Ricky Rubio y DKV: Herida abierta

by miguelsp on Jun 29, 2009 7:56 AM CDT Comment 35 comments

"Lo propuso él –explicó Villacampa–, llegamos a una cifra que a nosotros nos iba bien, ellos dijeron 'vamos a ver si encontramos fórmulas imaginativas', con contratos publicitarios, algún partido de un equipo de la NBA... Las circunstancias han cambiado totalmente, ahora tenemos una denuncia sobre el club y todo es difícil, así que tendremos que escuchar qué quieren hacer Ricky y sus representantes"

Translation and more below the fold.

Tras salir elegido por los Minnesota Timberwolves como número cinco del draft, una posición que no le proporciona el suficiente dinero en su salario para pagar su cláusula de rescisión con el DKV Joventut, Ricky Rubio declaró que hay muchas posibilidades de seguir en el equipo verdinegro, con el que le restan todavía dos años de contrato, pero al que demandó hace semanas en su búsqueda de caminos para ir a la NBA. Jordi Villacampa, el presidente de la Penya, lo ve todo muy complicado en estos momentos. "La situación se ha enturbiado tanto que yo no sé de qué manera se puede reconducir –apuntó ayer el dirigente de la entidad verdinagra–. ¿Cómo se puede arreglar todo esto? Lo que es evidente es que no se puede hablar de nada con una demanda contra ti. No sólo está puesta para preguntar si la cláusula es abusiva o no, tal y como dice él, sino que es una demanda por lo social y tenemos un juicio con fecha ya fijada. Mientras haya eso en contra veo muy difícil que Ricky pueda jugar en la Penya. Creo que es lógico. Tampoco sabemos muy bien qué hemos de hacer como club, porque lógicamente estamos dolidos por cómo ha ido todo".

Source.

Translation from SantiagoColombia in the comments. Gracias.

Ricky Rubio y DKV: open wound

“He proposed – explined Villacampa [the head of Joventut] -, we arrive at a figure wich we tought was good, they said ’let’s see if we find creative ways’ with ad contracts, maybe a game with a NBA team… the circumstances have change completely, now we have a complaint against the club and everything is harder, so will have to hear what Ricky and hus agents want to do”

After being elected by the Minnesota Timberwolves with the number 5 of the draft, a position wich doesn’t pay enough money in his wages to pay the rescission clause with the DKV Joventut, Ricky Rubio said that there are a lot of possibilities to continue with the green and black, with wich he still has two years remaining in his contract, but which he sue weeks ago in his quest to go to the NBA. Jordi Villacampa, the president of la Penya, sees everything really complicated right now. “the situation has been enturbiado [i have no idea how to translate this, because is a colloquialism, but is essencially when a river gets muddy and the current stronger] so much that i see no way in mich it can be redirected [he’s doing the analogy with a river that gets out of control, just in case i did a poor job translating] – said yesterday the manager of the geen and black institution-. How can you fix this? what is evident is that you can’t talk about anything with a sue against you. it is not there to judge wheter the clause is abussive or not, as he claims, but is also a sue in the social aspect [i have no idea what he meant, maybe a lawyer can help you with that] and we have a trial with the date set. As long as that is against us i see really difficult that Ricky will play with la Penya. I think that is logic. We don’t now either what to do as a club, because we are obviusly really hurt by how everything has been going”

0 recs | Comment 35 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Google Translation

fter being elected by the Minnesota Timberwolves as the fifth draft, a position that does not give you enough money to pay his salary in his clause with DKV Joventut Ricky Rubio said that there are many opportunities to follow the team in green, with the remaining two years of contract yet, but one that demanded for weeks in their search for ways to jump to the NBA. Jordi Villacampa, the chairman of the Penya, sees it all so complicated at the moment. "The situation has become so clouded that I do not know how to re-pointed yesterday the leader of the entity verdinagra. How can I fix this? What is clear is that you can not talk about anything with a claim against you. Not only is set to ask if the clause is abusive or not, as he says, but it is a demand for social and have a trial date already set. While I have against this very difficult Ricky can play in Penya. I think it’s logical. Nor do we know very well what we do as a club, because we obviously hurt by how it has gone. "

