Page 9 of 15 FirstFirst ... 5678910111213 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 147

Thread: Players Union decertifies

  1. #1
    Member Since
    Sep 2009
    Location
    hollywood
    Posts
    404
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Default Players Union decertifies


    0 Not allowed!
    Per Chris Mortensen, ESPN NFL insider.

    Players union has filed decertification papers in Minneapolis court.

    Peaceful renegotiation of new CBA is now a thing of the past. The courts will decide, and there may be no football this year.

  2. #81
    Member Since
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    205
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Hayvern View Post
    Ultimately, it does come down to the players in one major sense. To negotiate in good faith, one has to make demands and then counter demands. Typically, you would move off your position a little. The players NEVER EVER did that.

    The owners got a raw deal in the last CBA. This is pretty well established, they are trying to close that gap a little bit, the players, who know they got a cream deal in the last CBA are not willing to give any back. This nonsense about opening the books is just that, nonsense. I get the feeling that the players only want to open the books so they can point out how a couple of teams, Dallas, New England, Pittsburgh perhaps, are all making tons of money, yet they forget about those teams like the Chiefs, Dolphins, Jaguars, who are not making all that much money.

    In this case, it comes down to anamosity from the players towards the owners, the players were never interested in getting a deal done, this is more a political statement than trying to save the season. I maintain that, and stand by it until they prove me wrong, and so far, I am right.

    And let's be clear, I doubt that even the majority of the players back this move if you asked them one on one over a beer and they were perfectly candid about it. But the nature of unions is such that you do not split ranks with the union if you want the union to help you in the future, so you go along even though you know the collective actions of the union are wrong.

    You will see more players step out and go against the union the closer we get to actual game time. The last strike saw a great number of players cross the picket lines to play, and I believe the same will happen if we get to that at this point. Expecially when the wives start screaming about paying the bills.

    To all of you saying that the players are one of a kind and cannot be replaced so they deserve this money. Let me give you another example. There are just under 1200 Cisco Certified Internetworking Experts in this country. These are the rock stars of the IT community, the cream of the crop so to speak. These guys get a huge salary compared to others in the field, but not so much that it is a factor of millions.

    And before you go off and say that they are not as important as NFL players, lets consider the guy that works for Bank of America. Bank of America handles more money every week than the NFL handles in a year. The CCIEs are what keeps those systems talking. Bank of America probably only has 2 or 3 of these types of guys on payroll. Should they band together and demand 50% of all of Bank of America's revenue because without them, BofA would no longer be a viable business?

    No, they should not, that would be classified as extortion, which brings me back to my point that unions are nothing more than legalized extortion.
    How do you know that the players did not negotiate in good faith? To me, it seems like the owners pretty much took a take or leave it attitude by walking out the same offer over and over again.

    Because you see unions as "legalized extortion" I suspect it may be hard for you to keep an unbiased perspective on this matter.

    Granted, the NFL seems outrageous because of the salaries, but this is a microcosm of what is going in our society at large. People are so afraid of the rich and big business that they want to just roll over and if to say, "thank you, sir, may I have another"

    Don't kid yourself, if these owners could import players from China and screw all their American players, they would do it in a heartbeat. If you don't believe me, call a tech support for anything and ask the employee where he is at. If we keep it up, everyone in the USA will be making $8.00/hour to serve the mega-rich 2% who will laugh all the way to their foreign bank accounts with 99% of the wealth.
    Last edited by wilqb16; 03-15-2011 at 01:53 PM.

  3. #82
    Member Since
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    81
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Hayvern View Post
    Ultimately, it does come down to the players in one major sense. To negotiate in good faith, one has to make demands and then counter demands. Typically, you would move off your position a little. The players NEVER EVER did that.

    The owners got a raw deal in the last CBA. This is pretty well established, they are trying to close that gap a little bit, the players, who know they got a cream deal in the last CBA are not willing to give any back. This nonsense about opening the books is just that, nonsense. I get the feeling that the players only want to open the books so they can point out how a couple of teams, Dallas, New England, Pittsburgh perhaps, are all making tons of money, yet they forget about those teams like the Chiefs, Dolphins, Jaguars, who are not making all that much money.

    In this case, it comes down to anamosity from the players towards the owners, the players were never interested in getting a deal done, this is more a political statement than trying to save the season. I maintain that, and stand by it until they prove me wrong, and so far, I am right.

    And let's be clear, I doubt that even the majority of the players back this move if you asked them one on one over a beer and they were perfectly candid about it. But the nature of unions is such that you do not split ranks with the union if you want the union to help you in the future, so you go along even though you know the collective actions of the union are wrong.

    You will see more players step out and go against the union the closer we get to actual game time. The last strike saw a great number of players cross the picket lines to play, and I believe the same will happen if we get to that at this point. Expecially when the wives start screaming about paying the bills.

    To all of you saying that the players are one of a kind and cannot be replaced so they deserve this money. Let me give you another example. There are just under 1200 Cisco Certified Internetworking Experts in this country. These are the rock stars of the IT community, the cream of the crop so to speak. These guys get a huge salary compared to others in the field, but not so much that it is a factor of millions.

    And before you go off and say that they are not as important as NFL players, lets consider the guy that works for Bank of America. Bank of America handles more money every week than the NFL handles in a year. The CCIEs are what keeps those systems talking. Bank of America probably only has 2 or 3 of these types of guys on payroll. Should they band together and demand 50% of all of Bank of America's revenue because without them, BofA would no longer be a viable business?

    No, they should not, that would be classified as extortion, which brings me back to my point that unions are nothing more than legalized extortion.
    Have not read the entire thread but wow, this is an extremely misguided post.


    #1 The owners did not get a raw deal last CBA - they felt they did, because they didn't get everything to go their way ( which is exactly what Mawae said, before you go quoting him ). Compared to the MLB and the NBA, the NFL owners are raking in the money under the 2009 CBA rules. Not to mention the sport has been growing very, very well.


    #2 If someone you partner in business with requested you concede 1/9th of total revenue to them because of 'costs increase', you'd want to see their books too.

    In the 1987 disputes, it was shown that written against the team's cost were million dollar salaries for the owner and their family members, multiple 'bonuses' in a year, expensing plane trips for personal use, and writing off bad investments ( see Green Bay's books this year when investments failed to return as projected ).

    Why do you think the owners refuse to open them now if they are not hiding the same kinds of stuff? And don't kid yourself - the owners aren't claiming losses - just decreased profit margins, meaning they aren't making as much as they use to.



    Let's get some facts straight here:


    1. The owners colluded to fund the lockout two years in advance, breaking their CBA agreement, and per at least one TV station, 'bullied' the stations into signing the 'lockout insurance' checks. Furthermore, the owners would not budge on anything until Doty ruled they couldn't touch this lockout fund, and ironically, filed suit against the NFLPA for not bargaining in good faith!



    2. More on that 'good faith' suit... The CBA in 2009 gave the owners 1 bill off the top, then a 40/60 split between owners and players, netting in 2009, 4.2 bill to the owners, 4.8 bill to the players, or 47% to the owners, 53% to the players. The owners requested 2 bill off the top and 40/60, which would have flipped those numbers around - 4.8 to the owners, 4.2 to the playes or 53% / 47%.

    The players offered a complete 50/50 split, to which the owners got up, walked away, and field suit against the NFLPA for 'not bargaining in good faith'...



    3. Pash stated they agreed to 'open the books for 5 years but the NFLPA wanted 10'. Know where that 'request for 10 years of books' comes from? Its from an email sent 2 years ago to the league - not a current request.

    Next, did you read PFT's interview with Pash? He admits that what they agreed to was to turn the books over to an independent auditor for review BUT as of this time, the auditor could only disclose to the NFLPA the revenue and cost figures, NOT what those costs were ( such as the above type of items ). WTF is the point in that?



    4. And this may be the MOST important to counter your ill-conceived notions about the players' "unwillingness" to work things out. Did you read what the NFL's final ( ridiculous ) proposal was? Well here it is:


    a. The player's split would go back to 2007 levels.

    b. The player's split would be based off of "projected" revenue, as projected by the owners, not actual revenue!!!

    c. Any revenue over the "projected" revenue would go 100% to the owners!


