Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Quarterback

Message Board Member Opinion Challenge...

   74 members have voted

  1. 1. Whom is more to blame for the lack of progress?

    • The Players and DeMaurice Smith are more (not all) to blame.
    • The Owners and Roger Goodell are more (not all) to blame.

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

112 posts in this topic

Can you please prove with facts that we need a CBA to have football. We didnt really have a CBA last season and football still went on. 2nd of all the lawsuit originally is to have the lockout abolished and work under old CBA rules, so basically rules of last year until the deal is done.

The Owners could have opened the books to prove their case, which was a card they had the whole time. The Lockout is a card to gain leverage, not negotiate on good faith. The decertifying and lawsuit are tools used to defend against the lockout. they hold no weight if you have no lockout. I have proven that the NFLPA was at the table back in 2010.

The players and owners have made concessions and while the latter has made larger ones, both sides seem to still be not willing to make large enough ones to get the deal done. BUT.. I think that has changed with the news that neither side is going to like the court ruling, which from the article i read will be Lockout still one and NFLPA cant sue for 6 months, but after the 6 months they can sue for triple what was lost for a full year of no football.

No Lockout = No Lawsuit/Decertifying. So being mad at the players seems asinine for trying their only card to end the lockout. I agree the secondary lawsuit is rubbish, but the original one is a legitimate one.

Can you clarify what you mean by secondary lawsuit? The only lawsuit currently in play is the one challenging the draft, free agency, salary cap. The request for an injuction to the lockout is currently in play as a part of the bigger lawsuit. The players have requested to end the lockout WHILE they continue to sue the league for operating against anti-trust laws. If the league did operate under the CBA from 2010 as you are saying, they are in fact operating in a manner that is ILLEGAL without a signed CBA. So, the players are not suing to play football under old CBA rules, they are suing to completly throw all the rules that create competitive balance in the league out and requesting an injunction to the lockout WHILE they continue to sue the NFL.

This is why i state there can be no football without a CBA. While possible to play without one, the damage to the sport and competitive nature itself will ruin the game in the majority of fans opinions. The league either,

A. operates in a complete free enterprise system starting immediatly, which i think is the worst possible outcome to this or

B. Operates under old CBA rules wihtout a legal agreement, while being sued by the NFLPA for these exact same rules, further leaving them open to lawsuits and triple damages. This basically forces the league into a free enterprise system as well.

C. Refuse to operate football until a CBA is agreed upon by both sides that preserves the integrity of the game.

They did not "basically" have no CBA last year, they had a CBA. They had an agreed upon contract that dictated all the terms and rules of the league which allowed the league to operate without threat or possibility of lawsuit. Big difference b/t that and not having one at all.

So, i'll stand corrected that Football can operate without a CBA, But IMO it would be more detrimental to the long term success, benefit, and health of the sport to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you clarify what you mean by secondary lawsuit? The only lawsuit currently in play is the one challenging the draft, free agency, salary cap. The request for an injuction to the lockout is currently in play as a part of the bigger lawsuit. The players have requested to end the lockout WHILE they continue to sue the league for operating against anti-trust laws. If the league did operate under the CBA from 2010 as you are saying, they are in fact operating in a manner that is ILLEGAL without a signed CBA. So, the players are not suing to play football under old CBA rules, they are suing to completly throw all the rules that create competitive balance in the league out and requesting an injunction to the lockout WHILE they continue to sue the NFL.

This is why i state there can be no football without a CBA. While possible to play without one, the damage to the sport and competitive nature itself will ruin the game in the majority of fans opinions. The league either,

A. operates in a complete free enterprise system starting immediatly, which i think is the worst possible outcome to this or

B. Operates under old CBA rules wihtout a legal agreement, while being sued by the NFLPA for these exact same rules, further leaving them open to lawsuits and triple damages. This basically forces the league into a free enterprise system as well.

C. Refuse to operate football until a CBA is agreed upon by both sides that preserves the integrity of the game.

They did not "basically" have no CBA last year, they had a CBA. They had an agreed upon contract that dictated all the terms and rules of the league which allowed the league to operate without threat or possibility of lawsuit. Big difference b/t that and not having one at all.

