HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Notices

The Potential Lockout Thread

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-25-2012, 03:38 PM
  #76
RangerBoy
1994 FOREVER
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,005
vCash: 500
Quote:
We all knew Fehr was smart. All he did today was remind us that it is the owners who decide to lock out the players.
https://twitter.com/cotsonika/status/217354449344135170

RangerBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-25-2012, 03:40 PM
  #77
-31-
portnor, pls
 
-31-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,838
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by dutchshamrock View Post
if the players take 50-53%, what does the league give them in return?
50-53%

-31- is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-26-2012, 02:32 PM
  #78
RangerBoy
1994 FOREVER
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,005
vCash: 500
Rumored NHL wish list

Quote:
About nine months ago, NHL commissioner Gary Bettman put together a wish list for the coming labour negotiations with the players.

Like anything to do with collective bargaining, it was mainly about money: Lowering the players’ share of revenue from its current 57 per cent to less than 50, cutting players’ rights to salary arbitration, not allowing wealthy teams to get bad contracts off their books by sending the player to the minor leagues, clamping down on front-loaded contracts and limiting the lengths of any player contract.

There is also a push from some of the small-revenue teams to lower the minimum payrolls, or salary-cap floor, to ease their financial woes.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...rticle4369871/

Less than 50%

RangerBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-26-2012, 06:09 PM
  #79
LordsCup*
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 794
vCash: 500
Nhlpa is going to make the nhl look like the bad guys throughout this whole thing...as they should!

Players bent over backwards 7 years ago. They shouldnt have to again.

LordsCup* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-26-2012, 06:10 PM
  #80
LordsCup*
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 794
vCash: 500
Sorry, 9 years ago.

LordsCup* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-26-2012, 06:12 PM
  #81
RangerBoy
1994 FOREVER
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,005
vCash: 500
Talks begin Friday

Quote:
Talks between the NHLPA and the NHL will start Friday in New York City.
https://twitter.com/RenLavoieRDS/sta...51218557173761

RangerBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-26-2012, 06:15 PM
  #82
LordsCup*
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 794
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
Nice.

Hoping for good news from it ( " we arent that far, we are closer then we thought we would be etc)

Hoping for best, expecting worst...

LordsCup* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-02-2012, 06:22 AM
  #83
TheHockeyDirector
Registered User
 
TheHockeyDirector's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Sweden, Sundsvall
Country: Sweden
Posts: 170
vCash: 500
Any new words on this? we over here in Sweden Timra are desperate! our team have shipped Zetterberg, Lindback, Stralman, Paajarvi, Lander, Regin, Nielsen and we're really in need of reinforcements..

If you put it in 0-100% how likely do you think it is?

And why can't I find a lockout-thread covering all the forums?

TheHockeyDirector is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-02-2012, 06:47 AM
  #84
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,420
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by White Plains Batman View Post
-Realignment; Board of Governors wants to pass it but the NHLPA is on the same side as the fan, thinks the new format is unfair and wants it modified.
#1, a few people on this site are the only people I see who are against the alignment. The new alignment would be great. My guess is you are too young to remember the rivalries in the 80's. The division rivalries were much more intense. You think Rangers-Isles, Rangers-Flyer is big now? Nothing compared to the 80's.

#2, the players rejecting it was nothing more than a negotiating ploy. If you really think the players are against it, you are crazy. The attitude was "reject it now, and then we will use it as a bargaining chip." The re-alignment will be in place for the 2013-14 season.

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-02-2012, 06:57 AM
  #85
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,420
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by White Plains Batman View Post
I remember Dubi who is the player rep saying how it needed to be modified how the playoff structure wasn't really fair.

It's a horrible and backwards idea and will really hurt certain teams like Carolina who will always have to go up against teams that can outspend them and have more resources.

The Rangers Division would be the hardest in hockey by far.
That would be cyclical. Unless you just expect pitt, philly, nj, washington to be good forever? But, what you will avoid is situations like we had this year where the 4, 5, and 6 seeds in each conference have better records than a division winner. How are big market teams going to outspend Carolina? You do realize there IS a salary cap in this league, correct?

