Jump to content
Rotoworld.com Forums

COVID - League Plans?


Message added by tonycpsu

This thread is for discussing the impact of COVID on the game of fantasy football.  Attempts to shoehorn in other topics, including armchair epidemiology or political / ideological arguments will be removed, with posters subject to disciplinary action.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It’s not the NFLs job to find you a QB. Otherwise, all the Eagles games would be cancelled.

Posted Images

6 hours ago, Sonny_D said:


Lol, that’s funny. It’s called planning ahead for an unprecedented season and avoiding conflict. But hey, you do you brother. 70 page thread would seem to indicate turbulent times ahead. Good luck to you and your league though. 

 

Oh, and Best Ball is a format that awards teams with the best overall production and helps mitigate some of the luck factor. But that’s a discussion for a different topic. You seem to be a bit too obtuse to understand anyway. 

 


Setting a lineup is a skill. Only those who consistently don’t do it well call it luck and resort to running towards leagues where the rules eliminate it.  Best of luck to you as well.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Dreams And Dwightmares said:

 

I have this rule, I laid out the rule very clearly as we voted on it. 

 

The deadline to create the post (we call it a callout) is by Sunday kickoffs (noon for us down here in Texas). 

 

Last week I made a callout and I was the only one, because if a COVID positive test happened on a Monday to my guy I assume I'm F'd and the game is canceled.

...

Short answer... Yes, make a callout every Sunday for all Monday / Tuesday night games. 

 

That is actually a good point - I have to admit I didn't think about the possibility that MNF could be cancelled "out of the blue" after the Sunday games. So far, we only used substitutes for the "risky" games.

 

How do you actually handle it in terms of how the substitutes work - can you designate a bench player as substitute for multiple players and hope that not all of the games get cancelled? I am a bit concerned that it could get really messy if you have a situation with multiple games on Monday / Tuesday. For example how it looked at some point last week, where there were two games scheduled for Monday and one for Tuesday.

 

For the two leagues I run as Commish, I am now thinking about something like this:

- You call out your substitutes before kickoff on Sunday

- You can designate substitutes for every game played Monday or later

- Substitutes have to be on your bench obviously

- Each player on your bench can only substitute for one player in your lineup

- Substitutes only take effect if the game is cancelled, not if the player is out for any other reason (including Covid-IR)

 

That way, the managers can decide for themselves which games they deem the most risky and organise their substitutes accordingly while it still stays manageable without substitutes for substitutes for multiple players.

 

While I am at it, my 2 cents on the whole "should substitutes be allowed at all" debate:

First of all, can we all agree that a game getting cancelled on Monday or Tuesday is different from a player being questionable? If I have a Q player for MNF, I can prepare for that by grabbing a replacement (from the same game) who I can slot in when I know my player is out (which I will know at least an hour before kickoff).

If the game is cancelled and is the last of the week, I can't prepare for that, there is no one who I can play instead. You can only decide if you want to risk it or if you want to start a mediocre replacement from a Sunday game instead of your stud.

 

That being said, I can see two reasons why you don't want to use the substitution rule:

1) You want to run a "tough" league without any mercy - make your decision and if you made the wrong one, tough luck. And I respect that, Fantasy Football is like that in many other regards as well. So if that is how your league wants to play, more power to you. In my leagues (and I talked to the managers about that), we put more of an emphasis on "everybody should have fun" and "minimizing frustration", so for us, the substitution solution is the way to go. But I think both are fine, it just depends on the style of your league.

- You don't want to introduce such a major rule change during the season. And I can see why, I struggled with that quite a bit myself. But in the end, I decided: My job as Commish is to make the league as good as I can. And while in 99% of the cases, that means not to change the rules during the season, this is the rare exception where I actually felt obligated to make the change for the good of the league. I talked to the managers, explained my thoughts on the matter and asked for their opinions. Then I made the decision. By the way: In my leagues, I made it clear that decisions don't have to be unanimous - I value the feedback and of course I take it into consideration. But at the end of the day, if nobody has valid arguments against it and it doesn't go against the wishes of the majority of managers, I will make the decision. It's not a democracy and everyone knew that when they joined. They also know that every decision I make is aimed to make the league as fun and fair for everyone as possible and that I would never use that power for my own gain. Never had any complaints either, so it seems everyone is happy with that style.

 

So yeah, I can see why some people wouldn't want to use substitutes and respect that, but I think for many leagues (mine included), it is a good way to make the best of a s---y situation.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Nerigal said:

 

That is actually a good point - I have to admit I didn't think about the possibility that MNF could be cancelled "out of the blue" after the Sunday games. So far, we only used substitutes for the "risky" games.

 

How do you actually handle it in terms of how the substitutes work - can you designate a bench player as substitute for multiple players and hope that not all of the games get cancelled? I am a bit concerned that it could get really messy if you have a situation with multiple games on Monday / Tuesday. For example how it looked at some point last week, where there were two games scheduled for Monday and one for Tuesday.

 

For the two leagues I run as Commish, I am now thinking about something like this:

- You call out your substitutes before kickoff on Sunday

- You can designate substitutes for every game played Monday or later

- Substitutes have to be on your bench obviously

- Each player on your bench can only substitute for one player in your lineup

- Substitutes only take effect if the game is cancelled, not if the player is out for any other reason (including Covid-IR)

 

That way, the managers can decide for themselves which games they deem the most risky and organise their substitutes accordingly while it still stays manageable without substitutes for substitutes for multiple players.

 

While I am at it, my 2 cents on the whole "should substitutes be allowed at all" debate:

First of all, can we all agree that a game getting cancelled on Monday or Tuesday is different from a player being questionable? If I have a Q player for MNF, I can prepare for that by grabbing a replacement (from the same game) who I can slot in when I know my player is out (which I will know at least an hour before kickoff).

If the game is cancelled and is the last of the week, I can't prepare for that, there is no one who I can play instead. You can only decide if you want to risk it or if you want to start a mediocre replacement from a Sunday game instead of your stud.

 

That being said, I can see two reasons why you don't want to use the substitution rule:

1) You want to run a "tough" league without any mercy - make your decision and if you made the wrong one, tough luck. And I respect that, Fantasy Football is like that in many other regards as well. So if that is how your league wants to play, more power to you. In my leagues (and I talked to the managers about that), we put more of an emphasis on "everybody should have fun" and "minimizing frustration", so for us, the substitution solution is the way to go. But I think both are fine, it just depends on the style of your league.

- You don't want to introduce such a major rule change during the season. And I can see why, I struggled with that quite a bit myself. But in the end, I decided: My job as Commish is to make the league as good as I can. And while in 99% of the cases, that means not to change the rules during the season, this is the rare exception where I actually felt obligated to make the change for the good of the league. I talked to the managers, explained my thoughts on the matter and asked for their opinions. Then I made the decision. By the way: In my leagues, I made it clear that decisions don't have to be unanimous - I value the feedback and of course I take it into consideration. But at the end of the day, if nobody has valid arguments against it and it doesn't go against the wishes of the majority of managers, I will make the decision. It's not a democracy and everyone knew that when they joined. They also know that every decision I make is aimed to make the league as fun and fair for everyone as possible and that I would never use that power for my own gain. Never had any complaints either, so it seems everyone is happy with that style.

 

So yeah, I can see why some people wouldn't want to use substitutes and respect that, but I think for many leagues (mine included), it is a good way to make the best of a s---y situation.

Your new rules would mirror ours exactly and is the best route IMHO.  Originally scheduled MNF getting cancelled (due to Covid & without warning) is no different than the pushed Tuesday games getting cancelled.  And in fact, one could argue it's even more unpredictable and should be even more subject to substitutions.  If the object to changing these league rules is to aid with navigating through the mess that is Covid, then MNF should be a weekly consideration too.  At the rate this season is going, an out of blue MNF cancellation seems highly possible to me at some point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don’t like the substitutions concept. At the start of the year I expanded my league’s bench and also added A LOT of IR spots (2 for normal IR, up to 5 for COVID IR) so that managers wouldn’t necessarily have to drop players as a result of infection or game cancellations. 
 

In terms of “risky games” (like the Bills/Titans), I think it’s up to each manager to determine their risk tolerance. I sat AJ Brown last week and my opponent rolled the dice on Derrick Henry. It hurt me. But he was willing to take a risk and I wasn’t and that paid off for him. I just see don’t see why I should get to substitute AJ Brown for Brandon Aiyuk (the guy I played instead) and get all of the upside with none of the downside. 
 

I came up with detailed rules to deal with season cancellation and ensured that benches and IR slots were expanded. I don’t know that anything else is necessary. 

Edited by MingusDew
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Dreams And Dwightmares said:

 

Very logical and justified IMO. 

 

I'd personally call out every Monday / Tuesday night game all season... As I currently am doing personally when I have players affected by those games. 

You make a solid argument. Might run this by my league. 

But what about Sunday night games. What if several players develop symptoms shortly before kickoff of any afternoon game on Sunday. Should we be designating a backup for every starter?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, MingusDew said:

I really don’t like the substitutions concept. At the start of the year I expanded my league’s bench and also added A LOT of IR spots (2 for normal IR, up to 5 for COVID IR) so that managers wouldn’t necessarily have to drop players as a result of infection or game cancellations. 
 

In terms of “risky games” (like the Bills/Titans), I think it’s up to each manager to determine their risk tolerance. I sat AJ Brown last week and my opponent rolled the dice on Derrick Henry. It hurt me. But he was willing to take a risk and I wasn’t and that paid off for him. I just see don’t see why I should get to substitute AJ Brown for Brandon Aiyuk (the guy I played instead) and get all of the upside with none of the downside. 
 

I came up with detailed rules to deal with season cancellation and ensured that benches and IR slots were expanded. I don’t know that anything else is necessary. 

 

I get where you are coming from and as I said, I see nothing wrong with your approach. It certainly isn't "necessary" to have substitutes. I think it comes down to personal preference and how you want to play, there is no "correct" way of doing it, just different ways.

 

Let me try to explain the reasons why I landed on the other side of the decision and why it also is a viable way of approaching it:

 

You say you don't see why you should "get all of the upside with none of the downside". The way I see it is: There is no upside. The substitution rule only limits the downside. You drafted AJ Brown to play him in 15 games (barring injury and assuming you don't play week 17). Now, because of a situation you have no control over, you either risk losing 1 week of starting him (by playing Aiyuk) or you risk getting a goose egg that might lose you the week. With the substitution rule, you either get to play him (as you would in any other season) or you start a replacement player because he has a Bye Week (as you would in any other season). So I don't really see it as being an advantage for you, just mitigating the consequences from a very strange season and trying to get things as close as possible to "normal".

 

That doesn't mean you have to do it that way, it is a legitimate (and somewhat thrilling, I have to admit) solution to "embrace the chaos" and make the ensuing risk/reward decisions part of the game, letting managers decide how much they are willing to gamble. A bit like starting boom/bust players instead of safe options.

 

It all comes down to: How much do you want to make risk and luck part of the experience? If you look at it, each league makes that decision anyway in other ways: Do you have IR slots? How many? IR slots just mitigate some of the consequences of your players getting injured. You could also say "why should you get the upside of holding the player without the downside of sacrifing a bench spot?" And that is perfectly fine reasoning as well - it just comes down to personal preference. Same goes for the size of your bench, the more players you can hold, the more you eliminate luck/risk.

 

In my leagues, we play rather casual and most (if not all) managers wouldn't enjoy those risky decisions where they have no control over the outcome, it would most likely lead to frustration. So for us, the substitutes are the right decision to make sure everyone has as much fun as possible.

 

I hope that made sense!

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nerigal said:

 

That is actually a good point - I have to admit I didn't think about the possibility that MNF could be cancelled "out of the blue" after the Sunday games. So far, we only used substitutes for the "risky" games.

 

How do you actually handle it in terms of how the substitutes work - can you designate a bench player as substitute for multiple players and hope that not all of the games get cancelled?

 

 

So basically everyone starts the roster they want.

 

There's a thread we've got created called COVID REPLACEMENT CALLOUTS.

 

They would then go into the thread and say, "I've got Zeke going Monday night.  I want to switch him with Nyheim Hines if the Boys game is canceled."

 

If Boys game plays they're fine.  If we all wake up Monday and there's positive tests and the game is canceled then there's literally no one else you can fill into that slot and you take a 0 if you didn't make a callout.  This is also assuming there's only 1 Monday Night game, as has usually been the case over the years.

 

To your points... If you've got like 6 guys going on Monday / Tuesday night games, you should probably understand things definitely have the ability to go South lol.  

 

I agree with your rules you created:

 

2 hours ago, Nerigal said:

For the two leagues I run as Commish, I am now thinking about something like this:

- You call out your substitutes before kickoff on Sunday

- You can designate substitutes for every game played Monday or later

- Substitutes have to be on your bench obviously

- Each player on your bench can only substitute for one player in your lineup

- Substitutes only take effect if the game is cancelled, not if the player is out for any other reason (including Covid-IR)

 

To your other points about is it fair or not, I mostly agree.

 

We actually have a 14 man league with psychos and rule benders / manipulators and we literally have a rule that says we can create 1 new rule per season if the league agrees to call a rule to vote... so we did it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ajs723 said:

You make a solid argument. Might run this by my league. 

But what about Sunday night games. What if several players develop symptoms shortly before kickoff of any afternoon game on Sunday. Should we be designating a backup for every starter?

 

I believe, but don't quote me, that every team knows the results of COVID tests in the morning.  Therefore if the Sunday night game has 6 positive tests you'd know it by like 900 - 1000 AM (I don't know where you live, but I always speak Central). 

 

When you know this by 900-1000 then you have plenty of time to make substitutions with players from the 1200 PM and 330 PM games.

 

My rule is only applicable for Monday night games (and if it so happens, Tuesday as well).

Edited by Dreams And Dwightmares
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nerigal said:

 

I get where you are coming from and as I said, I see nothing wrong with your approach. It certainly isn't "necessary" to have substitutes. I think it comes down to personal preference and how you want to play, there is no "correct" way of doing it, just different ways.

 

Let me try to explain the reasons why I landed on the other side of the decision and why it also is a viable way of approaching it:

 

You say you don't see why you should "get all of the upside with none of the downside". The way I see it is: There is no upside. The substitution rule only limits the downside. You drafted AJ Brown to play him in 15 games (barring injury and assuming you don't play week 17). Now, because of a situation you have no control over, you either risk losing 1 week of starting him (by playing Aiyuk) or you risk getting a goose egg that might lose you the week. With the substitution rule, you either get to play him (as you would in any other season) or you start a replacement player because he has a Bye Week (as you would in any other season). So I don't really see it as being an advantage for you, just mitigating the consequences from a very strange season and trying to get things as close as possible to "normal".

 

That doesn't mean you have to do it that way, it is a legitimate (and somewhat thrilling, I have to admit) solution to "embrace the chaos" and make the ensuing risk/reward decisions part of the game, letting managers decide how much they are willing to gamble. A bit like starting boom/bust players instead of safe options.

 

It all comes down to: How much do you want to make risk and luck part of the experience? If you look at it, each league makes that decision anyway in other ways: Do you have IR slots? How many? IR slots just mitigate some of the consequences of your players getting injured. You could also say "why should you get the upside of holding the player without the downside of sacrifing a bench spot?" And that is perfectly fine reasoning as well - it just comes down to personal preference. Same goes for the size of your bench, the more players you can hold, the more you eliminate luck/risk.

 

In my leagues, we play rather casual and most (if not all) managers wouldn't enjoy those risky decisions where they have no control over the outcome, it would most likely lead to frustration. So for us, the substitutes are the right decision to make sure everyone has as much fun as possible.

 

I hope that made sense!

 

It definitely makes sense and I see the appeal. You're right that the upside/downside narrative might be a bit out of whack here. I don't think there's one right way to approach this at the end of the day; different strokes and all that.

My league is quite casual as well but I think we all prefer the "start at your own risk" system. I guess I liken it to game-time decisions re: injured players. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, CooL said:

So all these positive tests from multiple teams - seemingly all practice squad players and coaches, hmmm.... - yet the games still go on?  

Yeah it seems the NFL is deadset to get these games in unless there's multiple player positives right before the game it seems.  It seems they are less concerned with the staff positives.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, CooL said:

So all these positive tests from multiple teams - seemingly all practice squad players and coaches, hmmm.... - yet the games still go on?  

I'm very confused on how these unimportant people are testing positive, but the players are all clean. It's very sketch. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, oliminator123 said:

I'm very confused on how these unimportant people are testing positive, but the players are all clean. It's very sketch. 

I’m guessing the secretary and water boy are out partying it up at the club, while the players are all home isolated while studying the playbook and watching game tape. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, oliminator123 said:

I'm very confused on how these unimportant people are testing positive, but the players are all clean. It's very sketch. 

Maybe...maybe not.  There’s more personnel between staff, practice squad, and backups than critical starters.  And it wouldn’t surprise me that these lower income (comparatively) personnel have more exposure to the public.   The stars just go from practice to home to the game.  
 

If you’re right tho....it will almost certainly come back to bite the league.   You can fool the public but not the virus. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, oliminator123 said:

I'm very confused on how these unimportant people are testing positive, but the players are all clean. It's very sketch. 

Cam Newton, Stephen Gilmore, Corey Davis, Adam Humphries, etc. 

NFL rosters are 53 men deep plus all the coaches. Theres always going to more "unimportant" that test positive just by the nature of the rosters and percentages of players that are "unimportant ". Its not a conspiracy its simple math.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MingusDew said:

 I just see don’t see why I should get to substitute AJ Brown for Brandon Aiyuk (the guy I played instead) and get all of the upside with none of the downside. 


Ehhh, there’s  actually a ton of potential downside here. If Aiyuk goes off and Brown puts up a dud, that’s your downside. If you say Brown is in for Aiyuk if he plays, you live with his points. So there indeed is plenty of downside in this scenario. 

Edited by Sonny_D
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Impreza178 said:

Maybe...maybe not.  There’s more personnel between staff, practice squad, and backups than critical starters.  And it wouldn’t surprise me that these lower income (comparatively) personnel have more exposure to the public.   The stars just go from practice to home to the game.  
 

If you’re right tho....it will almost certainly come back to bite the league.   You can fool the public but not the virus. 

I don't know if I agree with this statement.  So the regular schmoes are higher risk because they are pumping their own gas, going to the grocery store and Home Depot, etc. are more at risk than the ballers who are going to strip clubs, dining out, getting together to play video games, etc.?  I think no matter what your socioeconomic status, it 

27 minutes ago, yanksman said:

Cam Newton, Stephen Gilmore, Corey Davis, Adam Humphries, etc. 

NFL rosters are 53 men deep plus all the coaches. Theres always going to more "unimportant" that test positive just by the nature of the rosters and percentages of players that are "unimportant ". Its not a conspiracy its simple math.

Somewhere I'm sure there's data about how many positives - how many players, practice squad players, coaches, staff, etc.  Just seems odd that in the days immediately prior to games, the only ones that test positive are the PS, coaches, etc.  Whereas we only find out the actual starting players test positive right after games it seems.  Cam Newton aside, I believe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Nerigal said:

 

I get where you are coming from and as I said, I see nothing wrong with your approach. It certainly isn't "necessary" to have substitutes. I think it comes down to personal preference and how you want to play, there is no "correct" way of doing it, just different ways.

 

Let me try to explain the reasons why I landed on the other side of the decision and why it also is a viable way of approaching it:

 

You say you don't see why you should "get all of the upside with none of the downside". The way I see it is: There is no upside. The substitution rule only limits the downside. You drafted AJ Brown to play him in 15 games (barring injury and assuming you don't play week 17). Now, because of a situation you have no control over, you either risk losing 1 week of starting him (by playing Aiyuk) or you risk getting a goose egg that might lose you the week. With the substitution rule, you either get to play him (as you would in any other season) or you start a replacement player because he has a Bye Week (as you would in any other season). So I don't really see it as being an advantage for you, just mitigating the consequences from a very strange season and trying to get things as close as possible to "normal".

 

That doesn't mean you have to do it that way, it is a legitimate (and somewhat thrilling, I have to admit) solution to "embrace the chaos" and make the ensuing risk/reward decisions part of the game, letting managers decide how much they are willing to gamble. A bit like starting boom/bust players instead of safe options.

 

It all comes down to: How much do you want to make risk and luck part of the experience? If you look at it, each league makes that decision anyway in other ways: Do you have IR slots? How many? IR slots just mitigate some of the consequences of your players getting injured. You could also say "why should you get the upside of holding the player without the downside of sacrifing a bench spot?" And that is perfectly fine reasoning as well - it just comes down to personal preference. Same goes for the size of your bench, the more players you can hold, the more you eliminate luck/risk.

 

In my leagues, we play rather casual and most (if not all) managers wouldn't enjoy those risky decisions where they have no control over the outcome, it would most likely lead to frustration. So for us, the substitutes are the right decision to make sure everyone has as much fun as possible.

 

I hope that made sense!

Why not just play best ball and be done with it?  Don't have to deal with any of this substitutes bullcrap.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, TTo34 said:

Why not just play best ball and be done with it?  Don't have to deal with any of this substitutes bullcrap.

 

Hey, if that is the right way to do it for you and your league, good for you - go ahead and have fun with it!

 

For us, that's a step too far. We enjoy setting a line-up, deciding who are the best players to start and taking calculated risks. The difference in my mind is that those are informed decisions - I can research the strengths and weaknesses of the defense my players are up against, how good the CB is my WR will most likely be covered by, look at past usage and trends, watch them play to see if they looked good in their last games. I can evaluate my opponent's team and decide if I need to take the risk on a boom/bust player to beat them or if I can play it safe.

 

But I can't make an informed decision about whether a game gets cancelled because of Covid - how do I research how likely it is someone will test positive? And that is our goal: Eliminate that randomness and get as close to a "normal" season as we can get. Not take luck or risk out of the game entirely.

 

And I don't think it is hard to deal with "this substitutes bullcrap". It takes a few minutes to declare your substitutes and in case it ever takes effect, it is a little bit more work for me as Commish. But that's what I signed up for and if I didn't have fun doing stuff like that, I wouldn't have decided to be a Commish. So for us, that is the best solution.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Nerigal said:

 

Hey, if that is the right way to do it for you and your league, good for you - go ahead and have fun with it!

 

For us, that's a step too far. We enjoy setting a line-up, deciding who are the best players to start and taking calculated risks. The difference in my mind is that those are informed decisions - I can research the strengths and weaknesses of the defense my players are up against, how good the CB is my WR will most likely be covered by, look at past usage and trends, watch them play to see if they looked good in their last games. I can evaluate my opponent's team and decide if I need to take the risk on a boom/bust player to beat them or if I can play it safe.

 

But I can't make an informed decision about whether a game gets cancelled because of Covid - how do I research how likely it is someone will test positive? And that is our goal: Eliminate that randomness and get as close to a "normal" season as we can get. Not take luck or risk out of the game entirely.

 

And I don't think it is hard to deal with "this substitutes bullcrap". It takes a few minutes to declare your substitutes and in case it ever takes effect, it is a little bit more work for me as Commish. But that's what I signed up for and if I didn't have fun doing stuff like that, I wouldn't have decided to be a Commish. So for us, that is the best solution.

Play DFS then. lol

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, TTo34 said:

Why not just play best ball and be done with it?  Don't have to deal with any of this substitutes bullcrap.


Thank you. I mentioned that earlier and I got called out for being “lazy.” Never mind the fact it’s a 13 year old league, $2500 buy in with mandatory in person draft (2 guys fly in every year, except for this Covid year where we did it via zoom). Came up with a rule pamphlet, playoff week 14-16 schedule IN CASE we revert to a straight 16 week season, etc, yet somehow my league and playing best ball is “lazy”. 

Edited by Sonny_D
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • tonycpsu locked and unlocked this topic

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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...