Villacampa made it clear yesterday that the entity does not arise badalonesa lower the clause if the player wants to leave now, either the NBA or another European team. The amount payable is 4.7 million, amounting to 5.7 from this coming Wednesday, July 1, and go down to 4.7 in June of next season. "We want to honor the contract, said the president of DKV Joventut. If he stays a year, well and if two years is perfect. Nothing will happen, is what is signed. But if this year is the clause is unbreakable. And if someone comes and pays all of the then clause will take. "

Villacampa considered green yesterday that the club has been very patient throughout the season. We have not made any statement so as not to further complicate this issue. Ricky’s position throughout this time has been changing. When he returned from Beijing Games said he wanted us to meet the two years of his remaining contract and I said then that he preferred to have the player before the money from its clause. After that I only wanted to meet one and I said okay. and then changed us I wanted to go now. All of this culminated in a press conference in which he announced he was going off and the club and the fans. Before all that he tripled the salary without any consideration. The contract was signed for it to be free to 20 years and would then decide their future. "

For months both sides there was a possibility that Ricky will stay another year, the Penya and down the clause. "I suggested he explained Villacampa, we arrive at a figure that we was going well, they said ’let’s see if we find imaginative ways’, with advertising contracts, parts of an NBA team … Circumstances have totally changed, now we have a complaint about the club and everything is difficult, so we have to do what they want to hear Ricky and their representatives "

by McCleak on Jun 29, 2009 8:16 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

So he's burned his bridges with Joventut

and it certainly sounds like the buyout won’t be reduced either.

An invidious position, to be sure.

by Auswolf on Jun 29, 2009 8:21 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I'm just happy that this is in Spanish...

…so I can actually understand it. If it were Catalana, which is the language spoken in Barcelona, I wouldn’t get it at all.

by rencito on Jun 29, 2009 9:39 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

translation

Ricky Rubio y DKV: open wound

by SantiagoColombia on Jun 29, 2009 10:48 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Thanks a lot

The English word you want for “enturbiado” is probably “turbulent.”

As for “social aspect:” given what follows that, I think what he is saying is that the lawsuit isn’t just about the buyout (recission) amount, but it also has an effect on the relationship between the club and player. He’s saying that it’s much harder to work together while there is a lawsuit hanging over their heads.

by Eric in Madison on Jun 29, 2009 10:53 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

no problem

i think you’re right about th social aspect, and thanks for the “turbulent” word y truly had no idea how to translate and mantain the river analogy

by SantiagoColombia on Jun 29, 2009 11:25 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

social or laboral (same meaning, same usage) is a type of court of justice in spain which purpose is to determine work issues and indiscrepancies with the law, meaning that the judge could find something illegal and punish the team for it (with no relation to lowering or not the buyout of ricky rubio, which would seem like a possiblity but not in any case obligatory).
“una demanda por lo social” = a lawsuit through a working (related to work, not one that’s working ) court of law

by Ricky Rubio on Jun 29, 2009 12:01 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Ah..

That is an excellent piece of information. I know American law, not Spanish law.

Very different from American courts, where that isn’t possible. Even in our arbitration systems, or in resolution of organized labor disputes, we almost never do that. Our theory is to ajudicate only those issues that are brought before the court by a litigant.

by Eric in Madison on Jun 29, 2009 12:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

they can if it’s given to them, i mean you cannot give them a contract and say i think this is not in concordance with the law, but hey this part you shouldn’t read because if it’s illegal we are both fine with it. They cannot (well theorically they could but it would be basis for a second trial) get into anything not physically related to the case at hand, but i can assure you that if they have (as has been published in spain) used the contract clause as a warranty to the spanish irs, it could very well be something the judge steems as ilicit (different from illegal) and the way of dealing with it wouldn’t be just lowering ricky’s buyout it would be by imposing a hefty fine to the club (which is in no situation to pay). i’m not saying that’s going to happen, or that you cannot do that, but it’s something that can happen. What cannot happen, would be the case that the judge finds something out of order in ricky’s contract and then uses it to get access to other dkv contracts (that would be what you mean by "adjudicate only those issues that are brought before the court by a litigant).

by Ricky Rubio on Jun 29, 2009 12:14 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Well, not exactly

The process you describe, as I understand what you are saying, is that they could bring the contract to the court and say, we thing part X of the contract is illegal. The judge could then say yes, or no, but by the way, parts Y and Z are illegal, and here’s what I’m going to do about it.

