What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

OWNERS APPROVE NEW LABOR DEAL! (1 Viewer)

I don't understand your confusion here at all. Buffalo is not in great shape economically so the team can't charge a lot for their tickets or luxury suites, etc. That's just a fact and Ralph is pointing out that a new stadium wouldn't really solve the problems inherent with operating a team in Buffalo. He's not putting anyone down here, just advocating on behalf of the people of Buffalo and Bills fans. As for your last question, it makes no sense at all. One of the major points of the article is that some owners suggested not providing revenue sharing to any new NFL owners...so, if the team is sold, the new Bills owner would be shut out of the new revenue sharing streams they just agreed to, and that would make it much more difficult to run a team in a place like Buffalo. Ralph is trying to sway some votes and get people on his side during what will be a very important time for small market NFL clubs. The details of the CBA are still being worked out, so now's a great time for Ralph to be speaking up.
Thanks Aaron, that was my first thought. He is trying to blame the fans in Buffalo for not having as much money as other NFL fans in other NFL markets.I'll give Wilson the benefit of the doubt and assume he has done everything humanly possible in this market to make it work.

 
I don't understand your confusion here at all. Buffalo is not in great shape economically so the team can't charge a lot for their tickets or luxury suites, etc. That's just a fact and Ralph is pointing out that a new stadium wouldn't really solve the problems inherent with operating a team in Buffalo. He's not putting anyone down here, just advocating on behalf of the people of Buffalo and Bills fans. As for your last question, it makes no sense at all. One of the major points of the article is that some owners suggested not providing revenue sharing to any new NFL owners...so, if the team is sold, the new Bills owner would be shut out of the new revenue sharing streams they just agreed to, and that would make it much more difficult to run a team in a place like Buffalo. Ralph is trying to sway some votes and get people on his side during what will be a very important time for small market NFL clubs. The details of the CBA are still being worked out, so now's a great time for Ralph to be speaking up.
Thanks Aaron, that was my first thought. He is trying to blame the fans in Buffalo for not having as much money as other NFL fans in other NFL markets.I'll give Wilson the benefit of the doubt and assume he has done everything humanly possible in this market to make it work.
:confused: I don't think that he's trying to blame anyone or anything. He's just stating the reality of the situation. If you have 32 teams, the odds are that a few of them are going to be in cities where revenue is much lower than the top cities. Buffalo is a blue collar town and it's heyday was 40-50 years ago. With manufacturing moving mostly overseas Buffalo has fallen on some hard times. But the Bills were still able to compete under the old CBA. The new CBA is what is killing the Bills. For people to keep contending that the game and the economics of the game have passed Wilson by is rubbish. The simple fact is that when you use gross revenues the more wealthy cities have a huge inherent advantage over the less wealthy cities. You can market things anyway you want to, but a team in Washington D.C., NYC, Dallas, etc. will have more leverage in their markets than teams in Cinci, Buffalo, Detroit, N.O, etc. The economics of the game haven't changed in decades. Yes they are taking in more money now, and yes things like stadium naming rights have added money to the pool, but the new CBA is a MAJOR shift in the economic realities in the NFL.I also think it's very telling that we're suddenly seeing all of these problems popping up regarding the local revenue sharing. First they don't even know where most of the money is even coming from. Secondly, there seems to be quite a few restrictions that may be attached, most of which just seem like large market owners making it nearly impossible for small market teams to exist. Funny how when everything was first passed all of the fans and "experts" lauded the agreement and exclaimed how fair it was and how simple it was. A month later we're finding out that there seem to be a lot of holes and potential problems in the revenue sharing, the owners gave way too much to the players, and some of the rules still seem to be in question. I think it's becoming more and more clear that Ralph Wilson may have been one of the only owners with any common sense coming out of those meetings.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't understand your confusion here at all. Buffalo is not in great shape economically so the team can't charge a lot for their tickets or luxury suites, etc. That's just a fact and Ralph is pointing out that a new stadium wouldn't really solve the problems inherent with operating a team in Buffalo. He's not putting anyone down here, just advocating on behalf of the people of Buffalo and Bills fans. As for your last question, it makes no sense at all. One of the major points of the article is that some owners suggested not providing revenue sharing to any new NFL owners...so, if the team is sold, the new Bills owner would be shut out of the new revenue sharing streams they just agreed to, and that would make it much more difficult to run a team in a place like Buffalo. Ralph is trying to sway some votes and get people on his side during what will be a very important time for small market NFL clubs. The details of the CBA are still being worked out, so now's a great time for Ralph to be speaking up.
Thanks Aaron, that was my first thought. He is trying to blame the fans in Buffalo for not having as much money as other NFL fans in other NFL markets.I'll give Wilson the benefit of the doubt and assume he has done everything humanly possible in this market to make it work.
:confused: I don't think that he's trying to blame anyone or anything. He's just stating the reality of the situation. If you have 32 teams, the odds are that a few of them are going to be in cities where revenue is much lower than the top cities. Buffalo is a blue collar town and it's heyday was 40-50 years ago. With manufacturing moving mostly overseas Buffalo has fallen on some hard times. But the Bills were still able to compete under the old CBA. The new CBA is what is killing the Bills. For people to keep contending that the game and the economics of the game have passed Wilson by is rubbish. The simple fact is that when you use gross revenues the more wealthy cities have a huge inherent advantage over the less wealthy cities. You can market things anyway you want to, but a team in Washington D.C., NYC, Dallas, etc. will have more leverage in their markets than teams in Cinci, Buffalo, Detroit, N.O, etc. The economics of the game haven't changed in decades. Yes they are taking in more money now, and yes things like stadium naming rights have added money to the pool, but the new CBA is a MAJOR shift in the economic realities in the NFL.
Combine that with a new owner being locked out of the revenue sharing pool, and an 88 year old current owner and you have a recipe that results in the team moving to a large market where sharing revenue won't be an issue (Toronto, LA, Vegas...), or the team folding because it can't make any money.
 
