Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Matt Waldman

Josh Gordon Everything Thread

Recommended Posts

Gordon will sue. Under the new policies he will have solid grounds to stand on. It's been a week since he announced that he will not sue. But the papers are ready. The judge will grant him an injunction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gordon will sue. Under the new policies he will have solid grounds to stand on. It's been a week since he announced that he will not sue. But the papers are ready. The judge will grant him an injunction.

ok then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't get why his suspension would be reduced. He wouldn't have popped positive at all under the new policy. Should be erased entirely.

ETA: But I'll happily take 8 games.

Edited by (HULK)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gordon will sue. Under the new policies he will have solid grounds to stand on. It's been a week since he announced that he will not sue. But the papers are ready. The judge will grant him an injunction.

No he won't.

The NFL and NFLPA lawyers are going to word the new policy in such a way that it provides for Gordon's suspension. Since his is a member of the NFLPA, and for this policy to go into effect, the NFLPA will have to approve it, he won't have any legal ground to stand on.

Essentially, if the NFLPA approves this new deal (which would include, presumably, language providing for Gordon's reduced 8 game suspension), then Gordon approves it (as a member of the NFLPA). So, your argument is that he will have "solid ground" to sue that a policy that he agreed to (via the NFLPA) shouldn't apply to him. I'm sure a Judge would take that real seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't get why his suspension would be reduced. He wouldn't have popped positive at all under the new policy. Should be erased entirely.

ETA: But I'll happily take 8 games.

Because he did "pop positive." The new policy wasn't in place then.

You can't go back in time. "I don't understand how she got pregnant; I bought condoms the day after we had sex. The pregnancy should never have happened."

If his suspension is reduced, he should just say "thank you." They could just as easily say "the suspensions already levied will remain in place."

Edited by Bayhawks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was hoping for 4 games or less, but I will gladly take an impact player for the last 5 regular season games and 2 playoff weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ESPN's Adam Schefter reports Josh Gordon's suspension is expected to be reduced to eight games once the new drug policy is approved as easily as Friday afternoon.



It's exactly what FOX Sports' Mike Garafolo reported Thursday evening. We'd obviously expect Gordon to qualify for time already served, so he'd likely be back for Week 9 against the Bucs. Owners who can afford to stash Gordon at the end of their bench would have him in time for a few weeks of the regular season and the fantasy playoffs. We hope to have final word sometime Friday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't get why his suspension would be reduced. He wouldn't have popped positive at all under the new policy. Should be erased entirely.

ETA: But I'll happily take 8 games.

Because he did "pop positive." The new policy wasn't in place then.

You can't go back in time. "I don't understand how she got pregnant; I bought condoms the day after we had sex. The pregnancy should never have happened."

If his suspension is reduced, he should just say "thank you." They could just as easily say "the suspensions already levied will remain in place."

I'm not saying they would certainly reduce his suspension but I have read they would fight to get it removed because the policy change is simply late. Besides, the NFL is trying hard to get Wes Welker back for the Seahawks/Broncos game* so if they won't fix it for Gordon it won't be fixed for Welker.

* - yeah, bad joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't get why his suspension would be reduced. He wouldn't have popped positive at all under the new policy. Should be erased entirely.

ETA: But I'll happily take 8 games.

Because he did "pop positive." The new policy wasn't in place then.

You can't go back in time. "I don't understand how she got pregnant; I bought condoms the day after we had sex. The pregnancy should never have happened."

If his suspension is reduced, he should just say "thank you." They could just as easily say "the suspensions already levied will remain in place."

So if it comes out today that a player was arrested last year for beating his wife, he wouldnt be subject to the new domestic violence policy but the old one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't get why his suspension would be reduced. He wouldn't have popped positive at all under the new policy. Should be erased entirely.

ETA: But I'll happily take 8 games.

Because he did "pop positive." The new policy wasn't in place then.

You can't go back in time. "I don't understand how she got pregnant; I bought condoms the day after we had sex. The pregnancy should never have happened."