That sort of thing would not happen in American courts.

by Eric in Madison on Jun 29, 2009 12:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

the problem is that they won’t say part x is wrong or right, they are going to try to lower the buyout saying there are things that are against the spirit of the law, in other terms will give the judge the possibility to be creative, because what they’re alleging (as far as we know) is that the buyout clause is not in due proportion to the salary and that they (dkv) is looking forward to retain the player against his will because his parents weren’t aware of the possibility of the nba and how they can’t pay more than 500k and if the buyout makes sense is only if an european team helps the player pay it in full, etc… All those points can only be judged by looking at the contract in those parts that make reference to it, but there is no law that says, bball player buyouts need to have X proportion towards its salaries, nor is it said that the team has to explain the fathers the rules of foreign leagues, so it’s all left to the judges free arbitration and will, and he can use anything (in the contract, or maybe in previous jurisprudence. I can’t see how a judge in the states could use a part of a contract that’s not valid to the eyes of the law, i’ve studied international law during my classes and that’s not something i’ve ever heard, it could make no sense. how can you use an invalid document to take advantage of the part that makes your case?. I don’t know if i’m explaining myself here (and i’m trying to use the ricky rubio example because i’m sure that people are more interested in that in full-law theory conversation)

by Ricky Rubio on Jun 29, 2009 12:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, I'm not sure I'm actually understanding you

In American courts, if I ask for a buyout clause to be reduced, I go to court and say “this buyout amount should be reduced” and I argue why. It’s not necessarily because of written statutes, there might be any number of reasons based on past cases or the like. There are several arguments I could imagine making in an American court on behalf of Rubio if I were his lawyer and the lawsuit was here.

The judge considers my arguments, and the counter arguments of the other side, and renders a judgment of law. He has discretion, but only to a point.

What he almost certainly won’t do is to look at other, non-related parts of the contract, and make a judgment about those. We don’t do that in American law.

What I don’t understand is what you mean in your last few sentences. If you are saying that if the whole contract is illegal, then how can a judge render a decision about the legality of any one part of it…well, I have trouble imagining that coming up here. I mean, I guess it could happen, where a judge would just look at a contract and say the whole thing is void, but even then, I think one party would have to make that argument before the judge would consider it.

I guess I don’t want to go further right here because I’m not understanding you, but I’m very interested in hearing about Spanish law.

by Eric in Madison on Jun 29, 2009 1:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

so according to you an american judge would not read the contract in this case? i find that difficult to believe. What i said is exactly what you said in your next to last parragraph, if the judge finds something that makes the contract void of full right, he has to do something about it even if it’s not what they asked him to (they did not ask him to null the contract, only to reduce or change the buyout). Jurisprudence is obviously something a judge will use in this case, but the first tool has to be the contract and he has to use it to its full extent, it would make no sense for a judge to let an illegal document be used to decide a buyout, while the buyout is PART of the contract, it’s pretty much the same thing because the buyout is a way to terminate a contract, nothing more, nothing less. If the contract is not legal it cannot be terminated through a buyout because that contract shouldn’t have been signed in the first place, the bad situation for dkv here is that if that’s the case, meaning that the contract is not terminated by ricky by paying the amount the judge steems “just” they are risk free to a certain degree (they can lose money) but if the judge thinks the contract is not legal they couldn’t receive any buyout money (because if the contract is not legal the buyout is obviously rendered obsolete) and they could even face a fine because having a contract that’s not legal in a way that can be found harmful (in the sense the latin word “doloso” is used) according to spanish law has to be punished in some cases

by Ricky Rubio on Jun 29, 2009 1:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Now I understand what you are saying

The answer is, generally, no, this would not happen in American courts. If I am bringing a case about a contract, generally the only thing a judge can rule on is the arguments I make. I can claim that the whole contract should be nullified, but if I do not make that claim, a judge isn’t going to rule on it. We have a pretty strict theory of jurisprudence regarding the adversary system. Our belief is that the best judgments come from advocates arguing on behalf of specific litigants in specific circumstances. Our judges don’t make rulings without full arguments on both sides of the issue.

I mean, I guess I could imagine cases in which something like what you describe would happen, but it would have to be pretty extreme. Here’s an example where what you are talking about might happen: if we make a contract for me to kill someone on your behalf, and then we have a dispute about payment, a judge isn’t going to enforce the contract, obviously, because it’s illegal.

Another example is if a 10 year old kid sues his employer because he isn’t getting his wages, the court is going to void the contract because it’s a violation of American labor laws to employ 10 year olds. And yes, he’ll make the employer pay the kid, probably, but he also probably wouldn’t, and couldn’t, fine the employer. He could pass the case on to the prosecuting authorities for them to bring a case against that employer, but he doesn’t have the power to punish without another case being brought. But it would have to be something like that.

But short of that, no. A judge isn’t going to look for something like that. He’ll take the claims made and the arguments on both sides about those claims, and make judgments on those.

I think it has to do with the different vision of judges in the U.S. vs. Europe. Our judges generally aren’t fact finders, they make judgments of law. They are, even in contract cases, much more passive than judges elsewhere. They listen to the advocates and make judgments about their claims, they don’t really “search” for overall justice in the way that you are describing.

by Eric in Madison on Jun 29, 2009 1:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

i’m aware of the differences between anglosaxon and continental european law (obviously there are also differences that are increasingly marked between british and american law ) but i really thought they wouldn’t pass something they are using as “proof” if it’s not in concordance with the law. And i can assure you that in the case of the 10 year old if the judge does not put the case in the hands of a criminal judge and the infant’s council it would be considered malpractice and the public opinion would destroy him (obviously that hypothetical case will never happen, but it’s sad that if something similar does a person just can get away with it, without profit yes, but without punishment also)

by Ricky Rubio on Jun 29, 2009 2:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oh, I'm sure that in the case of the 10 year old

the judge would put the case in the hands of the prosecutor. And I’m sure that the prosecutor would bring a case. But the decision to do so would be in the hands of the prosecutor, not a judge.

As for the contract as evidence being in concordance with the law…as you know, it isn’t always clear. In the examples I gave, it is totally clear and I’m sure a judge would void the contract. But in situations where it isn’t so clear, a judge isn’t going to rule on the legality of the whole contract unless he is asked to do so by the party bringing the case.

by Eric in Madison on Jun 29, 2009 2:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

maybe there is the major difference, a spanish judge could use any law or previous jurisprudence to void the contract if he thinks those cases are applicable here and an american could only use the laws that make the contract void of full right (that’s different, that only void), like the cases you coincidentally put, those where the end or the means of the contract are not legal, but the clauses and articles could be. Meaning, if you make a contract to kill somebody, or you use a contract to make a dog fight, both the purpose (killing) and the means (employing dogs or children) make an automatic null contract. In this case those can’t happen because both (ricky as the means) and playing basketball (as the purpose) are thought of as legal in spanish and international law. But at the same time a judge could say that if the contract has an excesive buyout and that has been bought out by a third party because of a debt (in this case the irs) it makes it void but it’s only illegal from the moment the judge says so and not since the contract existed (like in the previous cases about the children, the dog and the killing contract would happen).
it’s difficult for me to get technical in english, although i try to get use to it everytime i can.

by Ricky Rubio on Jun 29, 2009 2:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

do you think the webster ruling in futbol will affect the bouyout sum? or is it only FIFA and not FIBA who is affected for this? thanks

by SantiagoColombia on Jun 29, 2009 1:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

that is a fifa ruling that is not even applicable here. (i have not read the link you gave but i think i remember the case well enough, if not please let me know and i will revisit it).
webster’s ruling which isn’t even used in futbol that much (i remember the case of a player in my team and obviously webster but that’s it), affects only players who are 26 or older and have been playing in the same club for i think 3-4 years. then that player can just go to other club no matter how high his buyout is and then pay what a judge steems right in proportion to his salary.
it only makes sense as i remember for older players because 1 – their contracts are usually longer that they should (meaning that a player can get into it’s 30’s when no club is going to pay a high buyout for him)
2- younger players are thought to be worth of the buyouts because of the formation costs, which i totally agree with and it makes sense in this case. dkv is a club that survives because of his excellent care for young players that go its academy. those costs are not only incredibly valuable but most of the time receive not reward because the player can get injured, stop playing bball, go to school, or even start being a really bad player all of a sudden (which is probably the most common case). If any team could just come and pay let’s say 10 times the salary of a 15 year old ricky rubio or andres iniesta instead of the full buyout those teams would no longer exist because there aren’t enough ricky rubio’s or andres iniesta’s for it to be profitable.
again, i read this for the last time a year ago so correct me if anything i said is wrong

by Ricky Rubio on Jun 29, 2009 1:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

the webster is not necessarilly for older player, you just need to have play 3 or 4 years with the club, which Rubio i think already has, but you’re right FIFA has put the rights of formation, which says that if you sign a player under 23 there’s a fee (the rescission clause in most cases, but i think in Argentina when Boca and River pray in the little clubs they have managed to pay less) to wichever club had him in the minors clubs.
However i don’t know have much power or even rules FIBA has in this cases so maybe that’s why things get messy in the first place. and i didn’t know if that case could constitute a precedent.

Thanks, for the explanation

by SantiagoColombia on Jun 29, 2009 2:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

are you sure about the being 26 (maybe it’s 27) for that to be in effect, i remember it to be true, but i’m curious now and i will check again. Fiba in this case i think that would have his hands tied because it’s not going from a fiba club to a fiba club, but to an nba team (we don’t know when though).
i’m not aware of the argentinian traditions and uses in this cases because the amount of illegal things those clubs and their fans get away with lets me shacking everytime i read about it, but i wouldn’t be surprised by anything they do at this point, good or bad.

by Ricky Rubio on Jun 29, 2009 2:09 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

it seems i was wrong and it has to be under 28, not above 26. and yes it has to be a contract of 5 years or longer, and once you’ve fulfilled 3 you have to give a bigger compensation than the one you have to give if it’s 4 years, because the compensation is not only about your previous earnings but the ones you’ve yet to perceive that are supposed to be the ones you would pay in return with your play for your club.

by Ricky Rubio on Jun 29, 2009 2:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

CAS

sorry if i bother you with all these questions but i know nothing about law.
so if FIBA can’t do anything shouldn’t this be settle by the Court of Arbirtation of Sports instead of regular courts?, isn’t it it’s main function, or the whole hacienda thing change that?

by SantiagoColombia on Jun 29, 2009 2:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

they are two completely different things a court of arbitration opinion is just that an opinion based on the international laws that are applicable in each case, but to make that stand you have to go to a court of law(they did ask for arbitration 4 days ago if i remember correctly and i lead nowhere because both parties did not agree in anything). A spanish contract is always something that a spanish court of law has to address, it’s no discussion there. If ricky was to leave spain without saying anything and then start playing with another team, then it could be an international matter (a really messy one at that) and something like the cas or even it’s disciplinary counterpart would be able to do something about it.
yet another different topic could be if ricky’s lawyer thought about the possibility (after a spanish judge said the buyout stands as it’s) of going to “la haya” or the spanish constitutional court alleging that ricky is being kept as a slave because he doesn’t want to work in a place and does not have the money to stop doing it. Again a really messy case that will never happen, but as something that can work, other than a spanish labor court of law i can’t see any exit.

by Ricky Rubio on Jun 29, 2009 2:28 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Thank you

Hopefully this doesn’t evolve into another Tevez affair

by SantiagoColombia on Jun 29, 2009 2:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

i don’t think this will get that far, because joventut really is afraid about going to court, either because they’re in a frail economical position or because they know they will probably lose more than they can win . Imagine how could ricky play the starting pg at joventut after a lawsuit won by them, it would be amazingly difficult for the fans to cheer for the team or for the player, and the coach would suffer a lot of pressure by the gm and other executives to make rubio pay for its deeds.
at the same time if the judge says hey i think he has to pay 2 million dollars when they owe irs (hacienda) 6, it would crippled them. so it would depend on how much each side could be content and above all, and this is my major concern if rubio really wants to come to minnesota. because if he doesn’t and he stays two years joventut needs to win a title or have great seasons in terms of attending earnings. At the same time rubio would be a very rich 20 year old who can sign with any team in europe for a fortune.

by Ricky Rubio on Jun 29, 2009 2:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Here's a question for you

What are Joventut’s main sources of revenue? Does it come from the games—attendance, television rights, etc., or does more of it come from buyouts and transfer fees for the players they develop?

by Eric in Madison on Jun 29, 2009 2:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

well outside of the greek giants, and maybe Real if Florentino helps them out (he does like marketeable guys) i don’t see him moving anywhere else in Europe, so staying may be difficult But there’s something that may help the wolves, they drafted Norel, wich means that maybe they can give DKV 500,000 for Rubio and 500,000 for Norel and let Norel in Europe ‘developing’ even in DKV. so the buyout pay by Rubio will be less.
Would that be legal?

by SantiagoColombia on Jun 29, 2009 3:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

i do not have any kind of financial information about dkv. I don’t even know what rudy paid (if any) to go to the nba because it was a friendly case (they told him to stay a year and he agreed, other than that i have no idea). they have good attendance and they have one of the most prolific youth systems in the league (and not only because they had 3 frigging players in the last draft LOL), tv rights are not that high because there aren’t that many televised games to being with, but it’s the 5-6th team in spain and i doubt they won’t be able to manage this situation with or without buyout, but it’s still leverage for ricky in any case.
i meant after his contract is over in two years a european team can pay him big, not saying anybody is paying the buyout (possible, but it’s too high for today’s fiba standards). And norel case has more to do with nba than law, they have their own rules and i think they are pretty strict about them so i doubt stern would let them pay 500k for a buyout that does not happen (because norel will be under contract next season with 100% certainty)

by Ricky Rubio on Jun 29, 2009 3:19 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

That is correct about Norel

They won’t be permitted to use Norel’s buyout exception ($500K) in Rubio’s situation. The $500K is essentially an exception to the rule against signing bonuses; it can only be paid if the player signs a contract with the NBA team, which Norel is not going to do.

by Eric in Madison on Jun 29, 2009 3:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Plus

the Wolve’s cant afford to get into trouble with Stern for any more contract hinkie.

Will the Real Thor Please Stand Up ... ?

by the Real Thor on Jun 29, 2009 4:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Caution Mflaution

Glen Taylor should knock back a few brewskis, throw caution to the wind, and pay DKV about $3 million under the table. Stern can only strip our own first round picks anyway. [Actuallly Stern can probably do anything he damn well pleases] So the wolves just roll with the Utah and Charlotte picks. Do it, Glen, Do it! You know you want to.

by littleboxes on Jun 29, 2009 8:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

by Auswolf on Jun 29, 2009 5:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed

Search

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Casper's 2010 Big Board and Mock Draft 3-08-2010

by Casperkid23 8 days ago

141 comments | 2 recs

Fake Wolves Team Recap from the Future

by biggity2bit 13 days ago

11 comments | 1 recs

Recent FanPosts

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Hoopus Features

Salary Cap Info

Draft Info

Player Movement Flow Charts

EuroWatch

Stats

After 20 (08, 09)
1/2 way there (08, 09 pt i, pt ii)

Draft Boards

Former Tag Lines:

In desperate need of an epic dose of basketball Viagra
Your source of radical left wing politics cleverly disguised as basketball fandom
Palin-Free since before statehood
The world's leading exporter of small area quickness
Sorry…I have no idea who is Joe Mauer
Home of the Peja deep douche
Vote McGrady!
Bork, bork, bork, bork, bork
Wir Sind Darko

Misc: