Jump to content

Chairman's Update


Sonny

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, StuD said:

Tsu? Is the SMISA committee and the SMISA board not the same thing? 

 

Nope, it's not. Some are incapable of referring to each appropriately, but there is a difference. If you're not on the board you can't authorise spend or vote at a meeting. Even the constitution states the board can create committees and apportion some powers to that committee. Yet, if you read updates it's always "the committee..." and that isn't always strictly true. If you're non-elected or co-opted then you're basically in an advisory role. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


6 hours ago, StuD said:

Last time there was a board election the SMISA Committee tried to fudge it by placing a skills requirement on the position. After I challenged it - I was still a member back then - they eventually backtracked and stated it was indeed open to all members regardless of skills or experience. Now Gordon Scott has suggested that the rules have been changed, that you must be a SMISA committee member before being elected to the club board. There's been no EGM, no rule change, and no vote on the matter. Gordon Scott needs put back in his box. He's clearly speaking out of turn. 

Why should people pay any attention to someone who used to be a member; but couldn't be bother to stay a member and prefers to shoot his mouth off in a forum where others who are still members seem to disagree, who should we believe?  :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, jaybee said:

Why should people pay any attention to someone who used to be a member; but couldn't be bother to stay a member and prefers to shoot his mouth off in a forum where others who are still members seem to disagree, who should we believe?  :rolleyes:

No-one HAS to pay attention to me. They / you could easily put me on ignore or simply pay me no heed at all. However you don't and I suspect the reason for that is because you might think I have a point. 

Gordon Scott appears to have taken two years to come up with a plan that sees future growth of the club now being dependent on non match day revenue. A few of us pointed that omission out when the stadium was built in the first place. I applaud him on his speed of thought and I hope he gets it right. It doesn't take much of a search to understand that in immediate area of the stadium there are already a number of office blocks that have been vacant for a number of years. Widen the search out and you see loads of "office space" advertised along the M8 corridor as being either immediately available or available for development. I suppose Gordon Scott must believe that office space in Ferguslie Park on a corner plot of a football stadium, with a shared car park that will be difficult to gain access to on match days is highly sought after. 

I guess it's useful, as a back up, for the Chairman to be able to hand pick his fans representative on the St Mirren board as a useful patsy to ensure that if he continues to need to dip SMISA funds it continues to happen with no objection.  God help him if there happened to be someone represent the fans interests who actually had a spine. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, StuD said:
30 minutes ago, jaybee said:

Why should people pay any attention to someone who used to be a member; but couldn't be bother to stay a member and prefers to shoot his mouth off in a forum where others who are still members seem to disagree, who should we believe?  :rolleyes:

No-one HAS to pay attention to me. They / you could easily put me on ignore or simply pay me no heed at all. However you don't and I suspect the reason for that is because you might think I have a point. 

Gordon Scott appears to have taken two years to come up with a plan that sees future growth of the club now being dependent on non match day revenue. A few of us pointed that omission out when the stadium was built in the first place. I applaud him on his speed of thought and I hope he gets it right. It doesn't take much of a search to understand that in immediate area of the stadium there are already a number of office blocks that have been vacant for a number of years. Widen the search out and you see loads of "office space" advertised along the M8 corridor as being either immediately available or available for development. I suppose Gordon Scott must believe that office space in Ferguslie Park on a corner plot of a football stadium, with a shared car park that will be difficult to gain access to on match days is highly sought after. 

I guess it's useful, as a back up, for the Chairman to be able to hand pick his fans representative on the St Mirren board as a useful patsy to ensure that if he continues to need to dip SMISA funds it continues to happen with no objection.  God help him if there happened to be someone represent the fans interests who actually had a spine. :rolleyes:

