Carl Banks quasi-defends T.O. on Sirius

jdlea · 06-14-2005, 06:14 PM

Carl Banks made a very good point about Terrell Owens on Sirius Satellite Radio today. I was on my way home from work and he was pointing out that the modern athlete isn't any different from the modern millionare. What do all people with money want? More money! He never said that this was a good thing, but it makes them the same as every other business man.

Let's say you're Ralph Lauren; your Polos sell like crazy. (I should know, it's almost all I where). Polos cost nearly $80 now. So...as they get more and more popular the price goes up. He doesn't sit back like, "Man, I just made a ton of money by selling Polos, I should lower the price." No, no, no. The more they're wanted/needed (in the case of the athlete) the more they're worth.

Another example Donald Trump: His suites cost a ridiculous amount to reserve for a night, after he makes millions every year, do the prices ever come down? No. That's not smart business.

Another interesting point he made was that you don't set a dangerous precedent by renegotiating T.O.'s contract regardless of how many years you are into it. Most people would say "then anyone can hold out." However, TO changes games. He is often the difference in games. You have someone like Trotter who changed your D, but doesn't change the game, so you don't renegotiate him should he hold out. It's not the same thing. You have to take it case by case otherwise you're grouping all of your players together which everyone knows is not the case. If...let's say Tomlinson held out I'm sure more teams would negotiate with him than someone like Randall Godfrey. It's just the way it is.

The last point he made was about athlete's saying that they have to feed their kids. That's no different from any other millionare either. Why do people like Trump or Perry Ellis or Ralph Lauren keep doing what they're doing? Most of them will tell you that they want that much more to leave to their kids. Now, this comparison isn't even close. We're talking about people building empires here. These guys make money for their kids...they probably make close to billions. Football players don't build empires, they don't make billions. They have to get what they can get when they can get it. There will never be another opportunity to do it. Because as soon as an organization thinks you're used up, you're out the door or making significantly less. If you're gonna set your family up (including your kids) for life, you have 10 years to do it. That's it.

I think he made some very good points. I thought that they'd be worth discussing. For the record I agree with most of what he said.

TheMalcolmConnection · 06-14-2005, 06:28 PM

Pro athletes are a very different type of businessman. It takes talent, yes, but some of these people who make it through college based on physical gifts alone are a problem when they want to sit back and cry for more money.

Also, these are MILLIONS of dollars they are talking about. I could not look someone in the eye without a laugh and say, "My kids will starve if I don't make this extra nine million dollars." Also, another reason these people aren't in the same class as the Ralph Laurens and Donald Trumps is because to get rich and stay rich, you have to invest. People like TO I'm sure are pissing away their money. Say he doesn't negotiate his contract and is paralyzed tomorrow. I bet he could look back at all the ridiculous things he bought and be like, "Wow, did I really need that?"

Now before it gets into who needs what, I feel that rich people are most definitely entitled to their big houses and nice cars. But when that money is wasted on houses with rooms you never go in and cars you never drive, THAT'S where it was a poor investment. People like Donald Trump can do things like that and have huge ridiculous houses because they know their OTHER investments not related to physical gifts will pay for those things.

TheMalcolmConnection · 06-14-2005, 06:30 PM

When it comes down to it, I feel that atheletes AND a large number of singers and basically people who get by on looks/physical gifts are the ones who don't have any right to more money when they are paid a ridiculous amount anyway. I don't know what it is about pro athletes that feel because their team performs better they deserve more money.

Adrianna Lima might sell more panties for Victoria Secret but I don't see her holding out.

Paintrain · 06-14-2005, 06:51 PM

I think the argument that T.O. and Rosenhaus make is solid. Yes he signed a contract and theoretically should honor it, but teams cut players mid contract all the time so they are not living up to the contracts they sign either. The contract is an agreed upon amount of time for an agreed upon amount of money so why does one party have more rights to not live up to their end than another?

JWsleep · 06-14-2005, 08:37 PM

He shouldn't have signed the earlier deal if he wasn't ready to honor it. No one held a gun to his head then. That's the way contracts work, it sports and everywhere else. Sure, TO is worth more than he's being paid. But that's TOs and his agent's fault. Not the Eagles. (And I hate the iggles, but it's true!)

And it's IN THE CONTRACT that teams can cut players. That's why players negotiate for guaranteed money.

TO thinks he's so valuable to the iggles that they'll cave. I very much doubt that. The iggles, like the pats, have been solid at keeping the team above the individual player.

skinnyfan · 06-14-2005, 08:42 PM

I have Sirius Satellite and I think Carl Banks is the BIGGEST dumbass I have ever heard on the radio.....His efforts to sound intelligent really work against the points he tries to make....anyway....I disagree. Donald Trump and business men like him work hard as hell to earn the money they do! T.O. and football players play a F****** GAME and make millions..........Trump and those guys are working there ass off to make that money.....I'm not saying T.O. doesn't work out hard to be in good shape but THEY ARE PLAYING A GAME...........A FOOTBALL GAME that anyone in this modern day wishes they had that talent or that job...........I disagree with Banks........he's a freakin idiot! Trump and those business guys are not at the mercy of anyone....they go and get their money in the world....T.O. is at the mercy of Philly and I love that they are not paying him......

monk81 · 06-14-2005, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JWsleep

He shouldn't have signed the earlier deal if he wasn't ready to honor it. No one held a gun to his head then. That's the way contracts work, it sports and everywhere else. Sure, TO is worth more than he's being paid. But that's TOs and his agent's fault. Not the Eagles. (And I hate the iggles, but it's true!)

And it's IN THE CONTRACT that teams can cut players. That's why players negotiate for guaranteed money.

TO thinks he's so valuable to the iggles that they'll cave. I very much doubt that. The iggles, like the pats, have been solid at keeping the team above the individual player.

Last year T.O. signed the contract with the Eagles and was just so happy and thrilled he didn't have to end up playing for the Ravens

This year the contract is not acceptable .....go figure.....maybe the Iggles should trade him back to the Ravens.

monk81 · 06-14-2005, 09:40 PM

Taking Carl Bank's business approach.....okay let's take the computer industry and computer tech's were in demand and made huge salaries..afterall, according to Banks, "They have to get what they can get when they can get it". ........but SOME priced themselves out of the market, and businesses found people in India that were willing to accept HALF the pay of what the American Techs wanted...........so the U.S. lost jobs to outsourcing. Can happen in sport's too.........a receiver thinks he is worth more than other receivers, and teams will find someone who can do a competent job for less money..........NFL owners are businessmen too, and if they can save some cash, they may find someone that can do the job for less money..you better watch out T.O.

P.S. and outsourcing can hurt EVERYONE in the industry, those that made a whole lot less lost their jobs to outsourcing too. A relative of mine in the computer industry lost his job to outsourcing.

jdlea · 06-14-2005, 09:45 PM

When's the last time millions of people tuned in to watch Donald Trump work? Oh, the Apprentice? He didn't work hard then. So...football players make a lot of money because they generate a lot of it. If you don't like that they get paid so much protest by not dumping your dollars into. Don't watch. Don't buy the jerseys. Don't buy anything affiliated with the NFL. If everyone who "hates the modern" athlete did that then it might make a difference. If everyone who says "they get paid too much" or "they're selfish" or whatever...take a stand. Stand up for what you believe in. They're just supposed to be used to make owners rich?

I think what most of you all miss is the fact that the owners make tons of money off of the players. Once the players turn 30 then they are perceived as starting to decline. So they stop making huge money. They start getting cut because of backloaded contracts. Loyalty will only ever be a one way street. This is much the owners fault as anyone's. If you can cut when you don't live up to your contract, you should be able to ask for a new one. I know everyone on this site has asked for a raise...what's the difference? Did you not agree to work for a certain price and then ask for more? Tell me how it's different. You don't make millions? So what. I probably don't make as much as many of you, do you hear me bitch that you want a raise? No. So I'm tired of everyone getting on their high horse talking about how they're out of line because they make a whole lot more than you. The owners don't give a damn about a player's signature on the contract when they cut people. Why should it be any different when players want a raise?

monk81 · 06-14-2005, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdlea

When's the last time millions of people tuned in to watch Donald Trump work? Oh, the Apprentice? He didn't work hard then. So...football players make a lot of money because they generate a lot of it. If you don't like that they get paid so much protest by not dumping your dollars into. Don't watch. Don't buy the jerseys. Don't buy anything affiliated with the NFL. If everyone who "hates the modern" athlete did that then it might make a difference. If everyone who says "they get paid too much" or "they're selfish" or whatever...take a stand. Stand up for what you believe in. They're just supposed to be used to make owners rich?

I think what most of you all miss is the fact that the owners make tons of money off of the players. Once the players turn 30 then they are perceived as starting to decline. So they stop making huge money. They start getting cut because of backloaded contracts. Loyalty will only ever be a one way street. This is much the owners fault as anyone's. If you can cut when you don't live up to your contract, you should be able to ask for a new one. I know everyone on this site has asked for a raise...what's the difference? Did you not agree to work for a certain price and then ask for more? Tell me how it's different. You don't make millions? So what. I probably don't make as much as many of you, do you hear me bitch that you want a raise? No. So I'm tired of everyone getting on their high horse talking about how they're out of line because they make a whole lot more than you. The owners don't give a damn about a player's signature on the contract when they cut people. Why should it be any different when players want a raise?

I hear what your saying JDLEA.......but business is a business is a business.
My company laid off tenured employees that were making near the top of their salary range, so they can hire newbies that can come in and do the same job but at the minimum range of the salary scale. It happens to all workers.

I don't begrudge athletes their big buck salaries, but what I have a problem with are non-loyal prima donna players who after one year want more money and put their team in cap hell, so the team can't sign other players to improve their team because of the few that hog the salary cap. That's what I have a problem with.

TheMalcolmConnection · 06-14-2005, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by monk81

I don't begrudge athletes their big buck salaries, but what I have a problem with are non-loyal prima donna players who after one year want more money and a few players put their team in cap hell, and the team can't sign other players to improve their team because of the few that hog the salary cap. That's what I have a problem with.

Exactly what I was trying to say.

Teemotay · 06-14-2005, 10:02 PM

The players union are the one's who agreed to the terms and conditions of how nfl players' contracts work. If anyone is to "blame" for these types of situations, it's the players union. Having said that, it is what it is. TO has every right to demand a new contract, and the eagles have every right to hold him to the contract he's signed. If TO doesn't think the current contract is fair, let him sit out (and get fined for it). I say let these "me, me, me" guys waste their careers away holding out. Ultimately, it's the fans who will be paying the price. What's it cost to go to a pro NFL game these days? $7 for a freaking beer??? That's ridiculous. But someone's got to cough up the money in order for these guys to feed their families, right? I'd love to see the eagles stick to their guns, and watch TO never play again. Where else is he going to make even a fraction of the kind of money he's making now?

TheMalcolmConnection · 06-14-2005, 10:10 PM

Wow, you beat me to it. I'll just expand on your point:

When Donald Trump makes more money does it hurt OUR pocketbooks? (I'm sure SOMEONE can raise that argumet with an in-depth economic analysis, but let it rest for now) No. It does not.

When TO and the people who worship the Eagles demands and new contract and god forbid he gets one, the fans get it right up the ass. If you go with a greater good argument, the ticket increase to pay that asshole's salary that should have already been in a contract would hit each and EVERY single fan to go to every game that TO plays in (and most likely the ones after he retires or leaves). They're getting hit hard anyway, but what kind of asshole says, "I know in my heart what I'm doing is right." and doesn't think about the consequences of what it does to the people who pay his fucking salary?

One TO family is NOT worth the price to thousands of (unfortunately) Eagles fans who DO work their asses off just as hard (and some not as hard) to come and watch him run his mouth and then complain that his millions aren't good enough to feed his family.

dblanch66 · 06-14-2005, 11:08 PM

Its called a 'signing bonus'. That is the guaranteed money. The rest of the contract should be honored. If he wants to renegotiate the contract, he should then agree to return ALL of the signing bonus. The bonus is contingent to signing the CONTRACT. Carl Banks is a moron and I'm not taking any of his uneducated arguments seriously. TO is to football, what Peter King is to journalism.

KLHJ2 · 06-14-2005, 11:23 PM

Athletes are all a bunch of overpaid crybabies who dont realize how good they really have it, and its all of the fans fault. I f the fans didnt support sports as much as they do and there were less demand; then there would be less money paid into the sport. With that said there would be less money paid to players. If it were a perfect world then to watch a game would be extremely cheap, and football would be a part time job to players. More players would play for the love of the game and owners would be happy just to own a team. But it is not a perfect world. Fans demand a winning team, and will pay alot of money to see it. Owners are greedy and want to capitalize, and players are the workhands that want a piece of the profit for their labor.

In closing, bitch about it all you like, but its our fault that the situation is the way it is.

06-14-2005, 06:14 PM	#1
jdlea Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Arlington, VA Age: 40 Posts: 3,109	Carl Banks quasi-defends T.O. on Sirius Carl Banks made a very good point about Terrell Owens on Sirius Satellite Radio today. I was on my way home from work and he was pointing out that the modern athlete isn't any different from the modern millionare. What do all people with money want? More money! He never said that this was a good thing, but it makes them the same as every other business man. Let's say you're Ralph Lauren; your Polos sell like crazy. (I should know, it's almost all I where). Polos cost nearly $80 now. So...as they get more and more popular the price goes up. He doesn't sit back like, "Man, I just made a ton of money by selling Polos, I should lower the price." No, no, no. The more they're wanted/needed (in the case of the athlete) the more they're worth. Another example Donald Trump: His suites cost a ridiculous amount to reserve for a night, after he makes millions every year, do the prices ever come down? No. That's not smart business. Another interesting point he made was that you don't set a dangerous precedent by renegotiating T.O.'s contract regardless of how many years you are into it. Most people would say "then anyone can hold out." However, TO changes games. He is often the difference in games. You have someone like Trotter who changed your D, but doesn't change the game, so you don't renegotiate him should he hold out. It's not the same thing. You have to take it case by case otherwise you're grouping all of your players together which everyone knows is not the case. If...let's say Tomlinson held out I'm sure more teams would negotiate with him than someone like Randall Godfrey. It's just the way it is. The last point he made was about athlete's saying that they have to feed their kids. That's no different from any other millionare either. Why do people like Trump or Perry Ellis or Ralph Lauren keep doing what they're doing? Most of them will tell you that they want that much more to leave to their kids. Now, this comparison isn't even close. We're talking about people building empires here. These guys make money for their kids...they probably make close to billions. Football players don't build empires, they don't make billions. They have to get what they can get when they can get it. There will never be another opportunity to do it. Because as soon as an organization thinks you're used up, you're out the door or making significantly less. If you're gonna set your family up (including your kids) for life, you have 10 years to do it. That's it. I think he made some very good points. I thought that they'd be worth discussing. For the record I agree with most of what he said.

06-14-2005, 06:28 PM	#2
TheMalcolmConnection I like big (_\|_)s. Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Lexington, Virginia Age: 43 Posts: 19,225	Re: Carl Banks quasi-defends T.O. on Sirius Pro athletes are a very different type of businessman. It takes talent, yes, but some of these people who make it through college based on physical gifts alone are a problem when they want to sit back and cry for more money. Also, these are MILLIONS of dollars they are talking about. I could not look someone in the eye without a laugh and say, "My kids will starve if I don't make this extra nine million dollars." Also, another reason these people aren't in the same class as the Ralph Laurens and Donald Trumps is because to get rich and stay rich, you have to invest. People like TO I'm sure are pissing away their money. Say he doesn't negotiate his contract and is paralyzed tomorrow. I bet he could look back at all the ridiculous things he bought and be like, "Wow, did I really need that?" Now before it gets into who needs what, I feel that rich people are most definitely entitled to their big houses and nice cars. But when that money is wasted on houses with rooms you never go in and cars you never drive, THAT'S where it was a poor investment. People like Donald Trump can do things like that and have huge ridiculous houses because they know their OTHER investments not related to physical gifts will pay for those things. __________________ Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.

06-14-2005, 06:30 PM	#3
TheMalcolmConnection I like big (_\|_)s. Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Lexington, Virginia Age: 43 Posts: 19,225	Re: Carl Banks quasi-defends T.O. on Sirius When it comes down to it, I feel that atheletes AND a large number of singers and basically people who get by on looks/physical gifts are the ones who don't have any right to more money when they are paid a ridiculous amount anyway. I don't know what it is about pro athletes that feel because their team performs better they deserve more money. Adrianna Lima might sell more panties for Victoria Secret but I don't see her holding out. __________________ Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.

06-14-2005, 06:51 PM	#4
Paintrain Pro Bowl Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Ft. Lauderdale, FL Age: 54 Posts: 5,006	Re: Carl Banks quasi-defends T.O. on Sirius I think the argument that T.O. and Rosenhaus make is solid. Yes he signed a contract and theoretically should honor it, but teams cut players mid contract all the time so they are not living up to the contracts they sign either. The contract is an agreed upon amount of time for an agreed upon amount of money so why does one party have more rights to not live up to their end than another?

06-14-2005, 08:37 PM	#5
JWsleep Propane and propane accessories Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Houston, TX Age: 55 Posts: 4,714	Re: Carl Banks quasi-defends T.O. on Sirius He shouldn't have signed the earlier deal if he wasn't ready to honor it. No one held a gun to his head then. That's the way contracts work, it sports and everywhere else. Sure, TO is worth more than he's being paid. But that's TOs and his agent's fault. Not the Eagles. (And I hate the iggles, but it's true!) And it's IN THE CONTRACT that teams can cut players. That's why players negotiate for guaranteed money. TO thinks he's so valuable to the iggles that they'll cave. I very much doubt that. The iggles, like the pats, have been solid at keeping the team above the individual player. __________________ Hail from Houston!

06-14-2005, 08:42 PM	#6
skinnyfan Special Teams Join Date: May 2005 Age: 47 Posts: 111	Re: Carl Banks quasi-defends T.O. on Sirius I have Sirius Satellite and I think Carl Banks is the BIGGEST dumbass I have ever heard on the radio.....His efforts to sound intelligent really work against the points he tries to make....anyway....I disagree. Donald Trump and business men like him work hard as hell to earn the money they do! T.O. and football players play a F****** GAME and make millions..........Trump and those guys are working there ass off to make that money.....I'm not saying T.O. doesn't work out hard to be in good shape but THEY ARE PLAYING A GAME...........A FOOTBALL GAME that anyone in this modern day wishes they had that talent or that job...........I disagree with Banks........he's a freakin idiot! Trump and those business guys are not at the mercy of anyone....they go and get their money in the world....T.O. is at the mercy of Philly and I love that they are not paying him......

06-14-2005, 09:40 PM	#8
monk81 The Starter Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: TEXAS Posts: 2,029	Re: Carl Banks quasi-defends T.O. on Sirius Taking Carl Bank's business approach.....okay let's take the computer industry and computer tech's were in demand and made huge salaries..afterall, according to Banks, "They have to get what they can get when they can get it". ........but SOME priced themselves out of the market, and businesses found people in India that were willing to accept HALF the pay of what the American Techs wanted...........so the U.S. lost jobs to outsourcing. Can happen in sport's too.........a receiver thinks he is worth more than other receivers, and teams will find someone who can do a competent job for less money..........NFL owners are businessmen too, and if they can save some cash, they may find someone that can do the job for less money..you better watch out T.O. P.S. and outsourcing can hurt EVERYONE in the industry, those that made a whole lot less lost their jobs to outsourcing too. A relative of mine in the computer industry lost his job to outsourcing. __________________ "It's absolutely criminal, in my opinion, that Monk has yet to be enshrined (in the Pro-Football Hall of Fame)" Dan Arkush PFW

06-14-2005, 09:45 PM	#9
jdlea Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Arlington, VA Age: 40 Posts: 3,109	Re: Carl Banks quasi-defends T.O. on Sirius When's the last time millions of people tuned in to watch Donald Trump work? Oh, the Apprentice? He didn't work hard then. So...football players make a lot of money because they generate a lot of it. If you don't like that they get paid so much protest by not dumping your dollars into. Don't watch. Don't buy the jerseys. Don't buy anything affiliated with the NFL. If everyone who "hates the modern" athlete did that then it might make a difference. If everyone who says "they get paid too much" or "they're selfish" or whatever...take a stand. Stand up for what you believe in. They're just supposed to be used to make owners rich? I think what most of you all miss is the fact that the owners make tons of money off of the players. Once the players turn 30 then they are perceived as starting to decline. So they stop making huge money. They start getting cut because of backloaded contracts. Loyalty will only ever be a one way street. This is much the owners fault as anyone's. If you can cut when you don't live up to your contract, you should be able to ask for a new one. I know everyone on this site has asked for a raise...what's the difference? Did you not agree to work for a certain price and then ask for more? Tell me how it's different. You don't make millions? So what. I probably don't make as much as many of you, do you hear me bitch that you want a raise? No. So I'm tired of everyone getting on their high horse talking about how they're out of line because they make a whole lot more than you. The owners don't give a damn about a player's signature on the contract when they cut people. Why should it be any different when players want a raise?

06-14-2005, 10:02 PM	#12
Teemotay Camp Scrub Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 30	Re: Carl Banks quasi-defends T.O. on Sirius The players union are the one's who agreed to the terms and conditions of how nfl players' contracts work. If anyone is to "blame" for these types of situations, it's the players union. Having said that, it is what it is. TO has every right to demand a new contract, and the eagles have every right to hold him to the contract he's signed. If TO doesn't think the current contract is fair, let him sit out (and get fined for it). I say let these "me, me, me" guys waste their careers away holding out. Ultimately, it's the fans who will be paying the price. What's it cost to go to a pro NFL game these days? $7 for a freaking beer??? That's ridiculous. But someone's got to cough up the money in order for these guys to feed their families, right? I'd love to see the eagles stick to their guns, and watch TO never play again. Where else is he going to make even a fraction of the kind of money he's making now?

06-14-2005, 10:10 PM	#13
TheMalcolmConnection I like big (_\|_)s. Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Lexington, Virginia Age: 43 Posts: 19,225	Re: Carl Banks quasi-defends T.O. on Sirius Wow, you beat me to it. I'll just expand on your point: When Donald Trump makes more money does it hurt OUR pocketbooks? (I'm sure SOMEONE can raise that argumet with an in-depth economic analysis, but let it rest for now) No. It does not. When TO and the people who worship the Eagles demands and new contract and god forbid he gets one, the fans get it right up the ass. If you go with a greater good argument, the ticket increase to pay that asshole's salary that should have already been in a contract would hit each and EVERY single fan to go to every game that TO plays in (and most likely the ones after he retires or leaves). They're getting hit hard anyway, but what kind of asshole says, "I know in my heart what I'm doing is right." and doesn't think about the consequences of what it does to the people who pay his fucking salary? One TO family is NOT worth the price to thousands of (unfortunately) Eagles fans who DO work their asses off just as hard (and some not as hard) to come and watch him run his mouth and then complain that his millions aren't good enough to feed his family. __________________ Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.

06-14-2005, 11:08 PM	#14
dblanch66 The Starter Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Phoenix, AZ Age: 58 Posts: 1,176	Re: Carl Banks quasi-defends T.O. on Sirius Its called a 'signing bonus'. That is the guaranteed money. The rest of the contract should be honored. If he wants to renegotiate the contract, he should then agree to return ALL of the signing bonus. The bonus is contingent to signing the CONTRACT. Carl Banks is a moron and I'm not taking any of his uneducated arguments seriously. TO is to football, what Peter King is to journalism.

06-14-2005, 11:23 PM	#15
KLHJ2 Inactive Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: DC Metro Area Age: 46 Posts: 5,829	Re: Carl Banks quasi-defends T.O. on Sirius Athletes are all a bunch of overpaid crybabies who dont realize how good they really have it, and its all of the fans fault. I f the fans didnt support sports as much as they do and there were less demand; then there would be less money paid into the sport. With that said there would be less money paid to players. If it were a perfect world then to watch a game would be extremely cheap, and football would be a part time job to players. More players would play for the love of the game and owners would be happy just to own a team. But it is not a perfect world. Fans demand a winning team, and will pay alot of money to see it. Owners are greedy and want to capitalize, and players are the workhands that want a piece of the profit for their labor. In closing, bitch about it all you like, but its our fault that the situation is the way it is.

Carl Banks quasi-defends T.O. on Sirius

Locker Room Main Forum