B-Rich

Warriors to Keep Golden State Name Despite 2019 Move to San Francisco

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, the admiral said:

The Nets have always been the most boring of the New York B-teams. They never had the Mets' success and turmoil, the Jets' fanbase agita, or the Islanders' success. They won the East the two years that the nation was more or less checked out of the NBA and did it by being kind of boring. What a drag, the Nets. Barclays was a mistake.

 

The mistake was not so much the move into that arena but the decision to lean on the name "Brooklyn" rather than to use the full city name "New York". The use of "Brooklyn" seemed cool and edgy; but it's also sub-local and exclusionary. 

 

An NBA team should be aiming for a broad base of support, not a narrow one. A typical team naturally claims its city; some teams claim a whole state (the Timberwolves and Jazz overtly; the Nuggets and Suns effectively; but not, despite their name, the Warriors). There is a team that claims a region (the Celtics), and one that claims a whole country (the Raptors).

 

And then there are the Nets, who don't even claim their entire home city. 

 

The Nets were always going to be handicapped by the existence of the Knicks; indeed, it was the Knicks' foul play that consigned the Nets to second-class status at a critical juncture in the team's history.

 

At the time of the NBA's merger with the ABA, the Nets were coming off of their second championship in the ABA's final season; and Dr. J had become a cultural icon. Julius Erving's performance in the playoffs, as well as in the ABA's slam-dunk contest, had elevated him to superstar status. The Nets with Erving would have been serious challengers to the Knicks for supremacy in New York.

 

71L5dCAmLoL._SY587_.jpg

 

 

This Sports Illustrated cover shows the high regard with which Erving and the Nets were held, as representatives of the two co-equal champions pose together before the merger season.

In response to this threat, the Knicks convinced the NBA to levy an unconscionable "territorial fee" against the Nets just as the merger was being finalised. This fee, designed to be well in excess of what the Nets' owner could afford, was intended to cripple the Nets by forcing them to sell off their greatest asset. It worked. The Nets sold Dr. J, limped to the NBA's worst record in the first post-merger season, and then scuttled off to the obscurity of New Jersey, abandoning the New York name. (This makes the picture above that much more painful, as Erving never dribbled an NBA ball in a Nets uniform.)

 

Even though New Jersey is the country's most densely populated state, for pro sports it is nowheresville, as it is divided roughly in half by supporters of New York teams and supporters of Philadelphia teams. In South Jersey people thought of the New Jersey Nets as a New York team — which would certainly have come as news to New Yorkers, who didn't think of the Nets at all. (Myself not included; I was a fan.) The New Jersey Nets' tiny support came almost exclusively from a small area immediately around their Meadowlands home. So much for taking a state name.

 

The team's purchase by a charismatic and ambitious foreign billionaire and its move into New York City created a chance for it to be rescued from obscurity. But the team bungled this opportunity by not reclaiming its former name "New York Nets", instead naming itself after a section of New York.

 

Some will be tempted to argue that Brooklyn has an identity of its own, apart from being a borough of New York City.  This is true.  Nevertheless, the strategy of tying an NBA team to this entity rather than to New York City as a whole is highly questionable.  The team counted on the already-fading "hipster" appeal of the Brooklyn name, as well as that name's appeal to the Russian compatriots of the team's owner, not seeming to care that the name would create a barrier to connection with the majority of the City's fans. Converting existing Knick fans was always going to be all but impossible. But, the use of a hyper-local name insured that future generations of kids in most of New York City would continue to adopt the Knicks as they had always done, and would have zero inclination to consider the Nets as their home team.

 

The Nets could have hit their new home within the City with a marketing campaign emphasising the team's colourful history, which included two championships in the ABA and two trips to the NBA Finals.  They could have plastered their new arena with images not only of the iconic Dr. J, but also of Rick Barry, coaches Louie Carnesecca and Kevin Loughery, Albert King, Buck Williams, Micheal Ray Richardson, Darryl Dawkins, Drazen Petrovic, Mike Gminski, and others.  They could even have trolled the Knicks by including images of Jason Kidd and Kenyon Martin, who were playing for the Knicks in the Nets' first season in New York City.

