NHL realignment on the table again.

Forum for Pittsburgh Penguins-related messages.

Moderators: Three Stars, dagny, pfim, netwolf

Re: NHL realignment on the table again.

Postby npv708 on Thu Mar 07, 2013 7:55 pm

Winnipeg makes more sense in the Southeast.

Spoiler:
Said no one ever.
npv708
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 22,658
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 10:11 pm
Location: Washington, DC

Re: NHL realignment on the table again.

Postby shmenguin on Thu Mar 07, 2013 10:57 pm

this sucks
shmenguin
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 22,355
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:34 pm

Re: NHL realignment on the table again.

Postby Idoit40fans on Fri Mar 08, 2013 9:42 am

Horrible. Hopefully since the PA approved it, its not the suggested alignment...i thought the NHL hadn't actually released anything yet. Maybe they are just pandering to Crosby with the divisions being 8 7 8 7. Coincidence? Unlikely.
Idoit40fans
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 51,484
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 2:42 pm
Location: No Reading, No Research, Just Strong Opinions

Re: NHL realignment on the table again.

Postby slappybrown on Fri Mar 08, 2013 9:43 am

Thumbs up from me.
slappybrown
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 17,403
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:08 am
Location: Noted Board Henchman

Re: NHL realignment on the table again.

Postby DelPen on Fri Mar 08, 2013 11:11 am

Biggest thing was to also get Dallas to the Central timezone. Avs too. It's a good compromise and they are definately hedging bets of one of the Florida teams moving north. Phoenix, if they move, will need to go to Seattle, maybe KC but then Colorado gets moved again.

Not sure how you will schedule games though to make the division or conferences even really matter.

Say 6 divisional games, there's 42 games right there in the east, if you do 4 vs the other division there's another 32 and that leaves 8 total games vs the West. If we go to a play one western division on the road each year and then the other at home, which would be fair to the entire divison if the Atlantic went to Pacific and then rotated, that's 14 games leaving 2 wild card games against the other conference if you only do three games a season.

For the West, 48 Division, 28 vs the other division and 16 vs the East which will leave an extra 4 games to work out.

The only thing I'd want to see is keep the top 3 in each division as making it but then take the next 4 regardless of conference and they make the playoffs. If three teams from the East are in the top 4, the top 2 stay in the East bracket and the other is the in the West. Travel might ultimately suck but that's the only fair way to do it.
DelPen
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 33,248
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 9:27 am
Location: Lake Wylie, SC

Re: NHL realignment on the table again.

Postby The Snapshot on Fri Mar 08, 2013 11:15 am

Just do not like the two additional teams in the East. Just straight math has less teams sitting the Playoffs out in the West.

The Divisions are fine, and we get to keep the NY/Philly rivalries and get the Caps out of their softie division of today.
The Snapshot
AHL Hall of Famer
AHL Hall of Famer
 
Posts: 8,276
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 11:28 am
Location: Somewhere between here and there

Re: NHL realignment on the table again.

Postby no name on Fri Mar 08, 2013 11:43 am

Over all i like it, love having the old patrick reunited. Think the playoff system needed thought out better. When expansion comes through it will get even better. I have a feeling atleast 2 teams will be relocated befor expansion hits, so this realignment will look alot different if that all happens. Florida, Phoenix and a few others can relocate. And cities like Seattle, Toronto, Quebec and possibly KC could be targets for expansion or relocation.
no name
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 5,932
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 4:19 pm

Re: NHL realignment on the table again.

Postby TheHammer24 on Fri Mar 08, 2013 11:53 am

Kovy27 wrote:
GreenBlood10 wrote:Me likey!!!!


How? TB/FLA in the north & Detroit/Chicago rivalry is dead. They are morons.

The Detroit-Chicago rivalry isn't particularly strong, to be honest. It's by far each team's biggest rival, but the Hawks have been more concerned with Vancouver and San Jose in the recent years and Detroit still reminisces about Colorado. I think Detroit would have good rivalries with other original six teams like Boston and Montreal and Toronto.
TheHammer24
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 14,024
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:28 pm

Re: NHL realignment on the table again.

Postby MRandall25 on Fri Mar 08, 2013 11:54 am

Detroit and Toronto used to be a big rivalry.
MRandall25
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 16,654
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 6:11 pm
Location: BOBROVSKY!!!

Re: NHL realignment on the table again.

Postby TheHammer24 on Fri Mar 08, 2013 11:56 am

DelPen wrote:Biggest thing was to also get Dallas to the Central timezone. Avs too. It's a good compromise and they are definately hedging bets of one of the Florida teams moving north. Phoenix, if they move, will need to go to Seattle, maybe KC but then Colorado gets moved again.

Not sure how you will schedule games though to make the division or conferences even really matter.

Say 6 divisional games, there's 42 games right there in the east, if you do 4 vs the other division there's another 32 and that leaves 8 total games vs the West. If we go to a play one western division on the road each year and then the other at home, which would be fair to the entire divison if the Atlantic went to Pacific and then rotated, that's 14 games leaving 2 wild card games against the other conference if you only do three games a season.

For the West, 48 Division, 28 vs the other division and 16 vs the East which will leave an extra 4 games to work out.

The only thing I'd want to see is keep the top 3 in each division as making it but then take the next 4 regardless of conference and they make the playoffs. If three teams from the East are in the top 4, the top 2 stay in the East bracket and the other is the in the West. Travel might ultimately suck but that's the only fair way to do it.

They originally proposed a home-and-home against each out-of-"conference" team. That's 48 games. That leaves 34 among the remaining 6 or 7, which was going to be 2 home and 2 away against each divisional opponent plus either one or two more games. It's not nearly as symmetrical as this year's format is.
TheHammer24
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 14,024
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:28 pm

Re: NHL realignment on the table again.

Postby Bioshock on Fri Mar 08, 2013 11:56 am

Really like this format
Bioshock
AHL'er
AHL'er
 
Posts: 3,751
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 4:55 pm
Location: Mt. Lebanon

Re: NHL realignment on the table again.

Postby iWonTheCup87 on Fri Mar 08, 2013 12:19 pm

if you have to play through your division first for the playoffs then this is stupid. I dont care as much about the 4 divisions but if you have to play through the same teams every year before you can play other teams in another division that is ridiculous. That means we will play ranger/flyers/devils every single season first.
iWonTheCup87
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 2,346
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 10:42 pm
Location: Inside Crosby's basement dryer

Re: NHL realignment on the table again.

Postby slappybrown on Fri Mar 08, 2013 12:22 pm

iWonTheCup87 wrote:if you have to play through your division first for the playoffs then this is stupid. I dont care as much about the 4 divisions but if you have to play through the same teams every year before you can play other teams in another division that is ridiculous. That means we will play ranger/flyers/devils every single season first.

You know inter-divisional playoffs is not a new concept for the NHL, right? That it was done like this for years?
slappybrown
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 17,403
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:08 am
Location: Noted Board Henchman

Re: NHL realignment on the table again.

Postby The Snapshot on Fri Mar 08, 2013 12:26 pm

slappybrown wrote:
iWonTheCup87 wrote:if you have to play through your division first for the playoffs then this is stupid. I dont care as much about the 4 divisions but if you have to play through the same teams every year before you can play other teams in another division that is ridiculous. That means we will play ranger/flyers/devils every single season first.

You know inter-divisional playoffs is not a new concept for the NHL, right? That it was done like this for years?


Yeah, and it stinks. The Playoffs should be about the best teams, seeded and matched up on the basis of performance. I understand that the bigger number of teams means less "walkovers" to the Playoffs like the Caps have had in the Southeast, but I for one hate the Conference only format that this shortened season brings. Now I have to watch the same teams every year to get to the Conference Final?

The built-in rivalries are already there with NY, NJ, Washington and Philly. Same for Boston, MTL and Toronto. The Pens have a rivalry still with Ottawa that resulted from early round playoff battles.

I don't like the Playoff plan, but I am ok I guess with the Divisions for the season.
The Snapshot
AHL Hall of Famer
AHL Hall of Famer
 
Posts: 8,276
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 11:28 am
Location: Somewhere between here and there

Re: NHL realignment on the table again.

Postby slappybrown on Fri Mar 08, 2013 12:30 pm

The Snapshot wrote:
slappybrown wrote:
iWonTheCup87 wrote:if you have to play through your division first for the playoffs then this is stupid. I dont care as much about the 4 divisions but if you have to play through the same teams every year before you can play other teams in another division that is ridiculous. That means we will play ranger/flyers/devils every single season first.

You know inter-divisional playoffs is not a new concept for the NHL, right? That it was done like this for years?


Yeah, and it stinks. The Playoffs should be about the best teams, seeded and matched up on the basis of performance. I understand that the bigger number of teams means less "walkovers" to the Playoffs like the Caps have had in the Southeast, but I for one hate the Conference only format that this shortened season brings. Now I have to watch the same teams every year to get to the Conference Final?

And that's fine if you don't like it. I was responding to the initial poster who gave me the impression that this was an unheard of way to format the playoffs.

Also, its not really the "same teams." With 8 teams to choose from in your conference, there is significantly more variability than there was in the old Patrick Division days; plus, the wild card aspect means some years you'll have a party crasher from the other division in your set of playoffs. So, you could have years where you play 2 of your 3 series against teams from the other division to make the Cup Finals. The balance of repetition and resulting intensity with some degree of crossover gives everyone a bit of what they want IMO.
slappybrown
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 17,403
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:08 am
Location: Noted Board Henchman

Re: NHL realignment on the table again.

Postby The Snapshot on Fri Mar 08, 2013 12:34 pm

slappybrown wrote:
The Snapshot wrote:
slappybrown wrote:
iWonTheCup87 wrote:if you have to play through your division first for the playoffs then this is stupid. I dont care as much about the 4 divisions but if you have to play through the same teams every year before you can play other teams in another division that is ridiculous. That means we will play ranger/flyers/devils every single season first.

You know inter-divisional playoffs is not a new concept for the NHL, right? That it was done like this for years?


Yeah, and it stinks. The Playoffs should be about the best teams, seeded and matched up on the basis of performance. I understand that the bigger number of teams means less "walkovers" to the Playoffs like the Caps have had in the Southeast, but I for one hate the Conference only format that this shortened season brings. Now I have to watch the same teams every year to get to the Conference Final?

And that's fine if you don't like it. I was responding to the initial poster who gave me the impression that this was an unheard of way to format the playoffs.

Also, its not really the "same teams." With 8 teams to choose from in your conference, there is significantly more variability than there was in the old Patrick Division days; plus, the wild card aspect means some years you'll have a party crasher from the other division in your set of playoffs. So, you could have years where you play 2 of your 3 series against teams from the other division to make the Cup Finals. The balance of repetition and resulting intensity with some degree of crossover gives everyone a bit of what they want IMO.


Sorry I didn't mean it as an attack on you. I just don't like the same teams over and over, and actually think the old seeding format allowed teams to develop hatred when they didn't even play each other much in the seasons prior. Ottawa being the easiest example of that for us.
The Snapshot
AHL Hall of Famer
AHL Hall of Famer
 
Posts: 8,276
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 11:28 am
Location: Somewhere between here and there

Re: NHL realignment on the table again.

Postby iWonTheCup87 on Fri Mar 08, 2013 12:35 pm

slappybrown wrote:
iWonTheCup87 wrote:if you have to play through your division first for the playoffs then this is stupid. I dont care as much about the 4 divisions but if you have to play through the same teams every year before you can play other teams in another division that is ridiculous. That means we will play ranger/flyers/devils every single season first.

