Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

      
Post Reply 
Government Motors
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
Tom in Lazybrook Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,299
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 446
I Root For: So Alabama, GWU
Location: Houston
Post: #81
RE: Government Motors
And it doesn't require spending a fortune on new rail projects. It can be accomplished using the following acts. First, dramatically stop spending on expanding infrastructure on new roads to the suburbs (which really are a subsidy for real estate developers) and use some of that money to fix the existing infrastructure. If someone wants a new freeway out to the suburbs, let them use the private sector (without signing away the state's right to build new lanes if needed on existing roads) to deal with it. Instead of rail, use a Transmillenio approach (dedicated - bus only lanes - with fixed stops) which is much more cost effective than a rail approach. Why should people in Mt Laurel have to pay for some developer out in the exurbs to have a nice new freeway out to someone else's home?
 
08-08-2011 04:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
gruehls Offline
Jersey Retired
Jersey Retired

Posts: 1,832
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 476
I Root For: the good guys
Location: right here,right now

DonatorsHall of Fame
Post: #82
RE: Government Motors
(08-08-2011 04:04 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  And it doesn't require spending a fortune on new rail projects. It can be accomplished using the following acts. First, dramatically stop spending on expanding infrastructure on new roads to the suburbs (which really are a subsidy for real estate developers) and use some of that money to fix the existing infrastructure. If someone wants a new freeway out to the suburbs, let them use the private sector (without signing away the state's right to build new lanes if needed on existing roads) to deal with it. Instead of rail, use a Transmillenio approach (dedicated - bus only lanes - with fixed stops) which is much more cost effective than a rail approach. Why should people in Mt Laurel have to pay for some developer out in the exurbs to have a nice new freeway out to someone else's home?

wait!

use the private sector? what a grand concept. forget the infrastructure to burgeoning suburbs? visit detroit. or cincinnati. pick a street corner and count the white flight on a daily basis. oh yeah, those are the people that actually pay taxes.

so in your scheme, how heavily taxed are the users and the people who pay?

did i mention ball of yarn?

lazy is an understatement.
 
(This post was last modified: 08-08-2011 05:22 PM by gruehls.)
08-08-2011 04:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
gruehls Offline
Jersey Retired
Jersey Retired

Posts: 1,832
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 476
I Root For: the good guys
Location: right here,right now

DonatorsHall of Fame
Post: #83
RE: Government Motors
(08-08-2011 03:57 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I haven't seen one of those microbuses in about, say, 30 years. I guess anyone who questions the right wings (non) energy plan is a 'dirty hippy'?

Perhaps if we didn't have to send a half trillion dollars per year overseas to pay for energy imports we wouldn't have as much of a fiscal problem. I have no problem with drilling if the others using that space don't have to pay for it (e.g., people like ME who lost money last year when BP destroyed my beach rental), but obviously, there should be some incentive for people to conserve imports while keeping the amount of dollars flowing out for imports relatively low. It CAN'T be done through a market-only system, it requires higher gas taxes or a gas-guzzler tax.

you line up for cold kill.

what's the "left wing's" energy plan? a bunch of cars no one will buy? no drilling in the arctic? your beach house up in arwr? al gore and his carbon footprint?

i swear to god, you get more informed input from bubblegum wrappers than what passes for lefty intellectuals.

hey, what's paul krugman got to say today? invest in bobobama or gold?

unreal.
 
08-08-2011 05:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kenyon#4 Away
Retired
*

Posts: 5,066
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 33
I Root For: Bearcats
Location:
Post: #84
RE: Government Motors
(08-08-2011 03:51 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  
(07-10-2011 10:05 AM)Vottomatic Wrote:  [Image: 390815946v2_480x480_Front_Color-Black.jpg]

Order yours today!

I'm sure the 1 million American jobs saved by Obama's largely cost free auto bailout would think differently. But many tea partiers think that since those workers are unionized, that they should lose their jobs.

I also enjoyed your picture about handouts. I assume you are opposed to handouts to GE, the oil industries, and hedge fund managers who send US jobs overseas? How about the handouts to the healthcare industry (e.g., every single medical school and hospital in the USA - all built with taxpayer dollars).

Of those "1 million jobs" many of them should have lost their jobs. The UAW ran the company into the ground, and paid off with stock as a reward for doing so.

I love the sense of entitlement. People with high school diplomas, and no real skills, who believe they should be paid $50/hour to stand in one spot and bolt in a seat all day. Plus, on top of it, have all heath care expenses borne by the company. These people are nuts, and need a reality check. Most of them would probably be flipping burgers for minimum wage.
 
08-08-2011 05:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
gruehls Offline
Jersey Retired
Jersey Retired

Posts: 1,832
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 476
I Root For: the good guys
Location: right here,right now

DonatorsHall of Fame
Post: #85
RE: Government Motors
(08-08-2011 11:26 AM)Eastside_J Wrote:  GM $24 and change today.

I wonder where AZBearcat is?

Current P/E is in the 5's which, if you believe their numbers (I never have and do not now) should suggest an increasingly attractive buy.

Unfortunately I still believe in my original forecast: this will hit $5 before it hits $50.

I really hope this gets righted somehow, I fear greatly for my relatives who work there.

Quote:When will the Obama administration sell GM?

By Editorial, Published: August 27


THIS IS an editorial page, not a stock tip sheet. Still, maybe the Obama administration should have paid attention when we urged it to start selling off the Treasury Department’s stake in General Motors. That was on April 25, when GM’s stock sold at about $30 per share. The administration didn’t sell then, and it’s still not selling — with GM down to about $23.

So much for all those reports that Treasury wanted to exit GM by summer’s end, just as it exited its much smaller stake in Chrysler this year amid much fanfare. The government continues to hold 500 million shares, about 26.2 percent of GM; its hesitation has cost the taxpayers $3.5 billion in paper losses since our editorial.

To be sure, market timing is a mug’s game. The goal of sinking $51.3 billion into a restructured GM was not to make a profit for the Treasury; it was to rescue a major part of the U.S. manufacturing base.

In fact, the likeliest outcome all along has been that the government — i.e., the taxpayers — would lose money. History will judge the GM rescue based on the totality of its results, which include not only the dollar cost to taxpayers but also the broader benefits of avoiding an industrial meltdown at the height of the 2009 recession.

However, the administration’s policy creates the appearance of playing politics with its GM stake. Hanging on to the stock, even as it drops, protects President Obama from the hit he will take when the government’s loss changes from hypothetical to real. But a buy-and-hold strategy isn’t without cost to the Treasury — i.e., the taxpayers. Like any other investor who keeps his money tied up in an underperforming asset, the Treasury forfeits the benefits it might reap by cutting its losses and redeploying its funds, perhaps to reduce the deficit. And, of course, it runs the risk that the stock will go down even more.

No one is saying the government should hold a fire sale. But it could announce a plan to sell its shares in GM at regular intervals over the coming months, regardless of price, so as to minimize market distortions. There will be losses. The benefits, though, would include reassuring the business community that this president really does have an exit strategy for federal ownership of industry — and relieving GM of the “Government Motors” stigma, which still hampers its efforts to woo car buyers and prospective executives.

As we said in April, selling GM creates financial risk for taxpayers and political risk for Mr. Obama no matter when the government does it. So Treasury might as well get on with the job. Maybe this time it’ll take our advice.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/w...story.html
 
08-28-2011 01:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Eastside_J Away
Impressing Jodie Foster

Posts: 7,877
Joined: Mar 2004
I Root For: Cincinnati.
Location:

Donators
Post: #86
RE: Government Motors
(08-28-2011 01:21 PM)gruehls Wrote:  
(08-08-2011 11:26 AM)Eastside_J Wrote:  GM $24 and change today.

I wonder where AZBearcat is?

Current P/E is in the 5's which, if you believe their numbers (I never have and do not now) should suggest an increasingly attractive buy.

Unfortunately I still believe in my original forecast: this will hit $5 before it hits $50.

I really hope this gets righted somehow, I fear greatly for my relatives who work there.

Quote:When will the Obama administration sell GM?

By Editorial, Published: August 27


THIS IS an editorial page, not a stock tip sheet. Still, maybe the Obama administration should have paid attention when we urged it to start selling off the Treasury Department’s stake in General Motors. That was on April 25, when GM’s stock sold at about $30 per share. The administration didn’t sell then, and it’s still not selling — with GM down to about $23.

So much for all those reports that Treasury wanted to exit GM by summer’s end, just as it exited its much smaller stake in Chrysler this year amid much fanfare. The government continues to hold 500 million shares, about 26.2 percent of GM; its hesitation has cost the taxpayers $3.5 billion in paper losses since our editorial.

To be sure, market timing is a mug’s game. The goal of sinking $51.3 billion into a restructured GM was not to make a profit for the Treasury; it was to rescue a major part of the U.S. manufacturing base.

In fact, the likeliest outcome all along has been that the government — i.e., the taxpayers — would lose money. History will judge the GM rescue based on the totality of its results, which include not only the dollar cost to taxpayers but also the broader benefits of avoiding an industrial meltdown at the height of the 2009 recession.

However, the administration’s policy creates the appearance of playing politics with its GM stake. Hanging on to the stock, even as it drops, protects President Obama from the hit he will take when the government’s loss changes from hypothetical to real. But a buy-and-hold strategy isn’t without cost to the Treasury — i.e., the taxpayers. Like any other investor who keeps his money tied up in an underperforming asset, the Treasury forfeits the benefits it might reap by cutting its losses and redeploying its funds, perhaps to reduce the deficit. And, of course, it runs the risk that the stock will go down even more.

No one is saying the government should hold a fire sale. But it could announce a plan to sell its shares in GM at regular intervals over the coming months, regardless of price, so as to minimize market distortions. There will be losses. The benefits, though, would include reassuring the business community that this president really does have an exit strategy for federal ownership of industry — and relieving GM of the “Government Motors” stigma, which still hampers its efforts to woo car buyers and prospective executives.

As we said in April, selling GM creates financial risk for taxpayers and political risk for Mr. Obama no matter when the government does it. So Treasury might as well get on with the job. Maybe this time it’ll take our advice.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/w...story.html

Gruehls,
I had held out hope that the drop in price might be an indication the the feds HAD been selling their stake into the market.

That basically their volume of sell side shares had placed downward pressure on the stock price.

Knowing that is not the case, that the gov still has all their original stake makes this even more of a cluster ----.

What the writer doesn't understand is that if Bobama announced they were going to start planned sales of shares, every Tom, Rick and Harry with a brokerage account would start shorting this thing until it hit single digits.

Not selling shares routinely right after the IPO and waiting until this thing started to sink has put Bobo (and every taxpayer) in a no-win (at least no possible win in the near future) situation. If he holds and watches it sink he is screwed. If they even mention impending stock sales, it will tank immediately.

Another poorly thought out, mishandled project.
 
08-28-2011 01:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SeniorBearcat Offline
I can eat fifty eggs
*

Posts: 3,874
Joined: Apr 2006
Reputation: 140
I Root For: Binturongs
Location: Toledo

Donators
Post: #87
RE: Government Motors
GM @ $22.31 / share BTW.

Quote:Its shares are down 43 percent from the 12-month high of $39.47 reached in January.
GM outlook disappoints
 
(This post was last modified: 11-09-2011 05:30 PM by SeniorBearcat.)
11-09-2011 05:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OneUChoopsfan Away
I'm Black & White
*

Posts: 6,604
Joined: Dec 2005
Reputation: 72
I Root For: U. C. I LOVE
Location: French Lick

Donators
Post: #88
RE: Government Motors
(11-09-2011 05:29 PM)SeniorBearcat Wrote:  GM @ $22.31 / share BTW.

Quote:Its shares are down 43 percent from the 12-month high of $39.47 reached in January.
GM outlook disappoints
GM is just a victim of the terrible economy, and soon will be below the automaker poverty level.

Plsease note that the company considers itself among the 99%, and that Volts have been seen among the protesters at several OWS demonstrations. Seems the Volts have volunteered to be defecation stations. "Poop, there it is."

On a more serious note, seems every U.S. government vehicle I see on the highways is a GM product. Could just be me jumping to conclusions, but none the less, I just can't help but speculate.
 
11-10-2011 07:33 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
beck Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,334
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 44
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #89
RE: Government Motors
Maybe Rick Perry could eliminate the department of uh......... uhm.... hoohaw..uhm..flip-flop, oh yeah...the department of GM if he is elected.Yeah, that's the ticket.
 
11-10-2011 10:25 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
converrl Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,915
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 50
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #90
RE: Government Motors
(11-10-2011 10:25 AM)beck Wrote:  Maybe Rick Perry could eliminate the department of uh......... uhm.... hoohaw..uhm..flip-flop, oh yeah...the department of GM if he is elected.Yeah, that's the ticket.

Perry isn't going to be the Republican nominee...

Romney is..

Romney has 100X the economic acumen that Obama and his entire team possess.

That leaves him in good stead.
 
11-11-2011 03:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BearChatter v2.0 Offline
Rounding Third and headed...
Jersey Retired

Posts: 8,548
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 62
I Root For: Da Bearcats!
Location: Blue Ash
Post: #91
RE: Government Motors
(11-11-2011 03:49 AM)converrl Wrote:  
(11-10-2011 10:25 AM)beck Wrote:  Maybe Rick Perry could eliminate the department of uh......... uhm.... hoohaw..uhm..flip-flop, oh yeah...the department of GM if he is elected.Yeah, that's the ticket.

Perry isn't going to be the Republican nominee...

Romney is..

Romney has 100X the economic acumen that Obama and his entire team possess.

That leaves him in good stead.

Peter Griffin has 100X the economic acumen that Obamanijead and his cronies have.

Of course, he has Stewie and Brian as his advisors.
 
11-13-2011 04:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OneUChoopsfan Away
I'm Black & White
*

Posts: 6,604
Joined: Dec 2005
Reputation: 72
I Root For: U. C. I LOVE
Location: French Lick

Donators
Post: #92
RE: Government Motors
http://www.detnews.com/article/20111114/...$23.6B


U.S. boosts estimate of auto bailout losses to $23.6B

David Shepardson/ Detroit News Washington Bureau

The Treasury Department dramatically boosted its estimate of losses from its $85 billion auto industry bailout by more than $9 billion in the face of General Motors Co.'s steep stock decline.

In its monthly report to Congress, the Treasury Department now says it expects to lose $23.6 billion, up from its previous estimate of $14.33 billion.

The Treasury now pegs the cost of the bailout of GM, Chrysler Group LLC and the auto finance companies at $79.6 billion. It no longer includes $5 billion it set aside to guarantee payments to auto suppliers in 2009.

The big increase is a reflection of the sharp decline in the value of GM's share price.

The current estimate of losses is based on GM's Sept. 30 closing price of $20.18, down one-third over the previous quarterly price.

GM's stock closed Monday at $22.99, up 2 percent. The government won't reassess the estimate of the costs until Dec. 30.

The government has recovered $23.2 billion of its $49.5 billion GM bailout, and cut its stake in the company from 61 percent to 26.5 percent. But it has been forced to put on hold the sale of its remaining 500 million shares of stock.

The new estimate also hikes the overall cost of the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program costs to taxpayers. TARP is the emergency program approved by Congress in late 2008 at the height of the financial crisis.

In total, the government used $425 billion to bailout banks, insurance companies and automakers, and provided $45 billion in housing program assistance.

The government now expects to lose $57.33 billion, including the full cost of the housing program, up from $36.7 billion. The new estimate means the government doesn't believe it will make an overall profit on its bailouts.

Republican presidential candidates, including former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, have seized on the auto bailout losses estimates, as evidence that the Bush and Obama administrations "wasted" money.

Matt Anderson, a spokesman for the Treasury Department, said, "Both TARP and the auto industry rescue are still on track to cost a fraction of what was originally expected during the dark days of the financial crisis."

In 2009, the government initially forecast it would lose $44 billion on its auto industry bailout. It revised it down to $30 billion, and later to as low as $13.9 billion earlier this year.The administration and President Barack Obama have argued that any losses on the auto bailout were worth the hundreds of thousands of jobs saved.

"The investment paid off. The hundreds of thousands of jobs that have been saved made it worth it," he said at an appearance last month at GM's Orion Assembly plant. "I want to especially thank the people of Detroit for proving that, despite all the work that lies ahead, this is a city where a great American industry is coming back to life and the industries of tomorrow are taking root, and a city where people are dreaming up ways to prove all the skeptics wrong and write the next proud chapter in the Motor City's history."

The new bailout forecast also represents an increase in the government's forecast in its losses from its $17.2 billion bailout of Detroit-based auto and mortgage lender Ally Financial Inc. The government holds a 74 percent stake in Ally, which has been forced to put its planned initial public offering on hold because of market conditions.


From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20111114/AUTO...z1dutdITQU
 
11-16-2011 07:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BearChatter v2.0 Offline
Rounding Third and headed...
Jersey Retired

Posts: 8,548
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 62
I Root For: Da Bearcats!
Location: Blue Ash
Post: #93
RE: Government Motors
Another stupid move by Obamanijead.
 
11-17-2011 07:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
gruehls Offline
Jersey Retired
Jersey Retired

Posts: 1,832
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 476
I Root For: the good guys
Location: right here,right now

DonatorsHall of Fame
Post: #94
RE: Government Motors
(11-10-2011 10:25 AM)beck Wrote:  Maybe Rick Perry could eliminate the department of uh......... uhm.... hoohaw..uhm..flip-flop, oh yeah...the department of GM if he is elected.Yeah, that's the ticket.

maybe someday your vocabulary and and incessant yammering will exceed that of Doc, Grumpy, Happy, Sleepy, Bashful, Sneezy, and Dopey.

nonetheless, you will always be remembered as the illiterate (no, that doesn't mean mom and dad weren't married) 8th dwarf incapable of anything but juvenile insults directed at your perceived political antagonists.

give me a "uhm," "hah" "mooo," "bahhh," ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

you are relentlessly less than mediocre.
 
11-18-2011 01:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
beck Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,334
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 44
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #95
RE: Government Motors
Less than mediocre? That means I am qualified to be the GOP nominee! Sweet. Now I can dabble in pork, revisionist history and trickle up economics. This calls for a drink!
 
11-18-2011 06:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
gruehls Offline
Jersey Retired
Jersey Retired

Posts: 1,832
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 476
I Root For: the good guys
Location: right here,right now

DonatorsHall of Fame
Post: #96
RE: Government Motors
(11-18-2011 06:22 PM)beck Wrote:  Less than mediocre? That means I am qualified to be the GOP nominee! Sweet. Now I can dabble in pork, revisionist history and trickle up economics. This calls for a drink!

no. those exceed your qualifications, but you could be top 3 for any and all bobobama czar positions newly created or opening soon. just don't ever read the e-mails from subordinates questioning the legality of the programs bobo is force feeding the public. then, you'll move to number 1.
 
11-19-2011 11:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
converrl Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,915
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 50
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #97
RE: Government Motors
(11-18-2011 06:22 PM)beck Wrote:  Less than mediocre? That means I am qualified to be the GOP nominee! Sweet. Now I can dabble in pork, revisionist history and trickle up economics. This calls for a drink!

....I think you mean trickle down economics...unless you know of a massive number of jobs created by the poor...

My impression was that it always worked in the opposite direction...you have to have capital in order to create jobs...

I've never gotten a job from a poor person or a bankrupt company...not once.
 
11-19-2011 09:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SeniorBearcat Offline
I can eat fifty eggs
*

Posts: 3,874
Joined: Apr 2006
Reputation: 140
I Root For: Binturongs
Location: Toledo

Donators
Post: #98
RE: Government Motors
Quote:Treasury: U.S. to lose $25 billion on auto bailout

By David Shepardson
Detroit News Washington Bureau

Washington -The Treasury Department says in a new report the government expects to lose more than $25 billion on the $85 billion auto bailout. That's 15 percent higher than its previous forecast.

In a monthly report sent to Congress on Friday, the Obama administration boosted its forecast of expected losses by more than $3.3 billion to almost $25.1 billion, up from $21.7 billion in the last quarterly update.

The report may still underestimate the losses. The report covers predicted losses through May 31, when GM's stock price was $22.20 a share.

On Monday, GM stock fell $0.07, or 0.3 percent, to $20.47. At that price, the government would lose another $850 million on its GM bailout.

The government still holds 500 million shares of GM stock and needs to sell them for about $53 each to recover its entire $49.5 billion bailout. At the current price, the Treasury would lose more than $16 billion on its GM bailout.

The steep decline in GM's stock price has indefinitely delayed the Treasury's sale of its remaining 26 percent stake in GM. No sale will take place before the November election.

Treasury spokesman Matt Anderson said the costs were still far less than some predicted.

"The auto industry rescue helped save more than one million jobs throughout our nation's industrial heartland and is expected to cost far less than many had feared during the height of the crisis," Anderson said.

The Obama administration initially estimated it would lose $44 billion on the bailout but reduced the forecast to $30 billion in December 2009.

But the recent estimates are not as optimistic as last year.

The Treasury Department said in a May 2011 report that its estimate of auto bailout losses was $13.9 billion. The Congressional Budget Office also estimates a $14 billion loss. The CBO has written off $8 billion of the government's auto bailout as an unrecoverable loss.

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has decried the losses on the auto bailout and insisted that forcing GM and Chrysler Group LLC to go through bankruptcy first would have saved taxpayers money.

But President George W. Bush — who gave the automakers and their finance arms about $25 billion in his final weeks in office in bailout funds — said there wasn't time.

Taxpayers incurred a $1.3 billion loss on the $12.5 billion bailout of Chrysler.

The Treasury also has put on hold an initial public offering initially planned for last year in Ally Financial Inc. because of market weakness. The government holds a 74 percent majority stake in the Detroit auto finance company as part of its $17.2 billion bailout and has recovered $5.7 billion.

GM CEO Dan Akerson told employees at a town hall meeting Thursday that the company was working to take actions to boost the automaker's sagging price.

dshepardson@detnews.com
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120.../208130392
 
08-14-2012 04:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
QSECOFR Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,015
Joined: Nov 2006
Reputation: 226
I Root For: CCM
Location:
Post: #99
RE: Government Motors
Didn't JPMC just get dragged in front of Congress for losing $4b of their OWN money?

Will Congress and the President drag themselves in front of Congress for losing an ADDITIONAL $25b of OUR money??????????
 
08-14-2012 09:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
rath v2.0 Offline
Wartime Consigliere
*

Posts: 51,151
Joined: Jun 2007
Reputation: 2150
I Root For: Civil Disobedience
Location: Tip Of The Mitt

Donators
Post: #100
RE: Government Motors
It's not real money. It's government money. Its free.
 
08-14-2012 09:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.