So, i'll stand corrected that Football can operate without a CBA, But IMO it would be more detrimental to the long term success, benefit, and health of the sport to do so.

Agreed.

Stricly speaking football can operate without a CBA, but the owner swould be insane (1) to forego all leverage by not seeking to lockout, or (2)to operating with rules thet leave it open to huge damages claim.

Although they could easily operate a totally unregulated free market for talent to mitigate their anti-truist losses, they would be mad to do so as its highly unlikely that they could ever go back to the current system once the floodgates were opened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys and Gals,

I tried to be as "vanilla" with this poll as I could by stating up front that both are partially to blame for it reaching this point but which of the two entities is most responsible for the lack of progress and inhibiting positive movement as of TODAY and moving forward.

There are plenty of heated and fiercely opinionated blogs about this very subject already where we can take the gloves off but, for this purpose, let's try as best we can to keep it civil and let the voting process illustrate where the majority of us place the greatest blame/responsibility for this continuing saga.

Thanks...and keep voting!

QB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed.

Stricly speaking football can operate without a CBA, but the owner swould be insane (1) to forego all leverage by not seeking to lockout, or (2)to operating with rules thet leave it open to huge damages claim.

Although they could easily operate a totally unregulated free market for talent to mitigate their anti-truist losses, they would be mad to do so as its highly unlikely that they could ever go back to the current system once the floodgates were opened.

Further, from a legal standpoint, you have to be careful setting a precedent that can be used against you in future court proceedings/interpretations even if your intentions are honorable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the owners have said publicly that they want to sit down and the NFLPA has not responded I have to go with owners.

Now there are some who make statements that "The Owners could have opened the books to prove their case" I ask you to go tell your employer you want to see his books. or You could tell him you want 60% of their profits which is what they were getting an lets us know how that works out for you.

The whole "belittle facts that do not agree with you" works both ways. Oh yea if as you say "the Owners gave a real good deal until recently" then Why is the NFLPA not willing to sit down, I can answer that for you CREED the were getting 60% now they want more. Owners came off the 1 billion in depute and offered 250 million more to go to retire players but NOPE NFLPA wants the books open.

Just like WHO cares who was first to sit down better question who was last to want to sit down. I find it rather IRONIC that the lawsuit was named after some of the biggest money makes in the league an not the player/players who could be hurt more by a continued lock out. Bet DeMaurice Smith, isn't losing any money during the lock out. So tell me how the HE** he is negotiating with all of the players best interest when he ain't losing nothing. Notice I keep referring to the NFLPA and not the PLAYERS because I really don't think they are representing all of the players.

I have been part of union talks and contracts AS A SHOP STEWART I know the bull crap that the Head of the union says and as a rank and file member as the saying goes HE never said what the members wanted it's what the Union wanted which in lots of the negotiations were miles apart. Yep we got our 25 dollars a week for walking the picked line in the mean time he continued to draw his FULL salary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously, the owners are more to blame for a lack of progress...they are the ones that instituted the lockout in the first place. The owners are also the ones who run the league, so if they feel the need for changes, then that is their prerogative.

falwalk likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the owners have said publicly that they want to sit down and the NFLPA has not responded I have to go with owners.

Now there are some who make statements that "The Owners could have opened the books to prove their case" I ask you to go tell your employer you want to see his books. or You could tell him you want 60% of their profits which is what they were getting an lets us know how that works out for you.

The whole "belittle facts that do not agree with you" works both ways. Oh yea if as you say "the Owners gave a real good deal until recently" then Why is the NFLPA not willing to sit down, I can answer that for you CREED the were getting 60% now they want more. Owners came off the 1 billion in depute and offered 250 million more to go to retire players but NOPE NFLPA wants the books open.

Just like WHO cares who was first to sit down better question who was last to want to sit down. I find it rather IRONIC that the lawsuit was named after some of the biggest money makes in the league an not the player/players who could be hurt more by a continued lock out. Bet DeMaurice Smith, isn't losing any money during the lock out. So tell me how the HE** he is negotiating with all of the players best interest when he ain't losing nothing. Notice I keep referring to the NFLPA and not the PLAYERS because I really don't think they are representing all of the players.

