Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
Sign in to follow this  
caniac247

Rumors and other Rumblings for the 2008-09 season

Recommended Posts

As much as I like what Pitkanen could add to this team on the offensive side, this defense REALLY needs toughness and from what I've heard that isn't Pitkanen's style of hockey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly, it might just take a week or so of Tim thinking it over, and then he might decide that he wants to stay here for a long time and signs a 4 or 5 year deal. They have worked out the money, so the harder part is behind them.

You say they HAVE worked the money out? Accord to http://blogs.newsobserver.com/canes/' target="_blank">Lord Stanley's Blog[/post]:

Tim Gleason's agent, Pat Morris, said Friday that negotiations over the restricted free agent's contract have stalled.

"Things have ground to a halt," Morris said. "They're staring at us and we're staring at them. We're not prepared to do a deal at their numbers and they're not prepared to do a deal at our numbers."

The numbers are NOT there.

Just asking what you know.

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are probably in agreement on the first two years, but Gleason probably wants a lot more on the last part that overlaps his free agency, thats just a guess. Plus, their agent clearly knows how badly we need defense right now, making Gleason our #1 priority and need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
I understand why Gleason shouldn't sign long term and I'm sure the agents and younger players do play hard ball with JR. You mentioned something will have to be sacrificed if we keep Ruutu and Gleason. Are the salaries/contracts/clauses with our team working against us? What exactly will have to sacrifice? IMO, I feel like JR has thrown everything at veteran players and not leaving enough to re-sign or sign younger talent.

Please tell me if I'm wrong. I think younger talented players can be molded for the future but coaching and TIO is crucial. But politics keep certain teams from allowing this to happen. Your highest paid players will get the most TOI. For us it seems like we don't have room for anyone to grow because our veterans are getting all the $ and TOI.

I dont think your wrong at all. Look at Eric Staal last year and what the River Rat players were able to accomplish when some of the high$ vets were hurt. I think its important for a team to have a good mix of youth and veterans, as long as the TOI is managed well enough that the vets dont get overextended and the youth gain their experience. We really saw a glimmer of that balance later in the season and how the youth invigorate the vets, and the vets help to teach the youth (Scott Walker). Glad Im not the coach making these decisions.

I think your spot on about the high$ players getting the ice time and I really believe thats what happened at the end of the season. The team was doing well but when certain players were cleared to play, they were put back into the line up and the old style sluggish game of October and November came right back. In my eyes it was pretty telling. That said, JR did a great job signing some of our top players long term. Take a look at what guys are getting through free agency now, even Frank Kaberle's salary is more than reasonable for an offensive defensman now(I just wish he could execute, lol).

By sacrifice, I was referring to the salary cap. With no playoff revenue for a couple of years, Im willing to bet that JR stays within his self imposed cap to plug holes and fix the defense. Its been said in several threads by different folks that in order to get a real top defenseman, they're going to have to give up some assets, and the only expendable assets they have are the glut of forwards. The good news, we saw how quickly so many little things were fixed just by adding Corvo (puck moving defensman)into the mix. Sometimes it only takes one or two players that fit the system to turn things around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
I understand why Gleason shouldn't sign long term and I'm sure the agents and younger players do play hard ball with JR. You mentioned something will have to be sacrificed if we keep Ruutu and Gleason. Are the salaries/contracts/clauses with our team working against us? What exactly will have to sacrifice? IMO, I feel like JR has thrown everything at veteran players and not leaving enough to re-sign or sign younger talent.

Please tell me if I'm wrong. I think younger talented players can be molded for the future but coaching and TIO is crucial. But politics keep certain teams from allowing this to happen. Your highest paid players will get the most TOI. For us it seems like we don't have room for anyone to grow because our veterans are getting all the $ and TOI.

I dont think your wrong at all. Look at Eric Staal last year and what the River Rat players were able to accomplish when some of the high$ vets were hurt. I think its important for a team to have a good mix of youth and veterans, as long as the TOI is managed well enough that the vets dont get overextended and the youth gain their experience. We really saw a glimmer of that balance later in the season and how the youth invigorate the vets, and the vets help to teach the youth (Scott Walker). Glad Im not the coach making these decisions.

