Chicago Barn to Wire BRIS
Home | News | Bloggers | Forums | Resources | Links | Marketplace | Gallery | Contact Us | Search


September 17, 2014, 06:45:08 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: If you don't remember your password, email me.

New  registration procedures -- Some ISPs have been bouncing the verification emails.  Please email me to be activated or if you have any problems.  Click Contact Us above.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Arlington Stakes  (Read 3715 times)
fnlfurlong
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 485




Ignore
« Reply #25 on: December 11, 2008, 05:55:45 PM »

Yeah, there could be one in theory. If there isn't though, it's no excuse. So, is there one, or is there not? If there's not, then you're just intentionally misleading readers to confuse things.

That is a lie. I'm not intentionally doing anything other than present a more complete picture than what you are claiming. The only misleading thing here is your claim that by adding a few extra days there should be a "substantial" purse increase.


Yes, the number of races affects purses. However, if the number of races run is the same (like AP says), and the available money is more, like you claim, there should be a purse increase. If you know something about the number of races next year that no one else does, spit it out, or quit misleading the readers with red herrings.

Again, I never claimed that I know how many races will be run, so stop trying to misrepresent and mislead. Again, and how many more times do I have to repeat this, I'm presenting the fact that simply adding days doesn't equal substantially increased purses as you have claimed.

So, where else does the purse account go besides "earned at the track"? (Besides recapture, and the usual small nicks.)

We've addresses this already with the overpayment issue (if there is one). Without knowing if there is or isn't one you can't go claiming that purses will be substantially increased.

Arlington got more days. That's all I need. More days = more revenue = higher purses. It's why they asked for the extra days, to "improve Illinois racing", and now it will be up to them to deliver. No excuses can be accepted when the IRB is giving them everything they want.

Well they do have higher daily purses than Hawthorne already.... the issue is more your over exaggeration and setting of false expectations by claiming the minimal increase of days from 2008 to 2009 should lead to substantially higher purses. This is blatantly misleading.

Things that might be, but aren't, because you just made them up. I could say Hawthorne's woes might be due to space aliens.

I have not made anything up, unlike you and your substantially increasing purses claim. I have simply mentioned factors that may impact purse distribution and complicate your over simplification of the issue. I never said those factors specifically exist, and thus did not make anything up.

Well, let's just think about that for a minute. What you're apparently claiming is that by giving the dates to AP, the local/overnight horsemen will be seeing an extra $10k per day across the whole live AP meet. The 2009 dates, as compared to the 2008 dates, give Arlington a grand total of two (2) more live racing days. The other eight (8) days they picked up are simulcast host days. Now then, I think we can pretty much agree it doesn't matter who is simulcast host, bettors are going to bet their simulcasts no matter who gets the dough, and the horsemen will get that purse money no matter who is running the meet. That's a wash. So, this entire claim must boil down to generating an extra $10,000 per day of purse money across the whole 98 days of live racing, just based on two extra live days. In other words, each of those extra live days will generate $490,000 above and beyond the normal amount earned per day, $280,000 or whatever it is. Wow! Why didn't the 96 days AP ran this year generate anything like $770,000 per day of purses? Those two days next year are going to be "do not miss" for sure! I wonder if they will advertise them ahead of time so we'll know them when we see them. 

Now then, if the claim is that those two extra racing days next year will have a total outlay $10k more than if they had been run at Haw, well, maybe I could believe that. But that's not what you said at all, was it? 

This was a simple typo, I meant overnight stakes as I mention in my post at 2:53. And as Graham since pointed out that is what he meant too.
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #26 on: December 11, 2008, 06:02:36 PM »

I meant overnight stakes and misspoke. Both you and General referred to the 10K overnight increase as I did in an earlier post in this thread. It was just an mistake that Terry tried to jump all over.

You wrote there was going to be a $10k increase in overnight purses. I did not equate that to the stakes, because I had not discussed those overnight stakes at all, and this discussion has been about overnight purses for every day horsemen! If you don't want confusion, don't confuse people with bad information!

Quote
The fact of the matter is, the extra days don't necessarily equate to an substantial increase in daily purses like Terry is trying to claim. There is nothing misleading in what I am saying. I'm just saying there is more to it than just adding or subtracting days. For god sake, he doesn't even account for the fact that by the nature of adding more days they have to incur an increased outlay in purse money paid out in order to run races those extra days.

For God's sake, here you are again saying it's not going to result in a meaningful purse increase!

So, since that's your position, lose your weak cover argument that it's going to be a big purse help to the horsemen. You can't argue that in one breath when you're trying to justify the transfer of days, and then turn around and say it's not going to be the case when people expect that means higher purses. Just be honest and admit the real truth, that's it's a bald revenue transfer from Hawthorne to Arlington, and you're happy about that.
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #27 on: December 11, 2008, 06:20:02 PM »

That is a lie. I'm not intentionally doing anything other than present a more complete picture than what you are claiming.

You're inventing factors that may or may not exist. Do they exist, or not? If they don't, they're meaningless to the discussion, and you should not have brought them in to intentionally confuse the issue.

Quote
Again, I never claimed that I know how many races will be run, so stop trying to misrepresent and mislead. Again, and how many more times do I have to repeat this, I'm presenting the fact that simply adding days doesn't equal substantially increased purses as you have claimed.

Well, maybe you could explain what your comment "you neglect to consider the number of races ran per day" really means. Not in the context of some imaginary track like Calder and its 12 races per day, but in the context of what actually takes place in Illinois.

Quote
We've addresses this already with the overpayment issue (if there is one). Without knowing if there is or isn't one you can't go claiming that purses will be substantially increased.

And, without knowing if there was one, you can't use that as an excuse. Was there one, or not?

Quote
Well they do have higher daily purses than Hawthorne already.... the issue is more your over exaggeration and setting of false expectations by claiming the minimal increase of days from 2008 to 2009 should lead to substantially higher purses. This is blatantly misleading.

If the move isn't going to lead to higher purses, what does it accomplish? (Besides making Churchill richer.)

Quote
I have not made anything up, unlike you and your substantially increasing purses claim.

It's not a claim, it's a reasonable expectation based on what you and others have written about the reasons for transferring dates. Are you saying now no one should have any expectations that this will accomplish anything positive at all for overnight purses? (Though, if we go back to the start of this thread, it seems to have done wonders for stakes purses.)

Quote
I have simply mentioned factors that may impact purse distribution and complicate your over simplification of the issue. I never said those factors specifically exist, and thus did not make anything up.

Right. And the Sheikh might buy AP and hand out $billions in free money. It's a factor that "may" impact purse distribution, but I'm not saying that factor specifically exists.

Quote
This was a simple typo, I meant overnight stakes as I mention in my post at 2:53. And as Graham since pointed out that is what he meant too.

Well, we got that straightened out, thank God - it had absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand, but was just there as extraneous noise to further confuse the issue.
Report to moderator   Logged
orioles
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 913




Ignore
« Reply #28 on: December 11, 2008, 06:54:16 PM »

Just read where Santa Anita cut purses 10% and they haven't even starting running yet . In Arlington's case ,I think we are looking through rose-colored glasses.
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #29 on: December 11, 2008, 07:01:20 PM »

Just read where Santa Anita cut purses 10% and they haven't even starting running yet . In Arlington's case ,I think we are looking through rose-colored glasses.

Yes, but did Santa Anita get a bunch of extra dates (especially simulcast dates = no racing expense) that were taken away from another track? I think not! No excuses for AP in 2009.
Report to moderator   Logged
General Powell
Guest

« Reply #30 on: December 11, 2008, 07:53:10 PM »

Regarding overpayment of purses, the following came up at the IRB meeting. AP has no Overpayment going into 2009. Jim Miller reported that Haw does have an overpayment but that it is being steadily reduced. This was one meeting where AP and Hawthorne literally were in complete agreement on most issues that came up.
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #31 on: December 11, 2008, 07:59:02 PM »

Regarding overpayment of purses, the following came up at the IRB meeting. AP has no Overpayment going into 2009.

Thank you, kind General. furlong was intentionally confusing the issue with irrelevant noise and apologia, just as I suspected.
Report to moderator   Logged
fnlfurlong
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 485




Ignore
« Reply #32 on: December 11, 2008, 11:20:50 PM »

You wrote there was going to be a $10k increase in overnight purses. I did not equate that to the stakes, because I had not discussed those overnight stakes at all, and this discussion has been about overnight purses for every day horsemen! If you don't want confusion, don't confuse people with bad information!

For God's sake, here you are again saying it's not going to result in a meaningful purse increase!

So, since that's your position, lose your weak cover argument that it's going to be a big purse help to the horsemen. You can't argue that in one breath when you're trying to justify the transfer of days, and then turn around and say it's not going to be the case when people expect that means higher purses. Just be honest and admit the real truth, that's it's a bald revenue transfer from Hawthorne to Arlington, and you're happy about that.

Where have I argued that it is going to be a big purse help to the horsemen. I've never said that. I said that running live racing at AP earns more for the purse account than running live at Hawthorne. What is incorrect about that?
Report to moderator   Logged
fnlfurlong
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 485




Ignore
« Reply #33 on: December 11, 2008, 11:30:44 PM »

Thank you, kind General. furlong was intentionally confusing the issue with irrelevant noise and apologia, just as I suspected.

Not confusing the issues. At the time of this discussion none of this had been established and you're intentionally confusing the issue by stating a few extra days should result in a substantial purse increase. That is not true, you know it, but your making such bold lies in order to bear the flag of your Hawthorne homerism. Overpayment, amount of races run, number of days run, are all part of the purse distribution equation irregardless of what track. The overpayment issues at Hawthorne was discussed when they cut purses earlier this year. It hadn't been brought up in regard to AP until General kindly informed us, but without knowing that situation your misleading statements are just that. And AP does have higher purses that Hawthorne, and it is due in part because of their host and live time. Adding a few extra days isn't going to substantially increase that. Please inform us how it is possible for a substantial purse increase to occur from 2 extra days of live racing?

I'm not going to explain this again, because you'll try and twist it into more of your lies.
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #34 on: December 11, 2008, 11:49:52 PM »

Adding a few extra days isn't going to substantially increase that. Please inform us how it is possible for a substantial purse increase to occur from 2 extra days of live racing?

Well then, we agree, moving those dates to Arlington isn't really going to accomplish much at all for the local horsemen. All the cover stories people like you told and tell about how this is a great thing for the horsemen are just that, cover stories to gloss over the real fact, that the IRB engineered a simple track's cut  revenue transfer from Hawthorne to AP. That's been my point all along, but we had to work through the "better purses" smokescreen. Now that we're in agreement, I can quit baiting you (and others) with the huge purse increase nonsense. Thanks for finally coming around to my way of thinking. Of course there will be no huge purse increase. There will be lucky to be any purse increase at all. It won't make a difference. Are you at all familiar with the concept of "sarcasm", furlong?

And now, thanks to the loyal ITHA's support in moving those dates, it looks as though all the new purse money that might be generated from the new dates at AP will be handed over to the stakes program and the inevitable out of town winners. Bwah hah hah! Illinois horsemen suckered again.

You never know, though, maybe next summer will be more fun than we can imagine at this time, since the ITHA joined the THG group that's demanding 7% of ADW fees. No slots revenues in Illinois to buy off the horsemen like happened in Louisiana.
Report to moderator   Logged
fnlfurlong
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 485




Ignore
« Reply #35 on: December 12, 2008, 12:12:51 AM »

Well then, we agree, moving those dates to Arlington isn't really going to accomplish much at all for the local horsemen. All the cover stories people like you told and tell about how this is a great thing for the horsemen are just that, cover stories to gloss over the real fact, that the IRB engineered a simple track's cut  revenue transfer from Hawthorne to AP.

What cover stories? Where did I say that? Typical Terry lies.

That's been my point all along, but we had to work through the "better purses" smokescreen. Now that we're in agreement, I can quit baiting you (and others) with the huge purse increase nonsense. Thanks for finally coming around to my way of thinking. Of course there will be no huge purse increase. There will be lucky to be any purse increase at all. It won't make a difference. Are you at all familiar with the concept of "sarcasm", furlong?

No one ever claimed that there would be. Simple fact is that running live at AP produces more for the purse account than running live at Hawthorne. The net effect is a larger purse for the horsemen to run for at AP than Hawthorne. Therefore, it is better for the horsemen to run at Hawthorne. No one ever claimed there would be "huge" or "substantial" purses increases. Again you're making stuff up.

And now, thanks to the loyal ITHA's support in moving those dates, it looks as though all the new purse money that might be generated from the new dates at AP will be handed over to the stakes program and the inevitable out of town winners. Bwah hah hah! Illinois horsemen suckered again.

Don't stakes purses have to be a certain percentage of overall purses? If that is the case then, the fact AP's stakes purses increased means that there had to be an increase in the overall purse account, thus meaning the Illinois horsemen are gaining too.
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #36 on: December 12, 2008, 12:19:51 AM »

What cover stories? Where did I say that? Typical Terry lies.

When you tried to justify it based on how it was going to help the horsemen.

Quote
No one ever claimed that there would be. Simple fact is that running live at AP produces more for the purse account than running live at Hawthorne.

That's true. Two whole days. However, plain old dark simulcast host days generate pretty much the same no matter who is the host. Those are the ones the IRB took 8 away from Hawthorne this year, and 12 or something last year. Those days are pure gravy as far as track commission. A bald revenue transfer from Haw to AP.

Quote
The net effect is a larger purse for the horsemen to run for at AP than Hawthorne.

Two whole days, in return for three lost live days at Haw. That's the huge "net increase" we've been discussing. It will be SO AWESOME! Just like I've been saying all along!

Quote
Don't stakes purses have to be a certain percentage of overall purses?

No.
Report to moderator   Logged
zimms1948
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 51




Ignore
« Reply #37 on: December 13, 2008, 11:31:43 AM »

Frank and Greg, like the Breeder's Cup, are trying to plan for a down economy. We shouldn't be spending money we don't have.

Due to Blago, when are we getting any extra money?
The racehorse industry is not healthy. Ask the vendors at the track how much is owed to them. How many people who don't normally owe money know owe?
Report to moderator   Logged
fnlfurlong
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 485




Ignore
« Reply #38 on: December 13, 2008, 11:20:46 PM »

Simple fact of the matter is that additional days of racing do not guarantee increase of purse money. If handle declines during the meet and creates a purse overpayment the track has every right to cut purses. If APs current purse account is balanced, but the economy dessimates AP handle in 09, there very well could be a purse decrease by the end of the meet, similar to Hawthorne's cut this Fall meet. Until Hawthorne starts handling more than AP, it will always be more lucrative for the horsemen to run at AP. Though I'm not advocating that all race days should be run at AP.

And I'm almost 100% certain that there is a stipulation in the ITHA contract that stakes purses must be a certain percentage of the purse account. I'm pretty sure from last year it was a discussion point at the IRB meeting discussing the stakes schedules. I wasn't there this year, but maybe General would remember if it was mentioned or not this time round.
Report to moderator   Logged
orioles
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 913




Ignore
« Reply #39 on: December 14, 2008, 10:17:29 AM »

 light bulb Doesn't a lot of the stakes purse money come from nominating , entry, and starting fees???
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #40 on: December 14, 2008, 11:23:32 AM »

And I'm almost 100% certain that there is a stipulation in the ITHA contract that stakes purses must be a certain percentage of the purse account.

If that was the case, there would have been no discussion about the increases at this year's IRB meeting that we're talking about - it would be a done deal based on a strict %. OR it signals a big purse increase for next year, because the stakes purses went up. Take your choice.

Quote
I'm pretty sure from last year it was a discussion point at the IRB meeting discussing the stakes schedules.

There might be something that says it cannot be higher than a certain percentage.
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #41 on: December 14, 2008, 11:24:24 AM »

light bulb Doesn't a lot of the stakes purse money come from nominating , entry, and starting fees???

In harness racing and quarter horse racing yes. Not so much in most thoroughbred stakes.
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #42 on: December 14, 2008, 11:29:00 AM »

Due to Blago, when are we getting any extra money?

The Blago situation could kill the current bill that's in front of him, and could further endanger the money that's already sitting in escrow.
Report to moderator   Logged
fnlfurlong
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 485




Ignore
« Reply #43 on: December 14, 2008, 02:13:39 PM »

If that was the case, there would have been no discussion about the increases at this year's IRB meeting that we're talking about - it would be a done deal based on a strict %. OR it signals a big purse increase for next year, because the stakes purses went up. Take your choice.

There might be something that says it cannot be higher than a certain percentage.

If there's something that stakes purses cannot be higher than a certain percentage, and AP is below that percentage, then there really is nothing to argue about as the Illinois Horsemen agreed to that contract.
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #44 on: December 14, 2008, 02:31:15 PM »

If there's something that stakes purses cannot be higher than a certain percentage, and AP is below that percentage, then there really is nothing to argue about as the Illinois Horsemen agreed to that contract.

IF. So far all we have is your recollection of last year.

But, it depends. Does a track want to maintain good relations with its local horsemen, or just run roughshod over them giving away an inordinate amount of purse money to stakes, when all economic indications point to a bad 2009? Does the IRB think that's a good idea for the health of the local industry? Just because there's an upper or lower limit written to anything doesn't mean anyone has to actually approach it.
Report to moderator   Logged
fnlfurlong
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 485




Ignore
« Reply #45 on: December 14, 2008, 03:55:15 PM »

IF. So far all we have is your recollection of last year.

But, it depends. Does a track want to maintain good relations with its local horsemen, or just run roughshod over them giving away an inordinate amount of purse money to stakes, when all economic indications point to a bad 2009? Does the IRB think that's a good idea for the health of the local industry? Just because there's an upper or lower limit written to anything doesn't mean anyone has to actually approach it.

Well the fact that AP has agreed to up their number of Illinois races would suggest that they have a good relationship with their horsemen.
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #46 on: December 14, 2008, 06:21:05 PM »

Well the fact that AP has agreed to up their number of Illinois races would suggest that they have a good relationship with their horsemen.

It suggests nothing but that was part of the deal for the horsemen to support moving dates from Haw to AP.

Here's the entire passage from Greg Szymski:

"We discussed [with Roy Arnold] that there is a perception that Arlington isn't concerned with Illinois racing. As part of the ITHA's agreement to support additional race dates for Arlington Park, it was agreed that Arlington will offer [those IL bred numbers]."

This is the same Greg Szymski who appeared in front of the IRB the other day, asking that they NOT approve the AP stakes purse increases because it might negatively impact the overnight purses, which would include those IL bred races.
Report to moderator   Logged
Jim C
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1403




Ignore
« Reply #47 on: December 16, 2008, 12:22:19 AM »

Well we already know the purses for some of the stakes races at BOTH tracks will be lower just from the Breeders Cup removing their funds. But since Blogo signed that bill today we are in line to get some money sometime to be added to the purses. The idea of taking money from the stakes program and adding it to the overnights in the long run is counterproductive. If someone owns a few good stakes horses and some mid allowance/claimers they are going to look at the place where they can run most of their stock for the best purse structure. If you cut the stakes program you risk losing all of that stable. If you keep the stakes program as is or even improve it a bit then you have a much better shot at getting the entire stable running here. Plus the local horsremen have been doing pretty well here the last few years at winning and placing in stakes races at both tracks. So I take issue with Terry a bit on the "Dick's out of town friends" coming here to win stakes races statement.

Terry if those bad spring and fall dates are really so bad....why have any stakes races at that time of year at all? Why not just put all that money into the overnight purses? The fact is those dates for the most part are not so bad and they can attract some very good horses to run here. The real problem Hawthorne has is that they RUN TOO MUCH! Running that extra time in January is rediculouse. They should only be running 3 or 4 days a week in December too. Then collect dark time money to add to the purses at Hawthorne to go into the overnights that would benefit the locals far more than adding to the overnights at AP. (You seem to assume that the locals have a better shot at winning non stakes races at AP in the summer I am not sure I would agree with that assumption.) In any case where do you think the locals WOULD have a better shot at winning those races AP or Hawthorne? If the answer is Hawthorne then they should be doing all they can to maximize their purses by any means within their control. Racing less days in Dec and no days in Jan would go a long way to help achieve those higher purses.

Secondly at this point it really doesnt matter much who got what extra days from who, its what they do with them and what money they generate from them. One thing seems to be clear, there are more people at AP watching races then there are at Hawthorne, even in Sept.
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #48 on: December 16, 2008, 02:09:58 AM »

The idea of taking money from the stakes program and adding it to the overnights in the long run is counterproductive.

That isn't the issue. The issue in this thread has been INCREASING stakes purses at AP next year in light of what is likely to be a poor year economically. All the arguments against "gutting the stakes program" are people talking to themselves.

Quote
Terry if those bad spring and fall dates are really so bad....why have any stakes races at that time of year at all?

The two issues of bad dates and stakes are totally unrelated.

Quote
Secondly at this point it really doesnt matter much who got what extra days from who, its what they do with them and what money they generate from them.

That's true. And, if the track that got the dates simply turns around and applies all the extra purse money it was just given to stakes, it really didn't do the day to day guys much good.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2008, 02:21:40 AM by CLOCKERTERRY » Report to moderator   Logged
Jim C
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1403




Ignore
« Reply #49 on: December 17, 2008, 12:58:42 AM »

You need to tell me your idea of what "bad dates" means. I do not think the issue of dates and stakes races are "totally" unrelated. In any case fair enough Terry, but just a few questions.

Who exactly are these "day to day" guys anyway? Once again I point out that the locals have done very well in the stakes program. Are you saying that those who run in the stakes program do not run in any other races? Are you saying that more of the money should not go towards those who have better horses and have put more money into racing but rather go towards those who have less quality horses? Don't you think that MAYBE if the purses for stakes races were to go up would that not make people aim towards getting more quality horses to race? What is the incentive to improve the quality of their horses if they can run the same type horses they have now but for higher purses?  Those who have stakes caliber horses will need to win money to cover costs just as much as anyone else, after all the costs are the same no matter how good the horse so why penalize the stakes horses? Huh

Isn't the point of all this added purse money supposed to be for improving the QUALITY of racing in Illinois? If that is in fact the objective then the money should be added to the stakes program and the higher allowance races. If not then don't we just get exactly what you have complained about in the past? The same horses running here that we have always had just for higher purses.

At some point we need to decide just what exactly we are trying to do here. Are we just trying to keep the status quo and add enough money to the pot to help people to merely survive from meet to meet? Or are we trying to improve the product to the point where hopefully it can grow and compete once again while also becoming self-sufficient and not require "handouts" to survive?
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.455 seconds with 16 queries.

Home
Upcoming events
Arlington Million
Horse slaughter in IL
Racing TV schedule
News Updates
Legislation

Galloping Out

Previous stories

Arlington
Balmoral
Hawthorne
Maywood
Chicago Sun-Times
Chicago Tribune
Blood-Horse
Daily Racing Form
Thoroughbred Times
Harness Link
Illinois Racing Board

 

2014

Arlington Million
Triple Crown
Illinois Derby

2013

Breeders' Cup
Hawthorne Gold Cup
Arlington Million
Triple Crown
Illinois Derby

2012

Breeders' Cup
Hawthorne Gold Cup
Arlington Million
Triple Crown
Illinois Derby

More ebay items

 

Home | News Updates | Bloggers | Forums | Search
Resources | Links | Marketplace | Gallery | Advertising | Contact Us

Copyright © 2000-2014 Chicago Barn to Wire. All rights reserved.
Privacy policy