I have been part of union talks and contracts AS A SHOP STEWART I know the bull crap that the Head of the union says and as a rank and file member as the saying goes HE never said what the members wanted it's what the Union wanted which in lots of the negotiations were miles apart. Yep we got our 25 dollars a week for walking the picked line in the mean time he continued to draw his FULL salary.

The owners want a new agreement...shouldn't the onus be on them to come up with something new? The players liked the old CBA (no surprises), the owners say it's not working for them but refuse to provide the information to make an informed decision. I just don't see how that's NOT on the owners since they're the party that wants to negotiate a new deal. In the NFL, the argument that "the players are the employees" so they should essentially not question what the owners are saying is in large part a weak one. The players would be idiots to blindly AGREE to a new deal without information that would be vital to making an agreement.

I said it a thousand times before...comparing Brees, Rodgers, Peterson, and the 1700+ players in the league doesn't work. They create MUCH more revenue than we do (I'm assuming but I think it's a safe bet) and are nowhere near as easy to replace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The owners want a new agreement...shouldn't the onus be on them to come up with something new? The players liked the old CBA (no surprises), the owners say it's not working for them but refuse to provide the information to make an informed decision. I just don't see how that's NOT on the owners since they're the party that wants to negotiate a new deal. In the NFL, the argument that "the players are the employees" so they should essentially not question what the owners are saying is in large part a weak one. The players would be idiots to blindly AGREE to a new deal without information that would be vital to making an agreement.

I said it a thousand times before...comparing Brees, Rodgers, Peterson, and the 1700+ players in the league doesn't work. They create MUCH more revenue than we do (I'm assuming but I think it's a safe bet) and are nowhere near as easy to replace.

This is just not true, slamee! You can ask my two daughters and they'll tell you I'm the best dad in the world when we're on the way to Brewsters! ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you clarify what you mean by secondary lawsuit? The only lawsuit currently in play is the one challenging the draft, free agency, salary cap. The request for an injuction to the lockout is currently in play as a part of the bigger lawsuit. The players have requested to end the lockout WHILE they continue to sue the league for operating against anti-trust laws. If the league did operate under the CBA from 2010 as you are saying, they are in fact operating in a manner that is ILLEGAL without a signed CBA. So, the players are not suing to play football under old CBA rules, they are suing to completly throw all the rules that create competitive balance in the league out and requesting an injunction to the lockout WHILE they continue to sue the NFL.

This is why i state there can be no football without a CBA. While possible to play without one, the damage to the sport and competitive nature itself will ruin the game in the majority of fans opinions. The league either,

A. operates in a complete free enterprise system starting immediatly, which i think is the worst possible outcome to this or

B. Operates under old CBA rules wihtout a legal agreement, while being sued by the NFLPA for these exact same rules, further leaving them open to lawsuits and triple damages. This basically forces the league into a free enterprise system as well.

C. Refuse to operate football until a CBA is agreed upon by both sides that preserves the integrity of the game.

They did not "basically" have no CBA last year, they had a CBA. They had an agreed upon contract that dictated all the terms and rules of the league which allowed the league to operate without threat or possibility of lawsuit. Big difference b/t that and not having one at all.

So, i'll stand corrected that Football can operate without a CBA, But IMO it would be more detrimental to the long term success, benefit, and health of the sport to do so.

those are not facts, but opinions. Can you prove how it will damage the competitive nature and the sport itself? Id argue goddell and his BS rules are damaging the sport and competitiveness far more than not having a CBA for possible one year.

The Lawsuit has five parts to it

An injunction to stop the NFL lockout and force teams to open their facilities to players and transact business;

Restraints on their earning ability (lockout, draft, salary cap, franchise/transition tag) declared illegal;

Players currently under contract to be immediately paid;

Treble (triple) damages for all players due to these restraints, as well as costs and attorneys fees.

A declaration that the NFL has waived its right to assert any “sham” defense – meaning that the NFL cannot contest the NFLPA’s decertification as illegitimate.

