Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • NBA lockout: one of the best explanations of the problem by Larry Coon

    Source: http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?story_id=20556

    Bill Ingram's (from Hoopsworld I believe) points are not well made. Larry Coon uses his deep knowledge of the CBA to explain the problem with the system. Its balanced - and clearly explains why the owners are somewhat "forced" to pay players like Johnson max money.

    Explains Mr. Coon:
    Let's continue with Joe Johnson as our example. Suppose Atlanta had exercised fiscal restraint and offered Johnson a reasonable salary – something commensurate with his status as a good player, but not a franchise player. Ten million? Twelve? It doesn't matter – if it was anything less than the maximum, Joe Johnson would no longer be a member of the Atlanta Hawks.

    It's simply supply and demand at work. Star basketball players are a rare commodity, and they're in high demand. There are 30 teams competing with each other to reach the same goal, and that means they're competing with each other to sign the same talent. When there's a low supply and high demand, prices go up.

    You were right that Joe Johnson isn't to blame for his market value being so high. But neither are the Hawks. It's the system.
    Mr. Coon also explains the clear problem with Mr. Ingram's Phoenix example.
    (I also got a kick out of his stock market is "legalized gambling" comment. I guess companies like Apple don't create jobs and wealth [nor pay taxes to fund programs], they just hit "black" 2,938 times in a row.)
    http://twitter.com/Liston

    Comment


    • What on earth is a "Reasonable Salary" if it's not Joe Johnson's Market Value?

      Also Apple does not play the Stock Market, they make computers, they are not the gamblers in the example, neither is selling securities to speculators the only conceivable means of capital formation. But let's leave that topic alone for now.

      Comment


      • Liston wrote: View Post
        Source: http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?story_id=20556

        Bill Ingram's (from Hoopsworld I believe) points are not well made. Larry Coon uses his deep knowledge of the CBA to explain the problem with the system. Its balanced - and clearly explains why the owners are somewhat "forced" to pay players like Johnson max money.

        Explains Mr. Coon:


        Mr. Coon also explains the clear problem with Mr. Ingram's Phoenix example.
        (I also got a kick out of his stock market is "legalized gambling" comment. I guess companies like Apple don't create jobs and wealth [nor pay taxes to fund programs], they just hit "black" 2,938 times in a row.)


        yes capitalism is the cause of the NBA lockout. Although I find it funny that his solution is then to eliminate the rules and allow a more free market approach

        So what if the Hawks had said, "We love 'ya, Joe, but it'd be irresponsible for us to pay you the maximum. We can afford $10 million, and we'd love to keep you. If that's not enough for you, then we wish you good luck in your future endeavors." Johnson would have walked, of course. Then what?

        NBA teams operate in a system where they can't just run out and sign a quality replacement player when one player leaves. They have to operate within the constraints of the cap and their available exceptions. The rules allowed the Hawks to pay Johnson any amount necessary to keep him, but they didn't allow them to replace Johnson with another player for more than the mid-level salary. It's an untenable choice – they either overpay Johnson or become a less competitive basketball team.
        what he seems to neglect is that that still does nothing to address the "haves" going in and scooping up Johnson and constently remaining on top (see Basesball). It also doesn't guarantee you can just go sign equivalent talent to Joe Johnson for less. Its the beauty of the theory of capitalism, there's always value around the corner if you work hard enough.... so they tell you.

        He says that Atlanta is a perennial low attendance team, always in the 20's with non-playoff teams. Yet they HAD TO keep Joe Johnson to make the playoffs and attract fans and still lose money?

        All they say in this article tells me the problem is they are operating in markets that they shouldn't be. Not necessarily a problem with the owners or the players.... its the market. Eliminate the team if they can't attract fans consistently when they are one of the better teams in teh league.
        Last edited by GarbageTime; Wed Aug 10, 2011, 07:55 AM.

        Comment


        • You can't have it both ways. Neither can the players.

          The Suns are a great illustration of my point. It's true, from 2009-10 to 2010-11 their team salary dropped from $75.3 million to $65.9 million. In 2010 they took the Lakers to six games in the Western Conference Finals, and in 2011 they were counting ping pong balls. Of course those two events were connected.

