something I wrote in GCA magazine a couple of years ago, but I really believe that if a way can be found of making a round of golf three hours, not four or five, it'll be transformational for the golf business. Suddenly, if playing takes three hours, it becomes a half day, not a full day activity. I reckon that'd be huge in this day and age. Suddenly, you can get up a little bit early on a Saturday morning, go play, and be back in time for lunch, and spend the rest of the day with the family. Or, if you have the whole day, you can eat lunch at the course and play again!

I played a singles match with my 81 year old father in law at Bruntsfield Links yesterday morning.  A foursomes match was immediately in front and we never waited for them after the first tee shot.  On about the fifth we had to wait for a fourball on the green (the foursome had played through) and then, frustratingly, waited on every shot until the 12th tee, where we were invited to play through.  We caught a second fourball on the 14th tee  but they invited us through immediately.  On the 16th we waited for a three ball who were infront for the rest of the round but didn't delay us again.

We teed off at 9.15 and got in at 12.10, in time for a quick drink before returning home for another quick drink and lunch.  Less than three hours despite being held up on 6 holes.  At no time did it feel as if we were rushing and we played from the white tees.

[Mark Pearce]

As to the main point of the thread, I think most golfers want to have fun.  The problem with greens that are very wild for a members club (at least one like most in the UK with frequent competitions) would be if the wildness of the greens made scoring well very difficult.  It doesn't seem to be a problem at Huntercombe, though, which has a few fairly wild greens.

[Ronald Montesano]

This question is like a pebble that fractures a car windshield, fracturing and spidering out with each comment. It will be good reading as more of the brotherhood chimes in.

Wouldn't a course that mandates and polices a 3-hour round be a private club of its own ilk? If you don't adhere to our standard, you aren't welcome.

Isn't it un-democratic (small D) to force people to adhere to more than a modicum of rules, regulations and statutes? I'd like to know the costs associated with such a golf course, as it seems to me that more than moderate policing would be required to keep the train on schedule, ooops, I mean keep all the disconnected cars of the train on schedule.

Imagine the two groups that were tossed off the course. Would they go quietly? Would they accept that they and they alone were responsible for the back-ups behind them? Would they spread poisonous vitriol that ultimately kept other potential clients away from the course? Are we as noble a breed as we like to think?

I don't wish to rush a round of golf. If I see a car behind me in the center lane, I move over. If I'm in the left lane to do more than pass, I shouldn't be there long. Likewise, if I find myself on a course and a quicker group catches up, we invite them through. Invariably, they hit their worst shots of the day and momentarily eliminate any time savings. Fortunately, that doesn't happen on the highway at 70 mph.

[Mike Sweeney]

This question is like a pebble that fractures a car windshield, fracturing and spidering out with each comment. It will be good reading as more of the brotherhood chimes in.

Wouldn't a course that mandates and polices a 3-hour round be a private club of its own ilk? If you don't adhere to our standard, you aren't welcome.

Private ownership would be easier than municipal ownership, but public golfers are welcome. My gym has a 30 minute maximum on stairmasters at peak times. Any difference?

Isn't it un-democratic (small D) to force people to adhere to more than a modicum of rules, regulations and statutes?

Have you driven 80 mph recently in Buffalo?

I'd like to know the costs associated with such a golf course, as it seems to me that more than moderate policing would be required to keep the train on schedule, ooops, I mean keep all the disconnected cars of the train on schedule.

It would cost more for a golfer to play with less people.

Imagine the two groups that were tossed off the course. Would they go quietly? Would they accept that they and they alone were responsible for the back-ups behind them? Would they spread poisonous vitriol that ultimately kept other potential clients away from the course? Are we as noble a breed as we like to think?

Make them sign a 4 hour pledge before the round. If they don't sign, they don't play. Give them one warning, then toss them. I think the news would spread both ways - slow golfers stay away, fast golfers come give a try.

I don't wish to rush a round of golf. If I see a car behind me in the center lane, I move over. If I'm in the left lane to do more than pass, I shouldn't be there long. Likewise, if I find myself on a course and a quicker group catches up, we invite them through. Invariably, they hit their worst shots of the day and momentarily eliminate any time savings. Fortunately, that doesn't happen on the highway at 70 mph.

You are not our target golfer at Mucci Golf Club, please feel to visit our neighboring golf courses that will accommodate slower golfers.

Here is one example of setting expectations up front:

http://www.bowlinggreengolf.com/tag/4-hour-round

[jeffwarne]

Isn't Wolf Point a destination course?  I ask because its a different world of opinions when folks travel to play golf.  First off - most golfers don't travel (or don't travel by plane) so Wolf Point isn't really about what most golfers want.  To be straight forward, most golfers want a cheap day out.  Everything else is cream on the cake.  This issue is probably the single biggest problem with this site - many folks here spend an inordinate amount of money on golf and golf travel so naturally their opinions are skewed toward that set of experiences.  The bar is set far too high for "most golfers". 

Ciao

+1
"Most" golfers hate a really tough course, and hate looking for balls and the eternity and cost (or formerly cost) it takes to play courses like that
Those willing to pay for resort or high end public(the minority) are already members of clubs and spend most of their dollars there

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

The old pro at Sherrill Park in Richardson, TX used to notify and strictly enforce the 4 hour rule, and by all accounts with pretty good success, albeit he did kick some slow players off the course, usually giving them their money back, too.

As to what golfers want, recently at a golf conference, Joe Munsch, Pres of EAGL golf (one of the big management firms) told the crowd (and me later) that golfers have NEVER complained when they took steps to make the course easier.  While I think we all believe that there is a limit to that where the lack of challenge would be boring, I think he is right.  And, I think the ANGC model that held sway so long until the boom of the 1990's of minimal bunkering, only to challenge good players is probably the right overall idea, subject, of course, to all the little details.

And, I know from experience that too much is just too much when a course is beating me up on a lesser day by me.  In order of my personal "Too Much" issues,

* Too many water hazards/deep woods (i.e. lost balls, at $2-4 a copy)
* Too many deep rough hack outs
* Too many missed putts
* Too little opportunity to shoot near my normal score
* Too much "opportuniuty" for doubles and tripples (at least before the 19th hole)

Based on what I have seen playing over many decades, I believe most golfers feel the same.  As noted, when they go on the big once a year golf outing, they seem to like to see something that they haven't seen before, but I am not sure that really includes challenge as much as a unique look.

[Tom Kelly]

I don't think 90% of golfers really know what they want so for us to know what they want is pretty hard.

I would hazard a guess that deep down even if they don't admit it at first, fun would be the main thing. I'd expect good conditioning and a challenge to be next on the list but a fair way back, though they would probably say both of these ahead of fun at first.

How you quantify fun in terms of course attributes is the hard part. If you make it too wild as Mark Pearce points out scoring becomes difficult which in turns takes the fun away, make it too bland and it isn't fun in the first place. If you can get that compromise you'll be doing fairly well.

The Castle Course is good example. 50% people come off saying they have had a great time but that they wouldn't want to play a medal round there, the other 50% hate it because they have tried to play a medal round. It is just too hard and unforgiving in places, but if you relax and aren't bothered about getting it wrong every now and then you can play some really fun golf shots. As a destination course that people will more than likely only play once or twice and an alternative to the other course at St Andrew's for the members it seems to work fairly well but if it tried to be a members only single course I think it would seriously struggle. People would get ground down by it playing week in week out and it would lose the fun factor.

[Tom Kelly]

When I said previously that I think 90% of golfers don't really know what they want from a course, I believe the conversations I had on Friday after a round are a great example:

I played a municipal course in Bournemouth called Meyrick Park with about 15 other guys who represented a pretty good cross-section of golfers from low handicap to high and across a decent age range. The course is a Tom Dunn which could do with some tlc. By todays standards it is very short (5500ish yards) but could be very fun if they cleared the undergrowth from the trees which meant lost balls aplenty. Despite some potentially very good holes all anyone wanted to talk about after the round was the par 3's, which are probably the hardest set I have ever come across. To a man, everyone (bar me and one other) described them as a 'good' set of par 3's. When I asked if any of them enjoyed playing the par 3's nobody said yes.

I think that sums you 'average' golfer up unfortunately.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

You've summed up the old mantra of making it look harder than it plays.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Tom Doak,
My apologies if I misrepresented what you said. I don't think I did, I certainly wasn't trying to, as I'm wrapping your comments about what good golfers (especially good golfers looking to post a score) might say in with what I've heard in the past.

Jeff Brauer,
I've often heard what your management company friend said, a lot. Its been the mantra for the lower end course forever. BTW, how's his company doing nowadays?

Ben Sims,
I understand what you are saying. Interesting that you didn't like it on first play, but seemed to want to come back so much. Seemed to me that after the third or so visit, you were ready to get up at 4 am and make the 5 hours drive as often as possible. What does that say? We're friends, and we have fun when you come over, but if the course sucked would you still do that? And I know full well how good Tom's courses are. I'm not comparing WP to PD, DR, BD as the sites are just so different. What I am saying is better golf can be had by the masses on less then stellar sites. That we can do better, a lot better, if we quit listening to what industry experts tell us and start really paying attention to what golfers really like. And what I'm really interested in is listening to the ones who have walked away. We know many of the reasons, time, expense, but the reality is we didn't hook them. We didn't reach them. Why?

Its not about whether golfers complain, golfers always complain. Its about whether they come back. And I believe they come back for something interesting, even if it frustrates them, even if it confounds them from time to time, just as long as it doesn't beat them up. The other day when we played Wolf Point, the wind was the opposite from the norm and blowing pretty good, and the native was too severe. This is an 95%-5% wind and the course is designed to take advantage of the opposite wind. So it was harder then usual tee to green, but normally, Wolf Point is not especially hard tee to green. There are centerline bunkers, and a creek to cross, a lake to play alongside of, but a thoughtful player is going to get around OK, even in the wind. It's about the greens, where less then half even have greenside bunkers, and all are surrounded by short grass. They may punish you, but they don't penalize. That is a key, IMO.

Based on my personal observations, I remain convinced that what golfers really want is something interesting. Yes, they will dine at McDonalds, partly because its cheap, and maybe because they always know what to expect. But would they go to a well run family restaurant if the cost was comparable and the food better, service more personable? Maybe not as often, but I think often enough.

[Jud_T]

Don,

One interesting bit you alluded to was the first impressions issue.  My club, Kingsley, falls into this category.  It can be very daunting the first few times around, particularly if you aren't playing with a member and don't know where you simply can't miss if you don't want to risk a huge number.  Yet with repeated plays many grow to love it and relish the challenge.  Is part of the dumbing down of golf courses and over-the-top maintenance practices the abject fear that paying customers need that wow first impression or they will not return and will pan the course to their buddies?  Or is it simply that private clubs have a different mission- to entertain clients over hundreds of rounds rather than just as a one-off?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Don,

I agree with interesting but not beating folks up.  To me, that means 1" rough vs. 2" rough (1" reduces spin for good players, distance for others enough), 4 ft deep bunkers vs 8 feet (with perhaps one exception per round to get them talking) etc.  If the hazards punish that old half stroke, or stroke, but not two plus strokes they do well.

As to EAGL, I believe most of their struggles come from buying courses at the peak and servicing debt.  The courses of theirs I am familiar with seem to maintain play levels, although they (like other management companies) probably have their dogs performance wise.

[Andy Troeger]

I'm not convinced its possible to classify regular golfers any more than it would members of this discussion group. People play golf for different reasons and like different things in their golf courses. It might be possible to generalize a bit, but there are a lot of viewpoints out there.

Don,
I think the Wolf Point example is a difficult one in terms of whether it would be popular if built in a different market or for more public play. Having not been there, the course sounds very unique, but the model itself is pretty unique too. Do you get many golfers that aren't known to either the owner, Mike, you, or someone associated with the course? Are any of them ever unaccompanied? The sample pool for comments is pretty small, and your chances of "friends" saying anything negative about the course seem smaller than people with no affiliation. That's not to say that the course isn't very good--the positive comments may very well be merited. I'm just pointing out that its more difficult to get honest commentary for a private club with limited play and no raters.

Regardless of all that, I agree with your general premise that golfers like interesting courses. For repeat plays, courses that provide their own internal variety are far more interesting than ones where the golfer plays the "same round" over and over. I don't think that sentiment is unique to GCA.com at all.

[Scott Weersing]

Are you asking, do golf raters know what golfers want?

Or are you asking, do people who contribute to this website know what golfers want?

I would say to question number two, that we only know what we want in a golf course. I have determined that what I want in a golf course is not what the retail golfers want.

I like variety in green complexes, holes, grasses, and type of play. I like a golf course that has some options and the ability to play different shots.

I went to play Legacy GC in Southern Pines and it looked like every course I have ever played. But that is what it was designed to look like. It was designed to look and play familiar to retail golfers on a vacation to Pinehurst.

I think retall golfers want some variety too. But it needs to be what they expected and not too much variety. For example, a Palmer or Rees Jones course is what they expect. A Strantz course has too much variety.

[Mike_Young]

As DM says, I think interesting is the key word.  But IMHO what so many golfers want and what we give varies to much.  Before the surge of the 80's thru 2006 there were courses where one could learn to play.  And as a golfer became more proficient he would graduate to liking a different type of course.  BUT as an industry I think the "beginner course" is frowned up on because they really don't need us.  The farmer builds it in his north pasture or the golf pro is given some land by a small subdivision developer and he grades out 18 holes with maybe 6 bunkers.  But now we don'rt see that as much and we wonder why guys leave the game or become frustrated and it's because that personal game development phase that we keep trying to reinvent has gone away.  I think it could be a problem around the world in countries where golf did not exist and the initial courses being developed are just too difficult for the beginning player. 
But think about this:  in 1995 there 7 million private club golfer, in 2005 there approx 5 million private club golfer and at the end of 2011 there were 2.1 million.  The industry needs to look at golf ball companies.  For example: Titleist knows they can and do make probably the best ball in the industry with the ProV yet they also know that the money is in the Pinnacle.  As a GCA sure I/we would want the best land, the best owners, the best budgets but the end product may have ZERO market.  We have to copy that model if we wish to survive or it may be the model really doesn't even need us.   

[Dan Kelly]

Oh, and on the conditioning piece.  I think it's the greens.  High end, low end, military, private, public, it doesn't matter.  All golfers want good greens.

Hear, hear!

[Don_Mahaffey]

Mike I agree, but I also think that farmer's golf course with 6 bunkers can be interesting and fun to play. It doesn't have to be dumbed down to attract golfers. In fact, I think that approach leads to failure over the long term. I believe that playable, yet interesting with some green contours that make you think about how to approach is what makes it fun, along with staying away from forced carries or severe rough. We seem to want to cultivate the execution part of the game, but we've gotten away from the mental part. Why? Because good players hate the mental part and think it should all be about execution. We can build low cost golf courses that the beginner can learn to play on, and not only learn how to hit the ball, but learn how to play golf.

[Mike_Young]

Don,
I agree.  I did not intend for anyone to think I meant "dumbed down".  I'm just saying that if one goes back to the roots of golf then architecture was a second nature to the golf pros or others.  I grew up on a strategic country golf course done by a golf professional who had retired form the Army.  He had pushed up greens with sheet drainage and a small set of tees.  He made a very good living.  So much of our modern sophistication has developed golf courses where first and foremost the owner cannot make a living and therefore it goes away.  There are plenty of these places around the country but the yet they get no press because no one needs to know of them unless they live within a few miles...we have to get back to that and unfortunately it will not require "design" fees unless you can put it on the ground.  IMHO

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()