1965onwards Posted 10 February, 2009 Posted 10 February, 2009 This is a rebuttal to the moronic Lowe Luvvies who have decried Pearsons' performance at the end of last season,and would like to suggest that he was responsible for nearly taking us down rather than saving our necks. BURLEY--------- 38 pts from 28 games ( 1.36 points per game ) ,his team,his squad,his players on ridiculous wages that has taken us to the point of administration. DODD & GORMAN-------- 1 pt from 5 games,nuff said. PEARSON------- 16 pts from 13 games ( 1.23 points per game ) 4 draws and a win from first 5 games,that after taking over a de-motivated,demoralised team that had lost 5 of its last 6 games. Beaten by Hull and Cardiff,drew with Coventry,but no great surprise there. With all three of Wright,Pery and Lucketti in place for last 5 games we get another 8 points ( 1.60 points per game ) PLAY-OFF FORM !!!!!!!! So with a squad overwhelmingly not of his choosing he only slightly underperforms Burley. How do the LOWE/BURLEY LUVVIES explain that? After an initial appraisal of our playing strenghts Pearson brought in the defensive players we needed to take us to a level of performance that Burley couldn't. The most impressive thing about Pearson though is that he is everything that JP isn't. He is a class act who commands respect.He has the demeanor of a man who knows exactly what he wants and how he needs to go about achieving it.And he does not bull****. He is the type of manager that players want to play for,and the vast majority of Saints fans could see that from day one. So you moronic LOWE/BURLEY LUVVIES lets see you argue that getting rid of PEARSON was anything other than LOWE clearly demonstrating that he is more interested in revenge, and massaging his ego than the welfare of the club.
Thedelldays Posted 10 February, 2009 Posted 10 February, 2009 never knew that just to throw one out there...im sure we have gone man times over the years on a 1 point from 5 games streak...does that mean every time we were demoralised and on deaths door.?
Spades Posted 10 February, 2009 Posted 10 February, 2009 i completely agree with everything you say. I think pearson will go very far and we were very wrong to let him go... but we did, he is now Leicester manager and theres nothing we can do about it. Theres no point dwelling and i really dont understand why people keep bringing him up?
Thedelldays Posted 10 February, 2009 Posted 10 February, 2009 i completely agree with everything you say. I think pearson will go very far and we were very wrong to let him go... but we did, he is now Leicester manager and theres nothing we can do about it. Theres no point dwelling and i really dont understand why people keep bringing him up? how far is very far..? it has been a while since someone took the prem by storm..
1965onwards Posted 10 February, 2009 Author Posted 10 February, 2009 Doesn't suit your Lowe Luvvie agenda does it TDD ?
Thedelldays Posted 10 February, 2009 Posted 10 February, 2009 Doesn't suit your Lowe Luvvie agenda does it TDD ? why do I have to have an agenda to think pearson is average..? at what point did I even mention lowe..?
rocknrollman no2 Posted 10 February, 2009 Posted 10 February, 2009 Pearson also gave us Saints fans something else at the end of last season.....the feelgood factor. Its been a long time since i had felt that supporting SFC.
Spades Posted 10 February, 2009 Posted 10 February, 2009 how far is very far..? it has been a while since someone took the prem by storm.. at least as high as say... doncaster!
Thedelldays Posted 10 February, 2009 Posted 10 February, 2009 at least as high as say... doncaster! nose bleed heights...
Greenridge Posted 10 February, 2009 Posted 10 February, 2009 Unfortunately 1965 there is a faction on this board which will argue and argue and argue against the points you have raised just as they will endeavour to muddy the waters regarding Pearson. You know the type of comment 'he can't work with the youngsters' - oh wait a minute he was England U21 Manager oops. Let's be clear Wilde and Lowe stated upon Pearson's appointment that they weren't happy about it so from the moment they came back into power the clock was ticking. On the face of it it appears a petty point scoring exercise but that's only perception. No one knows what the situation would have been with him in charge this year however from what he demonstrated last year in terms of organisation, structure and focus as well as full pre-season and a squad of his selection I know that my preference would have been for him rather than the dynamic Dutch duo. We are where we are however and like most I have all fingers crossed in the hope that Wotte can pull this one out of the fire as well. You never know he may just turn out to be a decent manager. Here's hoping.
1965onwards Posted 10 February, 2009 Author Posted 10 February, 2009 Typical of this forum,decrying a manager for not reaching the heights he has never been in a position to attain as a manager. You will be looking foolish next season. And before you say it,money has nothing to do with it. Look at Scolari,Benitez,assorted Spurs managers.
1965onwards Posted 10 February, 2009 Author Posted 10 February, 2009 Agree Greenidge,and apart from Wottes silly remarks about fans,i get the impression that he has a no-nonsense approach which might just be what our players need.
Mole Posted 10 February, 2009 Posted 10 February, 2009 Pearson was a popular manager who had united the fanbase. Lowe's ego couldn't tolerate this and the prospect of Crouchs chosen manager being a success. Also i'm sure Lowe delighted in sacking Pearson to spite Leon and Lawrie. Lowe has destroyed this football club.
Thedelldays Posted 10 February, 2009 Posted 10 February, 2009 Typical of this forum,decrying a manager for not reaching the heights he has never been in a position to attain as a manager. You will be looking foolish next season. And before you say it,money has nothing to do with it. Look at Scolari,Benitez,assorted Spurs managers. yes..look at them... scolari - 4th in the prem, still in the FA cup, CL and top 4 prem...disaster (I remeber when Man U had a similar season about 4 years ago...) Benitez - 2nd in the league, still in CL and have the 3rd best player on the planet Spurs - have won the League cup last season, in this years final..will probably stay up.. the top two are by no mean failures..jesus as for pearson..yes he is doing well to be where he is...BUT if i was a leicester fan (and I do know a few) they expected to go up automatically as they have the best squad, the best stadium the best resources the best training ground the best facilities.... I will admit pearson is doing well with them and I wish him luck...lets see If he ever gets to the prem or indeed promotion out of this league with a team yet before we call him "great"
SaintRobbie Posted 10 February, 2009 Posted 10 February, 2009 Agree Greenidge,and apart from Wottes silly remarks about fans,i get the impression that he has a no-nonsense approach which might just be what our players need. I get the impression he's hated by the players, is Lowe's mouthpiece and is regarded as something of a fraud. I think he'll go down as our worst ever manager... hardly set up for success by his chairmen and previous manager.
NickG Posted 10 February, 2009 Posted 10 February, 2009 This is a rebuttal to the moronic Lowe Luvvies who have decried Pearsons' performance at the end of last season,and would like to suggest that he was responsible for nearly taking us down rather than saving our necks. BURLEY--------- 38 pts from 28 games ( 1.36 points per game ) ,his team,his squad,his players on ridiculous wages that has taken us to the point of administration. DODD & GORMAN-------- 1 pt from 5 games,nuff said. PEARSON------- 16 pts from 13 games ( 1.23 points per game ) 4 draws and a win from first 5 games,that after taking over a de-motivated,demoralised team that had lost 5 of its last 6 games. and the same team pretty much as Burley got 1.36 points per game! Beaten by Hull and Cardiff,drew with Coventry,but no great surprise there. With all three of Wright,Pery and Lucketti in place for last 5 games we get another 8 points ( 1.60 points per game ) PLAY-OFF FORM !!!!!!!!if you look at the games we won it was champions form! So with a squad overwhelmingly not of his choosing he only slightly underperforms Burley.???? How do the LOWE/BURLEY LUVVIES explain that?explain what, that he underperformed GB, don't know - maybe not as good manager as him? After an initial appraisal of our playing strenghts Pearson brought in the defensive players we needed to take us to a level of performance that Burley couldn't. The most impressive thing about Pearson though is that he is everything that JP isn't. He is a class act who commands respect.He has the demeanor of a man who knows exactly what he wants and how he needs to go about achieving it.And he does not bull****. He is the type of manager that players want to play for,and the vast majority of Saints fans could see that from day one. So you moronic LOWE/BURLEY LUVVIES lets see you argue that getting rid of PEARSON was anything other than LOWE clearly demonstrating that he is more interested in revenge, and massaging his ego than the welfare of the club. I can only remember one poster, who was on a wind up, saying that we were right to get rid of him. Most wanted him to stay and I think we would have done better with him. Still don't think he is close to a great for us but he did pretty well - well enough to warrant this season.
1965onwards Posted 10 February, 2009 Author Posted 10 February, 2009 Which demonstrates Stanley that the welfare of this club is not ****-LOWES priority.
Thedelldays Posted 10 February, 2009 Posted 10 February, 2009 for the record, I would have pearson here over wotte/jan any day of the week....does that fit in with my agenda of being a luvvie or what ever..? does that also mean I think Pearson is a "great" manager and who "will go far"...no, plenty of god awful managers have come out of that league....and some better ones too...still not in the prem ala gary johnson
NickG Posted 10 February, 2009 Posted 10 February, 2009 Which demonstrates Stanley that the welfare of this club is not ****-LOWES priority. think it is but his ego is so big that he thinks his way is the best way however many people or facts indicate otherwise
1965onwards Posted 10 February, 2009 Author Posted 10 February, 2009 How could Pearson have underperformed Burley Nickg. Only three of the squad were Pearsons,and when he had them in place he achieved a higher points per game ratio than Burley.
NickG Posted 10 February, 2009 Posted 10 February, 2009 ridiculous comparison for 5 games! I was just making fun of your arguement when you clearly say he had the same squad and got less points!
St Marco Posted 10 February, 2009 Posted 10 February, 2009 The other thing people who have a go at Pearson never mention is that in the previous 13 games before Pearson we got a massive 7 points. There was a guy on the radio who i think was a presenter on Radio Hampshire who said Pearson was not a good manager, he said it on air etc. Then some guy rang in and pointed that out that he got an almost 60% increase points wise then the previous 13 games, a period which was both Dodd,Gorman and Burley. He also pointed out we lost lots of players to loans and had a severe injury crisis etc. The radio guy just said "we'll i still think he was rubbish". And i think at that point i realised that not only was Radio Hampshire **** but a lot of people hate for the sake of hating. We could get someone in who wins every game we play but some would still want him out.
1965onwards Posted 10 February, 2009 Author Posted 10 February, 2009 Funny that people find it good enough to assess a manager after only 5 games when it suits them,but not at other times.
Mole Posted 10 February, 2009 Posted 10 February, 2009 How could Pearson have underperformed Burley Nickg. Only three of the squad were Pearsons,and when he had them in place he achieved a higher points per game ratio than Burley. Pearson got the points at the business end of the season when it mattered. He inheritted a thoroughly demoralised squad and he turned us from relegation certainties into a squad that stayed up. Everyone was optimistic that this season he'd build on his achievement and start turning the club around. Lowe then returned and the rest is history.:mad:
Greenridge Posted 10 February, 2009 Posted 10 February, 2009 The other thing people who have a go at Pearson never mention is that in the previous 13 games before Pearson we got a massive 7 points. There was a guy on the radio who i think was a presenter on Radio Hampshire who said Pearson was not a good manager, he said it on air etc. Then some guy rang in and pointed that out that he got an almost 60% increase points wise then the previous 13 games, a period which was both Dodd,Gorman and Burley. He also pointed out we lost lots of players to loans and had a severe injury crisis etc. The radio guy just said "we'll i still think he was rubbish". And i think at that point i realised that not only was Radio Hampshire **** but a lot of people hate for the sake of hating. We could get someone in who wins every game we play but some would still want him out. Yes some folk find it very convenient to forget the direction the club was going in when Pearson took over and the performances, results, motivation and morale in the preceding weeks but that doesn't fit with their agenda so is brushed to one side. It demonstrates a lack of objectivity.
Thedelldays Posted 10 February, 2009 Posted 10 February, 2009 Yes some folk find it very convenient to forget the direction the club was going in when Pearson took over and the performances, results, motivation and morale in the preceding weeks but that doesn't fit with their agenda so is brushed to one side. It demonstrates a lack of objectivity. how...is it possible to think pearson is "not that good" on the merit of it all...??
NickG Posted 10 February, 2009 Posted 10 February, 2009 The other thing people who have a go at Pearson never mention is that in the previous 13 games before Pearson we got a massive 7 points. There was a guy on the radio who i think was a presenter on Radio Hampshire who said Pearson was not a good manager, he said it on air etc. Then some guy rang in and pointed that out that he got an almost 60% increase points wise then the previous 13 games, a period which was both Dodd,Gorman and Burley. He also pointed out we lost lots of players to loans and had a severe injury crisis etc. The radio guy just said "we'll i still think he was rubbish". And i think at that point i realised that not only was Radio Hampshire **** but a lot of people hate for the sake of hating. We could get someone in who wins every game we play but some would still want him out. my views on him staying are above, however that turnaround arguement needs to also consider that the players had not been, all that long ago, been performing ok, so in simplistic terms just needed a kick up the backside reminder - which he successfully did
NickG Posted 10 February, 2009 Posted 10 February, 2009 Pearson got the points at the business end of the season when it mattered. He inheritted a thoroughly demoralised squad and he turned us from relegation certainties into a squad that stayed up. Everyone was optimistic that this season he'd build on his achievement and start turning the club around. Lowe then returned and the rest is history.:mad: agree with all of that -apart from that we were relegation certainties - I thought it was outside chance when he came in -but it got more likely as some points were thrown away.
Greenridge Posted 10 February, 2009 Posted 10 February, 2009 how...is it possible to think pearson is "not that good" on the merit of it all...?? Sorry TDD I'm not sure I understand your point. I was very sceptical when Pearson came on board but he just seemed to do the simple things we had been missing - organisation, structure and shape. I'm not by any means suggesting he is the messiah but what he demonstrated in those few months gave a good indication he could do a job for us this year. The arguments against his continued appointment all seem to have been subsequently shown as propoganda. He was certainly less of a rish than the Dutch experiment IMO.
NickG Posted 10 February, 2009 Posted 10 February, 2009 Sorry TDD I'm not sure I understand your point. I was very sceptical when Pearson came on board but he just seemed to do the simple things we had been missing - organisation, structure and shape. I'm not by any means suggesting he is the messiah but what he demonstrated in those few months gave a good indication he could do a job for us this year. The arguments against his continued appointment all seem to have been subsequently shown as propoganda. He was certainly less of a rish than the Dutch experiment IMO. again, agree with all of that. Its just some have been ott and called him a legend!?
Thedelldays Posted 10 February, 2009 Posted 10 February, 2009 Sorry TDD I'm not sure I understand your point. I was very sceptical when Pearson came on board but he just seemed to do the simple things we had been missing - organisation, structure and shape. I'm not by any means suggesting he is the messiah but what he demonstrated in those few months gave a good indication he could do a job for us this year. The arguments against his continued appointment all seem to have been subsequently shown as propoganda. He was certainly less of a rish than the Dutch experiment IMO. i agree....I would rather have pearson here than what we have had so far this season.... but that does not mean I think he was any good... I would have dropped pearson like that for a billy davies any day...(that would not have been popular)
alpine_saint Posted 10 February, 2009 Posted 10 February, 2009 Pearson got the points at the business end of the season when it mattered. He inheritted a thoroughly demoralised squad and he turned us from relegation certainties into a squad that stayed up. Everyone was optimistic that this season he'd build on his achievement and start turning the club around. Lowe then returned and the rest is history.:mad: In a f**king nutshell....
Dark Munster Posted 10 February, 2009 Posted 10 February, 2009 This is a rebuttal to the moronic Lowe Luvvies who have decried Pearsons' performance at the end of last season,and would like to suggest that he was responsible for nearly taking us down rather than saving our necks. BURLEY--------- 38 pts from 28 games ( 1.36 points per game ) ,his team,his squad,his players on ridiculous wages that has taken us to the point of administration. DODD & GORMAN-------- 1 pt from 5 games,nuff said. PEARSON------- 16 pts from 13 games ( 1.23 points per game ) 4 draws and a win from first 5 games,that after taking over a de-motivated,demoralised team that had lost 5 of its last 6 games. Beaten by Hull and Cardiff,drew with Coventry,but no great surprise there. With all three of Wright,Pery and Lucketti in place for last 5 games we get another 8 points ( 1.60 points per game ) PLAY-OFF FORM !!!!!!!! So with a squad overwhelmingly not of his choosing he only slightly underperforms Burley. How do the LOWE/BURLEY LUVVIES explain that? After an initial appraisal of our playing strenghts Pearson brought in the defensive players we needed to take us to a level of performance that Burley couldn't. The most impressive thing about Pearson though is that he is everything that JP isn't. He is a class act who commands respect.He has the demeanor of a man who knows exactly what he wants and how he needs to go about achieving it.And he does not bull****. He is the type of manager that players want to play for,and the vast majority of Saints fans could see that from day one. So you moronic LOWE/BURLEY LUVVIES lets see you argue that getting rid of PEARSON was anything other than LOWE clearly demonstrating that he is more interested in revenge, and massaging his ego than the welfare of the club. Great post 1965. But you forgot these gems: - We couldn't afford him. - He was asking for ridiculous wages. - His contract expired in June. - He's going to leave Leicester for the Premiership, so if he'd stayed at Saints he would do the same and leave us in the lurch. - Leicester are only doing well (currently top with 2.27 points per game) because they are rich, and/or L1 is shîte. - Saints are skint so any manager would also be averaging less than a point per game. - Pearson had a much stronger squad to play with than the Dutch duo. i completely agree with everything you say. I think pearson will go very far and we were very wrong to let him go... but we did, he is now Leicester manager and theres nothing we can do about it. Theres no point dwelling and i really dont understand why people keep bringing him up? Good question. It's because when relegation becomes a reality Lowe will almost certainly blame Crouch, whereas the primary reason was Lowe (for egotistical reasons ) getting rid of, and replacing, a competent manager with a couple of clowns.
Mr X Posted 10 February, 2009 Posted 10 February, 2009 I was hoping this thread would be about the real reason he left not comparisons of his managerial record.
Micky Posted 10 February, 2009 Posted 10 February, 2009 I was hoping this thread would be about the real reason he left not comparisons of his managerial record. Ditto - unfortunately it appears to be yet another thread to merely bait those who were (are) pro Lowe, Burley and anti Pearson though. It's everything that we don't really need right now - we are in the mire and still we 'in-fight'. A b s o l u t e l y f u c k i n g r i d i c u l o u s . . . !
SP Saint Posted 10 February, 2009 Posted 10 February, 2009 Pearson got the points at the business end of the season when it mattered. He inheritted a thoroughly demoralised squad and he turned us from relegation certainties into a squad that stayed up. Everyone was optimistic that this season he'd build on his achievement and start turning the club around. Lowe then returned and the rest is history.:mad: Sounds about right to me.
Saint Fan CaM Posted 11 February, 2009 Posted 11 February, 2009 Pearson got the points at the business end of the season when it mattered. He inheritted a thoroughly demoralised squad and he turned us from relegation certainties into a squad that stayed up. Everyone was optimistic that this season he'd build on his achievement and start turning the club around. Lowe then returned and the rest is history.:mad: Absolutely spot on Stanley - and may I add also, that Pearson was 'let go' AFTER ST holders had bought their tickets. I for one thought that Pearson was to keep his job and we would have a semblance of a settled squad and some potential stability. Oh no, Agent Lowe saw to it that the people that count (his loyal customers) were completely duped and hacked right off before the season even started!!!
Rod Le Shearer Posted 11 February, 2009 Posted 11 February, 2009 I liked the headline of this topic,sort of intriguing. BUT what a major disappointment I was in for,when reading & realizing there was no truth,just a blinkered opinion from some poor soul desperate to live in the past ! move on,FFS...this topic has been done to the death at least 10 times before at this forum.
slickmick Posted 11 February, 2009 Posted 11 February, 2009 Pearson got the points at the business end of the season when it mattered. He inheritted a thoroughly demoralised squad and he turned us from relegation certainties into a squad that stayed up. Everyone was optimistic that this season he'd build on his achievement and start turning the club around. Lowe then returned and the rest is history.:mad: Couldn't agree more.
slickmick Posted 11 February, 2009 Posted 11 February, 2009 again, agree with all of that. Its just some have been ott and called him a legend!? Who and how many people have said that ? Exagerating eh Nick ?
NickG Posted 11 February, 2009 Posted 11 February, 2009 Who and how many people have said that ? Exagerating eh Nick ? no not at all, don;t try for more arguments when they aren;t there. some have said that - that's not exaggerating, not loads which would be exaggerating, most of posts on this are quite reasoned and reasonable
doublesaint Posted 11 February, 2009 Posted 11 February, 2009 So you moronic LOWE/BURLEY LUVVIES lets see you argue that getting rid of PEARSON was anything other than LOWE clearly demonstrating that he is more interested in revenge, and massaging his ego than the welfare of the club. What I do find moronic is the USE OF CAPITAL LETTERS FOR NO APPARENT REASON, and also to make the assumption that because people may have had the idea that Pearson was not that great a manager, they automatically become worshippers of Lowe. I don't think Pearson will prove to be a manager of any great note, nor do I LUV LOWE.
saintwarwick Posted 11 February, 2009 Posted 11 February, 2009 The other thing people who have a go at Pearson never mention is that in the previous 13 games before Pearson we got a massive 7 points. There was a guy on the radio who i think was a presenter on Radio Hampshire who said Pearson was not a good manager, he said it on air etc. Then some guy rang in and pointed that out that he got an almost 60% increase points wise then the previous 13 games, a period which was both Dodd,Gorman and Burley. He also pointed out we lost lots of players to loans and had a severe injury crisis etc. The radio guy just said "we'll i still think he was rubbish". And i think at that point i realised that not only was Radio Hampshire **** but a lot of people hate for the sake of hating. We could get someone in who wins every game we play but some would still want him out. Not having a go at Pearson but the previous 13 games saw us accumalate 12 points and not 7 as you quote. This includes the Dodd/Gorman and Burley results, if it was just the Burley results that would be 17 points. Guess the guy who rang in to Radio Hampshire didn't have the correct stats as well
del boy Posted 11 February, 2009 Posted 11 February, 2009 Lies, damn lies and statistics! If you look at the period mid Aug 08 to end of Sep 08 Jan's record was W5 D2 L4 ...better by comparison to the ratios of George and Nige. Having said that, Id have been very happy to see NP kept on for this season. The fact is - he wasnt, I didnt choose the right lottery numbers last week, we didnt beat Derby in the play offs...... its history, lets move on.
sidthesquid Posted 11 February, 2009 Posted 11 February, 2009 I get the impression he's hated by the players, is Lowe's mouthpiece and is regarded as something of a fraud. I think he'll go down as our worst ever manager... hardly set up for success by his chairmen and previous manager. Do you have ANY evidence for that claim?
Ponty Posted 11 February, 2009 Posted 11 February, 2009 TBH, I don't think many people would have been disappointed had Pearson stayed with the team, and I don't think I remember too many people applauding Lowe for letting him go, but using his statistical record at Saints as evidence that he should've stayed is never going to win a logical argument. It was the intangible things he brought to the team which made him a fans' favourite - fight, belief and passion.
bungle Posted 11 February, 2009 Posted 11 February, 2009 This thread should be retitled "Pearson - Opinionated B*llocks"
Wes Tender Posted 11 February, 2009 Posted 11 February, 2009 Looking at the tail end of the season tells a story of improvement and a base on which to have built on this season had Lowe and the Quisling not decided that as Crouch's man he had no future here. And anyway, Lowe was itching to have a bash at playing games with his fantasy Dutch total football mad experiment. But as you infer, there are those who can't accept that Pearson's job under the circumstances he inheritted was creditable and of course he has done a good Job at Leicester and will enjoy managing in this division next season while we swap places. Amongst those who decry his record, we even have some who hold up the example of our loss against Hull and blame defenders loaned by Pearson for the result, even though they had not even arrived at the club at that time.
West End Saint Posted 11 February, 2009 Posted 11 February, 2009 Lowe had Portaloo & Wotte in place before the last game I have been told that they were at the game and win or lose last game Pearson was out as he was a Crouch appointment. Pearson had done enough to be given a season and a squad of his choosing if he had I dont think we would be second bottom he had the bottle to stand up to Lowe on what players stayed and went and thats why I think Lowe got rid. I believe it would have been a different season under Pearson I am not saying we would have made the play offs but we wouldnt be heading to league 1 with our arse on fire. Lowe out
slickmick Posted 11 February, 2009 Posted 11 February, 2009 (edited) no not at all, don;t try for more arguments when they aren;t there. some have said that - that's not exaggerating, not loads which would be exaggerating, most of posts on this are quite reasoned and reasonable Fine, if you have seen posters call him a legend then a will accept your word for it. I have read a lot of the Pearson debates and have not seen that comment, so my apologise. I would guess that most pro Pearson supporters would agree that we would have still had a fight on our hands this season, but at least there would have still been some fight. (and hope.) Edited 11 February, 2009 by slickmick
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now