Here is what I don`t get ...

Status
Not open for further replies.

McJadeddog

Registered User
Sep 25, 2003
20,186
5,110
Regina, Saskatchewan
the guy who said mccabe should be shot was taking things a little far, but he should be at the VERY least beaten with some kind of large stick :)

the players arent stupid (well maybe they are, lol), they know that joe public is NEVER going to side with a 20-something year old whos making millions of dollars a year, when joe public is making 35k a year working a job he hates.... its a lose/lose situation for the players, they know that in the end the public wont have any respect for them, so they are gonna go the route that ensures that they wont lose money AND respect

ill tell you this..... im one of the biggest hockey fans that i know, but if they lose this entire season, i AINT coming back...... ill spend my money elsewhere, and there are thousands (if not millions) of others like me
 
Feb 24, 2004
5,490
611
Even if 20 teams are losing money, lowering saleries won't help that. The owners got these players in this situation in the first place, by oversigning them.


If they want a cap, why not just accept a marketplace, and then they can dictate the costs.
 

McJadeddog

Registered User
Sep 25, 2003
20,186
5,110
Regina, Saskatchewan
because thats collusion (sp?), and its illegal

the NHLPA keeps saying free market, free market, free market.... when in reality the NHL, as it currently stands, is not a free market at ALL, its not even close.... in a free market does your employer have to give you a new contract with a 10% raise when your old one is done? in a free market can you just decide to not agree to this contract and then get an outside arbitrator to FORCE your employer to pay you more? there are other examples as well, but you get the point.... the NHL is NOT a free market, the NHLPA should wake up and realize not everybody is an idiot
 

Go Flames Go*

Guest
leafs4thecup said:
Even if 20 teams are losing money, lowering saleries won't help that. The owners got these players in this situation in the first place, by oversigning them.


If they want a cap, why not just accept a marketplace, and then they can dictate the costs.

Because dumb teams like the Maple Leafs feel nessecarry to pay over the hill garbage old men players like Ed Balfor, Joe Newindyk, Gary Robert all these huge deals, while they score 4 goals. While Iginla here is scoring like a mad man, and being paid less them then, and then he says I want 10 million while the Flames owners are secretly working at Arbys to pay for half the teams costs.

We need something to protect the smart teams, and the better teams so they can make some money and be rewarded for putting out a good team, and being financially responsible.
 

TOO

Registered User
Mar 3, 2002
4
0
Visit site
jadeddog said:
the NHLPA keeps saying free market, free market, free market.... when in reality the NHL, as it currently stands, is not a free market at ALL, its not even close.... in a free market does your employer have to give you a new contract with a 10% raise when your old one is done? in a free market can you just decide to not agree to this contract and then get an outside arbitrator to FORCE your employer to pay you more? there are other examples as well, but you get the point.... the NHL is NOT a free market, the NHLPA should wake up and realize not everybody is an idiot

Um, no one was forced to give a 10% raise. The Mighty Ducks, for example, refused Paul Kariya his 10% raise, and so he left. Also worth noting, the owners are allowed to refuse 3 arbitration agreements every 2 years. Has any arbitration agreement ever been refused? I can't think of one, but it's not like I've been paying attention. In any case, the owners have had opportunities to make their own "cost certainty" and not pay the players if they didn't think it would lead to profit, but I guess Holik stormed into Sather's office with a shotgun or something.
 

codswallop

yes, i am an alcoholic
Aug 20, 2002
1,768
100
GA
Vlad The Impaler said:
They think they are a union that was able to make the owners bend over and moan like whales a couple of times now.

Ouch. True. But, ouch.

Certain circumstances at the time dictated that such a fate couldn't be avoided. That's the way it goes sometimes. You roll with the punches. The successful accept that, part of the game (qualifier; PART). I had more to say but I'll cut it short.

Lord help the NHLPA if the owners are resolute in their stance. As much as I'm for the best benefits to employees (always will be as one their kind), the reality can smack you in the face. The owners have the power to do what they will. Right or wrong, they can exert that power if the need arises. And there aren't sufficient remedies (at least in this case) to change that if the owners wish it so. Often it doesn't come to that as both sides respect the contributions that the other has to offer. That is of course the middle ground that need to be reached here (insert myself begging for just that).

