News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #600 on: August 20, 2010, 08:30:37 AM »
David,

I think it would be helpful for you to explain what it means for HDC to have taken title to the land in Lloyd's name. It doesn't seem logical to me. What was the date of that transaction? Who was the seller? Philadelphia and Ardmore Land Company?

Mike Cirba

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #601 on: August 20, 2010, 08:32:21 AM »
Mike,

Doesn't it make sense that they would have agreed to buy an undetermined 117 acres of that 130 acres you've just described?

Most of the points we disagree on (in my view) seem to be due to you using that "approximate road" as a real boundary...needless to say, I think that's a mistake. Doesn't make my theory true on its own, but it does explain where you and I go off track...

Jim,

Believe it or not, I keep going back to what Francis described.

He said that at the time of his brainstorm they had already located the first 13 holes.

If they did not own any of the triangle land at that time, I have already argued the I find it almost unimaginable they they were on such a fool's errand, thinking they could fit the final five holes of their championship course in the constraints of the remaining land that ended abruptly 130 yards past the quarry.   .

But, for the "give back of 14.5 acres to get 4.8 acres" to work, they would not only have to be on such a fool's errand, but they would also have to have somehow neglected to use any of the half-moon-shaped land marked "JW" south of Haverford College, in any of their "golf layouts"!

I just don't see that as realistic in any possible scenario, do you?

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #602 on: August 20, 2010, 08:44:28 AM »
Mike,

I think they were obligated to use the quarry land within the golf course constrainst to get the deal they did on the land.

I also think the very fact that they were hamstrung about getting in those five holes EXPLAINS Francis' recollection of this as his one important contribution...it was so significant. Your use of fools errand is based on looking at the course that was developed...as though there was only ever one way to deal with the quarry, to go right over it three times, I would suggest there were other ways do deal with it...the fact that they weren't ideal explains the problem they had.

As to your 14 for 4 give-back thoughts...you're overreaching. The club agreed to buy 117 acres that was as yet undetermined. This 117 comes out of the 130 you identified as representing everything they used below the Haverford boundary extended. The swap was based on an agreement to buy some portion of that land in th elower half of JW, but only 4.8 acres of it. They took the triangle and agreed to buy 4.8 acres less of that half moon JW. Again, just my vision of what happened, but your 14 for 4 giveback needs to be addressed.

TEPaul

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #603 on: August 20, 2010, 09:20:38 AM »
"Tom,

Most of it is not hard to understand...

but when Evans approves a lease of the land the Special Committee on Golf Grounds recommends, with affirmation from Macdonald and Wigham that it'll make for good golf turf etc...on July 1, 1910 and you tell me that means nothing...when my whole theory is based on these guys having access to the grounds in the summer and fall of 1910...I guess you'll have to explain a little better why it means nothing."


Sully:

What land are you suggesting above was leased?



"For starters - why is it impossible that the club, through Lloyd or otherwise, leased the land prior to deciding to buy it outright through Lloyd? Is it simply because you haven't found that paperwork yet? Or is there some fundamental train of logic that I'm missing? I'm serious."


Sully:

Well, to go to your three questions: By the way, I did have all the MCC meeting minutes that mention leasing that you asked me about yesterday.

"Why is it impossible that the club, through Lloyd or otherwise, leased the land prior to deciding to buy it outright through Lloyd?"


It is certainly not impossible that they could've done that and that idea and that suggestion was made by the "Search Committee" report of July 29, 2010 to the MCC Board but not in the specific way you're apparently imagining and suggesting above, because they actually recommended the creation of a 'land company' to purchase the land and lease it to the club. The president (Evans) and secretary (Sayers) immediately called a "Special Meeting" of the board for July 1, 1910. The board minutes of that July 1, 1910 "Special" board meeting record that the subject and agenda of that meeting was only to consider 'new grounds for golf.'

Those board meeting minutes of July 1, 11910 record that among other items the subject of forming a 'land company' to buy the land and lease it to the club was discussed at length. At the end of the meeting Sayers moved that a resolution be voted on. With all resolutions, they must be articulated and recorded word for word. The resolution was thus:

"Resolved, that the officers of the club be authorized and instructed to execute a lease for the property recommended by the Special Committee on Golf Grounds upon such terms as may be approved by the president of the club."

That resolution was "Carried" and that was recorded in the July 1, 1910 Special Board meeting.

That was the initial discussions at the board level of what would become in Dec. 1910 the second class Pennsylvania corporation known as the MCCGA corporation (the 'land company' referred to above) that bought the land (actually Lloyd bought it for them under his own name for specific reasons that have already been given on here and did not turn in over to MCCGA until July 23, 1911).


"Is it simply because you haven't found that paperwork yet? Or is there some fundamental train of logic that I'm missing?"


There was no lease for the land in the summer and early fall of 1910 between MCC and HDC or any of the other land owners of land that HDC had been cobbling together from 1908 until the fall of 1910. If there had been it most certainly would have been recorded and reflected in the MCC board meeting minutes. The logic of why there was no lease as you suggest (which frankly neither the Search Committee nor the board actually suggested or said or wrote if you read this material carefully) is because by Nov. of 1910 Lloyd and a group of other MCC members that were called the "Guarantors" (this in specifically mentioned in that Nov. 15, 1910 "circular" to the MCC members) had already both "secured" all that land (all 338.6 acres of it) through a $30,000 down payment (for the 117 acres) as well as a recapitalization of HDC itself which accounted for approximately 1/2 of the stock capitalization value of HDC being held by people not from MCC and approximately the other half being held by MCC members, at that point including those "Guarantors" of which apparently Lloyd was the primary one. That too is reflected in that Nov. 15, 1910 "circular" to the MCC membership!


 
 
 
 
« Last Edit: August 20, 2010, 09:32:06 AM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #604 on: August 20, 2010, 09:24:23 AM »
Sully:

I was speaking with Wayne this morning about all this and it told him the best way to understand all of this throughout the second half of 1910 is to simply do what Deep Throat told Woodward and Bernstein to do in their Watergate investigation.

And what Deep Throat told them do was; "Just follow the money."

That is precisely what you or anyone else interested in this subject should do if you really want to understand it and what precisely and exactly happened back then.  ;)

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #605 on: August 20, 2010, 09:26:57 AM »

"Resolved, that the officers of the club be authorized and instructed to execute a lease for the property recommended by the Special Committee on Golf Grounds upon such terms as may be approved by the president of the club."



Tom,

Can we focus on this one sentence...and it's money trail?

Are you suggesting that the word lease is referring to what eventually transpired in which MCCGA owned the land and leased it back to MCC?

TEPaul

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #606 on: August 20, 2010, 09:42:15 AM »
"Are you suggesting that the word lease is referring to what eventually transpired in which MCCGA owned the land and leased it back to MCC?"


Sully:

Absolutely!

Above you actually said that at that July 1, 1910 Special Board meeting MCC president Evans APPROVED some lease. He did nothing of the kind in July, 1910 or the summer and early fall of 1910. All he approved was that the officers of the club be AUTHORIZED to execute a lease for the property (as) recommended by the Special Committee (in their June 29, 1910 report to the board) UPON SUCH TERMS as MAY BE approved by the president of the club. That would actually happen from the Nov 15 and Nov. 23 board meetings through Dec. 23, 1910 at which timespan T. DeWitt Cuyler became involved in setting up the second class Pennsylvania corporation known as MCCGA which owned the land and leased it back to MCC for about the next 32 years.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2010, 09:44:37 AM by TEPaul »

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #607 on: August 20, 2010, 09:48:32 AM »
...which actually started that lease in July 1911, correct? A year after the club authorized its action?

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #608 on: August 20, 2010, 09:50:01 AM »
Why would the club not act immediately on this land?

TEPaul

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #609 on: August 20, 2010, 09:57:50 AM »
MikeC:

If you want to really understand what happened with such things that you call "puts and gets" just try to follow the last two paragraphs particularly in Post #592. I know it seems complicated but that is what happened, in my opinion, and I think I have all the documentary evidence to prove it as Merion GC does now too.

TEPaul

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #610 on: August 20, 2010, 10:07:17 AM »
“...which actually started that lease in July 1911, correct? A year after the club authorized its action?”


Sully:

That’s correct.



“Why would the club not act immediately on this land?”


They did act immediately. That “Search Committee” report of June 29, 1910 recommended that they act immediately on ‘this opportunity.’ They merely did it all in various ways that you have apparenty not yet come to understand completely even though I’ve tried to explain it to you. There was no lease between MCC and any of the land HDC had been cobbling together from 1908 until Oct. 1910 (The Dallas Estate) that included five separate parcels totally 338.6 acres. Have you seen what they were? Would you like me to list them for you as HDC secretary E.W. Nicholson listed them for MCC when he made the offer to MCC in his letter of Nov 10, 1910?





Mike Cirba

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #611 on: August 20, 2010, 10:46:42 AM »
Mike,

I think they were obligated to use the quarry land within the golf course constraints to get the deal they did on the land.

Jim,

I would agree, but I think they also wanted to use it because M&W had identified it as "much could be made of it" for golf purposes.   That is also why I don't think they would have artificially constrained themselves by only considering land up to 130 yards north of the quarry, with the decapitation of the Johnson Farm in that area.    That northernmost section of farmland was approximately 150 yards wide and over 300 yards long...I don't get the idea that they would have summarily excluded it from the land they were considering, and there was no historic or other border there to force that decision.   It would have been immensely short-sighted.


I also think the very fact that they were hamstrung about getting in those five holes EXPLAINS Francis' recollection of this as his one important contribution...it was so significant. Your use of fools errand is based on looking at the course that was developed...as though there was only ever one way to deal with the quarry, to go right over it three times, I would suggest there were other ways do deal with it...the fact that they weren't ideal explains the problem they had.

There's "hamstrung" and then there's "hamstrung"!   Remember that for the Decapitation theory to work, two things have to be true;

They would have had to believe, at least in theory, that they could somehow get their five finishing holes in the land available north of the clubhouse to the south boundary of Haverford College 130 yards past the end of the quarry, WITHOUT using any of the half-moon shaped land marked "JW" that Francis tells us "was not part of any golf layout".   Further, they had already used up one par three on the back nine with the creation of the 13th hole behind the clubhouse.   I'd be surprised if there were 20 usable acres there and no one could think they'd get five holes in what was left.



As far as the quarry, I'm not sure what alternatives you're suggesting.   They could go around it to the west, as they did with the alt fairway on 16, but the northern boundary wasn't wide enough west to east for a good hole, the eastern boundary was the property line, and the southern boundary was the same problem as the the north...not enough width, especially without using any of the land marked JW.   I think they had to go over and through it, and the only way to do that without creating a really bad golf hole (say running from the 18th green up the hill) was from the north, and I can't imagine that wouldn't have been obvious to them since the first time they saw the property.


As to your 14 for 4 give-back thoughts...you're overreaching. The club agreed to buy 117 acres that was as yet undetermined. This 117 comes out of the 130 you identified as representing everything they used below the Haverford boundary extended. The swap was based on an agreement to buy some portion of that land in the lower half of JW, but only 4.8 acres of it. They took the triangle and agreed to buy 4.8 acres less of that half moon JW. Again, just my vision of what happened, but your 14 for 4 giveback needs to be addressed.

 I agree that the club agreed to buy 117, but if they were originally buying it out of the 129.5 I outlined south of Haverford College, to get to the number actually purchased (120) after supposedly acquiring the triangle in the Francis Swap (taking them to about 134.5), they'd have to agree NOT to purchase some 14.5 acres of that land under consideration, correct?

