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

All Encompassing Lockout Thread

I've given up already. I drew the line at the 11th & they took a siesta.

They're not worried about us....

It's going to back fire on them, we're going to find something else to captivate our interest & they'll be fighting tooth & nail to get us back.

Oh, I think they are very worried about fans. Which is why they've come out and offered up a set "date" for the deal to be agreed upon and then signed.

Besides, I see a lot of you guys talking tough about "finding other things to do" etc. It sounds good, but the NFL is like that chick that got your mind all messed up in college. She got inside your head, she left you, and you say you're over her...but then she calls one day and asks you to hang out at her place and have a few drinks and watch a movie.

Tell me what you're going to do. Are you going to answer her with "Yeah, no thanks. I'm going to my mom's house for meatloaf tonight." LOL.

When the NFL announces the season is officially on, every fan is going to fall right back in love with the psycho chick and go over to her house for drinks and a movie.

But it sounds cool to say you're over her. Us guys are all the same.
 
Oh, I think they are very worried about fans. Which is why they've come out and offered up a set "date" for the deal to be agreed upon and then signed.

Besides, I see a lot of you guys talking tough about "finding other things to do" etc. It sounds good, but the NFL is like that chick that got your mind all messed up in college. She got inside your head, she left you, and you say you're over her...but then she calls one day and asks you to hang out at her place and have a few drinks and watch a movie.

Tell me what you're going to do. Are you going to answer her with "Yeah, no thanks. I'm going to my mom's house for meatloaf tonight." LOL.

When the NFL announces the season is officially on, every fan is going to fall right back in love with the psycho chick and go over to her house for drinks and a movie.

But it sounds cool to say you're over her. Us guys are all the same.

It's sick, but so true!
 
I wonder if your idea would work, though, as it relates to the higher draft picks? I don't think it works having the #2 overall pick only making $100,000 less than the #1 overall pick.

That's why I used decreasing increments of $2 million between each slot for picks 1-thourhg-5, until you reach picks 6-through-10 which then went to decreasing increments of $1 million between each slot.

This way, you're telling picks 1-through-5 that it's something special to be in the Top 5 of the whole draft class. Yet there's still some competitive fire with those guys all trying to be as high in the 1-through-5 range as they can, since it means a few million bucks better or worse based on where they land in that range.

Then, picks 6-through-10 don't get rewarded as much...but they also don't have too much of a gap between themselves in that 6-through-10 range, either. Sort of acts like a good equalizer for those guys: Knowing that you can fall anywhere in 6-through-10 range and the guys ahead of you are not gaining too much more than you have.

I like your idea about the $100,000 difference, but only for lower ranges of draft position. $100k difference, IMO, would be how you and I would treat $1 vs. 50-cents, so to speak. Not that big of a deal. I'd rather beat you in cards and win a $200 pot than to play all night and only get $50. If that makes sense.

In other words: $100k increments at the top spots doesn't seem to engender a passion for the top guys of every draft to do all they can do in order to rise to the top of the class when the draft is said and done. I'd do just enough to land in the Top 10 and rationalize that I still made out as well as #1 guy did. THAT scenario might devalue the build-up to the draft, when guys are usually trying to get to the top or as close to the top of the draft order as possible.

I like your idea of rounds 4-through-7 just being a standard contract. Although many might argue you need to make it rounds 5-through-7, leaving round 4 as its own beast..which I can see why, since you can still get good value in round 4. Lots of TEs get drafted in that round, LOL.

But it's not just 100k per slot, if the contract is 4 years. It's 400k per slot throughout the whole contract. So #1 would make 20 million over 4 years, #2 19.6, 19.2, 18.8. 18.4, etc. So the difference between 1 and 5 is 1.6 million. The difference between #1 and #32 is over 12 million. I think that puts a lot of pressure on players to become 1st round picks at the very least and still rewards the player for being a higher pick.

On top of that, I would propose the guaranteed years scaling down from the 1st, 2nd and 3rd round as well. No need for anyone in the league to pay 20 million for a Jamarcus Russell. That doesn't help the players or the teams at all. So by guaranteeing only up to three years, you limit the dead money in the league, which doesn't help anyone.

I'm also happy to reduce the amount of rookie compensation even further if they would go for it. I think the NBA has it right, in that you only reward the top 14 or so picks, and the rest get peanuts in comparison. A lot of NFL rookies would do well to start out at 200,000 a year and be forced to earn a big contract. If the top contract in the NFL draft was only 10 million total, I would be happy with that, but I think it would warrant free agency being moved down to 3 years of accrued time.
 
But it's not just 100k per slot, if the contract is 4 years. It's 400k per slot throughout the whole contract. So #1 would make 20 million over 4 years, #2 19.6, 19.2, 18.8. 18.4, etc. So the difference between 1 and 5 is 1.6 million. The difference between #1 and #32 is over 12 million. I think that puts a lot of pressure on players to become 1st round picks at the very least and still rewards the player for being a higher pick.

On top of that, I would propose the guaranteed years scaling down from the 1st, 2nd and 3rd round as well. No need for anyone in the league to pay 20 million for a Jamarcus Russell. That doesn't help the players or the teams at all. So by guaranteeing only up to three years, you limit the dead money in the league, which doesn't help anyone.

I'm also happy to reduce the amount of rookie compensation even further if they would go for it. I think the NBA has it right, in that you only reward the top 14 or so picks, and the rest get peanuts in comparison. A lot of NFL rookies would do well to start out at 200,000 a year and be forced to earn a big contract. If the top contract in the NFL draft was only 10 million total, I would be happy with that, but I think it would warrant free agency being moved down to 3 years of accrued time.

Ah, I see. My bad.
 
Ah, I see. My bad.

Just for kicks I put our proposals into an Excel sheet side by side with the 2006 draft. I'm assuming that from #11-32 you reduce the contract total value by 50,000 per slot. AVG columns are average contract value per year over 4 years. Totals at the bottom are sums for the first two columns and an average for the other two to show the difference in money invested.

Looking at it this way, I like yours more because you pay them less by about 180 million in the first round alone. Certainly would remove more of the risk of rookies than my idea. I can get on board with it.

***Values are in million*******
nflrookiewagescale.jpg


So do we have a deal?
 
Just for kicks I put our proposals into an Excel sheet side by side with the 2006 draft. I'm assuming that from #11-32 you reduce the contract total value by 50,000 per slot. AVG columns are average contract value per year over 4 years. Totals at the bottom are sums for the first two columns and an average for the other two to show the difference in money invested.

Looking at it this way, I like yours more because you pay them less by about 180 million in the first round alone. Certainly would remove more of the risk of rookies than my idea. I can get on board with it.

***Values are in million*******
nflrookiewagescale.jpg


So do we have a deal?

I'm in! Where do they sign?
 
Drew Brees

“We’re very close to a settlement,” Brees said on XX Sports Radio in San Diego. “We’re at that point in the negotiations where there’s just a few more details that need to be ironed out.”

“Obviously there’s a big sense of urgency, especially in the next week with the owners’ meeting on July 21,” Brees said. “I think we’re all optimistic and hoping we can finalize a deal for that time.”

“The fact of the matter is that we do have a very fair proposal on the table right now in front of the owners,” Brees said. “They’ve talked a lot here over the last week about how, ‘Wer’e going to get a deal done before the 21st, for the meetings.’ Well, now the ball’s in their court because we have a very fair proposal.”

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/13/drew-brees-were-very-close-to-a-settlement/
 
Seeing that Brees is on record saying it means a little more than an ESPN "Insider" saying some player who remains anonymous is angry and no deal will be done anytime soon.

Sometimes I really do think ESPN makes things up.

True. Honestly, I (and surely everyone else) just want this thing done and over with. Things can easily go down hill, especially without Boylan present. Hopefully they're just negotiating the little things now, which might make it harder to really screw up. Like, for example, how FA and the season will be fired back up.
 
Just for kicks I put our proposals into an Excel sheet side by side with the 2006 draft. I'm assuming that from #11-32 you reduce the contract total value by 50,000 per slot. AVG columns are average contract value per year over 4 years. Totals at the bottom are sums for the first two columns and an average for the other two to show the difference in money invested.

Looking at it this way, I like yours more because you pay them less by about 180 million in the first round alone. Certainly would remove more of the risk of rookies than my idea. I can get on board with it.

***Values are in million*******
nflrookiewagescale.jpg


So do we have a deal?

Man, that was an awesome effort. I'd rep you for it, but just rep'd you for something else earlier.

I was just shooting from the hip with my numbers.

I was thinking about where to start, which I came up with what I thought was actually a REALLY low number ($20 mill for a 4-year contract for the #1 guy) and then just decided to go down by $2 mill-per-slot until I reach a point where I could lessen the increment decreases due to how far the money dropped due to picks 1-through-5.

I think players would burn my house down if I were to be a person who presented that model AND had a chance to implement it. LOL. I'd like to see owners reduce player salaries and also reduce the prices for fans, even if it's just a little bit, but it won't happen. If they did, I think it would grow the sport even more.
 
Albert Breer

Significant progress on rookie salary system today. In fact, if the parties can work out a couple minor issues, it could be solved. ...

... The resolution of this issue would be very big in these talks. As of now, it's the biggest outstanding issue.
 
Just for kicks I put our proposals into an Excel sheet side by side with the 2006 draft. I'm assuming that from #11-32 you reduce the contract total value by 50,000 per slot. AVG columns are average contract value per year over 4 years. Totals at the bottom are sums for the first two columns and an average for the other two to show the difference in money invested.

Looking at it this way, I like yours more because you pay them less by about 180 million in the first round alone. Certainly would remove more of the risk of rookies than my idea. I can get on board with it.

***Values are in million*******
nflrookiewagescale.jpg


So do we have a deal?

Am I reading this wrong? The GP column seems to reboot at pick #11. #10 and #30 both average $1.5M.
 
Imagine an NFL world where every player and every team knew, automatically, the exact amount of that first contract.

They're rookies, having never spent a single second on an NFL field, and as such they should have their first contract fixed and earn a bigger one later on.
 
Imagine an NFL world where every player and every team knew, automatically, the exact amount of that first contract.

They're rookies, having never spent a single second on an NFL field, and as such they should have their first contract fixed and earn a bigger one later on.

...and imagine the fan joy of knowing that there wouldn't be any holdout over a (rookie) contract as there's little/no wiggle room.
 
Leave it to the accountant to point out the small error in the maths...

Fixed it :D

lol...well I wasn't being critical. I was trying to see which I thought was more doable and GP's was dropping awfully fast while yours seemed slow.

Its interesting to look at though. I did one with $5M avg for #1 with 2 - 10 getting 93% of the person above them; 11 - 20 getting 95% of the person above them; and the rest getting 98% of the person above them.

#32 wound up at $1.22M and the avg was $2.285M.

I expect them to use sliding scale percentages like that, but knowing the NFL.....FAR more complicated.
 
NFL players and owners have agreed in principle to a new rookie wage scale, sources on both side told ESPN NFL Insider Adam Schefter.

There remains a handful of other issues that need to be worked out and talks are continuing, but the sources told Schefter that the wage scale is no longer considered an impediment to a new collective bargaining agreement.

LINK
 
That's the best news we probably could have hoped for today. This is a very positive sign.

EDIT:

Rookie Wage Scale Agreed Upon

Sources: NFL and NFLPA agree to rookie wage scale during negotiations Thursday in New York
NEW YORK -- NFL players and owners have agreed in principle to a new rookie wage system, sources on both sides told ESPN NFL Insider Adam Schefter.

There remains a handful of other issues that need to be worked out and talks are continuing, but the sources told Schefter the rookie wage system is no longer considered an impediment to a new collective bargaining agreement.

A management negotiator told ESPN senior NFL analyst Chris Mortensen that the rookie system is "done," but expected there to be some "tweaking" when the deal is written out. The exact language of the system is being worked out by both side's lawyer, sources told Mortensen.

Sources told Mortensen the two sides expect to work late into Thursday night and return Friday morning to work on open issues that include workman's compensation, extra right-of-first-refusals on this year's free agent class, settlement on the television damages and the antitrust lawsuit and issues relating to commercial sponsorships.

Additionally, the sources said owners want the NFL Players Association to recertify as a union and settle all grievances through arbitration without judicial oversight. To gain advantages on many of the remaining issues, sources say the players may be willing to grant the owners' request for a comprehensive arbitration system without judicial oversight, a thorn in the owners' side since 1993 on grievance cases that have been appealed to U.S. District Judge David Doty.

The players currently are unwilling to grant NFL teams extra right-of-first-refusals on this year's free agent class because many of them were restricted under last year's uncapped system. Owners have asked for the right to designate three free agents that would give teams the ability to match any contract the three players signed with another team.

Details for the rookie system are uncertain but multiple sources told ESPN.com senior NFL writer John Clayton earlier Wednesday that owners were willing to move toward the players' position regarding the fifth-year option in contracts of players selected top 10 overall, the sources said. The owners, sources said, offered to pay those players the top 10 salaries at their positions in their fifth year.

Players, however, rejected the owners' proposal to have the remaining first-round picks make 150 percent of what starters make at their positions with a possible salary floor of $4 million and a salary ceiling of $12 million, sources said.

High-level sources told Clayton all first rounders would get four-year deals, plus the option year, under current proposals. That option could be executed by the team after the third or fourth year of the contract.

Owners had been seeking a fixed amount for the fifth-year option, roughly $4 million. Players wanted a top 10 salary at the position for the top 16 picks and proposed a top 15 salary for picks 17 through 32.

During a lunch break Thursday, sources told Paolantonio the lawyers were working on some of the language and other details of a potential agreement.

It is not known what proposals brought each sides closer together on Thursday, but sides stretched into the evening for the second straight night.

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and eight of the 10 members of the owners' labor committee were present at Thursday's session, including Jerry Jones of the Dallas Cowboys and John Mara of the New York Giants. Two new participants Thursday were Green Bay Packers CEO Mark Murphy and San Diego Chargers owner Dean Spanos.

NFL Players Association chief DeMaurice Smith and a half-dozen current or former players also were there, including Indianapolis Colts center Jeff Saturday, Baltimore Ravens defensive back Domonique Foxworth and Giants defensive end Osi Umenyiora. Umenyiora is one of 10 player plaintiffs in a federal antitrust lawsuit against the league.

Sources told ESPN's Mortensen that Atlanta Falcons offensive lineman Tyson Clabo, a pending free agent, also is in attendance.

After Wednesday's lengthy session, a source with direct knowledge of the negotiations told Paolantonio a lot of "hard work" remains before a new collective bargaining agreement can be struck. The source also wouldn't characterize a deal as being "close."

Asked whether he thought the owners would be presented with an agreement during the July 21 league meetings in Atlanta, the source hedged, saying, "I just don't know."

With deadlines coming up next week to get training camps and the preseason started, one owner told Paolantonio the owners are trying to figure out how to get the league operational in time "so that we don't lose a week of preseason and we don't lose $200 million."

The Hall of Fame game that opens the exhibition season is scheduled for Aug. 7 between the St. Louis Rams and Chicago Bears, who hope to be able to start training camp at the end of next week. Yet camps will not open without a new CBA in place.

Talks gained steam in May, overseen by a court-appointed mediator, U.S. Magistrate Judge Arthur Boylan, who is on vacation this week. Boylan ordered both sides to meet with him in Minneapolis next week, and the owners have a special meeting set for July 21, where they potentially could ratify a new deal -- if one is reached by then.

Even once an agreement in principle on the core economic issues is drawn up, there will be more work to be done. That's because there are certain issues that won't be addressed in full until after the NFLPA re-establishes itself as a union -- a process that might take a couple of days -- and can then serve once again as a collective bargaining unit for the players.

Items that could fall under that umbrella include the league's drug-testing program, health insurance, retired players' pensions and other benefits, none of which is likely to be resolved completely while the union is still dissolved.

There's also a chance the players could pursue a lockout injunction for rookies and free agents after an appeals court ruled last week that the work stoppage could continue.

Disruptions to the planned preseason schedule would decrease the overall revenue pie. While the parameters for how to divide the more than $9 billion in annual league revenues have been sketched out, there are other sticking points still under discussion, including a rookie salary system and free agency guidelines.

The owners want longer rookie contracts and have been seeking more right-of-first-refusal tags for unrestricted free agents. The players want to get back to free agency rules similar to 2009, when a four-year veteran whose contract expired was unrestricted. That minimum shifted to six years in 2010, when there was no salary cap because owners already had declared they were opting out of the old CBA.
 
Last edited:
Chris Mortensen via Twitter:

Q: So how much less will rookies get as compared to the last CBA?
A: About half on an entry basis.

Q: will GMs still be given chance to resign own FA before open market panthers Need to keep Charles Johnson
A: 3 days

Q: Any chance the owners get their way on the right of first refusal nonsense?
A: I would be surprised

Q: is that finalized, the 3days)?

A: No but anticipated clubs will have 72 hours to re-sign own guys before FA hits

Q: who gives final say that the lockout is OFFICIALLY over?

A: ...no, both sides vote. Agreement has to settle Brady case, too

Q: any idea on what the salary cap will be?

A: Ive heard around $120 mill-to-$122 mill this year (minus benefits)
 
dkaplanSBJ daniel kaplan
ESPN reporting NFLPA has agreed to cede judicial oversight. This is a major concession. Retired judge panel instead. Great scoop mort

mortreport Chris Mortensen
Sal Paolantonio also reporting that settlement is on fast track....

mortreport Chris Mortensen
Intriguing twist just reported: Overhaul of arbitration system being negotiated, panel of ex-judges could review even commish discipline

mortreport Chris Mortensen
If arbitration system is overhauled with judges panel, NFLPA would have to give up judicial oversight as they had w Judge Doty. Big deal.

mortreport Chris Mortensen
Commissioner discipline has always been appealed back to commish. If this new system comes into play, judges panel would review. Negotiating

mortreport Chris Mortensen
RT @Cowboy829: @mortreport stumbling block? >> Don't know but doubt it. Owners want judicial oversight banished on grievances. Give-n-take

mortreport Chris Mortensen
RT @Curry_Brandon93: @mortreport how much longer til at least a agreement in principle. >> At this pace, could be within 24-48 hrs.
 
Progress these last few hours (per Sportscenter)

Tentative agreement to have 2011 cap number at $120 million

Agreement on parameters of the new rookie wage structure

Players have agreed federal courts will no longer exercise oversight over the new CBA




looks like this ***** will be over with soon
 
dkaplanSBJ
by caplannfl
The salary cap for 2011 wld be 120 Mln per club and with benefits 141 mln. Yes that was the amount the owners offerred in march
 
JasonLaCanfora Jason La Canfora
A lot of heavy lifting done. Cap will be around $123M, with certain new exceptions and credits making it "feel" more like $130/team

Clayton also reports there are discussions for a player exemption up to $3 mill this yr. Cap of $120m down from $128m in 2009.
 
JasonLaCanfora Jason La Canfora
A lot of heavy lifting done. Cap will be around $123M, with certain new exceptions and credits making it "feel" more like $130/team

Clayton also reports there are discussions for a player exemption up to $3 mill this yr. Cap of $120m down from $128m in 2009.

The cap is $8 million LESS than 2009. Interesting....

Which means a team who normally operated anywhere from $120,000,001 to $127,999,999 will now have to find a way to get at/below $120 mill. Right?

So this has ramifications, maybe, for a few teams? I'd like someone to see if they can find what teams were over $120 mill on player salary cap. If those teams have a few higher profile free agents to consider keeping or letting them walk, there might be more movement than normal.

I have a feeling there will be some greater-than-normal free agent movement this year. Should be rather exciting to see which players end up on which teams.
 
The cap is $8 million LESS than 2009. Interesting....

Which means a team who normally operated anywhere from $120,000,001 to $127,999,999 will now have to find a way to get at/below $120 mill. Right?

So this has ramifications, maybe, for a few teams? I'd like someone to see if they can find what teams were over $120 mill on player salary cap. If those teams have a few higher profile free agents to consider keeping or letting them walk, there might be more movement than normal.

I have a feeling there will be some greater-than-normal free agent movement this year. Should be rather exciting to see which players end up on which teams.
Eight million less? Do you guys feel like this new cap will help or hurt teams overall? Opinions?
 
The cap is $8 million LESS than 2009. Interesting....

Which means a team who normally operated anywhere from $120,000,001 to $127,999,999 will now have to find a way to get at/below $120 mill. Right?

So this has ramifications, maybe, for a few teams? I'd like someone to see if they can find what teams were over $120 mill on player salary cap. If those teams have a few higher profile free agents to consider keeping or letting them walk, there might be more movement than normal.

I have a feeling there will be some greater-than-normal free agent movement this year. Should be rather exciting to see which players end up on which teams.

From another thread I previously posted "Salary cap plan could pose issues":

http://www.texanstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1722053&postcount=1
 
Like I posted earlier, Jason La Canfora reported that even though the cap is $120 mil, with certain new exceptions and credits make it "feel" more like $130/ million. I'm guessing it will be the the MLE/LLE in the NBA?

I would maybe suspect that the cap being smaller with loopholes and exceptions are a way around the new rule that requires them to use 90%+ of the cap.
 
2010 was uncapped. The statement was 120 mil cap, 141 with benefits. So that means the cap is 120 mil and then add the 21 mil benefits to get 141.
So it is not 121 and 120? It is just 21 more added on not 121. I think we have it right now I hope so.
 
Like I posted earlier, Jason La Canfora reported that even though the cap is $120 mil, with certain new exceptions and credits make it "feel" more like $130/ million. I'm guessing it will be the the MLE/LLE in the NBA?

I would maybe suspect that the cap being smaller with loopholes and exceptions are a way around the new rule that requires them to use 90%+ of the cap.

I see. Thanks.

So in essence, the figure is fluid (not in cement).

A team can spend an extra allowance of cash on players and have it not count toward the $120 mill. This is where the "feels like $130 mill" phrasing comes from.

There are ways for teams to structure contracts whereby you can go over the $120 mill, to a certain degree, before getting busted for being "over" the cap.

Would this analogy be acceptable: It's like working at a place that might let you cash in your Paid Time Off at the end of the year, or roll it over, etc. They're giving you extra perks that still fit within a certain model/framework. NFL teams will somehow add some extras or perks into the contracts that cost the team more money but isn't considered as "salary."

This would be used to tempt players to stick with the team rather than venture out to another team...it sweetens the pot a little bit.
 
So it is not 121 and 120? It is just 21 more added on not 121. I think we have it right now I hope so.

That was my fault. It's a $120 million cap(reported by ESPN) and $21 in benefits. NFL Network is reporting that the cap is $123 though. Maybe they are factoring in the $3 mil exception.
 
Why am I just getting dizzy here?

If a team spends over $120 million on player salaries, they technically MIGHT get slapped by the NFL with a penalty for going over that "cap." This is to try and make sure that the rich teams (Cowboys, for example) could not spend big, big money and essentially buy all the better players in the NFL.

What I think Allstar was saying is this:

The salary cap can "feel" like it's really at $130 million because of how teams will be allowed to stick in some extra benefits to their players, which then pushes them OVER the $120 million mark...but yet is not considered by the NFL to have violated the $120 million salary cap.

Hope that helps.
 
I see. Thanks.

So in essence, the figure is fluid (not in cement).

A team can spend an extra allowance of cash on players and have it not count toward the $120 mill. This is where the "feels like $130 mill" phrasing comes from.

There are ways for teams to structure contracts whereby you can go over the $120 mill, to a certain degree, before getting busted for being "over" the cap.

Would this analogy be acceptable: It's like working at a place that might let you cash in your Paid Time Off at the end of the year, or roll it over, etc. They're giving you extra perks that still fit within a certain model/framework. NFL teams will somehow add some extras or perks into the contracts that cost the team more money but isn't considered as "salary."

This would be used to tempt players to stick with the team rather than venture out to another team...it sweetens the pot a little bit.

Maybe, but it could also work like the NBA. The NBA cap is set, but team with a certain % (let's say 90) used are allowed a Mid Level Exception which allows them around 5-7 million extra cash that they can use to go over the cap. There is also a Bi-annual exception around 2 million that all teams are given every other year that can also go over the cap. Both exceptions count towards the cap if you were under it though (although you would have to be very near the max of the cap to even receive a MLE).

So if things were like that, your scenario wouldn't exactly work in that you can't sign players and have it "not count towards the cap". There might just be exceptions to keep spending if you have already reached the cap.

I'm just speculating though, so who knows.
 
@adbrandt Another note on rookie compromise: the 5th year salary for first-round picks will not be a fixed number, as Owners have wanted. about an hour ago
 
mortreport Chris Mortensen
Why Rookie Wage "Scale" is misnomer: Teams get hard cash rookie cap. How they distribute up to them; negotiations still very much in play
 
Back
Top