It is currently Mon Nov 25, 2024 2:48 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 487 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 17  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 7:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2013 6:09 pm
Posts: 11005
pizza_Place: Generic Pizza Store
if the agent is truly being out of line with the ask.... then the bears need to put a full court media press on the agent. kick it in to high gear.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 7:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 1:05 am
Posts: 25181
Location: Cultural Mecca
pizza_Place: Pequod's / Barnaby's
This is the only thing the Bears have done right in years. #BearDown

_________________
Rick Hahn is the best GM in baseball.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 7:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 2:35 pm
Posts: 82222
This has already impacted how he will play in the regular season. We are about a week away from him not being able to be active for Game 1.

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 7:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 10:32 pm
Posts: 13865
Location: France
pizza_Place: Baranabyis
He loves football so much he's willing to sit out regular season games.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 8:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 3:40 pm
Posts: 16486
pizza_Place: Boni Vino
Florio framed it that he wanted to be protected if he threw a punch “defending a teammate”. You’d think they could carve out exceptions for stuff like that and come to a compromise.

_________________
To IkeSouth, bigfan wrote:
Are you stoned or pissed off, or both, when you create these postings?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 8:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 40649
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
Jaw Breaker wrote:
Florio framed it that he wanted to be protected if he threw a punch “defending a teammate”. You’d think they could carve out exceptions for stuff like that and come to a compromise.


Again, what is he protecting? In order for him to be in bad standing with the Bears enough to try to take back guaranteed money then he will have had to have had multiple bad guy acts. In that case he is a loser.

As it is any suspension the NFL takes game checks that he claims he does not want to lose. The Bears can't stop that. So he is willing to lose game checks so he does not lose game checks?

This entire thing seems asinine. I look forward to whenever the truth comes out.

_________________
Elections have consequences.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 8:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72380
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
Bears can't stop shooting themselves in the dick even when things are on the upswing. Love it.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 8:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92050
Location: To the left of my post
pittmike wrote:
Again, what is he protecting? In order for him to be in bad standing with the Bears enough to try to take back guaranteed money then he will have had to have had multiple bad guy acts. In that case he is a loser.

As it is any suspension the NFL takes game checks that he claims he does not want to lose. The Bears can't stop that. So he is willing to lose game checks so he does not lose game checks?

This entire thing seems asinine. I look forward to whenever the truth comes out.

From what I understand, contracts are mainly three things.
Yearly salary, broken down by the game.
Production and roster bonuses.
Guaranteed money like signing bonuses and bonuses that happen almost immediately.

Teams structure it that way in order to play as many games as they can with the salary cap. The player doesn't care as they get paid regardless.

So, if he were to get suspended, the league takes his game check away. He may lose out on production bonuses too. If he gets cut because of it, he loses the future roster bonuses which you get for simply being on the team at the time it comes up.

That leaves the guaranteed money. This is the money he gets immediately or almost immediately upon signing. He gets it before he ever plays a game. There have been situations where teams, a few years later, have tried to get them to pay back that money because they didn't "finish the contract" because of off the field issues. This isn't how it was designed. That initial payment was supposed to be his regardless. I assume there is some language that stops them from retiring the day after but otherwise it should be theirs forever.

So, the player is 100% right here. That should be his money no matter how many people he kills in the offseason. That's the contract. There are a lot of other things in the contract that take away future money but the guaranteed money should be guaranteed. Now, should he derail his rookie year so he has assurances that he can kill someone and still keep that first round of money? I would say no unless the plan is to go and do something like that.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 9:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:39 pm
Posts: 19521
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
No idea on if it's true, but doesn't it feel like most of the time that this happens the player turns out to be a bust? Curtis Enis comes to mind. I know Joey Bosa has done well, but it feels like he is the exception.

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

The Missing Link wrote:
For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 9:12 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 38348
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
Seacrest wrote:
pittmike wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
pittmike wrote:
312player wrote:
Nas wrote:
Loving football doesn't mean that you ignore the business aspect of it. Clearly the Bears are more interested in taking his guaranteed money than they are making sure they give their team the best chance to win Week 1.



He's the only guy drafted not signed, his agency had 10 first rounders.


I can't imagine what the problem is. They were discussing on Mac and Parkins yesterday and it is not exactly confirmed what the exact sticking point is. Why would this agency hold up the Bears and not the other teams?



IF Smith wants to keep monies paid even if he is suspended for bad behavior off of the field, then he is dead wrong.


Of course. That should be true of game checks etc. It sounds like he is trying to set a precedent that a team cannot try to get signing bonus "guaranteed" money back.



How MANY people here would gladly, or even sign a check at all, for someone who made poor choices and was unable to show up for work because of those choices.

pittmike wrote:
I can think of a few. :lol:



There are a few in this thread.

They would sign someone else's check for them, they just wouldn't sign their own. :lol: :lol:

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 9:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92050
Location: To the left of my post
Would you go after money you already paid an employee?

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 9:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:55 pm
Posts: 33067
Location: Wrigley
pizza_Place: Warren Buffet of Cock
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Would you go after money you already paid an employee?


I wouldn't, but then again, no one is paid in advance like pro athletes. I believe most signing bonuses, where they exist, are paid out after you have been at a company six months. All incentive compensation is paid in arrears.

Claw backs now have force of law for public company executives under Dodd Frank.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 9:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 40649
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
pittmike wrote:
Again, what is he protecting? In order for him to be in bad standing with the Bears enough to try to take back guaranteed money then he will have had to have had multiple bad guy acts. In that case he is a loser.

As it is any suspension the NFL takes game checks that he claims he does not want to lose. The Bears can't stop that. So he is willing to lose game checks so he does not lose game checks?

This entire thing seems asinine. I look forward to whenever the truth comes out.

From what I understand, contracts are mainly three things.
Yearly salary, broken down by the game.
Production and roster bonuses.
Guaranteed money like signing bonuses and bonuses that happen almost immediately.

Teams structure it that way in order to play as many games as they can with the salary cap. The player doesn't care as they get paid regardless.

So, if he were to get suspended, the league takes his game check away. He may lose out on production bonuses too. If he gets cut because of it, he loses the future roster bonuses which you get for simply being on the team at the time it comes up.

That leaves the guaranteed money. This is the money he gets immediately or almost immediately upon signing. He gets it before he ever plays a game. There have been situations where teams, a few years later, have tried to get them to pay back that money because they didn't "finish the contract" because of off the field issues. This isn't how it was designed. That initial payment was supposed to be his regardless. I assume there is some language that stops them from retiring the day after but otherwise it should be theirs forever.

So, the player is 100% right here. That should be his money no matter how many people he kills in the offseason. That's the contract. There are a lot of other things in the contract that take away future money but the guaranteed money should be guaranteed. Now, should he derail his rookie year so he has assurances that he can kill someone and still keep that first round of money? I would say no unless the plan is to go and do something like that.


I follow you but I do not know if its entirely true particularly in this case. If we look at a past favorite contract of yours we might see where it is an issue. Lets play with numbers just to make it easier. Cutler gets a 100M deal with 70M guaranteed. He does not get a 70M signing bonus I am sure of that. So he gets 20M signing, maybe some other crap bonuses you mention etc. There still in these deals a measure of guaranteed money every year I would think just to spread it out.

In other words, I doubt Smith is worried only about them going back after money already paid. There must be hard money as the years go along. Perhaps it is something like the 5th year does not guarantee at all if he gets suspended?

We really do not know.

_________________
Elections have consequences.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 9:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92050
Location: To the left of my post
pittmike wrote:
I follow you but I do not know if its entirely true particularly in this case. If we look at a past favorite contract of yours we might see where it is an issue. Lets play with numbers just to make it easier. Cutler gets a 100M deal with 70M guaranteed. He does not get a 70M signing bonus I am sure of that. So he gets 20M signing, maybe some other crap bonuses you mention etc. There still in these deals a measure of guaranteed money every year I would think just to spread it out.
I didn't say he would get it all as signing bonus. It's that he is getting that money regardless as long as he doesn't retire voluntarily. Now, you are correct that some guaranteed money in the Cutler contract was paid out in year 2 and 3. However, Cutler was getting that no matter what even if he was cut.

pittmike wrote:
In other words, I doubt Smith is worried only about them going back after money already paid. There must be hard money as the years go along. Perhaps it is something like the 5th year does not guarantee at all if he gets suspended?
No, this is not why. It's about going after money he has ALREADY received or is due to receive. This has happened to other players.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 9:50 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 38348
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
denisdman wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Would you go after money you already paid an employee?


I wouldn't, but then again, no one is paid in advance like pro athletes. I believe most signing bonuses, where they exist, are paid out after you have been at a company six months. All incentive compensation is paid in arrears.

Claw backs now have force of law for public company executives under Dodd Frank.



Think Aaron Hernandez here.

IF it's true that he is not signing because of hold backs based upon HIS personal behavior...than that is a tire fire, not a red flag.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 9:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2013 2:12 pm
Posts: 2865
pizza_Place: maciano's
pittmike wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
pittmike wrote:
Again, what is he protecting? In order for him to be in bad standing with the Bears enough to try to take back guaranteed money then he will have had to have had multiple bad guy acts. In that case he is a loser.

As it is any suspension the NFL takes game checks that he claims he does not want to lose. The Bears can't stop that. So he is willing to lose game checks so he does not lose game checks?

This entire thing seems asinine. I look forward to whenever the truth comes out.

From what I understand, contracts are mainly three things.
Yearly salary, broken down by the game.
Production and roster bonuses.
Guaranteed money like signing bonuses and bonuses that happen almost immediately.

Teams structure it that way in order to play as many games as they can with the salary cap. The player doesn't care as they get paid regardless.

So, if he were to get suspended, the league takes his game check away. He may lose out on production bonuses too. If he gets cut because of it, he loses the future roster bonuses which you get for simply being on the team at the time it comes up.

That leaves the guaranteed money. This is the money he gets immediately or almost immediately upon signing. He gets it before he ever plays a game. There have been situations where teams, a few years later, have tried to get them to pay back that money because they didn't "finish the contract" because of off the field issues. This isn't how it was designed. That initial payment was supposed to be his regardless. I assume there is some language that stops them from retiring the day after but otherwise it should be theirs forever.

So, the player is 100% right here. That should be his money no matter how many people he kills in the offseason. That's the contract. There are a lot of other things in the contract that take away future money but the guaranteed money should be guaranteed. Now, should he derail his rookie year so he has assurances that he can kill someone and still keep that first round of money? I would say no unless the plan is to go and do something like that.


I follow you but I do not know if its entirely true particularly in this case. If we look at a past favorite contract of yours we might see where it is an issue. Lets play with numbers just to make it easier. Cutler gets a 100M deal with 70M guaranteed. He does not get a 70M signing bonus I am sure of that. So he gets 20M signing, maybe some other crap bonuses you mention etc. There still in these deals a measure of guaranteed money every year I would think just to spread it out.

In other words, I doubt Smith is worried only about them going back after money already paid. There must be hard money as the years go along. Perhaps it is something like the 5th year does not guarantee at all if he gets suspended?

We really do not know.


I'd split guaranteed money into signing bonus and guaranteed money. Signing bonus is due when signed. Guaranteed money is money owed to the player but paid out on a schedule. I think if they cut the player, the balance of guaranteed money is then due, at least that's how it is applied to the salary cap.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 9:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92050
Location: To the left of my post
Seacrest wrote:
Think Aaron Hernandez here.

IF it's true that he is not signing because of hold backs based upon HIS personal behavior...than that is a tire fire, not a red flag.

In an Aaron Hernandez situation, any future money owed becomes irrelevant just like if he had retired.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 9:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92050
Location: To the left of my post
TurdFerguson wrote:
I'd split guaranteed money into signing bonus and guaranteed money. Signing bonus is due when signed. Guaranteed money is money owed to the player but paid out on a schedule. I think if they cut the player, the balance of guaranteed money is then due, at least that's how it is applied to the salary cap.
I think that is how it works for nearly every player.

The issue is that teams have gone after signing bonus money when a player is cut for disciplinary reasons because it was supposed to be for the full contract. Signing bonus money should be the players unless they voluntarily quit.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 9:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92050
Location: To the left of my post
TurdFerguson wrote:
I'd split guaranteed money into signing bonus and guaranteed money. Signing bonus is due when signed. Guaranteed money is money owed to the player but paid out on a schedule. I think if they cut the player, the balance of guaranteed money is then due, at least that's how it is applied to the salary cap.
I think that is how it works for nearly every player.

The issue is that teams have gone after signing bonus money when a player is cut for disciplinary reasons because it was supposed to be for the full contract. Signing bonus money should be the players unless they voluntarily quit.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 9:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2015 1:15 pm
Posts: 41377
Location: Small Fringe Minority
pizza_Place: John's
If I was the Bears I would give him a take it or leave it offer expiring in 3 days. If he doesn't take it the Bears will let him rot a year in the CFL and he can enjoy being a 4th round pick next year losing tens of millions of dollars.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 10:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2015 1:15 pm
Posts: 41377
Location: Small Fringe Minority
pizza_Place: John's
My guess is the NFL will give the Bears a good comp pick for taking a "Pro Owner" stand.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 10:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2015 1:15 pm
Posts: 41377
Location: Small Fringe Minority
pizza_Place: John's
I will say, I think the Bears did drop the ball by not looking into his past as a militant trouble maker. Mediocre player, terrible human being

https://www.windycitygridiron.com/2018/ ... t-nfl-2018

Quote:
So while Smith “committed” to UCLA, he never signed a letter of intent to play there. He never gave away his recruiting rights and embroiled himself in that mess. He only signed a financial aid agreement that contained full scholarship guarantees. Scholarship guarantees that effectively offered the same benefits a letter of intent did that athletes like him wanted, but without the harmful punitive language. That would later free Smith to back out of his commitment to UCLA as he had no outstanding ties to the Bruins, and eventually attend Georgia where he would become college football’s top linebacker and a top 10 NFL draft pick four years later.


Quote:
The Bears have continually insisted they don’t want to set a precedent in negotiations with Smith. Yet according to the past, the young man they’re negotiating with appears to want to do nothing but set a new precedent.


We drafted an "Activist" not a football player.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 10:11 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 38348
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
Think Aaron Hernandez here.

IF it's true that he is not signing because of hold backs based upon HIS personal behavior...than that is a tire fire, not a red flag.

In an Aaron Hernandez situation, any future money owed becomes irrelevant just like if he had retired.


Try to read what happened there before making a comment.

Thanks.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 10:12 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 38348
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
Caller Bob appears to have been correct about this pick.

I can't believe I just typed that.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 10:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2015 1:15 pm
Posts: 41377
Location: Small Fringe Minority
pizza_Place: John's
Seacrest wrote:
Caller Bob appears to have been correct about this pick.

I can't believe I just typed that.


I did take a lot of heat on draft day. It's ok, they stoned Jesus too.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 10:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 10:32 pm
Posts: 13865
Location: France
pizza_Place: Baranabyis
Yup. Tired of the distraction. Don't need training camp to be all about a guy who isn't even there. He signs by Friday or the Bears should walk away. Another top 10 bust is nothing for Bears fans.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 10:15 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 38348
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
Caller Bob wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
Caller Bob appears to have been correct about this pick.

I can't believe I just typed that.


I did take a lot of heat on draft day. It's ok, they stoned Jesus too.


:lol:

News to me.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 10:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92050
Location: To the left of my post
Seacrest wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
Think Aaron Hernandez here.

IF it's true that he is not signing because of hold backs based upon HIS personal behavior...than that is a tire fire, not a red flag.

In an Aaron Hernandez situation, any future money owed becomes irrelevant just like if he had retired.


Try to read what happened there before making a comment.

Thanks.

What do you mean?

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/patriots/2017/04/20/aaron-hernandez-estate-not-likely-collect-more-money-from-patriots/q1lDGaTyyElNoSBAHwSgJM/story.html
Quote:
When Hernandez was arrested for Lloyd’s murder in June 2013, the Patriots released him and refused to pay the remaining guaranteed money — a $3.25 million deferred signing bonus payment, and base salaries of $1.323 million and $1.137 million. They also declined to pay a $82,000 workout bonus that he had earned in June 2013.


What didn't I read? When he was arrested, no future money was paid out.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 10:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 40649
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
TurdFerguson wrote:
I'd split guaranteed money into signing bonus and guaranteed money. Signing bonus is due when signed. Guaranteed money is money owed to the player but paid out on a schedule. I think if they cut the player, the balance of guaranteed money is then due, at least that's how it is applied to the salary cap.
I think that is how it works for nearly every player.

The issue is that teams have gone after signing bonus money when a player is cut for disciplinary reasons because it was supposed to be for the full contract. Signing bonus money should be the players unless they voluntarily quit.


I was just reading a Forbes article that talked about the rookie contracts and fifth year option for the first rounders. The way they laid it out is the early round contracts are virtually all guaranteed. As you stated it is through signing bonuses mostly. One example had a 26M contract with 18M bonus.

At any rate while in principal you should not go back after bonus it seems the NFL would due better to redefine or structure these differently. Without going after bonus already paid they have little protection. Not that I care but very little pay is able to be fined for suspension or recovery.

_________________
Elections have consequences.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 10:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 1:05 am
Posts: 25181
Location: Cultural Mecca
pizza_Place: Pequod's / Barnaby's
We should simplify this. No more bonuses or guarantees.

_________________
Rick Hahn is the best GM in baseball.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 487 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 17  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group