Jagr vs Iginla

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from marco0863. Show marco0863's posts

    Re: Jagr vs Iginla

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:

    Right he's fired because he blew the Jagr deal! Is this that difficult? He misled Jagr's best fit AND took the crappier deal from Pitt.

    FIRED.

    End of story. I could have predicted that.  You don't take a crappier package to appease a guy you have to trade. It's not like the B's weren't a Cup favorite or not on Iginla's list.

    Wake up.

    Jagr hasn't been relevant in the postseason in over a decade. How moronic is it to claim that Jagr still fits in this league as a two way player? lol

     



    1) You mean Iginla; I know you mean Iginla; but it looks like you're unable to keep the basic facts straight.

    2) You don't violate a contract provision, or mislead a player in order to violate that provision, which the club negotiated in good faith.  The right to refuse a deal to Boston is part of Iginla's contract - it's compensation.  Trying to weasel him out of it would be like choosing not to pay him his full salary.  And the potential damage to the Flames?  Totally disproportionate to what they'd gain no matter how much you might like Bartkowski. 

    Feaster wasn't fired because he didn't try to weasel around Iginla's contract rights; he was fired because (among many, many other things) he tried to make a deal without first getting Iginla to waive his NMC for a deal to a few key teams.  If he gets that order of operations right, and if Iginla submits the same list he reportedly did when asked for a list (not a waiver, a list), then he's a Bruin last year.  That is all on Feaster.  You still claim that Chiarelli screwged this up, but you still have no credible rationale for suggesting Chiarelli could have done something differently to acquire Iginla.

    3) Who, in the history of hockey, the internet, and general stupidity, ever claimed that Jagr was a two-way player in the NHL?  You wrote: no team with Jagr will ever be successful in the playoffs.  I reminded you that he won two Cups at the start of his career.  How moronic is it to think that that's the same as saying Jagr is a two way player?



    He must be saying the jagr of today not the young jagr

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bruinfaninnewjersey. Show Bruinfaninnewjersey's posts

    Re: Jagr vs Iginla

    In response to Zinga_zinga's comment:

    In response to Bruinfaninnewjersey's comment:

    If Jagr played HALF as well as he is playing now... Cup goes back to Boston last year




    He didn't play poorly and he played well last regular season. Could make argument that due to his old age he slowed down when the playoffs came around.



    ?????

    If you were right, the Bruins would have made an effort to re-sign him.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: Jagr vs Iginla

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:



    Yes, I meant Iginla up top and then talked about Jagr not being relevant in the postseason in 15 years.  Yes.

    \thread

    Jagr sucks! He's a wussy, finesse, cherrypicking tool who does the same crap all the time off the corner. So predictable and a turnover machine. Can't skate either. 

    He was gassed here because he's never been asked to backcheck his entire career. It was embarrassing.



    Wow thats one uneducated comment.

 
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from bostonfan191646. Show bostonfan191646's posts

    Re: Jagr vs Iginla

    In response to kelvana33's comment:

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:



    Yes, I meant Iginla up top and then talked about Jagr not being relevant in the postseason in 15 years.  Yes.

    \thread

    Jagr sucks! He's a wussy, finesse, cherrypicking tool who does the same crap all the time off the corner. So predictable and a turnover machine. Can't skate either. 

    He was gassed here because he's never been asked to backcheck his entire career. It was embarrassing.



    Wow thats one uneducated comment.



    a trend i think we've all noticed. 

  •  
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from marco0863. Show marco0863's posts

    Re: Jagr vs Iginla

    Jagr was a force a tremendous hockey player with tremensous skating strenght . i have to believe Dead is talking of the older jagr. Playing along with the magnificent had surely a benefit on him as well

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: Jagr vs Iginla

    In response to marco0863's comment:

    Jagr was a force a tremendous hockey player with tremensous skating strenght . i have to believe Dead is talking of the older jagr. Playing along with the magnificent had surely a benefit on him as well




    Why does it matter if he is talking about the "older Jagr?"

    For a guy who he says sucks, can't skate, and is a predictable turnover machine, then how the heck is he leading his team in scoring at the age of 41?

    Answer: Rusty doesn't know what he is talking about.

     

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Jagr vs Iginla

    Here's the thing, kel.  If Rusty just said "I freaking hate Jagr.  I don't really care what he accomplished in his career, I can't stand the way he plays, I think he's selfish, and that doesn't fly on the Bruins.  I wish they'd never traded for him, and that makes me really hate the fact that Feaster didn't handle his business properly so that when he told Chiarelli he had a deal, he had already secured Iginla's consent.  I just can't get past what might have been...."  If he said that, I'd probably react differently.  But no.  He turns that understandable personal reaction into a series of bizarre statements and defends them like they're facts, and when called on them, calls everyone stupid. 

    But....Thaaaaaaaaaaat's Rusty!

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: Jagr vs Iginla

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:

    2) You don't violate a contract provision, or mislead a player in order to violate that provision, which the club negotiated in good faith.  The right to refuse a deal to Boston is part of Iginla's contract - it's compensation.  Trying to weasel him out of it would be like choosing not to pay him his full salary.  And the potential damage to the Flames?  Totally disproportionate to what they'd gain no matter how much you might like Bartkowski. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Wensink, did you read this ?

    Bookboy points out the reality of the Iginla saga. 

    Disagree or agree with him ?

     


     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: Jagr vs Iginla

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:

    He turns that understandable personal reaction into a series of bizarre statements and defends them like they're facts, and when called on them, calls everyone stupid. 

    But....Thaaaaaaaaaaat's Rusty!

    [/QUOTE]

    There's more posters then just Rusty who have this type of posting.

    I'm also going to say it's not hard to figure out some of the posters I'm thinking of.

    BDC can have bizarro hockey talk compared to the real world. 

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Jagr vs Iginla

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from NeelyOrr. Show NeelyOrr's posts

    Re: Jagr vs Iginla

    In response to mattbs's comment:

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:

    I am still laughing at NAS on here at the trade deadline trying to say that Jagr was as good a pick up as Iginla would have been.

    I mean, it's just inexplicable if you know each's skill set and the system that is in place here.

    Can you imagine if they had Iginla here last season? Water under the bridge now from that, but to have the arrogant NAS on here prancing around proclaiming how wrong people were that Iginla was a vastly superior fit as if those fans didn't know what they were talking about, is a joke.

    Jagr might produce and pad stats, but it is beyond clear what a mistake that was by Chiarelli to not sweeten the deal last year.   

     



    I like both players.  I think Jagr was snake bitten last year because he sure created a lot of scoring opportunities last year.  If he pops in a couple goals in the finals we win the cup.  Same goes for a few other players.



    If Segan had to play, we would have won the cup.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from BsLegion. Show BsLegion's posts

    Re: Jagr vs Iginla

    Love how this thread turned into the reason why the Bruins didn't win the cup was because A) Chiarelli and Feaster don't know what NTC are B) Jagr  couldn't score and  C) Seguin didn't score. 

    These conversations are so stale, THEY STINK !

     

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from JWensink. Show JWensink's posts

    Re: Jagr vs Iginla

    In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:

    2) You don't violate a contract provision, or mislead a player in order to violate that provision, which the club negotiated in good faith.  The right to refuse a deal to Boston is part of Iginla's contract - it's compensation.  Trying to weasel him out of it would be like choosing not to pay him his full salary.  And the potential damage to the Flames?  Totally disproportionate to what they'd gain no matter how much you might like Bartkowski. 

     

     

    Yeh I read it- I never claimed that Iginla didn't have the right to refuse to go to Boston.

    But - for the last time you refuse to accept the scenario in which Calgary had no obligation what so ever to offer Iginla a deal to Pitt. A NMC does not mean any team has to trade you. That would be a movement clause - not a NMC.

    And maybe, just maybe if they had been properly motivated to do just that, it might have turned out differently. Everyone believes that KoKo and Bart was some kind of great deal that Calgary couldn't possibly turn down. I think it was garbage then, and still do. Now, you could argue that it was slightly more enticing garbage than the Pitt offer, but still Krap IMO. And I think that a sharp GM would have been aware that he was dealing with the potential of Pitt swooping in a blowing up the deal - which is what happened. So it was no time to F around with the likes of Koko and Bart. Put Peverly on the table for arguments sake ,with those two,  and maybe Calgary presents Iginla with two choices - stay in Calgary or go to Boston.

    I think it's also laughable that Chiarelli stated that they had an agreement in place early in the day, and said the he waited by the phone all day and never followed up to see w-t-f was going on. There was no deal without it going to the NHL office. Maybe he could have at least tried to address it... but he just sat there like a dope while Pitt was not even giving him a reach around. Plain and simple, cut it any way you want, he got schooled , and looked like a dumbfounded fool who didn't see the writing on the wall.

    Last time  -

    Iginla had every right to refuse Boston  

    Calgary had no obligation to offer him Pitt

    Maybe Calgary would have done just that if they got something on the table other than Koko and Bartkowski for a 1st ballot HOF forward.

     

    BTW - There is no bigger Bruin fan than me. The difference with you is you are incapable of criticism - that doesn't make you smarter, or more knowledgeable than anyone else. It does however diminish your opinions in some cases because your bias, although a bias filled with positive emotions, is still a bias.


    Wensink, did you read this ?

    Bookboy points out the reality of the Iginla saga. 

    Disagree or agree with him ?

     





  •  
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from bostonfan191646. Show bostonfan191646's posts

    Re: Jagr vs Iginla

    In response to JWensink's comment:

    In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:

    2) You don't violate a contract provision, or mislead a player in order to violate that provision, which the club negotiated in good faith.  The right to refuse a deal to Boston is part of Iginla's contract - it's compensation.  Trying to weasel him out of it would be like choosing not to pay him his full salary.  And the potential damage to the Flames?  Totally disproportionate to what they'd gain no matter how much you might like Bartkowski. 

     

     

    Yeh I read it- I never claimed that Iginla didn't have the right to refuse to go to Boston.

    But - for the last time you refuse to accept the scenario in which Calgary had no obligation what so ever to offer Iginla a deal to Pitt. A NMC does not mean any team has to trade you. That would be a movement clause - not a NMC.

    And maybe, just maybe if they had been properly motivated to do just that, it might have turned out differently. Everyone believes that KoKo and Bart was some kind of great deal that Calgary couldn't possibly turn down. I think it was garbage then, and still do. Now, you could argue that it was slightly more enticing garbage than the Pitt offer, but still Krap IMO. And I think that a sharp GM would have been aware that he was dealing with the potential of Pitt swooping in a blowing up the deal - which is what happened. So it was no time to F around with the likes of Koko and Bart. Put Peverly on the table for arguments sake ,with those two,  and maybe Calgary presents Iginla with two choices - stay in Calgary or go to Boston.

    I think it's also laughable that Chiarelli stated that they had an agreement in place early in the day, and said the he waited by the phone all day and never followed up to see w-t-f was going on. There was no deal without it going to the NHL office. Maybe he could have at least tried to address it... but he just sat there like a dope while Pitt was not even giving him a reach around. Plain and simple, cut it any way you want, he got schooled , and looked like a dumbfounded fool who didn't see the writing on the wall.

    Last time  -

    Iginla had every right to refuse Boston  

    Calgary had no obligation to offer him Pitt

    Maybe Calgary would have done just that if they got something on the table other than Koko and Bartkowski for a 1st ballot HOF forward.

     

    BTW - There is no bigger Bruin fan than me. The difference with you is you are incapable of criticism - that doesn't make you smarter, or more knowledgeable than anyone else. It does however diminish your opinions in some cases because your bias, although a bias filled with positive emotions, is still a bias.


    Wensink, did you read this ?

    Bookboy points out the reality of the Iginla saga. 

    Disagree or agree with him ?

     







    K. So feaster refuses to trade iginla to Pittsburgh. Iginla gets irritated. Stays. Now feaster got nothing for his biggest asset. You lose again

  •  
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from 50belowzero. Show 50belowzero's posts

    Re: Jagr vs Iginla

    In response to JWensink's comment:

    Last time  -

    Iginla had every right to refuse Boston  

    Calgary had no obligation to offer him Pitt

    Maybe Calgary would have done just that if they got something on the table other than Koko and Bartkowski for a 1st ballot HOF forward.

     

     









    You are correct in both statements, but to me Iginla had Calgary over the barrel,  they either had to take the crappy Pitt deal or no deal at all.By saying to Iginla that he was either going to Boston or nowhere at all,Jarome could say fine i'll play out the year and go wherever i want and you'll get nothing, it's your choice.Calgary chose to get something,which was the deal from the Penguins. 

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from JWensink. Show JWensink's posts

    Re: Jagr vs Iginla

    In response to bostonfan191646's comment:

    In response to JWensink's comment:

    In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:

    2) You don't violate a contract provision, or mislead a player in order to violate that provision, which the club negotiated in good faith.  The right to refuse a deal to Boston is part of Iginla's contract - it's compensation.  Trying to weasel him out of it would be like choosing not to pay him his full salary.  And the potential damage to the Flames?  Totally disproportionate to what they'd gain no matter how much you might like Bartkowski. 

     

     

    Yeh I read it- I never claimed that Iginla didn't have the right to refuse to go to Boston.

    But - for the last time you refuse to accept the scenario in which Calgary had no obligation what so ever to offer Iginla a deal to Pitt. A NMC does not mean any team has to trade you. That would be a movement clause - not a NMC.

    And maybe, just maybe if they had been properly motivated to do just that, it might have turned out differently. Everyone believes that KoKo and Bart was some kind of great deal that Calgary couldn't possibly turn down. I think it was garbage then, and still do. Now, you could argue that it was slightly more enticing garbage than the Pitt offer, but still Krap IMO. And I think that a sharp GM would have been aware that he was dealing with the potential of Pitt swooping in a blowing up the deal - which is what happened. So it was no time to F around with the likes of Koko and Bart. Put Peverly on the table for arguments sake ,with those two,  and maybe Calgary presents Iginla with two choices - stay in Calgary or go to Boston.

    I think it's also laughable that Chiarelli stated that they had an agreement in place early in the day, and said the he waited by the phone all day and never followed up to see w-t-f was going on. There was no deal without it going to the NHL office. Maybe he could have at least tried to address it... but he just sat there like a dope while Pitt was not even giving him a reach around. Plain and simple, cut it any way you want, he got schooled , and looked like a dumbfounded fool who didn't see the writing on the wall.

    Last time  -

    Iginla had every right to refuse Boston  

    Calgary had no obligation to offer him Pitt

    Maybe Calgary would have done just that if they got something on the table other than Koko and Bartkowski for a 1st ballot HOF forward.

     

    BTW - There is no bigger Bruin fan than me. The difference with you is you are incapable of criticism - that doesn't make you smarter, or more knowledgeable than anyone else. It does however diminish your opinions in some cases because your bias, although a bias filled with positive emotions, is still a bias.


    Wensink, did you read this ?

    Bookboy points out the reality of the Iginla saga. 

    Disagree or agree with him ?

     







    K. So feaster refuses to trade iginla to Pittsburgh. Iginla gets irritated. Stays. Now feaster got nothing for his biggest asset. You lose again




    You can't be older than 25.

    Calagry got nothing anyway - maybe they could of had two prospects and Peverly. We'll never know because PC was busy staring at the phone while Pitt was busy at work.

    And based on Feasters performance getting assets for that deal ... he's playing daily numbers somewhere - I didn't lose shyt ...now go finish your homework

  •  
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from 50belowzero. Show 50belowzero's posts

    Re: Jagr vs Iginla

    Iginla is the biggest icon in Calgary Flames history, bigger than Lanny MacDonald,Vernon,Kipper and whoever else.If you think for one minute Feaster or Flames management were going to play hardball with him and give him a take it or leave it option it wasn't happening.He wanted to go to Pitt, so they traded him to Pitt.Its not that hard to figure out.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Jagr vs Iginla

    In my mind the NMC/NTC is meant for the veteran who paid his dues and now gets to choose where he wants to go. I share the frustration of JW that Chiarelli went into the 2013 playoffs with Daugvins, thinking that would be enough.

    I couldn't last year and won't blame Iginla for wanting to go to play somewhere else. It's the veteran's ultimate choice and decision. Feaster had to comply. But I sure as heck can criticize Chiarelli for accepting the "mucker vision".

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Jagr vs Iginla

    JW, simply put, I don't think Feaster had the cohos or the leverage to play that kind of hardball with Iginla, and I don't recall Iginla asking for a trade in so many words.  I think Feaster was staring at a situation where there was absolutely zero value to that franchise if they kept Iginla and watched him walk as a UFA, so his metric wasn't Kokobart+1 vs. Pitt's offer so much as any offer vs. nothing.  (He actually got it right in one sense - he got the earlier draft pick after the Penguins collapsed against the Bruins.)

    You've got it framed as Iginla wants to be dealt to a contender to try to win a Cup vs. Feaster needs to get something for his aging franchise player before he walks.  That's the leverage each has on the other.  I think it was more like this:

    JF: Jarome, I've made a deal with Boston and need you to waive your NMC.

    JI: Yeah, I don't know. Did you talk to Pittsburgh?

    JF: Jarome, I have a deal with Boston.  If you don't waive the NMC for this deal, I'm not going to deal you.

    JI: I'm fine with that.  I figure Pittsburgh's got the best shot at the Cup, so if I'm not there, I might as well play out the year here and get ready for free agency.

    JF: [and here I'll give Feaster some credit...] Are you sure about that?  Cup contenders are usually pretty tight to the cap all year.  Might be a lot harder to hook on with Boston or Pittsburgh at the kind of salary other teams might offer you if they have to pay you for the whole year.  Go to Boston as a hired gun this year and maybe you make them a better bet for the Cup than Pittsburgh.  Wouldn't pass on a any good chance to win a Cup even if you think they're the second best team in the East.

    JI: I hear you, Jay, but you know, I watch TSN and I'm pretty sure Bob McKenzie's right when he says the Penguins and Sid want to talk.  I'll wait, and if I'm here the day after the deadline, que sera sera, right?  <<Scene>>

    That's the point where Feaster goes back to his office, eats a box of donuts, then panics: "Hi, Ray?  It's Jay.  Hey, buddy, that rhymes! ..." and it gets worse for Feaster from there.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Jagr vs Iginla

    In response to SanDogBrewin's comment:

    In my mind the NMC/NTC is meant for the veteran who paid his dues and now gets to choose where he wants to go. I share the frustration of JW that Chiarelli went into the 2013 playoffs with Daugvins, thinking that would be enough.

    I couldn't last year and won't blame Iginla for wanting to go to play somewhere else. It's the veteran's ultimate choice and decision. Feaster had to comply. But I sure as heck can criticize Chiarelli for accepting the "mucker vision".



    After Iginla, and other than Jagr, who else was available that wasn't just mucker vision?

    And be happy it wasn't Mucklervision.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Jagr vs Iginla

    http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=676637

    Restricted or unrestricted ?

    That's just too many to just ask two goals of...

    LoL

     

    PS. Man poor John Muckler. Gotta give him the Michael Peca trade though.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from JWensink. Show JWensink's posts

    Re: Jagr vs Iginla

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:

    JW, simply put, I don't think Feaster had the cohos or the leverage to play that kind of hardball with Iginla, and I don't recall Iginla asking for a trade in so many words.  I think Feaster was staring at a situation where there was absolutely zero value to that franchise if they kept Iginla and watched him walk as a UFA, so his metric wasn't Kokobart+1 vs. Pitt's offer so much as any offer vs. nothing.  (He actually got it right in one sense - he got the earlier draft pick after the Penguins collapsed against the Bruins.)

    You've got it framed as Iginla wants to be dealt to a contender to try to win a Cup vs. Feaster needs to get something for his aging franchise player before he walks.  That's the leverage each has on the other.  I think it was more like this:

    JF: Jarome, I've made a deal with Boston and need you to waive your NMC.

    JI: Yeah, I don't know. Did you talk to Pittsburgh?

    JF: Jarome, I have a deal with Boston.  If you don't waive the NMC for this deal, I'm not going to deal you.

    JI: I'm fine with that.  I figure Pittsburgh's got the best shot at the Cup, so if I'm not there, I might as well play out the year here and get ready for free agency.

    JF: [and here I'll give Feaster some credit...] Are you sure about that?  Cup contenders are usually pretty tight to the cap all year.  Might be a lot harder to hook on with Boston or Pittsburgh at the kind of salary other teams might offer you if they have to pay you for the whole year.  Go to Boston as a hired gun this year and maybe you make them a better bet for the Cup than Pittsburgh.  Wouldn't pass on a any good chance to win a Cup even if you think they're the second best team in the East.

    JI: I hear you, Jay, but you know, I watch TSN and I'm pretty sure Bob McKenzie's right when he says the Penguins and Sid want to talk.  I'll wait, and if I'm here the day after the deadline, que sera sera, right?  <<Scene>>

    That's the point where Feaster goes back to his office, eats a box of donuts, then panics: "Hi, Ray?  It's Jay.  Hey, buddy, that rhymes! ..." and it gets worse for Feaster from there.




    Well Book that scenario is certainly plausible. Maybe it would have went that way, maybe it would have worked out differently. That's about as much as anyone could honestly say.

    But, it's so ridiculous to constantly read the " go read what a NMC means" nonsense.

    The fact is that he did not go Pitt because of a NMC. He ended up in Pitt because he was offered a choice- which has absolutely nothing to do with a NMC.

    Feaster was given an offer from Chiarelli that was easy to walk away from, and easy enough for Pitt to get themselves a shot at the table in the 1st place - that's the point.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: Jagr vs Iginla

    In response to JWensink's comment:

    Last time  -

    Iginla had every right to refuse Boston  

     

    Maybe Calgary would have done just that if they got something on the table other than Koko and Bartkowski for a 1st ballot HOF forward.

    --------------

    Read your first line. Now your read your second line. They contradict each other. It wasn't Calgary's option .

    For the last time


    What do you not get about.........


    Boston could have offered their whole roster for Iginla ......but Calgary still had to go back to Iginla with any kind of trade to any team that was on his list ( not just the Bruins ) . There was no written agreement in place.

    When Feaster went back to Iginla to tell him he was on his way to Boston he declined which he had all the right to do. 

    Concusion : It didn't freakin matter if the pot was sweetened for Calgary. Iginla was sitting back waiting with his trump card. The NTC. he didn't have to go anywhere he could've stayed in Calgary if he wanted.

    Of course you've been told this from about 10 different people and it still doesn't register.



     



     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: Jagr vs Iginla

    In response to JWensink's comment:

    He ended up in Pitt because he was offered a choice- which has absolutely nothing to do with a NMC.

     


    -------



    Totally false. 

    Players NTC's contain clauses that give the player ( or teams ) to choose a number of destinations in the event of a possible trade. 

    Iginla ( from what I remember ) had a full NTC which means he didn't have to go anywhere unless he said so.

    All one has to do is go to capgeek.com and it shows the stipulations of  different players. 

     
  • Sections
    Shortcuts

    Share