          The Suns exercised some of that fiscal restraint you said was lacking, and it cost them. You can point to ancillary benefits of owning an NBA team such as tax advantages and less-than-arm's-length transactions with other companies under the same ownership, but motive is beside the point here. Whether Sarver used his team to bail out his other businesses or simply said, "We're going to run the Suns more responsibly," the result is the same. This is a competitive league, and teams that don't keep up are going to be left behind. Good luck trying to compete if your pocketbook isn't wide open.

          It's the system.

          And fiscal restraint only gets teams so far. The Suns did keep their spending in check last season. So did a lot of other teams. Do you know how much money this saved the league, relative to revenues?

          Zero.

          Players are guaranteed a 57/43 split of all the money that comes in through the door. This year, for the first time, teams exercised self-control – they took in $3.82 billion, and paid the players just $2.15 billion, or 56.3 percent of revenues. Hallelujah – finally some fiscal restraint! What do they do with their resulting $26 million windfall? Pay down their debt? Fund capital improvements?

          Nope. They had to give it to the players. All $26 million.

          Whether teams spend with wild abandon or hoard their earnings like Ebenezer Scrooge, they have to give the same 57 percent of revenues to the players. They gave 57 percent to the players last season, 57 percent the season before that, and 57 percent the season before that.

          It's like Bill Murray's character Phil Connors in Groundhog Day, who keeps reliving February 2nd over and over. The owners have to pay the players the same 57 percent year after year, and they just need to get out of this loop. And people who say "nobody's holding a gun to the owners' heads" are sounding a lot like Ned Ryerson.

          When a team is forced to spend exorbitant amounts in order to compete for a title, and failing to do so means empty seats and declining revenues, then a gun is being held to its head. The players aren't pointing the gun – the system is.

          A single team can't buck the system. And neither can they collectively decide, "We're not doing this any more." That's called collusion, and it's against the rules – at least while the CBA is in effect.

          There are times when the NBA is one association working collectively, and times when it's 30 individual franchises competing with each other. Free agency is one of those times when it's every team for itself. That's not the time to fix the system. The right time is when it's one association working collectively – and that's during labor negotiations.

          Now's the time, and the system needs to be fixed.

          Read more NBA news and insight: http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?...#ixzz1UcqrerkB

          A great read. I highly recommend clicking the link and reading it all. Liston has a thread up on another section of this.

          This is exactly the point. The system is broke. Forget players vs. owners and who is at fault - it is the system.
          Last edited by mcHAPPY; Wed Aug 10, 2011, 09:48 AM.

          Comment


          • Matt52 wrote: View Post
            A great read. I highly recommend clicking the link and reading it all. Liston has a thread up on another section of this.

            This is exactly the point. The system is broke. Forget players vs. owners and who is at fault - it is the system.
            not to be combatitive, but to say "forget players vs owners and who is at fault - it is the system" is meaningless as players and owners ARE the system. Not only that they create the functions of the system and change the system.

            Both parties are right in that its the others fault. But parties miss that its both their faults.

            The system works fine IF individuals don't abuse it.

            Comment


            • They aren't the system, they're players within a self designed system. They met, designed the system, signed the agreement and have been left to operate under those strict conditions within the agreement. The system worked better in the past when times were far more prosperous but times change and the U.S. economy and dollar is crashing. The owners obviously know this better than most, in fact they probably seen it coming far sooner than most, and so now they're going to take measures to change the system to accommodate the new landscape.

              Comment


              • GarbageTime wrote: View Post
                not to be combatitive, but to say "forget players vs owners and who is at fault - it is the system" is meaningless as players and owners ARE the system. Not only that they create the functions of the system and change the system.

                Both parties are right in that its the others fault. But parties miss that its both their faults.

                The system works fine IF individuals don't abuse it.
                Coon does a pretty good job of showing the owners are screwed under the current system either way. If they don't give contracts, they lose. If they give big contracts, they lose.

                I bolded a section above that speaks to the truth of the argument - "Well don't pay the players."

                There is no doubt the system has both parties at fault - it was negotiated by them in 2005. The owners (supposedly) as a group lost money every year of it. They honoured the agreement and now it is time to get a new one.

                This is where the conflict arises: the owners want change, the players do not.

                The argument of the system working fine if individuals do not abuse it goes far beyond this (welfare anyone? healthcare?). However, not abusing the system would require a player saying, "I'm only worth $3M, I'm not going to take the $5.7M MLE team x is offering." For an owner or GM it would be like them saying, "We need a certain type player. THere are only 4 of those types of players on the market who would fit with us. If I don't get them we can't expect to get better, fans get pissed, we don't get better, lose sponsorship, ugh. He is only worth $6M but the other team is offering $8M, maybe I offer $9M?"

                To rid abuse of the system, a pay scale such as a public employee salary grid would have to be implemented. This of course leads to different types of abuse as a whole.

                Comment


                • Matt52 wrote: View Post
                  To rid abuse of the system, a pay scale such as a public employee salary grid would have to be implemented. This of course leads to different types of abuse as a whole.
                  no doubt and there has to be acceptance that abuse will happen, but neither side should accuse the other when they BOTH were abusing it. And "the system" shouldn't be blamed when its the individuals using and abusing it are the ones causing the problem.

                  Yes the owners are "screwed" but they screwed themselves by extending their reach further than they could afford to. They had the choice to not sign players to contracts. Yes there is a cost that is associated to that (ie. team is not as good, less fans etc), but there is also a cost associated with signing a player (ie. the fixed cost). To look at Atlanta again, its no ones fault but Atlanta's for extending a contract to Joe Johnson. Yes he was not worth the dollars and yes someone else would have paid more.... but it was Atlanta that took the chance that his contract would be 'good enough' to bring in enough dollars to pay for it. It wasn't. They lost that gamble.

                  The Players are also screwed. Their contracts are going to have to come down in order for a lot of teams to survive. They thought of no one but themselves when they took those contracts. Yes you can say they were looking out for themselves and thats an important part of capitalism, which is true... but their interest in themselves have now cost the majority.

                  What has happened in the NBA is similar to the housing crash of 2008. Value of the assets (houses) kept increasing... and homeowners were willing to take that risk. Eventually the cost of a home well exceeded the value of the home and prices came down, but their costs were still associated with the initial cost of that home. Here we have players payrolls that are exceeding the value of their play, but the owners still have to pay the initial cost. But it was still the homeowners and owners who took that chance that they could make money. And it was the mortgage companies and players who persuaded the homeowners and owners that these risks were worth it. Too many on all sides screwed up and screwed everyone else, including those who did nothing wrong. And those few are the only ones who have a right to accuse anyone.

                  Everyone else should hang their head in shame and take one for the team.... but why do that when you can blame someone else and hopefully keep what you have (yet likely don't deserve) at someone else's expense?

                  Comment


                  • GarbageTime wrote: View Post
                    no doubt and there has to be acceptance that abuse will happen, but neither side should accuse the other when they BOTH were abusing it. And "the system" shouldn't be blamed when its the individuals using and abusing it are the ones causing the problem.

                    Yes the owners are "screwed" but they screwed themselves by extending their reach further than they could afford to. They had the choice to not sign players to contracts. Yes there is a cost that is associated to that (ie. team is not as good, less fans etc), but there is also a cost associated with signing a player (ie. the fixed cost). To look at Atlanta again, its no ones fault but Atlanta's for extending a contract to Joe Johnson. Yes he was not worth the dollars and yes someone else would have paid more.... but it was Atlanta that took the chance that his contract would be 'good enough' to bring in enough dollars to pay for it. It wasn't. They lost that gamble.

                    The Players are also screwed. Their contracts are going to have to come down in order for a lot of teams to survive. They thought of no one but themselves when they took those contracts. Yes you can say they were looking out for themselves and thats an important part of capitalism, which is true... but their interest in themselves have now cost the majority.

                    What has happened in the NBA is similar to the housing crash of 2008. Value of the assets (houses) kept increasing... and homeowners were willing to take that risk. Eventually the cost of a home well exceeded the value of the home and prices came down, but their costs were still associated with the initial cost of that home. Here we have players payrolls that are exceeding the value of their play, but the owners still have to pay the initial cost. But it was still the homeowners and owners who took that chance that they could make money. And it was the mortgage companies and players who persuaded the homeowners and owners that these risks were worth it. Too many on all sides screwed up and screwed everyone else, including those who did nothing wrong. And those few are the only ones who have a right to accuse anyone.