 

Instead, marketing positioned the team as a new entity.  This created a good deal of buzz at first.  The team masqueraded as a power in the East after the re-signing of Deron Williams and the big trade that brought over several veterans from the Celtics.  But all of that proved illusory.  Even the return of Jason Kidd as coach quickly turned sour; and this strangely-named team that is unwilling to acknowledge its own history quickly faded into the background, where it seems to be destined to languish for eternity.

 

So we have a team which by virtue of its name pushes away people from Manhattan and the Bronx, which has blown up its meagre support from New Jersey, and which has no footprint whatsoever in the northern suburbs. This leaves Brooklyn itself, where the team's support is good (though still well below that of the Knicks), as well as Queens and Long Island, which the team is trying to shore up by virtue of its G-League squad the Long Island Nets, and by playing pre-season games at the Nassau Coliseum. Weak sauce, that.

 

The Nets' story is littered with bad luck, bad breaks, and bad decisions.  Maybe one day I will write an alternative history of the Nets, imagining a history in which the Knicks' dirty trick was not successful and the New York Nets kept Julius Erving and became a good team in the NBA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

The Nets' story is littered with bad luck, bad breaks, and bad decisions.  Maybe one day I will write an alternative history of the Nets, imagining a history in which the Knicks' dirty trick was not successful and the New York Nets kept Julius Erving and became a good team in the NBA.

 

I like a good counter-factual history, provided that it’s done within the bounds of the real world and takes into account the different biases and personalities of the historical actors. Alternate history fiction goes into zany-land far too often.

 

The whole discussion of the “Brooklyn” label got me wondering about what would have happened if the Dodgers had not run into the Robert Moses problem when building a stadium on the future Barclays Center site (unlikely, given his power) and if Horace Stoneham had built on the west side of Manhattan (private-funded, of course) or left for Minnesota. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

I like a good counter-factual history, provided that it’s done within the bounds of the real world and takes into account the different biases and personalities of the historical actors. Alternate history fiction goes into zany-land far too often.

 

Right.  The recent USFL alternate history took some rather dubious turns, such as assuming that the mere existence of the USFL would somehow lead to the non-existence of MLS.  The challenge is to keep such an account realistic, and not to present a description of one's own ideal fantasyland.  

 

 

27 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

The whole discussion of the “Brooklyn” label got me wondering about what would have happened if the Dodgers had not run into the Robert Moses problem when building a stadium on the future Barclays Center site (unlikely, given his powe) and if Horace Stoneham had built on the west side of Manhattan (private-funded, of course) or left for Minnesota.

 

Excellent idea about an alternate history involving the Dodgers.  There's good reason to believe that they would have done very well in a modern stadium at Atlantic and Fourth Avenues.  The generation of Brooklynites who had moved to Long Island would have flocked to that stadium on the LIRR.  Imagine Koufax having his great years in that ballpark, and the draw from Long Island that that would have been.  This opens up some good storytelling possibilities, such as a knock-on effect of helping to arrest the decline in the quality of public transit in New York that continued into the 1970s.

However, I don't think I have ever heard of any attempt on the part of the Giants to build anywhere else in New York City.  Stoneham didn't think the problem was the ballpark; he was convinced that there was no more audience for his team in New York, and he wanted to get out.  If not for O'Malley's intervention that pursuaded him of the value of moving together to California, the Giants were off to Minneapolis for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

I was with you right up until that part. 

 

IT'S A HIDEOUS BUILDING

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah, not really.  I like the green roof.

 

It also happens to be a great place to watch a basketball game.  If only the team itself was worthy of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Climbing the upper deck aisles at Barclays feels like hiking a mountain in the middle of the night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/19/2018 at 12:34 PM, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Excellent idea about an alternate history involving the Dodgers.  There's good reason to believe that they would have done very well in a modern stadium at Atlantic and Fourth Avenues.  The generation of Brooklynites who had moved to Long Island would have flocked to that stadium on the LIRR.  Imagine Koufax having his great years in that ballpark, and the draw from Long Island that that would have been.  This opens up some good storytelling possibilities, such as a knock-on effect of helping to arrest the decline in the quality of public transit in New York that continued into the 1970s.

However, I don't think I have ever heard of any attempt on the part of the Giants to build anywhere else in New York City.  Stoneham didn't think the problem was the ballpark; he was convinced that there was no more audience for his team in New York, and he wanted to get out.  If not for O'Malley's intervention that pursuaded him of the value of moving together to California, the Giants were off to Minneapolis for sure.

 

Yeah, the latter part is me falling victim to the other problem of alternate histories. Said problem is going into the counterfactual wanting a certain outcome, no matter how unrealistic.

 

The only way the Giants would have stayed in New York would have been through Stoneham selling the team, which is doubtful (he only let go of the team in the 1970s after financial duress, as the team and the Polo Grounds were his only assets). Still, if a William Shea-like figure did buy the team and go along with the Robert Moses/city fathers' Shea Stadium plan, a West Side stadium, or a move to the Meadowlands, it would have been an interesting twist to the rivalry's history. 

 

The Minneapolis outcome, while it would have made sense at the time (the Giants big minor-league club, the Millers, played there), would have been disastrous for baseball. One of the sport's best rivalries would have died, and I doubt a Giants/Milwaukee Braves or Dodgers/Phillies rivalry would have been an adequate replacement. Having the Dodgers and Giants move to California was arguably one of the best relocations in all of Big Four sports, because of how much it increased baseball's geographic reach and preserved such a storied rivalry. The Minneapolis/Minnesota Giants are still a fun thought to consider, especially because it opens up opportunities for the Washington Sen(ationals)ors to move elsewhere. No counterfactual history can convince me that Calvin Griffith wouldn't white flight his way out of DC. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/19/2018 at 1:34 PM, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Excellent idea about an alternate history involving the Dodgers.  There's good reason to believe that they would have done very well in a modern stadium at Atlantic and Fourth Avenues.  The generation of Brooklynites who had moved to Long Island would have flocked to that stadium on the LIRR.  Imagine Koufax having his great years in that ballpark, and the draw from Long Island that that would have been.  This opens up some good storytelling possibilities, such as a knock-on effect of helping to arrest the decline in the quality of public transit in New York that continued into the 1970s.

However, I don't think I have ever heard of any attempt on the part of the Giants to build anywhere else in New York City.  Stoneham didn't think the problem was the ballpark; he was convinced that there was no more audience for his team in New York, and he wanted to get out.  If not for O'Malley's intervention that pursuaded him of the value of moving together to California, the Giants were off to Minneapolis for sure.

 

The Brooklyn dome proposal always seemed fairly dead-in-the-water with the City (and especially with Robert Moses), but I've always wondered what would've happened if the Dodgers took up the city's offer of the Flushing Meadows site for a ballpark (the eventual site of Shea Stadium). I'd imagine the Dodgers would've renamed themselves "New York Dodgers," and the Dodgers-Yankees rivalry would've continued strong into the mid-1960s. The Koufax-led dynasty taking place in NYC would mean the continuance of New York's "Golden Era" of baseball into the mid-60s, which would've been incredible to watch for fans in this corner of the nation. I have little doubt that an NYC-based Dodger team post-1958 would've experienced considerably more success than the Mets have in their history. The Tri-State market would probably be more equally divided between Yankee fans and Dodger fans today.

 

The interesting downstream effects would've been on the west coast - what happens with the Los Angeles and San Francisco/Oakland markets. There's little doubt in my mind that MLB would've expanded or moved to LA and SF by 1961 anyway - either in the form of expansion teams and/or the Senators leaving DC in favor of LA or SF (keeping in mind that the Giants likely would've landed in Minnesota; no way New York was keeping a second NL team into the 1960s). The AL probably would've been first to land on the West Coast, given the Senators' desire to move out of DC.

 

If an AL team landed in San Francisco rather than the Giants, the A's would never move to Oakland. Suddenly you're looking at a very different baseball landscape in the late 1960s - does the AL ever approve an A's move from Kansas City? If not, does the 1969 AL expansion even occur? What happens with the Seattle and San Diego markets? And so on...

 

I think I did a counterfactual alternate history on this exact issue (the Dodgers staying in NYC) in the "Alternate History" thread years ago... I'll see if I can dig it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/19/2018 at 6:13 PM, Digby said:

Climbing the upper deck aisles at Barclays feels like hiking a mountain in the middle of the night.

 

This. I LOATHE the upper deck at Barclays. As steep as Matterhorn, and gives zero legroom.

 

I have no qualms with placing an arena at Atlantic Yards (actually think it was a great idea), but completely mis-designed. Seating is way too tight and uncomfortable, the building looks like a rusted-out spaceship, and it was built too small for a hockey rink despite a team right on Long Island clearly looking for a new arena even at the time Barclays was designed. And given how poorly the arena utilized available space on the east-west axis, I have no doubt that they could've built it large enough to fit a hockey rink.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, kroywen said:

 

 

The interesting downstream effects would've been on the west coast - what happens with the Los Angeles and San Francisco/Oakland markets. There's little doubt in my mind that MLB would've expanded or moved to LA and SF by 1961 anyway - either in the form of expansion teams and/or the Senators leaving DC in favor of LA or SF (keeping in mind that the Giants likely would've landed in Minnesota; no way New York was keeping a second NL team into the 1960s). The AL probably would've been first to land on the West Coast, given the Senators' desire to move out of DC.

 

If an AL team landed in San Francisco rather than the Giants, the A's would never move to Oakland. Suddenly you're looking at a very different baseball landscape in the late 1960s - does the AL ever approve an A's move from Kansas City? If not, does the 1969 AL expansion even occur? What happens with the Seattle and San Diego markets? And so on...

 

I think I did a counterfactual alternate history on this exact issue (the Dodgers staying in NYC) in the "Alternate History" thread years ago... I'll see if I can dig it up.

 

Our good friend @Silent Wind of Doom did that already:

 

As to the LA and Bay Area markets, I've hypothesized that the 1961 AL expansion would have gone down like this:

 

1. Senators move to SF, adopt "Seals" name.

2. Add expansion Los Angeles Angels.

3. Add expansion Washington Senators, who may or may not move to Arlington in about a decade.

 

Given that there'd be an AL team in San Francisco, the A's could have made several moves. These include:

 

1. Stay in Kansas City, wait on construction of Truman Sports Complex. This complicates the 1969 and 1977 expansion rounds, as there's no Kansas City expansion team and the Pilots don't get rushed into a poor financial position.

2. Move to Milwaukee, preventing the Pilots from moving there in 1970.

3. Wait a few years and move to Arlington, Seattle, or even Toronto (given the Giants' interest in moving there during the mid-1970s).

 

Also, the National League would have wanted in on the West Coast markets during this period. This has several possible implications, such as the Braves moving to Oakland, LA, or Seattle, with 1962 or 1969 expansion adding more teams in the region. Baseball's franchise map would look markedly different with these few changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, kroywen said:

the building looks like a rusted-out spaceship

 

Really one of the ugliest buildings in New York and ugliest buildings in sports. Rust is not an architectural flourish. Just an awful building to look at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, kroywen said:

 

The Brooklyn dome proposal always seemed fairly dead-in-the-water with the City (and especially with Robert Moses), but I've always wondered what would've happened if the Dodgers took up the city's offer of the Flushing Meadows site for a ballpark (the eventual site of Shea Stadium). I'd imagine the Dodgers would've renamed themselves "New York Dodgers," and the Dodgers-Yankees rivalry would've continued strong into the mid-1960s. The Koufax-led dynasty taking place in NYC would mean the continuance of New York's "Golden Era" of baseball into the mid-60s, which would've been incredible to watch for fans in this corner of the nation. I have little doubt that an NYC-based Dodger team post-1958 would've experienced considerably more success than the Mets have in their history. The Tri-State market would probably be more equally divided between Yankee fans and Dodger fans today.

 

The interesting downstream effects would've been on the west coast - what happens with the Los Angeles and San Francisco/Oakland markets. There's little doubt in my mind that MLB would've expanded or moved to LA and SF by 1961 anyway - either in the form of expansion teams and/or the Senators leaving DC in favor of LA or SF (keeping in mind that the Giants likely would've landed in Minnesota; no way New York was keeping a second NL team into the 1960s). The AL probably would've been first to land on the West Coast, given the Senators' desire to move out of DC.

 

If an AL team landed in San Francisco rather than the Giants, the A's would never move to Oakland. Suddenly you're looking at a very different baseball landscape in the late 1960s - does the AL ever approve an A's move from Kansas City? If not, does the 1969 AL expansion even occur? What happens with the Seattle and San Diego markets? And so on...

 

I think I did a counterfactual alternate history on this exact issue (the Dodgers staying in NYC) in the "Alternate History" thread years ago... I'll see if I can dig it up.

 

11 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

Our good friend @Silent Wind of Doom did that already:

 

I would strongly disagree with the speculation, advanced by both stories, that the Dodgers would drop the "Brooklyn" name.  Being outside of Brooklyn would not stop them from using the name any more than being outside of the named locality has stopped teams such as the Dallas Cowboys or Detroit Pistons -- or the New York Giants and New York Jets.  If the team dropped the name "Brooklyn", there'd be no point in their remaining in New York City and moving to Queens, because they'd lose all their fans anyway.

But let's take a few steps back and remember that the Flushing Meadow offer was a last-ditch effort which the City made in desperation, only after agreements had been reached between the Dodgers and the Los Angeles authorities following Moses's rebuff, and only after O'Malley's original idea of buying up the various plots that made up the footprint of his proposed Flatbush Avenue stadium (the matter on which O'Malley had sought Moses's help) had become impossible because of publicity.  Flushing Meadow Park was a place where the City knew that it could build quickly.  If we start not with the question "What if O'Malley had never been born?" but with the question "What if Robert Moses's bungling of the Dodger question had been caught in time?", then we'd have to go through very many steps before we ever get to something like Flushing Meadows.

The Dodgers couldn't make money at Ebbets Field; so staying there was out of the question. And, as long as Moses had an obscene amount of power and no oversight by any elected official, it is hard to imagine a scenario in which any Dodger owner could have made headway about a new ballpark.  Furthermore, if we assume that the Braves' move to Milwaukee would have taken place in our fictional universe (a move which saw the team's attendance quadruple and go from last in the N.L. to first in all of baseball), then the possibility of moving could not have been ignored by any Dodger owner.  

But, if the question of a new Dodger ballpark had come to parties in the New York City government other than Moses, things could have gone very differently.  One obvious possibility would have been the successful building of a stadium at the Flatbush Avenue location that O'Malley wanted; any observer would have deemed that location ideal, as the Nets later did. But, if that somehow fell through after honest efforts, then we can start imagining a few other Brooklyn locations.  In the real universe, the Brooklyn Navy Yard and the Brooklyn Army Terminal weren't decommissioned until the mid-1960s, and Floyd Bennett Field not until the early 1970s. Perhaps, with the impetus of placing a stadium at one of these locations, some kind of deal with the Federal government could have been worked out sooner for one of these swathes of land to return to City control.

The pessimist in me makes me think that, if the first choice of building a ballpark at the LIRR terminal were not possible, then the priorities would have swung entirely the other way, toward accommodating the greatest number of automobiles, in keeping with the car-mania of the day that wound up harming so many cities. (The images of the Braves' new park in Milwaukee showed it surrounded by a sea of parking lots.)  This makes me think that Floyd Bennett Field would have been the favoured location, because only at that spot would there be enough room for massive amounts of parking, and because that location is right off the Belt Parkway, a highway that links to the rest of Brooklyn, as well as to Queens and Long Island.

Whereas a Dodger Stadium at the LIRR terminal in Downtown Brooklyn might have contributed positively to the City by helping to boost the overall interests of mass transit, a Dodger Stadium at Floyd Bennett Field would have had the opposite effect. A likely consequence of a stadium on Brooklyn's southern coast would have been the extension of the Prospect Expressway down the entire length of Ocean Parkway to an interchange with the Belt Parkway, such that New York would have lost that iconic street and would have had in its place another highway scarring its urban fabric.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would there be any interest in a Power Broker reading group this summer? I'm overdue for a re-read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, the admiral said:

Would there be any interest in a Power Broker reading group this summer? I'm overdue for a re-read.

 

I'd be up for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, the admiral said:

Would there be any interest in a Power Broker reading group this summer? I'm overdue for a re-read.

 

I read that book twice, twenty years apart.  Actually, I read it the first time, and then I listened to the audio book the second time, which was only a couple of years ago. Reading or listening to the book takes a lot of effort, as it is well in excess of 1000 pages long.  But doing so is worthwhile. You learn so much not only about Robert Moses but also about so many other characters in New York history, such as Al Smith, Fiorello LaGuardia, and John Lindsay, to name just a few. And there are plenty of stories of people whose names are not famous, but who have important connections to the various decisions relating to parks and highways.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alls I need to know about decisions relating to parks is that the Hillary lady made friends with the bacon man. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, the admiral said:

Would there be any interest in a Power Broker reading group this summer? I'm overdue for a re-read.

 

I really liked my urban history class in college . . . but not that much.  It helps when you're lucky enough to have this guy as your professor.

 

https://sites.lafayette.edu/millerd/about-the-author/

 

http://www.simonandschuster.com/authors/donald-l-miller/1929995

 

Maybe some Lewis Mumford instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Catching up here so a couple points:

 

*With the talk of Disney employees that was brought up with the Angels/Ducks, I just checked with my dad, who's an accounting manager with Disney corporate, and he confirmed that he himself is considered a "cast member."

 

*The whole Rams/Raiders talk with the rap community, I think another aspect is that the Raiders played in the Coliseum, which is located in the rap hot bed of South Central, as opposed to the Rams being out in suburban, affluent Orange County.


*Back to the Warriors, the one thing that makes this whole naming decision so baffling is that they actually included THIS as part of their current identity.

vdhoxpy.gif

 

Tampa Bay is used as a location that encompasses Tampa, St. Petersburg, Clearwater, etc.  I don't see San Francisco Bay Warriors being that much more egregious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LMU said:

*Back to the Warriors, the one thing that makes this whole naming decision so baffling is that they actually included THIS as part of their current identity.

vdhoxpy.gif

 

Yes, indeed.  I thought that the existence of that logo (which I have seen on a hat offered for sale at the NBA Store) guaranteed the reversion to the "San Francisco Warriors" name.

(Though I am profoundly irked by that "Est. 1962" business. The Warriors go back to the beginning of the league, having been a charter member of the BAA in 1946-47.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

Yes, indeed.  I thought that the existence of that logo (which I have seen on a hat offered for sale at the NBA Store) guaranteed the reversion to the "San Francisco Warriors" name.

(Though I am profoundly irked by that "Est. 1962" business. The Warriors go back to the beginning of the league, having been a charter member of the BAA in 1946-47.)

 

With relocated teams, I'm a little more lenient with "Est." logos. It could just mean year of relocation, in this case the Warriors' move to the Bay Area. Apparel companies do this all the time, even when the only thing that changes is a team nickname. It seems to go off of a "whatever year the specific city name + team name combination first appeared" basis:

 

m_5a6fa78bb7f72b88de45f22c.jpg x354-q80.jpgff_1572456_xl.jpg&w=600

 

Of course, some relocated teams incorporate their old cities in a more official fashion (superseding apparel):

 

bmgndhhvp8d9dllfh3vnf8g5u.gif x80h79t1spfqmj50x1tym58ug.gif aoqjvg0qfp3pweeathxqoie4f.gif8qlci0n7fx3yk6edgolt2hzhn.gif588.gifospctc27e6xwgms0ge0heh6g6.gifaih1gzqfg500mqvte8a3xsare.gif

 

Usually it only comes up in anniversary patches, but it's good to show a greater sense of lineage in logo form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now