IMO, the first is the main argument with the second being there to gain leverage to get a better deal. Now i do not agree with them trying to challenge Draft, salary cap, etc, but In their offer they never seem to be okay with getting rid of it, BUT if they were truly trying to get rid of it, I would be on the Owners side in a heartbeat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

those are not facts, but opinions. Can you prove how it will damage the competitive nature and the sport itself? Id argue goddell and his BS rules are damaging the sport and competitiveness far more than not having a CBA for possible one year.

The Lawsuit has five parts to it

1-An injunction to stop the NFL lockout and force teams to open their facilities to players and transact business;

2-Restraints on their earning ability (lockout, draft, salary cap, franchise/transition tag) declared illegal;

3-Players currently under contract to be immediately paid;

Treble (triple) damages for all players due to these restraints, as well as costs and attorneys fees.

4-A declaration that the NFL has waived its right to assert any sham defense meaning that the NFL cannot contest the NFLPAs decertification as illegitimate.

IMO, the first is the main argument with the second being there to gain leverage to get a better deal. Now i do not agree with them trying to challenge Draft, salary cap, etc, but In their offer they never seem to be okay with getting rid of it, BUT if they were truly trying to get rid of it, I would be on the Owners side in a heartbeat.

If your opinion is that a free market enterprise system for the NFL wouldn't damage the competitive balance between the teams, then i want some of what your smoking.

Yes, in your opinion the first is their main argument. In FACT, the second is the main lawsuit.(I numbered your points to make the discussion easier).

1. Asking for business as usual while they continue suing the league on anti-trust violation. This is an ancillary REQUEST attached to the main lawsuit against the league. this is a temporary remedy while the suit continues.

2. The main lawsuit. This is exactly what the NFLPA is challenging as illegal

3 & 4. Requested remedies. The NFLPA is suing the league on the basis of number 2, while asking for 1, 3, & 4 as a remedy to the suit as a result of the actions taken by the league described under number 2.

All of the above is fact, not opinion. The other fact is the NFLPA has openly stated that regardless of how the courts rule on the injunction, wether in their favor or against them, they will still pursue this anti-trust lawsuit against the league. It is FACT that the NFLPA is challenging the things in the game you and i are both against them getting rid of.

Now, you can have your opinion that the NFLPA doesn't actually want these things to end and wants a CBA; but by them decertifying, and filing suit in the league, and every press report, statement made under oath by the NFLPA members and lawyers, and action by the NFLPA state the free enterprise vision is truly what they want for the NFL.

The opinion that the NFLPA does not want to fundamentally change the sport per their lawsuit is the exact opposite of all the undisputed facts, and in direct opposite to what the NFLPA themselves say they want. That would be a clear case of choosing who you would want to be right and ignoring the facts.

HouseofEuphoria and ukfalc like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The opinion that the NFLPA does not want to fundamentally change the sport per their lawsuit is the exact opposite of all the undisputed facts, and in direct opposite to what the NFLPA themselves say they want. That would be a clear case of choosing who you would want to be right and ignoring the facts.

That's true. Of course, the NFL is challenging the decertification as a sham, so the players/NFLPA can't do or say anything to suggest that the anti-trust lawsuit is just all about leverage and that they aren't genuinely challenging the cap and draft etc.

As i see it, either the anti-trust lawsuit is all about leveerage, in which case the decertification is a sham and the owners are right, or the players really are seeking to destroy the foundations of NFL that have made it the best and most competitive sports league in the world. I can't support them either way.

HouseofEuphoria likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The owners want a new agreement...shouldn't the onus be on them to come up with something new? The players liked the old CBA (no surprises), the owners say it's not working for them but refuse to provide the information to make an informed decision. I just don't see how that's NOT on the owners since they're the party that wants to negotiate a new deal. In the NFL, the argument that "the players are the employees" so they should essentially not question what the owners are saying is in large part a weak one. The players would be idiots to blindly AGREE to a new deal without information that would be vital to making an agreement.

I said it a thousand times before...comparing Brees, Rodgers, Peterson, and the 1700+ players in the league doesn't work. They create MUCH more revenue than we do (I'm assuming but I think it's a safe bet) and are nowhere near as easy to replace.

