User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 0.7261 seconds
54 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
This is a major rebuke to the Giants. I wonder if there's going to be a TV network that the A's will essentially pay for but the Giants will own or something like that.
Isn't there already such a network? I vaguely remember the Giants owning a substantial percentage of CSN Bay Area with the A's having only a small stake.
There are two different Comcast Sports channels now. CSNBA and CSNCA (California). CSN Bay Area still holds Giants games, CSN Cali does A's (and Sharks!) games.
I think the Giants own something like 30% of the network. Surely they must be getting something out of this, if Selig is just handing the territory over to the A's with no strings attached after waffling over doing so for years it would only be baffling but a major kiss-off to the Giants as well. A team-owned TV network would make sense.
I hit on this in the other thread....what should the Giants really expect? They never paid anything, why should they be paid? They may not even actually have ownership of those territorial rights....
I think so....I had mentioned that in a thread that was buried last week....and mocked accordingly (with good cause, of course!) ;-)
Er, what I mean is, I hope they keep the name Athletics, and not fall to any local pressure (if there is any) to change it to something else, like, say, the "San Jose Winchesters" or the "San Jose Way".
(That has to be the first time the Winchester Mystery House- which I believe is in the San Jose area- was been referenced on BBTF)
Because regardless of how the Giants obtained them in the first place, the whole idea of MLB territories becomes a sham if they can be taken way at will. It's in the other 29 owners'* best interest to make sure that territorial rights can't be forcibly transferred without compensation.
*at least the ones with territories worth protecting. Some of the small market owners might very well want a precedent that may one day be used to justify moving their franchise to New York or LA.
*at least the ones with territories worth protecting. Some of the small market owners might very well want a precedent that may one day be used to justify moving their franchise to New York or LA.
Except, Oakland is staying within the same territory. San Jose is as much theirs as SF.
This is not the Yankees blocking the Rays from moving to Brooklyn, it's the Yankees blocking the Mets from moving there. If the Mets had wanted to build Citifield in Brooklyn, the Yankees should have no right to object.
They can be taken away at will. Those are the rules. The Giants have known for 20 years that their so called "rights" were revocable at the whim of MLB. So what's the big deal if it becomes a "sham"? The relevant point is that 29 of the 30 teams' value increases if there is a team in Silicon Valley and if the A's aren't a revenue sharing recipient. The same will be true if the Rays move to Manhattan. What's good for the owners as a whole is, and should be, the guideline in these matters.
Except nothing. The Giants have the rights, the A's don't. The whole point of protected territories is to allow teams to invest in their area without having to worry about another team cutting in on that revenue stream. The Giants funded their new park in large part through money from the Silicon Valley, and ticket sales/ad revenue from that area remains a big part of their bottom line. They've gone to great lengths to cultivate that market, so why shouldn't the A's have to pay to take it over? It's not the Giants' fault that the A's ran their team into the ground over the last twenty years, and that failure shouldn't be rewarded by forcing a healthy franchise to relinquish a big chunk of its customer base for free.
Whats possible by law and what's established practice are two very different things. It's possible that the US constitution might be amended to repeal the first, or any, amendment. In practice, it ain't happening. Taking the the uncompensated reassignment of territorial rights from "sure, it's technically possible within the rules," to "it happened to the Giants, so it could happen to you," is a big deal.
If the Giants fans want to whine about precedent, and I can't wait for the concern trolls to come by and say this move will be bad for the A's, the actual precedent is that the rights to San Jose are transferable without compensation.
If any business person has ever believed that any other business person is likely to vote to prohibit something that benefits themselves and their minority partners, they're not too bright. Of course "it could happen to you". Not only that, but it's likely to happen to you if it benefits the other 29 owners.
The they're rights really rights, are they? Giving something valuable away for free doesn't make it worthless, just the giver stupid.
Probably not.
Los Angeles A's of San Jose.
Thinking something received for free is actually valuable when it's not, makes the receiver stupid, but not as stupid as though he/she actually paid for it.
San Jose Whoa Whoa Whoa Wh-Whoa Whoa Wh-Whoa Whoa's
edit: do the A's get "backsies" on the Gonzalez trade?
Which is a significant abuse of eminent domain, but I guess nobody gives a #### about that these days.
I was going to post this in the other Beane thread, but in the Oakland paper today Beane said they're budgeting $10-11 million for the draft this year, up from last year's pants-shittingly-low $3 million. That's a welcome move, if nothing else.
And it begins.
Nobody in their right mind would chose Alameda County over Silicon Valley from a business perspective. This is like someone handing you a dollar and you complaining about the dime they want in return.
The Giants couldn't care less. If you give me a rock and it turns out to be a diamond, it doesn't mean you get to ask for it back.
Edit: Unless Seligdad makes you.
If I remember right, it had more to do with things like Luxury boxes and so on. Of course, sort of stupid from a fan perspective. If you're an A's fan in Sacramento, you are now another hour away from your team. Kinda sucks in that sense.
San Jo's a ######## anyways. A's are welcome to it. This takes the likelihood that I attend an A's game from 10% to 0%.
Does that include international amateurs?
If you give me a rock and it turns out to be a diamond, it doesn't mean you get to ask for it back.
What if my dad gave me the option to use a rock as long as he thinks it's ok, and then I give that option to you, and my dad decides to give it back to me after he stops thinking it's ok?
I'm so confused!
They kept it when they moved from Philadelphia to Kansas City.
They kept it when they moved from Kansas City to Oakland.
They'll keep it when they move from Oakland to San Jose.
Wonder where they'll move to when San Jose does not work out.
Solvang? Santa Barbara? Cabo San Lucas?
Post 17: "Winchester Mystery House. pwn3d."
I don't think any anti-A's backlash in northern Alameda county will result in gain for the Giants so much as a growth in general baseball apathy. There's a pretty strong anti-SF sentiment from the Oakland side of the rivalry, and many of those fans would sooner abandon baseball than cheer for the Giants.
I wouldn't abandon baseball but I'd find a different team. I was briefly a Giants fan before I became an A's fan and I continued to root for the Giants in the NL until I left San Francisco, but after this territorial spat, there's no f'in way I'm going back to them.
The Giants are already making big gains in Alameda County. You see Giants hats all the time around here now - you never, ever would have seen that in the 80s or 90s. It's the new park near the Bart line, as well as the overflow population from the city (Oakland is hipster cool again now). Also, the Giants have more or less completely taken over the nicer/wealthier parts of the valley. When the Giants were in Candlestick, a solid 2-2.5 hours from Lafayette and Walnut Creek et. al, those areas were mixed but still decidedly A's - now that it's as easy to get AT&T as it is to get to the Oakland Coliseum it's all moving Giants. Basically the A's are already screwed in their home territory.
I don't think San Jose will be an absolute panacea for the team unless ownership does a 180 as well, which we'll see about, Wolff's protestations to the contrary. I think it pretty much assures they'll be an 80m payroll team for the near future, which is pretty good, with the potential to be more.
There's no they're there.
Because the A's were gracious enough to allow the Giants the option of building a stadium in that market (an option the Giant's never used), they have to now pay off the Giant's if they want to build there?
All because the Giant's ran some billboards south of SF?
Stalingrad.
FTW. Merry Xmas, Miss Stein.
...Not much fun in Stalingrad, no.
How many times will the Rivercats out draw the A's?
Interesting....now how to get the other 29 owners to care......
How long is it going to take for everyone to realize that those "territorial rights" may not even exist, under the eyes of the law? If the Giants play too hard at compensation, they are going to lose. This is why they backed down once the County threatened to sue....their "ownership" of those rights isn't exactly clear, in the legal sense. I am guessing MLB tells them as much. It is they're own fault for balking at putting a stdium there and then moving on. I don't know why Giants supporters keep falling back on those rights, when just a little research will show just how questionable the "ownership" of those rights really is....
You might be right, but it seems like if it was even half this simple, it would have happened 10 years ago. MLB and the Nationals didn't give a pile of money to the O's out of the goodness of their hearts.
The Nationals were moving into the O's "territory", the A's already share the south bay with the Giants and have been there for decades.
The precedent is, the Giants have never been in the south bay. They asked the As if they could build south of SF, the As said we'd allow that, the Giants didn't exercise that option. Nothing in that should concede San Jose or Silicon Valley to the Giants just because the Giants do a good job marketing there. That would be like saying the As couldn't move to Sacramento if the Giants build up a significant fan base there.
The relevance of this is dubious. MLB territories are defined by the ML Constitution. In a perfect world, the Giants would yield back San Jose because they didn't build their stadium there, but we don't live in a perfect world. The right thing and the legal thing are often at odds. Claiming this is some sort of legal slam dunk is preposterous given the legal firepower MLB has at its disposal. Lew Wolff was Selig's college frat brother and maybe even roommate (?). There's no way this would have dragged out for a decade if it was half as simple as some people in this thread are making it out to be.
It's apples and oranges. Sacramento is in Sacramento County, which is neither a part of SFG's nor OAK's MLB-defined territory. Santa Clara County, meanwhile, is specifically defined as SFG territory.
I think by the MLB regulations it is exactly as simple as people are making it out to be. MLB can transfer the territorial rights to the A's or anyone else with a 75% majority vote. The hold-up is largely political, whereby Selig wants very badly to get a consensus among all owners so that factions don't develop and there is basic unity amongst all. If he makes 1 owner angry he can deal with it for the greater good. If he makes 1 owner and his 3 best friends angry, it's a much worse political situation. I think all these delays have been to cajole and appease all the other owners to go along with the vote so that it's at least a 29-1 vote, and ideally 30-0.
Where in the ML Constitution is this stipulated? Article V, Sec. 2 (b) (8) talks about "involuntary termination of rights," but that's basically MLB's death-penalty clause. If MLB didn't invoke it when the Nationals moved, why is it suddenly a slam-dunk, no-brainer move with SFG and OAK?
Maybe, but my guess is the holdup is legal. MLB just strong-armed the Astros into the A.L. within a 90-day period, while this OAK situation is a decade old. Even at MLB's deliberate pace, it seems like more than politics have dragged this out.
I suspect that McCourt agreeing to sell the Dodgers was the decision that got this approved. That was the one team that had something to lose by the idea that territories were truly shared.
Hmmm...the Astros are an interesting case. Here no one opposed this except the Astros themselves, and they were for sale, so the owner wouldn't have to live with the outcome personally. He would just have to be compensated for the difference in sales price and he seems to have been.
If you're wondering why this didn't happen 10 years ago, it's because Wolff only bought the team in 2005, and felt the need to show the other owners that Oakland and other places in the A's current territory weren't viable -- ie.Fremont. I believe that this was done for political reasons, to satisfy squeamish owners who didn't want to offend the Giants that a non-confrontational solution was not practical. Further there may have still been owners who did not think the SF Bay Area was a viable 2 team market, and Selig himself has been skeptical in the past. I am not a lawyer so I am not positive that there are no legal obstacles, but if there were, where are they now?
In order to get a consensus, Selig had to first make San Jose the only viable place for the A's in the minds of all owners, and second, satisfy everyone, other than the Giants, that the Giants would still be viable even if the A's moved to San Jose. I think that takes a lot longer than getting the Astros to move to the AL West.
The fact SFG chose not to use San Jose is more of a moral or right/wrong argument than a legal one. MLB and/or OAK could have demanded a "use it or lose it" provision and/or an expiration date when Santa Clara County was yielded to SFG but apparently no such stipulation exists.
This OAK situation actually predates McCourt's purchase of the Dodgers, so I'm not sure I follow this.
Maybe, but I find it hard to believe that it would take 7-plus years to convince MLB owners that OAK needs a new stadium and that San Jose is the best option while it took only ~90 days to shift a 50-year National League team to the American League.
(BTW, just so we're clear, I'm not trying to be an SFG apologist here. As far as I'm concerned, the sooner OAK (and TB) are resolved, the better.)
It wasn't 7 years, it's been three years since the Selig Blue Ribbon Committee was formed. Wolff's only owned the team for 6 years and the first three of those were spent on the Fremont option.
But that committee was formed long after everyone knew the problem and the solution. Moneyball was written in 2002, which was already a couple years after OAK's revenue situation inspired them to start playing "Moneyball." We're talking 10 years, minimum, that this issue has been on MLB's radar.
If this issue was as simple as some people here are claiming, then it makes no sense for MLB and OAK to have wasted a decade.
If you're going back to 2002 there wasn't even a consensus that the area could support two teams. We're talking right after the bursting of the internet bubble. There were still options within the city of Oakland that had to be eliminated, in North Oakland and at Jack London Square. The A's were in the middle of the AL in attendance then. I don't recall a consensus that San Jose was the only viable option within the area until after both Oakland and Fremont had been eliminated. And then they had to convince people that San Jose was better than Sacramento, Portland, Charlotte, etc.
Again, if there were legal obstacles, what were they and when were they resolved? Why aren't they being put forth by the Giants?
Put forth where? Nothing has happened yet, which means the SFG have no cause of action. But the fact this has dragged on for so long — 3 years by your count, 10 years by mine* — shows that MLB fears more than some hurt feelings in the SFG owners' suite, just as the money MLB paid to BAL when the Expos moved to D.C. proved the same in that deal.
(* Plus another 3 years to build a new stadium once the issue is resolved.)
What if SF doesn't even have those rights?
Can YOU produce the evidence that they do?
(The Giants have not produed one piece of evidence, aside from hearsay and common misconception, or any actual paperwork regarding the rights of that area. My guess is they've merely been posturing all along. And yes, that is EXACTLY what a good/smart business owner does when he knows he really hasn't got a leg to stand on)
Do you not think there's a reason for this?
Why, in your opinion, did this quickly become resolved once the Cease & Desist was filed against the Giants in an attempt to prevent them from continue to claim rights and block a move to that exact location?
Simply not true. A Cease & Desist was filed by the County. Legal action started and that would've been the Giants chance to reply with whatever legal challenge they had....
Wouldn't it be more good/smart to cultivate the fans in the East Bay if they knew that the A's to San Jose was inevitable rather than alienating them by trying to get the A's moved out of the SF Bay Area, or keeping them in subordinate status in Oakland? As an A's fan who used to root for the Giants also in the NL, there's no way I'd ever become a Giants fan now.
Their MLS team is already named that.
Sorry, I thought I had addressed your points, at least tangentially.
I don't understand this idea that the SFG "may not actually have rights here." Territorial rights are controlled by the ML Constitution, which states, in no uncertain terms, that Santa Clara County is the exclusive territory of the SFG for teams at the MLB level. See Article VIII, Section 8 (p. 15) of the ML Constitution (PDF).
Now, sometimes MLB treats the ML Constitution about as sacred as Islamists treat the Koran, and other times it treats its Constitution like last week's newspaper (hello, American League Astros), but there's nothing ambiguous about the SFG's claim to Santa Clara County within the context of MLB.
What would they need to show, beyond the language in the link above, to satisfy such claims or doubts?
If it's just posturing, then why did MLB and the Nationals agree to pay BAL when the Expos moved?
My guess is that MLB believes the ML Constitution is both valid and controlling, but it fears a friendly hometown Nor. Calif. judge might side with the SFG and (1) cause chaos vis-a-vis future enforcement of the ML Constitution and/or (2) render a huge damages judgment against MLB and/or OAK.
How has this been "resolved"? As far as I can tell, nothing has happened other than USA Today claiming there's been some movement behind the scenes — a rumor that's been recurring for years now.
Aside from the internal politics of such a move, I believe there's a requirement that two teams/stadiums within a shared territory must be a minimum air mileage apart unless both teams agree otherwise. In this case, it probably depends on how "downtown" is defined. (Hold the LAA jokes.)
I don't believe the Angels ever surrendered the rights to the city of Los Angeles (where they played their first five seasons), so I'm pretty certain that if Moreno wanted to move downtown (assuming the proposed NFL stadium near Staples Center is never built), the Dodgers couldn't block him, although MLB might request the Angels to pay a slight indemnification.
You keep pointing to BAL-WAS...it's a poor comparison, as it is two different scenarios with two different surronding circumstances. These are 2 unique situations, so relying on the other for some sort of "precedent" is reaching.
You have not answered to the key question where all the legal stuff hinges: Why did SF back down after the Cease & Desist? Why is there now some semblance of resolution (as much as you'd like to deny it, it's happening. Sorry, Nightengale wasn't the only one in on this....this situation has been developing behind closed doors for some time now) after the threat of a suit was brought by the County?
Frankly, I am all for this debate, but you seem to want to only include YOUR facts. We can play "I think, You think" all day, but in the end, it's going to go down. In the end, the fact remains that once legal action started, a resolution seemed to get a whole hell of a lot closer.
Again, in short: Why, if the Giants are 100% on this, did they back down from the County's threats? Why didn't they challenge and assert their claim?
Really? What is the distance? The O.co is closer to AT&T Park now then it would be if it moved. In fact, they are REALLY close right now....just a bridge away....
If the Giants agreed to this "air-space" thing....why wouldn't they agree to see them move even FARTHER away???
Does anyone have a link to some background on this? I can't find anything using the googles.
I'd LOVE to hear some Giant's fan feedback on THAT one!
The term 'Santa Clara Giants Territorial rights' is also getting tons of hits to various biz articles, etc on both Yahoo and Google that cover the legal wrangling...
The LAD and LAA share both Los Angeles and Orange counties (see link in #81), but I'm quite sure the air mileage rule (and/or internal politics) would limit/impede the LAA's relocation.
No, it's not a poor comparison. To the contrary, it seems like the SFG have a stronger claim than BAL did. The ML Constitution explicitly lists Santa Clara County as SFG territory.
Yes, it's been happening "behind closed doors" for 10 years or more. As I've been saying all along, if this was half as easy as you and some others are claiming, it would have been resolved many years ago.
As I've said before, I have no horse in this race. I want to see OAK (and TB) resolved ASAP. Again, my point is simply that this deal isn't as easy as people are claiming. If it was, why has Selig's college frat brother been left in limbo for years, with a minimum of three more years of limbo (while a new stadium is built) even if the issue is resolved today?
I follow MLB quite closely and wasn't even aware of this "cease and desist" issue until I read this thread. Do you have any links about this issue? I just tried a variety of words and phrases at Google and found nothing except a trademark dispute.
"Just a bridge?" The SFG and OAK ballparks are 16 miles apart by land (and more than 5 air miles apart).
Anyway, I believe the air-mileage rule is five (5) air miles, but I'm not sure if it applies only to new teams moving into a territory or if it applies to teams already sharing a territory. But again, MLB's internal politics often trump even the ML Constitution. Since just about any major move by a team needs MLB approval, it seems doubtful the LAA could move two miles from LAD without substantial internal hurdles.
Simple: The SFG apparently care more about Santa Clara County than they do about Oakland. Whether this is a rational position from a business standpoint is a matter of debate.
Try the search terms and/or links provided.....
I find it hard to believe that only I can find these articles.....in my spare time (which isn't much)....
I also don't think it's easy, anytime you have multi-million dollar companies vying over something like this...I do think SOMETHING occured in the last few months that changed the Giants tune. My best educated guess, judging from everything coming from the County itself, is that they backed down once they realized this would end up in a court of law. You seem to be arguing that everything is the same and won't be resolved....all signs point the other direction. I get that it's taken 10 years to get this far. That, more than anything, should show you the last few months has brought along some progress. Now, any theory as to WHY? If not fear of legal action....why is this all FINALLY being settled? NEVER before has it been this close to being a completely done and official deal.
The first link is from 2009 and includes no mention of any lawsuit or "cease and desist." The second link is a blog post full of opinion and almost bereft of facts (and, again, no mention of any "cease and desist" orders). The third link is from almost a year ago and also has no mention of any legal action.
For someone who claims others are playing fast and loose with the truth, it seems kind of odd that your central argument in this thread is based on an alleged legal action for which no one can find a single link.
Tip of the iceberg. Everyone says there is NO mention? Did you read those articles all the way through? One was well over 7 pages and INDEED touched on the legal action the Mayor and County were taking, including the discussion between them and the lawyers....are we NOT looking at the same stuff? What about EVERY OTHER ARTICLE IN THE SEARCH, that you said brought up nothing? I don't understand how I use basic search engines, but am getting different results....
I just re-read those...again.....are you skimming?????
" Even San Jose could sue for the right to bring the A’s to town..."
Is that NOT plain enough english? That was from one shot, from one article, from the above search, pulled at random. There are several relevant articles out there....I would apprciate it if you read each and every one before making a comment like the one above. I will NOT do the research for someone after providing all the outline needed to do that research themselves. If you choose not to read each article and came to the discussion without 100% of the available knowledge....not my fault nor do you need to accuse me of anything approaching intellectual dishonesty. Try reading ALL the relevant information PRIOR to making your judgment/assesment of me. Thanks.
On which page? I scanned all 7 pages and saw no mention of any lawsuits against SFG and/or MLB, and the word "cease" — as in the alleged "cease and desist" action to which you keep referring — doesn't appear in the article (or in the other two links) a single time.
As for why there might be resolution now rather than 10 years ago, it's probably because (1) there isn't a single city in America offering a huge subsidy to build a new ballpark for a possibly relocated OAK, and/or (2) MLB and the other teams understand the preceding and are tired of having OAK in limbo (and receiving revenue sharing money rather than possibly paying it in San Jose).
"“Haas gave away territorial rights, and the Giants never gave them back,” Doyle says. “So, this whole idea of the Giants having territorial rights—had you been at the table, it’s not something that was bargained for or bought. The A’s gave them to them.”"
WTF is the Giants problem?
The word "cease" appears zero times in that 7-page article. Bottom line, if the SFG and/or MLB had been slapped with any legal action relating to San Jose, we wouldn't be struggling to find links. It seems you've either misremembered this alleged "cease and desist" action or misconstrued an opinion-based blog post as fact.
Is this a joke? Throughout this thread, you've been claiming the SFG "backed down" after being hit with a "cease and desist" action. Now the best you can find is an obscure reference to the threat of legal action? If you don't want to admit you were wrong, that's fine, but I see no point in going in circles.
Then that was dumb of OAK and/or OAK's lawyers, but it doesn't change much of anything on the SFG side of the fence. If a rich guy gives a million dollars to charity and then goes broke two weeks later, it might be nice to return the money, but the charity is under no legal obligation to do so. This doesn't seem much (if at all) different.
We're crossed somewhere. I said several times that I need to find the EXACT article, I was merely pointing out the fact that "no mention of any lawsuit" is factually incorrect.
THe #96 wasn't directed at you, just a general statement while I was reading through some of this stuff. It appears that the bottom line was that the Giants wanted to force the A's out of the Bay Area completely (?)
THis part really bugs me. I do admit I am wrong in about 80% of my posts! No problem with that at all, which is why I keep trying to find the specific article I am trying to reference again. Either to prove me right or to prove that I misread it. EIther way, I am ok. NOT knowing for sure is what kills me!
Again, I ask most sincerely...is there a way to search through my own previous posts on this site? Never tried before. That would help clear the confusion. Again, I did not once claim that any link provided was THE link, on the contrary I keep saying I am looking for the thing. I am merely refuting your flat "no mention of any lawsuit" statement, as that's just false. There is mention of lawsuits. It doesn;t have the exact wording I am looking for in re: to the Cease and Desist from the County, but to say there is no mention of ANY lawsuits....that is simply untrue.
Hey, there are no hard feelings here. I assume you're an OAK fan and I hope the situation gets resolved ASAP. My point in the last few comments is simply that if Santa Clara and/or San Jose had taken legal action against SFG and/or MLB, you wouldn't be having trouble finding it on Google. It would be a 3-second task.
There's a Google Custom Search box above. The "view posts by this member" option has never worked for me here.
BTW, I found an old analysis by Doug Pappas from 2002 that says the following:
Maybe the rules have been changed and/or Doug misread something, but if this analysis is correct, it makes OAK's move into Santa Clara seem very easy. There seems to be a wide disconnect between the above and the experience with BAL/WAS and now SFG/OAK.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main