I think you also have to consider why, if the specific 117 acres had already been determined by the time of the November 1910 Land Plan based on the Francis Swap happening prior to then, why then Mr. Lloyd would have seen fit in December 1910 to purchase the entire 161 acres of Johnson Farmland plus the Dallas Estate per Cuyler's advise, and so "that the lines could be revised subsequently."

Why wouldn't he have simply purchased the specific golf course land they had identified at that time if the course was pre-routed?.

« Last Edit: August 20, 2010, 10:50:14 AM by MCirba »

Mike Cirba

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #612 on: August 20, 2010, 11:02:02 AM »
Jim,

I'd also suggest that looking at the aerial above, you'll see that the corresponding "parallel" road built in the Real Estate component of the property is a pretty good match for the 1910 Land Plan as drawn.

On the other hand, Golf House Road shows the bulges and dips associated with various puts and gets.

I would suggest that the general shape of today's holes 14 and 15 were configured based on the idea of a gently curving road as the boundary on that western edge, and not the other way around.   In other words, I don't think the general shaping of the road was built as it was because of the golf course shaping, but instead the golf course in that area fit into the preconceived idea of what that boundary was going to look like aesthetically.

The revisions, I'd suggest, were due simply to not having enough width where needed in certain spots (14th green, left side of 15th fairway) that they put their holes, and too much in others (across from the clubhouse).

You can see the corresponding road shaping really well in this old photo, looking very much as drawn on the November 1910 Land Plan, as well as the deviating spots on Golf House Road where land was given and taketh;

« Last Edit: August 20, 2010, 11:08:10 AM by MCirba »

TEPaul

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #613 on: August 20, 2010, 11:19:38 AM »
"I think you also have to consider why, if the specific 117 acres had already been determined by the time of the November 1910 Land Plan based on the Francis Swap happening prior to then, why then Mr. Lloyd would have seen fit in December 1910 to purchase the entire 161 acres of Johnson Farmland plus the Dallas Estate per Cuyler's advise, and so "that the lines could be revised subsequently."

Why wouldn't he have simply purchased the specific golf course land they had identified at that time if the course was pre-routed?."


Mike Cirba:

Essentially, THAT is the very point and the very question that those people who still believe this happened prior to Nov. 10, 1910 (as that essay, "The Missing Faces of Merion" both assumes and concludes) just don't want to deal with or try to answer realistically.

THAT, in a nutshell is IT, and that is what has been keeping these Merion threads dragging on so long. Merion has now certainly considered this very carefully and they now certainly know what their interpretation is and will be.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #614 on: August 20, 2010, 11:30:10 AM »
Is that the whole thing in a nutshell?

If so then great, because I've been answering it for over a year...because the "approximate road" was exactly that, an approximate road. Not a random road...or even a hypothetical road (for asthetic purposes)...it was an approximation of the land they were going to acquire based on a knowledge of where they were going to place the holes. The reason it's not a fixed road is because they didn't know how much width they would need once they built out the holes.

Lloyd ownership was key and helpful for the reason they said...so that the boundary could be moved at his will. If they had bought the land represented by what you guys keep using as a hard boundary they would have had to do an extra transaction or two to get to the finished product.

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #615 on: August 20, 2010, 11:42:07 AM »
I'm moving, so don't have much time to be involved in this thread, but I did notice my measurements and overlays being used.  One clarification of fact I'd like to make is to TEP's post #583 (and thanks for admitting I did at least one thing right).

Quote
"Bryan Izatt indeed did that measurement back on the old thread, and mentioned he measured out to the middle of the approximate road.   Not sure that matters.."


Actually that does matter and technically Bryan Izatt was correct to measure from the middle of Golf House Road. I don't think Golf House Rd was built until 1912 or 1913 and technically Merion owns the east half of the road and the residential landowners on the west own the west half of the road. The road was "dedicated" to the township, I believe, but it might have been to the county. If Golf House Road was ever obsotleted and "undedicated" and removed theoretically the land on either side of the middle would be returned to the landowners. But of course for golf Merion uses OB on the eastern inside edge of that road "dedication."