If his suspension is reduced, he should just say "thank you." They could just as easily say "the suspensions already levied will remain in place."

I'm not saying they would certainly reduce his suspension but I have read they would fight to get it removed because the policy change is simply late. Besides, the NFL is trying hard to get Wes Welker back for the Seahawks/Broncos game* so if they won't fix it for Gordon it won't be fixed for Welker.

* - yeah, bad joke.

We all know this was about getting Welker back on the field ASAP. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ESPN's Adam Schefter reports Josh Gordon's suspension is expected to be reduced to eight games once the new drug policy is approved as easily as Friday afternoon.

It's exactly what FOX Sports' Mike Garafolo reported Thursday evening. We'd obviously expect Gordon to qualify for time already served, so he'd likely be back for Week 9 against the Bucs. Owners who can afford to stash Gordon at the end of their bench would have him in time for a few weeks of the regular season and the fantasy playoffs. We hope to have final word sometime Friday.

Source: Adam Schefter on Twitter

Browns have week 4 bye, so wouldn't be back til week 10. Rotoworld on top of it, as usual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ESPN's Adam Schefter reports Josh Gordon's suspension is expected to be reduced to eight games once the new drug policy is approved as easily as Friday afternoon.

It's exactly what FOX Sports' Mike Garafolo reported Thursday evening. We'd obviously expect Gordon to qualify for time already served, so he'd likely be back for Week 9 against the Bucs. Owners who can afford to stash Gordon at the end of their bench would have him in time for a few weeks of the regular season and the fantasy playoffs. We hope to have final word sometime Friday.

They have a bye week 4 so he would return week 10. Then hes gotta get into game shape, etc. Not liking this at all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So he gets a week or two in before his court appearance?

Gordon was due to appear in Wake County court Tuesday on charges of driving while impaired and speeding. Attorney Trey Fitzhugh says Gordon had a waiver to miss the pretrial appearance and the case is continued until Nov. 18.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no point in Gordon suing. 8 games is a win for him in terms of being vested in a league year. I would have negotiated to roll the DUI penalty into the 8 and allow him to practice with the team while suspended. As a guy who owns him I would prefer 6 just because I feel like 8 is so long to be away and get reintegrated but I guess I'll take it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't get why his suspension would be reduced. He wouldn't have popped positive at all under the new policy. Should be erased entirely.

ETA: But I'll happily take 8 games.

so welker gets off completely but gordon gets 8 games? makes no sense. complete bs really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't get why his suspension would be reduced. He wouldn't have popped positive at all under the new policy. Should be erased entirely.

ETA: But I'll happily take 8 games.

so welker gets off completely but gordon gets 8 games? makes no sense. complete bs really.

Molly > weed in the NFLs eyes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ESPN's Adam Schefter reports Josh Gordon's suspension is expected to be reduced to eight games once the new drug policy is approved as easily as Friday afternoon.

It's exactly what FOX Sports' Mike Garafolo reported Thursday evening. We'd obviously expect Gordon to qualify for time already served, so he'd likely be back for Week 9 against the Bucs. Owners who can afford to stash Gordon at the end of their bench would have him in time for a few weeks of the regular season and the fantasy playoffs. We hope to have final word sometime Friday.

They have a bye week 4 so he would return week 10. Then hes gotta get into game shape, etc. Not liking this at all

He played the entire pre-season so he has only been "out of game shape" for about 1 1/2 weeks. Now that they know they are getting him back the Browns will put emphasis on having Gordon ready once he returns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So 8 games looking like the end game here. My 95% bid was just a tad high I suppose ha.

Curious what others would bid on him if u you knew it was 8 games... 60% ?

Cant complain too much, at least he'll be back at some point..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't get why his suspension would be reduced. He wouldn't have popped positive at all under the new policy. Should be erased entirely.

ETA: But I'll happily take 8 games.

Because he did "pop positive." The new policy wasn't in place then.