Not saying you're wrong, Vlad. You're one of the minority that takes both sides into account. Just trying to widen the perspective.
 

Robert Paulson*

Guest
zeppelin97 said:
Its simple. Because the players stand to lose nearly 30% in salary. If what Bettman said was true of the owners proposition: that average salary would drop from 1.8M to 1.3M (under their proposal), obviously thats a lot of money the players are conceding.
Aww... poor players, they'd only be getting an average 1.3 million now? How will they EVER survive of only 1.3 million dollars PER YEAR?!?!?!?
shakeshead.gif
 

X8oD

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
7,619
138
612 Warf Ave.
Chelios said:
The NHL has openly offered to open up the books for the NHLPA and they have refused. They even have had Levitt himself open himself up to questions on his study to the NHLPA and again they have refused. Why would the NHLPA refuse to take a good look at the finances of the NHL and refuse to ask questions to Levitt on how exactly he came up with the results he did? Because if they did they would have to acknowledge publicly that the NHL`s numbers were correct and that would completely devestate their stand in these talks.

another one of those comments that get completely ignored because there is no more lose ends to open up.

what ifs and because's can only go on for ever. No i have no real comment on this, as i agree with everything youve said and the Levitt/nhlpa facts can be found doing a search on the web. its just something ive seen done on this and other forums OFTEN. A comment is made, and somebody will attempt to discredit.. the discredit is countered and the countered is discredited again... The person then counters AGAIN, and its ignored because grasping at straws isnt that fun.
 

Vlad The Impaler

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
12,315
644
Montreal
cw7 said:
Not saying you're wrong, Vlad. You're one of the minority that takes both sides into account. Just trying to widen the perspective.

And you're absolutely right too.

There are literally hundreds of ways this can play out.

I just think the union is very confident, and rightly so. They have a past track record of solidarity and of victories. The momentum has been on their side in the recent past so I suspect several of their members are just not afraid of the owners.

This is the twofold problem the owners are facing now.

Take for example the Bettman speech today. I'm reading that and what I get is "we won't bend, we want this, we want that!".

Ok, so far that looks powerful enough. There's obviously the typical bull you read/hear in any negociation statement but it's still strong enough. BUT, here's my problem. They looked just as resolute many, many, many years ago.

I remember as clear as day. Salaries were much lower, the union was much weaker. We can guess the owners were probably richer (if they are telling the truth) and I swear to God, they were looking just as resolute back then. I remember how they looked strong, how they said they wouldn't flinch.

And then I remember afterwards, Marcel Aubut looking like he had just put down his dog. He was pale and you could immediately see that it was the end of Quebec City in the NHL. And he suggested that the whole thing was a joke, that the owners had been bickering and were absolutely not concerned for each others.

It takes time to "look" tough in a negociation. You gotta put effort in that to create an impression, a strong stance. It takes probably even more time if you have to erase your past defeats like the owners will have to now.

This is my problem. If this was a first CBA meeting, I think *some* (not all) players would be pausing at this point of the process. Some would be wondering if it is sane to lock horn with the bosses. Right now, if Goodenow is smart, he is playing old tapes of ownership statements back in the days, when they looked just as resolute.

Bettman's speech was only for the fans. Every owner right now HAS to know that there is not a chance, not a single tiny chance that the players will flinch before at least January. Because they know in the past owners have worked it out. The owners are ****ed because in order to get the credibility needed and prove they are serious, they must go at least to January and most probably scrap the whole season.

And that doesn't garantee them a victory. That just garantees them the minimum respect any man should have when he negociate. They left their balls in the drawer for a decade. They're wearing pink skirts for the rest of year 2004. My point is, the negociations haven't even started for real.

Anytime a player comes to Goodenow or a representative with doubts or fear, the owners will tell them to not even worry. It's not even serious until January.

So all I know is, if this conflict is resolved before January, it's because the players won and got exactly what they wanted. That's as far as I can go. Past that, anything can happen but since historically the players have been winning, my money is on them.

I do not expect a glowing victory. I expect a middle ground deal, but closer to satisfying the players.
 

Chelios

Registered User
Jan 1, 2004
4,605
1,041
Visit site
capman29 said:
Guess you have never heard of this modern concept of collective bargaining ??? I know it is a new concept but to reach an agreement both side must agree what that contract will be. Understand!!!! Bargain reach an agreement problem solved . ope this clears up your confussion regarding his matter.

I know what collective bargaining is. I think that if you read my previous posts you would realize my big issue is the union taking a stance completely against any type of link between revenues and expenses, after two other much more popular and fincancially viable leagues have already done so.
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
Vlad The Impaler said:
This is my problem. If this was a first CBA meeting, I think *some* (not all) players would be pausing at this point of the process. Some would be wondering if it is sane to lock horn with the bosses. Right now, if Goodenow is smart, he is playing old tapes of ownership statements back in the days, when they looked just as resolute.

Bettman's speech was only for the fans. Every owner right now HAS to know that there is not a chance, not a single tiny chance that the players will flinch before at least January. Because they know in the past owners have worked it out. The owners are ****ed because in order to get the credibility needed and prove they are serious, they must go at least to January and most probably scrap the whole season.

And that doesn't garantee them a victory. That just garantees them the minimum respect any man should have when he negociate. They left their balls in the drawer for a decade. They're wearing pink skirts for the rest of year 2004. My point is, the negociations haven't even started for real.

Anytime a player comes to Goodenow or a representative with doubts or fear, the owners will tell them to not even worry. It's not even serious until January.

So all I know is, if this conflict is resolved before January, it's because the players won and got exactly what they wanted. That's as far as I can go. Past that, anything can happen but since historically the players have been winning, my money is on them.

I do not expect a glowing victory. I expect a middle ground deal, but closer to satisfying the players.

Vlad I agree. The NHL should have set a deadline, no deal at the deadline = no season. Don't drag it out, just do it. The CBA expiring would have been good except it was too close to WC. I think owners need to set a date like Nov 15. If there is no deal by then, they cancel the season and try again for the next year.

They need to show some balls.
 

codswallop

yes, i am an alcoholic
Aug 20, 2002
1,768
100
GA
Vlad The Impaler said:
And you're absolutely right too.

There are literally hundreds of ways this can play out.

I just think the union is very confident, and rightly so. They have a past track record of solidarity and of victories. The momentum has been on their side in the recent past so I suspect several of their members are just not afraid of the owners.

This is the twofold problem the owners are facing now.

Take for example the Bettman speech today. I'm reading that and what I get is "we won't bend, we want this, we want that!".

Ok, so far that looks powerful enough. There's obviously the typical bull you read/hear in any negociation statement but it's still strong enough. BUT, here's my problem. They looked just as resolute many, many, many years ago.

I remember as clear as day. Salaries were much lower, the union was much weaker. We can guess the owners were probably richer (if they are telling the truth) and I swear to God, they were looking just as resolute back then. I remember how they looked strong, how they said they wouldn't flinch.

And then I remember afterwards, Marcel Aubut looking like he had just put down his dog. He was pale and you could immediately see that it was the end of Quebec City in the NHL. And he suggested that the whole thing was a joke, that the owners had been bickering and were absolutely not concerned for each others.

It takes time to "look" tough in a negociation. You gotta put effort in that to create an impression, a strong stance. It takes probably even more time if you have to erase your past defeats like the owners will have to now.

This is my problem. If this was a first CBA meeting, I think *some* (not all) players would be pausing at this point of the process. Some would be wondering if it is sane to lock horn with the bosses. Right now, if Goodenow is smart, he is playing old tapes of ownership statements back in the days, when they looked just as resolute.

Bettman's speech was only for the fans. Every owner right now HAS to know that there is not a chance, not a single tiny chance that the players will flinch before at least January. Because they know in the past owners have worked it out. The owners are ****ed because in order to get the credibility needed and prove they are serious, they must go at least to January and most probably scrap the whole season.

And that doesn't garantee them a victory. That just garantees them the minimum respect any man should have when he negociate. They left their balls in the drawer for a decade. They're wearing pink skirts for the rest of year 2004. My point is, the negociations haven't even started for real.

Anytime a player comes to Goodenow or a representative with doubts or fear, the owners will tell them to not even worry. It's not even serious until January.

So all I know is, if this conflict is resolved before January, it's because the players won and got exactly what they wanted. That's as far as I can go. Past that, anything can happen but since historically the players have been winning, my money is on them.

I do not expect a glowing victory. I expect a middle ground deal, but closer to satisfying the players.

I see where you're coming from. The dynamics fit.

The behavior even at the so-called "D-Day" isn't surprising, from either side. Good move actually. I've seen labor battles cross the line in crunch time, one side not exerting the rationale needed; showing the passion they had but giving away too much in the process. That's only one example of how it can go wrong of course. But both sides in this particular dispute today played the part as they should (according to them at least, though I'm not insinuating blame on either side).

Putting on a face, displaying the right image is more of an art than a science. I'm not talking about a motivational speaker who gives the audience what it wants. You obviously have to know what your talking about and you need to convey it in an intellegent manner. There's a subtlety beyond the guise of that motivational element (ie the real truth or heart of the matter). From my experience, Bettman doesn't pull that off. Neither does Goodenow. I listen to what they say but I see the gaps. The force of their words and their arguments can be impactful, but just not enough for me. To another vein...

This may just be me (judging by other comments it might be only me). I do see the similarities of '94, but I see the overall economic climate as being different. Old habits die hard and that can be seen many times over with successful businessmen who are wary to change the ways that made them a success in the first place. But just about everyone worth his salt adapts to the environment. That's the change I see from a decade ago. The economic climate of today (and the realities that go along with it) are different than 1994. Not just in the NHL, but in a broader sense as well. I believe the owners see this, that what we saw in '94 isn't nearly the same as what we see today. We'd probably be here until 2014 if you or anyone else wanted specifics (as you can probably see, I fairly long winded).

I could be wrong of course. That would hardly be a first. But that's just my perspective. Take it for what it's worth.
 

Vlad The Impaler

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
12,315
644
Montreal
me2 said:
Vlad I agree. The NHL should have set a deadline, no deal at the deadline = no season. Don't drag it out, just do it. The CBA expiring would have been good except it was too close to WC. I think owners need to set a date like Nov 15. If there is no deal by then, they cancel the season and try again for the next year.

They need to show some balls.

You're right but the sad thing is, the union would not even have believed a deadline. This is how bad the situation is and this is why, IMO, the owners have not done much in the way of threats. You don't hear much about what they will do eventually if this situation is not resolved. It would be useless at this point.

I think even if they set Nov 15, the players would still expect this to be a bluff. Any respect the owners will garner will be won inch by inch over time, *if* of course they do not flinch.

Once we're past january, I suppose the players will start to listen a little, especially if the owner prepare plans for 2005 (like a sort of replacement league, although it is not clear if/how they can set this up legally due to varying labor laws in countries/states/provinces).

Any deadline they set would be better accompanied by paper work. Example: signing a contract leasing the arena to some 3rd party but the contract can be resilated up to a certain date. Stuff like that, to put pressure.

Or starting to sign replacement players, again, to contracts that can be resiliated up to a certain date (that would mightily suck for the scabs, though).

If ownership is smart, they already have plans for the next 3 years that include every scenario possible. The problem is I think last time around they just didn't have any backup plan, ever. They just played big guy. When the union didn't flinch, they looked dumb and the trousers went down. You need backup plans.

Players have backup plans. They go play elsewhere. They also don't have dormant assets like arenas collecting dust and staff to pay. It's an advantage they have. I sure hope for the owners they have elaborate plans for different situations. If they have, this is the sort of stuff which I expect we would hear about starting (again) in January. You'll start hearing whispers soon but it will get louder at that time.

Assuming the union doesn't break them down before then, of course ;)
 

Vlad The Impaler

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
12,315
644
Montreal
cw7 said:
This may just be me (judging by other comments it might be only me). I do see the similarities of '94, but I see the overall economic climate as being different. Old habits die hard and that can be seen many times over with successful businessmen who are wary to change the ways that made them a success in the first place. But just about everyone worth his salt adapts to the environment. That's the change I see from a decade ago. The economic climate of today (and the realities that go along with it) are different than 1994. Not just in the NHL, but in a broader sense as well. I believe the owners see this, that what we saw in '94 isn't nearly the same as what we see today. We'd probably be here until 2014 if you or anyone else wanted specifics (as you can probably see, I fairly long winded).

I could be wrong of course. That would hardly be a first. But that's just my perspective. Take it for what it's worth.

No, you can't be wrong. The evidence is there: the union HAS, undeniably, offered to make concessions. So this is already a strong indicator that both parties know something is wrong (and/or that something has changed as far as ownership stance).

They still can't agree on how much is wrong, though :D
 

Motown Beatdown

Need a slump buster
Mar 5, 2002
8,572
0
Indianapolis
Visit site
Chelios said:
All I am saying is that the Levitt report is the only hard evidence we have of any kind on the financial state of the NHL and until any other credible person or organization comes up with information that proves otherwise that is the only thing we have to go on.


The thing is Levitt or anyone else is only gonna get the info the owners give them. The only real way to get the true numbers is for the IRS to investigate the 24 owners.

Dont you all remember how a few years ago Bud Selig was claiming several MLB were on the verge of folding? Yet they sign a CBA that was almost the same as the previous CBA and now none of those teams are in finical trouble.
 

triggrman

Where is Hipcheck85
Sponsor
May 8, 2002
31,627
7,346
Murfreesboro, TN
hfboards.com
leafs4thecup said:
Even if 20 teams are losing money, lowering saleries won't help that. The owners got these players in this situation in the first place, by oversigning them.


If they want a cap, why not just accept a marketplace, and then they can dictate the costs.


So you want the owners to get together and determine what their limit should be agree on it and only sign players to that amount, outside of what the CBA dictates? That's called collusion.
 

Motown Beatdown

Need a slump buster
Mar 5, 2002
8,572
0
Indianapolis
Visit site
triggrman said:
So you want the owners to get together and determine what their limit should be agree on it and only sign players to that amount, outside of what the CBA dictates? That's called collusion.


But if each owners didn't run his franchise into the red, they NHL wouldn't be in this problem. If an owners revenue can support a 40 million dollar payroll, he does have to exceed it. I mean this problem exist from small market to big markets. Owners are spending more than they can afford. No one would blame them if they decided not to spend more than they can afford. Thats their right to do so. And just because a couple idiot owners go over their limit doesn't mean the rest of the owners have to follow. I think we've learned lately it's not about how much you spend on your team, it's how you build your team.
 

triggrman

Where is Hipcheck85
Sponsor
May 8, 2002
31,627
7,346
Murfreesboro, TN
hfboards.com
JWI19 said:
The thing is Levitt or anyone else is only gonna get the info the owners give them. The only real way to get the true numbers is for the IRS to investigate the 24 owners.

Dont you all remember how a few years ago Bud Selig was claiming several MLB were on the verge of folding? Yet they sign a CBA that was almost the same as the previous CBA and now none of those teams are in finical trouble.

The IRS? Are you kidding? I can hide money easier from the IRS auditors than I can my 4 year old daughter. Levitt had access not only to the club owners records but also to the any subsidiaries the club might have. Market analyst have come out and said hockey clubs were not good investments, these are independent analyst, just reporting the facts.
 

triggrman

Where is Hipcheck85
Sponsor
May 8, 2002
31,627
7,346
Murfreesboro, TN
hfboards.com
JWI19 said:
But if each owners didn't run his franchise into the red, they NHL wouldn't be in this problem. If an owners revenue can support a 40 million dollar payroll, he does have to exceed it. I mean this problem exist from small market to big markets. Owners are spending more than they can afford. No one would blame them if they decided not to spend more than they can afford. Thats their right to do so. And just because a couple idiot owners go over their limit doesn't mean the rest of the owners have to follow. I think we've learned lately it's not about how much you spend on your team, it's how you build your team.

I agree with this concept. The only 2 problems are 10% annual salary increases and Salary Arbitration. New York has pays Holik 8M a year as a 3rd line grinder so it drives the price up in arbitration.

If you start cutting these players loose the fans get upset and quit coming to the games, lowering your revenue, making it tougher to sign players the next season hurting your fan support even more, further cutting your revenue. See how the circle goes.
 

Motown Beatdown

Need a slump buster
Mar 5, 2002
8,572
0
Indianapolis
Visit site
triggrman said:
The IRS? Are you kidding? I can hide money easier from the IRS auditors than I can my 4 year old daughter. Levitt had access not only to the club owners records but also to the any subsidiaries the club might have. Market analyst have come out and said hockey clubs were not good investments, these are independent analyst, just reporting the facts.


So then i guess were just gonna have to trust what the owners then? Sorry i cant do that. I'm not saying they aren't losing money. I think teams are losing money. But it's mainly because of bad investments, overvalued certain players, miscalculated revenue, etc.
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
JWI19 said:
But if each owners didn't run his franchise into the red, they NHL wouldn't be in this problem. If an owners revenue can support a 40 million dollar payroll, he does have to exceed it. I mean this problem exist from small market to big markets. Owners are spending more than they can afford. No one would blame them if they decided not to spend more than they can afford. Thats their right to do so. And just because a couple idiot owners go over their limit doesn't mean the rest of the owners have to follow. I think we've learned lately it's not about how much you spend on your team, it's how you build your team.


Some modifications to the current CBA: no arbitration, no signing other teams RFAs & 75% qualifying offers to retain rights.

With arbitration a team would be forced to lose a player for nothing or ruin its salary structure.

No tendering other teams RFAs offers. Stops players seeking more money and losing a player they can't afford to.

75% qualifiers: gives teams options to lower salary of underperformer without losing their rights.

You need all of those things for your idea to work because a team can't let talent walk for nothing. It certainly can't afford to UFAs to replace these players as the UFAs would cost more. Its bad team building to let player X walk then replace him with an identical player Y and give up substantial picks to do it (better to just for X down to Ys price). Nor can a team continually trade its good players for picks and prospects (fans will abandon it).
 

triggrman

Where is Hipcheck85
Sponsor
May 8, 2002
31,627
7,346
Murfreesboro, TN
hfboards.com
JWI19 said:
So then i guess were just gonna have to trust what the owners then? Sorry i cant do that. I'm not saying they aren't losing money. I think teams are losing money. But it's mainly because of bad investments, overvalued certain players, miscalculated revenue, etc.

No you have to trust Levitt. He's one of the most trusted auditors in business. It's not like the NHL went out and hired Arthur Anderson to do this report.
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
JWI19 said:
So then i guess were just gonna have to trust what the owners then? Sorry i cant do that. I'm not saying they aren't losing money. I think teams are losing money. But it's mainly because of bad investments, overvalued certain players, miscalculated revenue, etc.

All of which are things that happen in business.

You can't base the league on the hope all GMs will perform as well as the top 20% of GMs. The league has to be able to cope with average performing GMs too.
 

Motown Beatdown

Need a slump buster
Mar 5, 2002
8,572
0
Indianapolis
Visit site
triggrman said:
I agree with this concept. The only 2 problems are 10% annual salary increases and Salary Arbitration. New York has pays Holik 8M a year as a 3rd line grinder so it drives the price up in arbitration.

If you start cutting these players loose the fans get upset and quit coming to the games, lowering your revenue, making it tougher to sign players the next season hurting your fan support even more, further cutting your revenue. See how the circle goes.


I agree with the Arbitration, but not with the 10% annual salary raise. While it might suck to have to give a guy like Mathieu Dandenualt a 10% raise, but it sure does help them to only have to give Henrik Zetterberg a 10% raise. So in the end it could be a wash. Plus teams can release these players and replace them with cheaper option. The Wings could have resigned Boyd Devereaux for 1.8 million (his 10% raise) instead they let him go and resign Jason Williams for less than a half a million.


Do you really think Rangers fans are gonna stop buy tickets if they let Holik go? Do you think Islander fans would be pissed if they were able to unload Yashins salary? We fans aren't stupid, we know who is overpaid and who isn't. Whats gonna piss people off is if the owners get their way and the NHL turns into the NFL where as home grow fan favorite players are cut just because of their cap number. Not because of talent level but because of their dollar figure. I love the NFL, but it's hard as hell to follow who's on what team because of the number of players changing teams every year.
 

Motown Beatdown

Need a slump buster
Mar 5, 2002
8,572
0
Indianapolis
Visit site
triggrman said:
No you have to trust Levitt. He's one of the most trusted auditors in business. It's not like the NHL went out and hired Arthur Anderson to do this report.


It's hard to trust any report done by anyone if they are not allowed to dig into the owners true finical reports. It's nothing against Mr. Levitt who is respected world wide.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->