Last time I read the owners offered something an the NFLPA said no we want to see the books and when the owners said no the NFLPA said end of discussion. Just like I said ask your or any employer to see the book and guess what they will show you the door. Who in the He** does the NFLPA think they are to ask to see the books. So guess that covers your onus.

You can say all you want but just don't know what else you can call the people that are being paid by a team to preform a job IE: play tackle or guard or what ever but employees. I have not said anything about not questioning what the owners are saying or that they should be idiots to blindly do anything. But for the NFLPA to demand open books or nothing is obviously a my way or the highway attitude by the NFLPA .

I would gladly try and reply to your last part if it made even a little bit of sense since I never compared them to fans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

let's remember that the players believe the lockout to be in violation of antitrust laws and that's why they filed lawsuits.

if there was no lockout, there would be no lawsuits.

This would be incorrect. The day before the "Lockout" started, the NFLPA decertified and filed its lawsuits against the NFL. Then the owners in response to the decertification and lawsuits, locked out the players.

HouseofEuphoria likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I place 7% blame on the owners, 13% on the players and 80% on Demaurice Smith. He has never played the game so what does he know about the "core values" to a player. He's a lawyer, not a player (repeat statement a la Allen Iverson and practice). He's brainwashed all these players telling 'em they'd crush the owners. Now, at least at the moment, most signs seem to favor the owners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This would be incorrect. The day before the "Lockout" started, the NFLPA decertified and filed its lawsuits against the NFL. Then the owners in response to the decertification and lawsuits, locked out the players.

Because the CBA had a clause saying that once the lockout happens they cant sue for 6 months. The players waited til 4pm the day before the lockout to file suit.

No lockout = No lawsuit. that is a FACT.

Joremarid likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you prove how it will damage the competitive nature and the sport itself? Id argue goddell and his BS rules are damaging the sport and competitiveness far more than not having a CBA for possible one year.

WOW thanks for letting EVERYONE know that you have absolutely no bias on behalf of the players what so ever. We are so glad that you are open minded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your opinion is that a free market enterprise system for the NFL wouldn't damage the competitive balance between the teams, then i want some of what your smoking.

Yes, in your opinion the first is their main argument. In FACT, the second is the main lawsuit.(I numbered your points to make the discussion easier).

1. Asking for business as usual while they continue suing the league on anti-trust violation. This is an ancillary REQUEST attached to the main lawsuit against the league. this is a temporary remedy while the suit continues.

2. The main lawsuit. This is exactly what the NFLPA is challenging as illegal

3 & 4. Requested remedies. The NFLPA is suing the league on the basis of number 2, while asking for 1, 3, & 4 as a remedy to the suit as a result of the actions taken by the league described under number 2.

All of the above is fact, not opinion. The other fact is the NFLPA has openly stated that regardless of how the courts rule on the injunction, wether in their favor or against them, they will still pursue this anti-trust lawsuit against the league. It is FACT that the NFLPA is challenging the things in the game you and i are both against them getting rid of.

Now, you can have your opinion that the NFLPA doesn't actually want these things to end and wants a CBA; but by them decertifying, and filing suit in the league, and every press report, statement made under oath by the NFLPA members and lawyers, and action by the NFLPA state the free enterprise vision is truly what they want for the NFL.

The opinion that the NFLPA does not want to fundamentally change the sport per their lawsuit is the exact opposite of all the undisputed facts, and in direct opposite to what the NFLPA themselves say they want. That would be a clear case of choosing who you would want to be right and ignoring the facts.

They want to end the lockout. That is the main point. I have yet to see you prove with facts otherwise. Maybe Dsmith wants to destroy the NFL, but the players do not. Even if they win, do you think they are really going to get rid of the draft etc? How can their main point be getting rid of the draft and everything, but even the part about the draft deals with loss in income. Lockout = loss of income drafts Franchise tag etc = loss of income Suing for lost wages = loss of income treble suit for loss of income = loss of income.

Can you show me a link where they said they would continue with the lawsuit, since i have yet to hear this.

The Lawsuit is not a Sham, because the players are not just suing for the loss of possible income. They are suing to end the lockout to work and suing for loss of pay etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you prove how it will damage the competitive nature and the sport itself? Id argue goddell and his BS rules are damaging the sport and competitiveness far more than not having a CBA for possible one year.

WOW thanks for letting EVERYONE know that you have absolutely no bias on behalf of the players what so ever. We are so glad that you are open minded.

So... Is that a No on being able to prove me wrong? :unsure:

Everyone has a bias. you have a bias, I have a bias, and even the courts have a bias. But thank you for "contributing" to the argument, and not having a pointless post that provides nothing of substance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As i see it, either the anti-trust lawsuit is all about leverage, in which case the decertification is a sham and the owners are right, or the players really are seeking to destroy the foundations of NFL that have made it the best and most competitive sports league in the world. I can't support them either way.

Bingo!!!

Thanks for typing what i havnt had the time (or patience) to type!

As i've said before: If some of the people really understood what the anti-trust lawsuits filed by Brees and others would do to the NFL, which we all love, this would be 100% in favor of the owners.

Anybody here wanna side with Brees? Step forward.

GEORGIAfan likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Lawsuit is not a Sham, because the players are not just suing for the loss of possible income. They are suing to end the lockout to work and suing for loss of pay etc.

Amazing.

Funny how they can sue to end the lockout BEFORE the lockout ever took place.

You seriously need to get your facts straight.

It's not that i disagree with everything you say, but i completely disagree on your time-lines. You seem to have it all backwards.

GEORGIAfan likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last time I read the owners offered something an the NFLPA said no we want to see the books and when the owners said no the NFLPA said end of discussion. Just like I said ask your or any employer to see the book and guess what they will show you the door. Who in the He** does the NFLPA think they are to ask to see the books. So guess that covers your onus.

You can say all you want but just don't know what else you can call the people that are being paid by a team to preform a job IE: play tackle or guard or what ever but employees. I have not said anything about not questioning what the owners are saying or that they should be idiots to blindly do anything. But for the NFLPA to demand open books or nothing is obviously a my way or the highway attitude by the NFLPA .

I would gladly try and reply to your last part if it made even a little bit of sense since I never compared them to fans.

It's as if you were so caught up in responding...you didn't even read my post. To say we just disagree is one thing...you pretty much ignored my response and essentially repeated yours.

It's not a my way or the highway attitude...it's about justifying the need for a new agreement. I already stated my opinion on why you or me asking our bosses to see their books is a far cry from the NFLPA asking for it in the previous posts.

If this was such a boss/employee relationship...they wouldn't be at the table negotiating. The fact that they have to suggests it's a little different then the average job Joe Schmo has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazing.

Funny how they can sue to end the lockout BEFORE the lockout ever took place.

You seriously need to get your facts straight.

Google Drew Brees' anti-trust lawsuit, Tom Bradys lawsuit and see what they are talking about.

It's not that i disagree with everything you say, but i completely disagree on your time-lines. You seem to have it all backwards.

THEY HAD TO FILE IT BEFORE THE LOCKOUT OR WOULD HAVE HAD TO WAIT 6 MONTHS to have the lawsuit. And the Judge didnt see the case until after the Lockout was official.

the timeline is

Decertify at 5pm

File preliminary junction that day.

Lockout in effect at Midnight.

Judge sees prelimiary Junction and hearing on April 6th.

Now the mess we are in. But if you want to see something backwards how about the fact that the NFL( according to this yahoo article) Before the NFLPA filed, the NFL went to the National Labor Relations Board to file a claim calling the Decertification a lockout.

here is the yahoo article http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Lockout-official-Brady-v-NFL-suit-is-filed?urn=nfl-wp146

here is the preliminary Junction http://www.antitrusthall.com/lockout/10113571088.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So... Is that a No on being able to prove me wrong? :unsure:

Everyone has a bias. you have a bias, I have a bias, and even the courts have a bias. But thank you for "contributing" to the argument, and not having a pointless post that provides nothing of substance.

Not a problem since all you have said since the start of this post is blah blah blah with absolutely no substance but lots and lots or words trying to defend your point you even ask for others to prove their point well guess what that also goes both ways prove your point with FACTS!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites