Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Betty White has long lost dirty sex photos


Dpantherman

Recommended Posts

BETTY White is kinky little devil if this latest report is to be believed!

According to insiders, there’s a small collection of photos which depict the the actress, 88, and her late husband, television host Allen Ludden, engaging in sexual activities.

There are said to be four photos in total. The pics in question, which are reportedly being shopped to various media organizations, were recently found in a box belonging to Betty.

The box was supposedly left behind at her old house along with other memorabilia.

Meanwhile, Betty has insisted she won’t go down the same route as sex tape star Kim Kardashian by becoming a reality TV star.

“I shouldn’t be negative but they [reality TV shows] are not my favorite things in the world,” she said. “I don’t like them.”

http://www.showbizspy.com/article/206526/betty-white-and-late-husband-have-sex-pictures-report.html

tumblr_l16nkzi3f71qbxykyo1_250.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does this remind me of the movie "Airheads"? Where they asked for naked pics of Bea Authur! :eek:

Let's See Alan Lunden has been dead for abour 20 years, and she's 89 now. That would put her at most 69! Still, I don't want to see the pics.

Betty White has a new show on TV Land.

Betty White, other favorites in funny, fresh "Hot in Cleveland"

We must have been having an awful lot of fun. Where did the time go? Jane Leeves, the lovably loopy Daphne from Frasier, is 49. Valerie Bertinelli, the adorable younger sister from One Day at a Time, is 50. Wendie Malick, the boozy fashion editor and former supermodel in Just Shoot Me, turns 60 in December. And Betty White - well, she's always been pretty old, but now she's 88.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
    • Get any shot you can at humane society, so much cheaper
×
×
  • Create New...