    Know what the "projected" growth was for the next 4 years? 4%, 4%, 2.5%, and 2.5%.

    Know what the actual growth of the NFL's total revenue has been? ~7%.

    Know when the next TV deals are due? The same years as those projected 2.5% increases...



    And MOST important, know what the NFLPA responded with?


    a. The player's split would go back to 2007 levels.

    b. The player's split would be based off of "projected" revenue, as projected by the owners, not actual revenue.

    c. Any revenue over the "projected" revenue UP TO 1.5% over the project amount would go completely to the owners!

    d. Any revenue over the "projected" revenue above a 1.5% increase would be split as normal!



    The owners said NO!



    With all due respect, please get your facts straight before claiming the players are 'extorting' the owners or are even much at fault - this is a clear case of the owners using their money to try and dictate terms to the players and not to mention, run misinformation out to the public. If you just want to side with the owners, that's fine, but at least know & represent what is going on truthfully & honestly ( something the NFL can't seem to do right now ).


    FYI, All of my information can be found on PFT, CBS Sports and ESPN. If I have time, I'll even link each item later tonight.

  4. #83
    Member Since
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    9,759
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 401
    Given: 78

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Xanathol View Post

    1. The owners colluded to fund the lockout two years in advance, breaking their CBA agreement, and per at least one TV station, 'bullied' the stations into signing the 'lockout insurance' checks. Furthermore, the owners would not budge on anything until Doty ruled they couldn't touch this lockout fund, and ironically, filed suit against the NFLPA for not bargaining in good faith!
    First off I complety agree the owners makeing sure they had money is a greedy move but....

    Heres a fact that the NFLPA most the media and yourself have left out. The PLAYERS voted to break up the union BEFORE the season began last summer. They were doing the SAME THING THEY WHINE ABOUT THE OWNERS doing when they said the owners were plaining to lock them out.

    Yes the owners were asking for even more money but the players wanted extra benfits without giveing any of there money back. Why i think this heres why. Anytime during interviews they talk they say not a dime back until they open the books. And they have admitied they want these benfits for themselfs and former players. They will tell you that the rookie pay scale will help pay but strange when i have heard them talk about that All i have heard is why should a guy whos never played make more then me.(witch i do agree with) NOT ONE player mentioned that helping pay for health benfits. The players want this so theres more cap room on teams so they get MORE. Again the players are doing the SAME THING they whine about the owners doing. Wanting more for nothing.

    Final point the PLAYERS walked away from the talks. To quote Drew brees yesterday an offer begins with the owners opening there books. Something they no the owners are against. That's NOT negotiating that's makeing demads. You can say why shouldn't the owners open the books but why should the empolyee tell the bosses (yes the owners are the bosses they are the ones that sign the checks) what to do. If anyone eles did that they would not be employeed very long. If these owners are so evil and greedy then why don't we see guys trying to get on UFL teams. I am sure the UFL would gladly take names like peyton manning and tom brady. It's because they would not make as much money there and they no that. The NFLPA is being greedy just like the owners but people are giveing them a free pass.

  5. #84
    Member Since
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    14,167
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 82
    Given: 27

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by chief31 View Post

    Employees are partners. You need me. I need you. Let's do this together.

    Even partners? No. But partners none the less.



    Yeah. The risk of still living better than most of the world has ever dreamed of is so frightening.

    There is zero risk to being an NFL owner. None.

    Risk involves the potential for losing something important. And extra money is not important. It's pure luxury.

    Worst case scenario for the owners, they wind up living better than the average NFL player.



    Does anyone believe that using Daddy's money to hire people to make you money should get you paid $60 million a year while the athletes make a fraction of that, and doctors, teachers, policeman, firemen, servicemen, and our president make only fractions of that?

    By the way, what athlete is making $25 million a year?
    Many erroneous points in this post. Suffice it to say that you think the players are partners in the business. I believe the players are employees. All of our disagreement stems from this.


  6. #85
    Member Since
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    81
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by matthewschiefs View Post
    First off I complety agree the owners makeing sure they had money is a greedy move but....

    Heres a fact that the NFLPA most the media and yourself have left out. The PLAYERS voted to break up the union BEFORE the season began last summer. They were doing the SAME THING THEY WHINE ABOUT THE OWNERS doing when they said the owners were plaining to lock them out.

    Yes the owners were asking for even more money but the players wanted extra benfits without giveing any of there money back. Why i think this heres why. Anytime during interviews they talk they say not a dime back until they open the books. And they have admitied they want these benfits for themselfs and former players. They will tell you that the rookie pay scale will help pay but strange when i have heard them talk about that All i have heard is why should a guy whos never played make more then me.(witch i do agree with) NOT ONE player mentioned that helping pay for health benfits. The players want this so theres more cap room on teams so they get MORE. Again the players are doing the SAME THING they whine about the owners doing. Wanting more for nothing.

    Final point the PLAYERS walked away from the talks. To quote Drew brees yesterday an offer begins with the owners opening there books. Something they no the owners are against. That's NOT negotiating that's makeing demads. You can say why shouldn't the owners open the books but why should the empolyee tell the bosses (yes the owners are the bosses they are the ones that sign the checks) what to do. If anyone eles did that they would not be employeed very long. If these owners are so evil and greedy then why don't we see guys trying to get on UFL teams. I am sure the UFL would gladly take names like peyton manning and tom brady. It's because they would not make as much money there and they no that. The NFLPA is being greedy just like the owners but people are giveing them a free pass.
    #1 Now what you're not telling about the situation is that the players collected the signatures during the season because if they did not decertify before the CBA expires ( which required majority signatures ), they had to wait 6 months to bring a case to the courts, per the CBA agreement. The players collecting those names didn't hurt the owners - the owners reducing TV contract values ( and thereby reducing money to the players ) to get the contracts that funded them cash to out last the players in the lockout certainly DID hurt the players. The two acts are in no way similar.


    #2 Anything to back this claim up whatsoever?


    #3 The players HAD TO decertify before the CBA expired, period, else wait 6 months, meaning they HAD to "make the first move".

    The business model of the NFL is not the same as yoru childhood lemonaide stand - its not a competitive, open market that can be sued at any time were the owners are disjoint from the employees. Instead, its a monopoly, protects by certain anti-trust laws when in agreements to collectively bargain with the players who more accurately represent partners than employees. If your partner whom you split profits with asks for $1 bill more due to expenses, you would want to see the books too, and have every right to.

    Btw, the owners don't sign the checks - the NFL does. Your check as a player comes from the NFL. And its hard to have a competing league when the NFL ties up TV rights, stadiums, etc - that's why monopolies are governed differently than lemonaide stands.

  7. #86
    Member Since
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    81
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    As promised, here are two links of some of my sources of the aforementioned points:

    PFT Summary of NFL's Final Proposal

    Pash-PFT interview

    Section where Pash runs around the question:
    MF: A couple more quick ones before we let you go and I appreciate you hanging around. The issue of transparency ó where does that stand right now? I just feel like the union wants what it wants, and youíre willing to give what youíre willing to give. And Iím trying like heck to find a middle ground that would work for everybody, and I donít know that there is one. Do you think that there is a middle ground?

    JP: Itís hard to say. I thought what we offered was pretty good. I mean, the union has been saying for a long time, ĎShow us that thereís a decline in profits,í and we offered to do that. We told them that weíd give a third-party accounting firm the individual club audited financial statements for fiveseasons to be reviewed and analyzed. So I think we went a long way towards satisfying their financial transparency demands. And frankly, Iím not convinced that they want to see the numbers. I think they like it better as an issue to whack us upside the head with than to actually look at the numbers.

    MF: How does the profitability calculation take into account money paid to owners and owner families in the form of salary, bonuses, other things that would go into expenses and not necessarily show up in profits?

    JP: Well thatís something that we were prepared to talk to them about, and prepared to work with a third-party accounting firm to make sure that issue was included in the analysis.

