Jump to content

Budapest 2032?


Recommended Posts

  • 1 month later...

With Vitkor Orban party having super majority in the Parliament of Hungary right now I think he could rewrite into the Hungary Constitution that Budapest must bid to host the games until it's get's the games with that it will bypass a public vote in Budapest.  

Budapest Hungary 2032 could be possible if Hungary want the games with more sporting venues getting built or are build regardless of the 2024 bid I would not write off Budapest 2032.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's probably not economically feasible. Budapest would have a ton of venues to build from scratch that would likely become white elephants afterwards. For starters they lack an athletics stadium and a velodrome, two of the most problematic venues in a SOGs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎6‎/‎21‎/‎2018 at 8:58 AM, stryker said:

It's probably not economically feasible. Budapest would have a ton of venues to build from scratch that would likely become white elephants afterwards. For starters they lack an athletics stadium and a velodrome, two of the most problematic venues in a SOGs.

I think the sports facilities are a lesser concern than the fact that they simply don't have the tourist infrastructure needed.

  • Budapest's airport has only 11 million annual passengers; that is comparable to Stuttgart or Salt Lake City. Athens handles 20 million annual passengers, and they would never have been given the games if Athens did not happen to be in the home country of the ancient Olympics. My home town of Seattle has 47 million annual passengers, and London's second largest airport has 43 million annual passengers.
  • Their bid book claimed to offer over 100,000 hotel rooms, but this involved using buildings that are not actually hotels (like nursing homes) and many of the sites were located far outside the Budapest metro area. Their actual tourism data paints a different picture: there were only 10.6 million overnight visits to the Budapest area in 2016, and 25 million for the whole of Hungary. Seattle's core county alone, by comparison, had 38 million overnight visits: 50% more than the entire country of Hungary. And I am 100% certain that Seattle is not big enough for the summer Olympics.
  • Hungary is a landlocked country that cannot add cruise ships as temporary hotels like Athens, Vancouver and Sochi did.
Edited by Nacre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And besides all of those severe, technical deficiencies, does it really sound like such a feeble & close-minded society like this really deserve such a grandiose & all-inclusive mega event like the Olympic Games anyway;

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/billy-elliot-some-performances-canceled-in-hungary-after-criticism-musical-could-turn-boys-gay/ar-AAz1mkm?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=mailsignout

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
On 6/22/2018 at 7:27 PM, FYI said:

And besides all of those severe, technical deficiencies, does it really sound like such a feeble & close-minded society like this really deserve such a grandiose & all-inclusive mega event like the Olympic Games anyway;

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/billy-elliot-some-performances-canceled-in-hungary-after-criticism-musical-could-turn-boys-gay/ar-AAz1mkm?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=mailsignout

Ironic considering the golden era of gay porn was given per Hungarian and Czechs actors. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 6/22/2018 at 9:38 PM, Nacre said:

I think the sports facilities are a lesser concern than the fact that they simply don't have the tourist infrastructure needed.

  • Budapest's airport has only 11 million annual passengers; that is comparable to Stuttgart or Salt Lake City. Athens handles 20 million annual passengers, and they would never have been given the games if Athens did not happen to be in the home country of the ancient Olympics. My home town of Seattle has 47 million annual passengers, and London's second largest airport has 43 million annual passengers.

This. Even with those low numbers, Budapest's airport struggles to handle 11 million annually especially during the tourist season in the summer months where there are almost always significant delays. If they cannot handle tourist season (and it's not a big number) how could they handle the traffic during the Olympics? American Airlines just started seasonal flights to Budapest and the main reason it took so long was difficulty getting slots at the airport.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Some interesting comments on this thread

Firstly the airport had over 16million passengers in 2019 and as a visitor on business, I have never experienced any delays. There were already proposals for a new Terminal3. The missing infrastructure is connections to the city, but a metro expansion would make a huge difference. As one of the Top25 most visited cities in the world, I imagine that Budapest could handle an influx of visitors.

As for venues, the city is hosting the World Athletics Championship in 2023 with a new 40,000 seater .. this is the same capacity as being touted for other bidders, potentially could be upscaled and the new Ferecs Puskas stadiums is available for ceremonies and football etc. You've got FINA hosting events in the city with the new Danube Arena, a new very large arena for Handball championships and and the Laszlo Papp, another larger indoor arena. Sailing events could be even held on the 'Hungarian Sea', Lake Balaton

Whilst is seems bizarre the IOC have anounced Brisbane as the 'preferred contender', you wonder if this could simply be people betting on the Hare and ignoring the Tortoise.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brisbane seems a pretty safe thing for 2032 to me. 2036 is up for grabs, though, and with 12 years gone after Paris, this might be Europe's to lose. 

2036 is 15 years out, ample time to get the needed infrastructure works going.

What speaks for Budapest is their sheer political will and their recent and soon-to-come record of hosting major events. However, public support seems to be an issue (not unlike many other European bidders) and domestic sponsorship will be modest. IOC have stated the limited market for domestic sponsorship as one of the main risks for Brisbane, now talk about a country which by the 2030's will be a third the population and a fraction of the economic prowess.

I guess, this could maybe be happening as a last resort if there are no other European bidders to come up. But once a Madrid or a Rome or a London enters the stage, I honestly don't see the slightest chance for this to be happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, munichfan said:

 

What speaks for Budapest is their sheer political will

And we all know the IOC has no problem making deals with fascists. But the economics may indeed be a major stumbling block. I doubt Rome or London would be in the ring for 2036, but Madrid indeed and I certainly expect Russia to be there. And of course a bid from Saarbrücken or Oldenburg just because someone at the DOSB thinks this is a wonderful opportunity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As opposed to other federations, the IOC has been smart enough to avoid both Qatar and Azerbaijan. Not to speak of the maybe half a dozen times they might have gone to Turkey. I am pretty sure Bach is well aware of the challenges 2022 got them into and the trouble it poses to the Olympic brand. Beijing might be the single outstanding reason we got the new norm.

Looking at this century, 2008 (more so) and 2014 (less so) were the only times they knowingly went for the politically doubtful choices. Beijing would never have gotten 2022, if there had been any senseful option on the plate left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After having 2 'troublesome' games within 12 years (Athens and Rio), the IOC has gone SUPER safe- Japan, China, France, Italy, USA, Australia...I think that is a little sad, the occasional new territory helps connect the world and bring new excitement.

Deserving countries like India, Indonesia, Turkey, all of Africa and even Hungary might be waiting a while..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, TorchbearerSydney said:

After having 2 'troublesome' games within 12 years (Athens and Rio), the IOC has gone SUPER safe- Japan, China, France, Italy, USA, Australia...I think that is a little sad, the occasional new territory helps connect the world and bring new excitement.

Deserving countries like India, Indonesia, Turkey, all of Africa and even Hungary might be waiting a while..

There is nothing wrong with that though. and was to say those nations didn't deserve the games?

Keep in mind,

Japan- 57 years since last Summer Games and 23 years since last Winter Games

China- 14 years since Summer Games, Never hosted Winter games before

France- 100 years since last Summer Games, 32 years since last Winter games

Italy- 66 years since last Summer Games, 20 years since last Winter games

USA- 32 years since last Summer Games, 26 years since last Winter Games

Australia- 32 years since last Summer Games, Never hosted Winter games before

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

The New Norm Olympic Bidding Rules changed 3 years ago and were announced to the world.

The biggest bidding changes in the history of the Olympic movement.

Hungary, Qatar and Rhine-Rhur, India, were you listening?

Sorry to say but all four of you have literally been asleep for 3 years while Brisbane has been heading to the finish line.  Yes that does sound arrogant and that was not intended.  But it is true.

The world’s media has been reporting on Brisbane’s steady progress this whole time.

The IOC is not going to enter into targeted dialogue with you as preferred bidder if you do not have the support of your government and your own citizens, no matter what city or country your Bid is from.

The IOC is never going to award the Games simply because you “deserve” them or because you have “never had them before”. 

.... and don’t complain now because you’re so far behind the front-runner.  Don’t blame the IOC, or John Coates, the tooth fairy or your Mum.

Just follow the rules and try to do better next time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brisbane has not won because it has "done better". Many of Brisbane's facilities do not meet the minimum requirements for the Olympics. It won because Coates and Bach have steered the Olympics to Brisbane while bypassing the normal procedure. That may prove to be a wise decision, of course. But it's the exact opposite of Brisbane somehow putting together a more deserving bid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brisbane has exactiy “done better”, as you put it. 

It has 85% of venues in place already.  Did you not know that?

Perhaps reading the IOC Feasibility Assessment - Olympic Games BRISBANE here will help bring you up to speed about how clearly they have done so much better.

On all the New Norm Bidding Rules, they are streets ahead of everyone else, as much as you might hate these facts.

They have been at it for nearly 3 years, ever since the new bidding rules were introduced abd have hardly stopped.

It’s no secret.  The media have been openly reporting Brisbane’s incredible progress all that time.  Check out the Brisbane 2032 thread,  those media reports, IOC visits, full government support, business support, venue reports, feasibility reports, value proposition reports, athletes support and citizens support, etc have been reported and logged right there.

Where did you get that nonsense about Brisbane’s venues?  Did you know that part of the big changes in bidding are the new legacy requirements and the emphasis NOT to build new venues unless absolutely necessary or has strong legacy prospects?

85% of Brisbane’s venues are already in place and either of Olympic standard now, or will be come Games time with temporary venues, upgrades, and minimal new venues required.

YES, its all changed.  The “normal procedure” Bidding as you know it, is long gone.

 It’s the era of the New Norm Olympic Bidding Rules now for the last 2-3 years.

Read about them here: https://www.olympic.org/news/ioc-news

 

John Coates did not vote when the entire IOC Executuve Board unanimously voted to install exclusive Targeted Dialogue status on Brisbane 2032’s highly advanced Bid.

John Coates did not vote when the full 137th IOC Session voted overwhelmingly to endorse the IOC’s new future hosts approach.

John Coates did not vote when the pro-Olympics Queensland State Government recently won their election in a landslide and the support of the vast majority of their citizens.

John Coates did not force the Australian Prime Minister, the Queensland State Government nor the Mayors of South East Queensland, nor business leaders nor athletes to support the Bid.  They did it on themselves.

After almost 3 years of preparation, and top of a high scoring Feasibility Assessment by the Future Host Commission, the IOC is about to solely vote on and award the 2032 Games to Brisbane in a few months at the 138th full IOC Session Tokyo.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Nacre said:

Brisbane has not won because it has "done better". Many of Brisbane's facilities do not meet the minimum requirements for the Olympics. It won because Coates and Bach have steered the Olympics to Brisbane while bypassing the normal procedure. That may prove to be a wise decision, of course. But it's the exact opposite of Brisbane somehow putting together a more deserving bid.

Brisbane has exactiy “done better”, as you put it. 

It has 85% of venues in place already.  Did you not know that?

Perhaps reading the IOC Feasibility Assessment - Olympic Games BRISBANE here will help bring you up to speed about how clearly they have done so much better.

On all the New Norm Bidding Rules, they are streets ahead of everyone else, as much as you might hate these facts.

They have been at it for nearly 3 years, ever since the new bidding rules were introduced abd have hardly stopped.

It’s no secret.  The media have been openly reporting Brisbane’s incredible progress all that time.  Check out the Brisbane 2032 thread,  those media reports, IOC visits, full government support, business support, venue reports, feasibility reports, value proposition reports, athletes support and citizens support, etc have been reported and logged right there.

Where did you get that nonsense about Brisbane’s venues?  Did you know that part of the big changes in bidding are the new legacy requirements and the emphasis NOT to build new venues unless absolutely necessary or has strong legacy prospects?

85% of Brisbane’s venues are already in place and either of Olympic standard now, or will be come Games time with temporary venues, upgrades, and minimal new venues required.

YES, its all changed.  The “normal procedure” Bidding as you know it, is long gone.

 It’s the era of the New Norm Olympic Bidding Rules now for the last 2-3 years.

Read about them here: https://www.olympic.org/news/ioc-news

John Coates did not vote when the entire IOC Executuve Board unanimously voted to install exclusive Targeted Dialogue status on Brisbane 2032’s highly advanced Bid.

John Coates did not vote when the full 137th IOC Session voted overwhelmingly to endorse the IOC’s new future hosts approach.

John Coates did not vote when the pro-Olympics Queensland State Government recently won their election in a landslide and the support of the vast majority of their citizens.

John Coates did not force the Australian Prime Minister, the Queensland State Government nor the Mayors of South East Queensland, nor business leaders nor athletes to support the Bid.  They did it on themselves.

After almost 3 years of preparation, and top of a high scoring Feasibility Assessment by the Future Host Commission, the IOC is about to solely vote on and award the 2032 Games to Brisbane in a few months at the 138th full IOC Session Tokyo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, AustralianFan said:

On all the New Norm Bidding Rules, they are streets ahead of everyone else, as much as you might hate these facts.

I don't hate anything about Brisbane's plan. For me this is not an emotional issue . . .

9 hours ago, AustralianFan said:

Brisbane has exactiy “done better”, as you put it. 

It has 85% of venues in place already.  Did you not know that?

Many of those venues are not able to meet the technical requirements of the Olympics. The larger issue, though, is that Brisbane does not meet the requirements for tourism infrastructure. Brisbane only has about a third of the required number of hotel rooms for the Summer Olympics, for example.

Brisbane would not have been chosen in a competitive bid process based on technical merits. It may very well be successful in establishing a new format for host cities with a much smaller burden of international fans and new venue construction. And I personally hope that happens, because it is what the Olympics need. But it is demonstrably true that Brisbane's hotel capacity, airport, and venues cannot compare with those of cities like London, Paris, Los Angeles, Tokyo or Beijing.

If you cut the required number of hotel rooms and venue capacities (and thus overall fan numbers) by two thirds, then Budapest could also host the summer Olympics successfully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Nacre said:

I don't hate anything about Brisbane's plan. For me this is not an emotional issue . . .

Many of those venues are not able to meet the technical requirements of the Olympics. The larger issue, though, is that Brisbane does not meet the requirements for tourism infrastructure. Brisbane only has about a third of the required number of hotel rooms for the Summer Olympics, for example.

Brisbane would not have been chosen in a competitive bid process based on technical merits. It may very well be successful in establishing a new format for host cities with a much smaller burden of international fans and new venue construction. And I personally hope that happens, because it is what the Olympics need. But it is demonstrably true that Brisbane's hotel capacity, airport, and venues cannot compare with those of cities like London, Paris, Los Angeles, Tokyo or Beijing.

If you cut the required number of hotel rooms and venue capacities (and thus overall fan numbers) by two thirds, then Budapest could also host the summer Olympics successfully.

 

No part of Brisbane’s Bid or the IOC’s Assessment involves a comparison with other cities around the world and such comparisons are seriously irrelevant to Brisbane/SEQ’s capabilities.

The IOC did do a Technical Assessment of Brisbane/SEQ’s plans, beginning at Page 18 of 63 page IOC Feasibility Assessment, including use of the many existing facilities such as the Sydney 2000 rowing/sprint canoeing/whitewater venue for instance.

Brisbane/SEQ was chosen exclusively as Preferred Bidder on the IOC’s Technical Assessment on 24 February 2021.

Your assertion: 

Brisbane does not meet the requirements for tourism infrastructure.  Brisbane only has about a third of the required number of hotel rooms for the Summer Olympics

Totally Incorrect.  I did advise you to read the IOC Report and I gave you the link to it.

Brisbane/SEQ has more than enough right now.

 

See ‘Accommodation’ - page 54, IOC Feasibility Assessment, as follows:

The Games needs 42,000 rooms (2-5 stars for Games stakeholders).

Hotel Accommodation

Existing:   Brisbane 20,000 rooms

                  Gold Coast 20,000 rooms

                  Sunshine Coast 9,200 rooms

                 Total:   49,200

Other Accommodation

Existing:    Airbnb and Cabins

                  Brisbane 7,500

                  Gold Coast 7,400

                  Sunshine Coast 6,200

The IOC has assessed there are more than enough of all types of accommodation right now.

New Dedicaed Cruise Ship Terminal

Brisbane also opened a new dedicated standalone cruise ship terminal in 2020 which will likely add further accommodation at Games time. 

 

See also page 57, IOC Assessment of Brisbane - Transport 

The IOC said “Meets Games needs”.

Brisbane Airport

New second runway opened 2020 / Capacity 43 million per year - 24,000 per hour

Gold Coast Airport

Capacity 6.4 million per year / Terminal expansion started

Sunshine Coast Airport   3.5 million per year / new second runway opened 2020

 

Your assertion:

Many of those venues are not able to meet the technical requirements of the Olympics.

What the ? Seriously, where did you pull that one from? Totally incorrect.

Of course all venues will be at Olympic standard at Games time. Never in question. 

IOC, page 44: “Almost all venues have already been discussed with the respective International Federations”.

 

Your assertion:

Brisbane's hotel capacity, airport, and venues cannot compare with those of cities like London, Paris, Los Angeles, Tokyo or Beijing.”

Seriously? As Aussies say, this is not a pissing contest. 

It is the IOC’s Assessment of Brisbane/SEQ’s Bid including existing and planned facilities.

 

Brisbane/SEQ 2032 venue capacities

Page 24 of IOC Report:

Brisbane Zone:

Brisbane Olympic Stadium (new)    50,000

or use existing at Carrara, CWG 2018 venue for athletics with temporary grandstands

Existing Gabba for ceremonies 40,000 is an option

Swimming/Water Polo - new 15,000

Other aquatics - existing 4,300

Archery - temporary 4,000

Basketball - new 15,000

Basketball 3x3 - existing 4,500

Boxing - existing 6,000

Canoe slalom whitewater - new 8,000 (IOC advises to consider using existing Sydney 2000 venue)

Cycling - existing 5,000 (some works required)

BMX - temporary 5,000

Equestrian  - temporary 25,000 and existing 15,000

Hockey - 2 existing venues @15,000 each - temporary seating

Handball - existing 11,000

Modern Penthalon - existing 20,000

Rowing/Canoe - new venue 14,000 (IOC advises to consider using existing Sydney 2000 venue)

Sailing - existing 10,000

Tennis - existing 6,000 + 4,000 + 2,000

 

Gold Coast Zone:

Beach Volleyball - temporary 12,000

Golf - existing 15,000

Judo/Wrestling - existing 7,500

Triathlon/Aquatics - temporary 5,000

Volleyball - existing 11,000

Volleyball/Weightlifting - existing 6,000 + 5,000

 

Sunshine Coast Zone:

Basketball preliminaries - new 6,000 (IOC said this venuevnot needed)

Cycling/Athletics/Kiteboard Sailing - temporary 5,000

Mountain Bike - existing 10,000

Sailing keelboat - existing 2,000

 

Football Preliminaries: - all existing venues

Brisbane 20,000

Gold Coast 27,400

Sunshine Coast 20,000

Toowoomba 20,000

Townsville 25,000

Cairns 20,000

Sydney 42,500

Melbourne 30,000

*************************************
 

>>>>>> TRANSFERRED TO BRISBANE 2032 THREAD >>>>>>

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not arguing that Brisbane is incapable of hosting. I am arguing that the IOC has lowered the bar to enable Brisbane to host. It has done this by:

  • allowing venues and tourism infrastructure to be spread out over Queensland instead of requiring a single host city (which you yourself note in your post above by counting hotel capacity and venues outside of Brisbane)
  • reducing the requirements of venues from past games (such as not requiring 60,000 seats for the main athletics stadium)
  • giving them the games without bidding, in which case the bid from Brisbane would indeed be compared to both previous host cities (Beijing, London, Rio, Tokyo, Paris and Los Angeles) and the other cities in the race

Budapest or the Rhineland could also have hosted under these criteria, which is why other potential host "cities" (really regions) are grumbling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Nacre said:

I am not arguing that Brisbane is incapable of hosting. I am arguing that the IOC has lowered the bar to enable Brisbane to host. It has done this by:

  • allowing venues and tourism infrastructure to be spread out over Queensland instead of requiring a single host city (which you yourself note in your post above by counting hotel capacity and venues outside of Brisbane)
  • reducing the requirements of venues from past games (such as not requiring 60,000 seats for the main athletics stadium)
  • giving them the games without bidding, in which case the bid from Brisbane would indeed be compared to both previous host cities (Beijing, London, Rio, Tokyo, Paris and Los Angeles) and the other cities in the race

Budapest or the Rhineland could also have hosted under these criteria, which is why other potential host "cities" (really regions) are grumbling.

Sorry Nacre, but that’s absuolute nonsense too.  No rules were changed for just one city.

As Tejas57 it is the New Norm / Agenda 2020 Bidding Era for all interested Bidders.

For the record, Agenda 2020 Bidding reforms were introduced in 2014, followed up in 2018 by a further raft of Agenda 2020 reforms called the New Norm.

You might be surprised that Olympic Bids are no longer required to be from just one city as you are used to.

Bids can now also come from across several Regions or even Countries countries.

As Tejas57 said, it’s really opened up the whole bidding space to reduce the number of losers and open up Bidding to more possibilities from around the globe than was the case with the old Host-City-centric model that the modern era had been built upon.

Yes, it’s all been turned on it’s head by these Bidding reforms first introduced in 2014 and expanded in 2018.

Milano-Cortina 2026 for instance venues are spread so very far and wide across several regions.

Both the Hosts are themselves are 419 kms apart, or nearly 5 hours driving time.  The various venue clusters are spread out far and wide across several Northern Italy regions, with some venues and cities in that area hundreds of kms apart. And that’s fine.

It’s because of the New Norm bidding rules that led to the distant cities of Milano and Cortina ‘d Ampezzo winning the 2026 Winter Olympic Games. Best wishes to them, well done.

No my friend, no rules were lowered or changed for Brisbane or to favour them or any other bidding city, region or country.

The new rules benefit everyone.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Nacre said:

I am not arguing that Brisbane is incapable of hosting. I am arguing that the IOC has lowered the bar to enable Brisbane to host. It has done this by:

  • allowing venues and tourism infrastructure to be spread out over Queensland instead of requiring a single host city (which you yourself note in your post above by counting hotel capacity and venues outside of Brisbane)
  • reducing the requirements of venues from past games (such as not requiring 60,000 seats for the main athletics stadium)
  • giving them the games without bidding, in which case the bid from Brisbane would indeed be compared to both previous host cities (Beijing, London, Rio, Tokyo, Paris and Los Angeles) and the other cities in the race

Budapest or the Rhineland could also have hosted under these criteria, which is why other potential host "cities" (really regions) are grumbling.

Footnote:  most of the venues in the Brisbane/SEQ 2032 Bid are spread across SEQ, which means ‘South East Queensland’.

SEQ includes  the following three regions:

Brisbane

Gold Coast

Sunshine Coast

It always has been a Regional Bid.     Never ever has it been or ever wanted to be a ‘One City’’ bid.

The Bid itself was born out of the South East Queensland Mayors getting together.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Nacre said:

I am not arguing that Brisbane is incapable of hosting. I am arguing that the IOC has lowered the bar to enable Brisbane to host. It has done this by:

  • allowing venues and tourism infrastructure to be spread out over Queensland instead of requiring a single host city (which you yourself note in your post above by counting hotel capacity and venues outside of Brisbane)
  • reducing the requirements of venues from past games (such as not requiring 60,000 seats for the main athletics stadium)
  • giving them the games without bidding, in which case the bid from Brisbane would indeed be compared to both previous host cities (Beijing, London, Rio, Tokyo, Paris and Los Angeles) and the other cities in the race

Budapest or the Rhineland could also have hosted under these criteria, which is why other potential host "cities" (really regions) are grumbling.

Budapest and Rhineland are grumbling because while they dithered for three years, Brisbane/SEQ embraced the new rules and shot to favouritism where they have stayed.

 

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.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...