Jump to content
NHL'94 Forums

Collective Bargain Agreement Info


halifax

Recommended Posts

Here's a good article by Elliot Friedmen on topics to be discussed during CBA negotiations.

We all debate who deserves what or who's going to get what, but negotiations usually come down to "who blinks first," as one NHL executive says.

The intent is to show no bias here. Spent a lot of time over the past season talking about labour and solutions with people in the game, and here are some thoughts and ideas into where we're going.

WHAT SHARE DO THE PLAYERS GET

Right now, they receive 57 per cent of all hockey-related revenues. It's been reported on many occasions that commissioner Gary Bettman would like to bring it down to 50 per cent. That's in line with the recent NFL and NBA deals. (MLB does not have a salary cap.)

Each percentage point is worth about $30 million US.

But, as one of the smart people involved in all of this has said, "It's not just the size of the pie, it's what's in the pie." And that is the key. How creative are both sides willing to be?

The NFL players agreed to go down to 47 per cent (from approximately 50) -- but received some other concessions that will increase their overall pool of cash.

Previously, teams only needed to spend to 75 per cent of the cap. In 2011 and 2012, the league committed to 99 per cent of the max. According to NFL.com, it drops to 95 per cent for the remainder of the 10-year agreement. (Teams only need to spend 89 per cent of that in cash, but there is a league-wide guarantee it will get to 95 with bonuses and incentives.)

Also, the players agreed to different kinds of splits for different sources of revenue: 55 per cent of national media revenue, 45 per cent of NFL Ventures revenue, and 40 per cent of local club revenue. (The massive national TV cash drives everything.)

Like their NHL brethren, the NBA players also had 57 per cent of the share in their previous CBA. That's now on a sliding scale, from 49-51 per cent.

But, as a concession, they also have a higher floor. It went from 75 to 85 per cent this season, and stays there for another year. Then it goes to 90 (some hockey teams must be shivering at these numbers).

The NHL's Hockey Related Revenue system is spelled out in Article 50 of the current CBA. There are loopholes and exceptions you can expect the NHLPA to examine.

But, a couple of other situations could create fireworks. For example, if the NHL was to expand, players don't get a share of the new franchise fee(s).

If it's brought up, can't imagine the league would be happy to split it. And, will the NHLPA look at Real Sports (the tremendous sports bar next to Air Canada Centre) or LA Live (the impressive restaurant area outside Staples Center) and say, "My, those places would be awfully empty on 41 other nights if there was no hockey." (Vancouver is considering something similar, too.) I asked a member of one of those organizations about sharing that revenue and he told me to do something that's anatomically impossible.

This is probably the biggest fight.

ESCROW

Players hate this. It's the amount removed from every paycheque to make sure they don't get more than 57 per cent of the pie. (If not, it's paid back early the next season.) The more players on one-way contracts are sent to the minors, the worse it is. The more guys get injured and have to miss games, the worse it is.

The league isn't thrilled the NHLPA usually sets the amount high, believing it's artificially done to infuriate players and guarantee a return. This year, the union did start at 8.5 per cent, the lowest since 2005-06. It was at 22 per cent a couple of years ago.

You can't expect the players to be able to undo this one, but the NBA did something interesting in its new deal. There is a cap on the amount that actually went up from eight to 10, but any shortfalls are now taken off post-career benefits instead of next year's pay.

THE FLOOR/REVENUE SHARING

Obviously, the lower-revenue teams hate this. In 2005-06, the first post-lockout season, the salarycap was $39 million. Now, the floor is 40 per cent higher than that.

The thing is, though, you can't have a cap without a floor. If the NHL is going to say, "Look, NBA players are only getting 50 per cent and NFL guys 47, you're going to have to go there too," the players will fire back with, "Well, look at where their floors are."

MLB doesn't have one, but teams that actually do try (hint: not Kansas City or Pittsburgh) to spend whatever they want, providing a willingness to pay the luxury tax. The NHL is not going to go backward and drop the cap system for a luxury tax. It's won that battle already.

The problem with the NHL's current revenue-sharing plan is that teams that qualify (not one of the top 15 revenue-generating teams, not in a market of 2.5 million homes, average attendance of 14,000) must have a year-to-year growth rate ahead of the league average. Teams like Buffalo, Nashville and Florida can't hope to grow faster than Toronto or Montreal or the Rangers, an argument that does have merit. (That market-size issue is painful, too. Just ask the Islanders or Ducks.)

Fehr is going to propose something which deposits the billions saved in players' salaries to the teams that need it. To give you some idea of what he's done, the MLB revenue-sharing system he helped create consists of team and league responsibilities. The last CBA he did was 2006, which worked in two parts. First, each team deposited 31 per cent of its local revenue into a pool. All of that money was split 30 ways, so the New York Yankees, for

example, wouldn't get back what they put in. The-then Florida Marlins (now Miami), at the time, were making a killing. Then, MLB's "Central Fund" (national revenues) sent a cheque to each team.

In 2009, Baseball America reported that amount to be $30 million apiece. Overall, the same magazine said $433 million was moved from the high-revenue teams to the lower clubs that year. It was at a time when MLB revenues were $6.6 billion, double what the NHL is at now.

The danger is having some NHL owners do what the Royals and Pirates do -- keep a tiny payroll while making profits because they cash massive revenue-sharing cheques. But there is now protection against that. In the latest MLB CBA, a new rule was added. Your payroll must be at least 25 per cent larger than your revenue-sharing cheque. (So, if you get $50 million, you must spend at least $62.5.) And you have to prove the money's been spent to improve your team.

You can expect Fehr to try something along these lines.

FREE AGENCY

"This has been the most inflationary part of the new CBA," said one exec. "I bet the league had no idea it was going to work out the way it did."

As free agency for the best players dropped from age 31 to 27 (or after seven years in the NHL) it led to a series of long-term, big money contracts.

The exec is right, it was great for the players.

A couple of people suggested the NHL might try something as simple as changing "age 27 or seven years" to "age 27 and seven years." Or it might try to raise it closer to 31 years old.

Can't imagine the NHLPA would be so eager to change that. Ilya Kovalchuk got $100 million and Zach Parise/Ryan Suter are about to hit the market in their primes. But what about ...

CONTRACT LENGTH

No one in the NBA can sign for more than five years. Will the NHL try that one?

GUARANTEED CONTRACTS

This is an educated guess on my part, but I don't think Bettman is going to go after these. If he did, the players would have no choice but to sit out forever. (I would.) Non-guaranteed contracts may look great to NFL owners, but look at the side-effects now, especially in the concussion era. It's so dangerous.

It's going to go one of two ways: players won't play after the slightest injury or they'll be so scared to lose their jobs that they'll play when they shouldn't. Yes, it happens to some degree now, but it will happen to even worse extremes going forward.

And, now that concussion lawsuits are a big fear in NFL circles, I'd be even more leery of eliminating such contracts in the NHL. Some of the lawsuits are coming because players feel cheated by non-guaranteed deals.

But ...

BUYOUTS

Could teams push for a different type of "skill guarantee?"

There are two buyout periods now: after the season and after arbitration. A couple of team executives said they've heard compatriots talk about a third - just before the regular season.

Say a player totally bombs in camp/exhibition play, shows up out of shape, or, for whatever reason, looks like he's lost it. What if a team could buy him out then?

Right now, the buyout formula is two-thirds the cash owed over double the term remaining. So, if you cut a guy who has three years and $6 million left on his contract, you must pay $4 million over six years. (There is a less-onerous model for younger players.)

I do think the owners will target the current formula, for sure. Will they go one step further, too, and try for an extra buyout period?

CAP LOOPHOLES

Some teams go bug-eyed crazy when the Rangers put Wade Redden in the AHL or Ian Laperriere doesn't retire until his over-35 contract expires. It's a way around the cap. (And, if I was a GM, I'd be doing it, too.)

Don't know how the NHLPA feels about this, but there is internal debate among the league to end this. I'm against it -- and here's why: If you're a smaller-budget team, you have to be able to jettison mistakes. Two bad contracts (and everybody has them) will cripple you.

Take Nashville. The Predators wanted to move Matthew Lombardi last season. Toronto agreed, providing Cody Franson was included. It didn't work out, but it seemed like a good move for the Maple Leafs. And it really helped Nashville create some flexibility.