this makes no sense to me. he has plenty of young, smart, capable people working under him advising him.
Call me unconvinced. I don't think Wilson fully understands the CBA and salary cap yet, or I think he does and is just poor-mouthing it to all who will hear. That could either be clueless or shrewd, designed to get financial help from the governor. Using the one theoretical example cited above by Littman, an example which applies in reverse if the Bills sell sponsorhips, I don't see the immediate peril to the Bills. Given the fact that the owner of the Buffalo Sabres has expressed interest in doing what he can to keep the Bills in Buffalo, there's at least one businessman who thinks they're viable.
 
this makes no sense to me. he has plenty of young, smart, capable people working under him advising him.
Call me unconvinced. I don't think Wilson fully understands the CBA and salary cap yet, or I think he does and is just poor-mouthing it to all who will hear. That could either be clueless or shrewd, designed to get financial help from the governor. Using the one theoretical example cited above by Littman, an example which applies in reverse if the Bills sell sponsorhips, I don't see the immediate peril to the Bills. Given the fact that the owner of the Buffalo Sabres has expressed interest in doing what he can to keep the Bills in Buffalo, there's at least one businessman who thinks they're viable.
:shrug: You could be right, but the fact that he's stating to anyone who will listen that he's not looking for money, or a new stadium, or anything other than help with the new CBA situation says a lot to me.

 
this makes no sense to me. he has plenty of young, smart, capable people working under him advising him.
Call me unconvinced. I don't think Wilson fully understands the CBA and salary cap yet, or I think he does and is just poor-mouthing it to all who will hear. That could either be clueless or shrewd, designed to get financial help from the governor. Using the one theoretical example cited above by Littman, an example which applies in reverse if the Bills sell sponsorhips, I don't see the immediate peril to the Bills. Given the fact that the owner of the Buffalo Sabres has expressed interest in doing what he can to keep the Bills in Buffalo, there's at least one businessman who thinks they're viable.
Well, seeing as how the local revenue sharing is nothing but a rough framework still, how could he possibly understand it? They still have yet to define where the majority of the money is coming from. Only a portion of it is coming from the highest revenue teams. Something like 2/3 of the money is supposed to come from an as of yet undefined revenue source. In addition to that there may or may not be restrictions put on teams receiving that money. Those restrictions could be just about anything at this point, from extremely restrictive to none at all. I think that's what Wilson is lobbying about right now. The Bills have already been put into a bad situation with the new CBA, if the wealthy owners manage to put through extreme restrictions, then you might as well not even have that portion of revenue sharing. I think a lot of the smaller market teams signed onto the deal not fully realizing that the revenue sharing wasn't a given.
 
Wilson leaves door open for Bills' exit

By MARK SOMMER

News Staff Reporter

4/10/2006

Buffalo Bills owner Ralph C. Wilson Jr. told reporters Sunday that the team could relocate if proposed changes to a new National Football League agreement are adopted.

Wilson, who appeared in a news conference alongside Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., warned - as he has repeatedly in recent days - that several proposed "qualifiers" in the collective bargaining agreement, including reductions in local revenue sharing, could leave the team economically unviable.

But this was the first time Wilson suggested that the team could actually move.

"I have always said, always, that I would never move the team from Buffalo," Wilson said. "Now, with this new collective bargaining agreement, I'm hopeful I can steadfastly adhere to what I've said. But I am making no promises.

The 87-year-old owner said the uncertainty has clouded his - and the team's - future.

"As to my succession, I don't know what I'm going to do now," he said. "Before, I was going to sell the team or something, but I don't know now. This has changed everything."

Proposed changes could stop large-market teams with higher ticket, suite and sponsorship revenues from sharing some of that with smaller-market teams. One qualifier would prevent future owners - of the Bills, for instance - from receiving any such revenue sharing.

Another could penalize teams whose annual ticket revenue drops below 80 percent of the league average, which would impact the Bills and its relatively low ticket prices despite selling out all eight home games last season.

Wilson, who was one of only two owners to vote against the collective bargaining agreement last month, said he has not heard from a single owner offering support during his high-profile campaign. The Bills owner said it could take as late as fall before the league's Qualifying Committee - whose members have yet to be named - finalizes the critical details.

Schumer, who sits on Senate judicial and financial committees that handle issues of interest to the NFL, said he planned to call Commissioner Paul Tagliabue today to express his concerns. Other politicians Wilson has enlisted for support include Gov. George E. Pataki and Erie County Executive Joel A. Giambra.

Schumer said he plans to bring the senators of small-market teams together to press their case with the NFL and hopes to enlist the support of fans and alumni such as former Bills quarterback Jack F. Kemp, who went on to be a congressman, federal housing secretary and Republican vice presidential candidate.

"The Bills are the heart of Buffalo," Schumer said. "Everyone in Buffalo is totally loyal to the Bills. . . . They are a team that symbolizes the community more than just about any other.

"The bottom line is very simple: The smaller teams in the league, because of the new contract, are going to have a very rough time of making it."

Despite the NFL owners' strong support for the collective bargaining agreement, Schumer held out hope that details in the complex agreement may have been overlooked in the rush for a settlement. He also said the issue went beyond the owners, contending that the NFL had a "higher obligation."

"It's the people of Buffalo and Western New York, the people of Jacksonville and northeast Florida who want to see their teams stay," Schumer said. "I think there's a national interest here that goes beyond any one owner's desire to do this or that."

Wilson said that he was aware that NFL owners were concerned about the team's gross receipts, which he called "the lowest in the league," but that he would not raise ticket prices beyond what the region could afford. He also said the league wants him to sell the naming rights to Ralph Wilson Stadium.
http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060410/1056348.asp
Wilson's pleas don't matter to NFL sharks

4/10/2006

By JERRY SULLIVAN

You have to give Ralph Wilson credit for this much: When he goes on the attack, he doesn't fool around. This past week, the Buffalo Bills owner has run his own version of the no-huddle offense, a one-man lobbying effort on behalf of the NFL's small-market franchises.

First, Wilson brought his case to the Governor, enlisting George E. Pataki in the fight to convince the league to share more local revenue with the small-market clubs. Last Friday, Wilson held a news conference to sound the alarm - with County Executive Joel A. Giambra reinforcing the message in a separate gathering.

Finally, Wilson and Sen. Charles E. Schumer conducted a joint conference on Sunday. Schumer said he would contact small-market owners in other cities, and promised to recruit Buffalo icons Tim Russert and Jack Kemp in the cause.

Wilson even tried the most unprecedented play of all. He didn't rule out the prospect of moving the Bills. That's right, moving them. Doing the Art Modell/Robert Irsay shuffle to another city.

Yes, it was Wilson's seventh news conference since the season ended. You never know what's going to come out of his mouth, and you can't take everything he says seriously. Wilson is trying to get people's attention, and scaring them is one way to go about it.

The thing is, I'm not sure his fellow owners are listening. Wilson said Sunday that he hadn't received a single call from any of his fellow NFL owners since embarking on his one-man crusade against the new collective bargaining agreement.

Wilson is out there on his own. It's a little frightening. There's a tendency to patronize him in this town, to treat him with kid gloves. He is a beloved public figure, the man who brought the NFL to Western New York and has kept it here for 46 years. Wilson has a coarse but undeniable charm about him. In the end, he's our guy.

Still, it is disconcerting to watch Wilson wage a one-man fight against the most powerful sports league in history. He means well. But he is growing increasingly isolated from his fellow owners. Only one owner, Cincinnati's Mike Brown, joined him in voting against the new collective bargaining agreement last month.

Wilson is swimming with the sharks. The old-guard owners, the guys he came up with and confided in, are mostly gone. They've been replaced by younger men who are more interested in maximizing their own bottom line than making sure all the franchises share revenue equally.

The disparity in local revenues is growing. A pending proposal that would deny any new owners the right to share in the local revenue pie is an outrage. It's a troubling sign, an indication that the NFL doesn't want teams to survive long-term in smaller markets like Buffalo.

But it's a stretch to suggest that the Bills can't compete under this current system. The teams still share equally in the NFL's vast national TV revenue. They operate under a salary cap. Some teams have more local revenue to spend on coaches and free agent signing bonuses, but it's far more equitable than, say, baseball.

There's no salary cap in baseball. But you don't see the owners marching on the governor's office. The fact is, baseball's competitive imbalance is largely a myth. In the past six years, 18 different teams have made the postseason.

You can still compete without economic equality. The Bills' competitive problems are of their own making. It wasn't a shortage of local revenue that put them in their current mess. It was poor decisions by Wilson's personnel department. Wilson has legitimate issues with the league, but there's a more diplomatic way to raise them. He might, in fact, be making the Bills more vulnerable in the league's eyes.

If Wilson's goal was to draw attention to our fragile NFL existence, he succeeded.
http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060410/1045871.aspI disagree with him pretty often, but I think Sullivan is pretty spot on here. The idea that a new owner wouldn't be allowed to partake in revenue sharing is completely ridiculous. But, as long as a future owner of the team isn't shut out, the Bills should still be able to remain competitive. That being said, I can't fault Wilson for arguing his case. Like I said before, I think he's clearly advocating on behalf of Bills fans, those in other small markets, and for the league in general, rather than for any of his own personal interests.

 
Thanks Aaron, that was my first thought. He is trying to blame the fans in Buffalo for not having as much money as other NFL fans in other NFL markets.
That's not at all what he's doing.
 
You could be right, but the fact that he's stating to anyone who will listen that he's not looking for money, or a new stadium, or anything other than help with the new CBA situation says a lot to me.
Why would an owner pleading eventually poverty (relative to other teams) not be looking for money? That seems like bad business to me.And if, as Aaron says, the CBA and the revenue-sharing details are not fully worked-out and understood yet, how can Wilson's dire predictions for the Bills be considered accurate in any way?

It seems like generalized poor-mouthing and scare tactics to me. Whether that's by plan or not remains to be seen. It may just be a shrewd business move on his part to raise revenue one way or another (raising prices after developing enough sympathy, getting aid from the State, enticing another buyer who wants to keep the Bills in Buffalo, etc.).

 
You could be right, but the fact that he's stating to anyone who will listen that he's not looking for money, or a new stadium, or anything other than help with the new CBA situation says a lot to me.
Why would an owner pleading eventually poverty (relative to other teams) not be looking for money? That seems like bad business to me.And if, as Aaron says, the CBA and the revenue-sharing details are not fully worked-out and understood yet, how can Wilson's dire predictions for the Bills be considered accurate in any way?

It seems like generalized poor-mouthing and scare tactics to me. Whether that's by plan or not remains to be seen. It may just be a shrewd business move on his part to raise revenue one way or another (raising prices after developing enough sympathy, getting aid from the State, enticing another buyer who wants to keep the Bills in Buffalo, etc.).
from my perspective, he's clearly fighting against these things:
Proposed changes could stop large-market teams with higher ticket, suite and sponsorship revenues from sharing some of that with smaller-market teams. One qualifier would prevent future owners - of the Bills, for instance - from receiving any such revenue sharing.

Another could penalize teams whose annual ticket revenue drops below 80 percent of the league average, which would impact the Bills and its relatively low ticket prices despite selling out all eight home games last season.
note the word PROPOSED. These are proposals that are going to be considered, and he feels that they will be bad for Buffalo, and bad for the league. Why shouldn't he try to fight against something he doesn't agree with? This doesn't seem to have anything at all to do with him wanting to put more money in his pockets, but rather all about the long-term viability of keeping a franchise in Buffalo.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You could be right, but the fact that he's stating to anyone who will listen that he's not looking for money, or a new stadium, or anything other than help with the new CBA situation says a lot to me.
Why would an owner pleading eventually poverty (relative to other teams) not be looking for money? That seems like bad business to me.And if, as Aaron says, the CBA and the revenue-sharing details are not fully worked-out and understood yet, how can Wilson's dire predictions for the Bills be considered accurate in any way?

It seems like generalized poor-mouthing and scare tactics to me. Whether that's by plan or not remains to be seen. It may just be a shrewd business move on his part to raise revenue one way or another (raising prices after developing enough sympathy, getting aid from the State, enticing another buyer who wants to keep the Bills in Buffalo, etc.).
The only money wilson wants is a bigger piece of the NFL revenue sharing pie. Handouts from the local/state governments won't do any good because that revenue would go into the pot to be shared by all teams.A new stadium won't help because the Buffalo area isn't able to support more luxury box/seats. There simply isn't the commercial base of companies to come in and spend the big bucks on those seats.

I honestly think this is about Wilson trying to do the right thing for the area. He could just sit back, not say anything and happily collect his checks while the team flounders for the last few years he has left, knowing that when he dies the team isn't his problem anymore.

Instead, he's pointing out to everyone involved that if something isn't done the team will not be here in the near future.

If you want to call that business savvy, fine, but whatever you call it, he's doing right by the people of Buffalo.

 
Proposed changes could stop large-market teams with higher ticket, suite and sponsorship revenues from sharing some of that with smaller-market teams. One qualifier would prevent future owners - of the Bills, for instance - from receiving any such revenue sharing.

Another could penalize teams whose annual ticket revenue drops below 80 percent of the league average, which would impact the Bills and its relatively low ticket prices despite selling out all eight home games last season.
note the word PROPOSED. These are proposals that are going to be considered, and he feels that they will be bad for Buffalo, and bad for the league. Why shouldn't he try to fight against something he doesn't agree with? This doesn't seem to have anything at all with him wanting to put more money in his pockets, but rather all about the long-term viability of keeping a franchise in Buffalo.
Exactly. If the agreement has that wording in it, the bills fate is sealed. A team can't survive here without that revenue sharing, and its going to be owned by a new ownership group within the next 10 years (whether its on wilson's death or a sale). The only solution for that new owner is to move the team to an area where they can gain that increased revenue that they can't get in Buffalo.

Actually, I'd imagine that nobody would agree to buy the team without an understanding from the league that they won't stand in the way of them moving to (insert large city of your choice here).

 
Schumer calls meeting with Tagliabue, Russert

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NFL chief, 'son of Buffalo' will discuss future of Bills

By DOUGLAS TURNER

News Washington Bureau Chief

4/18/2006

WASHINGTON - National Football League Commissioner Paul Tagliabue plans to show Sen. Charles E. Schumer how the NFL's new contract with its players will help, not hurt, the Buffalo Bills during a meeting here Thursday, league spokesman Greg Aiello said Monday.

Tagliabue, Schumer and Tim Russert, Washington bureau chief of NBC News and host of the network's "Meet the Press," will meet Thursday in the senator's office at his invitation.

Russert said he will take part in the meeting "as a son of Buffalo, not as a journalist."

"I want to do everything I can, of course, to keep the Bills in Buffalo," said Russert, who has had private discussions with Tagliabue in recent years about the future of the team.

While the focus is on Buffalo, Schumer said, he wants to discuss with Tagliabue what the league is doing to preserve other small-market teams.

"I'm looking forward to this meeting because keeping the Bills in Buffalo is vital to Western New York," the New York Democrat said in a statement. "We are looking forward to hearing what the commissioner has to say. This is going to be the first step of a long process to do everything we can to help the Bills and small-market teams."

Aiello said Tagliabue plans to explain how the six-year collective-bargaining agreement will help all 32 teams to prosper.

"This league is built on revenue-sharing," Aiello said. "The NFL has the best revenue-sharing of all professional sports.

"The agreement will provide the Bills and other teams share in additional revenue. Almost $1 billion in additional revenue will shift from the largest-market teams to the smaller-market franchises over the six years.

"In the first year, a total of $100 million will be added, gradually increasing to $200 million in the last year."

Bills owner Ralph C. Wilson Jr. enlisted Schumer's help because he thinks that the bargaining agreement sets a ticket-price threshold that could exclude the Bills from this new revenue. The Bills also are worried that the new agreement could include the $6.7 million-a-year Erie County subsidy as team revenue, which the league could count against the Bills in its revenue-sharing plan.

The Bills might not be financially viable under the new agreement, Wilson said, and the team might have to be moved to a larger market as a result.

Rep. Brian Higgins, D-Buffalo, who has asked for a House hearing into possible antitrust law violations in the agreement, declined to comment on the pending meeting in Schumer's office.

The NFL Players Association has approved the pact, and so has the league, in a 30-2 vote. Wilson and Michael Brown, owner of the Cincinnati Bengals, voted against it. Although Brown opposed the contract, he said the Bengals can live with it.
http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060418/1052890.asp
 
From PFT:

POSTED 3:26 p.m. EDT, April 20, 2006

WILSON FORCES HIS WAY ONTO QUALIFIER COMMITTEE

During a meeting on Thursday with New York Senator Chuck Schumer, NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue told the Schumer that the committee to determine the qualifying factors for supplemental revenue sharing will include Bills owner Ralph Wilson.

As we've previously explained, we firmly believe that Wilson's recent Mr.-Magoo-meets-Chicken-Little routine regarding the plight of the Buffalo franchise under the new CBA specifically was intended to influence the manner in which the qualifying factors for supplemental revenue sharing were devised. Indeed, we'd learned from credible league sources that one of Wilson's core concerns -- that a new owner would be ineligible for revenue sharing -- was simply unfounded.
S.I.com
WASHINGTON (AP) -- NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue reassured a New York senator and jittery Buffalo Bills fans Thursday that the league's new labor agreement won't hurt small market teams and force the team to relocate.

Tagliabue also told Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer that Bills owner Ralph Wilson, whose vocal complaints sparked Thursday's meeting, will be one of eight owners on a committee that will hammer out details of how teams will qualify for NFL money under the new labor agreement.

"There is every reason to believe the Buffalo Bills will be able to continue as they have with a competitive team," said Tagliabue, adding the team's well-being "turns more on who the quarterback is and who the running back" rather than on the specifics of the labor deal.

"What we're striving to do is focus not just on the Buffalo Bills but on all the small market teams," said Tagliabue, mentioning the Jacksonville Jaguars, Green Bay Packers, and Kansas City Chiefs.

Wilson praised the outcome as a success, particularly his team's inclusion on the eight-member committee. "This is only the first step. The senator told me he is going to continue to monitor this situation as will the Bills and all of our fans," Wilson said in a statement

Schumer said he ended the discussion "very happy and very hopeful about a long future for the Bills in Buffalo."

Also in the meeting in Schumer's Washington office was NBC newsman Tim Russert, a self-described "son of Buffalo," who said his favorite team has "a very good future if this agreement can be worked out."

Wilson, one of two owners who voted against the labor agreement, has complained the new deal threatens the financial viability of his and other small market teams. Tagliabue said that won't be true once the specifics are hammered out.

"My own belief is that the ground rules that come out (of the committee) will not be troublesome or problematic for the Buffalo Bills," said Tagliabue.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top