View Poll Results: Should the players accept the current proposal by owners by Wednesday?

Voters
31. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    24 77.42%
  • No - not a good deal, keep negotiating

    3 9.68%
  • No - not a good deal, decertify

    4 12.90%
Page 15 of 98 FirstFirst ... 5 13 14 15 16 17 25 65 ... LastLast
Results 281 to 300 of 1944

Thread: The Lockout & the Raptors: Players approve CBA, Owners too! (1944)

  1. #281
    Raptors Republic Icon mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    20,645
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote MyMomLovesMe wrote: View Post
    ...oh,

    and btw Matt52, you may run your operation month to month, but the corps do not. They have plans for 5 years at the minimum, cycles of asset gain, and capital write offs. Month to month is for small fish. If you can time a cycle to correspond with your labour negotiations you are ahead of the game.

    Like I said, all their losses now, will be written off by the: "got the PA by the balls" CBA they are about to get. So when you know you are in for a bonanza, you may as well start padding those losses early so you can keep more later.
    New material:

    The just expired CBA ran for 6 years during which time no season returned a profit for the collective group of owners - or so they say.


    Yah, I think its best Matt52.

    I don't think we are enjoying this nor are the users.
    Actually the discussion has not bothered me in the least. I just think it has run its course.

  2. #282
    Raptors Republic Starter MyMomLovesMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Streetsville
    Posts
    489
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    That's horrible.


    I guess we have to look closely at the books


    Make sure that revenues are being spent wisely. (Since they are so huge)


    EDIT: Just to give you an idea how complex this subject is. GE has an in house department that it pays millions of dollars to figure out the most efficient way to pay the least amount of taxes and utilize the most benefits with their subsides and capital and LEVERAGE. They paid no taxes last year, even though 7 of the 15 Billion came from within the US. They kept it all during the worst tax payer crisis in the US.
    Last edited by MyMomLovesMe; Wed Jul 13th, 2011 at 01:14 PM.

  3. #283
    Raptors Republic Icon mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    20,645
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    AP Sources: Players to get escrow money returned for first time

    i.e. first time players salaries have not surpassed 57% of revenues

    NEW YORK (AP)—Locked-out NBA players will have their escrow money returned to them for the first time because salaries fell below 57 percent of league revenues last season, two people with knowledge of the situation said Tuesday.

    The players will get about $160 million back when a final audit of league revenues is completed later this month. The people spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because the auditing process is ongoing.

    Eight percent of player salaries have been withheld each season since the 1999 collective bargaining agreement to ensure that players don’t exceed their guarantee of 57 percent of league revenues. They had surpassed that limit each season since, so the money was kept.

    But with revenues up during a successful 2010-11 season, salary costs will fall short of that mark for the first time, though it isn’t known yet by how far.

    The escrow return, first reported Tuesday by NBA.com, could strengthen the players’ contention that an overhaul of the current financial system isn’t needed and that owners can address their losses by controlled, smarter spending.

    The union has argued that the total value of negotiated salaries had decreased in recent years, so player costs weren’t the problem.

    Players even offered to discuss reducing the guarantee in their initial proposal for a new CBA to replace the one that expired last month. They later proposed dropping it to 54.3 percent shortly before the June 30 deadline, an offer Commissioner David Stern termed “modest.”

    The sides remained far apart and owners imposed a lockout. The money that will be returned provides players some help while almost all of them will be without paychecks.
    http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_yl...ug=ap-nbalabor

  4. #284
    Raptors Republic Icon mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    20,645
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I selected some of the questions that I thought were relevant but the whole chat is worth a read.

    From HoopsWorld.com chat with Larry Coon July 13/11:

    Jay in :
    Hi Larry. You said that any shortages of players' salaries below 57% of BRI will be paid but yesterday's report of total salary dropping down below 57% does not mention this issue. If the 57% is floor AND ceiling, no one can argue owners overpay

    Larry Coon:
    You're right, it didn't mention that issue. It also said the audit wouldn't be done until later that month, so I'm guessing Steve Aschburner (the author of that piece) just talked to someone who told him "the players will get all their escrow money back."

    The owners are DEFINITELY arguing that they ovepay. The central point of their argument is that as non-salary expenses rise, it comes entirely out of the owners' 43 percent, and none of it comes out of the players' 57 percent.
    Marc in Toronto:
    Assuming owners get close to what they want, which teams will benefit most from the new CBA?

    Larry Coon:
    Small market teams. There will be a much more level playing field for them to compete.
    Jazzaholic in Salt Lake:
    Is there any hope that the players will negotiate a CBA, where the rich teams can't keep buying championships and the small market teams can compete?

    Larry Coon:
    The owners really want a system like that. That's what revenue sharing, lower salary costs and a tighter cap are suposed to achieve.

    The luxury tax system didn't work as intended -- it didn't stop teams from spending, it just stopped the POORER teams from spending. The richer teams just absorbed it as part of the cost of doing business.
    Bastian in Germany:
    How long do you think it would take from an agreement to the start of the season? Has the NBA contracts with the teams how fast the must be able to host a game?

    Larry Coon:
    In 1999 they took a couple weeks to get the agreement finalized, voted on, printed, distributed, etc., then there was a shortened free agent signing period, short training camps, and only three preseason games. Everything would probably take about a month.
    byron in new york:
    50/50 split in BRI a flex cap with 70mil with few exemptions and a more enhance revenue sharing will this be enough to end to stupid lockout? in my opinion if owners dont want to pay players then contraction is the solution!

    Larry Coon:
    One of the owners' complaints is that as non-salary expenses go up, the increase comes entirely out of the owners' share of the pie and not the players' share. This is something they want to fix. They'd be fine with a 50/50 split AFTER more money is taken off the top to cover expenses. One of their proposals called for $900 million to be taken off the top, then they'd split the rest 50/50. The players' proposal essentially was no extra money off the top and a 54/46 split. There's room in there to negotiate.

    Both sides are talking about increasing revenue sharing, so you can consider that to be a given. But if there's going to be contraction, then revenue sharing will be the driving force. At some point the owners of money-making teams (who will consistently be feeding into the revenue-sharing system) will tire of supporting teams that will never turn a profit on their own. The more revenue sharing, the greater the call will be for contraction -- or at the very least relocation.

    The players are fundamentally opposed to the idea of a hard cap, and they say a flex cap is just a hard cap with a fresh coat of paint.


    Read more NBA news and insight: http://www.hoopsworld.com/chat.asp?c...#ixzz1S23kqihV
    The bolded section is why I believe the players are cutting off their nose to spite their face.

  5. #285
    Raptors Republic Icon mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    20,645
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Larry Coon Lockout FAQ: Uncertain Future

    http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/column...koutFAQ-110701

    Not sure if anybody has posted this but a good read for those unsure of what the possible effects of lockout are.

  6. #286
    Raptors Republic Starter MyMomLovesMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Streetsville
    Posts
    489
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    "But if there's going to be contraction, then revenue sharing will be the driving force. At some point the owners of money-making teams (who will consistently be feeding into the revenue-sharing system) will tire of supporting teams that will never turn a profit on their own. The more revenue sharing, the greater the call will be for contraction -- or at the very least "

    This also says that in the bigger markets (without meddling and given free market conditions), players could be earning substantially more.


    So the CBA, in essence is equalizing the owners playing fields by limiting the earning potential of the players using the weakest market in the union as their earning ceiling.


    You can see why the PA has a problem with this.



    As for revenue sharing and bigger clubs growing tired. I honestly don't see much of a choice for them, if the commissioner wields a real hammer of the 30 clubs. What is best for all teams is more important than what is best for a few. Houston working out a deal with Yao's Chinese team was as important for the Lakers as it was for the Rockets. Their brand was opened to a new market where consequently the demand for Kobe's jersey was 2nd to Yao's.

    The reason this league earns the revenue it does, is because it is considered the BEST in the world. This is why a lot of foreign fans demand this product. Any wilful steps to take away from this image by allowing supporting clubs to errode will do as much damage to the Lakers brand as it will to the market in question.

    So regardless of how unfair the owners of the Laker's and Knicks may find revenue sharing, the health of the other clubs is crucial to the marketability of their own product. A perception of weakness due to uncertainty or inferiority in their competition only fouls up their own image by comparing their refined product to an inferior yardstick (who cares if the Knicks or Lakers have the best players in the world, if they play against clubs whose players are a bunch of hacks).



    We are really talking 2 of 30 clubs that will be extremely pissed but if the primary objective is what is best for the "majority", than this is a very efficient option for striking equality with the least ruffled feathers. (Scientists would ignore the 2 dots for the favour of 28 if it was a plot on a graph.)

    I don't know what the writer is alluding to that "one day" clubs like the LA and NY will grow tired, and do what? Leave the league? Ask for a contraction from owners that hold independent deeds? Whose position in the union also happens to be fundamentally equal? (This makes no sense to me, unless the league is being run by the big clubs due to their revenue intakes, but than if such an imbalance exists, than it is even more paramount for the remaining owners to equalize the playing field.)


    In fact, by allowing 2 teams to reap an inordinate share of the leagues revenues it is reminiscent of a bent spoke in the wheel, it will always thwart any attempt at proper equalization and causes future difficulties by adding to the propensity to warp rules over time.


    In a free market system, some of these teams need to fold. An economy is healthy when we allow for businesses to both succeed and fail. Failure is very important, by not allowing it, we in essence weaken the competitiveness of the herd. All these rules and caps and protectionism, even for its weakest about to die member can be very detrimental to the league itself.


    Funny that in a business where the spotlight is on the fittest and most competitive, the league is trying to adapt a policy that rewards the weakest and the most mismanaged.




    Anyway, I think the league needs a better revenue sharing model, but at the same time, there needs to be incentives for those members that are more efficient at running their franchises. IMO revenue sharing should be on a case by case basis. Only handed out to clubs that lack the fundamental conditions for revenue streams. The Clippers should not be getting cheques from the league considering where they are located and how badly they have been run. Donald Sterling should not get the same subsidies as Glen Taylor.
    Last edited by MyMomLovesMe; Thu Jul 14th, 2011 at 03:39 AM.

  7. #287
    Raptors Republic Icon mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    20,645
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I understood the contraction comments as hypothetical for when a new system is brought in that brings the majority in to profitability. If 24 teams regularly make money and the same 6 are losing money year after year, the majority will eventually tire. The current system has 8 profitable teams, it is more than NY and LA. The players insistence on not helping out struggling franchises could cost the union 15 jobs per team that is contracted - if it comes to that of course.


    The Clippers are actually one of the 8 profitable teams in the league - despite Donald Sterling. Raptors too.
    Last edited by mcHAPPY; Thu Jul 14th, 2011 at 07:18 AM.

  8. #288
    Administrator Apollo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    12,376
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Union in favor of players heading abroad to find temporary employement

    If the locked-out NBA players choose to take their talents overseas, they will do so with the spirited support of their union's leadership.

    In a letter sent to 450 players this week, Billy Hunter, executive director of the National Basketball Players Association, said that playing abroad would keep the pressure on owners while allowing union members to continue making a living.

    "This lockout is intended to economically pressure our players to agree to an unfavorable collective bargaining agreement," Hunter said in the letter, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times. "It is important for owners to understand that there may be significant consequences to their decision to put their own players in these difficult economic circumstances."

    Hunter said, "If the owners will not give our players a forum in which to play basketball here in the United States, they risk losing the greatest players in the world to the international basketball federations that are more than willing to employ them."
    Source: NY Times

    Yeah, they're willing to employe them at a rate much less than the NBA's current CBA offer. As a side note, FIBA has a verbal agreement with the NBA to not touch players under contract. FIBA hasn't stated if they're going to disregard that agreement or not.

  9. #289
    Administrator Apollo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    12,376
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default J-Rich on the lockout

    “I don’t have a job,” Richardson said. “I’ve taken care of my money and it won’t be a problem for me financially. I would guess that it won’t be a problem for 85 to 90 percent of the players. But you’re seeing some players going overseas for a lot less money. They just want to play.”
    Source: mlive.com

  10. #290
    Raptors Republic Icon mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    20,645
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Super Agent David Falk

    http://sportsradiointerviews.com/201...ichael-jordan/

    On what he thinks are the most broken aspects of the current NBA system:

    “I think the problem in the system, in my opinion, is basketball in the post-cap era…the cap came into the league in ’82 for 6 teams and for the rest of the league in ’83. And what the cap has done in both basketball and football is it’s made it in order to win…pop quiz, how many teams won a title in the NBA since 1980 in the last 31 years? Eight. Each of those teams have a formula. If you look at the Lakers, San Antonio, Miami almost won it last year — they have three stars that make almost all the money. When the Celtics won in 2008, Ray Allen, Paul Pierce and Kevin Garnett made 75 percent of the money. The fourth highest paid guy, Kendrick Perkins, how much did he earn? $3.6 [million]. Now, when your fourth guy is earning $3.6 and you say ‘Kendrick, I want you to be a role player, play great defense, rebound…’ He doesn’t turn to you and say ‘are you stupid? I’m making $9 million, I’m a star.’ Okay, so the formula for almost every team that’s won since 1980 in the cap era is to have three stars and a bunch of role players. What’s happened by putting a maximum salary on the LeBron’s and the Kobe’s and the Iverson’s over the last ten years, we’ve taken the money that we’ve saved from the stars and we pay guys that are probably worth $3 million, $9 million. That’s the problem in the system. They’re hard to coach, some of them aren’t heavily motivated, and you brought it up earlier, in 1998 when I was in my prime, Patrick Ewing was the president of the union. Stars ran the union. Today, the rank and file is running the union, and there’s a lot more rank and file players — they are passing the rules that disadvantage the stars that the people come to see and buy their merchandise or watch their commercials. And they’re overpaying the middle guys, so you have guys that are really out of shape…I’m not going to name names….there are certain guys that I watch when I come to the games here that I wouldn’t pay a nickel to watch because they’re in worse shape at age 22 than I am at 60.”


    If he thinks David Stern is making a big mistake with this developing labor impasse by not stepping in more forcefully:

    “No, no, I don’t think David’s being a hard-liner at all. I think there’s probably a lot of young owners that think David’s not being hard enough. But the truth is that there are a significant number of teams that are losing money. You can argue over how much they’re losing, you can argue accounting and say maybe you shouldn’t put depreciation of franchises which is a non-cash item in the loss, but they are losing money. But at the end of the day…and I’m a player guy, Mike…but the players in the aggregate are making $2.166 billion dollars. So let’s say you’re a player and I’m an owner, and I say ‘Mike, I’m losing money, I’ve got to change your salary, I’ve got to reduce it, I’m losing too much money.’ And you say ‘I don’t believe you’re losing money.’ I say ‘Really?’ I use my favorite David Falk expression — ‘are you bettin’ or are you talkin’? I’ll bet you $2.166 billion dollars that I’m losing money. If you’re wrong, you’re going to lose all your money, and if you’re right you’re going to get it.’”

  11. #291
    Administrator Apollo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    12,376
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    The thing is, the "rank and file" guys should be running the union because they make up the majority of the union. That's the whole point of the union, working together for the greater good of the collective and not the greater good of the few "haves". They best way to take care of the lazy, disinterested, overpaid players and to obilish guaranteed contracts. There should be signing bonuses which are guaranteed, performance bonuses to reward hard work and then actual salary which is not guaranteed. I'm telling you, if there weren't guaranteed contracts you wouldn't see guys like Eddy Curry pretty much holding teams hostage.

    I love this part:
    So let’s say you’re a player and I’m an owner, and I say ‘Mike, I’m losing money, I’ve got to change your salary, I’ve got to reduce it, I’m losing too much money.’ And you say ‘I don’t believe you’re losing money.’ I say ‘Really?’ I use my favorite David Falk expression — ‘are you bettin’ or are you talkin’? I’ll bet you $2.166 billion dollars that I’m losing money. If you’re wrong, you’re going to lose all your money, and if you’re right you’re going to get it.’”
    It captures the idea I've been expressing from the get go.

  12. #292
    Raptors Republic Icon mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    20,645
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Apollo wrote: View Post
    The thing is, the "rank and file" guys should be running the union because they make up the majority of the union. That's the whole point of the union, working together for the greater good of the collective and not the greater good of the few "haves".

    I love this part:


    It captures the idea I've been expressing from the get go. T
    That is very true. Unfortunately, Falk has a very valid point: many middle tier, if you will, players are making too much money. The superstars pay for themselves.

  13. #293
    Administrator Apollo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    12,376
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I added a piece after you quoted me which covers that.

  14. #294
    Raptors Republic Icon mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    20,645
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Apollo wrote: View Post
    I added a piece after you quoted me which covers that.
    I agree with what you're saying.

  15. #295
    Raptors Republic Superstar planetmars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    3,678
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Bill Simmons' take on the NBA lockout

    I don't believe this was posted already.

    I thought this was a very good read:
    http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/...uled-nba-world

  16. #296
    Raptors Republic Icon mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    20,645
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Another bit from Falk:

    "What they're arguing about mostly is the percentage of the pie. The players are making 57 percent of the pie, the owners want to make it less. And I think there are many ways to solve it. In many ways, having done this for 37 years, and having owned a business that's bigger than most of the teams, and having been an agent for so many years, I'd love to mediate the dispute because I think there are solutions that are acceptable to both sides. But at the end of the day, this is different than the football situation because the owners are printing money and the owners want a deal in football because they know if they start missing preseason games, for every game they miss, they're going to be losing money. There are about 14 to 20 teams in the NBA, if they miss games they're going to make money because the losses are going to stop."

    Read more NBA news and insight: http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?...#ixzz1S8ExyMj2

  17. #297
    Raptors Republic Starter MyMomLovesMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Streetsville
    Posts
    489
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Matt52 wrote: View Post
    I understood the contraction comments as hypothetical for when a new system is brought in that brings the majority in to profitability. If 24 teams regularly make money and the same 6 are losing money year after year, the majority will eventually tire. The current system has 8 profitable teams, it is more than NY and LA. The players insistence on not helping out struggling franchises could cost the union 15 jobs per team that is contracted - if it comes to that of course.


    The Clippers are actually one of the 8 profitable teams in the league - despite Donald Sterling. Raptors too.

    First of all, I don't buy those numbers, but lets use them.

    I have a feeling that 2 of those 8 make a lot more together, then the remaining 6.

    I also feel that the bottom 2 of the league, are probably loosing more than 6 above them combined.


    Therefore snipping the ends is not a bad strategy when looking at the general atmosphere in the league.

    If the "top two" have a disproportionate share of revenues, than maybe the league needs to come up with a fairer revenue sharing model. Maybe NY and LA need to have their markets shrunk, just like Toronto had its extended to Canada. It may be better for the league as a whole, rather than seeing inordinate waste of money by someone like Dolan and Thomas year after year and his club still in the black.


    EDIT: I don't see why Density can not be an issue in market determination. It's just seems more advanced and fairer that way. (And its simple and efficient solution, everything else gets tossed into the kitty for teams to split, and league to run itself.)
    Last edited by MyMomLovesMe; Fri Jul 15th, 2011 at 01:42 PM.

  18. #298
    Raptors Republic All-Star ezz_bee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Kigali, Rwanda
    Posts
    1,761
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote planetmars wrote: View Post
    I don't believe this was posted already.

    I thought this was a very good read:
    http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/...uled-nba-world
    Me too. I don't always agree with Simmons but he is an entertaining read. His idea for an exciting as hell tournament would be just that. Maybe he'd be more risk averse if he actually was an owner but he does have a bit of a Jackie Moon flavour that would be fun to see. Like Marc Cuban with polytechnics...
    "They're going to have to rename the whole conference after us: Toronto Raptors 2014-2015 Northern Conference Champions" ~ ezzbee

    "We only have one rule on this team. What is that rule? E.L.E. That's right's, E.L.E, and what does E.L.E. stand for? EVERYBODY LOVE EVERYBODY. Right there up on the wall, because this isn't just a basketball team, this is a lifestyle. ~ Jackie Moon

  19. #299
    Raptors Republic Superstar planetmars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    3,678
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Not sure about owner, but I think he'd make a pretty good GM. And I'm not actually joking about that - I think he has been around the game for a long time and knows what works and what doesn't. He may need to hire an assistant that has the experience but hell if Isiah can be a GM, then I'm sure he'd be able to as well.

    I love the idea of the Exciting as Hell tourney, but the other ideas I liked were how he would reward a superstar such that they'd be happy and have a harder time leaving the team that they were playing for and putting sponsors on team jerseys.

    It'd be funny as hell to see a Primo add on the Raptors jerseys

  20. #300
    Raptors Republic Icon mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    20,645
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    It's the players' salaries, right?

    The reason the NBA owners have put their own business on hiatus has nothing to do with revenue, which continues to pour in to the wildly popular league, or the business practices of each franchise. The problem, we've been lead to believe, is that the last collective bargaining agreement gave the players too large a share of the basketball related income (57%) and a majority of teams can't be sustained on the leftovers.

    Of course, that line of thinking is being thoroughly tested these days.

    Recently the league's claims of poverty have been put into question by Nate Silver's blog post on The New York Times' website—a piece the NBA rebutted the following day on its own website. But even if the league was in fact losing money, could the owners' liberal spending—and not players' salaries—be at the heart of the problem?

    Cork Gaines of The Business Insider posted a chart Friday, which showed a 12.7 percent increase in spending on things besides player salaries over the course of the current CBA. Oddly enough, the players' compensation has grown only 5.4 percent (adjusted for inflation) during that time. Since revenue is up 5.3 percent, that seems to be a wash.

    The Business Insider chart is only a snapshot and it does use the data provided from Forbes.com (which the league referred to as "incorrect" in its statement), so this shouldn't be taken as gospel. But even if the numbers are a bit off, the league might want to address the issue before more fans start leaning toward the players' side. Why has the cost of running teams gone up nearly 13 percent in five years, allegedly, and could that be the real reason 22 of 30 NBA teams claim to be losing money?

    Read more NBA news and insight: http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?...#ixzz1SDDJBzf8
    If the NBA's costs have only gone up 12.7% on things other than salary over the course of this CBA (6 years), they are doing pretty darn good.

    In Ben Bernanke's quarterly theatric of sitting in front of Congress jumping through hoops and answering little question of real substance, Ron Paul pointed out real inflation in the US over the last 4 years is around 35% - about 9% annual.

    If you use the old methods of calculating inflation you'll see in the winter/spring it was running at
    near 10% in February and that was before oil hit over $100 again.

Page 15 of 98 FirstFirst ... 5 13 14 15 16 17 25 65 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •