Jump to content

Brightline Trains


FLheat

Recommended Posts

57 minutes ago, jliv said:

 


A system which benefits all local residents isn’t going to be 100% privately-funded like this system. Some government support is needed, and local government hasn’t been supportive enough (and collaborative) over the decades to build momentum for a comprehensive system.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I would love to have Jerry Demings assemble a dream team like Bill Sublette and Glenda Hood, both of whom have been fully supportive of transit, to encourage ways to move us forward on this.

Both are moderate Republicans (yes, that was once a thing), so they’d likely have more success in Tallahassee (although Glenda was all but cast out of the GOP for her transit apostasy - hopefully she’s been forgiven after all these years).

OC can still pass another half cent sales tax (although the I-Drive crowd will have fits), but it’s going to take change in Tallahassee to do much on a larger scale.

if you really want to see change on this, you’ll have your first shot this November. Make sure to hold Buddy’s feet to the fire (and those of the half of the city council that’s up for reelection ) whenever they make public appearances.

As citizens, we get the community we actually demand.

Edited by spenser1058
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Interesting development. Previously, the funding was all set to be financed with Private Equity and Bond Initiatives. Some interesting tidbits in the IPO filing on the SEC EDGAR website: 
 https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1737516/000114036118043289/s002218x4_s1.htm

"We have secured substantially all material permits, government authorizations, real estate and track rights necessary for our expansion to Orlando, and with the net proceeds from this offering, the concurrent private placement and/or future debt or equity financings, we expect to secure all funding necessary for the projected cost of our expansion to Orlando. We will utilize Florida State Road 528 (“SR528”) as a right-of-way to connect our existing rail corridor to Orlando. Our build-out to Orlando is expected to be complete in approximately three years, and is expected to increase our annual stabilized ridership to approximately 6.6 million passengers at the time of stabilization as estimated by Louis Berger. Based on estimates from Louis Berger, we expect an additional 2.9 million passengers annually on a stabilized basis by expanding our service between Orlando and Tampa."

They are seeking secondary public funding for a company that has current revenues of $5.2 million and current operating expenses (ex depreciation and amortization) of $68.84 million. Rent, Fuel, and Maintenance operating expenses alone total approximately $17.25 million, which is more than triple the operating revenues. 

Caveat Emptor.

This is a shell holding company operating at substantial loss to provide secondary opportunities to other holding companies associated with the majority shareholders and funnel money from sucker public investors.  

 

"Virgin Trains USA, LLC will be a public corporation with majority ownership from private equity investor Fortress Investment Group. "

"Our relationship with our Parent, including the fact that our Parent owns the mixed-use office, residential, retail and parking facilities at and around our stations in Miami, Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach, may create conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts of interest, which could adversely affect our business.

Currently, our Parent is developing approximately 1.5 million square feet of mixed-use office, residential, retail and parking facilities at and around our stations in Miami, Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach, and key tenants, including food and beverage, fashion, fitness and life-style brands, have leased and are in negotiations to lease space. We do not have any ability to control the decisions made by our Parent with respect to the facilities it owns at and around our stations, which may create actual or perceived conflicts of interest. Our Parent may decide that it is in its or its equityholders’ best interests to pursue such opportunities in a manner that is not consistent with the best interests of us or our stockholders. In addition, they may not desire to, or be able to, maintain such facilities in the future in a condition that meets our expectations. If such facilities were not well maintained, it could have a negative impact on the areas surrounding our passenger rail system, which could have an adverse effect on our business. These risks may be exacerbated if our Parent’s ownership stake in us were to decline over time.

Furthermore, our pursuit of new opportunities at future stations we may establish could create or appear to create potential conflicts of interest. For example, we may wish to pursue the same real estate development activities with the same food and beverage, fashion, fitness and life-style brands that have entered into agreements with our Parent. In addition, we may pursue development activities in concert with our Parent, which could also create conflicts of interest. Such conflict of interests could have a material adverse effect on our business."

"Certain of our stockholders have the right to engage or invest in the same or similar businesses as us.

Fortress, the Virgin Trains Stockholder and certain of their respective affiliates engage in other investments and business activities in addition to their ownership of us. Under our certificate of incorporation, Fortress, the Virgin Trains Stockholder and their respective affiliates have the right, and have no duty to abstain from exercising such right, to engage or invest in the same or similar businesses as us, do business with any of our clients, customers or vendors or employ or otherwise engage any of our officers, directors or employees. If Fortress, the Virgin Trains Stockholder, their affiliates or any of their officers, directors or employees acquire knowledge of a potential transaction that could be a corporate opportunity, they have no duty, to the fullest extent permitted by law, to offer such corporate opportunity to us, our stockholders or our affiliates"

"If the ownership of our common stock continues to be highly concentrated, it may prevent you and other minority stockholders from influencing significant corporate decisions and may result in conflicts of interest.

Immediately following the completion of this offering, the Virgin Trains Stockholder, which is primarily owned by private equity funds managed by an affiliate of Fortress, will own approximately    % of our outstanding common stock or    % if the underwriters’ over-allotment option is fully exercised. As a result, the Virgin Trains Stockholder will own shares sufficient for the majority vote over all matters requiring a stockholder vote, including: the election of directors; mergers, consolidations and acquisitions; the sale of all or substantially all of our assets and other decisions affecting our capital structure; the amendment of our certificate of incorporation and our bylaws; and our winding up and dissolution. This concentration of ownership may delay, deter or prevent acts that would be favored by our other stockholders. The interests of the Virgin Trains Stockholder may not always coincide with our interests or the interests of our other stockholders. This concentration of ownership may also have the effect of delaying, preventing or deterring a change in control of us. Also, the Virgin Trains Stockholder may seek to cause us to take courses of action that, in its judgment, could enhance its investment in us, but which might involve risks to our other stockholders or adversely affect us or our other stockholders, including investors in this offering."

Edited by dcluley98
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, dcluley98 said:

They are seeking secondary public funding for a company that has current revenues of $5.2 million and current operating expenses (ex depreciation and amortization) of $68.84 million. Rent, Fuel, and Maintenance operating expenses alone total approximately $17.25 million, which is more than triple the operating revenues. 

Not the complete picture.  Their revenue in December was $2.2 million (https://www.thenextmiami.com/brightline-98k-passengers-carried-in-december-revenue-up-47-over-november/) which would put them at $19.2 million for the first 9 months of 2019 if monthly revenue was to stay flat.  However, their forecast over the next 2 years is to reach 240,000 riders a month, and the current month-over-month passenger growth rates make that a realistic target.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is true, that is "revenue" alone, however. Note above, I cited that ongoing operating costs of "Rent, Fuel, and Maintenance" are over 3 times multiple of revenue. These costs would theoretically scale up with the addition of new and/or more frequent service as well. To break even, they would have to increase efficiency, not volume. This can only be done by charging more for the same service, reducing variable costs for the same service, or increasing efficiency of the system. I do not forsee that happening on the magnitude of 3x increase. Trains and lawnmowers don't run on "expected future ridership" and rent is being paid to secondary corporations that are affiliated with the management team and other outside entities. With the addition of triple the new track mileage and existing service, one would expect the basic operating costs to triple as well, unless they can find a way to suddenly triple the revenue per trip as a function of time.  

And that is just the operating cost associated with running the trains. The actual operating costs is much larger. If you read the financials, you will see that the compensation of the Management alone is approximately $22 Billion. That is even more than the expense of just running the trains themselves!  

You may see this as a viable investment. I see it as a recruitment of seed money from potential bagholders of common stock investors. The filing clearly stated that the entity will be seeking additional financing in the form of bonds, which would take precedence over the common shareholders in obligations. Additionally, the the filing stated that the common stockholders would not hold majority voting rights to make decisions on their own behalf and the company does not intend to pay any dividends for the foreseeable future. Sounds like a pretty precarious "investment" to me.  Feel free to jump on the IPO if you like. 

 

Edited by dcluley98
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

So while Virgin Trains/Brightline goes the "private" Route, California is pulling the plug on their publicly funded connections to L.A. and the Bay Area. Governor Newsom is changing the plan to only be along the Central Valley region (where there is tons of "cheap" agricultural land) in a 160 mile route from Merced to Bakersfield. 

"Let's level about the high-speed rail," Newsom said. "Let's be real, the current project as planned would cost too much and, respectfully, take too long. Right now, there simply isn't a path to get from Sacramento to San Diego, let alone from San Francisco to L.A. I wish there were."

"Abandoning the high-speed rail entirely means we will have wasted billions and billions of dollars with nothing but broken promises... and lawsuits to show for it," Newsom added, explaining he wouldn't want to send the $3.5 billion in federal money the project has been granted back to the Trump administration.


https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/central-valley-high-speed-rail-merced-bakersfield-13610732.php?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

So basically they are going to take several billion dollars to build a train that few people demand currently and will not alleviate the main traffic problems, they will have to eventually pay to maintain it without the main benefits from that cost, and it will begin to encourage more sprawl in the central valley region instead of helping the existing highly populated areas. 

I am glad Virgin/FECR are doing this private given the status of comparable projects. Limit the losses to private "investors" that will fund the construction and if they lose their money, oh well, that's a risk they took themselves with full public knowledge of the business prospects. 

Hopefully, the taxpayers won't be on the hook to try to keep the Brightline going later on, but we are already way better off than California's "plan". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, dcluley98 said:

So while Virgin Trains/Brightline goes the "private" Route, California is pulling the plug on their publicly funded connections to L.A. and the Bay Area. Governor Newsom is changing the plan to only be along the Central Valley region (where there is tons of "cheap" agricultural land) in a 160 mile route from Merced to Bakersfield. 

"Let's level about the high-speed rail," Newsom said. "Let's be real, the current project as planned would cost too much and, respectfully, take too long. Right now, there simply isn't a path to get from Sacramento to San Diego, let alone from San Francisco to L.A. I wish there were."

"Abandoning the high-speed rail entirely means we will have wasted billions and billions of dollars with nothing but broken promises... and lawsuits to show for it," Newsom added, explaining he wouldn't want to send the $3.5 billion in federal money the project has been granted back to the Trump administration.


https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/central-valley-high-speed-rail-merced-bakersfield-13610732.php?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

So basically they are going to take several billion dollars to build a train that few people demand currently and will not alleviate the main traffic problems, they will have to eventually pay to maintain it without the main benefits from that cost, and it will begin to encourage more sprawl in the central valley region instead of helping the existing highly populated areas. 

I am glad Virgin/FECR are doing this private given the status of comparable projects. Limit the losses to private "investors" that will fund the construction and if they lose their money, oh well, that's a risk they took themselves with full public knowledge of the business prospects. 

Hopefully, the taxpayers won't be on the hook to try to keep the Brightline going later on, but we are already way better off than California's "plan". 

We're only on the hook for the $8 billion I-4 toll lanes, those are definitely going to solve Orlando's traffic!

  • Like 1
  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let’s stop bragging and crapping on California for a second and enjoy this humble pie from Biz Journal:

Virgin Trains USA, which operates the Brightline passenger rail service in South Florida, has hit the brakes on its initial public offering (IPO).

The Miami-based company filed its initial registration statement in November shortly after announcing a branding deal and investment with Virgin Group

 

In January, Virgin Trains USA amended its registration to reflect an expected price of $17 to $19 per share, which could raise up to $619 million. The company started meeting with investors to set up the public offering.

Raising capital is crucial for the company so it has the ability to fund expansion of its Brightline passenger rail service from South Florida to Orlando, and then to Tampa. It also has a pending $120 million acquisition of XpressWest that would build a Southern California-to-Las Vegas passenger rail line.

All of those plans are still in place, but an IPO is no longer a short-term option to fund them, according to a Brightline senior official. 

“As we explored a public offering, a number of alternative financing sources became available that allow us to keep the company private and meet our growth strategies,” Brightline Senior VP of Corporate Affairs Ben Porritt said when asked whether the IPO has been postponed.

The postponement of the Virgin Trains USA IPO was first reported by Bloomberg.

Virgin Trains USA was pitching investors on the growth potential of regional passenger rail networks as an attractive alternative to both driving and short flights. It’s a relatively new business model in the United States, so there weren’t many companies for investors to compare it to.

Virgin Trains USA generated revenue of $5.23 million in the first nine months of this year, with a net loss of $87.1 million, according to the SEC filing. That was its first year in business, and its full Miami-to-West Palm Beach service didn’t start until the second quarter. The company hopes to stabilize operations in 2023 or 2024, after expanding to Orlando and Tampa, according to the SEC filing.

Brightline carried over 579,000 riders in 2018, according to a report to its bondholders. Ridership grew each month.

The company could still tap private activity bonds to fund its Orlando rail line, similar to the funding mechanism it used for its South Florida rail project. Fortress Investment Group, the main owner of the company, has already funded $1.2 billion in private equity for the business, and issued another $600 million in private activity bonds.

The Brightline is still expected to rebrand as Virgin Trains USA this fall.

https://www.bizjournals.com/orlando/news/2019/02/12/brightline-virgin-trains-calls-off-ipo.html?iana=hpmvp_orl_news_headline

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, YimbyOrlando said:

We're only on the hook for the $8 billion I-4 toll lanes, those are definitely going to solve Orlando's traffic!

Lets be realistic. The $2.3 billion I-4 Ultimate project won't be near that cost as it will bring in a ton of money, just as the similar I-95 Express project in South Florida did. And it did massively increase the speed in both the free lanes and the paid lanes (and over there, there was only minor modifications to the roadway, it was mostly done by converting the HOV lane and adding plastic bollards. It won't solve it, but I think nearly no one doesn't think it will help improve the situation massively, and probably at a lower cost then any other improvement with the express component being factored in. 95 in Miami is profitable now.

Since it sound like Virgin Trains found alternate funding, I think cancellation of the IPO is a good thing.

 

I think if California doesn't connect 2 major cities with their HSR they should be forced to pay back the billions. It may still be what makes sense, but the whole train there just never made sense in the first place. I do wonder what this means for the Vegas to San Diego Virgin Trains route( (although from my understanding, no connection between the HSR and the Virgin Trains route was even proposed). Who knows, maybe Virgin Trains or someone else will step in for California if they do cancel it, and they can get a much better plan that makes more sense like we got here in Florida.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Uncommon said:

Let’s stop bragging and crapping on California for a second and enjoy this humble pie from Biz Journal:

Virgin Trains USA, which operates the Brightline passenger rail service in South Florida, has hit the brakes on its initial public offering (IPO).

The Miami-based company filed its initial registration statement in November shortly after announcing a branding deal and investment with Virgin Group

 

In January, Virgin Trains USA amended its registration to reflect an expected price of $17 to $19 per share, which could raise up to $619 million. The company started meeting with investors to set up the public offering.

Raising capital is crucial for the company so it has the ability to fund expansion of its Brightline passenger rail service from South Florida to Orlando, and then to Tampa. It also has a pending $120 million acquisition of XpressWest that would build a Southern California-to-Las Vegas passenger rail line.

All of those plans are still in place, but an IPO is no longer a short-term option to fund them, according to a Brightline senior official. 

“As we explored a public offering, a number of alternative financing sources became available that allow us to keep the company private and meet our growth strategies,” Brightline Senior VP of Corporate Affairs Ben Porritt said when asked whether the IPO has been postponed.

The postponement of the Virgin Trains USA IPO was first reported by Bloomberg.

Virgin Trains USA was pitching investors on the growth potential of regional passenger rail networks as an attractive alternative to both driving and short flights. It’s a relatively new business model in the United States, so there weren’t many companies for investors to compare it to.

Virgin Trains USA generated revenue of $5.23 million in the first nine months of this year, with a net loss of $87.1 million, according to the SEC filing. That was its first year in business, and its full Miami-to-West Palm Beach service didn’t start until the second quarter. The company hopes to stabilize operations in 2023 or 2024, after expanding to Orlando and Tampa, according to the SEC filing.

Brightline carried over 579,000 riders in 2018, according to a report to its bondholders. Ridership grew each month.

The company could still tap private activity bonds to fund its Orlando rail line, similar to the funding mechanism it used for its South Florida rail project. Fortress Investment Group, the main owner of the company, has already funded $1.2 billion in private equity for the business, and issued another $600 million in private activity bonds.

The Brightline is still expected to rebrand as Virgin Trains USA this fall.

https://www.bizjournals.com/orlando/news/2019/02/12/brightline-virgin-trains-calls-off-ipo.html?iana=hpmvp_orl_news_headline

Sounds good to me. Full speed ahead!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, YimbyOrlando said:

We're only on the hook for the $8 billion I-4 toll lanes, those are definitely going to solve Orlando's traffic!

Have you ever personally used I-95 where the similar lanes exist in Miami?  Had you traveled that same stretch of road semi-frequently in the past prior to their installation?

I'm guessing if you answered yes to both of those questions, you wouldn't be making this statement.  Whether you like the idea or not, it worked amazingly well there.  AMAZINGLY WELL.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they truly have private equity funding this, then even better.  Other articles I have read stated that they were testing the market demand ahead of the IPO and found there were not as many suckers as they expected willing to take on the speculative risk with little to no voting control.  The market readily recognized that the risk/reward was skewed for the pricing they were seeking. 

"Josef Schuster, founder of Chicago-based Ipox Schuster LLC, said before the delay that he thought the targeted valuation for Virgin Trains, based on selling 17 percent of the company’s shares, was too high for such a speculative investment. “It’s a great concept, but I think it’s going to be difficult for shareholders at the outset to make money on this deal,” said Schuster, whose firm oversees about $1.7 billion invested in recent IPOs."

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-12/branson-branded-train-to-disney-to-be-biggest-2019-u-s-ipo-yet

 

"One close follower of the company said, however,  that the company had also concluded it could not achieve the valuation it sought in an IPO. "It was a combination of [investor] appetite and people saying they'd be interested if it was private," he said."

https://www.ft.com/content/f7e8da90-2f17-11e9-8744-e7016697f225

 

IMO, Private Equity is a much better outcome than the IPO, because it means the main shareholders/stakeholders will have more skin in the game. They can't just make a doomed-to-fail shell company and then pawn it off on the taxpayers to pick up the pieces and operate the system later on. This is a good development, not a bad one. 

I also agree with Aent above that I-4 Ultimate is a good thing, and the private train is a good thing. All additional funding for improving transportation in our main corridors from Miami to Orlando and Tampa and Jacksonville will help to advance us ahead of the rest of the nation. Florida will be one of the leaders in HSR and the connectivity it brings will drive business investment and urbanization around this core that will be beneficial to our future as a "mega-region" and our City in general. 

Edited by dcluley98
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

U.S. Department of tranportation cancels $929 million in federal funding for the California HSR project after the Governor cut back plans for connecting the route to major cities in the Bay Area and L.A. 

In addition, the U.S. Transportation Department said it was exploring legal options to recoup $2.5 billion in federal funds already granted to the project by the Federal Railroad Administration, according to a DOT statement.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-19/u-s-cancels-929-million-for-california-high-speed-rail-project?srnd=premium

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its interesting because that money didn't get recouped when Florida cancelled Orlando to Tampa.  When asked about whether Florida would have to pay back the money that was spent, I believe it was Bill Nelson's office had said no work was done on that project.  When asked what was the geotech doing on the median of I-4, they replied it was for I-4 widening.  It was 100% for high speed rail.

 To my understanding California is still meeting the requirements per the agreement to keep the $2.5 billion.  They need to complete the track between the original middle section.  Apparently nothing in the agreement says they need to buy the trains or run trains on it, they just needed to build the track per the agreement.

Edited by codypet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^

read the article.  saw the report on CBS this am.  CA is either in compliance, or they're not, otherwise the Fed wouldn't hold back the funds (because that would be too obvious).

Nevertheless, I see no reason why the rest of the US should fund (even in part) an out of control cost overrun  $100BHSR system for a state that also has a state income tax.   The media has given California's a pass, sprinkled pixie dust on their mismanagement of the HSR, and turned it into a political football,  so that they can get bailed out of their bad decisions by the Fed (which is what this is ultimately leading to).  Strategically, I would have done the same thing, however.  

The comedy in all this, is that Trump doesn't need their electors, and if those Genius Bar groupies didn't realize this fact, or see this one coming (blame Pelosi), then, what does that make them? I mean, seriously? I even saw this one coming.

Simply put, it's bad (political) karma...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, jrs2 said:

^^

read the article.  saw the report on CBS this am.  CA is either in compliance, or they're not, otherwise the Fed wouldn't hold back the funds (because that would be too obvious).

Nevertheless, I see no reason why the rest of the US should fund (even in part) an out of control cost overrun  $100BHSR system for a state that also has a state income tax.   The media has given California's a pass, sprinkled pixie dust on their mismanagement of the HSR, and turned it into a political football,  so that they can get bailed out of their bad decisions by the Fed (which is what this is ultimately leading to).  Strategically, I would have done the same thing, however.  

The comedy in all this, is that Trump doesn't need their electors, and if those Genius Bar groupies didn't realize this fact, or see this one coming (blame Pelosi), then, what does that make them? I mean, seriously? I even saw this one coming.

Simply put, it's bad (political) karma...

If you want to home something, Blake the feds for signing an agreement that only required a portion of the route be built and didn’t require anything to actually be run on it.  California is within their rights, even if they ‘shouldn’t’ be.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, codypet said:

Its interesting because that money didn't get recouped when Florida cancelled Orlando to Tampa.  When asked about whether Florida would have to pay back the money that was spent, I believe it was Bill Nelson's office had said no work was done on that project.  When asked what was the geotech doing on the median of I-4, they replied it was for I-4 widening.  It was 100% for high speed rail.

My understanding was Florida never received federal reimbursement for the i4 work from the hsr project, fdot paid for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, WAJAS98 said:

If you want to home something, Blake the feds for signing an agreement that only required a portion of the route be built and didn’t require anything to actually be run on it.  California is within their rights, even if they ‘shouldn’t’ be.

‘home’ ? ‘blake’ ? I must be getting old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, WAJAS98 said:

Wow, my phone really screwed that one up.  On my computer now, they should both be "blame."

Oh my God... this is really all about The Golden Sparrow project.  Get it?  Robert "Blake;" Barretta; Keep Your Eye On The Sparrow theme song?  It's brilliant! 

Yes, I am on crack...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/20/2019 at 3:32 PM, jrs2 said:

^^

read the article.  saw the report on CBS this am.  CA is either in compliance, or they're not, otherwise the Fed wouldn't hold back the funds (because that would be too obvious).

Nevertheless, I see no reason why the rest of the US should fund (even in part) an out of control cost overrun  $100BHSR system for a state that also has a state income tax.   The media has given California's a pass, sprinkled pixie dust on their mismanagement of the HSR, and turned it into a political football,  so that they can get bailed out of their bad decisions by the Fed (which is what this is ultimately leading to).  Strategically, I would have done the same thing, however.  

The comedy in all this, is that Trump doesn't need their electors, and if those Genius Bar groupies didn't realize this fact, or see this one coming (blame Pelosi), then, what does that make them? I mean, seriously? I even saw this one coming.

Simply put, it's bad (political) karma...

Should CA then, in turn, be responsible for Florida’s endless sprawl via federal dollars for road expansion when Florida’s residents  are unwilling to tax themselves for it?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.