You can't go back in time. "I don't understand how she got pregnant; I bought condoms the day after we had sex. The pregnancy should never have happened."

If his suspension is reduced, he should just say "thank you." They could just as easily say "the suspensions already levied will remain in place."

So if it comes out today that a player was arrested last year for beating his wife, he wouldnt be subject to the new domestic violence policy but the old one?

How would it "come out today that a player was arrested last year?" You think the public records of arrests made would have been delayed for that long?

But, to play along, I would imagine that since the old policy was just Goodell using his discretion to hand out suspensions (since it is/was under the player conduct policy), he could enforce the new policy & say that was the punishment he felt justified, per his discretion. Since the drug policy was (and will be) clearly spelled out, he/the NFL doesn't have that leeway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't get why his suspension would be reduced. He wouldn't have popped positive at all under the new policy. Should be erased entirely.

ETA: But I'll happily take 8 games.

Because he did "pop positive." The new policy wasn't in place then.

You can't go back in time. "I don't understand how she got pregnant; I bought condoms the day after we had sex. The pregnancy should never have happened."

If his suspension is reduced, he should just say "thank you." They could just as easily say "the suspensions already levied will remain in place."

Okay, but then why is Welker supposedly getting off?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't get why his suspension would be reduced. He wouldn't have popped positive at all under the new policy. Should be erased entirely.

ETA: But I'll happily take 8 games.

Because he did "pop positive." The new policy wasn't in place then.

You can't go back in time. "I don't understand how she got pregnant; I bought condoms the day after we had sex. The pregnancy should never have happened."

If his suspension is reduced, he should just say "thank you." They could just as easily say "the suspensions already levied will remain in place."

Okay, but then why is Welker supposedly getting off?

Cuz of the whole league year thing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gordon's test being in the 2013 league year is very problematic and I think 8 games may be the best we can hope for.

Lmao at 8 games. You guys just pulling numbers put of your asses now?

Shadyjr, tell me how my ### taste. :P

In all seriousness, while I was hoping Gordon would be back on the field sooner if 8 games is what it actually ends up being then I still think that's a win for FF owners that picked him up in redraft. How much of a win will depend on how quickly, if it all, he can regain his All Pro form and production this season. And it will depend on how much you spent to acquire him.

I grabbed him essentially for free in two redrafts last week when it first sounded like there was some substance to these reports so I see it as sort of playing with house money.

Now, let's just get this deal finalized, keep this kid on the straight and narrow, and get him ready to play. Hopefully he can hit the ground running come week 10.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow.

The mods here must be sages.

Knew the perfect time to release me from my ban. PERFECTION.

Soulfly mode: Activated

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow.

The mods here must be sages.

Knew the perfect time to release me from my ban. PERFECTION.

Soulfly mode: Activated

Oh snap. It's about to get real in here.

:lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Gordon case remains tricky as his failed test took place before new league year, which is when grandfathering in new rules would begin

https://twitter.com/JasonLaCanfora/status/510145906659061760

Again, the language in the agreement is key- WIll the new marijuana policy be applied to all players suspended in 2014 (league year), or will it only apply to players who tested positive during the current year? If it's the former, then Gordon will be reinstated immediately. If it's the latter, then we might be screwed.

I don't know...why go through all the negotiations and back-and-forth only to have this still be an issue? It just seems arbitrary.

I agree that the time of positive test is a morally arbitrary factor and hence it's not fair that Gordon remains suspended while, say, Welker is immediately reinstated. However, amnestying players who failed tests in 2013 might open up a can of worms that the NFL doesn't want to deal with, e.g., some players have already served their suspensions in full and might want compensation, etc.

It isn't a can of worms. Anyone who is currently being punished for a rule that no longer exists they should be "set free". If the rule changes the punishment currently being served must be adjusted.

This isn't about retroactively lifting suspensions, it is about looking at players currently being punished for a rule that no longer exists.

The can of worms is the lawsuits the league opens themselves up to over lost wages for upholding a punishment that is no longer valid.

It is more than just Gordon or Welker playing, it is about the income they are losing and they will sue to get paid.

Okay. Then why did those people who were in prison for violating prohibition not immediately freed when it ended? Because they were in prison for breaking a law. Just because the law changed doesn't mean they didn't break it.

Gordon broke a rule. He was punished. If the rule changed AFTERWARDS, Marty McFly didn't pull up in his Delorean and go back in time so Gordon never smoked the dope. He still broke the rule that was in place at that time.

If they didn't want to lose the income, they shouldn't have smoked up or taken Molly/amphetamines/adderal, whatever he took.

It isn't illegal to offer retroactive ameliorative relief in the US, generally those convicted would seek a pardon if the Law changed in their favor. While such a relief would not be guaranteed it isn't impossible and in fact, the US is one if the few Nations that doesn't offer guaranteed retroactive ameliorative relief of overturned laws in the world.

Just Free Josh Gordon already, there is no retroactive or legal can of worms to do so.

http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/01/02/no-relief-convicted

So you cite an article that shows IN THE UNITED STATES, it is not standard practice to forgive people for breaking laws if/when those laws change as support for the idea that Josh Gordon SHOULD BE forgiven for breaking a rule if/when that rule changes? And Josh Gordon does live in the United States, and the NFL is headquartered in the United States? The NFLPA is a labor organization in the United States?

Um...what's your point again? :confused:

The argument by those who say "if the rule changes, Gordon should automatically get off" is wrong. Can he get off? Sure, the NFL and NFLPA are evidently negotiating about that, but that doesn't mean he DESERVES to get off. There was a rule, he knew what the rule was, he knew what the punishment was, he broke the rule, he was given the agreed upon punishment. IF things change and he gets some/all of that punishment forgiven, he got lucky & good for him, but he DESERVES no forgiveness, despite the policies of other nations (or even the policies of the United States, as this is a matter of labor relations, rather than US law).

It is simple. There is no legal reason that Gordon's suspension can't be lifted because the law rule changed during his punishment.

There is no law against it in the US. It is simply a matter of process. It also doesn't mean that he will be let off the hook either, but stating that the "NFL can't lift his suspension because he smoked in 13 and the rule changed in 14 doesn't affect him" is wrong.

They have no legal obligation to lift his suspension but they also have no legal reason to keep him suspended either.

There must be some downside for the NFL if they grant amnesty to 2013 violators. Otherwise, they would grandfather in all players currently being disciplined under the old policy instead of just those who failed tests in 2014.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 games? What's the freakin' point of playing 6 games?

It would be a big deal to Gordon. It would qualify as an accrued NFL season and put him one season closer to free agency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bam! Timing: Perfecto.

I volunteer to be one of the guys that carries you around the room while you wave your hands over your head in victory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't get why his suspension would be reduced. He wouldn't have popped positive at all under the new policy. Should be erased entirely.

ETA: But I'll happily take 8 games.

Because he did "pop positive." The new policy wasn't in place then.

You can't go back in time. "I don't understand how she got pregnant; I bought condoms the day after we had sex. The pregnancy should never have happened."

If his suspension is reduced, he should just say "thank you." They could just as easily say "the suspensions already levied will remain in place."

Okay, but then why is Welker supposedly getting off?

I don't know; I'm not privy to what they are discussing.

What has been reported is that the language of the agreement might say players whose offenses occurred during the 2014 league year will have their suspensions re-evaluated under the new policy. Welker's offense occurred during the 2014 league year, Gordon's didn't.

Welker should also be thankful if he gets any/all of his suspension revoked. He broke the rules that he agreed to (via the NFLPA), and he agreed to his punishment (via the NFLPA and the CBA). Any "forgiveness" he receives is good luck, not anything "owed" to him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow.

The mods here must be sages.

Knew the perfect time to release me from my ban. PERFECTION.

Soulfly mode: Activated

What did you get banned for? Last time I noticed you here, you were (for you) on model behavior? :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow.

The mods here must be sages.

Knew the perfect time to release me from my ban. PERFECTION.

Soulfly mode: Activated

What did you get banned for? Last time I noticed you here, you were (for you) on model behavior? :confused:

Obviously Big Brother trying to keep the people from hearing the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Gordon case remains tricky as his failed test took place before new league year, which is when grandfathering in new rules would begin

https://twitter.com/JasonLaCanfora/status/510145906659061760

Again, the language in the agreement is key- WIll the new marijuana policy be applied to all players suspended in 2014 (league year), or will it only apply to players who tested positive during the current year? If it's the former, then Gordon will be reinstated immediately. If it's the latter, then we might be screwed.

I don't know...why go through all the negotiations and back-and-forth only to have this still be an issue? It just seems arbitrary.

I agree that the time of positive test is a morally arbitrary factor and hence it's not fair that Gordon remains suspended while, say, Welker is immediately reinstated. However, amnestying players who failed tests in 2013 might open up a can of worms that the NFL doesn't want to deal with, e.g., some players have already served their suspensions in full and might want compensation, etc.

It isn't a can of worms. Anyone who is currently being punished for a rule that no longer exists they should be "set free". If the rule changes the punishment currently being served must be adjusted.

This isn't about retroactively lifting suspensions, it is about looking at players currently being punished for a rule that no longer exists.

The can of worms is the lawsuits the league opens themselves up to over lost wages for upholding a punishment that is no longer valid.

It is more than just Gordon or Welker playing, it is about the income they are losing and they will sue to get paid.

Okay. Then why did those people who were in prison for violating prohibition not immediately freed when it ended? Because they were in prison for breaking a law. Just because the law changed doesn't mean they didn't break it.

Gordon broke a rule. He was punished. If the rule changed AFTERWARDS, Marty McFly didn't pull up in his Delorean and go back in time so Gordon never smoked the dope. He still broke the rule that was in place at that time.

If they didn't want to lose the income, they shouldn't have smoked up or taken Molly/amphetamines/adderal, whatever he took.

It isn't illegal to offer retroactive ameliorative relief in the US, generally those convicted would seek a pardon if the Law changed in their favor. While such a relief would not be guaranteed it isn't impossible and in fact, the US is one if the few Nations that doesn't offer guaranteed retroactive ameliorative relief of overturned laws in the world.

Just Free Josh Gordon already, there is no retroactive or legal can of worms to do so.

http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/01/02/no-relief-convicted

So you cite an article that shows IN THE UNITED STATES, it is not standard practice to forgive people for breaking laws if/when those laws change as support for the idea that Josh Gordon SHOULD BE forgiven for breaking a rule if/when that rule changes? And Josh Gordon does live in the United States, and the NFL is headquartered in the United States? The NFLPA is a labor organization in the United States?

Um...what's your point again? :confused:

The argument by those who say "if the rule changes, Gordon should automatically get off" is wrong. Can he get off? Sure, the NFL and NFLPA are evidently negotiating about that, but that doesn't mean he DESERVES to get off. There was a rule, he knew what the rule was, he knew what the punishment was, he broke the rule, he was given the agreed upon punishment. IF things change and he gets some/all of that punishment forgiven, he got lucky & good for him, but he DESERVES no forgiveness, despite the policies of other nations (or even the policies of the United States, as this is a matter of labor relations, rather than US law).

It is simple. There is no legal reason that Gordon's suspension can't be lifted because the law rule changed during his punishment.

There is no law against it in the US. It is simply a matter of process. It also doesn't mean that he will be let off the hook either, but stating that the "NFL can't lift his suspension because he smoked in 13 and the rule changed in 14 doesn't affect him" is wrong.

They have no legal obligation to lift his suspension but they also have no legal reason to keep him suspended either.

There must be some downside for the NFL if they grant amnesty to 2013 violators. Otherwise, they would grandfather in all players currently being disciplined under the old policy instead of just those who failed tests in 2014.

Please show me where I said this?

"NFL can't lift his suspension because he smoked in 13 and the rule changed in 14 doesn't affect him"

I'm puzzled, because I never said that. I was responding to people who said "the NFL HAS to get rid of his suspension" or "since the rule changed after his failed test, he didn't really fail the test."

I'm hoping he gets off completely; it's better for my ff team. I'm not stupid/naive enough, however, to think that because a rule change occurred after the fact means history changed and Gordon never failed a test. Since he failed a test, the NFL doesn't HAVE to void his suspension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow.

The mods here must be sages.

Knew the perfect time to release me from my ban. PERFECTION.

Soulfly mode: Activated

What did you get banned for? Last time I noticed you here, you were (for you) on model behavior? :confused:

Im sure there was a reason, but Ive been pretty well behaved.

Oh well... made for some great antici........................................

pation :franknfurtervoice:

Edited by Soulfly3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also just noticing that a week 10 return would mean Gordon's first game back is on TNF against Cincy, and the Browns only prime time game of the season.

The NFL is hilarious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't get why his suspension would be reduced. He wouldn't have popped positive at all under the new policy. Should be erased entirely.

ETA: But I'll happily take 8 games.

Because he did "pop positive." The new policy wasn't in place then.

You can't go back in time. "I don't understand how she got pregnant; I bought condoms the day after we had sex. The pregnancy should never have happened."

If his suspension is reduced, he should just say "thank you." They could just as easily say "the suspensions already levied will remain in place."

So if it comes out today that a player was arrested last year for beating his wife, he wouldnt be subject to the new domestic violence policy but the old one?

How would it "come out today that a player was arrested last year?" You think the public records of arrests made would have been delayed for that long?

But, to play along, I would imagine that since the old policy was just Goodell using his discretion to hand out suspensions (since it is/was under the player conduct policy), he could enforce the new policy & say that was the punishment he felt justified, per his discretion. Since the drug policy was (and will be) clearly spelled out, he/the NFL doesn't have that leeway.

OK bad example but how about this. Person gets arrested for DUI with a blood alcohol content of .08 in 2013. His case is heard in 2014 and he is found guilty and sentenced to 30 days in jail. His first week in jail, the Supreme Court changes the legal limit to .10. Does that guy still stay in jail another 3 weeks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if he starts Week 10 this is the closing schedule:

10 11/6 @CIN 26 35.4

11 11/16 HOU 14 25.6

12 11/23 @ATL 22 31.5

13 11/30 @BUF 22 31.5

14 12/7 IND 7 21.2

15 12/14 CIN 26 35.4

16 12/21 @CAR 6 20.8

Week 9 what would you pay to get him off the WW or trade for him? Whatever it would take I'm sure.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Their ninth game is their only nationally televised game. Expect manziel and Gordon to both start, possibly for the first time.

King James can be trotted out for the coin flip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm gonna throw one last fart into the wind.

It will be less than an 8 game suspension. Not buying on Schefter's report.

If wrong, Ill apologize to Schef.. on here tho. I dont want his fat head expanding even more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm gonna throw one last fart into the wind.

It will be less than an 8 game suspension. Not buying on Schefter's report.

If wrong, Ill apologize to Schef.. on here tho. I dont want his fat head expanding even more.

I dunno. I wish you were right but alot of sources now going with the 8 games whereas before there was only wild speculation ranging from all or nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So he gets a week or two in before his court appearance?

Gordon was due to appear in Wake County court Tuesday on charges of driving while impaired and speeding. Attorney Trey Fitzhugh says Gordon had a waiver to miss the pretrial appearance and the case is continued until Nov. 18.

Not laughing at you, but

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

Cases take forever when both sides want them to move quickly. With Gordon dragging his heels, no chance there's a result on the DWI in 2014.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.