You know inter-divisional playoffs is not a new concept for the NHL, right? That it was done like this for years?


Yea well if you are forcing each division to play through their division FIRST its horrible. I dont care if it is not a new concept it is dumb. So you are telling me you want to see the pens play the same pool of teams every single year with no chance of playing a team outside the division first? That is going to get old REAL fast. Also that means a better chance we play someone like the flyers more often, I dont want that at all and i havent talked to one person yet who likes that idea.

Also the current setup isnt perfect either beccause the division winners should not be able to lock up the 1st 3 seeds. Its not fair a garbage team like the Panthers get less points than the 4-7 seeds and they get the higher spot. Division winners should be guarantee a playoff berth but after that the seed should go by points
iWonTheCup87
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 2,346
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 10:42 pm
Location: Inside Crosby's basement dryer

Re: NHL realignment on the table again.

Postby slappybrown on Fri Mar 08, 2013 12:39 pm

iWonTheCup87 wrote:
slappybrown wrote:
iWonTheCup87 wrote:if you have to play through your division first for the playoffs then this is stupid. I dont care as much about the 4 divisions but if you have to play through the same teams every year before you can play other teams in another division that is ridiculous. That means we will play ranger/flyers/devils every single season first.

You know inter-divisional playoffs is not a new concept for the NHL, right? That it was done like this for years?


Yea well if you are forcing each division to play through their division FIRST its horrible. I dont care if it is not a new concept it is dumb. So you are telling me you want to see the pens play the same pool of teams every single year with no chance of playing a team outside the division first? That is going to get old REAL fast. Also that means a better chance we play someone like the flyers more often, I dont want that at all and i havent talked to one person yet who likes that idea.

Should be division winners and then the next best teams in order of the most points IMO. Also the current setup isnt perfect either beccause the division winners should not be able to lock up the 1st 3 seeds. Its not fair a garbage team like the Panthers get less points than the 4-7 seeds and they get the higher spot. Division winners should be guarantee a playoff berth but after that the seed should go by points

On your first paragraph, I think you should re-read how this will work with the wild cards. Because it doesn't work the way you are describing it. The system is not "the same pool of teams every single year with no chance of playing a team outside the division first." Also, lots of people like the return of the Patrick Division era playoff format. Some do not -- for example, many in this thread -- but I think your sample size is a bit small.

On the second paragraph, I agree division winners under the current format should be guaranteed a berth but not a top 3 seed.
slappybrown
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 17,403
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:08 am
Location: Noted Board Henchman

Re: NHL realignment on the table again.

Postby thepittman on Fri Mar 08, 2013 1:34 pm

I like the divisional layout, I need to read about the playoffs.
thepittman
AHL Hall of Famer
AHL Hall of Famer
 
Posts: 8,098
Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 3:52 pm
Location: (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻

Re: NHL realignment on the table again.

Postby iWonTheCup87 on Fri Mar 08, 2013 4:23 pm

slappybrown wrote:
iWonTheCup87 wrote:
slappybrown wrote:
iWonTheCup87 wrote:if you have to play through your division first for the playoffs then this is stupid. I dont care as much about the 4 divisions but if you have to play through the same teams every year before you can play other teams in another division that is ridiculous. That means we will play ranger/flyers/devils every single season first.

You know inter-divisional playoffs is not a new concept for the NHL, right? That it was done like this for years?


Yea well if you are forcing each division to play through their division FIRST its horrible. I dont care if it is not a new concept it is dumb. So you are telling me you want to see the pens play the same pool of teams every single year with no chance of playing a team outside the division first? That is going to get old REAL fast. Also that means a better chance we play someone like the flyers more often, I dont want that at all and i havent talked to one person yet who likes that idea.

Should be division winners and then the next best teams in order of the most points IMO. Also the current setup isnt perfect either beccause the division winners should not be able to lock up the 1st 3 seeds. Its not fair a garbage team like the Panthers get less points than the 4-7 seeds and they get the higher spot. Division winners should be guarantee a playoff berth but after that the seed should go by points

On your first paragraph, I think you should re-read how this will work with the wild cards. Because it doesn't work the way you are describing it. The system is not "the same pool of teams every single year with no chance of playing a team outside the division first." Also, lots of people like the return of the Patrick Division era playoff format. Some do not -- for example, many in this thread -- but I think your sample size is a bit small.

On the second paragraph, I agree division winners under the current format should be guaranteed a berth but not a top 3 seed.


i guess i have some conflicting sources here. So to be clear can you explain how the playoffs will work? Because i am trying to read on yahoo about this...

they say "The top three teams in each division will make the playoffs. The last two playoff spots in each conference will be wild cards, going to the teams with the next-best point totals."

but the earlier one says this " It will also return the Stanley Cup Playoffs to the "divisional" format that was scrapped in 1993 when the League moved to six divisions and conference seeding. The top four teams in each conference square off in the first two rounds; the winners advance and are re-seeded (we imagine) for a four-team mini-tournament for the Stanley Cup.
In other words, we could have a Bruins/Flyers Stanley Cup Final. "

so is it going to be top 3 in each division plus 2 wild cards then what? does that mean each conference will have 4 teams and seed them 1-4 and the 2 winners of each division play the 2 winners of the other division in that same conference? Then the top 2 in each conference get reseeded so it doesnt matter if one team is from a difference conference and the 2 winners from these series sqaure off for the cup? If i am wrong please let me know, but they dont explain it well
iWonTheCup87
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 2,346
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 10:42 pm
Location: Inside Crosby's basement dryer

Re: NHL realignment on the table again.

Postby slappybrown on Fri Mar 08, 2013 4:39 pm

No problem. So the way it works is kind of a hybrid model.

Lets say that the teams finish like this:

PIT - 108
NYR - 106
PHI - 100
NJ - 91


BOS - 107
MTL - 105
TML - 98
FLA - 93
TB - 92

PIT, NYR, and PHI would make it from the Atlantic, and BOS, MTL, TML would make it from the Northeast guaranteed. Then you take the next two highest records. Let's say that the next three teams would be:

FLA - 93
TB - 92
NJ - 91

NJ is out, even though they finished 4th in their division. The Northeast division would have 5 teams qualify.

In this scenario, you shift TB into our division to replace the Devils, and the divisional playoffs would be:

ATLANTIC
PIT v. TB
NYR v. PHI

NORTHEAST
BOS v. FLA
MTL v. TML

The teams then play the other winner within that division once the first round is set, so if we won and PHI won, we'd play them in round 2. The winner of BOS v. FLA is locked into playing the winner of MTL v. TML. So the conference finals would then be whoever came out of "divisional" play.

Like I said, IMO, it provides the benefits of divisional play but also some of the variety of the conference wide setup we currently have once they did away with divisional play in the mid-90s.
slappybrown
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 17,403
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:08 am
Location: Noted Board Henchman

Re: NHL realignment on the table again.

Postby Shyster on Fri Mar 08, 2013 4:40 pm

The problem I have with this alignment is that the best prospects for expansion are in the east, but the two open slots are in the west. Quebec City is gunning big time for an area, and if hockey can work again in Winnipeg, it should be able to work again there. And if the greater New York City area can support three teams (Rangers, Isles, Devils), I fail to see why another team wouldn’t make sense in the greater Toronto area. Sure, the Leafs don’t want the competition, but I think there’s too much money to be made from another Ontario franchise for the NHL to pass on that opportunity. A new team there would basically have a license to print money.
Shyster
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 6,055
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:32 pm
Location: Here and there

Re: NHL realignment on the table again.

Postby no name on Fri Mar 08, 2013 9:07 pm

slappybrown wrote:No problem. So the way it works is kind of a hybrid model.