Golf House Road was built in July 1911.  The survey of July 1911 mentions it.  See quote below from last year's thread.


Quote
One more fact to consider.  According to the July 26, 1911 Indenture (below) Golf House Road was built, but not named yet, by that date.  Working back from that date, when would the road have to have been surveyed in it's final form to allow it to be built by July 1911.  Would it have been gravel, or paved.  In either case could it have been built in 3 months between April and July?  Or does the building season in PA begin earlier than April (given it was a reputedly rough winter that year)?




Is it possible the road building was started in the fall of 1910 and that the approximate road on the land plan was just approximate because Pugh and Hubbard didn't have its metes and bounds, even though it was under construction, when they drew the land plan and therefore didn't feel it was appropriate to specify it on the plan.

Mike Cirba

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #616 on: August 20, 2010, 11:49:35 AM »
Jim,

If they were just working within some general 130 or so acres that they had to get down to matching the 117 acres previously secured, then why the need to swap or exchange any land at all?

Why did Francis mention swapping land that he thought they owned ("we had some land that was not being used in any golf layout"), and what would your interpretation be of this quote from the MCC Minutes in April 1911? (bold mine)

“...In order to accomplish this, it will be necessary to acquire 3 acres additional."

"Whereas the Golf Committee presented a plan showing the proposed layout of the new golf ground which necessitated the exchange of a portion of the land already purchased for other land adjoining...Resolved that the board approve the exchange.…………..and the purchase of 3 acres additional for $7,500”


Bryan,

Good to hear from you.

Here's wishing your move is 1/1,000,000,000,000th as complicated as Merion's.  ;D  
« Last Edit: August 20, 2010, 12:00:54 PM by MCirba »

TEPaul

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #617 on: August 20, 2010, 12:51:57 PM »
Bryan:

You said something in #615 which was like a lightbulb going of in my mind. I IMed you.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #618 on: August 20, 2010, 01:03:39 PM »
Jim,

If they were just working within some general 130 or so acres that they had to get down to matching the 117 acres previously secured, then why the need to swap or exchange any land at all?



Because they had agreed to buy only 117 of that 130 and the triangle was outside of that 130.


They needed to buy 3 more because their finished product was 120 acres of HDC land...very simple...and they paid retail for those 3 additional acres.


What would be preferred by Merion...to route a coure within a fixed 117 acre boundary in which at least two acrss were clearly unisable because they were so narrow? Or to route a gof course that covered 117 acres from within 130 acres of total usable area?

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #619 on: August 20, 2010, 01:13:48 PM »
Mike,

Your attempt at refutation answers your own challenge.  They didn't say exactly 100 acres, they said 100 acres or whatever it takes to build a golf course.   So it matters not to my theory whether it was 100 or 108 acres.  The land they were originally considering comes out of that Johnson farm parcel, south of the southern border of the college property extended.   [As an aside, looking at Bryan's drawing, the little rectangle of land between the Dallas Estate and Ardmore Avenue looks to be about 6-7 acres.   It is possible that this too was not originally offered, but one would have to see the actual documentation to tell.]

Contrary to your assertions, my theory depends upon the following:

1.  The original offer was for land within the Johnson farm.  That is all HDC owned at the time the offer was made.
2.  The land off to the west by itself was not considered for the golf course obvious reasons.
3.  The land West of the College Property was not being considered because Francis tells us it was not being considered.    Specifically, Francis tells us that the land now covered with fine homes along Golf House Road was swapped for the 130 yd. by 190 yd. section of land next to Haverford College.   From this, we know two things:
-- Before the swap, the land covered with fine houses across Golf House Road was available to Merion for the golf course.
-- Before the swap, the land next to Haverford College was NOT being considered for a golf course.