Why would I put you on ignore and allow the gibberish you spout to go unanswered, you say  'God help him if there happened to be someone represent the fans interests who actually had a spine.  I say:  when you put up somewhere around 800K to buy a controlling interest (note the word controlling) then you might be listened to, might! but personally I very much doubt it; especially if you were spouting the same drivel as currently. The chairman; who I know nothing o;f other than he owned a building firm called Laidlaw Scott, put in his money and insisted on a controlling interest .in other words he owns more than anyone else and what he says goes.  Is that how he operates; I think not, otherwise you would have nothing to moan about would you?  Just how long he and his BOD take to formalise a 'long-term' plan for the club is 'how long it takes' .............see controlling interest.  I am sure your sarcasm and wit might terrify him into  ...... well" laughing out loud I would imagine.  The sad fact is my friend that he is a successful businessman who knows a thing or two about how to generate a profit and given that, I would much rather that his ideas were given credence than yours, especially since he owns the club and you seem to be simply a NUMPTY.  :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as GS owns 51 per cent he is the majority shareholder and what he says goes as far as the planning and running of the club. I have no quibble with that. Keep getting it "right" and he is a hero. Get it "wrong" and he is everything bad. That comes with the territory. I have no criticism of SMISA either.  What I do sense is that we are all, including the Club Board and SMISA trying to work out how to work together in terms other than football. I don't find this too surprising but look forward to SMISA developing and sharing a vision, strategy and implimentation plan to sit alongside that of the club. This is a topic for another thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:

As long as GS owns 51 per cent he is the majority shareholder and what he says goes as far as the planning and running of the club. I have no quibble with that. Keep getting it "right" and he is a hero. Get it "wrong" and he is everything bad. That comes with the territory. I have no criticism of SMISA either.  What I do sense is that we are all, including the Club Board and SMISA trying to work out how to work together in terms other than football. I don't find this too surprising but look forward to SMISA developing and sharing a vision, strategy and implimentation plan to sit alongside that of the club. This is a topic for another thread.

For fcuk sake don’t start one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as GS owns 51 per cent he is the majority shareholder and what he says goes as far as the planning and running of the club. I have no quibble with that. Keep getting it "right" and he is a hero. Get it "wrong" and he is everything bad. That comes with the territory. I have no criticism of SMISA either.  What I do sense is that we are all, including the Club Board and SMISA trying to work out how to work together in terms other than football. I don't find this too surprising but look forward to SMISA developing and sharing a vision, strategy and implimentation plan to sit alongside that of the club. This is a topic for another thread.
There are multiple threads in SMiSA chats. No more needed.
There were less threads in Paisley when the mills were open.

I canny keep up. (With the threads)Screenshot_20180617-232047.jpegScreenshot_20180617-232108.jpeg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jaybee said:

Why would I put you on ignore and allow the gibberish you spout to go unanswered, you say  'God help him if there happened to be someone represent the fans interests who actually had a spine.  I say:  when you put up somewhere around 800K to buy a controlling interest (note the word controlling) then you might be listened to, might! but personally I very much doubt it; especially if you were spouting the same drivel as currently. The chairman; who I know nothing o;f other than he owned a building firm called Laidlaw Scott, put in his money and insisted on a controlling interest .in other words he owns more than anyone else and what he says goes.  Is that how he operates; I think not, otherwise you would have nothing to moan about would you?  Just how long he and his BOD take to formalise a 'long-term' plan for the club is 'how long it takes' .............see controlling interest.  I am sure your sarcasm and wit might terrify him into  ...... well" laughing out loud I would imagine.  The sad fact is my friend that he is a successful businessman who knows a thing or two about how to generate a profit and given that, I would much rather that his ideas were given credence than yours, especially since he owns the club and you seem to be simply a NUMPTY.  :P

Gordon Scott clearly is running scared though Jaybee. If he wasn't he wouldn't be trying so hard to control SMISA. 

SMISA owns a 30% stake in the club. As such the membership is entitled to elect one of their members to represent them in the club board. Why should the football club Chairman be allowed to restrict the choice of who the membership can elect? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as GS owns 51 per cent he is the majority shareholder and what he says goes as far as the planning and running of the club. I have no quibble with that. Keep getting it "right" and he is a hero. Get it "wrong" and he is everything bad. That comes with the territory. I have no criticism of SMISA either.  What I do sense is that we are all, including the Club Board and SMISA trying to work out how to work together in terms other than football. I don't find this too surprising but look forward to SMISA developing and sharing a vision, strategy and implimentation plan to sit alongside that of the club. This is a topic for another thread.


Totally agree with your comment.
Let’s put ourselves in GS shoes for a moment. Going by the article to which he’s put in a £700.000 of his own cash, I’d also want to vet and approve any candidate proposed by SMISA, especially as he’s doing this with no financial gain to himself. It’s his cash and his risk. He (and the board) have a ten year plan and as far as I can see, they’re doing a fantastic job so far. I’m pretty sure the SMISA members come from all different backgrounds. My point being. If SMISA were to propose a candidate with no business background all because that person had put his hat in the ring and had some other individual had seconded him/her then GS (in my opinion) has the right to say yae or nae.

I’ll probably get shot down for this but it’s just my take on it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, StuD said:

Gordon Scott clearly is running scared though Jaybee. If he wasn't he wouldn't be trying so hard to control SMISA. 

SMISA owns a 30% stake in the club. As such the membership is entitled to elect one of their members to represent them in the club board. Why should the football club Chairman be allowed to restrict the choice of who the membership can elect? 

The short answer is because he owns the club,  but would or could there be a reason why HE would care, as I said earlier HE 'controls' the club, how HE does it, whether subtly or overtly is immaterial, HE da boss, HE runs things,  HE directs play.  just so we know HE IS IN CHARGE.  OK so what is your problem, given that he does not have to play ball with SMISA, but fairly obviously wishes to, .............. Listen to the man when he speaks about St Mirren, to me  he is genuine; otherwise why plough his cash into a failing club.  If HE wishes to make sure that whoever SMISA elect to the club board, is competent; what is the problem, if you have a problem please refer to all the HE's.  And just to answer your BIG question 'Why should the football club Chairman be allowed to restrict the choice of who the membership can elect?   And this is me speaking, nobody else, but my response would be because it belongs to him, is his, has control, be da boss. Get it please say you do. 

just as an aside and no disrespect to you specifically intended here; more an open response to all other individuals who feel similarly: but just what makes you think that you have better ideas than the bloke who put up his cash to save your club, honestly; give the man some respect, he has done more in 18 months than anybody else who previously was in charge of this club.     Or did you all forget that.

 

And by the way I am just a supporter like yourself and whilst I enjoy the debate and perhaps taking the mick out of some of you who get so embroiled in fantasies, i am not nasty as some others are, I reuse to stoop to that level. at least ........................ so far :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Russian Saint said:

Totally agree with your comment.
Let’s put ourselves in GS shoes for a moment. Going by the article to which he’s put in a £700.000 of his own cash, I’d also want to vet and approve any candidate proposed by SMISA, especially as he’s doing this with no financial gain to himself. It’s his cash and his risk. He (and the board) have a ten year plan and as far as I can see, they’re doing a fantastic job so far. I’m pretty sure the SMISA members come from all different backgrounds. My point being. If SMISA were to propose a candidate with no business background all because that person had put his hat in the ring and had some other individual had seconded him/her then GS (in my opinion) has the right to say yae or nae.

I’ll probably get shot down for this but it’s just my take on it.

Симон Темплар> Ес?  :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, jaybee said:

The short answer is because he owns the club,  but would or could there be a reason why HE would care, as I said earlier HE 'controls' the club, how HE does it, whether subtly or overtly is immaterial, HE da boss, HE runs things,  HE directs play.  just so we know HE IS IN CHARGE.  OK so what is your problem, given that he does not have to play ball with SMISA, but fairly obviously wishes to, .............. Listen to the man when he speaks about St Mirren, to me  he is genuine; otherwise why plough his cash into a failing club.  If HE wishes to make sure that whoever SMISA elect to the club board, is competent; what is the problem, if you have a problem please refer to all the HE's.  And just to answer your BIG question 'Why should the football club Chairman be allowed to restrict the choice of who the membership can elect?   And this is me speaking, nobody else, but my response would be because it belongs to him, is his, has control, be da boss. Get it please say you do. 

just as an aside and no disrespect to you specifically intended here; more an open response to all other individuals who feel similarly: but just what makes you think that you have better ideas than the bloke who put up his cash to save your club, honestly; give the man some respect, he has done more in 18 months than anybody else who previously was in charge of this club.     Or did you all forget that.

 

And by the way I am just a supporter like yourself and whilst I enjoy the debate and perhaps taking the mick out of some of you who get so embroiled in fantasies, i am not nasty as some others are, I reuse to stoop to that level. at least ........................ so far :)

Wow. Ok. So really LPM is right. The concept of Fan Ownership at St Mirren is dead. There's no real point in SMISA or Buy the Buds, because Gordon Scott owns the club, controls the club, etc, etc. I guess SMISA are just really there to hand over cash whenever Gordon Scott demands it, and they are there to guarantee that Gordon Scott gets his money back when he's bored and walks off in 10 years time. 

Maybe it's time SMISA updated that website of theirs to show the truth. It's not really a Community Benefit Society at all cause the Community isn't benefiting. It's not really about getting the fans a voice on the board because Gordon Scott will dictate who gets onto the board and he'll decide what's said, and what SMISA's funds gets spend on. And the member benefit section needs a re-write too since it's promised that your £12 membership makes you "eligible to run for director of SMFC" - not eligible if Gordon Scott likes you and you have what Gordon Scott believes is the appropriate skills and experience - or if you've served enough time on the SMISA committee to be part of the carve up.  

Well it's good they got the pretence out of the way. Might as well scrap SMISA and just have all the direct debits paid straight to the clubs bank account , :rolleyes:

Edited by StuD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Russian Saint said:

 


Totally agree with your comment.
Let’s put ourselves in GS shoes for a moment. Going by the article to which he’s put in a £700.000 of his own cash, I’d also want to vet and approve any candidate proposed by SMISA, especially as he’s doing this with no financial gain to himself. It’s his cash and his risk. He (and the board) have a ten year plan and as far as I can see, they’re doing a fantastic job so far. I’m pretty sure the SMISA members come from all different backgrounds. My point being. If SMISA were to propose a candidate with no business background all because that person had put his hat in the ring and had some other individual had seconded him/her then GS (in my opinion) has the right to say yae or nae.

I’ll probably get shot down for this but it’s just my take on it.

 

Given the uptake for the buyout I’d say the risk is pretty minimal. GLS being an existing shareholder made the whole deal seem a bit too cosy for me, I think SMiSA paid too much for the shares which AFAIK will eventually include GLSs too. So for the interest on £700k he’s getting to run the show for 10 years which seems a pretty sweet deal for him IMO. Meanwhile the organization that is supposed to provide a balance and eventually take over the running of the club is prepared to roll over and do tricks for him. Yup, pretty sweet! 

Still maybe scoop1987 could make a reappearance and explain it all away! :whistle

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not £700k it's £620k and there is NO agreement on the 10 year tenure.

As soon as SMiSA have the funds  in place he WILL sell his shares to SMiSA.

Perhaps someone from the SMiSA board can tell us where they are with funding and what plans they have to get more people on the St Mirren Board

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, StuD said:

No-one HAS to pay attention to me. They / you could easily put me on ignore or simply pay me no heed at all. However you don't and I suspect the reason for that is because you might think I have a point. 

Gordon Scott appears to have taken two years to come up with a plan that sees future growth of the club now being dependent on non match day revenue. A few of us pointed that omission out when the stadium was built in the first place. I applaud him on his speed of thought and I hope he gets it right. It doesn't take much of a search to understand that in immediate area of the stadium there are already a number of office blocks that have been vacant for a number of years. Widen the search out and you see loads of "office space" advertised along the M8 corridor as being either immediately available or available for development. I suppose Gordon Scott must believe that office space in Ferguslie Park on a corner plot of a football stadium, with a shared car park that will be difficult to gain access to on match days is highly sought after. 

I guess it's useful, as a back up, for the Chairman to be able to hand pick his fans representative on the St Mirren board as a useful patsy to ensure that if he continues to need to dip SMISA funds it continues to happen with no objection.  God help him if there happened to be someone represent the fans interests who actually had a spine. :rolleyes:

Stuart when Gordon took over the 51% shares he did a interview stating he had a plan to make St Mirren a top 6 club. To achieve this he mentioned  a target figure of so many million more or less what the article said in the mail. Regarding SMISA quote from the mail to me it was you have to be on the board/committee before you can be at the table of the boardroom. You can't have someone on the board coming on to a forum and start posting  the day's events. Personally for me that's right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly, I don't think Gordon has achieved more in 18 months than anyone else. Stewart Gilmour etc ensured the club was still here, as did Bob Earlie initially.

Secondly, I mentioned perception and I include Gordon in the list of people who'd be under that impression. Gordon will take his understanding of SMISA from three people, who's to say one of them haven't misled him just through innocently saying the last x amount of elected SMISA board members have been on the committee. It's like Jack thanking SMISA for funding the sport scientist prior to the vote, someone gave him the impression that was the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, TsuMirren said:

Firstly, I don't think Gordon has achieved more in 18 months than anyone else. Stewart Gilmour etc ensured the club was still here, as did Bob Earlie initially.

Secondly, I mentioned perception and I include Gordon in the list of people who'd be under that impression. Gordon will take his understanding of SMISA from three people, who's to say one of them haven't misled him just through innocently saying the last x amount of elected SMISA board members have been on the committee. It's like Jack thanking SMISA for funding the sport scientist prior to the vote, someone gave him the impression that was the case.

 

5 hours ago, StuD said:

Wow. Ok. So really LPM is right. The concept of Fan Ownership at St Mirren is dead. There's no real point in SMISA or Buy the Buds, because Gordon Scott owns the club, controls the club, etc, etc. I guess SMISA are just really there to hand over cash whenever Gordon Scott demands it, and they are there to guarantee that Gordon Scott gets his money back when he's bored and walks off in 10 years time. 

Maybe it's time SMISA updated that website of theirs to show the truth. It's not really a Community Benefit Society at all cause the Community isn't benefiting. It's not really about getting the fans a voice on the board because Gordon Scott will dictate who gets onto the board and he'll decide what's said, and what SMISA's funds gets spend on. And the member benefit section needs a re-write too since it's promised that your £12 membership makes you "eligible to run for director of SMFC" - not eligible if Gordon Scott likes you and you have what Gordon Scott believes is the appropriate skills and experience - or if you've served enough time on the SMISA committee to be part of the carve up.  

Well it's good they got the pretence out of the way. Might as well scrap SMISA and just have all the direct debits paid straight to the clubs bank account , :rolleyes:

In response to TSU:  I have watched and read some of your previous  rants and am aware that you threw your dummy out the pram some time ago and yes indeed you are one of those 'other individuals who feel similarly: '  that I referred to.  I said I thought StuD was a Numpty , well I think you just joined the club my friend.  The reason being is that both of you have extremely selective  comprehension, firstly I was not responding to you specifically in regards to what I stated over Gordon's achievements in the said period of time .........however be honest and read what was written and TRY your best to fully comprehend what was said.  Did either of those others take St Mirren from the situation which we were in 18 months ago  ...................... on such a similar journey as to where we now are?  I think not.  You however are entitled to your opinion good sir.

In response to you  StuD:  part of what I said above applies, It appears to me that you are choosing to have a selective understanding of what I stated.   Is this because I deliberately over-emphasised my point of just who actually owns the club?  Which I did  in an attempt to show that GS who could simply do whatever it is that he personally thinks is good for the club, is NOT actually doing that at all.  He is attempting to integrate the St Mirren community into decisions as best he can.  Now in the case of trying to integrate the community into wider decision making circles, I can and do speak from experience.  Having worked in this sector for a considerable number of years and in a variety of locations I can say that when you increase the number of community people around a table, metaphorical or otherwise; you  substantially decrease the chance of reaching any sort of agreement that suits everyone.   My response to you last time StuD was with a degree of reasonableness; because it did seem you were trying to argue rationally and I would have to respect that even if I disagreed with what you stated.  However it would seem that you too have spat out your dummy,  your response, is simply argumentative, I say yes .you say no.  I say in. you say out.  I say red . you say blue.  words like sublime and ridiculous come to mind.   I suspect that the truth of the matter is the BOD and GS are trying to come to a mutual understanding of how best to proceed, I rather think that it's a new undertaking for GS also, I very much doubt that he asked committees for approval when he was conducting his building enterprise and irrespective of how much money he fronted to buy his 51%, he did it, whilst others talked about it.

And finally:  i am more than willing to debate other persons opinions, however it would be nice if they argued rationally and were not NUMPTIES.  :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎6‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 9:07 AM, FTOF said:

It's only when you read articles like these that you realise how lucky we are to have such an experienced and successful saints supporting business man running the club.

It also debunks a lot of the drivel posted on here regarding his everyday running of our club.

I have no complaints about GLSs running of the club but the accusations that he has SMiSA in his back pocket seem on the mark to me - this is a criticism of SMiSA rather than GLS.

Anyway like I've said elsewhere he seemed happy enough to post drivel on here back in the day! :jerrry

 

Edited by Bud the Baker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jaybee said:

 

In response to TSU:  I have watched and read some of your previous  rants and am aware that you threw your dummy out the pram some time ago and yes indeed you are one of those 'other individuals who feel similarly: '  that I referred to.  I said I thought StuD was a Numpty , well I think you just joined the club my friend.  The reason being is that both of you have extremely selective  comprehension, firstly I was not responding to you specifically in regards to what I stated over Gordon's achievements in the said period of time .........however be honest and read what was written and TRY your best to fully comprehend what was said.  Did either of those others take St Mirren from the situation which we were in 18 months ago  ...................... on such a similar journey as to where we now are?  I think not.  You however are entitled to your opinion good sir.

In response to you  StuD:  part of what I said above applies, It appears to me that you are choosing to have a selective understanding of what I stated.   Is this because I deliberately over-emphasised my point of just who actually owns the club?  Which I did  in an attempt to show that GS who could simply do whatever it is that he personally thinks is good for the club, is NOT actually doing that at all.  He is attempting to integrate the St Mirren community into decisions as best he can.  Now in the case of trying to integrate the community into wider decision making circles, I can and do speak from experience.  Having worked in this sector for a considerable number of years and in a variety of locations I can say that when you increase the number of community people around a table, metaphorical or otherwise; you  substantially decrease the chance of reaching any sort of agreement that suits everyone.   My response to you last time StuD was with a degree of reasonableness; because it did seem you were trying to argue rationally and I would have to respect that even if I disagreed with what you stated.  However it would seem that you too have spat out your dummy,  your response, is simply argumentative, I say yes .you say no.  I say in. you say out.  I say red . you say blue.  words like sublime and ridiculous come to mind.   I suspect that the truth of the matter is the BOD and GS are trying to come to a mutual understanding of how best to proceed, I rather think that it's a new undertaking for GS also, I very much doubt that he asked committees for approval when he was conducting his building enterprise and irrespective of how much money he fronted to buy his 51%, he did it, whilst others talked about it.

And finally:  i am more than willing to debate other persons opinions, however it would be nice if they argued rationally and were not NUMPTIES.  :P

Gordon hasn't achieved as much as Stewart etc or Bob etc, that's just a fact. The rest of your post in regards to myself, well it's nonsense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Bud the Baker said:

Meanwhile the organization that is supposed to provide a balance and eventually take over the running of the club is prepared to roll over and do tricks for him. Yup, pretty sweet! 

 

If that was supposedly believed, them are they fit enough and able to be running a football club.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TsuMirren said:

Gordon hasn't achieved as much as Stewart etc or Bob etc, that's just a fact. The rest of your post in regards to myself, well it's nonsense. 

Contradicting a statement without offering supporting justification  is what is actually non-sense, as indeed is denying what is blatant, but then again if you do not have the capacity to rationalise an argument then this is perfectly undestanable

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...