I think your spot on about the high$ players getting the ice time and I really believe thats what happened at the end of the season. The team was doing well but when certain players were cleared to play, they were put back into the line up and the old style sluggish game of October and November came right back. In my eyes it was pretty telling. That said, JR did a great job signing some of our top players long term. Take a look at what guys are getting through free agency now, even Frank Kaberle's salary is more than reasonable for an offensive defensman now(I just wish he could execute, lol).

By sacrifice, I was referring to the salary cap. With no playoff revenue for a couple of years, Im willing to bet that JR stays within his self imposed cap to plug holes and fix the defense. Its been said in several threads by different folks that in order to get a real top defenseman, they're going to have to give up some assets, and the only expendable assets they have are the glut of forwards. The good news, we saw how quickly so many little things were fixed just by adding Corvo (puck moving defensman)into the mix. Sometimes it only takes one or two players that fit the system to turn things around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Heres a rumor I heard last night from Eklund on XM: warning, this is only a rumor

It involved Edmonton, LA Kings and Carolina, and the players were Pitkanin, Cole and Cammalleri.

According to the rumor, JR has been always been interested in Pitkanin and since he didnt have that great of year, Edmonton may be ready to deal him because they have several young players who emerged over the season for them. Edmonton has always coveted Cammalleri and he was supposedly the next target after Vanek last season for Kevin Lowe during that whole "offer sheet" time.

LA needs...well....who knows what LA needs but a power forward would certainly boost their scoring potential, although I think goaltending is where they should be spending their money. Rob Blake may or may not return and JMFJ could use some help now that he's seen that a one man show wont cut it in the NHL.

Pitkanin could go to either LA or Carolina to fill those holes, LA gets to dump Cammlleri's salary, and Edmonton finally gets Camaleri and sheds Pitkanin's salary .

Anyone still following this, lol? Not sure exactly where Carolina fits in but Id guess its more Cole to Edmonton or LA for a triangle type trade. Or, Cammalleri to Carolina and then Pitkanin for Cammalleri? Since these teams were all rumored to be talking last offseason about the same type of moves, Im guessing that's where the info came from.

***Keep in mind that this was Eklund and its his time of year to boost his own revenue by spreading trade rumors. Only reason this one caught my attention is because Cammalleri is a center, and thats also something we need and JR has been looking at for sometime now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Heres a rumor I heard last night from Eklund on XM: warning, this is only a rumor

It involved Edmonton, LA Kings and Carolina, and the players were Pitkanin, Cole and Cammalleri.

According to the rumor, JR has been always been interested in Pitkanin and since he didnt have that great of year, Edmonton may be ready to deal him because they have several young players who emerged over the season for them. Edmonton has always coveted Cammalleri and he was supposedly the next target after Vanek last season for Kevin Lowe during that whole "offer sheet" time.

LA needs...well....who knows what LA needs but a power forward would certainly boost their scoring potential, although I think goaltending is where they should be spending their money. Rob Blake may or may not return and JMFJ could use some help now that he's seen that a one man show wont cut it in the NHL.

Pitkanin could go to either LA or Carolina to fill those holes, LA gets to dump Cammlleri's salary, and Edmonton finally gets Camaleri and sheds Pitkanin's salary .

Anyone still following this, lol? Not sure exactly where Carolina fits in but Id guess its more Cole to Edmonton or LA for a triangle type trade. Or, Cammalleri to Carolina and then Pitkanin for Cammalleri? Since these teams were all rumored to be talking last offseason about the same type of moves, Im guessing that's where the info came from.

***Keep in mind that this was Eklund and its his time of year to boost his own revenue by spreading trade rumors. Only reason this one caught my attention is because Cammalleri is a center, and thats also something we need and JR has been looking at for sometime now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My take on everything is this, if Timmy is trying to go for the big payday now then depending on my options I would let him walk. It is starting to sound like he doesn't care where he plays so given that I would say "best wishes".

If we let him play hardball and win now then every contract negotiation from this point forward will be like this. Larose has the same agent who will try to do the same thing if he gets away with it this time and as much as I like Rosey, i just don't think he is the big paycheck kind of hockey player. Could every team use him, sure but could a team build a franchise around him?? NO!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
That is a possibility but I honestly think the whole thing comes down to Gleason wanting 2 years and no more. He'll be a Free Agent in 2 years, which will put him at 27 and where he probably will be a top defenseman then. He probably wants to hit the market and get the pay day. Whereas JR wants him to probably take a 4-5 year deal and eat into his Free Agency.

Besides after his exit interview it was mentioned that with Hedican and Wesley possibly retiring, they would look to Gleason to lead the back end. Gleason commented on how he is excited for the opportunity and Challenge. I think he wants to be here, but why eat into his free agency when in 2 years, if he improved to that top defenseman status, he'll get the big money.

If he's just biding his time till free agency, is it possible that playing his two years on a better defensive team would serve him better in the long run? Hedican is gone, Wesley hasnt decided and that leaves Wallin, Kaberle, and Corvo as the only sure guys who'll be here next season. That wouldnt be very enticing to me if I was trying to make my mark over the next 2 years so I could cash in with Free Agency.

Both sides of this contract dispute are easy to understand but unfortunately, Gleason and his agent are in the drivers seat. Id love to see him back here because frankly without him, we're in some huge defensive trouble. I predict JR coughs up a compromise on this one because if Gleason goes, all we'll have left from the Jack Johnson trade will be a couple of 2nd round picks (someone can correct me if Im wrong with picks). That screams of the Joe Thornton trade that still haunts Boston every season.

If Gleason's camp isnt willing to compromise, Im guessing he'd rather play his 2 years elsewhere. Id love to be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
That is a possibility but I honestly think the whole thing comes down to Gleason wanting 2 years and no more. He'll be a Free Agent in 2 years, which will put him at 27 and where he probably will be a top defenseman then. He probably wants to hit the market and get the pay day. Whereas JR wants him to probably take a 4-5 year deal and eat into his Free Agency.

Besides after his exit interview it was mentioned that with Hedican and Wesley possibly retiring, they would look to Gleason to lead the back end. Gleason commented on how he is excited for the opportunity and Challenge. I think he wants to be here, but why eat into his free agency when in 2 years, if he improved to that top defenseman status, he'll get the big money.

If he's just biding his time till free agency, is it possible that playing his two years on a better defensive team would serve him better in the long run? Hedican is gone, Wesley hasnt decided and that leaves Wallin, Kaberle, and Corvo as the only sure guys who'll be here next season. That wouldnt be very enticing to me if I was trying to make my mark over the next 2 years so I could cash in with Free Agency.

Both sides of this contract dispute are easy to understand but unfortunately, Gleason and his agent are in the drivers seat. Id love to see him back here because frankly without him, we're in some huge defensive trouble. I predict JR coughs up a compromise on this one because if Gleason goes, all we'll have left from the Jack Johnson trade will be a couple of 2nd round picks (someone can correct me if Im wrong with picks). That screams of the Joe Thornton trade that still haunts Boston every season.

If Gleason's camp isnt willing to compromise, Im guessing he'd rather play his 2 years elsewhere. Id love to be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Heres a rumor I heard last night from Eklund on XM: warning, this is only a rumor

It involved Edmonton, LA Kings and Carolina, and the players were Pitkanin, Cole and Cammalleri.

According to the rumor, JR has been always been interested in Pitkanin and since he didnt have that great of year, Edmonton may be ready to deal him because they have several young players who emerged over the season for them. Edmonton has always coveted Cammalleri and he was supposedly the next target after Vanek last season for Kevin Lowe during that whole "offer sheet" time.

LA needs...well....who knows what LA needs but a power forward would certainly boost their scoring potential, although I think goaltending is where they should be spending their money. Rob Blake may or may not return and JMFJ could use some help now that he's seen that a one man show wont cut it in the NHL.

Pitkanin could go to either LA or Carolina to fill those holes, LA gets to dump Cammlleri's salary, and Edmonton finally gets Camaleri and sheds Pitkanin's salary .

I've seen in various other rumors that it does appear JR is looking at Pitkanen again. So here would be my guess.

To Carolina:

Pitkanen

To LA:

Cole

To Edmonton:

Cammaleri

Of course there would probably be other people or things thrown in, but these would be the 3 main pieces. Edmonton needs a top 6 guy and from what I'm hearing Pitkanen wants the big pay day and that's why they are willing to trade him. I don't see JR going after another forward when he already says he's trading 1 or 2 for a defenseman.

My issue is that Pitkanen wants to get paid. If JR is already having a hard time getting Gleason signed I can't imagine Pitkanen being any easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If he's just biding his time till free agency, is it possible that playing his two years on a better defensive team would serve him better in the long run? Hedican is gone, Wesley hasnt decided and that leaves Wallin, Kaberle, and Corvo as the only sure guys who'll be here next season. That wouldnt be very enticing to me if I was trying to make my mark over the next 2 years so I could cash in with Free Agency.

Both sides of this contract dispute are easy to understand but unfortunately, Gleason and his agent are in the drivers seat. Id love to see him back here because frankly without him, we're in some huge defensive trouble. I predict JR coughs up a compromise on this one because if Gleason goes, all we'll have left from the Jack Johnson trade will be a couple of 2nd round picks (someone can correct me if Im wrong with picks). That screams of the Joe Thornton trade that still haunts Boston every season.

If Gleason's camp isnt willing to compromise, Im guessing he'd rather play his 2 years elsewhere. Id love to be wrong.

The thing is playing on a better defensive teams means taking a smaller role, which won't result in the biggest possible pay check a few years from now. The biggest check will come from establishing himself as a top pair defenseman, which is something that playing for the canes can provide because he would have the opportunity to assert himself as that, which he might not be able to do elsewhere.

I imagine the sticking points are pay and length, not playing for the organization. He probably wants to be paid at or above market value for a top pair defenseman, and at two years. Whereas JR probably wants a shorter longer term and lower salary. I think in the end it will all work out, with him either signing a longer contract for more money (meaning the canes get a year or two of free agency), or a shorter contract for less (where he has the opportunity to test the free agent waters in 2 years).

Edited because my fingers think differently than my brain, thus the strikethough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If he's just biding his time till free agency, is it possible that playing his two years on a better defensive team would serve him better in the long run? Hedican is gone, Wesley hasn't decided and that leaves Wallin, Kaberle, and Corvo as the only sure guys who'll be here next season. That wouldn't be very enticing to me if I was trying to make my mark over the next 2 years so I could cash in with Free Agency.

Both sides of this contract dispute are easy to understand but unfortunately, Gleason and his agent are in the drivers seat. Id love to see him back here because frankly without him, we're in some huge defensive trouble. I predict JR coughs up a compromise on this one because if Gleason goes, all we'll have left from the Jack Johnson trade will be a couple of 2nd round picks (someone can correct me if I'm wrong with picks). That screams of the Joe Thornton trade that still haunts Boston every season.

If Gleason's camp isn't willing to compromise, I'm guessing he'd rather play his 2 years elsewhere. Id love to be wrong.

Maybe he needs to talk to Sammy!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
The thing is playing on a better defensive teams means taking a smaller role, which won't result in the biggest possible pay check a few years from now. The biggest check will come from establishing himself as a top pair defenseman, which is something that playing for the canes can provide because he would have the opportunity to assert himself as that, which he might not be able to do elsewhere.

Edited because my fingers think differently than my brain, thus the strikethough.

Very good point. He will have the opportunity of a lifetime here to jump out as a top 4, but he's gonna need a little help. The timing of the RFA's are tricky to say the least.

I dont know about my fingers but since its 89 degrees out there today (Farenheit for you Canadians), my brain is officially in summer mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
The thing is playing on a better defensive teams means taking a smaller role, which won't result in the biggest possible pay check a few years from now. The biggest check will come from establishing himself as a top pair defenseman, which is something that playing for the canes can provide because he would have the opportunity to assert himself as that, which he might not be able to do elsewhere.

Edited because my fingers think differently than my brain, thus the strikethough.

Very good point. He will have the opportunity of a lifetime here to jump out as a top 4, but he's gonna need a little help. The timing of the RFA's are tricky to say the least.

I dont know about my fingers but since its 89 degrees out there today (Farenheit for you Canadians), my brain is officially in summer mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate long term contracts with players (ex: Kaberle) . I realize sometimes we have to give in to have the top players, but I have seen it bite us in the back end. I would love to see Gleason with a 2 year contract and have room for our AHL defensemen then. Won't our top AHL defensemen be ready to step up in the next seaon or two (not this coming season)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh boy...I really don't want Joni Pitkanen. He's a big guy (6-3, 210) who doesn't use his size effectively (sound familiar?) and also has a long history with recurring injuries:

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/teams/players/bio/?c...name=nhl-oilers

And that's just from last season alone. We already have our offensive defensemen and PP quarterback (Joe Corvo), so why would JR go after another one? Plus side for Pitkanen is his age, so maybe there's still room to grow. Overall though I don't wanna see him here because of the things I mentioned and also his asking price...gonna be pretty big.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
I hate long term contracts with players (ex: Kaberle) . I realize sometimes we have to give in to have the top players, but I have seen it bite us in the back end. I would love to see Gleason with a 2 year contract and have room for our AHL defensemen then. Won't our top AHL defensemen be ready to step up in the next seaon or two (not this coming season)?

When players dont live up to their contracts like Kaberle, the long term contracts seem foolish in retrospect. When they do pan out, they ultimately save a lot of money and cap space because a player was locked in before the market value went up on him.

In some cases, like with Staal, Brind'Amour, Williams and Cole, they want to secure these players as the core in which to build the team around. There has to be some long term stability with this core or the team will constantly be in a rebuilding mode. Rebuilding teams dont usually see the playoffs.

JR probably wants to lock up Gleason long term at his current market value and make him the core to build the new defense around. Gleason knows his market value only has a huge upside (barring any injury) and he'll see some nice contracts in his near future. To me, its all going to come down to where he sees himself in a couple of years. Id almost guarantee that if he signs a two year deal here for a compromised amount of money, he's gone from here when he turns UFA. Just my thoughts.

AHLers are a crap shoot. They cant build their current roster based on the potential of the minor league players. They can plan as they see the development, but nothing is a sure thing until that player actually plays at the NHL level. Thats why they have a core locked up long term, so they can interchange pieces as players get injured or develop without disrupting the stability. Make any sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
I hate long term contracts with players (ex: Kaberle) . I realize sometimes we have to give in to have the top players, but I have seen it bite us in the back end. I would love to see Gleason with a 2 year contract and have room for our AHL defensemen then. Won't our top AHL defensemen be ready to step up in the next seaon or two (not this coming season)?

When players dont live up to their contracts like Kaberle, the long term contracts seem foolish in retrospect. When they do pan out, they ultimately save a lot of money and cap space because a player was locked in before the market value went up on him.

In some cases, like with Staal, Brind'Amour, Williams and Cole, they want to secure these players as the core in which to build the team around. There has to be some long term stability with this core or the team will constantly be in a rebuilding mode. Rebuilding teams dont usually see the playoffs.

JR probably wants to lock up Gleason long term at his current market value and make him the core to build the new defense around. Gleason knows his market value only has a huge upside (barring any injury) and he'll see some nice contracts in his near future. To me, its all going to come down to where he sees himself in a couple of years. Id almost guarantee that if he signs a two year deal here for a compromised amount of money, he's gone from here when he turns UFA. Just my thoughts.

AHLers are a crap shoot. They cant build their current roster based on the potential of the minor league players. They can plan as they see the development, but nothing is a sure thing until that player actually plays at the NHL level. Thats why they have a core locked up long term, so they can interchange pieces as players get injured or develop without disrupting the stability. Make any sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In addition to stability of the roster long term deals give players stability and also reduces their risk. Ideally long term deals take some risk off the player (risks like injury or a bad year) and place them on the team in exchange for a lower salary for the player, than he would get if he played to his potential over the course of the entire contract. Because of the lower risk a player gets paid less over time, in general, if he signs a long term deal if he continues to improve over his career, but they get paid more if their stats get worse or if they get injured.

So for every Kaberle, guy who doesn't live up to his deal, you hope to get a Williams who is making less than market value. In the end the best GM's are the ones who minimize the first deals and get more of the second kind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When players dont live up to their contracts like Kaberle, the long term contracts seem foolish in retrospect. When they do pan out, they ultimately save a lot of money and cap space because a player was locked in before the market value went up on him.

In some cases, like with Staal, Brind'Amour, Williams and Cole, they want to secure these players as the core in which to build the team around. There has to be some long term stability with this core or the team will constantly be in a rebuilding mode. Rebuilding teams dont usually see the playoffs.

JR probably wants to lock up Gleason long term at his current market value and make him the core to build the new defense around. Gleason knows his market value only has a huge upside (barring any injury) and he'll see some nice contracts in his near future. To me, its all going to come down to where he sees himself in a couple of years. Id almost guarantee that if he signs a two year deal here for a compromised amount of money, he's gone from here when he turns UFA. Just my thoughts.

AHLers are a *edit* shoot. They cant build their current roster based on the potential of the minor league players. They can plan as they see the development, but nothing is a sure thing until that player actually plays at the NHL level. Thats why they have a core locked up long term, so they can interchange pieces as players get injured or develop without disrupting the stability. Make any sense?

Yes it does make sense. I get your point about securing players for the long term and why. I also realize that we don't have a lot of options right now for defensemen and he is good (but Hedican helped him to shine, I wonder with Hedican probably gone what will happen). It just seems that in the NHL in the past decade few players make it through a long term contract that pans out without major injuries. It really doesn't seem that long term is always the way to go. Yes there are exceptions (Brindy). We are a young team and the only long term players to me that have panned out is Brindy, Wesley and Cole. I just don't see Gleason being a powerhouse for us for 4 years. I instead see us in 2 years trying to figure how to get rid of him with a big salary. Just my 2 cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hate long term contracts with players (ex: Kaberle) . I realize sometimes we have to give in to have the top players, but I have seen it bite us in the back end. I would love to see Gleason with a 2 year contract and have room for our AHL defensemen then. Won't our top AHL defensemen be ready to step up in the next seaon or two (not this coming season)?
Borer is likely the only defenseman we have in the AHL that could be a Top 4 D at the NHL level. We have a few decent prospects still in college (McBain and Lawson, who are both offensive/puck-moving defensemen) but they are no sure things. Gleason is a Top 4 defenseman right now and is still very young at 25.

Kaberle is almost ten years older than Gleason and has declined with age/injuries. Giving a 4-year deal to a 25-year old is much safer than giving a similar deal to a 32-year old (Kaberle's age at the time of his signing).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Borer is likely the only defenseman we have in the AHL that could be a Top 4 D at the NHL level. We have a few decent prospects still in college (McBain and Lawson, who are both offensive/puck-moving defensemen) but they are no sure things. Gleason is a Top 4 defenseman right now and is still very young at 25.

Kaberle is almost ten years older than Gleason and has declined with age/injuries. Giving a 4-year deal to a 25-year old is much safer than giving a similar deal to a 32-year old (Kaberle's age at the time of his signing).

Good point. The next 4 weeks are going to get interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow I didn't know Pitkanen missed so many games. We cannot afford another player prone to injury. I like Corvo and if we can secure Gleason maybe we can trade a forward for a couple of crapshots and a draft pick. I would rather see our younger guys go out there and play for the first half of the season and if they don't get the job done we make some trades.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...