HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Detroit Red Wings
Notices

NEW Collective Bargaining agreement

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-27-2011, 08:08 AM
  #1
waltdetroit
Registered User
 
waltdetroit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 855
vCash: 500
NEW Collective Bargaining agreement

What could or should the NEW Collective Bargaining agreement include if it is to be really forward looking? Here are a couple of ideas

> Take the "hometown discount" a step further and write it into the agreement. This would help teams keep their players. Lets say you have 5 yrs with 1 team = 10% of your salary is not counted toward the cap. 10 yrs with the same team = 25%, etc, just some progressive amount. Players get paid better & management has a mechanism to offer their players a bit more theoretically.

> Dressing another player or 2 - other leagues do this now. This woud allow you to play younger guys while keeping specialists (like Homer) in the game.













'


Last edited by Shoalzie: 06-27-2011 at 12:30 PM. Reason: spelling
waltdetroit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 09:01 AM
  #2
pokerandpucks
Rookie User
 
pokerandpucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: GR area
Country: United States
Posts: 268
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by waltdetroit View Post
What could or should the NEW Collective Bargaining agreement include if it is to be really forward looking? Here are a couple of ideas

> Take the "hometown discount" a step further and write it into the agreement. This would help teams keep their players. Lets say you have 5 yrs with 1 team = 10% of your salary is not counted toward the cap. 10 yrs with the same team = 25%, etc, just some progressive amount. Players get paid better & management has a mechanism to offer their players a bit more theoretically.

> Dressing another player or 2 - other leagues do this now. This woud allow you to play younger guys while keeping specialists (like Homer) in the game.

'
1) Not a terrible idea, but I'm not sure we want to get into an NBA style CBA, and if a team signs a player to a bigger deal because it won't all count towards the cap, those players will become untradeable. A $7.5 mil hit for the original team becomes $10 mil if he gets traded.

2) What other leagues do this? There's no reason, and if they do this then they'll need to expand the rosters too. There are already too many guys who don't belong in the NHL as it is without adding 30 or 60 more.

What I'd like to see in the next CBA is allowing a team to keep up to 50% of the cap hit if there's a trade either for the life of the contract or for however many years the teams agree to. Say Florida decides they don't want to pay Campbell all that money afterall. They could trade him to Detroit, keep $3 mil of his cap hit, and the Wings would only be on the hook for $4 mil of it. It will make it easier for teams to move high salary guys. If Detroit knows that they have a ton more money coming off and they could afford all of the cap hit for the last year of the deal, they could do that.

pokerandpucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 09:35 AM
  #3
Winger98
Moderator
powers combined
 
Winger98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cleveland
Posts: 13,764
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to Winger98
Instead of dressing another player, I'd be happy with bumping the active roster up to 24. It would allow teams to better protect their young talent, and would allow them to carry deeper teams to compensate for injuries throughout the season.

__________________
blah, blah, blah
Winger98 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 09:50 AM
  #4
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winger98 View Post
Instead of dressing another player, I'd be happy with bumping the active roster up to 24. It would allow teams to better protect their young talent, and would allow them to carry deeper teams to compensate for injuries throughout the season.
I don't have a problem with this. But I don't see this as a serious issue. If your young talent can't crack the top 23, then maybe you don't think he's that good.

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 09:51 AM
  #5
waltdetroit
Registered User
 
waltdetroit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 855
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pokerandpucks View Post
1) Not a terrible idea, but I'm not sure we want to get into an NBA style CBA, and if a team signs a player to a bigger deal because it won't all count towards the cap, those players will become untradeable. A $7.5 mil hit for the original team becomes $10 mil if he gets traded.

2) What other leagues do this? There's no reason, and if they do this then they'll need to expand the rosters too. There are already too many guys who don't belong in the NHL as it is without adding 30 or 60 more.