    MF: Is it fair to say at this point that audited financial statements just, thatís a non-starter, that theyíre not going to be given?

    JP: I think I just said exactly to the contrary. I think I said exactly the opposite, that we offered to give five years of individual club audited financial statements to a third-party firm to review and analyze and to report on.

    MF: When was that offer made?

    JP: The offer has been made on any number of occasions, but most specifically it was made last week in writing.

    MF: And maybe Iím confused, because it was my understanding that there was a limited offer made last week Ė total profitability of the league, and also an identification of the number of teams that have lost profits, seen profits drop, over the past five years. Youíre saying there was an offer made to submit audited financial statements to a 3rd party who would analyze them and then produce ó what, this profitability number or something else?

    JP: We would have to define what the assignment of the third party was, obviously, but the two things that you mentioned ó yes we did offer that but we also offered to go beyond that, and that was what they said they didnít want to take from us. Thatís why I say Iím not really certain that they want the numbers.

    And just to add to the fire, new from PFT is the Jerry Jones attitude that was reported.

    I'll toss in the other links if need be / as time permits, but I think I've proved my information is sourced and not dreamt up like some folks are doing.

  8. #87
    Member Since
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    9,759
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 401
    Given: 78

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Xanathol View Post
    #1 Now what you're not telling about the situation is that the players collected the signatures during the season because if they did not decertify before the CBA expires ( which required majority signatures ), they had to wait 6 months to bring a case to the courts, per the CBA agreement. The players collecting those names didn't hurt the owners - the owners reducing TV contract values ( and thereby reducing money to the players ) to get the contracts that funded them cash to out last the players in the lockout certainly DID hurt the players. The two acts are in no way similar.


    #2 Anything to back this claim up whatsoever?


    #3 The players HAD TO decertify before the CBA expired, period, else wait 6 months, meaning they HAD to "make the first move".

    The business model of the NFL is not the same as yoru childhood lemonaide stand - its not a competitive, open market that can be sued at any time were the owners are disjoint from the employees. Instead, its a monopoly, protects by certain anti-trust laws when in agreements to collectively bargain with the players who more accurately represent partners than employees. If your partner whom you split profits with asks for $1 bill more due to expenses, you would want to see the books too, and have every right to.

    Btw, the owners don't sign the checks - the NFL does. Your check as a player comes from the NFL. And its hard to have a competing league when the NFL ties up TV rights, stadiums, etc - that's why monopolies are governed differently than lemonaide stands.
    So last August was anywhere close to March? If they were truley wanting to get a fair deal done they would have given it till after the season to see how things were going. They would have had almost a month to take that vote.

    The UFL is currently on tv. And there are a number of networks that I am sure would love to get football once the UFL gets big enough Turner (tbs,TNT) Spike there are other networks that most people get besides NBC ABC/ESPN CBS FOX

    The truth is a FAIR deal is something the players would never take. Do you think the players would take a 50/50 deal of profits and expenses That's what a TRUE partnership really is.

  9. #88
    Member Since
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    81
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by matthewschiefs View Post
    So last August was anywhere close to March? If they were truley wanting to get a fair deal done they would have given it till after the season to see how things were going. They would have had almost a month to take that vote.
    After the season try and round everyone up? Riiight. And again, their act had them prepared to move, but in no way whatsoever harmed the owners.

    Quote Originally Posted by matthewschiefs View Post
    The UFL is currently on tv. And there are a number of networks that I am sure would love to get football once the UFL gets big enough Turner (tbs,TNT) Spike there are other networks that most people get besides NBC ABC/ESPN CBS FOX
    And who organizes that? Where do they play? If this is so easy, I certainly suggest you run with it, bc you could make millions yourself!
    Quote Originally Posted by matthewschiefs View Post
    The truth is a FAIR deal is something the players would never take. Do you think the players would take a 50/50 deal of profits and expenses That's what a TRUE partnership really is.
    Considering the players are by far the #1 expense and already compensate the owners for most expenses including advertising, stadium upkeep, luxury suite construction & upkeep, percentage of concessions, etc, etc, they already are ( that's where the 1 billion off the top comes from ). You never read the CBA, have you?


