Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

How much did MLB players make?


Rosterman
 Share

Looking back, I start to think about what my own salaries were in some of those seasons and how it has increased (or decreased) over the decades. How about you?

Too often we forget that the majority of players really didn't make a lot of money for their limited careers in the very early days.

 

FROM MLBTRADERUMORS:

As we enter Day 1 of the MLB lockout, one key issue in the current labor negotiations is where the players’ minimum salary will land.  Given the union’s stated goal to get players paid more when they’re younger and more productive, it stands to reason that they’re seeking a more significant increase than usual.  The minimum salary was set at $570,500 in 2021.  It’s not known how much MLB proposed raising it in their most recent offer.  Here’s a look at how the minimum salary has changed with each new CBA.

  • 1968: Minimum salary went from $6K to $10K, a 66.7% increase
  • 1970: $10K to $12K, a 20% increase
  • 1973: $13.5K to $15K, an 11.1% increase
  • 1976: $16K to $19K, an 18.8% increase
  • 1980: $21K to $30K, a 42.9% increase
  • 1985: $40K to $60K, a 50% increase
  • 1990: $68K to $100K, a 47.1% increase
  • 1997: $109K to $150K, a 37.6% increase
  • 2003: $200K to $300K, a 50% increase
  • 2007: $327K to $380K, a 16.2% increase
  • 2012: $414K to $480K, a 15.9% increase
  • 2017: $507.5K to $535K, a 5.4% increase

In the free agency era, the minimum salary had always increased by at least 15.9% until the just-expired CBA.  There is historical precedent for a leap as high as 50%, which would mean $855,750 for 2022.  An increase of 16% would be more in line with the ’07 and ’12 CBAs, which would set the minimum at $661,780.  It should also be noted that the minimum salary typically increases each year within a CBA, with the ’20 and ’21 rates involving cost of living adjustments.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

So why then didn't the players accept the owners' proposal for a 50/50 split of revenue in 2020?

No idea. I'm sure there are other things, like minimum pay, years to free agency, and more, that they want......my point was, the players are making a smaller share of revenue than ever......there is plenty of money in the game (as we can see by the amount of money teams continue to sell for).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

So why then didn't the players accept the owners' proposal for a 50/50 split of revenue in 2020?

The players are very against a salary cap situation as they don't want to see the top end salaries go away. They believed agreeing to any kind of revenue split would be a gateway to the league pushing for a cap in these CBA negotiations. That's my understanding at least.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Rosterman said:

Looking back, I start to think about what my own salaries were in some of those seasons and how it has increased (or decreased) over the decades. How about you?

Too often we forget that the majority of players really didn't make a lot of money for their limited careers in the very early days.

 

FROM MLBTRADERUMORS:

As we enter Day 1 of the MLB lockout, one key issue in the current labor negotiations is where the players’ minimum salary will land.  Given the union’s stated goal to get players paid more when they’re younger and more productive, it stands to reason that they’re seeking a more significant increase than usual.  The minimum salary was set at $570,500 in 2021.  It’s not known how much MLB proposed raising it in their most recent offer.  Here’s a look at how the minimum salary has changed with each new CBA.

  • 1968: Minimum salary went from $6K to $10K, a 66.7% increase
  • 1970: $10K to $12K, a 20% increase
  • 1973: $13.5K to $15K, an 11.1% increase
  • 1976: $16K to $19K, an 18.8% increase
  • 1980: $21K to $30K, a 42.9% increase
  • 1985: $40K to $60K, a 50% increase
  • 1990: $68K to $100K, a 47.1% increase
  • 1997: $109K to $150K, a 37.6% increase
  • 2003: $200K to $300K, a 50% increase
  • 2007: $327K to $380K, a 16.2% increase
  • 2012: $414K to $480K, a 15.9% increase
  • 2017: $507.5K to $535K, a 5.4% increase

In the free agency era, the minimum salary had always increased by at least 15.9% until the just-expired CBA.  There is historical precedent for a leap as high as 50%, which would mean $855,750 for 2022.  An increase of 16% would be more in line with the ’07 and ’12 CBAs, which would set the minimum at $661,780.  It should also be noted that the minimum salary typically increases each year within a CBA, with the ’20 and ’21 rates involving cost of living adjustments.

