Skip to content

Players Still Don't Understand Uncapped Year

Cardinals linebacker Karlos Dansby, who currently is operating under the franchise tag for the second straight year, already has drool snaking down his chin for the uncapped year.
“Man, I can’t wait,” Dansby told Sporting News Radio’s The Monty Show on Friday.  “It’s going to be interesting to see what takes place.”
Yes, it will be interesting.
But not in the way Dansby thinks it will be.
Without a salary cap, only a couple of teams will be engaged in a financial arms race — presumably, the Cowboys and the Redskins.
Without a salary floor, more than a few teams will be keeping the cash in their pockets, especially with a work stoppage looming.
That’s the biggest misconception that most players still have about the uncapped year.
No cap means no floor.
This year, teams are required to spend $111 million on player compensation.  Next year, the teams will be forced to spend based only on the minimum one-year salaries.
And the evidence that teams will be inclined not to overspend next year can be found in the fact that only a handful of franchises are even flirting with the per-team limit of $127 million.  If teams aren’t spending $127 million in 2009 when $127 million is the most that can be spent, why does Dansby or anyone else think they’ll spend more than $127 million when the ceiling is removed?
This next comment from Dansby revealed another major flaw in the players’ reasoning:  They don’t seem to know that tehy they need six years of service to become unrestricted free agents.
“I’m going to be amongst some great guys like DeMarcus Ware, you got a couple more guys out there that’s coming out and are going to be up . . . free agents and it’s going to be good to see what we fell and where I fall amongst those guys,” Dansby said.
Dansby will be on the market next year.  But Ware won’t.  He’ll have only five years of service, and thus will be a restricted free agent only.
We wonder whether Ware realizes that.  Or Shawne Merriman.  Or any other guy drafted in 2005 or 2006 whose contract will be up next March, and who will only be restricted free agents.  Even if, like Vikings cornerback Karl Paymah, the player was an unrestricted free agent in 2009.
In our view, one of the first challenges for new NFLPA Executive Director DeMaurice Smith will be to find a way to ensure that players who might be clamoring for a Pacman-style money shower realize the truth about life without a spending maximum, or a spending minimum.

Permalink 46 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Arizona Cardinals, Contracts, Rumor Mill, Top Stories
46 Responses to “Players Still Don't Understand Uncapped Year”
  1. schweinehund says: Apr 4, 2009 12:15 PM

    There’s also a starting QB last year that didn’t understand the OT format.

  2. mngarber says: Apr 4, 2009 12:22 PM

    The biggest mistake MLB owners made back in 1976 — after an arbitrator ruled that baseball’s reserve clause was not perpetual, thereby introducing free agency — was to ignore Charlie Finley’s advice to make all players free agents after every year, rather than impose vesting periods and allowing long-term deals.
    Finley’s theory (economically sound as hell) was that the market would be flooded each off season with players looking for jobs. Instead of creating a seller’s market for the players’ services, the owners would create a buyer’s market — thereby pushing contract numbers downward.
    The NFL owners would be wise to consider the same thing. Would the union agree? Doubtful. But so long as there’s a union with which to bargain in good faith, the NFL can take a shot at imposing these terms and letting the union seek legal relief.
    I think it would be the closest the NFL owners will ever come to the NFL world as it was before Judge David Doty ordered free agency. The owners would have all the power.
    The problem will be, as with all oligopolies, maintaining member discipline.

  3. Favre2012 says: Apr 4, 2009 12:23 PM

    It’s gonna be hilarious when the payrolls drop to KC Royals levels. That’s the owners’ biggest weapon–the ignorance of the players. And that weapon seems to grow bigger every year.

  4. HarrisonHits says: Apr 4, 2009 12:29 PM

    Greed often outweighs intelligence, and its very clear that many NFL players aren’t exactly rocket scientists.

  5. lee says: Apr 4, 2009 12:30 PM

    this more than anything shows the true IQ level of most professional football players. to say that off the field their intelligence is um, rather lacking in basic common sense and knowledge of one’s own future.
    STUPID is the word that comes to mind

  6. Guberville Smack says: Apr 4, 2009 12:30 PM

    I say we start by teaching them the overtime rules first.
    Then perhaps the laws of this country, like what a DUI is.
    Then, when they are ready to take their academics to the next level, they might learn finance.

  7. orangecrushd says: Apr 4, 2009 12:31 PM

    Interesting. Is there anything in the negotiations about expanding the rosters past 53?

  8. tbtsm15 says: Apr 4, 2009 12:32 PM

    If players really knew what was going on, they’d be more inclined to want to avoid a work stoppage.
    Why does DeMaurice Smith want that? He’s preparing for war – in fact HE WANTS A WAR. Such a war will only serve to promote Smith’s popularity, power and influence.
    Like any president not named George W. has known, war is the best thing that can happen. So even if a work stoppage isn’t what’s best for the players, the powers-that-be stand to benefit from such a stoppage.

  9. ClevelandSucks aka Philly Sewer Rat says: Apr 4, 2009 12:34 PM

    pay me bitch

  10. IML Owl says: Apr 4, 2009 12:36 PM

    As an Eagles fan, it’s not that I don’t want Chad, it’s that I don’t want an aging WR that only caught 53 balls last year. Especially at what it’ll cost to get him.

  11. sullijo says: Apr 4, 2009 12:37 PM

    In related news, jay cutler now says he doesn’t really want to be traded.

  12. Jeremiah W says: Apr 4, 2009 12:51 PM

    Until football players get ceo, baseball or hoops money they have a good argument. If they even actually had “contracts” they would not have much to complain about.
    I love football, but have no loyalty to the NFL who ripped the heart out of my town and gave it to Indy. Football will be fine even if the NFL folds. There is not a HS in a town with more than 100 people without a team.

  13. jersey73 says: Apr 4, 2009 12:54 PM

    Uncapped years + bad economy = lower salaries
    As soon as the players union understands this, we can continue to operate the best sports industry in the world and not become baseball.

  14. zertrat says: Apr 4, 2009 1:06 PM

    Now now. Dansby may not have been very smart in the past, but he’s practicting up. He’s using the Queen’s “amongst.” (Not that there’s anything wrong with that.)

  15. allnstride says: Apr 4, 2009 1:10 PM

    How these players don’t realize what is going to happen is beyond me. They must have forgotten that, while they are in the business of being competitive in football, the owners are in football for profits. It only makes sense that the majority of teams will cut spending rather than increase it. Ensuring that they have the largest profit margin possible. Throw in a bad economy and it’s pretty much a given players contracts as a whole will spiral downward if we hit an uncapped year.

  16. DarthPirate says: Apr 4, 2009 1:11 PM

    I don’t think it’s stupidity by the players. It’s more that they don’t want to know the complex stuff. Ignorance is bliss and all that.

  17. arosen36 says: Apr 4, 2009 1:24 PM

    imagine how much money dan snyder can waste with no cap

  18. SkinsFan says: Apr 4, 2009 1:26 PM

    tbtsm15,
    I think you are reading the situation wrong. I do not think Smith wants a war at all!!! In fact I believe he wants to avoid the uncapped year and/or a work stoppage at all costs! He seems smart enough to realize he will lose any war (a war that the owners actually want and are pushing for). Although Smith might be well suited to battle to battle the owners in a showdown over the CBA, Smith’s constituents will tie his hands and force him to capitulate to the owners. First, the players clearly don’t understand the ramifications of the uncapped (ie no salary floor and increased years of service to reach FA). If the uncapped year comes to bear and the players are faced with this reality they will be very uneasy about getting the CBA settled fast. Second, if they get past the uncapped year and the players have not pressured Smith to settle the CBA then the owners will lockout the players. At this point, Smith is between a rock and a very place because the players will be very supportive of him and defiant to the owners (sounding prety much like Dansby in this article,until the miss about 4 game checks at which point the players will be knocking down Smith’s door to sign any deal that will get them back on the field immediately so they can get their checks and pay their mortgages and car notes etc.
    In fact, you recognize that Smith doesn’t want a war by the simple fact he has never mentioned nor hinted in any way at a potential strike! The players DO NOT WANT A WORK STOPPAGE! The owners however realize that a work stopage or threat of one is the only way they can get back the upper hand which they gave away during the last CBA.

  19. superius says: Apr 4, 2009 1:38 PM

    One of the big questions I have about an uncapped year is the question of collusion.
    Obviously the uncapped year is still subject to the terms of the CBA (minus the poison pills like when free agency starts and the uncapped year) but when the CBA expires and the work stoppage begins the owners will have more than a few bullets to fire…while the only bullet the players have is the uncapped year.
    Back to collusion – collusion in the NFL prohibits teams from making deals at the owner meeting about what type of salary they will pay guys (“lets all agree that no line backer will make more than $5 million this year”) but once the CBA is out the owners could counter an uncapped system by refusing to reinstate the clauses related to collusion. Or they could refuse to accept a free agency system at all if the players refuse to go back to a cap system. What is stopping the owners from simply saying, “you refuse to negotiate on a salary cap system so we refuse to negotiate on a free agency system.”?
    I assume the NFL would need to walk a fine line to avoid potential anti-trust actions but how far can they go on their own to limit salaries in the face of an uncapped year. If they economic troubles continue into the uncapped year are even guys like Jerry Jones going to be throwing around huge amounts of money?
    Lots of questions that the players don’t seem to be considering. There could be a lot of angry players next year.

  20. zertrat says: Apr 4, 2009 1:50 PM

    Let me try to summarize the “flavour” of SkinsFan’s comments “whilst” trying to understand the complexities outlined in his documentary piece.
    The players want money.
    The owners are tired of players getting so much money.
    Smith took a job “amongst” sharks.
    Smith is florked.

  21. JSpicoli says: Apr 4, 2009 1:59 PM

    Alonzo Mourning said it about the NBA—-These players better be ready for a pay cut.

  22. Pal Davis says: Apr 4, 2009 2:00 PM

    Did Michael Jackson write this article? “The players didn’t know that TEHY need six years of service…” Shamon! Turrets, alright!

  23. rockybrown says: Apr 4, 2009 2:00 PM

    Ok guys, no cap will mean lower team salaries overall … however the rich will get richer. (see baseball players Sabathia, Ramirez). The top free agents will get huge money and the rest will get relative peanuts. So yes, I can understand why a selfish, top-level player like Dansby would be excited.

  24. 34_Fan_4_Life says: Apr 4, 2009 2:10 PM

    yo yo yo gold teefs

  25. 3efin says: Apr 4, 2009 2:12 PM

    Your comment about the Redskins and Cowboys being the only teams participating in free agency is somewhat misleading.
    You do realize that playoff teams will be excluded from bidding on free agents?
    Under the rules of an uncapped year, the eight teams that participate in the divisional round of the playoffs are prohibited from signing free agents. They will only be allowed to sign free agents to replace players who they lose to other teams in free agency. So many of your big money teams will not be able bid on players until late in the process, after players have left their team.

  26. burley29 says: Apr 4, 2009 2:23 PM

    Collusion is getting thrown around way too loosely here. It seems that the owners are going to win this no matter what, and it would be best for the NFLPA to try and get through this with a short term CBA and no work stoppage.

  27. Jeremiah W says: Apr 4, 2009 2:26 PM

    The owners have a lot more to lose than players do starting with the TV contracts. How long would it take some other group to replace the NFL owners if they shut it down?
    The players would not get drafted without a CBA. They would all be free agents, and if they sign a “contract” they would actually get all the money the team promised them. Sure some of them would ge less money, but generally you can command a higher price when you are allowed to sell to more than one customer.
    Football will still be football. They are not going to start calling home run when a guy crosses the goal line, and the QB will not have time to chew tobbaco while looking over the play calls.
    W

  28. tbtsm15 says: Apr 4, 2009 2:26 PM

    SkinsFan –
    Given the rampant misconception of the players concerning the labor situation and that steps have not been taken by the union (Smith) to correct these misconceptions, then I am forced to conclude that Smith wants to propagate these misconceptions so as to push the players to a lockout because Smith stands to gain from a lockout.
    The threat of a cap-less league was the union’s biggest bargaining chip and the league has called Smith’s bluff. Now he’s been caught with his pants down and the only way to save his head to to “courageously” lead the players through a tumultuous lock out.

  29. Beardown09 says: Apr 4, 2009 2:34 PM

    @mngarber
    I could not agree with you more and I’ve felt this way for a while now.
    Two things that really bother me as a fan is when a guy signs a 6 year deal and is all happy and then 2 years later starts to whine about being ‘underpaid’ or ‘disrespected’ because XYZ has passed him on the payscale (see Green Bay vs Mike McKenzie).
    And,then…a guy signs a 6 year deal and completely goes into the toilet and when the team comes to him to restructure so they can keep him he balks and gets mad (see Green Bay vs Darren Sharper).
    I say…give every player 1 year deals ever year after they’ve played 4 seasons.
    That way every single payer is paid EXACTLY what he is ‘worth’ at all times and teams aren’t suckered into long term deals that become dead weights. Value is redetermined every 12 months so nobody has a reason to whine or feel ripped off.
    All rookies would sign 4 year deals out of college slotted to where they were picked. Start the #1 pick at 2 million/year and slot down from there to where the final pick is paid 100,000. NO SIGNING BONUS. All rookies get a % of base pay guaranteed but no 15 mil checks the day the guy is picked. F that. If these guys don’t like it they can go work at McDonalds. Being an NFL player is not a right.
    After your 4th year you proceed on 1 year deals.
    All teams would get 1 ‘franchise’ tag to use yearly and it would be used for your true ‘franchise’ player. Tom Brady,Peyton Manning,etc.
    A player who is a franchise player would get a guaranteed 10 million for the season unless a different amount was agreed to.
    Another rule….no single player can be tagged more than 3 times over a 5 year period. Thus,a guy like Tom Brady if he were coming into the league now could become a FA before his 30th birthday.
    For all veterans after 4 years….the day you sign your 1 year ‘contract’ 25% of your pay for that year becomes guaranteed in the form of a ‘signing bonus’. If you are on the week 1 roster then another 50% becomes locked in no matter what happens from there on out. The final 25% is earned as the season progresses.
    No more 30 mil checks given sight unseen. These teams are headed for collapse if they keep this up. The average fan is already priced out and the CEO’s sitting in those suites aren’t in much better shape. There isn’t this bottomless pit of cash from companies and tv anymore. It’s going to catch up with them at some point over the next decade. The NFL can take a step back and revolutionize how they do things for the greater long term good of the league. Not every team in the league can just go and build a new billion dollar stadium every 15 years.
    The pay scale is busted and needs to be radically changed. The NFL and players need to view this as a golden opportunity. If they proceed business as usual then hold on tight.
    If nothing changes..ALL of these guys,GMs and coaches included are going to be asking you if you want fries with that before long.

  30. east96st says: Apr 4, 2009 2:35 PM

    In all my years in various unions (I was forced to join several if I wanted to work at the networks), I am the only guy I know, that was not a union rep, that actually read the contracts. No surprise that football players don’t know their contract. Most union members don’t.

  31. superius says: Apr 4, 2009 2:35 PM

    3efin says:
    April 4th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
    Your comment about the Redskins and Cowboys being the only teams participating in free agency is somewhat misleading.
    You do realize that playoff teams will be excluded from bidding on free agents?
    Under the rules of an uncapped year, the eight teams that participate in the divisional round of the playoffs are prohibited from signing free agents. They will only be allowed to sign free agents to replace players who they lose to other teams in free agency. So many of your big money teams will not be able bid on players until late in the process, after players have left their team.

  32. Jeremiah W says: Apr 4, 2009 2:36 PM

    The owners have more to lose than the players in the long run by far. There will be another pro football leauge that will hire all the players that can still play, and without the NFL to compete with will thrive.
    Prospective pro players would all be free agents and instead of getting drafted and taking the offer or “hold out” and do not play for a year, they could all wait for the bidding to slow down before choosing the best fit.
    Was football so bad before it had a salary cap? I do not remember any home runs or strikeouts, or a lot of complaining about hte great Lombardi dynasty or the Boys or Steelers or 9rs, just a lot of complaining about how no teams are ever as good as those because they can not be kept together long enough for finacial reasons.
    I do not care if there is a Yankees in football, there is already and the Bungles or Loins of the leauge can not get much worse. Dallas and Washington spend a lot more money now anyway while bad and cheap teams find ways to meet teh minimum with “dead money” and “cap hits” or whatever scumbag lawyer jargon they came with to sell the idea to the fans.
    Free market football would be fun, and would never look anything like baseball, more like college football with a bunch of USC and Texas and Florida power teams and a bunch of plucky Utah type teams that would get a chance to knock those suckers out in the big game for a change.

  33. Bubba Maximus says: Apr 4, 2009 3:23 PM

    I’m curious to see how “smart” D. Smith really is.
    I realize that, evidently, he’s a smooth talker who “wowed” the NFLPA with the presentation that in effect made him a “unanimous” selection as head of the players’ union.
    But there are thousands of people who can sound good when they’re reading from a script. Hollywood is full of such people. (So is the White House, but that’s another story.)
    Anyway, it remains to be seen whether or not Smith has the smarts and the tact to go head-to-head with men who run a multi-billion dollar business empire.

  34. MattR says: Apr 4, 2009 3:23 PM

    3efin – That is not strictly true. The four teams in the conference championships face the restrictions you state. The four teams that lose in the divisional round have less restrictions – they can sign one high end player (more than $5 million ish) and any number of low end players (under about $3.5 million)
    In addition, all of the final eight teams can sign any player who is a free agent because he was released by his previous team.

  35. Bill In DC says: Apr 4, 2009 3:47 PM

    MattR,
    I don’t think that’s correct.
    As I understand it the ‘Rule of 8’ will be
    The top eight playoff finishers from the previous season would be allowed to sign free agents only at the rate at which they lose them.
    So, yes, they can sign a player for more than I think it is $10 mil but only if they lose a player with that salary.
    Plus, each team gets 2 Franchise designations, not 1, reducing the available pool of high end FAs.

  36. MattR says: Apr 4, 2009 4:20 PM

    Bill in DC – This is covered by Article XXI of the CBA as quoted below (Section 4 is the part that states that once teams lose a player they can sign a similar one. Section 5 states that the $ values in section 3 increase at the same rate as total revenue)
    Section 2. Top Four Teams: Each of the four Clubs that participated in the NFC and AFC Championship games the Prior League Year shall not be permitted to negotiate and sign any Unrestricted Free Agent to a
    Player Contract, except: (a) any Unrestricted Free Agent who acquired that status as a result of the NFL waiver system; (b) any Unrestricted Free Agent who was under contract to such Club on the last date of the
    last League Year of the player’s most recent Player Contract; and (c) any Unrestricted Free Agent signed pursuant to Section 4 below.
    Section 3. Next Four Teams: Each of the four playoff Clubs that lost in the immediately preceding playoff games to the four Clubs that participated in the NFC and AFC Championship games the Prior League Year shall not be permitted to negotiate and sign any Unrestricted Free Agent to a Player contract, except: (a) any Unrestricted Free Agent who acquired that status as a result of the NFL waiver system; (b) any Unrestricted Free Agent who was under contract to such Club on the last date of the last League Year of the
    player’s most recent Player contract; (c) any Unrestricted Free Agent signed pursuant to Section 4 below; and (d) any Unrestricted Free Agent as follows: (i) One such player for a Player Contract that has a first year Salary of $4,925,000 or more; and (ii) Any number of such players for a Player Contract that has a first year Salary of no more than $3,275,000 and an annual increase in any future contract years of no more than 30% of the first contract year Salary, not including any amount attributed to any signing bonus. In addition, each such Club and each such player entering into a Player Contract pursuant to this Subsection may not renegotiate to increase the amount of Salary to be paid during the term of the Player Contract for a period of one year after the signing date of such contract.

  37. superius says: Apr 4, 2009 4:42 PM

    Free market football would be fun, and would never look anything like baseball, more like college football with a bunch of USC and Texas and Florida power teams and a bunch of plucky Utah type teams that would get a chance to knock those suckers out in the big game for a change.

  38. Outsider says: Apr 4, 2009 4:44 PM

    Guberville Smack says:
    “I say we start by teaching them the overtime rules first.
    Then perhaps the laws of this country, like what a DUI is.
    Then, when they are ready to take their academics to the next level, they might learn finance. ”
    Omg! I haven’t laughed that hard ever reading a comment. That in so many ways is absolutely funny. Nice one.

  39. zertrat says: Apr 4, 2009 5:19 PM

    Beardown,
    Nice job. Thought provoking. To the extent that any of us wasting time on this site have real thoughts.

  40. datboy21 says: Apr 4, 2009 6:55 PM

    This is dan snyders dream

  41. Jesman says: Apr 4, 2009 9:42 PM

    “The owners have a lot more to lose than players do starting with the TV contracts. How long would it take some other group to replace the NFL owners if they shut it down?
    The players would not get drafted without a CBA. They would all be free agents, and if they sign a “contract” they would actually get all the money the team promised them. Sure some of them would ge less money, but generally you can command a higher price when you are allowed to sell to more than one customer.”
    That just isn’t true. The lack of a salary cap and a CBA doesn’t mean the total lack of rules. There will be a draft without a wage scale.

  42. SkinsFan says: Apr 5, 2009 12:46 AM

    tbtsm,
    I still have to disagree with you. The biggest error in your logic is that Smith gains from a lockout. There is no way he gains from a lockout! Anybody with half a brain knows the owners will be taking back some of the gains the union got during the last CBA, so no win there. If the players are locked out they will be missing their paychecks and since many of the players dont manage their finances well enough and live check-to-check the players will be voicing all kinds of disapproval with the lockout and demanding Smith settle quickly regardless of the terms. Sorry, I dont see how Smith wins from a lockout and I believe he knows it – remember he was the one who has been pushing to open up talks sooner rather than later – which is a change from Upshaw’s previous approach.
    I still have to say you are misreading the situation. And Smith has only been around for a month or so it was not under his watch that player’s were left so uninformed about the ramifications of the uncapped year.

  43. Eddie Drycleaner says: Apr 5, 2009 2:39 AM

    Leave it to a Cardinal to be the one who hilites the stupidity.
    Florio is the man. I heart the side he takes on this issue. But sadly, most people are uneducated and uninformed but at least they can’t say you didn’t tell ’em.
    War Florio family night on Saturday night. You’re a good family man to religiously take this time off for your family.
    At least that’s what I assume you’re doing. Otherwise, war promiscuous Florio?

  44. rlewis4242 says: Apr 5, 2009 3:08 AM

    The idea of the players outlasting the owners in a lockout is ridiculous. As another commenter pointed out, there are billionaires ‘amongst’ the owners, but even if most of the owners weren’t independently wealthy, the TV contracts (at least DirectTV), that some commentors claimed would be moved to new and wonderful startup leagues, are contractually obligated to continue payment during the lockout and can only get that money back in future NFL seasons. This builds in a vested interest for those networks to not allow another league to knock the NFL off as king of the hill (as if networks would pay NFL money to a new league anyway… at least not before players are fighting to keep the Ms. Pac-man machine; which I think is about 20 months). Of course.. there is all of the marketable non-football skills the players have to draw on. The fact is, the players past, present and future was and is dependent on the NFL.
    I doubt there will be a lockout, but if there is an uncapped season, that could generate some division within the ranks of the owners. Say there is an uncapped year, and the Cowboys and Redskins for example go spend $180 million dollars each. What happens when a new CBA gets negotiated and the new cap comes out at $140M?
    I suppose they could accelerate all of the bonuses to the uncapped year, but they will still have those players under contract at low base pay numbers. And if they all agree not to do that… won’t it come close to the collusion worries in the first few comments?
    That could make it difficult to agree on a new cap number, or even whether to have it or not if negotiations carry on through the uncapped year. Maybe that’s what Upshaw meant when he said if the cap goes, it’s not coming back (didn’t he say something like that?).

  45. PossibleCabbage says: Apr 5, 2009 3:38 AM

    I think another thing the players really need to realize is that if there’s no cap, there’s no significant penalty for cutting a veteran with a big contract who has underperformed that contract. Currently, the threat of a big cap hit dissuades teams from cutting disappointing veterans, but in an uncapped year? Probably the first thing every team is going to do is to cut everybody with a big contract who is either no longer worth it or has significantly underperformed it. The free agent market won’t be full of young guys(because they haven’t earned free agency yet) or superstars (because the additional tags will impede player movement), but it will be full of old guys that nobody wants.
    The only bad thing for the league that will come of this is that it’s amnesty for teams who have gotten themselves into trouble by managing the cap poorly.

  46. ralphie09 says: Apr 5, 2009 10:26 AM

    Trial lawyer wins job by talking the jury (aka player reps.) to vote for him…no football or labor experience, yet he wants a “war”. Has anyone ever heard of a trial lawyer not wanting a “war”?
    Nice job player reps.! Go on and keep listening to idiots like Foxworth and Vrabel! I have a feeling you are going to get your “war”.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!