Lets say that the teams finish like this:

PIT - 108
NYR - 106
PHI - 100
NJ - 91


BOS - 107
MTL - 105
TML - 98
FLA - 93
TB - 92

PIT, NYR, and PHI would make it from the Atlantic, and BOS, MTL, TML would make it from the Northeast guaranteed. Then you take the next two highest records. Let's say that the next three teams would be:

FLA - 93
TB - 92
NJ - 91

NJ is out, even though they finished 4th in their division. The Northeast division would have 5 teams qualify.

In this scenario, you shift TB into our division to replace the Devils, and the divisional playoffs would be:

ATLANTIC
PIT v. TB
NYR v. PHI

NORTHEAST
BOS v. FLA
MTL v. TML

The teams then play the other winner within that division once the first round is set, so if we won and PHI won, we'd play them in round 2. The winner of BOS v. FLA is locked into playing the winner of MTL v. TML. So the conference finals would then be whoever came out of "divisional" play.

Like I said, IMO, it provides the benefits of divisional play but also some of the variety of the conference wide setup we currently have once they did away with divisional play in the mid-90s.


This is exactly what i suggested and it seems like the best overall solution. The only team you can reseed is a 5th seeded team. It also would open up 2 teams fromt he same divsion playing for the right to goto the cup. If TB came out of our division a winner, they would face someone from their old division. That would be cool. I honestly think even if you get a 32 team league this would be the best way.
no name
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 5,932
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 4:19 pm

Re: NHL realignment on the table again.

Postby pcm on Fri Mar 08, 2013 10:19 pm

no name wrote:
slappybrown wrote:No problem. So the way it works is kind of a hybrid model.

Lets say that the teams finish like this:

PIT - 108
NYR - 106
PHI - 100
NJ - 91


BOS - 107
MTL - 105
TML - 98
FLA - 93
TB - 92

PIT, NYR, and PHI would make it from the Atlantic, and BOS, MTL, TML would make it from the Northeast guaranteed. Then you take the next two highest records. Let's say that the next three teams would be:

FLA - 93
TB - 92
NJ - 91

NJ is out, even though they finished 4th in their division. The Northeast division would have 5 teams qualify.

In this scenario, you shift TB into our division to replace the Devils, and the divisional playoffs would be:

ATLANTIC
PIT v. TB
NYR v. PHI

NORTHEAST
BOS v. FLA
MTL v. TML

The teams then play the other winner within that division once the first round is set, so if we won and PHI won, we'd play them in round 2. The winner of BOS v. FLA is locked into playing the winner of MTL v. TML. So the conference finals would then be whoever came out of "divisional" play.

Like I said, IMO, it provides the benefits of divisional play but also some of the variety of the conference wide setup we currently have once they did away with divisional play in the mid-90s.


This is exactly what i suggested and it seems like the best overall solution. The only team you can reseed is a 5th seeded team. It also would open up 2 teams fromt he same divsion playing for the right to goto the cup. If TB came out of our division a winner, they would face someone from their old division. That would be cool. I honestly think even if you get a 32 team league this would be the best way.


I'm pretty sure that in this scenario, if Boston had 109 points, then they would be the top seed and would play TB, the bottom seed, and FL would switch conferences instead.
pcm
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 6,076
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 10:39 am
Location: mountains

Re: NHL realignment on the table again.

Postby pcm on Fri Mar 08, 2013 10:25 pm

One thing that will be different and kinda cool about this scenario is that each conference is going to develop its own style of play. For instance, Philly and Washington know that they have to go through Pittsburgh to win the conference. They have to have a roster that can handle Crosby & Malkin. Teams will shape themselves by developing strategies to outmaneuver their conference opponents.

While this might happen to a small degree in the upper echelon of the current format (for instance, SHero should be figuring out how we match up with Boston, our biggest threat in the EC), it will be interesting to see it play out over time.
pcm
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 6,076
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 10:39 am
Location: mountains

PreviousNext

Return to Pittsburgh Penguins

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: marek and 9 guests

e-mail