Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Thursday, February 27, 2020

YouTube TV, Sinclair engaged in dispute impacting broadcasts of 15 teams

YouTube TV announced today that it has failed to reach a carriage agreement with Sinclair Broadcasting Corp. Sinclair is the company which owns the Fox Sports regional channels (Fox Sports South, Fox Sports Detroit, etc.) and the YES Network which broadcasts the Yankees. Those sports channels won’t be carried on YouTube TV after this Saturday. Those channels cover 15 of the 30 big league clubs. It’s not just baseball, though: this impacts over 40 teams across MLB, the NBA and the NHL whose games are carried on the Sinclair-owned stations.

No one knows how long this dispute will last. It could just be a hiccup in negotiations. It could, like the Dodgers’ situation, last a long time. Each side will, inevitably, cast it as the fault of the other side. Standard business dynamics that all moves at the speed of business, as they say.

RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: February 27, 2020 at 10:20 PM | 41 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: youtube tv

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.

   1. jmurph Posted: February 28, 2020 at 09:37 AM (#5927020)
This is majorly disappointing to me and I hope they get their #### together. I just switched to YouTube TV (from Vue, which was discontinued) a month or so ago and have been really happy with it, but this would be a setback. Unfortunately the other steaming options are worse, so I've just go to ride it out for now.
   2. Jefferson Manship (Dan Lee) Posted: February 28, 2020 at 10:10 AM (#5927022)
This isn't the first time Sinclair has jacked with baseball.
   3. Moses Taylor, glorified meat shield Posted: February 28, 2020 at 10:11 AM (#5927023)
I'm going to switch to Hulu now, just for the sake of getting the baseball channels. I really liked the YouTube TV interface though.

I think Hulu and YouTube are pretty similar in terms of the overall offerings, right? I think Hulu is about $5 more a month (or $10, if you pay for the ad free version).
   4. jmurph Posted: February 28, 2020 at 10:26 AM (#5927031)
I think Hulu and YouTube are pretty similar in terms of the overall offerings, right? I think Hulu is about $5 more a month (or $10, if you pay for the ad free version).

Hulu doesn't have the NBA or MLB networks last I checked (just a few weeks ago). Obviously if you live in the same market as your favorite teams you'd opt for the RSNs (with Hulu) over the national networks (with YouTube), but I don't, so it's a more complicated choice for me.
   5. jmurph Posted: February 28, 2020 at 10:28 AM (#5927034)
I really liked the YouTube TV interface though.

Yeah the Hulu interface is a lot worse. I'm sure I'd get used to it, but I much prefer YouTube.

I'm also not sure about streaming quality comparison? I'm getting higher quality streams on YouTube than I was on Vue, but I also got a new tv somewhere in that mix so it's possible that explains it all.
   6. DL from MN Posted: February 28, 2020 at 10:30 AM (#5927035)
Nice of them to keep baseball fans paying for the service all winter, then announcing at the last minute that they won't actually get baseball games this summer.
   7. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: February 28, 2020 at 10:31 AM (#5927036)

Hulu doesn't have the NBA or MLB networks last I checked


Thanks for that heads up. Guess I have to finish all the "MLB Presents" I have recorded then switch to Hulu. I'm guessing its just a matter of time before Sinclair demands outrageous fees from Hulu and they drop them too.
   8. Moses Taylor, glorified meat shield Posted: February 28, 2020 at 10:32 AM (#5927037)
Hulu doesn't have the NBA or MLB networks last I checked (just a few weeks ago).

WTF, that's stupid. But it's also stupid how big of a presence YouTube is as an MLB advertiser and doesn't have the RSNs. At least for baseball, I also have t-mobile so I get mlbtv for free.

I haven't actually switched yet, even though the Cubs have a deal with Hulu and their channel is live, it still isn't on Hulu yet.
   9. jmurph Posted: February 28, 2020 at 10:36 AM (#5927046)
But it's also stupid how big of a presence YouTube is as an MLB advertiser and doesn't have the RSNs.

They're the main NBA Finals sponsor, too! Or at least they were last year. Just ridiculous.

(Also you guys should confirm the channel lineups before taking my word for it- Hulu et al are blocked on my work network so I can't access it, but this article seems current.)
   10. jmurph Posted: February 28, 2020 at 10:38 AM (#5927049)
Side note to all of this, how much longer are these networks going to continue to be called "Fox Sports ______" when they're no longer owned by Fox?
   11. Jose Is Absurdly Chatty Posted: February 28, 2020 at 10:41 AM (#5927051)
YouTube is better than Hulu in my opinion. The user experience is just far better. I’m really bummed that PSVue went away though because that was fantastic.
   12. jmurph Posted: February 28, 2020 at 10:51 AM (#5927058)
I'm guessing its just a matter of time before Sinclair demands outrageous fees from Hulu and they drop them too.

This is honestly a really important point, too. They're fighting with several cable providers, Sling, etc., so it's not exactly guaranteed they're going to stay on Hulu.
   13. pthomas Posted: February 28, 2020 at 11:46 AM (#5927080)
Cable is circling the drain...this is the last big money grab before abandoning ship.
   14. Moses Taylor, glorified meat shield Posted: February 28, 2020 at 12:01 PM (#5927086)
This is honestly a really important point, too. They're fighting with several cable providers, Sling, etc., so it's not exactly guaranteed they're going to stay on Hulu.

At least for the Cubs/Marquee, they just signed a deal this month. I don't think any of us know the terms, but that'd be pretty ####### crazy to have an issue this soon.
   15. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: February 28, 2020 at 12:04 PM (#5927088)
Side note to all of this, how much longer are these networks going to continue to be called "Fox Sports ______" when they're no longer owned by Fox?


For as long as they continue to cover fox hunting, presumably.
   16. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: February 28, 2020 at 12:07 PM (#5927093)
However long their trademark license runs.
   17. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: February 28, 2020 at 12:10 PM (#5927095)

Side note to all of this, how much longer are these networks going to continue to be called "Fox Sports ______" when they're no longer owned by Fox?


FWIW, they haven't been owned by FOX for a year, right? Disney has been their owner before this. Wikipedia says they are exploring "re-branding".

YouTube is better than Hulu in my opinion.


Times x 100.
   18. Ziggy is done with Dominican discotheques Posted: February 28, 2020 at 12:18 PM (#5927102)
I'm partial to MLB.TV, but then watching the local Orioles isn't really a high priority.

And it's free if you have T-Mobile!
   19. aberg Posted: February 28, 2020 at 12:24 PM (#5927107)
My dad is a snow bird who goes between Minnesota in the summers and Arizona in the winters. He finally switched to streaming about a year ago to get him out of paying for cable in multiple locations. He had YouTubeTV, which let him watch the Twins at his lake cabin in the summer. Anybody know if there's another streaming service that would get him Fox Sports North for this summer? Or if there's another way around the in-market blackout? It definitely seems like a last-ditch move by Cable (or Sinclair trying to monopolize the RSNs for their own streaming services).
   20. jmurph Posted: February 28, 2020 at 01:17 PM (#5927115)
berg, Hulu should have you covered, he should be able to check his zip to make sure FSN is available there.
   21. DL from MN Posted: February 28, 2020 at 01:21 PM (#5927117)
The only streaming service that offers the regional sports networks is Hulu + Live. They also offer ESPN and none of NFL, NBA or MLB networks. There are rumors Sinclair made a side deal to offer the RSNs cheaper to Hulu than to the other streaming services as a condition of the Disney sale to Sinclair.
   22. aberg Posted: February 28, 2020 at 01:36 PM (#5927120)
Thanks jmurph and DL.
   23. I am Ted F'ing Williams Posted: February 28, 2020 at 02:22 PM (#5927126)
There are rumors Sinclair made a side deal to offer the RSNs cheaper to Hulu than to the other streaming services as a condition of the Disney sale to Sinclair.

Probably more like Disney made the side deal with Sinclair so they could guarantee Hulu had them. Sinclair did agree to terms with AT&T/DirecTV for carriage, but AT&T is fully embracing the TV streaming bundle model.

#13 is right on the money. The RSN model may be fading away. Fox didn't want them anymore, and Disney only got about half of what they estimated they would get from selling them. To me that suggests that the carriage rights contracts were ending for some of the RSN's and Fox saw the writing on the wall regarding the willingness of the distribution platforms (Comcast, YouTubeTv, etc.) to meet the monthly asking price. Either Sinclair had no clue about this or they had a direct-to-consumer idea in mind and decided to buy now instead of let someone like Amazon beat them to it. ATSC 3.0 is looming in the background and Fox, Sinclair, Disney, and Comcast all own OTA licenses in various markets while Amazon and AT&T own none. Comcast makes a lot more selling people increased internet speeds they don't need than selling a TV plan and dealing with the content provider contracts that go with it. They have their own content arm anyway and was probably part of the decision to sell their stake in Hulu to Disney.

I still have a feeling that Fox or Sinclair will wind up buying Netflix. And Liberty Media could get in the game too.
   24. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: February 28, 2020 at 02:56 PM (#5927138)

I still have a feeling that Fox or Sinclair will wind up buying Netflix. And Liberty Media could get in the game too.

I think they missed their chance...

Sinclair market cap: $2 billion
Fox market cap: $19 billion
Liberty market cap: $24 billion

Netflix market cap: $158 billion
   25. DL from MN Posted: February 28, 2020 at 03:02 PM (#5927142)
What this seems to be pointing out is the RSN contracts have negative value because the rights fees are too high.
   26. Rusty Priske Posted: February 28, 2020 at 03:22 PM (#5927153)
I'm partial to MLB.TV


I WAS partial to MLB.tv but I just cancelled the service after they told me the entire country of Canada is blacked out for Blue Jays games.

I guess I am going to subscribe to SportsNet Now. It sure is nice to have options...
   27. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: February 28, 2020 at 05:02 PM (#5927168)

What this seems to be pointing out is the RSN contracts have negative value because the rights fees are too high.


Well the rights fees Sinclair are asking for are too high.

Either Sinclair had no clue about this or they had a direct-to-consumer idea in mind


They've talked about teaming up with Amazon or someone like that. But my guess is Sinclair bought the RSNs to use as leverage. They also own 200 some local TV stations, I imagine they could start pulling those from Youtube TV and other carriers next, right?
   28. I am Ted F'ing Williams Posted: February 28, 2020 at 05:10 PM (#5927170)
I think they missed their chance...

Maybe Netflix winds up buying Dish or Sinclair buys Dish, etc. Either way, these companies are going to be merging in some fashion. NFLX market cap looks like they are protected, but everything else about them looks vulnerable compared to current and potential competitors who actually own ISP cable backbone or wireless spectrum. If their market cap collapses, they'll be looking for a buyer.
   29. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: February 28, 2020 at 05:21 PM (#5927172)
Either way, these companies are going to be merging in some fashion.


Not under a Sanders or Warren administration!
   30. DL from MN Posted: February 28, 2020 at 05:23 PM (#5927173)
Well the rights fees Sinclair are asking for are too high.


I meant the fees Sinclair is paying MLB.
   31. Walt Davis Posted: February 28, 2020 at 05:44 PM (#5927177)
If cable TV is circling the drain, then aren't Hulu and YouTubeTV (and obviously Vue) also circling the drain? Pretty much by definition? And do you really expect a better long-term situation under Google, Disney, Apple, Amazon, et al?

Hulu is owned by Disney (67%) and Comcast (33%). A sizable chunk of Disney's stake was acquired when they bought Fox. You're still dealing with the same corporations. If you think Comcast cable is run by a bunch of moron dinosaurs ...

Ahh, those early days when folks were complaining about how fed up they were about paying for stuff they didn't watch. And now here we are paying for (multiple) streaming services to get the 5% of their content we want ... and many of you apparently no longer able to access your local baseball broadcasts. Awesome.
   32. I am Ted F'ing Williams Posted: February 28, 2020 at 06:05 PM (#5927185)
I imagine they could start pulling those from Youtube TV and other carriers next, right?

Sure, but I honestly don't think the local stations have all that much value to those carriers since most viewers can get them OTA at no cost.

In those markets, the RSNs could be used in conjunction with ATSC 3.0 to bypass the carriers entirely since the standard incorporates a code confirmation with the receiver/tuner should the broadcaster want to use it. Not unlike the old ONTV if you're old enough to remember that. OnTV wiki

Obviously for two-way communication to work there has to be some secondary spectrum for return transmission, but in theory a DTV subchannel could just send a code that the receiver/tuner must match in order to decode the signal for the viewer and no return signal is required (which isn't even new as analog TV and FM signals have always had auxiliary parts of their signal besides the audio and video, the only thing new is the codecs that allow for more digital data to be sent and decoded by the receiver/tuner). There is of course a lot of value in having data returned to the provider so most ATSC 3.0 deployments will probably require it for any viewer that wants the added features. So I could imagine a subscription-based OTA RSN that costs $30 a month, or $20 with targeted ads (requiring the return transmission). How it all shakes out is anyone's guess, but the current RSN business model will change.

   33. Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman Fred Posted: February 28, 2020 at 06:24 PM (#5927191)
My 2 cents -- YouTube TV is an easier user interface to adjust to if you're coming from cable (and used to channel surfing), but after bouncing back and forth a few times I actually prefer Hulu's on demand browsing. It is definitely a PITA to just see what's on (live) TV and flip around -- but that's not really how I watch TV anymore.

   34. I am Ted F'ing Williams Posted: February 28, 2020 at 06:53 PM (#5927196)
If cable TV is circling the drain, then aren't Hulu and YouTubeTV (and obviously Vue) also circling the drain?

Probably, but it's hard to say for sure. The content providers are fighting "a la carte" tooth and nail and even though they make money they also make the customers mad. Sony just killed Vue because they aren't allowed to sell what the customers told them they want. Maybe the others are in a position to put up a bigger fight but I tend to doubt it.

I've dumped Netflix and just rent individual shows because I don't watch that much TV. Even the forthcoming products like "Peacock" and "HBO Max" are still trying to give you more content than you really want so they can justify a higher price although Peacock is at least offering a free tier with ads (like Pluto and Tubi).

I don't even want ESPN or FS1, I just want my local RSN if they would just quote me an a la carte price and stream it. But they won't. Maybe Sinclair or Comcast will eventually figure this out, but I ain't holding my breath.
   35. Jose Is Absurdly Chatty Posted: February 28, 2020 at 07:53 PM (#5927204)
Walt - I think the advantages that Hulu/YouTubeTV/etc...have over the traditional cable model is a couple of things;

1. Mobility - I think the ability to watch on a cell phone or tablet or computer is a big thing.

2. Lack of contract - The Verizon’s and Comcast’s of the world have really hurt themselves with their horseshit customer service over the years. The lack of the infernal two year contracts is a big win for the streaming services.

3. Cost - The services are a LOT cheaper than traditional cable. No equipment to rent, watch on a bunch of screens without additional boxes, it’s a big money saver.

I think the true a la carte model is a pipe dream, it always has been in my mind. I think the reason cable was a problem was the way it was delivered was so inefficient and costly.
   36. cardsfanboy Posted: February 28, 2020 at 08:29 PM (#5927207)
I'm about to enter a year where I'm not going to watch any Cardinal baseball games, Hulu is too expensive for that service for monthly(it's like $40 a month)... at that rate I could get cable which works better in my opinion. I only have one tv in my house, and don't do mobile watching, so cable isn't a bad deal, but it wasn't as good of a deal as Sling was at $25 a month. For the most part I feel like $30 a month is pretty much my limit for tv entertainment...going over that for how little I actually watch isn't worth it. If I could get FSMW for $5 a month I would spend it on that, add in Sling for $20 a month and be more than content. From October until today I have watched zero hours of broadcast tv(meaning live/first broadcast etc) , I watch a day or two after they air on the website.... and I'm not missing anything. There is literally no desire for me to watch a live/initial broadcast other than a Cardinal game... nothing else is important, and there are so many ways to watch it after the fact that it makes no sense to pay more than $30 for entertainment tv that I'll rarely use.

I could get MLB.tv for $121 a year, which comes out to about $20 a month(for the months that matter) and then have to pay for a proxy service which was about $3 a month last time I did that... It's excessive way to get my baseball games, but in some respect I would rather my money go directly to MLB than to a cable/streaming provider... at that point in time though I wouldn't get Sling TV at all so would have literally zero channels other than over the air broadcast. I don't get how Sinclair really can be fighting this hard for higher right fees, it has to be tanking their ratings so they are losing more in advertising revenue than they probably make up in increased fees.
   37. cardsfanboy Posted: February 28, 2020 at 08:32 PM (#5927208)
I think the true a la carte model is a pipe dream


It might not be a pipe dream, but it's clearly going to end up way more expensive than the cable model of bundling. Every channel/company is going to ask for at least $1.99 for it's service, and the bigger ones are probably in the $4-5 range meaning you might get lucky to get 30 or so channels for the price you pay for the 60 channel entry pack that cable offers, while still dealing with the headaches of streaming over a dedicated line.
   38. cardsfanboy Posted: February 28, 2020 at 08:51 PM (#5927210)
Walt - I think the advantages that Hulu/YouTubeTV/etc...have over the traditional cable model is a couple of things;


and some of that is overstated to be honest.

1. Mobility - I think the ability to watch on a cell phone or tablet or computer is a big thing.

Any channel that is worth streaming on a cell phone is going to have the ability to do it through their app, the advantage for Hulu/Youtube etc is that you can use one interface for all of the channels, vs with cable you need to use the espn app or the mtv app or whatever it is you want to watch, but once you verify your account as a cable provider, you have that ability to stream over a mobile app.

2. Lack of contract - The Verizon’s and Comcast’s of the world have really hurt themselves with their horseshit customer service over the years. The lack of the infernal two year contracts is a big win for the streaming services.


Again overstated I think... The few times I have had a contract with Charter it was for just one year, and 6 of those months were about half the normal price so it made it not a bad deal. The issue with them is that after the year contract runs out, they offer new users better rates than you can get... which requires you to do a jump through hoops to call their help line and claim that you are dropping them, where they "graciously" give you the same deal as the new users to keep you on board.


3. Cost - The services are a LOT cheaper than traditional cable. No equipment to rent, watch on a bunch of screens without additional boxes, it’s a big money saver.

Depends on how you look at it, but yes I agree, the reason I went to sling originally over charter was that they were getting rid of the option to have a tv plugged straight into the cable and get the basic channels (basically about 70 channels.) and instead you had to pay for a rental box for every tv. Add in that the boxes are slow as hell when you change channels (which I find annoying since when I do watch tv... I jump around a lot) And that was annoying... With Sling/Youtube/Hulu etc... you get a weirdly stupid ass interface that nobody would ever design on purpose, but you don't have to pay for a stupid ass multiple boxes when you are only one person.

And of course you lose a lot with these services, sure a lot of what I'm going to say are in their guts if you work at it, but it's not as intuitive as in the past. 20 years ago Picture in Picture was a big thing, but because you need a tuner for each input, picture in picture has more or less disappeared as a feature on tv's (it couldn't be that hard to have a multi-tuner box... but then that would lead to people scamming the system and renting one box for multiple tv's) Channel skip (meaning you go to channel 44 and then channel 55 and use the button on the remote to jump between shows ) has also dropped in availability... yes my Roku has it for sling, but it's not quite as easy to set up as just typing in the channels you like. Heck remote controls.. you get it on your tv of course, but on your computer it's not quite the same interface(not quite as necessary... I get that, but still can be annoying...and again that is something that is out there, but just another add on and doesn't usually work the same way.

There are reasons I cut the cord... but it doesn't mean cutting the cord is necessarily superior to what we had before, it's just different and offers other advantages (ultimately price and multiple platforms) for some disadvantages (it less convenient to use your tradition tv for watching)..
   39. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: February 29, 2020 at 10:14 AM (#5927238)
Ahh, those early days when folks were complaining about how fed up they were about paying for stuff they didn't watch. And now here we are paying for (multiple) streaming services to get the 5% of their content we want

I save at least $500 a year, have plenty of content and no longer have to watch commercials at all. It's fantastic for people who do not watch a ton of television.

People who really do want a particular 30-40 channels probably don't benefit outside of cheaper hardware, no.
   40. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: February 29, 2020 at 11:51 AM (#5927245)
1. Mobility - I think the ability to watch on a cell phone or tablet or computer is a big thing.


I can watch my xfinity on any device I want to. I can even stream it to TV's through a streambox.

2. Lack of contract - The Verizon’s and Comcast’s of the world have really hurt themselves with their horseshit customer service over the years. The lack of the infernal two year contracts is a big win for the streaming services.


I don't have a contract.

3. Cost - The services are a LOT cheaper than traditional cable. No equipment to rent, watch on a bunch of screens without additional boxes, it’s a big money saver.


Half of my "cable" bill is for internet, which would cost me more if it wasn't bundled with the TV service. If you watch a lot of TV (and a lot of different kinds of content) cutting the cord isn't much of a money saver (or maybe not a money saver at all). And like I said above, I can watch on a bunch of screens without additional boxes.

Ahh, those early days when folks were complaining about how fed up they were about paying for stuff they didn't watch. And now here we are paying for (multiple) streaming services to get the 5% of their content we want ... and many of you apparently no longer able to access your local baseball broadcasts. Awesome.


In five years, streaming will look just like cable did ten years ago. All bundled, lots of choices of providers but no real differences in services or content.
   41. Moses Taylor, glorified meat shield Posted: February 29, 2020 at 12:21 PM (#5927249)
YouTube announced last night they've at least reached a temporary deal with Sinclair to keep the RSNs. Still nothing on Marquee.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Backlasher
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogBaseball Question of the Day: What’s your favorite baseball movie?
(51 - 5:35am, Apr 04)
Last: MuttsIdolCochrane

NewsblogBaseball Question of the Day: Which historical game would you want to see?
(4 - 5:12am, Apr 04)
Last: redsock

NewsblogUS-based pro sports leagues monitoring coronavirus outbreak
(4109 - 5:04am, Apr 04)
Last: Do Not Touch Fancy Pants Socially Distanced Handle

Hall of Merit2021 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(203 - 2:37am, Apr 04)
Last: Jaack

NewsblogAn Activist and a Bookworm, Sean Doolittle Is the Conscience of Baseball
(19 - 12:58am, Apr 04)
Last: It's regretful that PASTE was able to get out

NewsblogMLB reportedly discussing a 100-game season that would include a neutral-site World Series at Dodger
(33 - 12:35am, Apr 04)
Last: Jay Z

NewsblogTom Brady has arrived in Tampa Bay, moving into Derek Jeter’s mansion
(23 - 12:25am, Apr 04)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogOT - NBA Thread 2020
(2026 - 11:39pm, Apr 03)
Last: Scott Lange

NewsblogAJ Reed Announces Retirement
(1 - 10:47pm, Apr 03)
Last: Ziggy is done with Dominican discotheques

NewsblogBryce Harper, wife Kayla donate $500,000 to coronavirus relief
(16 - 9:04pm, Apr 03)
Last: SoSH U at work

NewsblogTime for the gym: JLo and ARod get a private workout sesh in at a Miami fitness club
(8 - 8:48pm, Apr 03)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

Sox TherapyOpening Day Memories
(8 - 6:12pm, Apr 03)
Last: Jose Is Absurdly Chatty

NewsblogHow the Seattle Mariners’ Lineup Dynasty Was Assembled
(1 - 5:54pm, Apr 03)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogPosnanski: Baseball 100 Rules
(1202 - 4:42pm, Apr 03)
Last: gef, talking mongoose & vexatious litigant

NewsblogBaseball Question of the Day: What’s your favorite piece of memorabilia?
(61 - 12:53pm, Apr 03)
Last: gef, talking mongoose & vexatious litigant

Page rendered in 0.4549 seconds
46 querie(s) executed