If Toronto can't put other people in the minors, it can't happen and the Predators are stuck.

Same when San Jose wanted to move Brad Lukowich with Christian Ehrhoff. If the Canucks can't take Lukowich, it never gets done. And it doesn't help the Sharks.

Trading is impossible enough already. And, you're only hurting the teams that really need assistance.

SUPPLEMENTARY DISCIPLINE

It's no secret the players want change. Maybe it's a committee, maybe it's a different appeals process. In baseball, Fehr's former sport, an independent arbitrator can hear appeals. We've assumed it will be different.

Committees are useless. The competition committee, once a great idea, is now just two groups voting as a bloc and a complete waste of time. It has to be one person, maybe with a term limit. That's a brutal job to keep for a long time.

And, what if the NHL, seeing the power held by NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, decides it wants a similar setup. Goodell makes suspensions and hears appeals.

The league will fight the maximum $2,500 fine, but it should be remembered this low amount is because of former NHL president Gil Stein. Stein, Bettman's predecessor, wouldn't suspend offenders. They could play in games, but pay larger fines and be forced to miss practice.

The NHLPA felt the players were being punished, but not the teams and fought back.

The players have talked a lot about this, but I'm not sure it's going to be so easy.

DRUG TESTING/SLEEPING PILLS/THE SCHEDULE

Lou Lamoriello's wanted drug testing "with teeth" for awhile. As it stands, players can only be randomly checked three times during the season, never beforehand and never during the playoffs.

Don't see it being a huge deal (unless it becomes a trade-off for something else), but think the players will take it one step further. If several sources are correct, Fehr is going to make sleeping pills a major issue and point the finger at the schedule.

Sadly, it took Derek Boogaard's death to thrust a spotlight on the problem. The combination of players being wired after games, having a beer or two, a lot of travel and a morning skate/practice equals men needing help to get to sleep. Too often that help comes with Ambien.

As we know now, it's a dangerous mix.

The easy thing to do is ban it, and that may very well happen. But, Fehr apparently believes that if the schedule doesn't ease up, it won't matter. The NHL is sensitive to this, and is looking at ways to ease things but not (as of the last I checked) willing to go to a "baseball model" or two or three games in a row in one city. There are legitimate feasibility problems with multi-purpose arenas.

I do wonder if the solution may be later morning skates (or none at all) and afternoon practices. This is something that needs to be addressed, similarly to how the Canucks make sure their players always have an eight-hour block to sleep.

At least one agent hopes this gets done because he's worried about what's happening at the AHL and junior levels.

EQUIPMENT

Not the usual debate about tank-like shoulder pads.

Several GMs are pushing hard for greater control over what their players wear. From goalie masks to socks to gloves, they feel their multimillion competitors are not properly protecting themselves from injury.

They want better testing on masks and mandatory thicker padding between the mask and the face. Some goalies refuse it because they want their eyes as close to the cage as possible.

Kevlar socks protect against accidental skate cuts. The Rangers made their players wear a Kevlar "plate" on their gloves because of all the shotblocking they do.

And, in what should be an interesting discussion (if it actually comes up), one GM said he'd like players to have to pay for their own sticks. A team's stick budget can reach $500,000 per year, and they tend to break a little more often than everyone likes.

INTERNATIONAL PLAY

Fehr loves this kind of competition, having helped create the World Baseball Classic in 2006. Fans love it, players love it and the NHL/NHLPA love it - as long as they control it.

The idea of a permanent World Cup every four years has been discussed for awhile now, but there's been debate over whether it should be before the season or at the all-star break. It's a 50/50 split.

Bettman knows how much the players want to go the Olympics and he may use that as a bargaining chip. It should happen, but the NHLPA does agree with him that they don't get enough out of it.

They don't get access and can't use footage on their websites. That's as big a hangup as this labour issue is for nailing down Sochi. Can't see it not happening, though.

RETIRED PLAYER BENEFITS

This usually gets forgotten, because people tend not to think about quitting hockey or those who already have. But, both the NHL and NHLPA have a responsibility to continuously consider those who've retired and those who will retire (the current players).

It's not just financial, although that is important. It's also about making certain players who are in the process of retiring are given counseling on how difficult that challenge can be.

For some reason, this Forbes.com quote from Kris Draper really stuck with me and he's probably one of the more well-adjusted people.

The goal should be to make sure everyone who needs help gets it.

MINIMUM SALARY

As I wrote in the companion piece, I think the league will try to raise it from the current $525,000. It's a pretty smart strategy. I'm not saying making that money is a hardship, but it is harder with taxes, escrow and agent fees.

How high? Not sure. Everything's negotiable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Elliot Friedman, best journalist in hockey

EDIT: although he makes a grammatical error: "if the NHL was to expand," should be "were" instead of "was!" :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The CBA war has begun. The owner proposed a cut back salaries form 57% to 46%...ouch.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/2012/07/14/grange_nhl_owners_split_personality_cba_talks/

Cordial, positive, productive.

Those were the adjectives both the NHL and the NHLPA used to assess the first five meetings regarding their new collective bargaining agreement over the past two weeks.

Total B.S., if the first reports about the substance of the NHL's position are accurate.

How about cutthroat, ruthless and calculating?

First reported by RDS and subsequently confirmed by Sportsnet with various league insiders, commissioner Gary Bettman and the NHL owners have taken dead aim at their players and their earning power, even as they have spent the opening weeks of free agency flouting the very rules they're proposing.

Among the pillars of a new-look CBA should the owners get their way when the current version expires Sept. 15 are:

--- A reduction of the player's share of hockey related revenue to 46 per cent from the 57 per cent it is currently.

---10 years of NHL service time to become a free agent, up from seven.

---Five year contract limits - Ilya Kovalchuk signed a 15-year deal in 2010 and Zach Parise and Ryan Suter signed 13-year deals last week.

---Players would not be eligible for signing bonuses

---Entry level deals would extend from three years to five.

Also, the New York Post is reporting that the definition of what is hockey related revenue would be redefined under the NHL proposal so the players would be getting a smaller share of a reduced gross number.

Neither the NHLPA or the NHL responded to requests for comment.

What do they mean, should they come to pass? Well, how about a prolonged lockout; the second in eight years, potentially.

"If true, this proposal amounts to an all-out owners declaration of war against the players," said Allan Walsh of Octagon, one of the league's leading player agents. "In the face of six years of record revenues, I'm stunned and angry. Once again, the players and fans are to be held hostage by Bettman and the owners."

In practical terms it can only mean the NHL is expecting to roll back salaries as aggressively as the players will let them while instituting other measures to drag salaries even as league revenues have grown by more than $1-billion under the terms of the current agreement which took effect in 2005.

Cutting the player's share from 57 to 46 per cent of revenues represents an immediate pay cut of 20 per cent.

It should make a handy rallying point for NHLPA executive director Donald Fehr, who was unequivocal when asked Friday if he would accept wage rollbacks if they were part of the NHL's strategy.

"What do I think about salary rollbacks?" Fehr said. "I think what most people representing employees would think of salary rollbacks, what I'm sure you would think about salary rollbacks if they were coming to you. You don't have to be a genius to figure out what that is… I certainly assume that the owners would intend to comply with all the contracts they've signed."

And that's what makes this opening salvo so cynical on the part of the owners. Not only has Bettman spent most of the past few months trumpeting the league's hand-over-fist revenue growth, his owners have spent hundreds of millions in the past few weeks signing players to contracts that directly contradict what they're reportedly going to be bargaining for in the next CBA.

It's as if they are split personalities. By day they're at the bargaining table asking for term limits on contracts and the elimination of signing bonuses and contracts with cap friendly salary structures. By night they've grown paws are howling at the moon and stuffing money into the hockey socks of any player who smiles at them.

It remains to be seen how the players respond. One benefit of the current system is that they know exactly what the owners are trying to take away from them. Eight years ago when the league was trying to impose a salary cap it was a nebulous concept without clear causes and effects.

Now it's pretty easy to figure out: the owners want the players’ money. A 10-year labour agreement under the terms reported could transfer $3.7-billion worth of league revenues from the players to the owners and perhaps much more; this on top of the 24-per-cent rollback the players agreed to before coming back to work in 2005.

"They're asking the 75 per cent of players in the league who are under contract to take 20 per cent less; those are calculable numbers," said one agent. "It's not hard to figure out. If you're making a $1-million you'll be making $800,000. Is that worth fighting for? It would be if it were me."

The NHLPA hadn't responded to the news of the owners' reported proposals by the early hours of Saturday morning.

Chances are when they do cordial, productive and positive won't be the first words that get tossed around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

holy fucking ruthlessness, Bettman!

Edited by trudatman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is an article written by an anonymous player: The Player: What’s really at stake for NHLPA in collective bargaining with NHL

This part is smozoma:

Before the salary cap, player salaries consumed 75% of league revenues. They agreed to drop down to 57%, a 24% reduction. The league wants them to drop down to 46% now? As The Player asks, "Why?" Revenues are up 80%, and they want the players to take less? Where is that money going to go? Will they reduce ticket and concession prices to match? Will the support staff get raises (doctors, massage therapists, hot dog vendors, marketters, etc)? Shyeah right. If they want to tie the players to a %, they should tie some of the other aspects of the league to a %, too. They need to prove why it would be good for the league and the players to reduce the players' share again when the league is doing really well.

The league is obviously trying to target a compromise, but imagine what they would decree if the players weren't unionized?

What's actually "broken" in the league? All I can think of is:

  1. Loophole contracts ruin the fairness of the salary cap hit
    1. Peanut years at the end of contracts extending into retirement years in order to bring salary cap hit down
    2. [*]Tickets are too expensive in popular cities for regular people to afford

      [*]Salary cap floor is $16M less than the the ceiling, not some kind of percentage, which hurts poor teams (but is nice for their players)

      [*]Phoenix

      [*]Revenue sharing scheme is messed up, according to The Player

      How do we fix those?

      1.

      The salary cap one has a lot of reasonable methods, rather than outright capping them at 5 years. Most teams don't want to give long contracts, because they're risky, and the main reason they do it now is to cheat the salary cap system. Remove that ability, and they won't give out long contracts (unless they are garth snow).

      • Only allow the averaging to extend to age 36, maybe 37. Seasons after that count directly against the cap, because even good players could retire at any moment (Sundin retired at 37).
      • Make the salary cap hit equal to their salary that year. Maybe allow a 1-time signing bonus to sweeten the first year, and spread out the signing bonus over all the years.
      • Make the salary cap hit a sliding window, maybe 3 to 5 years. So if you sign a 10-year contract, the cap hit for the first season is the average salary for seasons 1-3 or 1-5. second year it's 2-4 or 2-6, etc. This removes the incentive to extend the contract into the player's 40s.

      2.

      Unfortunately this is supply and demand...

      When it comes to Toronto, they should make a new team or relocate a team there. If there can be NYI, NYR, and N.J arenas all within 42 miles of each other, then the Toronto area can have 2 goddamn teams.

      3.

      Originally the cap was $39M and the floor was $23M. The floor is fixed at $16M less than the cap. This is nice for players, because it forces cheap teams to pay more, but maybe they could do something to let the floor-to-ceiling gap widen a little with the increasing cap, like every 10M increase in the cap from 39M, increase the gap 2M. So since the cap has gone up over 30M, the gap would go up 6M, from 16M to 22M.

      On the other hand, the poor teams get revenue sharing... But apparently the whole revenue sharing scheme is very unpredictable and needs work.

      4.

      I don't know enough about the Phoenix situation

      5.

      The article above mentions how the revenue sharing scheme is unpredictable for the teams... I dont' know enough about how to fix it

      As for the League's demands, I think they need to demonstrate why any of these are important or fair:

      ---10 years of NHL service time to become a free agent, up from seven -- I can understand this to some degree, because it sucks when your young star leaves in their prime (parise, suter). But what if you couldn't switch companies for 10 years after graduating school and getting your first job, and you're past your prime after you're allowed to leave? Maybe do something like the league can cover an extra 5% for the team that he's currently with (i mean if they're going to drop the players down to 46%, why not throw a little back like this), or say 5% doesn't count towards the cap.

      ---Five year contract limits -- this doesn't seem reasonable to me

      ---Players would not be eligible for signing bonuses -- this could probably be addressed in some way by fixing the salary cap loophole

      ---Entry level deals would extend from three years to five -- this doesn't seem reasonable. an unheralded player becomes a star, but he's stuck making $1M until he's 25? (Not that I'd complain about $1M, but still)

      Are there any other things people see as "broken"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think 10 years before they can become a free agent is too harsh. I propose a compensation system. If player A leaves as a free agent under the age of 30, then X dollars and Y draft pick will be awarded to his former team as compensation (with the value of X dollars and Y draft pick being determined by his salary or matched offers).

For example, if a star player under the age of 30 leaves (must be 29 or younger by October 1 of the next season) and signs with another team for a cap hit (or annual average) of $7 million, then his former team should be awarded a very handsome compensation: perhaps two first-round picks or cash and one first-round pick.

If a player is 30 or older by October 1 of the next season, then no compensation is awarded for his departure as a UFA. This can be a very tricky loophole, however. Let's say you did not want to keep that player, and he signs for $7 million elsewhere. Why should you be awarded that compensation? This is where any loophole can be destroyed: the team should have to offer a contract to that player first, and that contract offer should be documented with the league. If the league knows you offered $5 million per year, and he leaves to sign elsewhere for $7 million per year, then the team will be awarded whatever the compensation shall be for a $5 million per year player (perhaps cash and a 2nd-round pick).

Basically, I am proposing that the UFA system works very much like the RFA system; however, I maintain that compensation shall only be awarded for teams who SUBMITTED OFFERS TO THEIR UFAs and lost those UFAs; furthermore, to receive compensation, your UFA must be under the age of 30 by October 1 of the upcoming season. If a player is 30 or older, he is free to go wherever he wants and his former team gets no compensation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And before any of you dare to bring up this scenario....

Player A was playing for $5 million per season with former team, but leaves as under-30 UFA to play for another team at $2 million per season.... NO. I do not see this happening, so it is not a scenario that I feel should be feared at all. I believe the only players you will see taking such drastic pay cuts are the players of Jagr-like or Selanne-like age (and they are beyond the age of compensation in my proposed idea).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the gap between the cap floor and the cap ceiling, I believe I have a reasonable solution for determining the cap floor. NHL rosters carry 23 men, so it is only logical to take the following formula into account:

CAP FLOOR = (league minimum salary * 23 men) + maximum salary allowed

If league minimum = $550,000 and maximum salary allowed = $13 million... then cap floor = $25,650,000

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do they decide on the minimum? They might try to reduce the minimum in order to reduce the minimum salary. Sucks if you're a 4th-line guy and now your cheap salary is under attack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do they decide on the minimum? They might try to reduce the minimum in order to reduce the minimum salary. Sucks if you're a 4th-line guy and now your cheap salary is under attack.

Well, I think step one would be doing whatever it is you do to determine the cap ceiling. We already know that the maximum salary is X percent of the cap ceiling; therefore, we can stipulate that the league minimum would be Y percent of the cap ceiling. Above all else, I believe the very first step should be determining the cap ceiling; this should not be too difficult, as I'm sure the league uses its revenues generated to help them determine what the ceiling should be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A percentage would be easy enough, although the NBA percentage has been rising, so I was trying to find a compromise between a straight percentage (it was 59% at first, and will be 77.2% this season, do we just pin it to 80%?) and an absolute amount ($16M difference).

I found the minimum salary info: "The minimum NHL player salary in 2005-06 and 2006-07 will be $450,000; $475,000 in 2007-08 and 2008-09; $500,000 in 2009-10 and 2010-11, and $525,000 in 2011-12 (to the extent the CBA is extended by the Union)." So it's not currently percentage-based, and I don't really think it should be (why bother -- it's the high salaries that cause problems).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the high salaries are the problem. It will be up to the NHL and NHLPA to work out some sort of compromise to curtail ridiculously high salaries. Coming up with a minimum salary should not be a fuss for them (shame on them if they get fussy over a minimum salary). What do you think of my cap floor formula? I think it is an excellent way to come up with a cap floor so that lower-revenue teams are not forced to spend more than they are capable of spending.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's an interesting idea, but it's really, really low, isn't it? If the max salary is 13M (20% of cap), then that makes the cap 65M, so that floor is less than half. And as I said it ties the floor to the minimum salary, so some owners won't want to increase the minimum salary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 60 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
×
×
  • Create New...