                    Everyone else should hang their head in shame and take one for the team.... but why do that when you can blame someone else and hopefully keep what you have (yet likely don't deserve) at someone else's expense?
                    I see your point. No example is perfect but that is a pretty good one.

                    Using your example, if the homeowner cuts back and makes responsible decisions (quits eating out, cut the cable, cut the cell phone, no vacation, use 1 car/sell the other) all the money saved stays with the homeowner.

                    In the NBA owner case, they cut back last year as a whole (some teams continued to spend, of course) and at the end of the year:

                    Do you know how much money this saved the league, relative to revenues?

                    Zero.

                    Players are guaranteed a 57/43 split of all the money that comes in through the door. This year, for the first time, teams exercised self-control – they took in $3.82 billion, and paid the players just $2.15 billion, or 56.3 percent of revenues. Hallelujah – finally some fiscal restraint! What do they do with their resulting $26 million windfall? Pay down their debt? Fund capital improvements?

                    Nope. They had to give it to the players. All $26 million.

                    Comment


                    • Matt52 wrote: View Post
                      I see your point. No example is perfect but that is a pretty good one.

                      Using your example, if the homeowner cuts back and makes responsible decisions (quits eating out, cut the cable, cut the cell phone, no vacation, use 1 car/sell the other) all the money saved stays with the homeowner.

                      In the NBA owner case, they cut back last year as a whole (some teams continued to spend, of course) and at the end of the year:
                      again not to be argumentative but they couldn't cut back there (salaries as a whole) because it was a fixed cost, just like a homeowner couldn't cut their mortgage cost because it was also a fixed cost. Eating out, vacations etc are optional costs, and would be more comparable to coaches, analysts, free seats etc. which owners had the option of cutting out.

                      Ideally what I would love to see happen is reduced salaries and a reduced salary cap. That costs the players.

                      Then owners are all taxed X% on their profits. Each owner is responsible for a minimum amount (whether they were profitable or not over that time) up to a max amount (whether they earned more than the proportional amount or not). That costs the owners.

                      This tax exists for a couple years and the money from that 'tax' is then spread around to the players evenly to compensate for their sacrifice. This way both sides have to sacrifice for their part in the problem (reduced salaries vs a tax), but are compensated so they don't have to take the brunt of the sacrifice themselve (tax payed to players vs reduced costs in the form of salaries to the owners). Then the 'system' as a whole can be repaired to hopefully be more sustainable for the future or until both sides manage to screw it up again (which they will).

                      Comment


                      • GarbageTime wrote: View Post
                        again not to be argumentative but they couldn't cut back there (salaries as a whole) because it was a fixed cost, just like a homeowner couldn't cut their mortgage cost because it was also a fixed cost. Eating out, vacations etc are optional costs, and would be more comparable to coaches, analysts, free seats etc. which owners had the option of cutting out.
                        BTW, no argumentative stance taken here or interpreted by you - just discussion.

                        Keeping with your home analogy, the terms of the mortgage (CBA) has expired. The house (the duration of the CBA) is now paid off. The owners are looking to take out a home equity line of credit (new CBA) and are haggling with lenders (players) to get the best deal possible. Yes the owners may want the equity out of the house (2011-12 season and onwards) but they are not willing to get that equity only to bankrupt themselves in 2-3 seasons time (unable to keep up minimum payments, let alone repay principal).
                        Last edited by mcHAPPY; Wed Aug 10, 2011, 02:02 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Stern: I expect we'll make labour deal

                          Commissioner David Stern, despite NBA owners and players being far apart in reaching a labor accord, told the Globe tonight that he "expects" an eventual agreement that would prevent cancellation of the season.

                          Stern walked away discouraged from the first full negotiating session two weeks ago and less than 24 hours later, the NBA filed an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board to prevent a decertification.

                          Still, Stern said he is optimistic about reaching an agreement.

                          “I expect that we’ll make a deal because the alternative is very destructive,” he said. “It’s destructive of $2 billion worth of player salaries and it’s destructive most important to our fans of the game. And if it spirals badly everyone gets hurt. But in some ways I worry because the players have more to lose, especially those in the later stages of their career. So we’re going to do everything we can when the rhetoric slows down to get this thing back on track.”