So before the "swap" the "upright portion" of the capital "L" consisted of the Dallas Estate and the Johnson Farm land south of Ardmore Ave.  This remained unchanged at the time of the actual purchase.  The shorter, bottom portion of the capital "L" consisted of the Johnson Farm property north of Ardmore but below the southern border of the college property extended.    The "swap" gave up the part of the Johnson Farm property now covered with fine homes, and got the 130 yd by 190 yd triangle next to the College.  

And Mike, the reason this  entire acreage (whatever it measures) is not mentioned in the 1910 information is that this was well on its way to being all worked out by then.  They would not have been able to come up with something as tailored and specific as "nearly 120 acres" or 117 acres, unless they already had a very good idea of how the course would fit.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2010, 01:16:25 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Mike Cirba

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #620 on: August 20, 2010, 01:20:42 PM »
Jim,

Then why the need to swap back any land at all?

Why not just both accounts say, we tried to make it work with 117 but needed 120"?

Who were they giving "land alreday purchased" back to?

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #621 on: August 20, 2010, 01:29:12 PM »
Mike,

A financial agreement to buy 117 acres was in place...so that was their bogey. That 117 was within a greater 130 and to be determined as the routing evolved. By the time the routing was complete the 117 agreed to was not enough, and they needed 120.

The swap agreement was by and between Merion (or its affiliate in Lloyd or MCCGA) and HDC (or its affiliate Philadelphia and Ardmore Land Co).

Mike Cirba

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #622 on: August 20, 2010, 01:55:27 PM »
Jim,

You do realize that isn't answering my question. don't you?  ;)

If they had agreed to buy 117 out of an area of 130, and then needed to buy an additional 4.8 acres outside of the 130, which took them to needing 120.1 overall, why did they need to swap back anything?

Wouldn't they simply opt to only buy 115.3 of the original land under consideration which with the 4.8 acre triangle would have completed the deal?   Why the need to swap back "land already purchased", and if it was the way you say it went down, it doesn't seem very fair for them to get 4.8 acres and only have to give back, 1.7 acres, correct?

At that time of the April 1911 Board Meeting, Lloyd owned all of that land anyway.   Prior to then, HDC owned it all.   It's not like they were swapping parcels between multiple parties, right?


One other question....

Which of any transactional documents or internal club records indicates they were working with, or looking at a 130 acre parcel in the first place?


Mike Cirba

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #623 on: August 20, 2010, 02:08:07 PM »


Just so we're all in agreement, we're saying that Merion had located the first 13 holes south of and along the clubhouse, but were now trying to squeeze their final 5 holes of their championship course into the area I have outlined in dark blue (out to today's Golf House Road), and had just used up their first par three on the back nine with the 13th?

I'm excluding the land across from the clubhouse because Francis told us that it wasn't part of any golf layout.

Are we all on the same page?
« Last Edit: August 20, 2010, 02:10:24 PM by MCirba »

TEPaul

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #624 on: August 20, 2010, 02:13:05 PM »
"Because they had agreed to buy only 117 of that 130 and the triangle was outside of that 130.

They needed to buy 3 more because their finished product was 120 acres of HDC land...very simple...and they paid retail for those 3 additional acres."



Sully:

First, MCC had not agreed to buy anything before Nov.15, 1910 but maybe Horatio did.

Second, if that triangle was created before Nov. 10, 1910 then how come they drew a triangle on that Nov. 15, 1910 land plan that did not match the triangle that got built and how come the rest of Golf House Road when it got built did not come close to matching that road on the Nov. 15, 1910 Land Plan all the way up and down its entire run from College to Ardmore Ave? We can sure tell they didn't match by just superimposing both on an aerial of the golf course as Cirba did in his last depiction on #520.

But I am working real hard Sully, to see your logic here and I think I've done it. You're going to be amazed too because I think I can clearly shows via truly "verifiable facts" who the architects were who routed and designed Merion East and I agree with you that they did it in 1910 and not in 1911, and I think they basically did it in the late summer months and early fall months of 1910.

Would you like to hear "My Thesis" in detail?
« Last Edit: August 20, 2010, 02:15:32 PM by TEPaul »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back