Skip to content

Cornelius Bennett implores owners to lift lockout

CorneliusBennettGetty Getty Images

Though we’ve yet to see the full agenda for this week’s ownership meetings in Indianapolis, we assume that the list of things to discuss doesn’t include a discussion of whether the lockout will unilaterally be lifted.

Former NFL linebacker Cornelius Bennett, who now serves as the NFLPA* Former Players Board of Directors, has requested just that in a letter to the editor posted over the weekend by the Buffalo News.

Bennett offers no specific reasoning for wanting the lockout to end, other than the general notion that the lockout keeps football from the fans of Buffalo, the site of Bennett’s most significant exploits in pro football.  But did Bennett feel that way in 1987, when as a rookie member of the Bills he and the rest of the league’s players went on strike, wiping out a Sunday and Monday of football and ultimately subjecting fans to three weeks of Shane Falco and his not-quite-good-enough-for-the-NFL colleagues?

Bennett’s column also fails to point out that he’s a partisan in this fight, working for the NFLPA* and thus the interests of retired players as perceived and shaped by the NFLPA*.

In the end, Bennett’s item represents nothing more than an effort to tilt public opinion in Buffalo toward the players.  And thus we’ll say once more what we’ve said several times — if only the NFL and the NFLPA* would spend as much time negotiating as they do trying to secure the favor of the fans, the lockout would be solved by now.

Permalink 41 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Buffalo Bills, Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories, Union
41 Responses to “Cornelius Bennett implores owners to lift lockout”
  1. redrew says: May 23, 2011 9:32 AM

    Bigger question: Why haven’t owners like Kraft returned the tens of millions they took in selling playoff tickets to the AFC Championship game, a game they never advanced to. Just another example of the greed of ownership and total disdain for the fans. It’s criminal that the Patriots have yet to refund playoff purchases 4 months later

  2. chapnastier says: May 23, 2011 9:36 AM

    Wow, critical of a player? Well done!

  3. descendency says: May 23, 2011 9:41 AM

    Dear NFL Owners,

    Yes… please give us a medium for attacking you with anti-trust violations.

    Signed,

    The NFLPA*

  4. PFTiswhatitis says: May 23, 2011 9:49 AM

    @redrew: teams typically put missed playoff ticket payments on account for the following year. You can get it back if you do not renew. Its not like they kept the money and are not giving it back. please stop your whining about such trivial matters.

  5. jlinatl says: May 23, 2011 9:49 AM

    I may not agree with his stance, but there are 2 issues with your “stance”:

    1. Every letter to the Editor is an attempt to sway public opinion;

    2. It is the paper that should be called out for not noting that Bennett is partison;

    but at the end of the day, who cares? How many people are really going to change their mind as to how they feel about the issue?

  6. davein221 says: May 23, 2011 9:57 AM

    Bennett held out from the Colts who drafted him in 1987 and wasn’t acquired by the Bills until October, after the strike was over, so the shot is a little unwarranted. Having said that, shut up, Biscuit.

  7. phinheads says: May 23, 2011 9:57 AM

    THE PATS HAVEN’T REFUNDED MONEY PAID FOR A P-OFF GAME THAT NEVER TOOK PLACE? 4 MONTHS LATER?

    How does THAT not make the headlines during a time in which so many are struggling? Oh wait, the fans who bought the tickets must have so much money that they don’t need the money back right away. As the Krafts collect the interest. THIS SHOULD BE ON THE NEWS. SHAME SHAME SHAME

  8. commoncents says: May 23, 2011 10:01 AM

    Why don’t you speak to the PA leadership about negotiating? Now that the PA leverage is slipping, we get begging.? Negotiate PA, and stop acting like 7 year old girls!!

  9. bunjy96 says: May 23, 2011 10:03 AM

    redrew says: May 23, 2011 9:32 AM

    Bigger question: Why haven’t owners like Kraft returned the tens of millions they took in selling playoff tickets to the AFC Championship game, a game they never advanced to. Just another example of the greed of ownership and total disdain for the fans. It’s criminal that the Patriots have yet to refund playoff purchases 4 months later.

    ***********************************
    Tens of millions? Where did you come up with that number?

    FWIW, when playoff tickets are sold and there is no game, there are 2 options (A) deduct the price from the following years tickets or (B) send a written request for a refund.

    Which category are you in? If any. Or are you just railing for the sake of railing against the Pats or the whole league in general?

    Ignorant post.

  10. saberstud75 says: May 23, 2011 10:11 AM

    I have no sympathy for the players, none. They knew for years this could happen. If the NFLPA was serious about striking a deal they could counter one of the two offers the league has offered.

  11. TIM says: May 23, 2011 10:18 AM

    Remember MrBennet,that there was NO lockout until the players walked out of perfectly productive negotiations where the owners had just made several concessions in their latest offer to the players. Then the union used the decertification sham and then went to court to sue their employers !!!
    Then,like any reasonable employer,the owners locked the employees who are sueing them out of their places of business until the court cases are settled(or until Smith comes to his senses and decides to get back to the bargaing table and discard his failed litigation strategy).
    So,in reality the players went on strike against negotiating and then the owners locked them out as a defensive measure to protect themselves from having employees sueing them and also being paid and on their private property at the same time they are attacking the owners business.
    The owners have been very consistent,they have said from day one that all they wanted was a fair renegotiation of the last CBA,which everyone agrees was not fair to the owners.
    Maybe the Ambulance chaser will finally come to his senses,but we know Smith is not an NFL man and all he really knows is taking his opponents to court,not how to fairly negotiate. Now that he has miserably failed the players with his poor stradegy maybe he will step back and let someone who knows how to negotiate a tough but fair deal take the lead? If not the players should fire their failed leader and get an NFL veteran leader who can negotiate with their employers for them.

    From day one when the owners opted out of the horrible deal they
    accepted a few year ago,as everyone knew they had to do,everyone with a brain knew the owner would get a bigger piece of the pie when the smoke cleared,it was just a matter of how much bigger the owners piece would be.
    The owners made some pretty good concessions about 2 Months ago but Smith wouldn’t even allow one try at counter offers to keep the negotiations active. If Smith wasn’t JUST a Ambulance chasing litigator and really was a representative of his players he could have had a good deal done as long as two Months ago.
    Maybe the players will pressure him to do his job now ,or better yet fire him and move forward with someone with less of an ego,who will keep the players needs in mind and not his own ??

  12. jimmysee says: May 23, 2011 10:21 AM

    phinheads says:
    May 23, 2011 9:57 AM
    THE PATS HAVEN’T REFUNDED MONEY PAID FOR A P-OFF GAME THAT NEVER TOOK PLACE? 4 MONTHS LATER?

    How does THAT not make the headlines during a time in which so many are struggling? Oh wait, the fans who bought the tickets must have so much money that they don’t need the money back right away. As the Krafts collect the interest. THIS SHOULD BE ON THE NEWS. SHAME SHAME SHAME

    ————————————————————-

    Excuse me.

    What interest?

    Do you have a savings account?

    These days there’s no interest to be had.

  13. commoncents says: May 23, 2011 10:28 AM

    De-Wad has been in this position before. He’s ok with getting crushed in court, so long as somebody tells him to drop his pants and bend over.

  14. leib15 says: May 23, 2011 10:32 AM

    This has become such a joke! Instead of pleading to the owners Mr. Bennet, get your own act together. This is just another example of the NFLPA portraying themselves as the victim, as in only the owners can end this mess. If the players were serious about ending the lockout, why is that they have been willing to make ZERO concessions?! Every day we have to sit through another current or former player lecturing us about how greedy Roger Godell and the NFL are, and how all the players can’t wait to get back on the field, but the owners won’t let them. In reality though what the NFLPA/DeMaurice really wants is ultimate control of the league, what they really need is some leadership.

  15. chapnastier says: May 23, 2011 10:35 AM

    Another question…. why doesn’t he urge the players to drop the suit, become a union again (laugh) and get back to negotiating? Or why doesn’t he question the NFLPA* for not counter offering a proposal that actually increased benefits for retired players like him?

  16. robf2010 says: May 23, 2011 10:42 AM

    ALL 32 owners are in Indianapolis today for meetings. Too much to ask they set aside some time to talk to player reps while ALL 32 are in one place? Is either side serious about coming to an agreement?

  17. endzonezombie says: May 23, 2011 10:45 AM

    The obvious partisan stance of this site is to end the lockout so PFT can conduct its normal business of criticizing players on the field. This site has to be frustrated that more players are not arrested to create more questionable news to post. Meanwhile, Buffalo needs the lockout to end before its fans forget that football even exists.

  18. seabike1234 says: May 23, 2011 10:46 AM

    Fans pay for cable TV to watch NFL games. But when the team blacks out the game because it is not sold out is there a refund?

    I understand it is not much $ to each cable customer but the total is significant. Trust me, the owners still get paid by the cable company for a service they deny their fans who can’t afford the high priced tickets.

    Owners fleece at every opportunity, tickets, cable, taxes – you name it.

  19. harleyrider1973 says: May 23, 2011 10:46 AM

    Why doesn’t Bennett send a letter to the NFLPA* and ask them to respond to one of the two offers that were on the table and start NEGOTIATING?

  20. willycents says: May 23, 2011 11:12 AM

    robf2010 says:May 23, 2011 10:42 AM

    ALL 32 owners are in Indianapolis today for meetings. Too much to ask they set aside some time to talk to player reps while ALL 32 are in one place? Is either side serious about coming to an agreement?
    ———————————————–

    There are no player reps to talk to since there is no union. They could only meet with individual players to discuss each players individual concerns. That is why there are no negotiations….no one to negotiate with representing the players.
    I suggest that the players/supporters posting here explain precisely who represents the players to negotiate a new CBA so football can return. Or, even suggest a new agreement.
    Oh, excuse me, did they not know that would be the result of de-certification?

  21. robf2010 says: May 23, 2011 12:02 PM

    “There are no player reps to talk to since there is no union. They could only meet with individual players to discuss each players individual concerns.”

    Same as the owners. Individuals meeting with individuals. The players show up at those fiasco meetings with full authority to say yes or no to a deal. The owners have four or five show up, none of them with authority to make a deal. The owners didn’t back out of the CBA with the intention of making a deal. They didn’t take out insurance in case of a lockout with the intention of making a deal. They wanted a fight. They got one. Now, both sides are dug in looking for a decisive win, which is the last thing the fans need.

  22. willycents says: May 23, 2011 12:22 PM

    @ rob

    There is a significant difference between settling a lawsuit and negotiating a contract. Any settlement of the lawsuit will benefit the named plaintiffs/defendents. To be translated into a CBA, it must be approved by the NFLPA, by vote of all members. There is no such organization any more, hence, no way to get it approved.

    The solution to that impass is for the union to withdraw its “disclaimer of interest” to the NLRB, prior to the vote. So, why don’t the union withdraw it now so meaningful negotiations can start?
    And, furthermore, suppose there is a settlement to the lawsuit agreed to, and the vote comes out negative by the re-certified NFLPA? Then the NFLPA de-certifies again to further litigate?
    I feel that the rank and file players did not fully understand the possible consequences of their de-certification actions. Such consequences being the lock-out now in progress, and the possible shut down of the league pending new operating entity/rules.

  23. robf2010 says: May 23, 2011 12:42 PM

    “The solution to that impass is for the union to withdraw its “disclaimer of interest” to the NLRB, prior to the vote. So, why don’t the union withdraw it now so meaningful negotiations can start?”

    If that was a real concern of any kind, would the court have ordered mediation? Negotiations can resume at any time. A deal can be struck at any time. Neither side wants to until the lawsuit is resolved.

  24. fwippel says: May 23, 2011 12:45 PM

    Sorry, Mr. Bennett, but this is shallow on your part. You (and the players) cannot have it both ways.

    The NFLPA agreed to a provision in the 2006 CBA which allowed the owners to opt out of that CBA if they so chose. Well, all 32 owners voted to do just that.

    If the players union has a right to strike (force a work-stoppage) in order to get a better deal, then the owners should have equal leverage. That leverage is a lockout (work stoppage). To see the NFLPA try that sham decertification in order to skirt that lockout was a cheap gimmick.

    The players can’t have it both ways. On the one hand, the NFLPA asks the courts to end the lockout, thereby forcing the owners back into the agreement that the players gave them the right to opt out of. On the other hand, the NFLPA Trade association is asking the court to reinstate an agreement with an entity (the NFL Players Union) that no longer exists. That’s completely illogical.

    You want to end the lock, Mr. Bennett? Get Demaurice Smith out of the courtroom, and back to the bargaining table. The courts should NOT be deciding this issue, and its the NFLPA which is forcing the issue in court. When the NFLPA shows more interest in reaching a new agreement than in suing the owners, maybe some progress will be made.

  25. tommyf15 says: May 23, 2011 12:46 PM

    In the end, Bennett’s item represents nothing more than an effort to tilt public opinion in Buffalo toward the players. And thus we’ll say once more what we’ve said several times — if only the NFL and the NFLPA* would spend as much time negotiating as they do trying to secure the favor of the fans, the lockout would be solved by now.

    What an absurd statement.

    For one, the lockout wouldn’t exist if the Owner’s Union didn’t impose it.

    Secondly, the labor strife isn’t ongoing due to a lack of effort on either side but rather, a lack of agreement. The owners want a salary cap and an extra billion, and the players want a free market system.

  26. southmo says: May 23, 2011 12:51 PM

    Cornelius… Since you’re with the union, how about a counter-proposal???

    Just sayin.

  27. tripg says: May 23, 2011 12:59 PM

    The owners greed will destroy the NFL. Watching football on Sunday is a luxury I can live without. I’ll watch the college games on Saturday and move on. I gave up on MLB in the 90’s. I can just as easily give up on the NFL.

  28. leib15 says: May 23, 2011 1:19 PM

    @tommyf15
    “The owners want a salary cap and an extra billion, and the players want a free market system”.
    ____________________________________
    Last time I checked a “free market system” included the right of owners to pay their employees the amount they determine to be fair/profitable.

  29. eagleswin says: May 23, 2011 1:25 PM

    robf2010 says:May 23, 2011 12:02 PM

    Same as the owners. Individuals meeting with individuals. The players show up at those fiasco meetings with full authority to say yes or no to a deal. The owners have four or five show up, none of them with authority to make a deal. The owners didn’t back out of the CBA with the intention of making a deal. They didn’t take out insurance in case of a lockout with the intention of making a deal. They wanted a fight. They got one. Now, both sides are dug in looking for a decisive win, which is the last thing the fans need.

    ————————–

    I’m going to stop you right there. You are grossly misrepresenting the facts.

    The owners never all sit in on negotiations. Any agreement would need 75% (I think) of the owners to approve and that has always happened away from the negotiating room. There is nothing wrong with reaching a tentative deal pending full approval. That’s the way it is usually done.

    Also, even if the players had approved a deal, it would still have to be approved by a simple majority in the union so the whole “full authority” thing is another red herring.

    The players made way to big a deal out of standard operating procedure. It get’s people like you to focus on procedure instead of asking them what their part what is in the failed negotiations. Slight of hand.

    There’s a difference in preparing for a fight and wanting a fight. When you look at which side has spewed the most hatred and been the least compromising, I think you’ll see which side wanted a fight.

  30. willycents says: May 23, 2011 1:35 PM

    @ tommyf15

    So, what you are saying is that the players want a destruction of the NFL as we know it?No draft, unlimited player movement, no limit on salaries per team, no joint television contract, no revenue sharing?
    1. Do you HONESTLY believe that the NFL will continue to flourish when half the teams are non-competitive?

    2. What will the television revenues be when you can only watch a half dozen teams play on every sunday/monday/thursday? Please use dollar figures based upon current revenue versus your proposal.

    3. “Put your money where your mouth is” What would be the value of a broadcast contract with the Buffalo Bills be worth compared to the Dallas Cowboys, or the New York teams, or the Washington Redskins? How many businesses would pay the same advertising rates to broadcast the Carolina Panthers compared to the NY Giants? Again, utilize dollar values.

    4. Tell us (in projected dollars), in your informed analysis, of the value of independent teams, of the net gain/loss in each teams value/revenues based upon your preferred outcome of the lawsuit.

    5. Explain to all us stupid people in the world how a decrease in competitiveness of the league will increase/maintain the current revenue stream?

    6. Please enlighten us with what the effect will be on the average salary of the lower paid 2/3 of the players if the top 1/3 receives the benefit of your preferred scenario. Please feel free to use actual dollar amounts to prove your point.

    7. Finally, where do you propose Green Bay(financial statements available) get the money to match the larger market teams to bid for elite players? Please be very specific in your proposed areas.

    Thank you in advance for responding to these questions.

  31. willycents says: May 23, 2011 3:09 PM

    Hmmmmm No response to my post:

    willycents says:May 23, 2011 1:35 PM

    @ tommyf15

    Wonder why I am not shocked. No one has the willingness to put any data out there, let alone specific data. Or, perhaps, the data would put their side in a bad light as far as honesty and public perception would be.

  32. robf2010 says: May 23, 2011 3:20 PM

    “The owners never all sit in on negotiations.”

    That was my original point. They’re all in one place now (Indianapolis). Why not have some players there, too? Open this thing up. Air it out. If Jerry Richardson wants to get condescending to Peyton Manning, let him do it with one of the Irsays in the room. A lot is being said about players not being informed or well-represented but I’d bet my dollars to your donuts that a lot of the owners don’t have any idea what’s going on, either.

    “There’s a difference in preparing for a fight and wanting a fight.”

    The NFL did both. They backed out of the CBA. They put the locks on the doors. They picked this fight. It’s on them.

  33. tommyf15 says: May 23, 2011 3:36 PM

    I’ll answer your questions in a reasonable manner. I could write a book on this, but I’d rather not write a book for free, especially when only a dozen or so people will read it. So…

    So, what you are saying is that the players want a destruction of the NFL as we know it?No draft, unlimited player movement, no limit on salaries per team, no joint television contract, no revenue sharing?

    I don’t know if I’d use the word “destruction”. What matters to the overwhelming majority of football fans is what happens on the field, not off of it.

    Do you HONESTLY believe that the NFL will continue to flourish when half the teams are non-competitive?

    Why are we presuming that half the teams won’t be competitive?

    What will the television revenues be when you can only watch a half dozen teams play on every sunday/monday/thursday?

    I’m not sure why you’re making that presumption.

    Please use dollar figures based upon current revenue versus your proposal.

    You’re asking me to do a lot of work for free there, my friend. Pass.

    “Put your money where your mouth is” What would be the value of a broadcast contract with the Buffalo Bills be worth compared to the Dallas Cowboys, or the New York teams, or the Washington Redskins? How many businesses would pay the same advertising rates to broadcast the Carolina Panthers compared to the NY Giants? Again, utilize dollar values.

    Based on the judgement given in the American Needlepoint vs The NFL case, the teams could still jointly offer a television package for the networks.

    But let’s say they couldn’t, and the individual teams made their own deals. That would certainly be good news for teams with national followings like the Cowboys and Packers, and bad news for the Chiefs and Bills.

    This is important- I believe in free market enterprise. You can’t have a system that benefits no one but the football fans in Buffalo and Kansas City, all at the expense of everything else.

    People get angry when they read this, but deep doen they know it’s true- the people of Buffalo, New York are not ENTITLED to an NFL team. If the fans in Toronto, San Antonio, or Los Angeles will give the team greater support, then that’s where the team belongs.

    Going further- with anti-trust rules in place, the team vould move anywhere they want. That would not only include Los Angeles, but Washington, Chicago, Dallas, etc.

    Willy and everyone else, I want you to really think about this: how ABSURD is it that there’s only one team in Washington?

    Considering that there’s been a decades-long waiting list for Redskins season tickets since the 1960’s, isn’t it fair to say that the supply of football the NFL provides falls far short of the demand?

    Tell us (in projected dollars), in your informed analysis, of the value of independent teams, of the net gain/loss in each teams value/revenues based upon your preferred outcome of the lawsuit.

    You’re asking me to do a lot of work for free there, my friend. Pass, with one comment: some teams will gain in value and some may lose value. That’s capitalism for ya.

    Explain to all us stupid people in the world how a decrease in competitiveness of the league will increase/maintain the current revenue stream?

    Please don’t call people stupid. And it’s presumptuous to say there will be a decrease in competitiveness.

    But let’s hypothesize and say that the Bills stay in Buffalo and can’t consistently compete with the Jets and Patriots. Why is that end of the world? In college football Indiana and Purdue are in the same conference as Ohio State and Michigan and have never, ever been consistently competitive with them.

    Yet somehow the Big Ten continues to thrive. Why would the NFL be any different?

    Please enlighten us with what the effect will be on the average salary of the lower paid 2/3 of the players if the top 1/3 receives the benefit of your preferred scenario. Please feel free to use actual dollar amounts to prove your point.

    No one knows, but I have no problem with a system that, for example, pays Alex Rodriguez $25 M a year and utility infielders $300,000 a year. I have no problem when the football coach at Alabama makes $5 M a year while the coach at Idaho makes $175,000 a year. I have no problem when the football coach at Northern Illinois leaves to become the head coach at Minnesota. Let the market set itself.

    Finally, where do you propose Green Bay(financial statements available) get the money to match the larger market teams to bid for elite players? Please be very specific in your proposed areas.

    Green Bay has a national following and a 20-year waiting list for season tickets. They’ll be just fine.

  34. tommyf15 says: May 23, 2011 3:38 PM

    willycents says:
    Hmmmmm No response to my post:

    Dude, I have a job. Next time can I please have more than 94 minutes before you lose your patience? :)

  35. seabike1234 says: May 23, 2011 4:06 PM

    Tommyf15,

    Thanks for your measured and thoughtful responses!

    Did you know the 2006 CBA had a clause that prevented players from taking any legal action related to anti-trust violations for 6 months if the owners locked out the players, first?

  36. tommyf15 says: May 23, 2011 4:48 PM

    seabike1234 says:
    May 23, 2011 4:06 PM
    Tommyf15,

    Thanks for your measured and thoughtful responses!

    Did you know the 2006 CBA had a clause that prevented players from taking any legal action related to anti-trust violations for 6 months if the owners locked out the players, first?

    You’re very welcome.

    I wasn’t aware of thast. My understanding is that the players couldn’t decertify for six months after the CBA ended.

  37. Deb says: May 23, 2011 5:48 PM

    Looks like inexplicable censorship is back at PFT. Oh joy. You children do realize that “Biscuit” has been Cornelius Bennett’s nickname throughout his entire playing life, right? That’s the only reason I can think of that you’d censor my post. You know, since I’m cheering for the guy, I’d hardly be insulting him :roll:

    Logic, it’s a beautiful thing.

  38. Deb says: May 23, 2011 5:51 PM

    Oh wait, I get it. Chapnastier congratulated Mike for slamming a player and I said he has the flu and isn’t himself. Mike is sick–you know that, right? And I was making a joke. Mike does have a sense of humor–you know that, right? Good grief :roll:

  39. Deb says: May 23, 2011 5:52 PM

    Even though he is an NFLPA rep for retired players, since he is retired, Bennett is hardly the person who can swoop in and end this mess. He’s simply stating his view–shared by many–that locking out the players and scuttling the season is not a productive way for the owners to achieve resolution. (And as a rookie with the Bills, he was hardly in a position to resolve the 1987 dispute either.)

    Thanks for speaking out on the players’ behalf, Biscuit. The Bama faithful love you still. ROLL TIDE!!!!

  40. seabike1234 says: May 23, 2011 6:33 PM

    Tommyf15

    I wasn’t aware of players needing to wait until 6 months after owners opt out. Maybe both are right…I think so.

    I am confident about my 6 months, but I will check back to make sure. Your 6 months makes sense as well. The players had their attorney at the court waiting to file during the negotiations. When the 6 months post owers opt out expired they immediately filed, they had to file first so the owners couldn’t “lockout” ahead of players making them wait 6 months to address their anti-trust rights with the courts.

    The players decertified about Feb 11 which is very close to 6 months from the first exibition game. The players want the season for income, so, they needed to start the legal anti-trust process to hopefully resolve it in time to reach an agreement (with better leverage). The owners knew the players had to act first – decertify vs. lockout, which is why owners waited to last minute during negotiations to make any movement then yell foul come back to negotiations!

    Everything I know about the owners tells me they think in long timelines. They wanted all the anti-trust tactics to start as late a possible so the court process would run into the season restricting cash flow to players.

    Side comment – this conflict is over future revenue more than take-aways. 2014 projected TV deal is over $12B and the NFL is forecasting $24B before the 10 year deal that is on the table today expires. The rub is in how the future dollars are shared. Players feel they will get more of the future revenues without anti-trust cooperation with owners than what owners are offering. Decertification is not a sham, it’s real. The NFL can’t win the anti-trust court case, only delay it long enough to force players to trade it off again…..this time players will not trade their anti-trust rights for a small portion of future revenues. This could take a long time…I too have to work…

    I think I am close…more info is needed.

  41. Deb says: May 23, 2011 6:46 PM

    Thank you :)

Leave a Reply

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