                          via Gary Washburn of the Boston Globe


                          Read more NBA news and insight: http://www.hoopsworld.com/HeadlineSt...#ixzz1UobYh4cA
                          .
                          Stern Remains Confident Regarding 2012 Season: Players Association executive director Billy Hunter has remained extremely consistent in his messaging that league owners and players are more than $800 million apart in reaching a new collective bargaining agreement and stated last week the entire 2012 season could be lost.

                          However, NBA commissioner David Stern is singing an entirely different tune.

                          The longtime league executive is actually confident of both sides agreeing to a deal despite the lack of apparent progress since the lockout began on July 1.

                          "I would say that we have very smart players who recognize that this system is very good to them,'' Stern told the Boston Globe. "You've got 13 players on a roster averaging $5 million apiece, that's $65 million and what the owners have said is, 'we're going to try very hard as we reset this thing to keep you as close to that number as we can.'

                          The owners want to drastically rollback players salaries at the tune of close to $900 million per season.

                          The players have counter offered for the figure to be in the $100 million per year neighborhood.

                          While massive player salaries get the most ink as a cause of the league's alleged deteriorating financial situation, many NBA insiders point to widespread excessive spending ranging from last minute first class airfare, luxury hotels and $1,000 per night dinners routinely expensed by team officials throughout the season as an underreported issue that must be addressed.

                          But when it comes to labor disputes between employees and owners, you must remember that the side signing the checks is typically in a much stronger leveraged position to extend the negotiations.

                          Stern alluded to this point, referencing the league's veterans who are on the downside of their respective careers and in position to potentially secure one more lucrative multi-year multi-million dollar deal before their skills completely erode.

                          "I expect that we'll make a deal because the alternative is very destructive," Stern said. "It's destructive of $2 billion worth of player salaries and it's destructive most important to our fans of the game. And if it spirals badly everyone gets hurt. But in some ways I worry because the players have more to lose, especially those in the later stages of their career. So we're going to do everything we can when the rhetoric slows down to get this thing back on track."

                          One item working in the owners' favor is the recent labor deal struck in the National Football League.

                          "The NFL, which is usually profitable as opposed to the NBA, which isn't, got the double-digit [revenue] reductions from their players," Stern said. "Our players will understand that when the rhetoric stops and they will understand that the owners are trying to do the right thing and our players always try to do the right thing."

                          Although both sides remain far apart, Stern believes a deal will eventually be struck even if it doesn't come with an abundance of media hoopla.

                          "They'll be smaller meetings, conversations, you don't need these great media events to have dialogue," Stern said. "Eventually we'll get it done. "I will not set a deadline on Aug. 11."


                          Read more NBA news and insight: http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?...#ixzz1UoeQXB00
                          Last edited by mcHAPPY; Fri Aug 12, 2011, 08:11 AM.

                          Comment


                          • I hope Stern is right. Some of his words sounded passive aggressive but maybe my negative view of the situation is causing that interpretation.

                            Comment


                            • Apollo wrote: View Post
                              I hope Stern is right. Some of his words sounded passive aggressive but maybe my negative view of the situation is causing that interpretation.
                              I agree. His comments are Robert DeNiro like:


                              Comment


                              • http://www.sbnation.com/2011/8/12/23...w-bill-simmons

                                David Stern Discusses NBA Lockout, Offers Labor Day As Key Date In Prospect Of Making Deal
                                David Stern just gave a comprehensive interview with ESPN's Bill Simmons on his podcast, revealing many nuggets about the state of the NBA lockout, the specifics of the NBA's proposals, the future of negotiations, the league's stance on revenue sharing and the many different public statements made on both sides.

                                Perhaps the most important part of the interview came at the end, when Stern essentially listed Labor Day weekend as the deadline for when serious progress must be made. Stern said that if exhibition games must be canceled, then the owners' proposal may "be really ugly from an economic standpoint for the players, because it's going to be really ugly from an economic standpoint for the teams." He added that he fears the chances of a full season being missed increase dramatically if progress is not made by then.

                                "If Labor Day comes and goes without us ready to huddle in and kiss off our Labor Day weekend to make this deal, then we may be headed to a bad place," Stern said.

                                Here are the rest of Stern's key comments:

                                On the league's potential offer after Labor Day: "We're all going to understand that when we lose [the exhibition season], that's when the NBA's offer is likely to change because there are going to be economic consequences that we're tiptoeing through right now."

                                On his urgency to get a deal done: "I would say that I remain optimistic that we're going to make a deal, and I think that the urgency is set in a certain way by the rejection of our underlying premise. That is, this is the time to have a reset. This is the time to try to hold for the players most of what they have, and grow our way out of the situation we find ourselves in. The players very strongly disagree and to this point don't even want to discuss it."

                                On the players' reported proposal: "At some point, when the proposal is, in light of today's economics, we want to go in six years from a five-million dollar average to a seven-million dollar average salary, it really makes no sense. None. It doesn't even begin to respond to the issues."

                                On the owners' specific position: "We'd like to take out more expenses and then have a 50-50 split after the expenses. We said that, and the big issue is, we have asked the players to take an eight-percent cut. From the $2.2 billion total, our total was $2 million, and hold it from where we try to grow out ourselves. If we do very well, and we grow more than four percent, they'll do better than $2 million under our projections and theirs, and we'll start to grow."

                                On the theory of revenue sharing: "You could argue whether we lost $300 or $150 or whatever, but this is about profitability. We're going to make [the league] profitable. This is what you do in collective bargaining. After we make it profitable, there's a huge disparity in profits, so we're going to have revenue sharing. The idea that you can have revenue sharing help you when you are losing money doesn't make sense at all. There's not enough money to revenue share if the league as a whole is losing $300 million. You could take away money from the top teams and give it to the lower teams, but at the end of the day, with all the reshuffling, you're still going to be losing $300 million."

                                On the owners' reception to revenue sharing: "There is going to be a revenue sharing. I must tell you that our owners ... they're on board. The Bulls, the Lakers, the Knicks. ... I've never seen such unity of purpose amongst our owners. Yes, we need a new CBA, and we have to accompany it with more robust revenue sharing."

                                On the meeting Thursday that was canceled: "I spoke to Billy [Hunter], and in effect, they said it the same way. They said, 'Our guys don't want to have a meeting unless you're going to make a new proposal.' And we said, 'Too bad,' and we canceled the meeting ... But that's their right, and I understand it. It's not a big deal. They've got a lot of education to do with their players. You know that as well as I do."

                                On how to fix players underperforming their contract: "We said that if you have a contract that's too large that you want to get rid of because the player is not performing. What we should allow our teams to do is spread it over multiple years so that the player will still get his money, but there will be cap room to replace him rather than the system that we currently have where, because of the cap placement of that contract, they cannot get a better player to fill that spot because they have no money."

                                On the rhetoric surrounding the lockout: "The players throw around words like 'greedy' and 'arrogant' and a variety of other things that would tend to inflame things. I think our owners have remained remarkably calm because the logic of where we're going is hard to disagree with. We need a reset on the amount of compensation. We need shorter contracts so we can align pay with performance, and we need to get a little more competitive. It's not brain surgery."

                                [...]

                                "The NFL, the most profitable of all sports leagues, says it wants to be more profitable. Its players agree to a double-digit concession, and our players say, 'No, sorry, can't work.' There's something wrong with this picture, and that's why I think the picture will come into clearer focus as our players come to understand what our players are actually offering and what they've done to open their books and why they want to make the changes they want to make."

                                [...]

                                "I'm invested in keeping their rhetoric down so we can continue the growth our players have had. In this day and age, given the economic circumstances going on out there, with respect to the stock market, with respect to the European countries that look like they're falling with respect to economics and with respect to getting owners to buy teams and invest in them, lobbing grenades is not a good thing to do. It's not good for business, it's not good for sponsors and it's not good for fans. So we're trying to keep ourselves aligned in the right way, and we think Billy [Hunter] is going to do the same thing."

                                On reports that his salary is in the $23 million range: "If you guessed that I made half of that, you'd be way too high. If you guessed closer to a third, you might be in my range." Said he took a salary freeze in 2008. "It's just totally ridiculous" that salary was $23 million.

                                On the possibility of contraction: "The players have been heard to suggest that as well."
                                Bookmark and Share
                                Last edited by jbml; Sat Aug 13, 2011, 09:16 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X