HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

OT: UPDATE 1/11 10:15 ET - ESPN reports Chargers will move to Los Angeles in 2017

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-11-2017, 12:21 PM
  #1
Fenway
Global Moderator
Bruins Historian
 
Fenway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Boston-Cambridge MA
Country: United States
Posts: 18,128
vCash: 1100000
OT: UPDATE 1/11 10:15 ET - ESPN reports Chargers will move to Los Angeles in 2017

NFL owners seem to be having second thoughts on the ability of the LA market to be the home of 2 teams.

NFL to push to keep Chargers in San Diego with concern over second L.A. team

Quote:
Select NFL owners will meet in New York on Wednesday as part of the league's stadium and finance committees and are prepared to make a final pitch to get the Chargers to stay in San Diego, according to numerous league and ownership sources, with the crux of this meeting focused on the Raiders' desire to move to Las Vegas.

There are some grave concerns among owners and the league office about the potential of having two teams in Los Angeles -- the Chargers can exercise an option to move to L.A. next week, and sources said at this point they have no reason not to -- and any subsidy offered to Chargers owner Dean Spanos would be born of those economic fears more than anything else. And while the league's top executives expressed trepidation about Raiders owner Mark Davis's race to move to Nevada at the most recent owner's meeting, pointing out potential issues with the Las Vegas market, league sources anticipate the tone of Wednesday's meeting to be quite different.


Last edited by Fenway: 01-11-2017 at 10:25 PM.
Fenway is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2017, 12:30 PM
  #2
Ishdul
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Country: Lithuania
Posts: 3,721
vCash: 500
After initial enthusiasm followed by a very poor season the arena was a bit of a ghost town by their 7th game in LA.

Ishdul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2017, 12:39 PM
  #3
cutchemist42
Registered User
 
cutchemist42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,866
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenway View Post
NFL owners seem to be having second thoughts on the ability of the LA market to be the home of 2 teams.

NFL to push to keep Chargers in San Diego with concern over second L.A. team
I know its not directly the thread's topic but its highly related.....what would the potential problems in LV be for the Raiders?

cutchemist42 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2017, 12:54 PM
  #4
Big McLargehuge
Global Moderator
Bob Johnson
 
Big McLargehuge's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Country: Iceland
Posts: 66,204
vCash: 2626
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ishdul View Post
After initial enthusiasm followed by a very poor season the arena was a bit of a ghost town by their 7th game in LA.
Ghost Town is a stretch considering only the Cowboys had more fans watch them at home in the league...but the atmosphere definitely seemed that way, thanks in large part to the Coliseum being too big for the NFL, ungodly outdated, and the Rams being about as enjoyable to watch as a CBS sitcom.

That said, I get the trepidation. LA is definitely a fair-weather market with millions of transplants and an endless supply of other ways to spend time and money. A second team would make a hell of a lot more sense if they wouldn't inevitably be sharing a stadium. For that brief window that LA had two teams between 1982-94 they were still separated by ~35 miles.

__________________
“The most terrifying fact about the universe is not that it is hostile, but that it is indifferent. If we can come to terms with this indifference and accept the challenges of life within the boundaries of death, our existence as a species can have genuine meaning and fulfillment. However vast the darkness, we must supply our own light.” - Stanley Kubrick

Last edited by Big McLargehuge: 01-11-2017 at 12:59 PM.
Big McLargehuge is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2017, 01:05 PM
  #5
cutchemist42
Registered User
 
cutchemist42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,866
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big McLargehuge View Post
Ghost Town is a stretch considering only the Cowboys had more fans watch them at home in the league...but the atmosphere definitely seemed that way, thanks in large part to the Coliseum being too big for the NFL, ungodly outdated, and the Rams being about as enjoyable to watch as a CBS sitcom.

That said, I get the trepidation. LA is definitely a fair-weather market with millions of transplants and an endless supply of other ways to spend time and money. A second team would make a hell of a lot more sense if they wouldn't inevitably be sharing a stadium. For that brief window that LA had two teams between 1982-94 they were still separated by ~35 miles.
What would even divide the Rams/Chargers fanbase at this point? Whomever is better at the time?

cutchemist42 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2017, 01:15 PM
  #6
Drake744
Reunited. Injured.
 
Drake744's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Mt. Juliet, TN
Posts: 7,898
vCash: 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by cutchemist42 View Post
What would even divide the Rams/Chargers fanbase at this point? Whomever is better at the time?
There is no Chargers fan base there, despite the short geographic distance.



I've been toting the fine line of whether or not to continue rooting for the Chargers if they move to LA. I don't think I could. I've lived in LA but became a Chargers fan living in San Diego and it makes no sense at all for them to be there. Well, I mean it does from a purely money perspective but Spanos and the NFL absolutely HAVE to know that there's no market for a second NFL team in LA.....much less the Chargers. No fan interest there at all. They wouldn't fill the Stubhub Center.

The only team that could succeed in LA is the Raiders, IMO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutchemist42 View Post
I know its not directly the thread's topic but its highly related.....what would the potential problems in LV be for the Raiders?
The same as a potential problem with the Golden Knights.

Granted the NFL is far more popular than the NHL, but no one is really sure how many locals in Vegas would get attached to a potential pro sports team there, whether it's the Raiders or the Knights. I like the idea of trying out pro sports there, but I think they'll be depending way too much (and way too openly) on visiting fans from out of town and/or fans of other teams. That could be a dangerous path to go down.

Drake744 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2017, 01:23 PM
  #7
Brodeur
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 15,820
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake744 View Post
I've been toting the fine line of whether or not to continue rooting for the Chargers if they move to LA. I don't think I could. I've lived in LA but became a Chargers fan living in San Diego and it makes no sense at all for them to be there. Well, I mean it does from a purely money perspective but Spanos and the NFL absolutely HAVE to know that there's no market for a second NFL team in LA.....much less the Chargers. No fan interest there at all. They wouldn't fill the Stubhub Center.

The only team that could succeed in LA is the Raiders, IMO.
I'm in the same boat. I grew up north of LA and liked the Raiders/Rams as a young kid. But both left town in 1995, which in part caused hockey to become more of a focal point. Moved to San Diego for college and stayed, got back into football in 2003 which coincided with the peak Tomlinson years.

It's a bummer since the Chargers are going to have a fun road schedule next year and I was thinking about making a trip out to Dallas to see Jerry World. I can't say I'd go out of my way to drive up to Carson/LA to see them play.

Brodeur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2017, 01:39 PM
  #8
93LEAFS
Registered User
 
93LEAFS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,905
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake744 View Post
There is no Chargers fan base there, despite the short geographic distance.



I've been toting the fine line of whether or not to continue rooting for the Chargers if they move to LA. I don't think I could. I've lived in LA but became a Chargers fan living in San Diego and it makes no sense at all for them to be there. Well, I mean it does from a purely money perspective but Spanos and the NFL absolutely HAVE to know that there's no market for a second NFL team in LA.....much less the Chargers. No fan interest there at all. They wouldn't fill the Stubhub Center.

The only team that could succeed in LA is the Raiders, IMO.


The same as a potential problem with the Golden Knights.

Granted the NFL is far more popular than the NHL, but no one is really sure how many locals in Vegas would get attached to a potential pro sports team there, whether it's the Raiders or the Knights. I like the idea of trying out pro sports there, but I think they'll be depending way too much (and way too openly) on visiting fans from out of town and/or fans of other teams. That could be a dangerous path to go down.
I would think most NFL fears are primarily based in gambling issues, as Raiders games may no longer be able to be bet on in Nevada. Catering to gamblers is a staple of the NFL. Considering how the NHL treats its injury reports, they put little to no consideration to gamblers and how they drive ratings.

93LEAFS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2017, 01:47 PM
  #9
Mightygoose
Registered User
 
Mightygoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Ajax, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,198
vCash: 500
One would think the league would have waited for the Rams to settle in first before approving 2 teams. Granted I think this was the only way to satisfy everyone since 3 teams (in 2 different stadium plan), tried to move last year.

Either way, the league as extended the Chargers option to move by 2 days to January 17 to avoid a decision coming on game day or holiday.

http://fox5sandiego.com/2017/01/11/n...sion-deadline/

Mightygoose is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2017, 01:48 PM
  #10
Drake744
Reunited. Injured.
 
Drake744's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Mt. Juliet, TN
Posts: 7,898
vCash: 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by 93LEAFS View Post
I would think most NFL fears are primarily based in gambling issues, as Raiders games may no longer be able to be bet on in Nevada. Catering to gamblers is a staple of the NFL. Considering how the NHL treats its injury reports, they put little to no consideration to gamblers and how they drive ratings.
I've always wondered if they would pull a Vegas NFL team off the betting boards or not. Granted it's a college program that doesn't generally get paid attention to but you can still bet on UNLV football and basketball in Nevada (as far as I know).

But yeah, still, I've wondered how much that would come into play.

Drake744 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2017, 02:50 PM
  #11
BattleBorn
Global Moderator
AC0000000
 
BattleBorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Country: Puerto Rico
Posts: 4,258
vCash: 431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake744 View Post
...


The same as a potential problem with the Golden Knights.

Granted the NFL is far more popular than the NHL, but no one is really sure how many locals in Vegas would get attached to a potential pro sports team there, whether it's the Raiders or the Knights. I like the idea of trying out pro sports there, but I think they'll be depending way too much (and way too openly) on visiting fans from out of town and/or fans of other teams. That could be a dangerous path to go down.
I tend to think of it as the opposite through my Vegas colored glasses. I think the city will support the team just fine, whether that's the Knights, the Raiders, or both. However, the advantage to Las Vegas is that during down times when perhaps the city isn't in love with the team, there's still a pretty much built in safety net in the tourism and visiting fans coming to town. Hopefully there won't be times where the T-MA or the Raiders Stadium are below 70% capacity, because they should be able to fill 70% with locals and use the tourists to supplement the local business.

It's an advantage in my book, not a disadvantage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 93LEAFS View Post
I would think most NFL fears are primarily based in gambling issues, as Raiders games may no longer be able to be bet on in Nevada. Catering to gamblers is a staple of the NFL. Considering how the NHL treats its injury reports, they put little to no consideration to gamblers and how they drive ratings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake744 View Post
I've always wondered if they would pull a Vegas NFL team off the betting boards or not. Granted it's a college program that doesn't generally get paid attention to but you can still bet on UNLV football and basketball in Nevada (as far as I know).

But yeah, still, I've wondered how much that would come into play.
You can bet on any Nevada teams you want, and have been able to for a while. The issues come if there's a conflict of interest in the sports book operation and the team ownership. Meaning that while the Maloofs owned the Kings, you couldn't place bets on Sacramento in the Palms Casino since the Maloofs also owned the Palms. There could be a potential issue with the Knights and MGM Resorts since their business is somewhat intertwined, but we'll find out soon. If you can't bet on the Knights at MGM properties, there's still plenty of places to get some action.

Some fun trivia: Casino owners and executives can't gamble in their own casinos, so there were plenty of times you'd run into the Maloofs playing table games at the Suncoast or Red Rock since they're close to home and the Palms was off limits to them.

__________________
You didn't eat that, did you?
BattleBorn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2017, 03:04 PM
  #12
Fenway
Global Moderator
Bruins Historian
 
Fenway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Boston-Cambridge MA
Country: United States
Posts: 18,128
vCash: 1100000
You can not bet on the Celtics at Caesars either because their parent company owns a part of the team.

https://www.vegas.com/gaming/sportsline/basketball/

Fenway is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2017, 04:06 PM
  #13
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 7,718
vCash: 500
I think it is a mistake to have 2 teams in LA, but not sure there is another good candidate if things can't be worked out in San Diego. San Antonio, maybe? Toronto? Other than that, things are pretty tapped out.

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2017, 04:10 PM
  #14
BattleBorn
Global Moderator
AC0000000
 
BattleBorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Country: Puerto Rico
Posts: 4,258
vCash: 431
Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
I think it is a mistake to have 2 teams in LA, but not sure there is another good candidate if things can't be worked out in San Diego. San Antonio, maybe? Toronto? Other than that, things are pretty tapped out.
I was just at a game in Qualcomm a few weeks ago. It's not like the place is falling apart or anything. They'd like a new stadium and I don't blame them since the place is kind of a relic, but it's still a useful facility while they work things out over the next few years.

The urgency in the San Diego situation is self inflicted by the league.

BattleBorn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2017, 04:12 PM
  #15
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 7,718
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BattleBorn View Post
I was just at a game in Qualcomm a few weeks ago. It's not like the place is falling apart or anything. They'd like a new stadium and I don't blame them since the place is kind of a relic, but it's still a useful facility while they work things out over the next few years.

The urgency in the San Diego situation is self inflicted by the league.
It's very simple, a good portion of the revenues are shared league-wide. League doesn't think San Diego is contributing enough to that pie, so the league pressures them and the city for a new stadium.

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2017, 04:15 PM
  #16
BattleBorn
Global Moderator
AC0000000
 
BattleBorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Country: Puerto Rico
Posts: 4,258
vCash: 431
Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
It's very simple, a good portion of the revenues are shared league-wide. League doesn't think San Diego is contributing enough to that pie, so the league pressures them and the city for a new stadium.
As I recall, the city/county was willing to give them a new stadium a few years ago, they just wanted to keep it in Mission Valley where Qualcomm is now and the Chargers want to be downtown. Even within the past weeks there's been talk of putting a new stadium up in Mission Valley and Spanos says it's not an option for the Chargers. Keep in mind, Mission Valley isn't in the middle of nowhere, it's the first or second valley north of Downtown SD.

This is wanting your cake and eating it too coming back to bite the Chargers in the keyster. Perhaps Spanos really just wants to go to LA.

BattleBorn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2017, 04:23 PM
  #17
Chau
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,520
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BattleBorn View Post
As I recall, the city/county was willing to give them a new stadium a few years ago, they just wanted to keep it in Mission Valley where Qualcomm is now and the Chargers want to be downtown. Even within the past weeks there's been talk of putting a new stadium up in Mission Valley and Spanos says it's not an option for the Chargers. Keep in mind, Mission Valley isn't in the middle of nowhere, it's the first or second valley north of Downtown SD.

This is wanting your cake and eating it too coming back to bite the Chargers in the keyster. Perhaps Spanos really just wants to go to LA.
Spanos wanted the Mission Valley land gifted to him a few years ago but the city said no. That's when his quest for downtown started but thankfully that was shot down last November.

Even if Mission Valley works out there's still going to be a city and county vote because general fund money is involved. That's going to be an even tougher sell to voters than the TOT increase.

Chau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2017, 04:28 PM
  #18
tony d
Team Canada
 
tony d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Behind A Tree
Country: Canada
Posts: 53,714
vCash: 500
Yeah, don't think a 2nd team in LA would work. The reaction to the Rams in LA has been lukewarm. To me the Chargers either stay in San Diego or move (Portland or San Antonio perhaps?)

__________________
tony d is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2017, 04:30 PM
  #19
BattleBorn
Global Moderator
AC0000000
 
BattleBorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Country: Puerto Rico
Posts: 4,258
vCash: 431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chau View Post
Spanos wanted the Mission Valley land gifted to him a few years ago but the city said no. That's when his quest for downtown started but thankfully that was shot down last November.

Even if Mission Valley works out there's still going to be a city and county vote because general fund money is involved. That's going to be an even tougher sell to voters than the TOT increase.
Didn't the city have a proposal for Mission Valley that took Spano's $400MM commitment, the NFL's G4 fund, and PSLs for the stadium and put the public's portion of costs into infrastructure to avoid the vote?

As I recall, there was a fully private/public hybrid (minus infrastructure) proposal in Mission Valley just a short time ago and Spanos passed because it was in Mission Valley.

BattleBorn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2017, 04:45 PM
  #20
Chau
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,520
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BattleBorn View Post
Didn't the city have a proposal for Mission Valley that took Spano's $400MM commitment, the NFL's G4 fund, and PSLs for the stadium and put the public's portion of costs into infrastructure to avoid the vote?

As I recall, there was a fully private/public hybrid (minus infrastructure) proposal in Mission Valley just a short time ago and Spanos passed because it was in Mission Valley.
You might be thinking of the CSAG plan that the mayor and task force floated two years ago. I'm on my phone and can't look it up but I remember that having to be put forward for a vote as well.

Chau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2017, 04:48 PM
  #21
BattleBorn
Global Moderator
AC0000000
 
BattleBorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Country: Puerto Rico
Posts: 4,258
vCash: 431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chau View Post
You might be thinking of the CSAG plan that the mayor and task force floated two years ago. I'm on my phone and can't look it up but I remember that having to be put forward for a vote as well.
The one I'm thinking of put all the public money into infrastructure, put all the private money into the actual stadium, built a place right next to Qualcomm on the side of the site farthest from I-15, and used the current Qualcomm site as a mixed use development to recuperate a good portion of the city's investment over and above the infrastructure thus making it revenue neutral/profitable for the city after five years (I think) releasing the need for a vote.

I could be completely wrong though, I've got a lot of details in my memory and they all might be wrong. I'll google and see what I find.

ETA: There we go. I'm assuming this is it based on the pictures in the proposal. I haven't read it yet to confirm my memories, but if someone else wants to look it over while I do you're more than welcome to say I'm an idiot and my memory is completely shoddy.

https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/defau...ngproposal.pdf

BattleBorn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2017, 04:52 PM
  #22
Drake744
Reunited. Injured.
 
Drake744's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Mt. Juliet, TN
Posts: 7,898
vCash: 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by BattleBorn View Post
The one I'm thinking of put all the public money into infrastructure, put all the private money into the actual stadium, built a place right next to Qualcomm on the side of the site farthest from I-15, and used the current Qualcomm site as a mixed use development to recuperate a good portion of the city's investment over and above the infrastructure thus making it revenue neutral/profitable for the city after five years (I think) releasing the need for a vote.

I could be completely wrong though, I've got a lot of details in my memory and they all might be wrong. I'll google and see what I find.
I don't think you're completely wrong. I think the plan was to build the new stadium in the corner of the Qualcomm parking lot, and yes there were talks about mixed use developments. What I don't think has ever happened was a plan that would be able to get its way around a public vote.

Drake744 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2017, 04:57 PM
  #23
BattleBorn
Global Moderator
AC0000000
 
BattleBorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Country: Puerto Rico
Posts: 4,258
vCash: 431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake744 View Post
I don't think you're completely wrong. I think the plan was to build the new stadium in the corner of the Qualcomm parking lot, and yes there were talks about mixed use developments. What I don't think has ever happened was a plan that would be able to get its way around a public vote.
Page 5 in that document addresses it. Essentially the city pays for everything but the stadium which is constructed 100% with private funds. I'm guessing if the City/County does everything except the stadium they're thinking they can get away without the public vote. Apparently (and I'm still reading) the city would then lease the Qualcomm land to some private developer for the mixed use development thus providing additional revenues to the city that wouldn't otherwise exist.

BattleBorn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2017, 05:14 PM
  #24
Chau
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,520
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BattleBorn View Post
Page 5 in that document addresses it. Essentially the city pays for everything but the stadium which is constructed 100% with private funds. I'm guessing if the City/County does everything except the stadium they're thinking they can get away without the public vote. Apparently (and I'm still reading) the city would then lease the Qualcomm land to some private developer for the mixed use development thus providing additional revenues to the city that wouldn't otherwise exist.
I don't see how that would work. Issuing bonds to cover infrastructure costs requires a public vote because we just voted on a Measure about that last November.

I'm going to the Gulls game tonight but if I have time in between work and the game I'll take a look at that pdf.

Chau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2017, 05:30 PM
  #25
Big McLargehuge
Global Moderator
Bob Johnson
 
Big McLargehuge's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Country: Iceland
Posts: 66,204
vCash: 2626
Quote:
Originally Posted by cutchemist42 View Post
What would even divide the Rams/Chargers fanbase at this point? Whomever is better at the time?
Coin flip? There's a historical fan base with the Rams, but for new fans there really wouldn't be a ton to differentiate the two, compared to say the Raiders, where there'd be an easy love/hate split for most people. I'm on the side of keep the Raiders the **** out of LA...but I have my biases on that subject.

I disagree with the notion floated around here that there aren't Chargers fans in LA, I know plenty of them...but I don't know if that puts them above teams with a heavy transplant population, such as the Steelers...though I could say the same exact thing about San Diego in that specific case

Let me put it this way...
Do I think 2 teams could work in LA? Yes.
Do I think 2 teams could work sharing a stadium in LA? Not equally, especially given the Rams have both a historic and modern head-start.

LA is an event city, and the NFL is still very much an event...but I don't know if that's going to fill the stadium for a second team if they're not winning. I'd imagine we'd see a lot of people rooting for the visiting team if the Chargers wind up being the 2nd LA team...which would be nice for me as a transplant, but probably not what the Chargers or NFL wants.


Last edited by Big McLargehuge: 01-11-2017 at 05:41 PM.
Big McLargehuge is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:25 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2017 All Rights Reserved.