What I'd like to see in the next CBA is allowing a team to keep up to 50% of the cap hit if there's a trade either for the life of the contract or for however many years the teams agree to. Say Florida decides they don't want to pay Campbell all that money afterall. They could trade him to Detroit, keep $3 mil of his cap hit, and the Wings would only be on the hook for $4 mil of it. It will make it easier for teams to move high salary guys. If Detroit knows that they have a ton more money coming off and they could afford all of the cap hit for the last year of the deal, they could do that.
1) good point, but the discount isn't that much and the same principles of cap management are still at work. You could work in your suggestion that when you trade you pay the discount, not the other team. It is meant as a way to keep your team together. A 25% discount for someone who has been on your team for 10 years is a reward for good drafting or trading.

2) Sorry can't find the wikipedia section that explained it. This happens in a few foreign leagues and in 1 international federation. They are allowed to dress 21 or 22 players. Being a purist, I'd like to see all players do everything. The NHL is allowed 23 players, only 20 dressed so you don't necessarily need an expanded roster. I see the following plusses using the wings team for examples:
> Rookie experience: Lets say you have emmerton play 5 on 5 getting experience instead of in the booth, while Homer plays only PK.
> Specialist: You have a beast on the PK with great clearing ability but cant pass to a teammate worth a lick. He eats up some minutes while resting others
> Longevity: Maybe you get an extra year or 2 out of players. God knows the season is too long
> Better game on the ice: Your better plyers are in better shape come playoff time
> Theoritically less injuries: Many injuries are due to being tired, less tired = less injuries
> Player-coach: Want to keep Drapes on the bench for leadership, coaching the newbies, or taking a face-off...


Last edited by waltdetroit: 06-27-2011 at 09:53 AM. Reason: 1 more point
waltdetroit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 09:55 AM
  #6
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pokerandpucks View Post
1)
What I'd like to see in the next CBA is allowing a team to keep up to 50% of the cap hit if there's a trade either for the life of the contract or for however many years the teams agree to. Say Florida decides they don't want to pay Campbell all that money afterall. They could trade him to Detroit, keep $3 mil of his cap hit, and the Wings would only be on the hook for $4 mil of it. It will make it easier for teams to move high salary guys. If Detroit knows that they have a ton more money coming off and they could afford all of the cap hit for the last year of the deal, they could do that.
I see how this would make guys easier to move, but I'm not sure its a good idea. Before long, you'll have crappy teams paying 20 percent of their cap hit to guys who aren't there.
This would allow for big market teams to dump bad contracts on small market teams, and then pick them back up at a cap discount.

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 10:18 AM
  #7
waltdetroit
Registered User
 
waltdetroit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 855
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
I see how this would make guys easier to move, but I'm not sure its a good idea. Before long, you'll have crappy teams paying 20 percent of their cap hit to guys who aren't there.
This would allow for big market teams to dump bad contracts on small market teams, and then pick them back up at a cap discount.
not sure you're right or wrong..if a guy has 5 yrs with your team and signs a 10 yr contract, just how much are you talking about? You have had him for 5 yrs and pretty well know him. A decent discount doesn't come into being until another 5 yrs. How many players with 10 yrs on the same time are traded? If they are, maybe the new team should count the full contract on their cap. If you trade him before 10 yrs you won't be paying so much. You're right in believing that somehow crappy GM's will find a way to misuse the discount

waltdetroit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 11:03 AM
  #8
Fugu
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
The issues that necessitated a cap and lockout (as if that were the only way to fix these issues) were the gaps in revenues between teams coupled to the fact 90% of the league's revenues were made at the local level. What that means is that money from national contracts and sponsors was less than 10% of the $2.2 billion the league had when they locked out the players. $220 MM divided by 30 teams is only $7.3 MM per team. The teams are the revenue/cost centers, since the NHL administration is a not-for-profit entity, whose costs = income when taxes are filed. Their cost was ~ $60-70 MM, iirc.

Basically, whatever a team could make in gate receipts, in-arena revenues and their own TV contracts is what paid their freight. Toronto receives something like $40 MM in just local TV money. That's more money than the entire payrolls of the pre-lockout smaller market teams, who spent $20-30 MM on player costs.

Canadian smaller market teams always had superior gate and local monies, but when the CAD took a dive of 40% and player salaries were all in US dollars, their costs skyrocketed without them being able to do a thing about it. Today there are more sophisticated hedging options that weren't available back when all this started.

I have always argued that the best protection for smaller markets was keeping the UFA age at 31. Who really cared if 5-6 teams overpaid 31+ vets? Teams had at least three contracts to squeeze in during the RFA years to help control costs. For forwards, their prime years start at around 20-21 and start declining by 27 (as far as peak output). Defensemen have a slightly shifted curve that goes 2-3 yrs later than that.

I remember one GM saying, about the lockout, that the league shut down the entire NHL for a year to stop 5-6 teams from splurging on vets.

It always was a half-assed solution because the issue is the revenue gap. Unlike the NFL that has a huge TV contract to share and that also shares gate receipts (36-39% to visitor, iirc), the NHL came up with a solution that 'taxed' the teams with the huge revenues. This solution works with a cap as long as the savings made with having a cap system are greater than their earlier spending. So with a cap of $40 MM, the big spenders were saving $20-4OMM on player costs minus their contribution to the revenue transfer pot (called revenue sharing, which it is not). Fast forward to today where its the big markets who have increased their revenues, their player costs are $64MM and they have to write checks to the small teams (who are treading water basically) of $15-20 MM...... and the windfall just isn't there anymore. I think the system is too expensive for everyone.


I think the league will try to roll back salaries AGAIN, and lower the linkage to 48% of HRR instead of accepting that they're never going to fix the problem by trying to take money out of the players' pockets. Should Toronto be able to laugh all the way to the bank so a tiny revenue'd team that has forever been stuck at $60MM in revenues can stumble along forever at that same level?

  Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 11:40 AM
  #9
dj4aces
Registered User
 
dj4aces's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,896
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dj4aces Send a message via AIM to dj4aces Send a message via MSN to dj4aces Send a message via Yahoo to dj4aces
It's almost a sure bet that the league will try (and probably succeed) in rolling back the cap. In my opinion, the cap setup we have in the NHL looks as if it was hastily contrived.

The problem, I feel, isn't the cap itself. For all I care, it can keep going up. The problem is the salary cap floor. While the floor does try to force teams to be competitive in salary, it fails to account for why a teams' salary is so low. That could be a problem with the team owner, or the market itself, but it's still an issue that will likely be forced by the owners of small market teams, such as Florida. How successful those owners are at forcing the issue is another matter completely.

dj4aces is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 11:46 AM
  #10
Fugu
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by dj4aces View Post
It's almost a sure bet that the league will try (and probably succeed) in rolling back the cap. In my opinion, the cap setup we have in the NHL looks as if it was hastily contrived.

The problem, I feel, isn't the cap itself. For all I care, it can keep going up. The problem is the salary cap floor. While the floor does try to force teams to be competitive in salary, it fails to account for why a teams' salary is so low. That could be a problem with the team owner, or the market itself, but it's still an issue that will likely be forced by the owners of small market teams, such as Florida. How successful those owners are at forcing the issue is another matter completely.

I think it's a two-part answer.

1. The belief is that teams need to achieve parity for the good of the league. If you leave a cap but no floor, the smaller teams would just save the money and not have very good players since they wouldn't want to compete for the talent. The cap and revenue transfer/sharing is 'supposed' to make it possible for them to get the difference between their own revenues and the forced spending of the cap range.

2. The NHLPA wouldn't agree to a system that didn't have revenue sharing. It's odd to think that they had to push the owners into more revenue sharing than owners realizing that the big teams could pocket a lot of money with a cap, while the smaller guys would still be at a disadvantage by having to rely only on their own revenues.

Basically point #2 illustrates that the NHLPA wasn't going to give the owners all that money back while limiting what big spenders wanted to spend. All of the control would be off the players' backs, when they did little to create the economic disparity (and loony GM driven contracts).

  Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 11:57 AM
  #11
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
They need to increase revenue sharing.
For every one $1M spent over the cap, the team must pay $1M to low-revenue teams

if the 5 teams went $3M over, that's $15M to be divided among the poor teams.

This always should have been about revenue sharing. But the god damn owners are greedy enough to deprive fans of hockey for a year and then raise our ticket prices despite saying they wouldn't.
So of course they're too greedy to share revenue with other teams in the league.

It's too bad Obama didn't tax the crap out of all the owners and players.

At least the public would have gotten something tangible out of these greedy ********.

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 12:01 PM
  #12
WingedWheel1987
Ken Holland's office
 
WingedWheel1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: GPP Michigan
Posts: 8,138
vCash: 500
So you basically want a luxury tax?

It's not doing so well in the NBA.

WingedWheel1987 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 12:15 PM
  #13
Fugu
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
They need to increase revenue sharing.
For every one $1M spent over the cap, the team must pay $1M to low-revenue teams

if the 5 teams went $3M over, that's $15M to be divided among the poor teams.

This always should have been about revenue sharing. But the god damn owners are greedy enough to deprive fans of hockey for a year and then raise our ticket prices despite saying they wouldn't.
So of course they're too greedy to share revenue with other teams in the league.

It's too bad Obama didn't tax the crap out of all the owners and players.

At least the public would have gotten something tangible out of these greedy ********.

I agree to some point, but where I diverge is that an owner can pay $100 MM for a "poor" team and then demand that the rich teams subsidize his program. Detroit's franchise value is based on how well they do in Detroit in terms of revenue since so little comes from the league itself. If you force the big teams to transfer CASH after paying all their operating costs, this is a direct hit to their franchise value. Montreal just sold, along with Bell Centre, for $500+ MM. Forcing them to give away 20% or more of their revenues, for example, is direct hit to that price--- and it would never have been justified as the transfer price if you knew you'd have to keep digging into your own pocket to prop up the failing markets.


It's an ugly mess that started from poor management of expansion without the support for teams that would need to compete with established, larger market ones in the absense of a ton of central revenue. It's not so much that expansion is bad per se, but it should have been slower and better managed.

I don't know how you fix the problem today, to be honest.

  Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 01:12 PM
  #14
pokerandpucks
Rookie User
 
pokerandpucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: GR area
Country: United States
Posts: 268
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
I see how this would make guys easier to move, but I'm not sure its a good idea. Before long, you'll have crappy teams paying 20 percent of their cap hit to guys who aren't there.
This would allow for big market teams to dump bad contracts on small market teams, and then pick them back up at a cap discount.


If you trade a player or if he leaves in free agency, you cannot get him back for one calendar year. If you reacquire a player who is still on the contract that he signed while with your team, you cannot have the team who's trading him absorb any of his cap hit.

Loophole closed.

pokerandpucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 03:05 PM
  #15
chances14
Registered User
 
chances14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Country: United States
Posts: 6,457
vCash: 500
i sense another potential lockout coming

chances14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 11:13 PM
  #16
Yemack
Registered User
 
Yemack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 6,168
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chances14 View Post
i sense another potential lockout coming
if there is another season long lockout, I for one will not be coming back to NHL.

Yemack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 11:33 PM
  #17
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
I agree to some point, but where I diverge is that an owner can pay $100 MM for a "poor" team and then demand that the rich teams subsidize his program. Detroit's franchise value is based on how well they do in Detroit in terms of revenue since so little comes from the league itself. If you force the big teams to transfer CASH after paying all their operating costs, this is a direct hit to their franchise value. Montreal just sold, along with Bell Centre, for $500+ MM. Forcing them to give away 20% or more of their revenues, for example, is direct hit to that price--- and it would never have been justified as the transfer price if you knew you'd have to keep digging into your own pocket to prop up the failing markets.


It's an ugly mess that started from poor management of expansion without the support for teams that would need to compete with established, larger market ones in the absense of a ton of central revenue. It's not so much that expansion is bad per se, but it should have been slower and better managed.

I don't know how you fix the problem today, to be honest.
That sounds unfair. But seriously, this is a league.
It's just like society.
I give up my right to play my favorite music at 4 a.m. out of respect for society.

League owners gotta do the same.
They're welcome to invest in other leagues.

But see, the owners would rather avoid fighting eachother and try to scrape the money out of the players, even if it means putting the league out of commission for another season.

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 11:36 PM
  #18
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pokerandpucks View Post
[/B]
If you trade a player or if he leaves in free agency, you cannot get him back for one calendar year. If you reacquire a player who is still on the contract that he signed while with your team, you cannot have the team who's trading him absorb any of his cap hit.

Loophole closed.
I am not talking about Detroit selling off a big contract and then picking it back up.
I'm talking about Detroit dumping the contract on Florida
And the Rangers dumping on Carolina
And then Detroit getting the player for halfcap from Caro
And the Rangers getting the player for halfcap from Fla

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 11:39 PM
  #19
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WingedWheel1987 View Post
So you basically want a luxury tax?

It's not doing so well in the NBA.
A stiff luxury tax would do more to solve the league's problems than what we've got now

Imagine if in 2005, the League said, OK
League SOFT CAP at $64M and Hardcap at $70M with dollar for dollar revenue sharing over $64M, and a salary floor at $48M

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2011, 12:03 AM
  #20
Jimbo7200
Registered User
 
Jimbo7200's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Michigan
Country: United States
Posts: 765
vCash: 500
an NFL style franchise tag would be ok by me, but i'm sure it wouldn't go over well with the players

Jimbo7200 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2011, 06:52 AM
  #21
waltdetroit
Registered User
 
waltdetroit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 855
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
I am not talking about Detroit selling off a big contract and then picking it back up.
I'm talking about Detroit dumping the contract on Florida
And the Rangers dumping on Carolina
And then Detroit getting the player for halfcap from Caro
And the Rangers getting the player for halfcap from Fla
I see your point, but some team is still paying the the players total cap

waltdetroit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2011, 10:50 AM
  #22
Fugu
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
That sounds unfair. But seriously, this is a league.
It's just like society.
I give up my right to play my favorite music at 4 a.m. out of respect for society.

League owners gotta do the same.
They're welcome to invest in other leagues.

But see, the owners would rather avoid fighting eachother and try to scrape the money out of the players, even if it means putting the league out of commission for another season.

Well, why not valuate all the teams and sum it up, then let each owner have the share that he's invested? The Molsons didn't buy the Habs so they could take a 20% hit to their bottom line to support markets that may be failing for a variety of reasons (including poor management, like Atlanta for example). That would be fair.

The NFL already has the problem of smaller market owners just pocketing the league money and not investing in their teams.


Your idea only works for the current owners and assumes no one will ever sell their team. Let's say you do take money of the big teams' pockets, and the guy in [small market] wants to sell. What does he charge? The buyer will count on the subsidy as being his revenue and pay based on that figure. The big team's value won't be able to appreciate based on their growth alone, but on that minus what gets taken away. As long as there are individuals owners and valuations, your system eventually falls apart when someone starts losing money.

Basically, someone has to pay the freight and it needs to be equitably done. Also keep in mind that NFL teams get more money from the league (via their TV contracts) to cover their entire payroll. What they manage to get at home is gravy.

  Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2011, 11:52 AM
  #23
pokerandpucks
Rookie User
 
pokerandpucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: GR area
Country: United States
Posts: 268
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
I am not talking about Detroit selling off a big contract and then picking it back up.
I'm talking about Detroit dumping the contract on Florida
And the Rangers dumping on Carolina
And then Detroit getting the player for halfcap from Caro
And the Rangers getting the player for halfcap from Fla
That's possible, but if still allows the players to be moved. If bad teams want to be the better teams' *****es, then that's up to them. Right now the teams like Florida are just taking everyone else's bad contracts to get to the floor anyway. I don't see much difference.

pokerandpucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2011, 01:52 PM
  #24
Big Poppa Puck
Bring back JTG!
 
Big Poppa Puck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: South Philly
Country: United States
Posts: 14,875
vCash: 500
Another lockout would ruin the NHL forever. Maybe not for most hardcore fans like us but for the casual fan.

Big Poppa Puck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2011, 04:21 PM
  #25
waltdetroit
Registered User
 
waltdetroit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 855
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Basically, whatever a team could make in gate receipts, in-arena revenues and their own TV contracts is what paid their freight. Toronto receives something like $40 MM in just local TV money. That's more money than the entire payrolls of the pre-lockout smaller market teams, who spent $20-30 MM on player costs.
The area of tv revenue is one area that i can justify revenue sharing, just don't know enough to determine a method. After all, the other teams like DRW do boost ratings and all are vital to the season, but what do you put into the pot and how do you divvy it up?

waltdetroit is offline   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 12:58 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.