Points system for National Rugby League

supercoach said:
The salary cap is fine if everyone plays by the rules, but it’s like tax, ever club is bending and breaking the rule. There are a 100ways to rort the salary cap with zero possibility of being caught. A family member gets a contract with a sponsors private company, a job x football, a new kitchen for your mum and the list goes on.
Also players will take a little less to play for successful clubs and demand a truck load more to play for weak clubs. So the weaker clubs get less bang for their cap than the good ones.

There must be a better system to get all teams on a equal playing field. Okay it might not be a point system
Click to expand...
It might be like democracy - known to have major flaws, but the best system we have so far come up with.

I cannot see any system working outside of actual dollar-based salaries. A draft would work, but you need the player's association plus all amateur clubs to agree to the system, and currently I don't think that's feasible.

The best idea I can think of would be for the NRL to personally take responsibility for funding of all juniors and clubs in all regions (fixed rates per age group). If you want to play in the NRL, any junior gets a set amount of funding (for example set for their age group) and they play for their local club until a certain age, after which they enter a national draft to start their distribution to the clubs.

This way you are not benefitted or penalised for investment in junior players / clubs, and NRL standardises the funding for all junior clubs/districts. The draft also becomes a mandatory component of wanting to play professional rugby league - either you agree to sign up, or you don't play NRL. It's no longer a restraint of trade if you have an option, as a 15 year-old, not to take up a career in the NRL.

We have to remember however that codes like AFL, who do have a draft, face almost no opposition whatsoever from other codes or international competitions for their players. Same with NFL, it's not like European clubs or rugby union clubs are in competition with kids entering the NFL draft.

The NRL may even decide to start lower in the development chain, and have entry-level clubs (like a Toyota Cup approach, or the college system in America) where the best young kids contract to top-tier junior clubs who play each other prior to joining a senior division. The issue here is (proven by the Toyota Cup), unlike sports like baseball or NBA, young league players need to play against men to withstand the physical demands of playing weekly league. The NFL would be an interesting case-study of how to transition kids from playing against their own age vs open competition.
 
jirskyr said:
It might be like democracy - known to have major flaws, but the best system we have so far come up with.

I cannot see any system working outside of actual dollar-based salaries. A draft would work, but you need the player's association plus all amateur clubs to agree to the system, and currently I don't think that's feasible.

The best idea I can think of would be for the NRL to personally take responsibility for funding of all juniors and clubs in all regions (fixed rates per age group). If you want to play in the NRL, any junior gets a set amount of funding (for example set for their age group) and they play for their local club until a certain age, after which they enter a national draft to start their distribution to the clubs.

This way you are not benefitted or penalised for investment in junior players / clubs, and NRL standardises the funding for all junior clubs/districts. The draft also becomes a mandatory component of wanting to play professional rugby league - either you agree to sign up, or you don't play NRL. It's no longer a restraint of trade if you have an option, as a 15 year-old, not to take up a career in the NRL.

We have to remember however that codes like AFL, who do have a draft, face almost no opposition whatsoever from other codes or international competitions for their players. Same with NFL, it's not like European clubs or rugby union clubs are in competition with kids entering the NFL draft.

The NRL may even decide to start lower in the development chain, and have entry-level clubs (like a Toyota Cup approach, or the college system in America) where the best young kids contract to top-tier junior clubs who play each other prior to joining a senior division. The issue here is (proven by the Toyota Cup), unlike sports like baseball or NBA, young league players need to play against men to withstand the physical demands of playing weekly league. The NFL would be an interesting case-study of how to transition kids from playing against their own age vs open competition.
Click to expand...
I think you would somehow need to pool all the best players under 22-23 who are yet to debut. And rank them. Not an easy one but if guys like Suaalii, Nanai and Ponga etc are all going to lower tier clubs it would be a better competition imo.
 
Absolute madness. Why would any wts fan want to even up the comp? Scrap the salary cap now.
We have the best crop of juniors in the world.
A financial genius in the front office that always turns a profit.
And 400k of loyal fans we just have to turn into members.
In short the salary cap may hold us back.
I have read this all here...
 
jirskyr said:
There's a very critical flaw to this plan, and there tends to be critical flaws to all points-based considerations.

In this case the flaw is good teams will be hammered by "offers" from other clubs. Those claims will artificially stretch a well-performing club outside the points limit, whether or not any of the offers are genuine or work out.

The Roosters are a good example. Say Tigers claim Tedesco for $1.2M, Storm claim Crichton for $900K, Warriors claim Tupouniua for $700K etc. Individually these offers may all be genuine to each club, but they can add up so quickly that Roosters cannot now "afford" their roster.

So now Roosters have to release someone to stay under points - say they release Tedesco. So Tedesco now is compelled to play for Tigers because they made the highest bid and forced his club into a points crisis? That becomes restraint of trade and the RLPA will not agree to it, any more than they will currently support a draft system.

You will end up with situations where clubs on the brink of breaching their points will have claims tactically made against off-contract players to force the club over the points limit, and force them to shed players, though they may be currently points compliant. And even though the player himself might not want to leave.

You also risk collusion between clubs intentionally throwing in simultaneous high bids on the same target club, to destroy their points balance. It incentivises a pile-on of certain clubs who are known (publicly) to be at points risk.

You cannot end up with a system where the value of a player is determined by random bids by opposition clubs. Even if the bids are binding, many of the bids will not come through because a club will not shed all it's best footballers, in which case there is limited penalty for making a risky bid - you may jag the player, and if you don't, you simply make life difficult for their incumbent.

There's also a huge issue with speculative bidding or negotiating, because under the current system you can engage in negotiations with unlimited numbers of players without committing your funds. For example Tigers might want to talk to Tedesco and Munster both off contract, knowing it's (a) not realistic to jag both players, and (b) you are only sounding out possibilities. Under this points system you could do no such thing, you'd have to lodge official offers, and you'd probably have to choose only one of Tedesco or Munster, not being able to afford it if both said "yes" (also NRL would be unlikely to let you lodge new claims if your projected points total was beyond the allowed limit).

Lastly, it would make the chances of re-signing players much lower, because any club near their points limit would be highly exposed to speculative offers from other clubs on off-contract players. If Warriors wanted Tupouniua for example, and Roosters were previously paying him $450K, assuming Roosters were close to their points limit, Warriors would only have to bid enough to drive Roosters over their points limit. This would leave Roosters unable to counter-bid on Tupouniua or forced to try to break a contract with an existing player.

No offence to those complaining about the NRL not adopting a points-based system, but the primary reason is not self-interest or cronyism or fraud or ineptitude, the primary reason for avoiding points-based systems is they are all critically flawed in some respect.

I continue to say this - name any professional sport in the world that operates with a points-based cap?
Click to expand...
Disagree.
1- The roosters could not afford their current players for the exact reason we are talking about... they rort the system. This stops them doing that. You have just confirmed this system would do what the salary cap isnt, because of underhanded payments.

2- Tedesco would not have to sign with the Tigers..... his true market value ( not the fake one the roosters would have you believe) has now been established . He could sign with any club but if the Tigers contract value is still on offer for 1.2 m & was the top offer , it will cost whatever club he signs with 12 points.

3-You could talk to both Tedesco & Munster & offer bids for both. As the cap stands today clubs do that all the time. Under this system , you registered contracts for both, say Tedesco for 1.2 m & Munster for 1.2 m, now both worth 12 points. Tededso agreed to your offer first & you couldnt afford both players, you can immediately withdraw your offer for Munster. Lets say Dolphins are now interested for 1 million & register their offer . That now is the highest offer, so his points value is now 10 points ,dropping from 12 because the Tiger withdrew their offer.

4- The clubs couldnt afford to make fake offers cause they would be stuck with that player if as soon as the player agrees to the contract. .Once a player agrees to the contract it is legally binding. The club cannot withdraw the contract once the player accepts it. So if they tried to make fake offers as you suggest , they would risk shooting themselves in the foot.
5-The whole idea of the salary cap is to spread the talent. Clearly that doesnt happen now because clubs rort the system.The arguments you make are exactly what should happen, namely the Roosters shouldnt be able to contract player they clear cant afford, like they do now.

The principle of this system is no different or revolutionary than the salary cap system we have now. No one is forced to sign anywhere, there is no restraint of trade, the market dictates the value. Nothing would inherently change with negotiations as it exists under the current salary cap, but with this system, because its transparent, it would keep the barstards honest.
 
jirskyr said:
It might be like democracy - known to have major flaws, but the best system we have so far come up with.

I cannot see any system working outside of actual dollar-based salaries.
Click to expand...
On this point @jirskyr, it would not have to be a points system. It could be on the dollar value ,just like we have the salary cap now. Instead of a player being worth a certain amount of points, is worth the highest amount a club is willing to pay for him. Eg Tedesco offered 1.2 m by Tigers , it will cost the Roosters 1.2 m off their salary cap even if they "pretend" they are only paying 850 k for him.
 
Champ1 said:
Disagree.
2- Tedesco would not have to sign with the Tigers..... his true market value ( not the fake one the roosters would have you believe) has now been established . He could sign with any club but if the Tigers contract value is still on offer for 1.2 m & was the top offer , it will cost whatever club he signs with 12 points.

3-You could talk to both Tedesco & Munster & offer bids for both. As the cap stands today clubs do that all the time. Under this system , you registered contracts for both, say Tedesco for 1.2 m & Munster for 1.2 m, now both worth 12 points. Tededso agreed to your offer first & you couldnt afford both players, you can immediately withdraw your offer for Munster. Lets say Dolphins are now interested for 1 million & register their offer . That now is the highest offer, so his points value is now 10 points ,dropping from 12 because the Tiger withdrew their offer.

4- The clubs couldnt afford to make fake offers cause they would be stuck with that player if as soon as the player agrees to the contract. .Once a player agrees to the contract it is legally binding. The club cannot withdraw the contract once the player accepts it. So if they tried to make fake offers as you suggest , they would risk shooting themselves in the foot.
5-The whole idea of the salary cap is to spread the talent. Clearly that doesnt happen now because clubs rort the system.The arguments you make are exactly what should happen, namely the Roosters shouldnt be able to contract player they clear cant afford, like they do now.

The principle of this system is no different or revolutionary than the salary cap system we have now. No one is forced to sign anywhere, there is no restraint of trade, the market dictates the value. Nothing would inherently change with negotiations as it exists under the current salary cap, but with this system, because its transparent, it would keep the barstards honest.
Click to expand...
#2 - but this means any official bid for a player automatically dislodges him from his incumbent, unless they have points to spare. I didn't mean just Tigers - actually it makes it worse, that any club in the entire NRL can bid $1.2M for Tedesco, even if he has absolutely no desire to go there, e.g. the Warriors, and force Roosters to pay top points-dollar simply because someone else is interested.

It's madness, though I understand the principle you are working towards, but it absolutely wipes out anything a club might do to be a preferential destination for top players. Yes I agree clubs rort the current cap, but a player must still be allowed to choose his preferred destination.

#3 If Tedesco and Munster both said yes, what then? That's the point I'm making. Assuming you have a decent amount of points left in your cap, you might want to bid on both Tedesco and Munster. What if they both say yes and you blow your cap? Would NRL even let you bid on players that would potentially blow your cap?

#4 of course clubs could fake offers. You just gave an example of Tigers submitting for Munster and then withdrawing the offer. Well what if Tigers submitted a grand offer to Storm for Munster, had them stew over it trying to get their cap in order with other players (move players around to clear points space to match the Tigers offer), then Tigers withdraw the offer at the last minute? Totally open to rorting by clubs, especially lower-ranked clubs with plenty of points space.

What if all of Titans, Warriors, Tigers, Knights and Bulldogs all decide to pile-in on Penrith and offer a wide range of players maximum dollar? It decimates the Penrith cap and maybe each lower club just takes one major player away, or by acting in collusion at least some of the top Penrith players are now priced out of the Penrith cap.

And the other type of fake offer is the one, like I mentioned, where you submit for the best players every year, every time, and though you don't expect to be successful, at least you damage an opponent's points cap in the process. It ends up being a fake bid because you never really think Cameron Munster is going to join Wests Tigers, but you make Storm pay for the fantasy of making him an offer.

#5 the problem with your system is now it goes too far and doesn't reward any club for the loyalty of their juniors, of being a prized destination, of being geographically convenient, of the pulling power of top coaches, of the potential influence of TPAs and other personal sponsorships. All that stuff is wiped away if one of your opponents makes a big offer, and assuming all successful clubs are close to their points cap, you probably compel such clubs to shed their best players for lack of space. There has to be some reward for being a preferred destination.

It is a restraint of trade - because you cannot negotiate the best possible deal with the club of your preference. That club may be automatically disqualified from re-signing you because an opponent put in a bigger offer. The player possibly cannot just stay where they are and are thus compelled to leave their incumbent, though they don't want to.

I don't even know if you've run through any simulations of what would actually be possible with point caps. For example what really happens over the course of a few seasons if clubs are making offers all over the place and other clubs are trying to keep their points in check? It might be a total clusterbomb, and it makes me think of those puzzles where you try to move squares around a grid, with only one empty square available each move.

The difference between this points idea and the current cap, apart from alleged rorting (and clubs would find a way to rort the new system, be certain of it) is that (1) players can take whatever deal they choose, for any reason, and (2) the basis of the current salary cap is you can only offer to pay new or upgraded players with what is left within your cap space. Under your points system, the cap becomes more about having to factor in what other clubs offer - it ends up being about their free space as much as yours (because a top offer cannot be declined; that offer sticks as a points penalty).

If you want transparency - you just publish the actual contracts that players have now. There's not much to it.
 
jirskyr said:
#2 - but this means any official bid for a player automatically dislodges him from his incumbent, unless they have points to spare. I didn't mean just Tigers - actually it makes it worse, that any club in the entire NRL can bid $1.2M for Tedesco, even if he has absolutely no desire to go there, e.g. the Warriors, and force Roosters to pay top points-dollar simply because someone else is interested.

It's madness, though I understand the principle you are working towards, but it absolutely wipes out anything a club might do to be a preferential destination for top players. Yes I agree clubs rort the current cap, but a player must still be allowed to choose his preferred destination.

#3 If Tedesco and Munster both said yes, what then? That's the point I'm making. Assuming you have a decent amount of points left in your cap, you might want to bid on both Tedesco and Munster. What if they both say yes and you blow your cap? Would NRL even let you bid on players that would potentially blow your cap?

#4 of course clubs could fake offers. You just gave an example of Tigers submitting for Munster and then withdrawing the offer. Well what if Tigers submitted a grand offer to Storm for Munster, had them stew over it trying to get their cap in order with other players (move players around to clear points space to match the Tigers offer), then Tigers withdraw the offer at the last minute? Totally open to rorting by clubs, especially lower-ranked clubs with plenty of points space.

What if all of Titans, Warriors, Tigers, Knights and Bulldogs all decide to pile-in on Penrith and offer a wide range of players maximum dollar? It decimates the Penrith cap and maybe each lower club just takes one major player away, or by acting in collusion at least some of the top Penrith players are now priced out of the Penrith cap.

And the other type of fake offer is the one, like I mentioned, where you submit for the best players every year, every time, and though you don't expect to be successful, at least you damage an opponent's points cap in the process. It ends up being a fake bid because you never really think Cameron Munster is going to join Wests Tigers, but you make Storm pay for the fantasy of making him an offer.

#5 the problem with your system is now it goes too far and doesn't reward any club for the loyalty of their juniors, of being a prized destination, of being geographically convenient, of the pulling power of top coaches, of the potential influence of TPAs and other personal sponsorships. All that stuff is wiped away if one of your opponents makes a big offer, and assuming all successful clubs are close to their points cap, you probably compel such clubs to shed their best players for lack of space. There has to be some reward for being a preferred destination.

It is a restraint of trade - because you cannot negotiate the best possible deal with the club of your preference. That club may be automatically disqualified from re-signing you because an opponent put in a bigger offer. The player possibly cannot just stay where they are and are thus compelled to leave their incumbent, though they don't want to.

I don't even know if you've run through any simulations of what would actually be possible with point caps. For example what really happens over the course of a few seasons if clubs are making offers all over the place and other clubs are trying to keep their points in check? It might be a total clusterbomb, and it makes me think of those puzzles where you try to move squares around a grid, with only one empty square available each move.

The difference between this points idea and the current cap, apart from alleged rorting (and clubs would find a way to rort the new system, be certain of it) is that (1) players can take whatever deal they choose, for any reason, and (2) the basis of the current salary cap is you can only offer to pay new or upgraded players with what is left within your cap space. Under your points system, the cap becomes more about having to factor in what other clubs offer - it ends up being about their free space as much as yours (because a top offer cannot be declined; that offer sticks as a points penalty).

If you want transparency - you just publish the actual contracts that players have now. There's not much to it.
Click to expand...
Please read my last 2 posts again . It answers your questions.
 
Champ1 said:
Please read my last 2 posts again . It answers your questions.
Click to expand...
I did read your posts, and my point remains that you haven't thought it through enough.

I appreciate the thought experiment, but there's a reason they don't adopt these point systems.

It doesn't matter anyway because it's not happening.
 
jirskyr said:
#2 - but this means any official bid for a player automatically dislodges him from his incumbent, unless they have points to spare. I didn't mean just Tigers - actually it makes it worse, that any club in the entire NRL can bid $1.2M for Tedesco, even if he has absolutely no desire to go there, e.g. the Warriors, and force Roosters to pay top points-dollar simply because someone else is interested.

It's madness, though I understand the principle you are working towards, but it absolutely wipes out anything a club might do to be a preferential destination for top players. Yes I agree clubs rort the current cap, but a player must still be allowed to choose his preferred destination.

#3 If Tedesco and Munster both said yes, what then? That's the point I'm making. Assuming you have a decent amount of points left in your cap, you might want to bid on both Tedesco and Munster. What if they both say yes and you blow your cap? Would NRL even let you bid on players that would potentially blow your cap?

#4 of course clubs could fake offers. You just gave an example of Tigers submitting for Munster and then withdrawing the offer. Well what if Tigers submitted a grand offer to Storm for Munster, had them stew over it trying to get their cap in order with other players (move players around to clear points space to match the Tigers offer), then Tigers withdraw the offer at the last minute? Totally open to rorting by clubs, especially lower-ranked clubs with plenty of points space.

What if all of Titans, Warriors, Tigers, Knights and Bulldogs all decide to pile-in on Penrith and offer a wide range of players maximum dollar? It decimates the Penrith cap and maybe each lower club just takes one major player away, or by acting in collusion at least some of the top Penrith players are now priced out of the Penrith cap.

And the other type of fake offer is the one, like I mentioned, where you submit for the best players every year, every time, and though you don't expect to be successful, at least you damage an opponent's points cap in the process. It ends up being a fake bid because you never really think Cameron Munster is going to join Wests Tigers, but you make Storm pay for the fantasy of making him an offer.

#5 the problem with your system is now it goes too far and doesn't reward any club for the loyalty of their juniors, of being a prized destination, of being geographically convenient, of the pulling power of top coaches, of the potential influence of TPAs and other personal sponsorships. All that stuff is wiped away if one of your opponents makes a big offer, and assuming all successful clubs are close to their points cap, you probably compel such clubs to shed their best players for lack of space. There has to be some reward for being a preferred destination.

It is a restraint of trade - because you cannot negotiate the best possible deal with the club of your preference. That club may be automatically disqualified from re-signing you because an opponent put in a bigger offer. The player possibly cannot just stay where they are and are thus compelled to leave their incumbent, though they don't want to.

I don't even know if you've run through any simulations of what would actually be possible with point caps. For example what really happens over the course of a few seasons if clubs are making offers all over the place and other clubs are trying to keep their points in check? It might be a total clusterbomb, and it makes me think of those puzzles where you try to move squares around a grid, with only one empty square available each move.

The difference between this points idea and the current cap, apart from alleged rorting (and clubs would find a way to rort the new system, be certain of it) is that (1) players can take whatever deal they choose, for any reason, and (2) the basis of the current salary cap is you can only offer to pay new or upgraded players with what is left within your cap space. Under your points system, the cap becomes more about having to factor in what other clubs offer - it ends up being about their free space as much as yours (because a top offer cannot be declined; that offer sticks as a points penalty).

If you want transparency - you just publish the actual contracts that players have now. There's not much to it.
Click to expand...
Please read my last 2 posts again . It discusses & answers your questions.

Also , on the point about all clubs loading up on Penrith for example, most of the Penrith players are juniors of the club , so Penrith would receive a 20 percent discount .
Once again, the whole idea of the salary cap is to spread the talent . This does that & it’s very transparent.
Also ,if the roosters published Tedescos contract , it would probably say $500k 🙂. Case in point
 
simples,combine a points system in conjunction with a salary cap,and dumb down the laws governing it.and cap the clubs on profit margins to retain juniors as in a dispensation,or put them on the open market,with a 10% commision which the club retains.just as Champ1 said
 
How about handicapping?
The team that comes 16th gets 16 points at the start of the next season. 15th gets 15 etc up to 9th spot gets 9 points.

Would that help?
 
kiwitiger said:
Absolute madness. Why would any wts fan want to even up the comp? Scrap the salary cap now.
We have the best crop of juniors in the world.
A financial genius in the front office that always turns a profit.
And 400k of loyal fans we just have to turn into members.
In short the salary cap may hold us back.
I have read this all here...
Click to expand...
And Gilfart just needs more time 😂
 
There are three problems with our Cap:
1. Players playing for Unders, be that brown bags from Unkle Nick. Be that players choosing to play for Easts (No idea why, cmon they punted Pearce. why do players show them loyalty when they show none), storm or whoever.
2. Juniors cropping up unevenly in clubs aka Penrith.
3. Sides that are loosing then becoming competitive again. aka US.

Why would you play for a loosing side?
More money? If I had a 400K contract with the WT but lost most games vs a 300k contract with say Manly/Easts/Broncos/whomever but got a chance at the finals... I see why players would go the 300k option...

Payne Haas is telling Brisbane to go get stuffed. Not so much for Money but because Brisbane won't commit to being a top 6 then top 4 side. His chances of coming here, Zero.

We need a way within the cap to identify when a side is a loosing side and re-balance.
 
What really annoys me with the salary cap is that so called players are rumoured to be taking 200k or more less over 2/3 or 4 years. That will pay for a house if not a bloody good deposit. Then claim wants to play finals etc
 
Champ1 said:
Here is a points system that i believe will stop the rorters & underhand business deals we all know goes on in the NRL world .
1-All players points are determined by market value. Whatever the highest bidder bids that is the value. All clubs get so many points to spend, lets say 90.

2-When a player is off contract, All clubs put in a dollar value for that player & have to lodge that offer with the NRL. if they want to contract him. EG -James Tedesco 2017.
Tigers say we will pay you 1.2 M a season. Rosters say we will pay you .850 m (850 k) but we all know that means 850K "on the books" & another 500 k "off the books".But under the points system that doesn't matter what they pay him. .Because the Tigers (the honest highest bidder) has offered 1.2 m, Tedesco is now worth 12 points, regardless of what the Roosters "claim"to be paying him. The beauty of this system is regardless of what the Roosters "claim" to be paying him, he still costs them 12 points off their salary cap, not 8.5 as they would have you believe .

3-All offers to a player have to be lodged with the NRL & are binding if the player accepts them.How ever a clubs offer can be withdrawn before a player excepts it .
EG -Cherry Evans. Tigers offer Cherry Evans 1.5 m . Manly offer 1.1 m .Cherry is now worth 15 salary cap points. But before Cherry Evans accepts the deal, we have signed Hastings on 600 k , so we withdraw the offer. Now Cherry Evans is only worth 11 salary cap points ,( Manlys highest bid) because we withdrew the offer.

4- You get a discount on salary cap points if your RL player is a Junior. EG Tigers offer James Tedesco 1.2 m. We get a 20 percent salary cap discount because we bred him. So if we offer him 1.2 m , if only costs us 9.6 points of our salary cap.But if the Roosters want hm, it costs them 12 salary cap points.

This system would ensure transparently & honesty because regardless of what the rorting clubs want to pay their players under the table, They still couldn't rort the points system.

As one wise man siad, this system will never be adopted because there are to many rich individuals entwined in the RL that are part of the rort.
Click to expand...
i spoke 2 a mate that was in the thick with 05 JimBeam cup GF's side.says it is the most fairest system, because players know players,and most ofthe players from both teams looked at the oppositions tally at the run on desk,as he manned it,no salary cap for them,needs to be capped 2 stop c lubs going bust,yet said,reduction in pionts for juniors,then i tuned out,ITS THE FAIREST SYSTEM 2 DISPERSE TALENT,imo every system has its flaws
 
How about market value is average of offers might be fairer for all?

Using Tedesco as example

Tigers offer $1.2 million (12 points)
Bulldogs offer $1 million (10 points)
Roosters offer $800k (8 points)

The average and market value is $1 million and no matter who signs him it costs 10 points off.their respective caps.

That way desperate clubs like us offer alot more $$$ without screwing up our cap for years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Staff online

Members online

Total: 428 (members: 44, guests: 384)
Back
Top