CockyTalk

Welcome to Cockytalk!

Thank you for visiting our forum. As a guest, you have limited access to view some discussion and articles. By joining our free community, you will be able to view all discussions and articles, post your own topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos, participate in Pick'Em contests and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today!!

If you have any problems registering or logging in, please contact our Admins. Thanks!

Go Back   CockyTalk > Gamecocks Sports > The Cock Pit

Today's Top 10
Posters (by posts)Threads (by views)Newest Posts Gamecock Headlines 
Yearofthegamecock
WeStillOwnUSC
TAFC 5 1981
Sir Cuss
Gamecocks1137
kick_ball
ReadR00ster
SwampFox
eightohhthree
Coulwoodwarlord
uniforms saturday (2254)
Auburn looks beatabl (1875)
Vandy Fans (1533)
Three young corners (642)
Watch ESPN3 regional (630)
King - South Carolin (612)
Clemson requires sex (559)
**official Vandy pre (548)
Cardinal's Jonathan (508)
No Vandy Predictions (320)
2015 Commitment - Arden K
Three young corners progr
Next years RB situation
Auburn looks beatable
**official Vandy predicti
Search Snacks
The SEC East schedule fro
Haven't seen one unbeatab
Cardinal's Jonathan Dwyer
Georgia Visitors List - u


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-11-2014, 12:00 PM   #141
georgelee57
Walk On
 
georgelee57's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Columbia
Posts: 16
CockyCash: 500
georgelee57 is developing his combgeorgelee57 is developing his combgeorgelee57 is developing his combgeorgelee57 is developing his combgeorgelee57 is developing his combgeorgelee57 is developing his combgeorgelee57 is developing his combgeorgelee57 is developing his combgeorgelee57 is developing his combgeorgelee57 is developing his comb
Default Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReadR00ster View Post
Oh I am definitely right. You don't need a contract to support USC, but this King Dixon guy who was AD for 4 years offered this to you and you took it, and for 25 years you held it over head of USC and intend to do so as long as you live because King Dixon said so. I am sure the new regime at USC is not happy with King Dixon right now either. Sorry but I just don't support you in this. You were FORTUNATE to get offered something like this in the first place. No one who is at USC now signed off on this. They weren't the ones that made you promises. You know every one else has been paying more because of you and those like you and will continue to don't you? But I guess you don't care about that. You'd rather play the victim. I urge to have your attorney call someone at USC to settle this dispute. I would keep any promise I made that is was in my power that was reasonable. What King Dixon offered you was not reasonable. A lifetime willable contract to buy tickets is not reasonable. I would not have promised that anyone nor would any reasonable person.
Have you ever been wrong?

Every attempt was made to avoid what has happened. The GC was not interested is trying to settle this issue. A change in leadership does not change the contract or the obligations of each party to the contract must honor their obligations. You have no idea how many attempts were made by me to settle this issue and move on with my life,

If anyone ever breaches a contract that you are a party too you may well look at this differently.

Lifetime members, all 200+ of us, have nothing to do with setting ticket prices. Interesting to me that you feel that Lifetime Members are taking advantage of USC by insisting that the contracts be honored. We have all tried to talk to the GC and have all been rebuffed in our attempts to resolve this issue,
georgelee57 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2014, 12:00 PM   #142
georgelee57
Walk On
 
georgelee57's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Columbia
Posts: 16
CockyCash: 500
georgelee57 is developing his combgeorgelee57 is developing his combgeorgelee57 is developing his combgeorgelee57 is developing his combgeorgelee57 is developing his combgeorgelee57 is developing his combgeorgelee57 is developing his combgeorgelee57 is developing his combgeorgelee57 is developing his combgeorgelee57 is developing his comb
Default Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club

Quote:
Originally Posted by georgelee57 View Post
Every attempt was made to avoid what has happened. The GC was not interested is trying to settle this issue. A change in leadership does not change the contract or the obligations of each party to the contract must honor their obligations. You have no idea how many attempts were made by me to settle this issue and move on with my life,

If anyone ever breaches a contract that you are a party too you may well look at this differently.

Lifetime members, all 200+ of us, have nothing to do with setting ticket prices. Interesting to me that you feel that Lifetime Members are taking advantage of USC by insisting that the contracts be honored. We have all tried to talk to the GC and have all been rebuffed in our attempts to resolve this issue,
Right on point. Thanks.
georgelee57 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2014, 12:01 PM   #143
gamecockhub
4-Star
 
gamecockhub's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Lexington,SC
Posts: 340
CockyCash: 10341
gamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talons
Default Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club

Quote:
Originally Posted by rioninusc View Post
And you are ill informed about how things work in this world. When he signed a contract he signed it with the "USC", not Mr. Dixon. Mr. Dixon approved of these life insurance contracts, but it passed through the board or whatever, and some people took advantage of it. As long as USC is "USC" then they should honor that contract. And whoopped dee doo about 200 people probably with 300-500 seats man they sure are hindering the sales of over 80,000 seats arent' they? You have to think this possible 40k to 80k loss on YES fee's for the University is like 40 cents to 80 cents to you and me. USC made over 90 mil last year, so quit belly aching about up to 80 grand they are losing each year. If you whine about not getting 80 cents a year then you have mental issues. I am not with the school on fighting this.
BINGO!!! We have a winner!!!!
__________________
Any day above ground is a good one!
gamecockhub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2014, 12:01 PM   #144
georgelee57
Walk On
 
georgelee57's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Columbia
Posts: 16
CockyCash: 500
georgelee57 is developing his combgeorgelee57 is developing his combgeorgelee57 is developing his combgeorgelee57 is developing his combgeorgelee57 is developing his combgeorgelee57 is developing his combgeorgelee57 is developing his combgeorgelee57 is developing his combgeorgelee57 is developing his combgeorgelee57 is developing his comb
Default Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club

Quote:
Originally Posted by rioninusc View Post
And you are ill informed about how things work in this world. When he signed a contract he signed it with the "USC", not Mr. Dixon. Mr. Dixon approved of these life insurance contracts, but it passed through the board or whatever, and some people took advantage of it. As long as USC is "USC" then they should honor that contract. And whoopped dee doo about 200 people probably with 300-500 seats man they sure are hindering the sales of over 80,000 seats arent' they? You have to think this possible 40k to 80k loss on YES fee's for the University is like 40 cents to 80 cents to you and me. USC made over 90 mil last year, so quit belly aching about up to 80 grand they are losing each year. If you whine about not getting 80 cents a year then you have mental issues. I am not with the school on fighting this.
On point and appreciated.
georgelee57 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2014, 12:25 PM   #145
Todd803
4-Star
 
Todd803's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Columbia
Posts: 364
CockyCash: 272
Todd803 rules the CockPitTodd803 rules the CockPitTodd803 rules the CockPitTodd803 rules the CockPitTodd803 rules the CockPitTodd803 rules the CockPitTodd803 rules the CockPitTodd803 rules the CockPitTodd803 rules the CockPitTodd803 rules the CockPitTodd803 rules the CockPit
Default Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club

Quote:
Originally Posted by yazoo View Post
No, some unethical businessmen may disagree with you. Because only a small percentage of the customers will actually try to enforce the agreements, the deal-breakers will come out ahead by just breaking the contracts and then hiring lawyers to defend any persons who try to enforce their rights. The cost of keeping their word is less than the cost of the breach (because most will not sue), and that includes the loss of good will because you are basically a scummy organization to your own customers.

The question now is do we want an athletic department that is run by unscrupulous businessmen like Hyman, or honorable people like Ray. To the extent Readrooster is defending the Hyman style, I suspect he is in a very small minority of people.
So Ray has instructed the school to drop this lawsuit right? Because he has been AD for well over a year now and it is going on according to Mr. Lee. That is really confusing if he is so unlike Hyman that it hasn't been dropped. Really weird.
Todd803 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2014, 12:42 PM   #146
3MTA3
Game MVP
 
3MTA3's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: SEC Country
Posts: 1,507
CockyCash: 500
3MTA3 is USC mascot material3MTA3 is USC mascot material3MTA3 is USC mascot material3MTA3 is USC mascot material3MTA3 is USC mascot material3MTA3 is USC mascot material3MTA3 is USC mascot material3MTA3 is USC mascot material3MTA3 is USC mascot material3MTA3 is USC mascot material3MTA3 is USC mascot material
Default Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club

Quote:
Originally Posted by georgelee57 View Post
Right on point. Thanks.

Did you really just thank yourself?
3MTA3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2014, 12:45 PM   #147
johnnyb
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
 
johnnyb's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: He's Everywhere!
Posts: 21,461
CockyCash: 1705674460
johnnyb is USC mascot materialjohnnyb is USC mascot materialjohnnyb is USC mascot materialjohnnyb is USC mascot materialjohnnyb is USC mascot materialjohnnyb is USC mascot materialjohnnyb is USC mascot materialjohnnyb is USC mascot materialjohnnyb is USC mascot materialjohnnyb is USC mascot materialjohnnyb is USC mascot material
Default Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3MTA3 View Post
Did you really just thank yourself?
he's new, I dont think he quite realized who he was quoting
__________________



To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.
johnnyb is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2014, 12:59 PM   #148
yazoo
1st Team All-SEC
 
yazoo's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Tryon, NC
Posts: 4,202
CockyCash: 1813
yazoo is USC mascot materialyazoo is USC mascot materialyazoo is USC mascot materialyazoo is USC mascot materialyazoo is USC mascot materialyazoo is USC mascot materialyazoo is USC mascot materialyazoo is USC mascot materialyazoo is USC mascot materialyazoo is USC mascot materialyazoo is USC mascot material
Default Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club

The thing I do not get about Readrooster is the internal schism in his reasoning.

On the one hand, he is an advocate for the amoral contract viewpoint in which a business is able to break any deal it feels is no longer profitable and suffer the consequences.

On the other hand, he is worked up into a tizzy because Mr. Lee sought to enforce the consequences of the breach. If you are truly an amoral contract advocate, then you must have also an amoral view on parties seeking to enforce the breach. If Mr. Readrooster was really consistent in his views he would be mad at Mr. Lee because he did not choose to seek full consequences of the USC breach.

OTH, maybe I am just not understanding Readrooster clearly. He definitely has a lot of opinions on this subject.
__________________


Shaq Attack
yazoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2014, 05:21 PM   #149
georgelee57
Walk On
 
georgelee57's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Columbia
Posts: 16
CockyCash: 500
georgelee57 is developing his combgeorgelee57 is developing his combgeorgelee57 is developing his combgeorgelee57 is developing his combgeorgelee57 is developing his combgeorgelee57 is developing his combgeorgelee57 is developing his combgeorgelee57 is developing his combgeorgelee57 is developing his combgeorgelee57 is developing his comb
Default Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club

Mistake.
georgelee57 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2014, 05:22 PM   #150
georgelee57
Walk On
 
georgelee57's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Columbia
Posts: 16
CockyCash: 500
georgelee57 is developing his combgeorgelee57 is developing his combgeorgelee57 is developing his combgeorgelee57 is developing his combgeorgelee57 is developing his combgeorgelee57 is developing his combgeorgelee57 is developing his combgeorgelee57 is developing his combgeorgelee57 is developing his combgeorgelee57 is developing his comb
Default Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club

Exactly what happened. My apologies.
georgelee57 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2014, 05:25 PM   #151
johnnyb
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
 
johnnyb's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: He's Everywhere!
Posts: 21,461
CockyCash: 1705674460
johnnyb is USC mascot materialjohnnyb is USC mascot materialjohnnyb is USC mascot materialjohnnyb is USC mascot materialjohnnyb is USC mascot materialjohnnyb is USC mascot materialjohnnyb is USC mascot materialjohnnyb is USC mascot materialjohnnyb is USC mascot materialjohnnyb is USC mascot materialjohnnyb is USC mascot material
Default Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club

Quote:
Originally Posted by georgelee57 View Post
Exactly what happened. My apologies.
No worries
__________________



To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.
johnnyb is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2014, 05:55 PM   #152
JaxcockFL
Cunning Linquist
 
JaxcockFL's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Jacksonville
Posts: 8,332
CockyCash: 104965
JaxcockFL is USC mascot materialJaxcockFL is USC mascot materialJaxcockFL is USC mascot materialJaxcockFL is USC mascot materialJaxcockFL is USC mascot materialJaxcockFL is USC mascot materialJaxcockFL is USC mascot materialJaxcockFL is USC mascot materialJaxcockFL is USC mascot materialJaxcockFL is USC mascot materialJaxcockFL is USC mascot material
Default Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club

King wasn't AD in 1982. Marcum was.
__________________
JaxcockFL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2014, 02:25 AM   #153
DJCatfish
Recruit
 
DJCatfish's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Washington D.C.
Posts: 186
CockyCash: 4400
DJCatfish is developing his combDJCatfish is developing his combDJCatfish is developing his combDJCatfish is developing his combDJCatfish is developing his combDJCatfish is developing his combDJCatfish is developing his combDJCatfish is developing his combDJCatfish is developing his comb
Default Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club

Maybe I'm a simpleton, but this seems pretty clear-cut to me. USC interpreted the contract one way. Mr. Lee (and at least one other litigant) interpreted the contract another way. They took their dispute to court and the SC Supreme Court settled the issue. Neither party was immoral or unethical for seeking an independent arbitrator of the law. Now that it's settled, USC must interpret the contract(s) in accordance with the Court's opinion. Seems pretty easy to me.
DJCatfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2014, 04:28 AM   #154
Cocknfire55
Blue Chip
 
Cocknfire55's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Columbia
Posts: 984
CockyCash: 244
Cocknfire55 is USC mascot materialCocknfire55 is USC mascot materialCocknfire55 is USC mascot materialCocknfire55 is USC mascot materialCocknfire55 is USC mascot materialCocknfire55 is USC mascot materialCocknfire55 is USC mascot materialCocknfire55 is USC mascot materialCocknfire55 is USC mascot materialCocknfire55 is USC mascot materialCocknfire55 is USC mascot material
Default Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club

Quote:
Originally Posted by DJCatfish View Post
Maybe I'm a simpleton, but this seems pretty clear-cut to me. USC interpreted the contract one way. Mr. Lee (and at least one other litigant) interpreted the contract another way. They took their dispute to court and the SC Supreme Court settled the issue. Neither party was immoral or unethical for seeking an independent arbitrator of the law. Now that it's settled, USC must interpret the contract(s) in accordance with the Court's opinion. Seems pretty easy to me.
Voice of reason
Cocknfire55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2014, 01:26 PM   #155
GamecockLawyer
Blue Chip
 
GamecockLawyer's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 521
CockyCash: 500
GamecockLawyer is USC mascot materialGamecockLawyer is USC mascot materialGamecockLawyer is USC mascot materialGamecockLawyer is USC mascot materialGamecockLawyer is USC mascot materialGamecockLawyer is USC mascot materialGamecockLawyer is USC mascot materialGamecockLawyer is USC mascot materialGamecockLawyer is USC mascot materialGamecockLawyer is USC mascot materialGamecockLawyer is USC mascot material
Default Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club

I'm a little surprised there hasn't been more discussion of how everyone interprets the relevant language that is in dispute here.

The language in the contract of: "the opportunity to buy tickets" is what the parties are arguing about.

Mr. Lee is taking the position that the University cannot impose additional terms or conditions on his opportunity to buy tickets, and the University is saying that they can impose additional conditions, as long as they allow Mr. Lee the opportunity to buy the tickets.

Looking at just the opinion itself (I've never seen the actual contract) I have to side with Justice Pleicones' dissent. The language "opportunity to buy tickets" is pretty wishy-washy language in my opinion. Just looking at the plain text, I think it's fair for the University to say, Everyone now pays a seat tax in order to have the opportunity to buy tickets. You also have to pay this seat tax in order to have the opportunity to buy tickets.

Obviously, four other Justices saw the other side of the coin, and felt that the University was altering the contract. I guess I just come down on the side of the University because the language of "opportunity to buy tickets" is weak.

Even the majority opinion concedes that the University can raise the ticket prices. If you concede that, I find it hard to distinguish between a "seat tax" and a higher ticket price.

Just my two cents.

One final note: I am a little surprised this didn't settle. Seems like a bad PR move for the University either way this could have come out.
GamecockLawyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2014, 01:53 PM   #156
ReadR00ster
2nd Team All-American
 
ReadR00ster's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: St. Petersburg, FL
Posts: 9,151
CockyCash: 510
ReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot material
Default Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club

See post #163.

Last edited by ReadR00ster; 04-14-2014 at 05:09 PM.
ReadR00ster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2014, 02:59 PM   #157
zambam
Blue Chip
 
zambam's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: charlotte
Posts: 832
CockyCash: 24050000
zambam rules the CockPitzambam rules the CockPitzambam rules the CockPitzambam rules the CockPitzambam rules the CockPitzambam rules the CockPitzambam rules the CockPitzambam rules the CockPitzambam rules the CockPitzambam rules the CockPitzambam rules the CockPit
Default Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReadR00ster View Post
It's not amoral just to break a contract. Say you decide to have a partnership with someone. After 25 years things go pretty okay. There were ups and downs, but now you believe because of some recent events the partnership and the market you don't see eye to eye with your partner anymore. You don't think the partnership is working out anymore and you want out and want to do what is best for your future and future of your family and this contract is tying you down. Unfortunately your partner doesn't want to end the partnership and the partnership is a contract. Your partner has the law on his side. You ask him to let you out of the contract, but he won't and says if you break the partnership I am going to sue. So with little other option, you tell him see you in court than, he sues, you lose, you have to pay him contractual damages. Do you really believe you were being "amoral" in that situation? Were you being a "bad person" because you broke a contract, or where you just someone who had to make a hard to choice about your future and had to pay the price to get yourself out of a bad situation? That is the same basic dynamics of this situation. This just reeks of old-time GCC members still being bitter of the implementation of the YES plan and wanting things back like they were in the old days. And that is what is the real motivation here.
Immoral and Amoral are different words. But you knew this already didn't you READrooster
zambam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2014, 03:28 PM   #158
Jwilson
60 Year Fan
 
Jwilson's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Upstate SC
Posts: 1,152
CockyCash: 500
Jwilson is USC mascot materialJwilson is USC mascot materialJwilson is USC mascot materialJwilson is USC mascot materialJwilson is USC mascot materialJwilson is USC mascot materialJwilson is USC mascot materialJwilson is USC mascot materialJwilson is USC mascot materialJwilson is USC mascot materialJwilson is USC mascot material
Default Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club

Even the majority opinion concedes that the University can raise the ticket prices. If you concede that, I find it hard to distinguish between a "seat tax" and a higher ticket price.

If you can't see that difference and if you are a lawyer, get in another line of work, quick.
Jwilson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2014, 04:03 PM   #159
3MTA3
Game MVP
 
3MTA3's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: SEC Country
Posts: 1,507
CockyCash: 500
3MTA3 is USC mascot material3MTA3 is USC mascot material3MTA3 is USC mascot material3MTA3 is USC mascot material3MTA3 is USC mascot material3MTA3 is USC mascot material3MTA3 is USC mascot material3MTA3 is USC mascot material3MTA3 is USC mascot material3MTA3 is USC mascot material3MTA3 is USC mascot material
Default Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jwilson View Post
Even the majority opinion concedes that the University can raise the ticket prices. If you concede that, I find it hard to distinguish between a "seat tax" and a higher ticket price.

If you can't see that difference and if you are a lawyer, get in another line of work, quick.
not to get political, but its sort of like the difference between a tax and a penalty (meaning, it all depends on who you ask and how the subsequent interpretation stands to benefit them)
3MTA3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2014, 04:18 PM   #160
Dizzy01
Starter
 
Dizzy01's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 1,378
CockyCash: 500
Dizzy01 is USC mascot materialDizzy01 is USC mascot materialDizzy01 is USC mascot materialDizzy01 is USC mascot materialDizzy01 is USC mascot materialDizzy01 is USC mascot materialDizzy01 is USC mascot materialDizzy01 is USC mascot materialDizzy01 is USC mascot materialDizzy01 is USC mascot materialDizzy01 is USC mascot material
Default Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3MTA3 View Post
not to get political, but its sort of like the difference between a tax and a penalty (meaning, it all depends on who you ask and how the subsequent interpretation stands to benefit them)
The US Supreme Court ruling in regards to the ACA pretty much determined a penalty and a tax to be the same thing.
Dizzy01 is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Provided by SLB Development