 

Use the formula (new salary / old salary)^(1/((new year - old year)) - 1 to get the annual increase rate.

The first CBA was significant, but after that, player salaries were much more market driven. I actually don't believe this work stoppage has much to do with true salaries, but much more to do with player freedom and abusive team control and collusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

No idea. I'm sure there are other things, like minimum pay, years to free agency, and more, that they want......my point was, the players are making a smaller share of revenue than ever......there is plenty of money in the game (as we can see by the amount of money teams continue to sell for).

Revenue and salary are not the only two relevant variables.  Teams are investing much more in developmental positions, analytics staff, and other positions.  For example, the Cardinals have added 100 positions.  That's the way it works, when any business finds a given type of talent is more productive per dollar spent, the spending shifts to the more productive employee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

Use the formula (new salary / old salary)^(1/((new year - old year)) - 1 to get the annual increase rate.

The first CBA was significant, but after that, player salaries were much more market driven. I actually don't believe this work stoppage has much to do with true salaries, but much more to do with player freedom and abusive team control and collusion.

I sure hope they don't budge on team control.  The big markets already have a huge advantage and shortening team control would hurt our team and several others and the game itself.  Why would any Twins fan want shorter control?   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

I sure hope they don't budge on team control.  The big markets already have a huge advantage and shortening team control would hurt our team and several others and the game itself.  Why would any Twins fan want shorter control?   

The Twins aren't remotely close to small market, but even a small market team can afford a competitive payroll. Twins fans might want shorter team control because it's fair. What Twins fans want doesn't really matter though. We don't have a seat at the negotiating table.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

The Twins aren't remotely close to small market, but even a small market team can afford a competitive payroll. Twins fans might want shorter team control because it's fair. What Twins fans want doesn't really matter though. We don't have a seat at the negotiating table.

 

It will hurt any team in the bottom half or revenue.  Luckily, the twins are too far below average.  The owners already offered more than I thought they would with the model they presented.  I don't see them going further because it would be bad for the game to further an already decided advantage that the larger markets have in signing free agents.  I don't think that advantage is fair at all.  I also think MLB players are among the most fortunate group of employees  in the history of mankind.  Had the average American's pay grown at the same rate over the past 50 years, Average Household Income would be $3.2M.  It would say their deal in general is most fortunate.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

Revenue and salary are not the only two relevant variables.  Teams are investing much more in developmental positions, analytics staff, and other positions.  For example, the Cardinals have added 100 positions.  That's the way it works, when any business finds a given type of talent is more productive per dollar spent, the spending shifts to the more productive employee.

The don't pay those people millions per year. But sure, some orgs have added staff (100? wow)......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

I sure hope they don't budge on team control.  The big markets already have a huge advantage and shortening team control would hurt our team and several others and the game itself.  Why would any Twins fan want shorter control?   

Because some of us want the players to make more money.....earlier in their career. Because I'd like them to pick the city they live in. This isn't close to a free market....I'd like it closer, you know, like the rest of capitalism where people can go work for other companies in the same industry. The Twins will adjust, just like other businesses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

It will hurt any team in the bottom half or revenue.  Luckily, the twins are too far below average.  The owners already offered more than I thought they would with the model they presented.  I don't see them going further because it would be bad for the game to further an already decided advantage that the larger markets have in signing free agents.  I don't think that advantage is fair at all.  I also think MLB players are among the most fortunate group of employees  in the history of mankind.  Had the average American's pay grown at the same rate over the past 50 years, Average Household Income would be $3.2M.  It would say their deal in general is most fortunate.  

Unlike billionaire owners who have seen their wealth (many of whom inherited it and didn't earn it) grow at even faster rates?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

It will hurt any team in the bottom half or revenue.  Luckily, the twins are too far below average.  The owners already offered more than I thought they would with the model they presented.  I don't see them going further because it would be bad for the game to further an already decided advantage that the larger markets have in signing free agents.  I don't think that advantage is fair at all.  I also think MLB players are among the most fortunate group of employees  in the history of mankind.  Had the average American's pay grown at the same rate over the past 50 years, Average Household Income would be $3.2M.  It would say their deal in general is most fortunate.  

Actual revenue or potential revenue? Also. No. The Twins are not far below average. The Twins are not remotely close to small market, either. 

Last numbers which are available on Statista show the Twins' revenue at $111MM in 2019. Median was $116MM (Toronto, Pittsburgh). MLB owners have great control over their revenue plan and how much revenue they actually bring in. In fact, there are no "small market" teams in MLB.

The smallest market in MLB is Milwaukee. Population 594,000. Population density, 6,000 per square mile. Metro area, 1.5MM. Milwaukee's average attendance in 2019 was 36,090. The average ticket price was $28.44. Gate revenue estimate $102.6MM. TV contract $28MM. Estimated total revenue $295MM. Payroll? $123MM.

MSP is the 16th largest metro in the US with the 19th highest metro per capita income in the US. The Twins were filling Target Field with ticket prices far exceeding MLB average when it was opened.  Average attendance in 2019 was 28,436. Average ticket price was $32.68. Gate revenue estimate $92.9MM. TV contract $43MM. Total Revenue $297MM Payroll? $120MM.

The Texas Rangers had an estimated $330MM in revenue in 2019. Similar attendance, similar gate and TV revenue as the Twins. Less than a 10% advantage in overall revenue. Is Arlington/Dallas/Ft. Worth small market now?

San Diego's metro is smaller than MSP at 3.2MM vs. MSP's 3.7MM. San Diego the city itself is larger than Minneapolis & St. Paul with a population of 1,390,000 vs 720,000, but with a substantially lower population density (4,256 per sq/mi). They charged only $22.22 for their average ticket at PETCO in 2019 and managed 29,585 fans per game. Revenue? $299MM. Their gate revenues were similar to the Twins. Is San Diego "small market"?

The Twins just can't compete. They're too small. How in the hell does San Diego, a smaller metro with a weaker brand, lower gate revenues and weaker potential revenue put together one of the largest payrolls in MLB? How do they go out and get Darvish and sign Machado and Hosmer? How do they compete in arguably the strongest division in MLB? If that Padres team was in the AL Central, they'd have won 100 games. How is it the Twins' maximum historical payroll is lower than massive large market teams like the Kansas City Royals and Cleveland Guardians? The poor, poor Twins and their teeny tiny little po-dunk 1,000 square miles of cornfields in flyover area that is middle America just can't compete against juggernaut metros like San Diego, Kansas City and Cleveland. Maybe Minnesotan's are just so poorly traveled or self defeating they don't recognize Minneapolis/St. Paul is huge? The friggen Olympic Games have routinely asked Minneapolis to bid for the games. Over and over.

Revenue sharing balances the equations. Teams like the Red Sox, who pull in more than $500MM in revenue don't field teams with $300MM payrolls because of revenue sharing. There is no team in baseball who cannot compete. There are just strategies involved and living off the high revenue teams by abusing the revenue sharing system is how the supposedly "small market" teams tend to operate. There's no risk. They'll always make a little money if they keep payrolls low and feed off the revenue sharing fund. For conservative owners or owners trying to force new stadiums through, it's the method of choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bean5302 said:

Actual revenue or potential revenue? Also. No. The Twins are not far below average. The Twins are not remotely close to small market, either. 

Last numbers which are available on Statista show the Twins' revenue at $111MM in 2019. Median was $116MM (Toronto, Pittsburgh). MLB owners have great control over their revenue plan and how much revenue they actually bring in. In fact, there are no "small market" teams in MLB.

The smallest market in MLB is Milwaukee. Population 594,000. Population density, 6,000 per square mile. Metro area, 1.5MM. Milwaukee's average attendance in 2019 was 36,090. The average ticket price was $28.44. Gate revenue estimate $102.6MM. TV contract $28MM. Estimated total revenue $295MM. Payroll? $123MM.

MSP is the 16th largest metro in the US with the 19th highest metro per capita income in the US. The Twins were filling Target Field with ticket prices far exceeding MLB average when it was opened.  Average attendance in 2019 was 28,436. Average ticket price was $32.68. Gate revenue estimate $92.9MM. TV contract $43MM. Total Revenue $297MM Payroll? $120MM.

The Texas Rangers had an estimated $330MM in revenue in 2019. Similar attendance, similar gate and TV revenue as the Twins. Less than a 10% advantage in overall revenue. Is Arlington/Dallas/Ft. Worth small market now?

San Diego's metro is smaller than MSP at 3.2MM vs. MSP's 3.7MM. San Diego the city itself is larger than Minneapolis & St. Paul with a population of 1,390,000 vs 720,000, but with a substantially lower population density (4,256 per sq/mi). They charged only $22.22 for their average ticket at PETCO in 2019 and managed 29,585 fans per game. Revenue? $299MM. Their gate revenues were similar to the Twins. Is San Diego "small market"?

The Twins just can't compete. They're too small. How in the hell does San Diego, a smaller metro with a weaker brand, lower gate revenues and weaker potential revenue put together one of the largest payrolls in MLB? How do they go out and get Darvish and sign Machado and Hosmer? How do they compete in arguably the strongest division in MLB? If that Padres team was in the AL Central, they'd have won 100 games. How is it the Twins' maximum historical payroll is lower than massive large market teams like the Kansas City Royals and Cleveland Guardians? The poor, poor Twins and their teeny tiny little po-dunk 1,000 square miles of cornfields in flyover area that is middle America just can't compete against juggernaut metros like San Diego, Kansas City and Cleveland. Maybe Minnesotan's are just so poorly traveled or self defeating they don't recognize Minneapolis/St. Paul is huge? The friggen Olympic Games have routinely asked Minneapolis to bid for the games. Over and over.

Revenue sharing balances the equations. Teams like the Red Sox, who pull in more than $500MM in revenue don't field teams with $300MM payrolls because of revenue sharing. There is no team in baseball who cannot compete. There are just strategies involved and living off the high revenue teams by abusing the revenue sharing system is how the supposedly "small market" teams tend to operate. There's no risk. They'll always make a little money if they keep payrolls low and feed off the revenue sharing fund. For conservative owners or owners trying to force new stadiums through, it's the method of choice.

Part of this was a tying error.  I would not make sense to say luckily the Twins are far below.  I meant to say luckily they are not too far below average.  However, the market size argument that is made so frequently is misguided.  Market size does not pay the bills, revenue is all that matters.  St. Louis is a smaller market yet they produce 25% more revenue.  Miami is a much larger market and they produce less revenue.

If you want to believe the revenue advantage Boston / LA / NY / etc has does not impact the ability to attract and pay for free agents you are welcome to that opinion.  I guess you would not like your income to double because it would not make any difference.  However, the history of free agency very clearly points in a different direction but go ahead a stick to that theory.

I have no idea what you are talking about with 2019 revenue.  The Twins had $300M in 2019 and the Brewers $295M.  The had nearly identical payrolls.  However, one year fails to paint an accurate picture.  The Twins averaged $120M from 2017-19 and the Brewers averaged $72M.  It also does not make sense to just compare 1 year of the Rangers when they had 3 sub 500years in a row.  

The revenue numbers include revenue sharing so I am not sure how you can make a case that revenue sharing makes up for the revenue disparity.  Really, arguing that teams with 100, 200 even 300M in incremental revenue don't have a distinct advantage is an absurd argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

Unlike billionaire owners who have seen their wealth (many of whom inherited it and didn't earn it) grow at even faster rates?

I don't give a crap about them either.  What I do care about is parity, the health of the game and our team being able to compete.  Shorter control will no doubt hurt the game and the players don't give a crap about the game or the fans in mid and small markets who will lose them even earlier.  Their interest is in getting more money which leads to an interesting question.  Will the owners really payout more because players become FAs earlier.  Is that going to change their budget?  All it will do is give the large market teams an additional year with many of the top FAs.

What they should so is put in a salary floor like the NBA.  I believe NBA teams payout the difference in the floor to players.  What MLB should do is split any amount under the floor among all the prearb players in the league.  I don't know how you magically get FAs to go to Baltimore the last couple years so require them to distribute the difference to the lowest income players.  Also, raise minimum salaries to at least $750K or perhaps $750/850/1M for the 1st 3 years.  

I would also quit paying out huge draft bonuses.  They have not earned anything yet and if they prove to be great the pay will be there at the ML level.  Instead make the top bonus $1M and decrease every pick by something like .5% until you get down to 25 or 30K.  Then, use all that left over money to increase Milb pay.  The available funds would provide roughly $60K additional to all Milb players.  They could have a 70K/80K/90K/100K progression through the Milb levels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The two sides are playing with their pride, especially the owners. There is room for negotiation on many issues. MLB total attendance peaked in 2007 with nearly 80 million in attendance and has since declined by 11 million customers. The game still enjoys widespread support and generates massive revenues that result in large salaries for a number of players and great wealth for the owners. A number of issues should be resolved that might include some of the following: a salary of $500,000 for all on 40 man roster, minimum of $1 million for those on 25 man roster, limits of years of control (reduce by one year from current system), attention to pace of game, percentage of player pay near 52-55% (it has been higher), and focus on growth of the game.

A strike would be problematic for many players but also cost the owners mightily. In consideration of franchise values and player salaries, the game has blossomed. Lawsuits could be potentially ruinous and possibly lead to the owners losing their anti-trust exemption. The old boys club won't lose a single Martini if they loosen their current grip and focus to a wider distribution of salaries among the players, including throwing a meatier bone to milb players (I know they are not part of MLBPA). When the game grows, the owners benefit more than anyone else. Current language is poor by both parties but the pride of control by the owners needs to step aside to increase their own wealth.

Just wondering - When was the last time an MLB franchise declared bankruptcy? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

Part of this was a tying error.  I would not make sense to say luckily the Twins are far below.  I meant to say luckily they are not too far below average.  However, the market size argument that is made so frequently is misguided.  Market size does not pay the bills, revenue is all that matters.  St. Louis is a smaller market yet they produce 25% more revenue.  Miami is a much larger market and they produce less revenue.

If you want to believe the revenue advantage Boston / LA / NY / etc has does not impact the ability to attract and pay for free agents you are welcome to that opinion.  I guess you would not like your income to double because it would not make any difference.  However, the history of free agency very clearly points in a different direction but go ahead a stick to that theory.

I have no idea what you are talking about with 2019 revenue.  The Twins had $300M in 2019 and the Brewers $295M.  The had nearly identical payrolls.  However, one year fails to paint an accurate picture.  The Twins averaged $120M from 2017-19 and the Brewers averaged $72M.  It also does not make sense to just compare 1 year of the Rangers when they had 3 sub 500years in a row.  

The revenue numbers include revenue sharing so I am not sure how you can make a case that revenue sharing makes up for the revenue disparity.  Really, arguing that teams with 100, 200 even 300M in incremental revenue don't have a distinct advantage is an absurd argument.

You're arguing against yourself when you point out revenue is not static and when you show how market size has no impact on revenue with St. Louis and Miami.

The Twins and any other team in MLB has the ability to field a competitive roster. When they don't, it's the choice of ownership to follow a different strategy. The slash payroll and live off revenue sharing strategy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

The players are very against a salary cap situation as they don't want to see the top end salaries go away. They believed agreeing to any kind of revenue split would be a gateway to the league pushing for a cap in these CBA negotiations. That's my understanding at least.

 

Hmmm....was accepting a cap part of that offer?  Or they just believed it was inevitable?

Sorry I tuned all of it out because I found it all annoying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

...Shorter control will no doubt hurt the game and the players don't give a crap about the game or the fans in mid and small markets who will lose them even earlier.  Their interest is in getting more money which leads to an interesting question.  Will the owners really payout more because players become FAs earlier.  Is that going to change their budget?...

No, owners won't pay more, but they'll shift where the money goes and it will de-incentivize owners from using the current tanking strategy where they refuse to sign their own players and instead trade them off for many years of cheap control over prospects.

Tank and rebuild won't be as viable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

What they should so is put in a salary floor like the NBA.  I believe NBA teams payout the difference in the floor to players.  What MLB should do is split any amount under the floor among all the prearb players in the league.  I don't know how you magically get FAs to go to Baltimore the last couple years so require them to distribute the difference to the lowest income players.  Also, raise minimum salaries to at least $750K or perhaps $750/850/1M for the 1st 3 years.  

I would also quit paying out huge draft bonuses.  They have not earned anything yet and if they prove to be great the pay will be there at the ML level.  Instead make the top bonus $1M and decrease every pick by something like .5% until you get down to 25 or 30K.  Then, use all that left over money to increase Milb pay.  The available funds would provide roughly $60K additional to all Milb players.  They could have a 70K/80K/90K/100K progression through the Milb levels.

These are among some ideas that would grow the game. I don't agree that reducing the years of control will be a disaster, however. But negotiations need to come to a quick conclusion. It seems so built on pride. A lockout had to happen now, supposedly, for legal reasons. It might have made more sense to wait one month when more signings, trades, and excitement generated sales of tickets. Complicated, for sure.

One thing though is that NFL, NBA, and NHL all are managing to get people in the seats and tuning in to the games and share a good share of revenues. I would like to see labor peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, bean5302 said:

No, owners won't pay more, but they'll shift where the money goes and it will de-incentivize owners from using the current tanking strategy where they refuse to sign their own players and instead trade them off for many years of cheap control over prospects.

Tank and rebuild won't be as viable.

The lower the revenue the more inevitable the need to go through complete rebuilds.  The process necessitates teams clear out veterans and play prospects.  How much complaining was there here when Simmons was getting innings or complaining about bringing up Miranda.   We wanted this because it was good for the future of our team.  

The other flaw in the floor concept is good free agents are not going to bottom teams unless the money is considerably greater.  Great for the players, bad for the team and bad for the game to prevent these teams from rebuilding.  Now those really bad teams get to see 66 wins instead of 60 while not being able to play prospects.  Then, if they get a Chris Davis and there are many, their ability to add pieces when they are ready to compete will be impeded.  That's why I suggested any amount below the floor go to prearb players.  What the players want is to assure every available dollar is spent on players.  Teams want to rebuild.  This strategy satisfies both desires. I believe the NBA has a similar penalty.  The point here is that we simply cant force players to sign with bad teams and we should not force bad teams to adapt poor strategies.  It also won't change the dynamics and economics that drive teams to trade players in certain situations.  Tampa would either have to let players go a year earlier or abandon the strategy that has made them successful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

Hmmm....was accepting a cap part of that offer?  Or they just believed it was inevitable?

Sorry I tuned all of it out because I found it all annoying.

Accepting a cap wasn't part of that offer, they just believed it would give the owners too much momentum in that direction and it would become inevitable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

Revenue and salary are not the only two relevant variables.  Teams are investing much more in developmental positions, analytics staff, and other positions.  For example, the Cardinals have added 100 positions.  That's the way it works, when any business finds a given type of talent is more productive per dollar spent, the spending shifts to the more productive employee.

The cardinals added $5M to overhead. That’s not included in COGS and is a raindrop in the ocean anyways

Edited by Sconnie
math mistake
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Vanimal46 said:

8388FA0E-FCAC-407E-A5CD-BB338DAA68AC.jpeg.c5fe19f897952b1ba121054080932426.jpeg

Owners now rake in 57% of the revenue for the sport. There’s never been a better time to be an MLB owner in the league’s history. 

what's the source? I've seen similar numbers floating around, but only Atlanta is publicly traded and subject to GAAP and reporting rules. It makes me skeptical...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

Featured Video

×
×
  • Create New...