Skip to content

Rockefeller statement could be precursor to Committee hearings

Jay Rockefeller

Well, it’s good to know I’m not the only guy from West Virginia who periodically becomes a pain in the NFL’s rear end.

Last week, Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-W. Va.) urged the NFL to open its books to the players.  Now, Rockefeller wants the NFL to leave its doors open, too.

And he still wants the league to open its books.

“A lockout is completely unnecessary,” Rockefeller said in a statement issued by the U.S. Committee on Science, Commerce, and Transportation.  “It has the potential to harm not just the players, the league and the fans, but all the Americans whose livelihoods depend on a football season.  We’re talking about thousands of jobs at stake: from jobs at concession and merchandise stands to hotel and retail sector jobs.

“Why should the workers who depend on these jobs pay the price of a bitter dispute between wealthy players and wealthier owners?

“I urge the NFL and the players to extend the deadline for their talks.  It’s not a heavy lift.  Both sides should be able to agree on at least this.  Keep talking.  Take a time-out, and let cooler heads prevail.  Then return to the table for negotiations and come to a resolution to break this impasse.

“I’m still disappointed that the league won’t simply open up its books so the players can get a clear picture of the finances of the entire NFL.  Transparency is always a good thing and corporate secrecy should not trump cooperation.”

For those of you who wonder why Rockefeller, who represents a constituency that hosts no pro football team, would be injecting himself into this dispute, the fact that the statement was issued by the Committee on Science, Commerce, and Transportation provides the answer.

The keys words are “Commerce” as in football has an important impact on it.  And “chairman” as in Rockefeller serves in that capacity.

Rockefeller’s statement, coming on the same day President Obama expressed a desire that the two sides get a deal done, represents a shot across the league’s bow — and a possible precursor to the holding of a hearing regarding the question of whether any specific legislation may be justified if a lockout is launched.

Again, whatever it takes.

Permalink 61 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories, Union
61 Responses to “Rockefeller statement could be precursor to Committee hearings”
  1. paulnoga says: Mar 3, 2011 4:46 PM

    I can’t wait to hear from Charlie Sheen about the work stoppage.

  2. jfluke65 says: Mar 3, 2011 4:46 PM

    Okay Senator. Transparency is such a good thing, you and all your brethren on the hill should open up all your financial info to us, the taxpayers. Go ahead, make a good example. No huh? Thought so.
    What other business is required to open its books to its employees?

  3. jeff061 says: Mar 3, 2011 4:47 PM

    Let hope these idiots in DC focus on the debt, oil/gas prices, the economy, soldiers dying abroad…and the rest. They don’t have time to take up the NFL – come on!

  4. bleedsoe9mm says: Mar 3, 2011 4:47 PM

    the owners are unamerican

  5. dukemarc says: Mar 3, 2011 4:51 PM

    While I don’t disagree completely with his assessment of the sitiatuion, if this joker brings this into Washington, he should be recalled at the next possible time. He and the rest of the politicians in DC have far more important things to worry about than a Professional Sport’s labor situation.

  6. odessabucs says: Mar 3, 2011 4:53 PM

    Just another example of the nanny state federal government putting its nose where it doesn’t belong. The Founders would not approve.

  7. hobartbaker says: Mar 3, 2011 4:53 PM

    With nothing much happenin’ in West Virginia, Jay decided to start pitchin’ some rocks at the passing out of town cars. Idle hands are the Devil’s plaything.

  8. laeaglefan says: Mar 3, 2011 4:55 PM

    I can’t wait to hear from Lindsay Lohan regarding a possible work stoppage. Oh wait…she and Charlie Sheen are busy partying together.

  9. manderson367 says: Mar 3, 2011 4:58 PM

    Congress has about as much right getting involved in the NFL as they do telling us we have to buy Health insurance. Oh…wait…

  10. bluvayner says: Mar 3, 2011 5:00 PM

    Arland Specter got voted out of office, but there is always another idiot waiting in the wings.

    Win the war, defeat terrorism, and fix the economy, before you waste time grandstanding for the cameras, about issues that really aren’t your concern.

  11. Canyonero says: Mar 3, 2011 5:00 PM

    Rockefeller wants to shut down MSNBC and Fox News. Meanwhile his wife is on the board of directors for PBS. No conflict of interest there, no no.

    Go back to sleep, America, the government is in charge.

  12. lifelong says: Mar 3, 2011 5:01 PM

    jfluke65:
    Here’s a link to Senator Rockefeller’s personal financial disclosure reports, which he is mandated by law to submit:
    http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/candlook.php?CID=N00001685

    Any other questions?

  13. skylark70455 says: Mar 3, 2011 5:02 PM

    jeff061 says: “Let hope these idiots in DC focus on the debt, oil/gas prices, the economy, soldiers dying abroad…and the rest. ”

    They have! How did you think those things got so screwed up? But of course as President Cab Doors would have you believe… it would have been a lot worse than it is – without his laser-like focus on those issues. Ha!

    Now with Jay “my family has so much money I just buy a senate seat in West Virginia every six years” Rockefeller and President Cab Doors involved… we may see NFL football again in 2030! Hooray!!! Undoubtedly, they will claim it would have been 2050 without their involvement. :)

  14. realitypolice says: Mar 3, 2011 5:03 PM

    “Why should the workers who depend on these jobs pay the price of a bitter dispute between wealthy players and wealthier owners?
    ======================

    Why? Because that’s the way a free market economy works. When you hitch your wagon to an enterprise, your financial well being is tied to the fortunes of that enterprise.

    No one guaranteed these people a never ending, uninterrupted flow of income for the rest of their lives.

    If these people felt otherwise and didn’t realize that their income was tied to labor peace in the league, that is on them. This certainly isn’t the first time their has been discord between owners and players in the NFL.

    For a free market economy to succeed, these disputes need to work themselves out organically, through collective bargaining. If the government somehow gets involved and forces an agreement down their throats (and I am not even sure how that would legally happen) it will only throw a wrench in the system.

    Like the wrench that the stimulus bill threw into the system. Looks good now, but when the money and projects dry up, the displaced workers dumped back into the system will make things worse than where we started.

  15. citizenstrange says: Mar 3, 2011 5:03 PM

    Because if the NFL owners opened their books everyone would see the jaw-dropping profits and it would really seem just flat out evil and greedy to use taxpayer money to build stadiums for billionaires.

  16. frankvzappa says: Mar 3, 2011 5:05 PM

    every Rockefeller should be sent on that one-way trip to Mars that NASA wants to do…

  17. dgtalmn says: Mar 3, 2011 5:06 PM

    jfluke65 – any business that is public (on the stock exchange) opens their books to the public every quarter. Now I do understand that teams are not public, except the Packers, and that is why that is the only one they get to look at..

    But I do agree, the players need to drop this requirement because they are never going to do it unless the Feds require them.

    Let’s just play football and get this done.

  18. smacklayer says: Mar 3, 2011 5:07 PM

    Senetor Rockafeller, with all due respect, the NFL is under no obligation to open it’s books any more than you are obligated to open your private finances to the public. This is a private company negotiating with its at will employees. Suggesting they need to open their books should have no other impact exept for the union to use it against the NFL and would serve no other purpose.

    Further, yes if the league were to lockout it would impact many people and their jobs. However that does not mean that the owners and investors in this private company should have their hands tied in negotiating. Perhaps you should suggest that the NLFPA and the players will spend 59.6% of their profits to employ these people during a lockout. I am sure that 50.6% of Tom Brady’s salary last year could employ a few hundred janitors and concession workings at Gillette Stadium.

  19. dryzzt23 says: Mar 3, 2011 5:08 PM

    Since when do democrats know anything about how to run a business?

    They are the same people who have ran our country into the ground.

  20. hobartbaker says: Mar 3, 2011 5:08 PM

    Jay forgot to ridicule them for being “millionaires” and “billionaires”.

  21. jimmylions says: Mar 3, 2011 5:10 PM

    The issue is cities creating an economic structure that allows an NFL strike to have such a big impact. When the NFL demands a free stadium from taxpayers, the taxpayers should demand strike insurance for the impacted businesses from the NFL.

    This whole issue of millionaires fighting with billionaires is what turned me off of baseball.

  22. screevo says: Mar 3, 2011 5:11 PM

    Hey JFluke65, congressmen DO have to “open their books”. Look into financial disclosure for elected representatives. They all have to file their tax documents publically.

  23. Rhode Island Patriots Fan says: Mar 3, 2011 5:14 PM

    As a Republican—yes, there are a handful of us in the Ocean State, I’m confident in predicting that the Republican-controlled U.S. House will NOT touch this labor dispute with a ten foot pole.

  24. bunjy96 says: Mar 3, 2011 5:14 PM

    Let Rockefeller worry about West Virginia and its serious problems.

    No one has done anything for them in a hundred years or more. One of the most poverty strickin states in the union.

    Fed govt has no business in private business affairs.

  25. catman72 says: Mar 3, 2011 5:17 PM

    Good, we’re in a recession – we can’t afford to have a bunch of billionaires vs. millionaires cost us more jobs while they squabble over who gets a slightly bigger chunk of 9 billion dollars…

  26. smacklayer says: Mar 3, 2011 5:17 PM

    “A lockout is completely unnecessary,” Rockefeller said in a statement

    Who died and made this guy king of NFL negotiations. Maybe unecessary from your point of view, but perhaps completely necessary from an owners point of view. Just because you say it doesn’t make it true.

  27. 44kyle says: Mar 3, 2011 5:19 PM

    The real point of all this is the implied threat of serious consequences (especially to the owners) if the sides fail to come to terms. The NFL depends heavily on the Fed’s good will to allow it to conduct business the way it does. One of the items at risk for them is the public funding of stadiums, another is anti-trust exemption. P…ing off the feds is like inviting an IRS audit.
    I think that the players have an unspoken incentive to please the Feds. The vast majority of players are black and having a black man in the White House is so momentous (rightfully) to them that I feel they will want his approval. (Not talking politics here, whether Obama is a good POTUS or not). One of the most respected owners is Dan Rooney, who is Obama’s ambassador to Ireland. Stuff like this helps get things worked out. (I hope)

  28. mrf47 says: Mar 3, 2011 5:19 PM

    If the owners feel as if they can’t make enough money with the current situation, they should simply sell their businesses.

  29. mick730 says: Mar 3, 2011 5:25 PM

    “Well, it’s good to know I’m not the only guy from West Virginia who periodically becomes a pain in the NFL’s rear end.”

    The owner of this site greatly over estimates his own importance. Typical lawyer. As for Rockefeller, him taking a shot at wealthy owners and wealthy players is really rich.

    How does he think he got where he is today? Hard work? Right.

  30. janvanflac says: Mar 3, 2011 5:26 PM

    I have no sympathy for the owners, they are all billionaires most of whom get huge taxpayer subsidies for their stadiums.

    The players on the other hand get paid well but it’s chump change compared to the owners and most of them sacrifice their health and years off of their life expectancy. Under no circumstances should the owners be allowed to lock out the players.

  31. islandjag says: Mar 3, 2011 5:29 PM

    yeah i’d like to what pft is making from sprint, the nfl, travelocity and nbc

  32. skeletaldrawing says: Mar 3, 2011 5:34 PM

    jfluke, any publicly traded corporation opens its books to everyone by law. So it’s not like this is some sort of weird and taboo request. Sure, all of the NFL teams aside from the Packers are privately owned, but as far as I’m concerned it’s simple:

    If you take tax dollars in huge chunks, threaten to harm the public interest with a lockout, and claim you are only doing it because you are going broke, you’d darn well better be willing to back up that claim, or people are going to start calling bullpucky.

  33. tombrookshire says: Mar 3, 2011 5:43 PM

    Is the NFL the only major corporation left that politicians feel they can still push around? Even Obama is wanting to weigh in. His In Box must be empty!

  34. sbakernc says: Mar 3, 2011 5:44 PM

    I love these guys who trot out the owner’s talking point of “What other business is required to open their books, blah, blah, blah”. The NFL operates in a highly protected and unique business environment. If you don’t believe me, try hanging out your shingle to hire skilled football players and try scheduling other NFL teams to play. Oh, yeah, taxpayers in NFL cities have financed some of these “private business” facilities.
    Trying to make apples-to-apples comparisons with other businesses is ridiculous. The fact is is that there is a compelling public interest in getting this dispute resolved. There are plenty of business leaders who embrace full transparency when dealing with their labor or supplier partners.
    A lot of these owners are the first ones to congratulate themselves for being such successful capitalists, but then they want to blame “unforeseen economic circumstances” when things go south.
    The bottom line is that if you own one of 32 NFL franchises in the world, AND you can’t seem to make a reasonable profit, THEN you need to sell your franchise to someone who is little smarter than you.

  35. dryzzt23 says: Mar 3, 2011 5:45 PM

    This is classic “let the inmates run the asylum” kind of situation

    No business should be forced to open its books to its employees, but the liberal media and their union investors are all about “transparency”…..except when it comes to government

    Funny, but the same people who are demanding “transparency” are the same people who are against the Arizona immigration law where possible illegal immigrants must prove they are here legally by showing valid U.S. identification

    what a bunch of liberal hypocrites

  36. stephen02120 says: Mar 3, 2011 5:49 PM

    “Okay Senator. Transparency is such a good thing, you and all your brethren on the hill should open up all your financial info to us, the taxpayers. Go ahead, make a good example. No huh? Thought so.”

    Since when is this country’s budget a secret? A simple Google search of “Budget of the U.S. Government” will provide you with plenty of reading material.

  37. nineleveninsidejob says: Mar 3, 2011 6:06 PM

    The Rockefeller family is the most evil family in all of America! Why don’t you people care!?

  38. wvuandsteelers says: Mar 3, 2011 6:08 PM

    I am also originally from West Virginia and think Rockefeller just needs to shut the hell up. I mean, has West Virginia improved at all since he was governor or senator? No. So, unless you want the NFL to be like West Virginia, keep him away from it.

  39. commandercornpone says: Mar 3, 2011 6:16 PM

    huh?

    now that obama, he’s a freakin foreigner

  40. stanklepoot says: Mar 3, 2011 6:17 PM

    jfluke65 says: Mar 3, 2011 4:46 PM

    Okay Senator. Transparency is such a good thing, you and all your brethren on the hill should open up all your financial info to us, the taxpayers. Go ahead, make a good example. No huh? Thought so.
    What other business is required to open its books to its employees?
    ______________________
    Actually, the politicians beat you to that by quite a bit. Their detailed financial info (which includes all sources of income, and excludes only personal info), and in some cases tax returns, are already public record. You simply have to look for it. try googling something like senator jay rockefeller personal financial information, and look through the results. You’ll find all kinds of financial info about him and his wife. Next time it might be better to see what info is readily available before acting like you’re catching someone in an act of hypocrisy.

  41. sdboltaction says: Mar 3, 2011 6:24 PM

    Who cares what this new world order illuminati has to say.

  42. jethro007 says: Mar 3, 2011 6:24 PM

    You flatter yourself!

  43. joetoronto says: Mar 3, 2011 6:27 PM

    You want to know about the Rockefeller’s?

    Go to YouTube and search “Arron Russo Rockefeller”, but be prepared, you might not like what you see and hear.

  44. stanklepoot says: Mar 3, 2011 6:55 PM

    realitypolice says: Mar 3, 2011 5:03 PM

    “Why should the workers who depend on these jobs pay the price of a bitter dispute between wealthy players and wealthier owners?
    ======================

    Why? Because that’s the way a free market economy works. When you hitch your wagon to an enterprise, your financial well being is tied to the fortunes of that enterprise.

    No one guaranteed these people a never ending, uninterrupted flow of income for the rest of their lives.

    If these people felt otherwise and didn’t realize that their income was tied to labor peace in the league, that is on them. This certainly isn’t the first time their has been discord between owners and players in the NFL.

    For a free market economy to succeed, these disputes need to work themselves out organically, through collective bargaining. If the government somehow gets involved and forces an agreement down their throats (and I am not even sure how that would legally happen) it will only throw a wrench in the system.

    Like the wrench that the stimulus bill threw into the system. Looks good now, but when the money and projects dry up, the displaced workers dumped back into the system will make things worse than where we started.
    _______________________
    One problem with your argument. We’re not talking about a free market here. The NFL has already been ruled to be a monopoly in more than one court case, and monopolies are counter to free markets. The key factor to a free market is easy entrance and exit to the market. This creates a high degree of competitiveness which pushes the market operators to function at a high degree of efficiency. Efficiency is good for the company and the economy, as it makes the best use of limited resources. That’s why efficiency is the holy grail of economics. In the case of a monopoly, however, there are significant barriers to entering a market. This means that there is no real competition and companies operate in an inefficient manner that create excess profits for the company at the cost of negative externalities. In other words, the companies receive higher than normal profits because others are forced to pay many of the hidden costs of their inefficiency. That is why monopolies are almost always either broken up or regulated. They are not an example of the greatness of the free market, they are a threat to it.

  45. stanklepoot says: Mar 3, 2011 7:03 PM

    Rhode Island Patriots Fan says: Mar 3, 2011 5:14 PM

    As a Republican—yes, there are a handful of us in the Ocean State, I’m confident in predicting that the Republican-controlled U.S. House will NOT touch this labor dispute with a ten foot pole.
    _______________________
    I’m sure you’re right about that. then again, the Republicans also slashed oversight of things like mines and oil wells. Look how well that turned out. Corporations care only about their own profitability, which is fine. the problem comes when their profit imposes costs on the rest of us. In those cases, the government which represents the rest of us, has the duty to see to it that we don’t suffer due to their actions, or if we do that we are made whole.

  46. feloniusfarter says: Mar 3, 2011 7:10 PM

    60% of West Virginans are playing hide the sausage with blood relatives and this guy is worried about the NFL?

  47. nineleveninsidejob says: Mar 3, 2011 7:15 PM

    “Go to YouTube and search “Arron Russo Rockefeller”, but be prepared, you might not like what you see and hear.” <– darn right, learn some reality, people!

  48. ppdoc13 says: Mar 3, 2011 7:30 PM

    The freaking Democrats and their Socialist President have this country on the brink of insolvency and this moron is worried about the NFL?

    Jay you dumbass miscreant – worry about jobs, tax reform, and fixing this idiotic heath care bill that threatens the entire health care industry. You bloody jackasses rammed the bill down the country’s collective throat with no bipartisan support. It was the first major piece of social legislation (read: entitlement program) that had not one whiff of bipartisanship about it. You have borrowed so much money to grease your buddies that our great grandchildren will grown up in a much different world than we. And you are worried about an argument between millionaires and billionaires?

    Sure glad the people of West Virginia pay your salary and not us idiots in Maryland. I mean we have Mikulski and Cardin…. wait a minute…. forget that point.

    Just do your damned job and stop wasting time and grandstanding about crap that is meaningless in the grand scheme of things for our country.

  49. jfluke65 says: Mar 3, 2011 7:31 PM

    lifelong says:
    Mar 3, 2011 5:01 PM
    jfluke65:
    Here’s a link to Senator Rockefeller’s personal financial disclosure reports, which he is mandated by law to submit:
    http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/candlook.php?CID=N00001685

    Any other questions?

    Yeah, did you even look at it? Net worth estimate with a $65 million range.
    How is any of that different from what NFL teams already put out. Their net worth is readily available.

    And he has no income? Really?

  50. 3octaveFart says: Mar 3, 2011 7:43 PM

    dryzzt23 says: Mar 3, 2011 5:08 PM

    “Since when do democrats know anything about how to run a business?”

    Here you go, have some entertaining and enlightening reading material:

    The Failed Corporate Record of George W. Bush

    / You’re welcome.

  51. jfluke65 says: Mar 3, 2011 7:44 PM

    For everyone pointing out that publicly traded businesses have to open their books, it’s a non point, so why mention it?
    Just name 1 privately owned business that has to share financial info with employees.

  52. mediasloppy says: Mar 3, 2011 7:49 PM

    What a bunch of trash talking. The guy just told the truth. If Americans actually saw how much control “The free market” uses the Government as tools and viewers as fools you might wake up.

    —–
    “nineeleveninsidejob”

    “Go to YouTube and search “Arron Russo Rockefeller”, but be prepared, you might not like what you see and hear.” <– darn right, learn some reality, people!
    —–

    You lost credibility by your name Now go spank the monkey while listening to Alex Jones.

  53. realitypolice says: Mar 3, 2011 7:57 PM

    @stanklepoot:

    Well put, and I agree with your concepts.

    But you misunderstood my main point. I wasn’t referring to the league and the players, I was specifically referring to the “pilot fish” businesses- the bars in the shadow of the stadium, the concession workers, apparel companies,etc.

    In other words, companies and individuals who attach their financial viability in an direct, but non-contractual way to a corporation, or corporations, to which they are not legally connected and have no influence over.

    The Senator seemed to indicate that these businesses had some innate right to continued revenues ad infinitum.

    But to be clear, I am down 100% with your Anti-Trust arguments, and I can see where my argument got a little off the tracks and seemed to indicate I didn’t view the league as you do.

    Well said.

  54. oldhamletman says: Mar 3, 2011 9:21 PM

    this is a major warning and an outright threat…. the league has some serious pressure now, but there could be some very uncomfortable player fall out too…

    both sides better see the gravity of this quick…

    in one day commerce and potus came out in public already briefed on the subject… watch the f out….

  55. beerndonuts says: Mar 3, 2011 9:24 PM

    Why has the idea of ‘opening the books’ become so complicated?

    Here’s the short version:

    The owners don’t have to…
    The owners don’t want to…
    The books will remain closed.

    That’s the end of that negotiating point.

  56. FoozieGrooler says: Mar 3, 2011 10:18 PM

    beerndonuts says:
    Mar 3, 2011 9:24 PM
    “Why has the idea of ‘opening the books’ become so complicated?
    The owners don’t have to…
    The owners don’t want to…”

    You’re right, they don’t have to.
    But if they refuse, their claim of diminishing revenues remains, just a claim.

    I’d imagine it’s hard to bargain in good faith on a “because we said so” basis.

  57. mediasloppy says: Mar 3, 2011 10:24 PM

    Clearly there is NO TRUST at all by the players to the owners. He’s simply saying if both parties had a clear vision of what the profit sharing is the faster an agreement can be put together.

  58. stanklepoot says: Mar 3, 2011 10:42 PM

    jfluke65 says: Mar 3, 2011 7:44 PM

    For everyone pointing out that publicly traded businesses have to open their books, it’s a non point, so why mention it?
    Just name 1 privately owned business that has to share financial info with employees.
    _____________________
    I get your point, but name me one either non-traded company who owes other parties a large share of the revenue it generates? Not talking about simply having high labor costs, I’m talking about contractual agreements where the pay is a percentage of the revenue itself. That’s what we have with the NFL. Now, given that this is the case, why should the players give up any of the claim that they have on league revenue without the owners demonstrating that it’s in the best interest of the league as a whole for them to do so? The only way for them to demonstrate that is to open up the books to them. I really don’t care if they open up the books to anyone else. The players have already agreed to give the owners $1 billion in credits (money taken off the top before the revenue is shared) to help cover the overhead of league expenses and subsidize stadium construction. If they want them to agree to a doubling of these credits they should be willing to demonstrate to the players why such an increase is necessary.

  59. stanklepoot says: Mar 3, 2011 10:53 PM

    @reality police,
    Just to be clear, I wasn’t challenging the main point of your initial post. While the loss in revenue in the event of a work stoppage to those whose livelihoods are linked to the NFL would be tragic, the NFL is under no obligation to continue to serve as a source of revenue for them. My comment was simply to point out that referring to monopolies as a typical free market example is problematic at best. So, I agree with your actual argument, but had a problem with the terminology you used I guess.

    While one could argue that the fact that the NFL’s infrastructure is so heavily subsidized by state and local governments means that they have a greater degree of responsibility to those communities, my view is that this would only be the case if those subsidies came with such strings explicitly attached to them. As a tax payer I’d like to see that happen actually, but unless it does, then they have no such responsibility.

  60. wallyhorse says: Mar 3, 2011 10:59 PM

    While some think that that representatives should focus more on much more important things (i.e.: the economy), a lot of people don’t realize that the NFL is such an 800-pound gorilla in sports that there is a lot more at stake than just the season. There are many jobs directly related to NFL games you might not think are like those who work in hotels and the like who will be feeling a lot of pain (not to mention layoffs) if there is no football in the fall. For many of them, that’s money they will never get back no matter when a settlement happens, and that’s why Mr. Rockerfeller is doing this.

  61. tominma says: Mar 4, 2011 3:43 PM

    WOW!! You right wing waackos are trying to infect everything……. even sports! Well, then: Let’s have a Senate hearing on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ hiding $700K that his wife made working for conservative groups that are favoring things that come before the Supreme Court! NO?? Uh huh!!

    Let’s just keep in at sports! Vick doesnt have to do an interview if he doesnt want to. I was a Vick hater when at that crap came down. But, it seems he’s turned himself around both personally and with football. Let it be!

Leave a Reply

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