Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Indiana Pacers future in jeopardy from financial losses [ESPN]

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Indiana Pacers future in jeopardy from financial losses [ESPN]

    Originally posted by Taterhead
    You put 400 million in an economy the size of Indianapolis and the impact is staggering compared to what happens when you remove it.
    $400 million represents 0.004% of the gross domestic product of the Indianapolis metro area ($89 Billion in 2006). That is less than half of one percent. Staggering, you say?

    Anyway, you need to remember that the difference made by the Super Bowl coming to Indianapolis is nothing like the revenue it generates. That would be so only if nothing was happening here now.

    The hotel occupancy rate here in Indy is not zero. It is about 60% all the time anyway. The Super Bowl coming means kicking out thousands of people who would come here for other reasons that week.

    Hosting the Super Bowl means deferring resources away from already profitable endeavors in order to host the Super Bowl instead. There will be marginal increases in sales for hospitality businesses, but the totals ascribed to the Super Bowl do not represent net gain to the city's economy.


    Originally posted by Taterhead
    you act as if this money suddenly vanishes after it is initially earned.
    Yep. Because very much of it will suddenly vanish. Super Bowl week will bring in a lot of network crews from other places who will eat free food from catered buffets while they are here and then go back home to New York and spend their paycheck there.

    The most substantial long-term benefit of the Super Bowl will be an enclosed practice field for the NFC team that will be built on the campus of Arsenal Tech High School near downtown. That is something we'll be able to keep and enjoy long after the Super Bowl week is over. But we're not even sure if that will be built by Hoosier workers.

    In short, the total number of permanent new jobs created in Indianapolis from the Super Bowl will be ZERO. The number of temporary (1-3 week duration) jobs for local residents will be a few hundred. The hotels and restaurants are already staffed, so no jobs will be created there. The NFL and the networks will bring their own people. The souvenirs sold will be league approved, with no preference going to local vendors. Even opportunities for prostitutes and nudie dancers will be diluted by out-of-town "talent."

    Think about that: --> zero new permanent jobs created.


    We could use the same amount of money to build the Indiana Commerce Connector (an outer-loop bypass connecting I-69 at Anderson, I-70 at Greenfield, I-74 at Shelbyville, I-65 at Franklin, and I-70 again at Plainfield). The economic multiplier of that would blow away the benefits of the Super Bowl.

    Originally posted by Taterhead
    there would actually be very little benefit to even having a sporting franchise to begin with.
    Now you're talking. There isn't much benefit. Entertainment is a consumer good that meets consumers' desires. Pro sports can be justified on the grounds that it meets a consumer need. But it does not create wealth.

    Wealth is created by agriculture, fisheries, forestry, manufacturing and mining. Some argue that technological innovation is another source of wealth creation. But most other activities, including entertainment, just redistribute wealth that was created elsewhere. The notion that pro sports or any form of entertainment creates wealth, is a widely circulated, commonly accepted lie.
    Last edited by Putnam; 03-18-2009, 01:47 PM.
    And I won't be here to see the day
    It all dries up and blows away
    I'd hang around just to see
    But they never had much use for me
    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

    Comment


    • Re: Indiana Pacers future in jeopardy from financial losses [ESPN]

      Interesting read:

      http://web.archive.org/web/199701130...na.com/faq.htm

      Frequently Asked Questions Regarding the Proposed Arena as Provided by the City of Indianapolis/Capitol Improvements Boards' Professional Sports and Arts Task Force Report.

      We understand the importance of informing the public about the need for a new arena and how it will positively impact the entire community. Following are frequently asked questions on this issue. (Source: City of Indianapolis/Capitol Improvements Boards' Professional Sports and Arts Task Force Report.)

      Economic impact from the Pacers includes fiscal impacts generated by the team within Marion County, the surrounding eight-county area and the state of Indiana. With television fees, advertising, direct spending, visitor dollars, employment and tax revenue generated, the case can easily be drawn that the entire state benefits from having a professional NBA team in Indiana. Professional sports put cities on the map, nationally and internationally. Although this is a non-quantifiable aspect of pro teams, it is nonetheless paramount to the benefits derived from a team's presence.

      Professional sports become a vital part of a city's cultural mix, attracting new business as well as new residents. If one would question a team's worth, look only to St. Louis, Cleveland and Baltimore which are willing to spend upwards of $400 million -- or four to five times the original needed investment -- to attract a new team to their cities.

      Why did the Simons buy the Pacers?

      In 1983, at another critical moment for the Pacers, ticket sales were swindling and the team was receiving offers to move from other cities. The Simon brothers viewed the team as a community and state asset, and believed strongly they could make the team economically competitive in Indianapolis.

      What's wrong with Market Square Arena?

      The intimate size that makes MSA a good basketball facility is the same feature that diminishes its ability to produce adequate revenue for the Pacers. The lack of high quality seats -- namely suites and club seats -- along with increased concessions, advertising and naming rights keep the Pacers near the bottom of NBA franchises in total revenues. Additionally, MSA lacks a training facility comparable to those of other NBA teams.

      Market Square Arena is one of the last NBA arenas without premium seating, and will be the league's second oldest arena by the year 2000.

      What is meant by attendance-related arena revenues, and how do the Pacers rank?

      Arena revenues are the attendance-related sources of income such as ticket revenues, concessions, novelties, suites and parking. Market Square Arena does not provide enough stadium-related revenue streams to allow the Indiana Pacers to compete under the changing economics of the NBA. These conditions are projected to worsen in the future.

      NBA teams earn on average 50 percent of their total income from arena attendance-related revenues, according to Financial World ("Sports," May 20, 1996). The Pacers, even at last year's 99.4% capacity and 13 consecutive sell-out games to end the season, and this year's 95% capacity, rank consistently among the very lowest in the league in these attendance-related revenues. In fact, in the same Financial World article, the Pacers were ranked 24th out of 27 teams in total revenues (teams 25 and 26 are now in the process of getting new arenas).

      What are the financial and competitive problems facing the Pacers?

      The Pacers are in a small media market (ranked 23rd in the league), and thereby, do not have the lucrative television and cable contracts some other teams have, literally worth millions of dollars. This makes the need for attendance-related arena revenues all the more necessary . Additionally, in order to stay competitive in today's NBA, superstar players are needed. Salary levels for these cream-of-the-crop players have risen to new heights and set the market for the entire field of players.

      In the 1996-97 season, the Pacers will lose approximately $17 million from operations. In past years, the Pacers have lost at least $2 million per year. The most likely scenario going forward is that they will lose more than $10 million annually.

      Why did these financial losses occur?

      In large part, due to a sharp rise in players' salaries. The recent raising of the players' salary cap (from $10 million to $25 million), allowing teams to vie more heavily for each others' players, along with the Larry Bird exception where a team's free agents can be signed by that team at any amount, have driven players' costs significantly up. This is a national market set by all participating teams.

      Why is it important that the Arena issue be considered in early 1997?

      The Pacers are on a rapidly increasing spiral of escalating costs, and losses, based largely on increased players' salaries. Without being able to cover those costs with adequate revenues, the Simons will be forced to make a financial decision to sell the team. In order to keep the Pacers in Indianapolis, the Pacers need to be in a new arena by the start of their 1999 season.

      The only way to be in a new arena by August 1999, architectural design plans need to be drawn beginning in early 1997, with construction to begin mid-1997.

      Will the team move if it does not get a new stadium?

      The efforts of city officials, legislative leaders, Pacers fans, community leaders and the Pacers are all designed to keep the team in Indiana.

      While it is the Simon family's goal to keep the team in Indianapolis, they cannot continue subsidizing the team indefinitely. If no solution can be found by the team's designated date of 1999, NBA basketball may draw the conclusion that the support needed from the community to keep basketball in Indiana does not exist. In that case, the Pacers will either be sold to a local buyer or another out-of-town buyer. If sold to a local buyer, the problem will merely continue rather than be solved. If sold to an out-of-town buyer, the team most likely will move to another city.

      Will the Pacers guarantee to stay if a new arena is built?

      Yes. The Simons have agreed to keep the Pacers in Indianapolis for at least the next 20 years if a new arena is built. They do this even looking at the likely scenarios that additional revenues produced from a new arena would possibly only bring them to a break-even level.

      How much will a new stadium cost?

      A preliminary design and site analysis has been prepared by several independent firms, studying everything from economic impact to traffic flow patterns. An educated estimate of the cost is 175 million. This estimate includes land acquisition costs for a new arena.

      Are the Pacers willing to help toward the financing for a new arena?

      Yes, the Pacers are willing to help finance a new arena. In cities that have recently built arenas, contributions have taken various forms. The Pacers are willing to make a financial commitment that is consistent with what other owners have done. Most likely that will include some economic participation up front, and then the sole handling of operating expenses. This places considerable risk with the Pacers for future performance. It also absolves the city from making any future cash subsidies.

      What funding sources will be used to pay for a new arena?

      This issue is now under investigation. The priority here is to use a new source of public dollars so that traditional allocation of funds to schools, neighborhoods, city streets and the like is not affected. Mayor Goldsmith refuses to use any general property tax levy to fund professional sports.

      Why should public dollars fund a privately owned organization?

      The Pacers have historically never turned a profit, but items such as NBA expansion payouts and CIB advances have helped them at least break-even. The costs today, however, are escalating beyond that point of assistance. At some level, the losses become so great that it's unreasonable to expect the Simons to continue to incur these kinds of losses without making necessary changes. To build an arena themselves would be to incur even further losses.

      The argument also exists that this is a community asset, and the sole expense should not be on the owners. Particularly when no financial gain is being realized by the team. The city will benefit from a new arena, outfitted with today's state-of-the-art amenities.

      How will a new arena affect Pacers ticket prices?

      The Pacers are insistent upon making professional basketball an entertainment asset that the entire community can enjoy. With the addition of more seats, the team plans on being able to maintain affordable prices for a significant number of those seats.

      Last edited by duke dynamite; 03-18-2009, 10:52 AM.

      Comment


      • Re: Indiana Pacers future in jeopardy from financial losses [ESPN]

        In 1983, at another critical moment for the Pacers, ticket sales were swindling and the team was receiving offers to move from other cities.
        ----------

        Hmmmm.

        Comment


        • Re: Indiana Pacers future in jeopardy from financial losses [ESPN]

          Will the Pacers guarantee to stay if a new arena is built?

          Yes. The Simons have agreed to keep the Pacers in Indianapolis for at least the next 20 years if a new arena is built. They do this even looking at the likely scenarios that additional revenues produced from a new arena would possibly only bring them to a break-even level.
          Does anyone else feel more angry now?

          Comment


          • Re: Indiana Pacers future in jeopardy from financial losses [ESPN]

            As I remember 1983 and I remember well, the Pacers were all but gone - it was pretty much a done deal - when the Simons at the last minute bought the team. - it was as close to a miracle as I can ever remember.

            No I don't feel angry now -(quite the opposite - very thankful for the Simons) things change plus it has already been 10 years since the place opened and 12 years since building was started

            Comment


            • More nonsense from Patrick Early

              http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...#pluckcomments

              Patrick J. Early


              Everyone should take the time to read the reader's comments about this article. His comment about Tully and the crayon is uncalled for. Who does he represent again? It sure in the hell is not the taxpayers.

              Comment


              • Re: More nonsense from Patrick Early

                Sounds like Pat Early is right on the money, to me. I happen to agree that Tully is a bit short sighted in his column.

                As for the comments... I didn't read them because I really don't care what they have to say. I'm sure it is the same outrage found at the end of all IndyStar articles.

                Last but not least... I am a Pacer fan and them staying in town is worth the cost to me.
                ...Still "flying casual"
                @roaminggnome74

                Comment


                • Re: More nonsense from Patrick Early

                  Originally posted by Roaming Gnome View Post
                  Last but not least... I am a Pacer fan and them staying in town is worth the cost to me.
                  100% agree and would be willing.

                  Comment


                  • Re: More nonsense from Patrick Early

                    Well, Tully has no idea on Sports Marketing and revenue. He may know business but he doesn't know sports.

                    Comment


                    • Re: More nonsense from Patrick Early

                      Nice column by Patrick Early.

                      Comment


                      • Re: More nonsense from Patrick Early

                        Yeah, I don't understand the thread of this title, though. Should we be mad at Patrick or the comments on his article?

                        I wholeheartedly agree with everything that Mr. Early says.

                        Comment


                        • Re: More nonsense from Patrick Early

                          Ultimately, while I do agree with those who say the NBA's current setup is in need of repair or reform, saying no to the Pacers does nothing to address it and will only result in an increased likelihood of the Pacers leaving. I don't have to think it's a good financial move to like doing it because frankly I just want the Pacers to stay, and this is not enough to leave me outraged and ready to send them on their way.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Indiana Pacers future in jeopardy from financial losses [ESPN]

                            I was just reading this week's IBJ and I surprised to see that Conseco Fieldhouse is the 2nd most-popular area attraction with 1.4 million in attendance in 2007, well behind the State Fairgrounds and just ahead of the Indianapolis Zoo. Convention Center and RCA Dome were 4th and likely to move up with Lucas Oil and Convention Center expansion. I would hope that we can come up with a way to resolve the missing revenue piece because the financial loss if the Pacers left town coupled with an often-empty Conseco Fieldhouse would be devastaing.

                            Comment


                            • Re: More nonsense from Patrick Early

                              This is real simple:

                              Pacers wipe the 15 mil off the books - city takes that over and owns and runs the Fieldhouse totally.

                              The city charges an event fee similar to any other event that runs there, Pacers keep the gate, city takes the rest.

                              Pacers don't get any money for anything else connected to the arena (don't know if they do now, but if so, not any more).

                              BTW, should I know, and/or give a damn, who Patrick Early is?
                              Last edited by Pacers; 03-18-2009, 04:17 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Re: More nonsense from Patrick Early

                                Originally posted by Pacers View Post
                                BTW, should I know, and/or give a damn, who Patrick Early is?
                                VP of the CIB

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X