    Btw, another great read on the greed of the NFL owners in regards to stadiums
    . Ironic how the owner of the Bengals was one of the ones saying he needed more money from the players for stadium cost & upkeep when the taxpayers in that area are actually paying for that for him. The owners are greedy, manipulative liars, plain & simple. And I'm a conservative!

  10. #89
    Member Since
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    9,759
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 401
    Given: 78

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Xanathol View Post
    After the season try and round everyone up? Riiight. And again, their act had them prepared to move, but in no way whatsoever harmed the owners.


    And who organizes that? Where do they play? If this is so easy, I certainly suggest you run with it, bc you could make millions yourself!

    Considering the players are by far the #1 expense and already compensate the owners for most expenses including advertising, stadium upkeep, luxury suite construction & upkeep, percentage of concessions, etc, etc, they already are ( that's where the 1 billion off the top comes from ). You never read the CBA, have you?


    Btw, another great read on the greed of the NFL owners in regards to stadiums
    . Ironic how the owner of the Bengals was one of the ones saying he needed more money from the players for stadium cost & upkeep when the taxpayers in that area are actually paying for that for him. The owners are greedy, manipulative liars, plain & simple. And I'm a conservative!

    So the players can't do a little work to get there teams together? They can at least call each other to get there vote? It's funny how the owners plan for a lockout there greedy the players plan to take legal action there the good guys. It's the same action both makeing plans to get the upper hand. If your going to jump on one side for it you have to the other side to.

    It would be work but there are many non nfl fields they could play at across the country. It would take time and work but like I said if the NFL owners are so evil why don't they just go play in the other league?

    Think about the expenses outside of the players that an owner has. You have your security,ushers,vendors.equitment for the food vending,office staff, There are over 100 games in the NFL every year. This adds up. I think its very easy this could add up to over a billion for the owners. Why do they have to play for that alone. How about that equitment the players wear? Coaching staff training equitment used by the players. There are A LOT of expenses outside of payroll most enjoyed by the players why shouldn't they have to chip in a little for this stuff they enjoy?

    The media has been very pro player. That's why i am growing more and more anti player. I think the owners are greedy liars yes. But that is no excuse for the players to be greedy as well. Look at the NFL players. They are the ones who won't even talk unless the owners cave into to there demands to open the books to them. Again that's not negotating that makeing a demand. A.P. of the vikings had the nerve to say the NFL players are slaves. That's why i am so anti player. They are being greedy to and getting a free pass. I just think if people are going to jump all over one side don't let the other side off for doing some of the same things.

  11. #90
    Member Since
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    302
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Owners and Players are both to blame for this current debacle; however, I really get the feeling that the NFLPA* is being run by a handful of players and executives that don't necessarily speak for the 1600+ players in the NFL. I have no evidence to back this up, its just the impression they're giving through the media. I honestly believe they did not negotiate in good faith with the Owners. Of course who would if they can get a better deal through litigation. But litigation will prove to be unfruitful, in my opinion, because decertification is assuredly a "sham". It's obvious they decertified to sue for anti-trust and that they'll reorganize with a new CBA. But overall, I really don't care how this pans out and who gets a fair deal. I just want football this year, not just games, but free agency, OTAs, Training camp and a full season.


    P.S. Players should take heed that all the media right now is not favorable to their camp. They seem greedy with a "take it or leave it" CBA demand. I don't believe that's true, but De Smith is a terrible media figure. He seems to act like a child holding his breath. Players, get it together and strike a deal. I wish I could get paid a couple hundred thousand to play a game.
    Great Googly Moogly

    RyanD82 - Twitter

Page 9 of 15 FirstFirst ... 5678910111213 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. NFL Files Suit Against Players Union
    By Hayvern in forum KC Chiefs News and Discussion
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 03-19-2011, 12:16 AM
  2. NFL owners could opt out of CBA with union as early as Tuesday
    By Guru in forum KC Chiefs News and Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-17-2008, 04:32 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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