Keep Texans Talk Google Ad Free!
Venmo Tip Jar | Paypal Tip Jar
Thanks for your support! 🍺😎👍

All Encompassing Lockout Thread

Jerry Richardson said it best

Panthers Owner said:
“We signed a [expletive] deal last time and we’re going to stick together and take back our league and [expletive] do something about it.”
Click to expand...

Screw the owners. The article is spot on. They have had this planned for years.
 
CloakNNNdagger said:
The legal just got messier.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the 8th circuit can (and will) completely ignore probably any amicus briefs posted on either side. It was nice to read the NFL's arguments get shredded from all sides (NHL, NBA players, NFL coaches, fans).
 
HoustonFrog said:
Love this. I have said this all along...that the owners are full of it. I liked Brees before and I like him even more now. The guy is educated about what is out there and what the owners were doing long before this. I've heard some say this is classless but I think it is great

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20.../05/26/lockout/index.html?xid=cnnbin&hpt=Sbin
Click to expand...


Their philosophy was, We're going to give you a very subpar deal, a slap-in-the-face deal, and hope that you'll accept it because hopefully we've intimidated you enough into thinking that this is a take-it-or-leave-it deal, and you're just going to succumb to the pressure," he said. "Well, guess what. We're a lot more informed and educated than in the past, and we're much better businessmen than you think and we're going to stand up for what is right and what is fair.
Click to expand...

Sounds like what attitude that the owners are taking with season ticket holders here and elsewhere. See:http://www.texanstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1704792&postcount=25
 
On a positive note: The NFL and NFLPA Reps held a secret meeting in Chicago yesterday. NO LAWYERS were present. That in itself sounds like they might want to get something done. Unless I'm really off-base.

Those attending the meeting per Schefter Twitter

NFLPA reps at secret Chicago meeting: De Smith, Kevin Mawae, Mike Vrabel, Jeff Saturday and more. But other than Smith, NO lawyers
Click to expand...

NFL reps at secret Chicago meeting: Roger Goodell, Jerry Jones, Jerry Richardson, Robert Kraft, John Mara, Art Rooney.
Click to expand...
 
Maybe ICak or somebody can tell us if this is a good thing or not?

Per Albert Breer Twitter:

Just got to my hotel room ... Read the court filing on next week's mediation being cancelled. Wording is interesting, to say the least.

It reads ... "Whereas, The Court has been engaged in confidential settlement discussions involving the above captioned matter ..."

(cont): "... it deems it appropriate to cancel the mediation session previously scheduled in Minneapolis for June 7 and June 8."
Click to expand...
 
I got my hopes up hearing this, but from the ESPN article is this quote:
One source said any potential deal still was a ways away; however, the hope would be that the two sides could reach an agreement sooner rather than later, potentially even later this month.
Click to expand...

That seems to indicate this was just another not-too-productive meeting, rather than any real breakthrough.
 
HOU-TEX said:
On a positive note: The NFL and NFLPA Reps held a secret meeting in Chicago yesterday. NO LAWYERS were present. That in itself sounds like they might want to get something done. Unless I'm really off-base.

Those attending the meeting per Schefter Twitter
Click to expand...

Pardon me sn't De Smith a lawyer?

Didn't he work for Eric Holder at the DOJ ?

The owners are wrong in this deal. But there's something sleazy about Smith. IMHO
 
Next week’s mediation session has been canceled
Posted by Mike Florio on June 2, 2011, 3:40 PM EDT
After the NFL and the NFLPA* spent two days engaged in not-so-secret settlement talks in Chicago, the federal court in Minnesota has canceled formal mediation scheduled to reconvene on June 7.

Daniel Kaplan of SportsBusiness Journal reports that the cancellation has indeed occurred, with the federal court explaining that “it is engaged in confidential settlement talks with the parties.”

This could mean that communications will continue, either in person or via other means, into next week and beyond.

It makes sense for the mediator, U.S. Magistrate Judge Arthur Boylan, to push the parties to try to settle the case now, before the Eighth Circuit issues a ruling on whether the lockout will be lifted. After a final ruling is issued, one side will have a lot more leverage. For now, the uncertainty can be used by both sides to strike a win-win deal.

That’s why, in our view, it’s incumbent on the NFL to be prepared to make an offer aimed genuinely at restoring labor peace, without regard to the concept of winning the best possible deal.
Click to expand...
 
I am getting ready for a lost season. I had been saving money for NFL Sunday ticket, but unless the deal gets struck in the next week, I am paying for the NHL package instead. The NFL, and everyone involved in this lockout deserve to lose money. This is beyond asinine, and the people in charge need to know that WE know.

The NFL will not get any more of my money for a long, long time if the lockout is not lifted soon.
 
From USA TODAY:

The basics: Attorneys representing the NFL and the class of NFL players will have 30 minutes each to present oral arguments before Judges Duane Benton, Kermit Bye and Steven Colloton, who will issue a verdict based on a majority vote. In ordering a stay that has kept the lockout in effect, Bye dissented. It is unclear when the judges will rule. Some legal experts reason that given the high-profile ramifications of the case, a verdict could be handed down in a week or 10 days. But it's also possible the verdict won't come until July.

At issue: The NFL is seeking legal footing to continue the lockout, and to a larger degree have the antitrust merits of the case dismissed. Players seek to end the lockout and maintain options to pursue their case on antitrust grounds.

Potential impact: Both sides have maintained that their aim is to strike a deal that settles the labor dispute, yet leverage for negotiations swings in the balance of the court decision. It's also possible that the appeal can be appealed -- and heard before the entire panel of 11 judges for the Eighth Circuit. It is more likely that a ruling will spur movement in negotiations as legal questions are answered.
Click to expand...
 
I guess Stretch is telling us that the NFL and the players are cheating, because we all know if you aren't cheating, you aren't trying.:cool:

@BradBiggs
Brad Biggs


Jerry Jones: “We’re trying. I think the fact that we’re meeting is good.”
2 hours ago via web
Click to expand...
 
steelbtexan said:
Pardon me sn't De Smith a lawyer?

Didn't he work for Eric Holder at the DOJ ?

The owners are wrong in this deal. But there's something sleazy about Smith. IMHO
Click to expand...

To followup on Steelbtexan's statement. Virtually every source on this latest story refers to "NO LAWYERS" being present.

From latest PFT piece:

League, NFLPA* issue joint statement on not-so-secret talks
Posted by Mike Florio on June 2, 2011, 2:41 PM EDT

What initially appeared to be a clandestine meeting of a subset of owners but then became a secret NFL-NFLPA* negotiating session eventually has become an off-site mediation gathering prompted by U.S. Magistrate Judge Arthur Boylan.

The league and the union-turned-trade-association issued a joint statement on Thursday regarding the situation: “The parties met pursuant to court mediation. Owners and players were engaged in confidential discussions before Chief Magistrate Judge Boylan. The court has ordered continued confidentiality of the mediation sessions.”

Thus, given that Magistrate Judge Boylan instigated the talks, the only truly good news to come out of the two-day get-together comes from the fact that the lawyers were left out of the process.Whether the lawyers return when mediation resumes remains to be seen. It also remains to be seen whether any real progress has been made. Hopefully, the lawyers have been excluded from the process until the time comes to put the “wherefores” and “heretofores” into a written settlement agreement.

Still, the fact that the parties didn’t agree to these talks on their own makes us much less optimistic about the possibility that the concrete blocks of an eventual house of labor peace have been dropped into place.
Click to expand...




From Wikipedia: DeMaurice F. Smith

Prior to his [NFPA] election, he was a trial lawyer and litigation partner in the Washington, DC offices of law firms Patton Boggs, LLP and Latham & Watkins LLP. In private practice, he represented Fortune 500 companies in criminal and complex civil cases, compliance matters, and internal investigations. He has argued numerous cases before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Smith previously served as Counsel to then-Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder in the U.S. Department of Justice before entering private practice. His duties revolved around national security issues, congressional relations, and DOJ budget and finance allocation.

He served in the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia for ten years where he held senior positions in the Violent Crime and Transnational and Major Crime Sections. He prosecuted more than 80 jury trials and handled some of the most significant homicide, narcotics and white collar investigations in the history of that office.

Smith is a fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, has served on the Board of Governors of the D.C. Bar Association, and is the former president of the Assistant United States Attorney’s Association. He is also a member of the Board of Advisors for the Office for Access and Advancement for Public Black Universities of the Association of Public and Land Grant Universities. He is a recipient of the United States Attorney Generals Award, the John Evans Trial Advocacy Award from the United States Attorney’s Association, and the 2010 Cedarville College Alumnus of the Year Award. He was also honored as a recipient of the Keeper of the Dream Award by the National Action Network and named one of the Top Ten Most Influential Persons by the Sports Business Journal. He was inducted into the Ohio Foundation of Independent Colleges’ Hall of Excellence in 2010, and was the 2011 Commencement Speaker at the University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland.
Click to expand...

Naaaaah, Smith's not an involved LAWYER................:thinking:
 
I'd say it's the most encouraging news we've had in the last few days than we've had in 2 years.
 
CloakNNNdagger said:
The myth of "NO LAWYERS INVOLVED" continues to be propagated.........even by Florio, an attorney himself.

Keeping the lawyers out will be the key to progress
Click to expand...

I had a buddy of mine who said that his divorce took forever to finalize until he told his lawyers there was no more money to be had. After that the lawyers couldn't find any reason to hold up the divorce proceedings and it became final.

Funny how that works.
 
After being sent out of the room for two days of not-so-secret mediation talks in Chicago, the lawyers are back, with a billable-hour vengeance.

Today, in St. Louis, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit will take up the question of whether Judge Susan Nelson’s order lifting the lockout will be upheld or overturned. Specifically, the three-judge panel will hear oral arguments from the lawyers. And even though the entire process has been expedited, don’t except a Judge Wapner-style “I’ll be back in five minutes” decision. Chances are it’ll be at least a week and as long as a month before the judges issue their ruling.

With two of the three judges leaning in the NFL’s favor and one judge apparently poised to rule for the players, there’s a belief that the final outcome will result in the lockout remaining in place. But the questions posed by the two judges (Colloton and Benton) who are perceived to be willing to let the lockout stand could shed light on whether one of them is having serious doubts about his “serious doubts.” If so, that could give the owners even more reason to try to work out a new labor deal before the Eighth Circuit rules.

Regardless of the outcome (assuming a settlement isn’t reached), the loser will appeal to the full Eighth Circuit court for a rehearing “en banc.” (“Why would they do it in a bank instead of in a courtroom?”) Then, the loser will undoubtedly file a petition with the Supreme Court, even though the Supreme Court agrees to consider only a fraction of the petitions it receives.
Click to expand...

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/06/03/nfl-legal-fight-centers-on-st-louis-today/
 
Mike Florio is a ****ing terrible writer in general with almost everything I've read by him. He really gives very little information in the articles he publishes.
 
This is a mess the court might not even rule on this until next month and then still side with the owners.
 
I have no optimism that a deal is getting done right now. It will take the real threat of a lost season and lost income for the players to finally cave to the owner's greed...errrr....demands.
 
Double Barrel said:
I have no optimism that a deal is getting done right now. It will take the real threat of a lost season and lost income for the players to finally cave to the owner's greed...errrr....demands.
Click to expand...

Basically, this is going to boil down to an old fashioned war of attrition.

Owners will win unless the court decides what they're doing is illegal (which it probably is, depending on which judge you ask)
 
DonnyMost said:
Basically, this is going to boil down to an old fashioned war of attrition.

Owners will win unless the court decides what they're doing is illegal (which it probably is, depending on which judge you ask)
Click to expand...

yep, I agree completely. The owners are much better prepared for a war of attrition, and that alone tells me that it's just a matter of time before the players finally cave.

Hopefully they realize this well before September 11!
 
Tailgate said:
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/06/03/nfl-legal-fight-centers-on-st-louis-today/
Click to expand...

Regardless of the outcome (assuming a settlement isn’t reached), the loser will appeal to the full Eighth Circuit court for a rehearing “en banc.” (“Why would they do it in a bank instead of in a courtroom?”) Then, the loser will undoubtedly file a petition with the Supreme Court, even though the Supreme Court agrees to consider only a fraction of the petitions it receives.
Click to expand...

...........and from what I remember, fans may be waiting forever, since the Supreme Court is not mandated to respond to appeals at all.........nor tell you if they intend to or not.:cool:
 
Report: Owners made concessions during recent talks


Though the reality of oral arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has interrupted the fantasy of a labor deal being secretly negotiated amid boxes of deep dish pizza (eaten, of course, with plastic utensils), our buddy Mike Freeman of CBSSports.com reports that the owners made concessions during the two days of not-so-secret meetings in Chicago.

Freeman writes that “[n]o one will say exactly what the concessions are but significant ones have been made and the players believe they are genuine.” Freeman speculates that the owners are “continuing to come down significantly” from the demand that the owners receive another $1 billion off the top (in addition to the original $1 billion) before application of the 59.6-percent formula. “The players always believed this was an outrageous demand and the players were right,” Freeman says.

Though it’s possible that the talks have reverted to the 2006 formula, which is based on money off the top with the players getting nearly 60 percent of the remainder, the March 11 offer from the NFL reflected the new formula the two sides had been discussing — a “pegged cap” based on specific team-by-team salary cap numbers each and every season, with the players also wanting to share in any money over and above the projections on which the predetermined cap numbers were based.

The concept of the “true up” has been the sticking point, with the players interpreting the absence of a true up provision in the March 11 offer as an indication that the league won’t share any of the excess, and with the league assuming that a response from the players (which to date hasn’t come) would include a proposal regarding the true up.

Regardless of the specific formula used, the heart of the dispute centers on the players’ belief that they should forever receive 50 cents of every dollar of revenue generated, regardless of the total dollars of revenue generated. The owners believe that, as the total dollars pass $10 billion per year and commence the inevitable climb toward $20 billion, the players should take a smaller piece of this perpetually growing pie.

Perhaps the owners are now willing to keep that number closer to 50 percent than 40 percent. One way or the other, Freeman’s report suggests that something has happened to get the players’ attention. With money being the primary issue in dispute, it’s safe to say that something had something to do with the manner in which the money will be shared.
Click to expand...
 
Deciphering Judge Bye’s warning to the NFL, players

So what did Judge Kermit Bye mean when he told the lawyers for the NFL and the players at the end of Friday’s hearing that they should try to settle the case and that, if a ruling is issued, “it’s probably something both sides are not going to like”? I had nearly three hours at another youth baseball game (Team PFT won by a football score of 14-3) to ponder Judge Bye’s words, and I’m now prepared to engage in some official speculation.

It could simply be an idle remark aimed at getting the NFL to think that there’s a way Judge Bye, who by all appearances favors the players’ position, could persuade Judge Benton and/or Judge Colloton to agree to a Solomon-style splitting of the baby. If Judge Benton and Judge Colloton plan to rule that the lockout should remain in place, nothing Judge Bye says matters.

In the event that the judges have been talking about the case and thinking of solutions that could leave each side feeling like it lost, one possibility would be to rule that the lockout can be lifted, but that Judge Nelson should have conducted a full-blown hearing on the question of whether the players are suffering irreparable harm (i.e., damages that can’t be later compensated with a monetary verdict). This would ping-pong the case back to Minnesota, with plenty of time and money devoted to proving (or, from the NFL’s perspective, disproving) that the players’ injuries can’t be cured with cash. In turn, a thick layer of uncertainty would be added to the process, which would make a settlement even more wise.

Another possibility, as Daniel Kaplan of SportsBusiness Journal pointed out earlier tonight on Twitter, the Eighth Circuit could rule that the lockout can stay in place for only six months. Such an outcome would flow from the provision in the Collective Bargaining Agreement that permits an antitrust lawsuit to be filed six months after the labor deal expires. Several questions during Friday’s hearing addressed that point, and it’s possible that Judge Colloton and/or Judge Benton could conclude that a post-CBA lockout can last, but for the agreed-to period of six months.

Either way, Judge Bye’s words give the NFL good reason not to presume that the lockout will be allowed to continue, if the case isn’t settled before the Eighth Circuit decides that the calendar says “due course.” Since no one knows when “due course” will arrive, it makes sense for the parties to continue to negotiate continuously, aggressively, and in good faith.
Click to expand...
 
ArlingtonTexan said:
The oral arguments started and ended today. The judge is stating that more than likely neither side will really like the ruling. More details will continuw to leak out over the day.



http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...ents-end-judge-encourages-sides-to-negotiate/
Click to expand...

AT,

It seems that all the media are interpretting the judge's statement as meaning that if left up to the circuit court, "neither side will really like the ruling."

I could be wrong. But the more I think about it and carefully reread the judge's statement verbatim, I believe that he could have very well meant that one party or the other will come out of it as quite unhappy with the ruling............in other words they are playing a game of Russian roulette each side banking that that they will prevail........not thinking that they can lose and the consequences that accompany it.


“We will take this case and render a decision in due course,” Bye said before making a pointed push for the sides to work out the problem. “We won’t, I might also say, be all that hurt that you’re leaving us out if you should go out and settle the case. But that’s up to you. But we will keep with our business and if that ends up with a decision, it’s probably something both sides are not going to like but at least it will be a decision.”
Click to expand...


With a formal circuit court decision, one side is going to like it and the other won't...........i.e., both sides are not going to like the decision.:thinking:
 
CloakNNNdagger said:
AT,

It seems that all the media are interpretting the judge's statement as meaning that if left up to the circuit court, "neither side will really like the ruling."

I could be wrong. But the more I think about it and carefully reread the judge's statement verbatim, I believe that he could have very well meant that one party or the other will come out of it as quite unhappy with the ruling............in other words they are playing a game of Russian roulette each side banking that that they will prevail........not thinking that they can lose and the consequences that accompany it.





With a formal circuit court decision, one side is going to like it and the other won't...........i.e., both sides are not going to like the decision.:thinking:
Click to expand...

That's a good point.
 
NFL files motion to dismiss Brady case
The NFL wanted another month to respond to the complaint filed by Tom Brady and nine other players on March 11, the day the NFLPA decertified and launched a legal strategy aimed at lifting the lockout and/or giving the players leverage via the antitrust laws. In the end, the NFL was required to respond today.

The NFL exercised its option to file a motion to dismiss the case in its entirety, a move that isn’t surprising under the circumstances. We’re in the process of tracking down the full-blown legal brief, but we anticipate based on the two-page motion that the NFL will reiterate some of its key arguments against the lifting of the lockout: (1) the Norris-LaGuardia Act prevents an order ending any lockout or strike arising from a labor dispute; (2) the non-statutory antitrust exemption continues to apply for at least a year after expiration of the Collective Bargaining Agreement; (3) the decertification of the NFLPA was a sham; and (4) the NLRB has primary jurisdiction on the question of whether the decertification of the NFLPA was a sham.

Daniel Kaplan of SportsBusiness Journal reports that the motion has been set for a hearing in September. Look for the players to file a motion for summary judgment with a request that it be heard at the same time, with the September hearing then morphing into an effort by both sides to win the case on the merits.
Click to expand...
Let’s hope that hearing never happens.
 
the NFL will reiterate some of its key arguments against the lifting of the lockout: (1) the Norris-LaGuardia Act prevents an order ending any lockout or strike arising from a labor dispute; (2) the non-statutory antitrust exemption continues to apply for at least a year after expiration of the Collective Bargaining Agreement; (3) the decertification of the NFLPA was a sham; and (4) the NLRB has primary jurisdiction on the question of whether the decertification of the NFLPA was a sham.
Click to expand...

1) Fine, the Norris-LaGuardia Act prevents the Feds getting involved (unless they're Federalized employees - see Railroad Act). I disagree, but I can see their point. This bears ZERO relation to any anti-trust issues. Those are fully in the realm of the Federal courts.

2) I'm still trying to figure out where they're pulling this idea from. Either you're secure from these claims under a CBA, or you're not. (Somebody find me plain language 1-yr exemption somewhere will ya'?)

3) OK, this one just plain pisses me off. The NFL, in no uncertain terms AGREED IN WRITING (as part of the former CBA) that they would NOT claim that any future de-certification was "a sham". Talk out of both sides of your mouth much fellas?

4) They might get this agreed to, but...the NFL should have no legal standing (by contractual agreement) to make the claim themselves.
 
disaacks3 said:
1) Fine, the Norris-LaGuardia Act prevents the Feds getting involved (unless they're Federalized employees - see Railroad Act). I disagree, but I can see their point. This bears ZERO relation to any anti-trust issues. Those are fully in the realm of the Federal courts.

2) I'm still trying to figure out where they're pulling this idea from. Either you're secure from these claims under a CBA, or you're not. (Somebody find me plain language 1-yr exemption somewhere will ya'?)

3) OK, this one just plain pisses me off. The NFL, in no uncertain terms AGREED IN WRITING (as part of the former CBA) that they would NOT claim that any future de-certification was "a sham". Talk out of both sides of your mouth much fellas?

4) They might get this agreed to, but...the NFL should have no legal standing (by contractual agreement) to make the claim themselves.
Click to expand...

Decertification was a sham when you get right down to it. The players want the best of both worlds and as soon as this mess is over they will again consider themselves a union. It might be legal but .... its a crock of ****. Either you are a union or you arent. They shouldnt be allowed to simply decertify to get what they want then recertify once the objective is complete. Im kinda shocked the courts allow this to be honest.


Either way , we are talking about a $9billion FAN DRIVEN industry and right now its the fans who are getting the shaft. These millionaires and billionaires need to get their **** together and remember who butters their bread .... I almost hope it ruins them all or at least cuts revenues in half for the next decade.

No football sucks. The Astro's sucking two teams I detest in the NBA finals and no football makes matters worse. :texanbill:
 
Corrosion said:
Decertification was a sham when you get right down to it. The players want the best of both worlds and as soon as this mess is over they will again consider themselves a union. It might be legal but .... its a crock of ****. Either you are a union or you arent. They shouldnt be allowed to simply decertify to get what they want then recertify once the objective is complete. Im kinda shocked the courts allow this to be honest.


Either way , we are talking about a $9billion FAN DRIVEN industry and right now its the fans who are getting the shaft. These millionaires and billionaires need to get their **** together and remember who butters their bread .... I almost hope it ruins them all or at least cuts revenues in half for the next decade.

No football sucks. The Astro's sucking two teams I detest in the NBA finals and no football makes matters worse. :texanbill:
Click to expand...

I think you're looking at it backwards. Anti-trust is how it works in every other kind of business from Microsoft to McDonalds. It's the OWNERS who were granted an Anti-trust exemption ONLY due to a CBA being in place. Those owners, who themselves opted-out of their agreement, are the ones wanting it BOTH ways. The players would NEVER have agreed to the old CBA without that clause. The owners are the ones who agreed to it (to avoid anti-trust issues).

IMHO - They need to either play by the rules they agreed to, or get treated like every other business.
 
Corrosion said:
The players want the best of both worlds and as soon as this mess is over they will again consider themselves a union. It might be legal but .... its a crock of ****.
Click to expand...
The owners need the players unionized much more than the players need to be unionized. Both sides know this, and that's why decertification is an outstanding ploy by the players.

Why doesn't the NFL allow all players to enter the league as free agents and allow the teams to pay what they want on an open market? That sounds fair to everyone, right? The reason is that they cannon trust themselves, allowing that some teams will overspend and others will overspend. The CBA keeps the ownerships in check and produces an even playing field. And keeps the player costs known. It's the league that needs this CBA.
 
Doesn't the cap which which puts the same ceiling on what every team can spend for players make the players union a redundancy in terms of teams overspending for their players ?
 
HOU-TEX said:
Per Albert Breer's Twitter
Click to expand...

Here's some twitter feeds on espn.go.com that are somewhat encouraging:

link to page (look at the lefthand side of the page where the twitter feed resides)


@mortreport RT @gbl1986: @mortreport it's nice that NFL talks are heating up but well we have season?

Mort replied: "Sure. Full season. Staying consistent on that"

-----------------------------

@mortreport RT @Presto9804: @mortreport When do you think the lockout will end? #NFL

Mort replied: "[l'm also going to stay consistent on my prediction that it ends] no later than June 30-July 4. Maybe sooner"

FYI: I added the text in the [ ] brackets for clarification because he had put "Also consistent" which I felt was confusing by itself.

-----------------------------

@mortreport RT @leegoettl: @mortreport everything you're writing is coming off a bit sarcastic. Intended?

Mort replied: "No. They are not that far apart on issues"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top