Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: A Fly in the Ointment - Next Year's Cap Could Be Flat

  1. #1
    100 Miles from the B count55's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,772

    Default A Fly in the Ointment - Next Year's Cap Could Be Flat

    John Hollinger
    ESPN
    http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/s...dictions09/nba

    If you're looking for a significant development to watch in 2009, look no further than the economy's effect on the salary cap -- something that will have major implications as soon as the February trade deadline.

    Throughout the salary cap era, the modus operandi has been that the league's salary cap increases every season. This has been largely true over the past two decades and has become the cornerstone of both team cap planning and player contracts (most of which contain 10 percent annual raises).

    Plug a serious recession into the equation, however, and things change. Dramatically.

    ...

    hile much of the league's revenue for this season (season tickets, sponsorships, etc.) came in a long time ago, and thus wasn't affected by the changing economic conditions, there still should be enough of an effect on the revenue to make the revenue increase this season less than 4.5 percent -- kicking in the make-up provision in 2009-10.

    The net effect, multiple league sources tell me, is that the cap is likely to increase little, if any, next season. Whether it increases will depend largely on team's walk-up sales the rest of the season.

    That has huge implications league-wide because the luxury tax level moves in lockstep with the cap. Teams have built their salary structures on the assumption of a rising tax -- but instead, many teams are locked into salaries for next season that will increase 10 percent without any corresponding increase in the tax level.

    The upshot is if the tax level doesn't rise, at least 12 teams are threatening to be over next season's tax level on current contracts alone -- including several teams that have been adamant about staying under it in the past.

    That, in turn, is likely to make the next 12 months very interesting from a trade perspective, as teams try to move contracts to position themselves under the suddenly lowered tax line. We also might see shockingly little activity in the free-agent market, as too many teams will have their hands tied by financial considerations.

    And if you think the summer of 2009 looks bad, just wait until the much-hyped summer of 2010. First, the league's revenues are likely to be much lower in 2009-10 than they are this season, and that's the number that's the basis for setting the 2010-11 cap. The many season-ticket holders and sponsors who couldn't get out of their commitments this fall instead will jump ship a year from now, creating a revenue shortfall league-wide.

    That, in turn, will result in the make-up provision having a major effect in the summer of 2010. And since the cap in 2010 will have been set off a lowered revenue base, it will turn into a double-whammy.

    To illustrate, I modeled a situation in which league revenues increase by 2 percent in 2008-09 but declined by 3 percent in 2009-10. I'm not saying this will happen, but just humor me for a second.

    If that were the case, the cap would decrease by about 0.5 percent in 2008-09 ... and then it would decrease by a whopping 5.6 percent in 2009-10. The cap would go all the way down to $55.2 million that year.

    Remember all those teams that projected to be able to offer max deals to the likes of LeBron James and Chris Bosh in the summer of 2010? Those projections were based on a cap number in the $60 million range, not the $50 million range; needless to say, some of them might have to rework their plans. And others, like the Knicks, might not find it so easy to squeeze in two max-level contracts under the cap if it's not at the $63-65 million level we heard thrown around this fall.

    Players will feel the effects as well. Max- and mid-level contracts will be scaled lower, and in general, free-agent money will be far less plentiful. It also means fewer players are likely to opt out of contracts over the next two summers.

    So as we go into 2009, pay attention to all that arcane financial data and contract legalese that goes into setting the cap level. The effect could end up being far greater than anything that takes place on the court.
    Yeah, I know...I quoted too much, but I couldn't figure out where to parse it.

    What's it mean for the Pacers?

    Well, if the tax stays flat, it probably means that instead of re-signing Jack and doing one of the following: (1) Pick up Quis' option, (2) Re-sign Rasho, (3) sign someone to a full MLE; the Pacers will be able to do only one thing.

    It will have conflicting impacts on the Pacers. It will likely make the expiring contracts of Daniels and Rasho more valuable as trading commodities, but it would also mean that to capitalize on that value, the Pacers would either have to be willing to go over the tax or to forgo re-signing Jack.

    It probably also makes Dunleavy and Murphy less movable, but that's not particularly devastating. However, I would also think that as long as the economic outlook is bleak, we will be unable to find a taker for Jamaal.

    I'd have to look at the salaries to see which 12 teams are going over the tax on current contracts to see if there are any deals that make sense.

    However, this recession is going to have a very real, and likely very negative impact on the NBA and the Pacers.

  2. #2

    Default Re: A Fly in the Ointment - Next Year's Cap Could Be Flat

    Thanks, Count. This issue has been on my mind since I did my New Year's report. Despite people's grumblings that the upcoming draft class looks weak, I'm hoping that TPTB acquires a second 1st-rounder ... perhaps through a Quis-related trade. (I'm also hoping that they re-sign Jack while letting Rasho go.)

    In terms of utility, the team is providing about as much entertainment and generating as much fan interest as any owner could hope for, given their record. Fans have accepted that we're rebui ... "retooling." Modest rookie contracts will offset the excesses of Murphy's and Tinsley's, so that IF we choose wisely, we indeed will be in position to contend in 2-3 years, all while being fiscally responsible.

  3. #3
    Headband and Rec Specs rexnom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    New Haven, CT
    Posts
    8,752

    Default Re: A Fly in the Ointment - Next Year's Cap Could Be Flat

    Ugh. This is just awful. Especially for a team like the Pacers.

  4. #4
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    42
    Posts
    25,672

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: A Fly in the Ointment - Next Year's Cap Could Be Flat

    Quote Originally Posted by count55 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    What's it mean for the Pacers?

    Well, if the tax stays flat, it probably means that instead of re-signing Jack and doing one of the following: (1) Pick up Quis' option, (2) Re-sign Rasho, (3) sign someone to a full MLE; the Pacers will be able to do only one thing.

    It will have conflicting impacts on the Pacers. It will likely make the expiring contracts of Daniels and Rasho more valuable as trading commodities, but it would also mean that to capitalize on that value, the Pacers would either have to be willing to go over the tax or to forgo re-signing Jack.

    It probably also makes Dunleavy and Murphy less movable, but that's not particularly devastating. However, I would also think that as long as the economic outlook is bleak, we will be unable to find a taker for Jamaal.

    I'd have to look at the salaries to see which 12 teams are going over the tax on current contracts to see if there are any deals that make sense.

    However, this recession is going to have a very real, and likely very negative impact on the NBA and the Pacers.
    I'm guessing that we will resign Jack or sign someone to the full MLE as my top choice.

    It's a very tough...but if there is no Top-Tier PF FA out there that we can realistically make an offer with the full MLE that can score/defend in the Low-Post ( which I doubt there is ), I'm guessing that the priority will be to resign Jack first and then draft the low-post scoring and defending option.

    Given these circumstances, I'm guessing that picking up Marquis' and Rasho's Team Options now are less likely.

    count55, if we intend to resign Jack......doesn't this also limit our options to make a trade involving Marquis and/or Rasho while getting back players that have contracts that last beyond this next season? I would think that we would be over the luxury Tax IF we resign Jack after we make any type of trade involving Rasho or Marquis since we would be getting back players with contracts that will impact the 2009 Salary Cap.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    This is David West, he is the Honey Badger, West just doesn't give a *****....he's pretty bad *ss cuz he has no regard for any other Player or Team whatsoever.

  5. #5
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

    Default Re: A Fly in the Ointment - Next Year's Cap Could Be Flat

    He's been playing above and beyond what I expected, but all the same I won't cry if Marquis moves on. With Granger, Dunleavy, Rush at the wings, I'm not particularly concerned about finding the 4th best swingman on the team. That's usually the easiest spot to find a willing and able body for.

    I want the November Rasho back, but not the January one. If he wants to stick around for peanuts, that's cool, but I expect he'll move on and Jeff will be the backup center to Hibbert.

    I don't know if there's a PF to land with the MLE that would take over for Murphy in the starting lineup. If there is, then that's probably a no-brainer, but I'm not holding my breath.

    I'm generally for keeping Jack if it's not going to brake the bank, which I doubt it will.

    I'm really curious to see who gets drafted with their 1st round pick this year. I have this weird hunch it'll be Hansbrough, but if the pick is single digits or 10/11, I doubt it. You'd still figure it to be a PF, but then again, I was convinced they were taking a point guard in 2006 and they ended up with Shawne Williams.

    Now that I think about it, there's a very plausible scenario of this draft being about as effective for the Pacers as the 2006 draft ended up being.....

    When I think of it that way, I hope we can land a PF at the trading deadline for one or two of our expiring contracts. Not holding my breath, but dreaming.

  6. #6
    100 Miles from the B count55's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,772

    Default Re: A Fly in the Ointment - Next Year's Cap Could Be Flat

    Quote Originally Posted by CableKC View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    count55, if we intend to resign Jack......doesn't this also limit our options to make a trade involving Marquis and/or Rasho while getting back players that have contracts that last beyond this next season? I would think that we would be over the luxury Tax IF we resign Jack after we make any type of trade involving Rasho or Marquis since we would be getting back players with contracts that will impact the 2009 Salary Cap.
    Roughing this out, with the following assumptions:

    Cap same as this year: $58.65, Tax: $71.15

    Payroll prior to extensions
    $41.8m

    Extensions already signed
    Danny $10.5mm (it will be between $10 & $10.5, 90% sure)
    Jeff $6.0mm

    Updated Payroll:
    $58.3mm

    Anticipated re-signings/signings

    Jarrett Jack $4.0mm
    1st Round pick $2.0mm

    New Payroll: $64.3mm

    Space left under Tax: $6.8mm

    Players under contract: 11 (including Tinsley)

    Therefore, we'd have to use that $6.8mm to sign three to four players.

    If we traded Rasho or Quis for a player with a longer term contract (than theirs), that would eat into the $6.8mm.

    Also, the $6.8mm is less than the $7.4mm that Quis is owed. Even if my estimates on Jack, Danny, the pick and Jeff are a little high, signing Jack and picking up the option on Quis would put us right at or just over the tax with only 12 players (11 playing) under contract.

    I firmly believe we should re-sign Jack, but I understand that others may disagree.

    If the cap figure does not move, I would make the following predictions:

    1. Daniels and Rasho will be allowed to walk.
    2. Jack will be re-signed.
    3. One or both of McBob and Graham will be re-signed on the cheap.
    4. We will not be in the free agent market at all.

    As the trade deadline approaches, the Pacers may make a deal, but I would guess that they will be very hesitant to deal Rasho or Daniels without sending out one of their big contracts with them: Murphy, Dunleavy, or Tinsley...and I believe that will significantly reduce the chances of any other team being interested.

    The net impact of the cap being flat is a reduction in available space below the tax of about $3.5 to $4.0mm...effectively, a player.

  7. #7
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    42
    Posts
    25,672

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: A Fly in the Ointment - Next Year's Cap Could Be Flat

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicks View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    He's been playing above and beyond what I expected, but all the same I won't cry if Marquis moves on. With Granger, Dunleavy, Rush at the wings, I'm not particularly concerned about finding the 4th best swingman on the team. That's usually the easiest spot to find a willing and able body for.

    I want the November Rasho back, but not the January one. If he wants to stick around for peanuts, that's cool, but I expect he'll move on and Jeff will be the backup center to Hibbert.

    I don't know if there's a PF to land with the MLE that would take over for Murphy in the starting lineup. If there is, then that's probably a no-brainer, but I'm not holding my breath.

    I'm generally for keeping Jack if it's not going to brake the bank, which I doubt it will.

    I'm really curious to see who gets drafted with their 1st round pick this year. I have this weird hunch it'll be Hansbrough, but if the pick is single digits or 10/11, I doubt it. You'd still figure it to be a PF, but then again, I was convinced they were taking a point guard in 2006 and they ended up with Shawne Williams.

    Now that I think about it, there's a very plausible scenario of this draft being about as effective for the Pacers as the 2006 draft ended up being.....

    When I think of it that way, I hope we can land a PF at the trading deadline for one or two of our expiring contracts. Not holding my breath, but dreaming.
    count55 will need to go over the $$$ for me, but if we can only do one of the following without going over the Luxury Tax:

    (A) Resign Jack
    (B) Resign Rasho
    (C) Resign Marquis
    (D) Sign some full MLE FA

    assuming that we will likely go with option (A) or (C), then the only way that we can trade Rasho or Marquis without going over the Luxury Tax in 2009 is if we get back a corresponding 2008 Expiring Contract ( which is highly unlikely ).....otherwise, we will get a player in return that will have a 2009 salary that will push us over the 2009 Luxury Tax.

    Someone, please correct me if I am wrong in this assumption.....I am hoping that I am wrong in this.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    This is David West, he is the Honey Badger, West just doesn't give a *****....he's pretty bad *ss cuz he has no regard for any other Player or Team whatsoever.

  8. #8
    White and Nerdy Anthem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    23,748

    Default Re: A Fly in the Ointment - Next Year's Cap Could Be Flat

    Interesting. This actually makes our expiring contracts more valuable.
    Welcome to Pacers Digest! New around here? Here are three tips for making the forum a great place to talk about Pacers basketball.

    • Log in. Even if you want to read instead of post, it's helpful because it lets you:
    • Change your signature options. You can hide all signatures by choosing "Settings" (top right) then "General Settings" (middle left) and unchecking the box "Show Signatures" (in the "Thread Display Options" area).
    • Create an ignore list. I know it may seem unneighborly. But you're here to talk about the Pacers, not argue with someone who's just looking for an argument. Most of the regular users on here make use (at least occasionally) of the "Ignore" feature. Just go to "Settings" -> "Edit Ignore List" and add the names.

    Enjoy your time at PD!

  9. #9
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    42
    Posts
    25,672

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: A Fly in the Ointment - Next Year's Cap Could Be Flat

    Quote Originally Posted by count55 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Roughing this out, with the following assumptions:

    Cap same as this year: $58.65, Tax: $71.15

    Payroll prior to extensions
    $41.8m

    Extensions already signed
    Danny $10.5mm (it will be between $10 & $10.5, 90% sure)
    Jeff $6.0mm

    Updated Payroll:
    $58.3mm

    Anticipated re-signings/signings

    Jarrett Jack $4.0mm
    1st Round pick $2.0mm

    New Payroll: $64.3mm

    Space left under Tax: $6.8mm

    Players under contract: 11 (including Tinsley)

    Therefore, we'd have to use that $6.8mm to sign three to four players.

    If we traded Rasho or Quis for a player with a longer term contract (than theirs), that would eat into the $6.8mm.

    Also, the $6.8mm is less than the $7.4mm that Quis is owed. Even if my estimates on Jack, Danny, the pick and Jeff are a little high, signing Jack and picking up the option on Quis would put us right at or just over the tax with only 12 players (11 playing) under contract.

    I firmly believe we should re-sign Jack, but I understand that others may disagree.

    If the cap figure does not move, I would make the following predictions:

    1. Daniels and Rasho will be allowed to walk.
    2. Jack will be re-signed.
    3. One or both of McBob and Graham will be re-signed on the cheap.
    4. We will not be in the free agent market at all.

    As the trade deadline approaches, the Pacers may make a deal, but I would guess that they will be very hesitant to deal Rasho or Daniels without sending out one of their big contracts with them: Murphy, Dunleavy, or Tinsley...and I believe that will significantly reduce the chances of any other team being interested.

    The net impact of the cap being flat is a reduction in available space below the tax of about $3.5 to $4.0mm...effectively, a player.
    count55, sorry.....just to be clear......going based off of your assumption after we resign Jack to $4mil and our draft pick to $2mil.....we would have about $6.8 mil to sign 3 to 4 players. I would much rather go with McRoberts for that 12th spot, then look for some GF lockdown perimeter defender roleplayer for about $2-3 mil a year ( yes, me and TBird are still looking for that elusive lockdown perimeter GF defender ).

    Well....if this happens...that sucks. Since we will likely go with some Low-Post scoring/defending PF in the draft next season.....whose out there that will likely be available in the low to mid teens?

    On top of that.....does that mean that our Expiring contracts don't have as much value as we think? it sounds like if we do move Marquis or Rasho......assuming we get Players in return that doesn't expire in 2008-2009...then we would be eating up the $6.8 mil in cap space we have left.
    Last edited by CableKC; 01-09-2009 at 01:03 AM.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    This is David West, he is the Honey Badger, West just doesn't give a *****....he's pretty bad *ss cuz he has no regard for any other Player or Team whatsoever.

  10. #10
    NaptownSeth is all feel Naptown_Seth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Downtown baby
    Posts
    12,638

    Default Re: A Fly in the Ointment - Next Year's Cap Could Be Flat

    It will have conflicting impacts on the Pacers. It will likely make the expiring contracts of Daniels and Rasho more valuable as trading commodities, but it would also mean that to capitalize on that value, the Pacers would either have to be willing to go over the tax or to forgo re-signing Jack.
    My early guess, especially after seeing how Jack has played (and TJ's injury situation), is that they would move Rasho to get a starting PG, or perhaps both Daniels and Rasho if Dunleavy stays on the healthy side.

    They'd look to take less back per year of course, and this would then lead to them letting Jack go and drafting a big.


    But then so much of this depends on where they think they might fall in the draft and what kind of options are out there at PF/PG. I mean if you are tracking in the Jennings region then you let Jack go and use expirings on a big. But if Thabeet is falling to you then you trade for a PG solution, and maybe only a backup using just 1 of the expirings.


    I've never even slightly thought the Pacers were going to use the FA/MLE options as solutions and this doesn't change that, it only reinforces it. I did think they were looking to move Rasho's deal later on and I still do now. So ultimately this seems like really good news for the Pacers IMO.

    Plus lowering the cap reduces costs to finally start to match the lowered attendance. That's also good for Pacers fans that worry about the books being in the red so much that a team move would be considered.

  11. #11
    NaptownSeth is all feel Naptown_Seth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Downtown baby
    Posts
    12,638

    Default Re: A Fly in the Ointment - Next Year's Cap Could Be Flat

    count55, if we intend to resign Jack......doesn't this also limit our options to make a trade involving Marquis and/or Rasho while getting back players that have contracts that last beyond this next season? I would think that we would be over the luxury Tax IF we resign Jack after we make any type of trade involving Rasho or Marquis since we would be getting back players with contracts that will impact the 2009 Salary Cap.
    As I alluded to in my previous post, I'd assume that the Pacers would be pushing that 25% range on contracts in return to it's fullest. So you send out 125% and get back 100%. This means you take a trade exception too, but in this case you're going to let that one die instead.

    Why would a team do that? Why not is more the question. For another team it means a jump in short term salary but a huge drop for next season. The Pacers do it as a way to maintain or improve team structure but at slightly less cost.

    Let's say you have a David Lee caliber player but don't really have huge need to keep him. You could use the Pacers to clear him off the books since you are facing big financial problems. For the Pacers they are keeping some of that money on the books, but at some point you do need to fill out the roster.

    Really to me it means that teams need to get more top heavy in talent, the Pacers can't afford 4-5m players all the way out to 11-12. You are locked in with Danny, Dun, Jeff and Troy. Probably TJ isn't moved either. So you add one other "expensive" piece and fill the rest out with rooks and McBob types.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,443

    Default Re: A Fly in the Ointment - Next Year's Cap Could Be Flat

    Quote Originally Posted by count55 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    1. Daniels and Rasho will be allowed to walk.
    2. Jack will be re-signed.
    3. One or both of McBob and Graham will be re-signed on the cheap.
    4. We will not be in the free agent market at all.
    .
    That sounds about right. Daniels' option is guaranteed not to be picked up by the team, though I'm sure they'd be willing to bring him back at a lower rate. I think he's most likely gone.

    The only way the scenario works out differently (when it comes to this offseason anyways) is if the Pacers are able to move Murphy or Tinsley at the deadline for an expiring deal.

  13. #13
    Go Colts! Shade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Age
    36
    Posts
    44,967

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: A Fly in the Ointment - Next Year's Cap Could Be Flat

    Jack needs to be re-signed, as long as the contract is reasonable.

    Let Quis and Rasho walk. I have nothing against Quis, and he's had an excellent season, but we're just too log-jammed at his position and we need to spend that money to fix a glaring deficiency (frontcourt). Plus, I'm always wary of that "big contract year" so many players tend to have.

    And Rasho is aging rapidly before our eyes.

  14. #14

    Default Re: A Fly in the Ointment - Next Year's Cap Could Be Flat

    I would do everything to resign McBob,Graham and Jack... if reasonable. I would let Rasho,Daniels and Baston walk. (-17 million). I don't know why people here still want to trade the 4th leading rebounder and outside 3pt threat in Murphy. Why trade Dun? He's worth the 10M he's making and is playing great. Would we have won without him in Phx? Trade a couple 2nd rnd picks with Tinsley for someone that can help us. We are obligated next year to about 57M - not counting the re-signings or draft picks. Jack accounts for 3m of that 57M total
    "He wanted to get to that money time. Time when the hardware was on the table. That's when Roger was going to show up. So all we needed to do was stay close"
    Darnell Hillman (Speaking of former teammate Roger Brown)

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,443

    Default Re: A Fly in the Ointment - Next Year's Cap Could Be Flat

    Quote Originally Posted by aceace View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Trade a couple 2nd rnd picks with Tinsley for someone that can help us.
    That would have been done long ago if some other team agreed to it.

  16. #16
    White and Nerdy Anthem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    23,748

    Default Re: A Fly in the Ointment - Next Year's Cap Could Be Flat

    Quote Originally Posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    So ultimately this seems like really good news for the Pacers IMO.
    No doubt. A dozen teams over the salary cap means plenty of money in the kitty and fewer teams to share it with. The Pacers should be well in the black next year.
    Welcome to Pacers Digest! New around here? Here are three tips for making the forum a great place to talk about Pacers basketball.

    • Log in. Even if you want to read instead of post, it's helpful because it lets you:
    • Change your signature options. You can hide all signatures by choosing "Settings" (top right) then "General Settings" (middle left) and unchecking the box "Show Signatures" (in the "Thread Display Options" area).
    • Create an ignore list. I know it may seem unneighborly. But you're here to talk about the Pacers, not argue with someone who's just looking for an argument. Most of the regular users on here make use (at least occasionally) of the "Ignore" feature. Just go to "Settings" -> "Edit Ignore List" and add the names.

    Enjoy your time at PD!

Similar Threads

  1. Simmons annual post draft article - always a classic
    By Unclebuck in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 06-27-2008, 08:25 PM
  2. Ford releases Mock 6.
    By Anthem in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 06-24-2008, 03:39 PM
  3. Closing out the season
    By Anthem in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 03-22-2008, 11:12 PM
  4. Happy New Years
    By granger33 in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-31-2007, 04:10 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •