[Sean_A]

Ben

I ain't bothered about breaking even at UM.  As I say, the focus should be on the course as an amenity for faculty/staff/students. If that means $10 green fees for students, so be it. Its a university course...not a profit centre.  Its fine to sell season passes, but not to the point where a student/faculty/staff can't call a week in advance and get tee time.  Mind you, most students will not be intersted in an upfront commitment or monthly BACS payment so ya have to be careful not to shut them out.  Shit..I would advocate walk up times remaining. Besides, what the hell do you care if UM breaks even? You are already have a sweet ride due to the generosity of others. Be thankful for your good fortune and leave it at that.

Tim

If a guy wants to hang out in basement and drink his paid for beer and tv more than he wants to socialize...he isn't clubable.  I understand the desire to make golf clubs cool places for kids, but everything runs in cycles.  I would hesitate redecorating a club to suit the current fades.  Most clubs don't have the cash to redo the house every five years....which is a long time for many of the hipster to survive.  That said, I am in favour of one of two things.  Either go very light on the golf theme and try to be nuetral or go heavy on the old boy theme of wooden panels and leather chairs. Personally, I far prefer the character of the old boy theme, but I have seen a few houses done nuetrally well...St Enodoc springs to mind. 

I am not in the least worried about the downfall of clubs....its a necessary evil. 

Mike

Muni golf isn't the problem.  The problem is knucklehead owners opened courses based on pie in the sky hopes.  The munies were there when folks thought it would be easy to get rich in golf.  At the time it was fine, but when things get tough its easy to point fingers.  Instead, the fingers should be pointed at mirrors.  Its very convenient to rip munis, but in a lot of places when the munis were built, there wasn't a public option.  To a large degree we can say that muni golf built the customer base that later publics relied upon for their business. Its sad you have such a one-sided and short term memory view of munis.

Ciao

[JC Jones]

It's possible but not likely...

Ever heard of this thing called supply and demand?

[Sean_A]

It's possible but not likely...

Ever heard of this thing called supply and demand?

I was thinking the same thing. Close the competition and the only gig in town reduces its prices? 


Ciao

[Kirk Gill]

I grew up playing golf primarily on City of Denver municipal golf courses, so I'm biased. But this debate brings up a few questions.


First of all, several of the Denver Munis were private clubs that were going out of business and were bought by the municipality. So there are cases where muni golf saves golf courses rather than running them out of business.


Second, are all muni golf courses cost-centers only, or do some of them actually make money for their cities?


Or is it possible that an issue is that break-even is all a muni is after? That certainly does provide a huge advantage over privately-run courses that were opened for someone to "get rich," as was mentioned previously, whether that's a pipe-dream or not.


For me, munis were a way in to golf - along with the privately-run local courses I played growing up. Those courses all seem to still be in business. As a person who had no knowledge of the business of golf while growing up, there was a strong symbolic power in the walls that were built around the private golf courses in town. It wasn't just that I couldn't afford to go there, but the notion that I was actively being told NOT to come in. It never even occurred to me to find out how expensive they were. They'd already built a wall to keep me OUT. It wasn't until the last 15 years or so that I had experiences that showed me that private golf could be welcoming and that there was something there for me that I wanted to join, aside from just wanting a chance to play their golf course. And I'm sure I'm not the only person who has felt that way.

[Mike_Young]

Whatever....but golf works differently than most retail....it cost the same for a course to play 10 rounds per day as it does 100.  Once a course hits the break even point then the rest o the rounds are basically gravy.  Give a privately owned guy more rounds and he will get his pricing in line or else someone will.   But take your "supply and demand" reasoning and use it on the muni scene.  How often have you seen a muni course shutter a tax paying , privately owned public course.  Put them all on the same playing field and let's see who wins...

[BHoover]

You champion the values of the free market and private enterprise, yet you also have been railing against the supposed evils of GolfNow. Am I supposed to believe that GolfNow is also "unfair" like muni courses? As a consumer, I should like the availability of lower prices thanks to GolfNow.

[Tim Gavrich]

Whatever....but golf works differently than most retail....it cost the same for a course to play 10 rounds per day as it does 100.  Once a course hits the break even point then the rest o the rounds are basically gravy.  Give a privately owned guy more rounds and he will get his pricing in line or else someone will.   But take your "supply and demand" reasoning and use it on the muni scene.  How often have you seen a muni course shutter a tax paying , privately owned public course.  Put them all on the same playing field and let's see who wins...

But why should they ever be on the same playing field when their purposes are pretty radically different? Muni courses are amenities for the municipalities, and private-owned courses are businesses. There is a spectrum of privately-owned courses ranging from the prosperous - even thriving - to the unsuccessful. If the system is so gosh-darned unfair to private owners, why are some of them successful? Isn't that just a sign the free market weeding out the bad businesspeople? Or do you feel they all deserve handouts?

[Kalen Braley]

Mike,


I don't think you're on point here.  Munis provide a wonderful service/value at a bare minimum expense to the tax payer.  Yes they have some built in advantages, but munis are the ones who provide golf to the masses and the majority who can't afford the privates of CCFAD.....


If the private model is overbuilt, its no one's fault but thier own...


P.S.  I thought most golf clubs were structured under non-profit status and pay zero/minimal taxes, but I may be wrong here.

[SL_Solow]

The problem at all levels remains oversupply.  At the height of Tiger mania, the NGF told us that we could build a course a day for 5 (or was it 10) years and not meet demand. A lot of people took them at their word and built a lot of courses, many connected to housing developments and intended to sell houses with golf as a secondary consideration. But golf has always been something of a niche sport, at least in the US.  When times are good and there is a charismatic figure at the top of the game (think Bobby in the 20's, Arnie in the 60's and Tiger before 2008) participation grows and courses are built.  When those factors are removed or reversed, the game retrenches.  The trends may be softened or exacerbated by those in leadership positions but the relationship is pretty obvious. So when the downturn came, golf went backwards just as it did in the 30's.  As for Mike's issue with muni's, setting aside any personal pecuniary interests, it is really a matter of philosophy.  When a community builds a muni, whether in the 1920's or the 2010's, it has usually made a decision that it is in the public good to provide golf to its citizens at a reasonable price.  The forfeiture of property taxes and the willingness to accept a lower return, perhaps even a loss, is a reflection of that consideration since, in the end, every taxpayer pays a small portion of the amount sacrificed in taxes and/or operating revenue.  So the real question is whether government should supply this amenity.  We can suggest that muni's are a significant breeding ground for future players etc., but that is really beside the point.  Mike wants government to stay out of the business.  Of course, that in itself would cause the muni's to close thus reducing the number of courses, but those closings are OK under Mike's model.  Again, it is largely a matter of philosophy.  Finally, Mike's suggestion that the system isn't fair reminds me of a lesson my dad taught me when I raised the same complaint about one of his decisions.  He said that he was teaching me a very important lesson, "life is not fair".  Even if all the muni's disappeared, the playing fields would not be level for a variety of reasons that would vary from market to market.  I concede the muni's have some advantages.  The question is whether society has the right to grant those advantages to pursue a perceived public good and whether providing municipal golf furthers that objective.  Given that I have a leadership position in a golf association that includes private clubs, privately owned public courses and muni's, I will not opine.  I spend my time in this area trying to encourage greater participation at all levels remaining mindful of the limitations I previously alluded to.

[Richard Hetzel]

Any high school kid or college kid with a good grasp on web programming, could create an online tee time purchasing system for any golf course so they could avoid using golfnow's service I am surprised that more golf courses have not taken this approach with their own websites.


Here in Cincinnati the municipal courses are all contracted out to a golf operator (Casper Golf, not sure who it is  right now etc...) and I think at one time the deal was they get $500,000 and a percentage of food and beverage sales. Anything else is all profit to the operator. I don't quite remember but the city may have also paid for the golf equipment needs as well, I am not sure. All staff are paid by the management company. Ultimately, municipal courses still need to offer a good product to get golfers playing there, and in some cities they make a decent profit because of what they offer. They do offer cheap golf, and that probably attracts people with less money, less interest in the game, and kids just starting out. They lucked out with the law being on their side for a property tax exemption in the article below. A private course owner (of crappy courses) sued saying he shouldn't have to pay taxes (or the city courses should pay taxes)  if the city courses don't because they were "privatized". He lost.


http://wvxu.org/post/court-finds-cincinnati-golf-courses-entitled-property-tax-exemption#stream/0


You could also argue that Cincinnati city residents pay more in property taxes to support these courses, which isn't the case any longer because the city, at a minimum will make $500,000 per year from the course operator even if the operator loses money.


Sometimes I think that golf courses overcharged for years (and rightfully so, because the demand was huge) and didn't properly save these earnings for future years (smoothing) for when business may not be all that good (now).


The market will keep correcting itself further me thinks.

[Mark Pavy]

I am surprised the golf industry hasn't learnt more from the Top Golf model.

It makes sense to provide a product that people can consume when they do have the time. Night Golf, done correctly, can be a valuable source of income for a golf course.

[Dave McCollum]

Kalen,

You are wrong about property taxes.  In fact, some years ago I got into it with the tax appraisers who were appraising golf courses much higher proportionally than other business.  Property taxes have local and state rules, procedures, and methods.  Our taxing authority was using some appraisal model built and based on who knows where (urban population centers?).  Most tax districts have some law that every business is taxed at least at a comparable level as similar business (here at least 90%).  In order to challenge their model, I had to get all the surrounding non-muni golf courses to submit their financials to establish more of a revenue based model.  That was like herding cats getting all the competition to submit their numbers in a way that was confidential and not public information.  It worked and tax rates were lowered a bit.  However, for the next 15 years taxes continued to rise, half of that period during a recession that hit golf hard, so we are pretty much back to where we were with the taxes being a huge burden and giving the muni courses significant competitive advantages.  Way it is and has always been as long as we've had munis. 

I'm with Mike, and would like a level playing field.  How many tax payers do you know that would like to pay taxes that subsidize their competition?  But let's not make this political.  It's a very old fight that has been going on for a long time.  Depending on your politics, you might find it interesting reading about what Trump does with his golf properties.  Short summary:  brags about their incredible value when promoting; pleads abject poverty when appealing assessments.  I'm sure others will say similar things representing their situations and markets.               

[Tim Gavrich]

As for Mike's issue with muni's, setting aside any personal pecuniary interests, it is really a matter of philosophy.  When a community builds a muni, whether in the 1920's or the 2010's, it has usually made a decision that it is in the public good to provide golf to its citizens at a reasonable price.  The forfeiture of property taxes and the willingness to accept a lower return, perhaps even a loss, is a reflection of that consideration since, in the end, every taxpayer pays a small portion of the amount sacrificed in taxes and/or operating revenue.  So the real question is whether government should supply this amenity.  We can suggest that muni's are a significant breeding ground for future players etc., but that is really beside the point.  Mike wants government to stay out of the business.  Of course, that in itself would cause the muni's to close thus reducing the number of courses, but those closings are OK under Mike's model.  Again, it is largely a matter of philosophy.

SL--
As to the portion of the portion of your post I bolded above, I would wonder whether it might not necessarily be beside the point, especially if that municipal golf course makes serious headway in attracting new players to the game, thereby increasing the percentage of the tax base supporting the facility that actually use the course. If you hypothesized a city where 100% of the tax base were golfers, then municipal golf would make immaculate sense because there wouldn't be anyone supporting the facility who might not potentially use it. Of course, no such municipalities exist (we can dream), but it still is true that the more people in a municipality play golf, the less of a tax burden that facility might be on the non-golfer, isn't it? In light of this, perhaps, then, every municipal golf facility's prime directive should be the recruitment of new golfers, and that would be a way for muni courses to be distinct in purpose from private-owned daily fees, who could focus on making money.

[SL_Solow]

Tim;  Of course you are correct.  I was addressing Mike's critique that muni's have an unfair advantage due to the fact that they are subsidized by their immunity from property taxes.  I accepted his premise, which I know to be correct in many instances, and suggested that there might be very good societal reasons for this subsidy.  If the attraction of new players is aided by lower greens fees made possible by the subsidy, then there is an even greater reason for this choice.  But those opposed might argue that the new player would stilll find an appropriate venue if the muni's were placed on an even footing with their privately owned competitors.  Without taking sides, I simply suggested that the issue comes down to a matter of choice regarding what is appropriate governmental activity.  Your hypothetical creates additional weight in favor of muni's.

[Mike_Young]

You champion the values of the free market and private enterprise, yet you also have been railing against the supposed evils of GolfNow. Am I supposed to believe that GolfNow is also "unfair" like muni courses? As a consumer, I should like the availability of lower prices thanks to GolfNow.

Brian,
I have said I don't like GolfNow but not that it was unfair...it is a product of the market and it is also bad for golf....In most cases muni golf is unfair...different set of rules it plays by...

[Mike_Young]

Whatever....but golf works differently than most retail....it cost the same for a course to play 10 rounds per day as it does 100.  Once a course hits the break even point then the rest o the rounds are basically gravy.  Give a privately owned guy more rounds and he will get his pricing in line or else someone will.   But take your "supply and demand" reasoning and use it on the muni scene.  How often have you seen a muni course shutter a tax paying , privately owned public course.  Put them all on the same playing field and let's see who wins...

But why should they ever be on the same playing field when their purposes are pretty radically different? Muni courses are amenities for the municipalities, and private-owned courses are businesses. There is a spectrum of privately-owned courses ranging from the prosperous - even thriving - to the unsuccessful. If the system is so gosh-darned unfair to private owners, why are some of them successful? Isn't that just a sign the free market weeding out the bad businesspeople? Or do you feel they all deserve handouts?

Do you think the municipalities should also have grocery stores for the people or maybe even pubs?  Hell no....12000 golf courses in this country are capable of competing with the munis and most do a good job of it...but it is an unfair competition that the government has no business being in.   Your BS regarding handouts has never come from me.  I have always placed people in two categories:  those who wish to compete and those who consider themselves victims.  I'm all for competition but make it an even playing field.  Give me one reason why a muni course should be providing a product for a loss or a breakeven point if there is a private business person in the community doing such.  There is not one.  And I'm not talking about $100 green fee public courses.  I'm talking 35-45 dollar guys.

[Mike_Young]

Mike,


I don't think you're on point here.  Munis provide a wonderful service/value at a bare minimum expense to the tax payer.  Yes they have some built in advantages, but munis are the ones who provide golf to the masses and the majority who can't afford the privates of CCFAD.....


If the private model is overbuilt, its no one's fault but thier own...


P.S.  I thought most golf clubs were structured under non-profit status and pay zero/minimal taxes, but I may be wrong here.

there are plenty, if not the majority of courses in the US who are built to compete with the muni model, not CCFAD or private clubs.  While most of those munis may be giving the individual golfer a deal they are costing the over all tax base..... most end up being run by management companies who charge more than the mayor makes....it's almost a joke to watch the overall muni market and how it is manipulated...

[Mike_Young]

The problem at all levels remains oversupply.  At the height of Tiger mania, the NGF told us that we could build a course a day for 5 (or was it 10) years and not meet demand. A lot of people took them at their word and built a lot of courses, many connected to housing developments and intended to sell houses with golf as a secondary consideration. But golf has always been something of a niche sport, at least in the US.  When times are good and there is a charismatic figure at the top of the game (think Bobby in the 20's, Arnie in the 60's and Tiger before 2008) participation grows and courses are built.  When those factors are removed or reversed, the game retrenches.  The trends may be softened or exacerbated by those in leadership positions but the relationship is pretty obvious. So when the downturn came, golf went backwards just as it did in the 30's.  As for Mike's issue with muni's, setting aside any personal pecuniary interests, it is really a matter of philosophy.  When a community builds a muni, whether in the 1920's or the 2010's, it has usually made a decision that it is in the public good to provide golf to its citizens at a reasonable price.  The forfeiture of property taxes and the willingness to accept a lower return, perhaps even a loss, is a reflection of that consideration since, in the end, every taxpayer pays a small portion of the amount sacrificed in taxes and/or operating revenue.  So the real question is whether government should supply this amenity.  We can suggest that muni's are a significant breeding ground for future players etc., but that is really beside the point.  Mike wants government to stay out of the business.  Of course, that in itself would cause the muni's to close thus reducing the number of courses, but those closings are OK under Mike's model.  Again, it is largely a matter of philosophy.  Finally, Mike's suggestion that the system isn't fair reminds me of a lesson my dad taught me when I raised the same complaint about one of his decisions.  He said that he was teaching me a very important lesson, "life is not fair".  Even if all the muni's disappeared, the playing fields would not be level for a variety of reasons that would vary from market to market.  I concede the muni's have some advantages.  The question is whether society has the right to grant those advantages to pursue a perceived public good and whether providing municipal golf furthers that objective.  Given that I have a leadership position in a golf association that includes private clubs, privately owned public courses and muni's, I will not opine.  I spend my time in this area trying to encourage greater participation at all levels remaining mindful of the limitations I previously alluded to.

SL,
Thanks for the explanation.  You explain my position well.  As for unfair, I agree life is unfair and don't expect it to be but that doesn't keep me from thinking muni golf is unfair to local competition built to compete in the same market segment.

[Mike_Young]

Any high school kid or college kid with a good grasp on web programming, could create an online tee time purchasing system for any golf course so they could avoid using golfnow's service I am surprised that more golf courses have not taken this approach with their own websites.


Here in Cincinnati the municipal courses are all contracted out to a golf operator (Casper Golf, not sure who it is  right now etc...) and I think at one time the deal was they get $500,000 and a percentage of food and beverage sales. Anything else is all profit to the operator. I don't quite remember but the city may have also paid for the golf equipment needs as well, I am not sure. All staff are paid by the management company. Ultimately, municipal courses still need to offer a good product to get golfers playing there, and in some cities they make a decent profit because of what they offer. They do offer cheap golf, and that probably attracts people with less money, less interest in the game, and kids just starting out. They lucked out with the law being on their side for a property tax exemption in the article below. A private course owner (of crappy courses) sued saying he shouldn't have to pay taxes (or the city courses should pay taxes)  if the city courses don't because they were "privatized". He lost.


http://wvxu.org/post/court-finds-cincinnati-golf-courses-entitled-property-tax-exemption#stream/0


You could also argue that Cincinnati city residents pay more in property taxes to support these courses, which isn't the case any longer because the city, at a minimum will make $500,000 per year from the course operator even if the operator loses money.


Sometimes I think that golf courses overcharged for years (and rightfully so, because the demand was huge) and didn't properly save these earnings for future years (smoothing) for when business may not be all that good (now).


The market will keep correcting itself further me thinks.

Richard,
Too much in your post for me to argue about:
The high school kid can't build what GolfNow has

The Casper deal has more fine print than you are describing

And the guy who filed suit won and then lost on appeal but several states are still seeing such actions moving forward

If munis need to provide services to people in need it needs to be for housing, clothing food etc....not frigging golf....if they knew how to operate it Billy Casper Golf would not be there...

[Mike_Young]

As for Mike's issue with muni's, setting aside any personal pecuniary interests, it is really a matter of philosophy.  When a community builds a muni, whether in the 1920's or the 2010's, it has usually made a decision that it is in the public good to provide golf to its citizens at a reasonable price.  The forfeiture of property taxes and the willingness to accept a lower return, perhaps even a loss, is a reflection of that consideration since, in the end, every taxpayer pays a small portion of the amount sacrificed in taxes and/or operating revenue.  So the real question is whether government should supply this amenity.  We can suggest that muni's are a significant breeding ground for future players etc., but that is really beside the point.  Mike wants government to stay out of the business.  Of course, that in itself would cause the muni's to close thus reducing the number of courses, but those closings are OK under Mike's model.  Again, it is largely a matter of philosophy.

SL--
As to the portion of the portion of your post I bolded above, I would wonder whether it might not necessarily be beside the point, especially if that municipal golf course makes serious headway in attracting new players to the game, thereby increasing the percentage of the tax base supporting the facility that actually use the course. If you hypothesized a city where 100% of the tax base were golfers, then municipal golf would make immaculate sense because there wouldn't be anyone supporting the facility who might not potentially use it. Of course, no such municipalities exist (we can dream), but it still is true that the more people in a municipality play golf, the less of a tax burden that facility might be on the non-golfer, isn't it? In light of this, perhaps, then, every municipal golf facility's prime directive should be the recruitment of new golfers, and that would be a way for muni courses to be distinct in purpose from private-owned daily fees, who could focus on making money.

100 percent of the tax base uses grocery stores and gas stations...why not have the munis provide those?  You don't need munis to grow the game....

[Sean_A]

Mike


I never said we need munis to grow the game...I don't think we need to grow the game...thats business talk.  I said munis were essential in growing the game...a growth which all people in the business enjoy today.  So what is your solution?  Demand all munis be closed down because they are competitors to privately owned public courses?  In theory this may sound lovely, but one aspect will always be an issue...the land as a public amenity.  Once land is sold off by municipalities its impossible to control its future. I am not with you on this issue...to say the least.  I can understand a beef if munis are opening up which cost a crazy amount for its citizens to play because that is more like getting into the business of golf rather than the business of providing recreation...a subtle but important distinction.  I can also understand a beef if there a few good affordable options in the immediate area and the city decides to build a muni...if more golf is needed why not to explore a private enterprise partnership or some such deal?  But just to blanket statement about munis is incredibly short and long sighted.


Ciao

[BHoover]

You champion the values of the free market and private enterprise, yet you also have been railing against the supposed evils of GolfNow. Am I supposed to believe that GolfNow is also "unfair" like muni courses? As a consumer, I should like the availability of lower prices thanks to GolfNow.

Brian,
I have said I don't like GolfNow but not that it was unfair...it is a product of the market and it is also bad for golf....In most cases muni golf is unfair...different set of rules it plays by...

In another post, you say they are two types of people--those who wish to compete and those who consider themselves victims. Which are you? I might buy this argument about munis being "unfair" if you didn't have your own conflict of interest in this matter. Okay, I still wouldn't buy into your argument, but I wouldn't completely discount it if you were disinterested from a financial standpoint and were making an argument about the good of the game. That's not the case.


I'll think of you fondly when I tee it up at the local muni in the spring, and I'll be thankful that my community recognizes and provides opportunities for recreation for its citizens.

[SL_Solow]

Sorry Mike but you miss the point.  I understand your argument.  All I am suggesting is that any municipality can determine that in an effort to provide amenities to its citizens, golf is an appropriate use, just like pools, tennis courts, baseball fields basketball courts and the like.  It can also decide to abate taxes on its own properties.  You are free to disagree and that doesn't make you wrong.  But like most policy discussions, the issue is nuanced and I suggest it is more nuanced than your response acknowledges.

[archie_struthers]

 


Feel that my knowledge of muni facilities and their issues is fairly extensive , and personal . I'm with Mike Young in theory !


Have no problem with a 9 hole easy access for kids and beginners, if it fills a need. Even this is a bit of a stretch as we have owned one that paid taxes and was definitely impacted by two muni's in our area.


When you start talking about $3,6,10 and 20 million dollar "muni's" I'm off the train altogether.  In our area McCullagh's Emerald Links was given a free liquor license(250k value) , they tried to pass laws to impede  our progress at Twisted Dune ( which we were forced to sell ) and have certainly misrepresented the tax payers payments  to a losing venture since its inception in the early 2000's . They didn't have to follow the rigorous engineering and landscape requirements that cost us hundreds of thousand of dollars during construction. Other than that and some other irregularities it is pretty level playing field (lol)   To be true I'm omitting way more heinous stuff that happened to protect the innocent from further harassment .


No sense beating that dead horse , but any of you who have had a government agency focused on beating you up would know the fight is patently over before you start . Too many resources and ways to hurt you personally . If you have another business , yikes.


Think of a restaurant that opens right next to yours. They are direct competitors  and are owned by the local government. How about health inspectors, who do they work for? How about the liquor control guys ? How about the builder/ developers who prefer your food but are worried about their permits and future deals in the county They know where they need to eat . Unless you have been in these businesses you can't speak rationally about this stuff.  How about when they discount prices and bill the taxpayers to make up the difference .  It's unbelievable , really !




It's over 15 years since I've experienced this but its still dangerous to talk about publicly.  When we built a nice golf course that reduced the burden on the school system and preserved open space thought they would send a limo to get  me to work , they sent a hearse instead .









P.S.     much like the messages on Mission Impossible I will self destruct this post by lunchtime 

[Mike_Young]

Sorry Mike but you miss the point.  I understand your argument.  All I am suggesting is that any municipality can determine that in an effort to provide amenities to its citizens, golf is an appropriate use, just like pools, tennis courts, baseball fields basketball courts and the like.  It can also decide to abate taxes on its own properties.  You are free to disagree and that doesn't make you wrong.  But like most policy discussions, the issue is nuanced and I suggest it is more nuanced than your response acknowledges.

SL,
Thanks.  I do think I understand your points.  I guess my argument would be only be valid when the amenities you mention are being provided by private enterprise at a fair price.  That's where my concern lies.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()