For years people said no one will ever be able to compete in the AL East because the Yanks and Red Sox were head and shoulders above everyone else. Guess that changed.

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2012, 09:57 AM
  #86
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,121
vCash: 500
Doesn't matter what the revenue split is, there will be the major teams who make money and drive the increasing revenues for the league and there will be the unprofitable teams who can't turn a profit for a variety of reasons.

The revenue split is a red herring when it comes to the health of the league, it's just the owners wanting more money. Honestly I'd rather they lock out for another year or longer than drop the players share below 50%. That's ********, they're putting their health on the line for a league that barely acknowledges there's a problem with brain damage, what justification is there that they should be getting less than the owners

I'm sick of the the owners in pro sports holding the fans and players hostage over this kind of ****. The NFL is the absolute worst and it's disgusting, but every other league wants to be just like the NFL and have that kind of absolute control over their players.

Players are well compensated, no doubt, but when you compare them to the billionaire owners who view sports leagues as their play things then I'm not sure why I should feel any desire to side with the owners

Levitate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2012, 10:09 AM
  #87
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,121
vCash: 500
even if the owners get everything they wanted, in another 8 years they'll have a new list of things that "must be done for the health of the sport!" and will lock out over them again.

Levitate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2012, 11:34 AM
  #88
eco's bones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Elmira NY
Country: United States
Posts: 11,614
vCash: 500
Linked the new CBA negotiations to a potential Nash--Rangers deal in the offseason--UFA signing thread. Not sure that is too well received but ...

To me it would be foolish for our team to go ahead and make a huge deal like that for a bunch of younger and cheaper assets--not knowing how these negotiations will turn out. FWIW I'm against trading very much for Nash anyway.

The smaller market teams pushed the agenda the last time around and they pretty much won. The Rangers and Leafs were the two teams IMO that tried hard to save that lost season and it's funny because in the sense both teams were going nowhere at the time.

IMO we can somewhat separate labor negotiations at this level of player/employee compensation from normal labor negotiations in the normal world. That being said on the owner side it's pretty much the same--large corporation/multi-national/super wealthy entities vs. a collective employee body.

These things revolve around money first and foremost and make no mistake the Owner's have the leverage and I expect them to use that leverage for all it's worth because that's what they do. The NHLPA didn't hire Don Fehr for ***** and grins. Both sides have been preparing this for several years--working out and refining strategies because there is a lot of money at stake. The NHLPA hiring Fehr is a signal that they don't want to be run over like they were last time.

I expect ownership is going to go about lowering the cap again. There are other ways of creating revenue but since a new contract has to be agreed upon anyway the opportunity is right there front and center and I expect they'll take full advantage. Thinking about the Sabres for one--a small market team with a new super wealthy owner willing to spend $--the Sabres helped drive the cap idea last time around always being thrifty--now they're not thrifty but they've tied their hands up with a number of long term suspect UFA signings last year and lowering the cap along with a subsequent amnesty buyout clause might be a way for them to cut out a lot of dead wood and regroup. No doubt after the new CBA the cap will once again rise incrementally from season to season until the next time. I use the Sabres as an example because with 30 different ownerships you're going to get 30 different motivations--generally locked around the same concept of greed but even so-if you like capitalism that's something you have to accept.

From the players standpoint I really think they are in a no win situation. They've hired a hard negotiator but they don't have leverage. And in today's world--less rosy economically than back in 2004 things don't look very good. There's a strong anti-union sentiment throughout the country even from some who claim they're 'left'. These guys with multi-million $ contracts will be easily portrayable in the media as spoiled brats. The Owner's get a free ride on that. Most people don't even know who they are but even when they do they're often considered pillars of their respective communities.

eco's bones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2012, 02:40 PM
  #89
RangerBoy
1994 FOREVER
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,005
vCash: 500
More talks are scheduled for this week. Thursday and Friday.

Craig Custance had a column today on the floor. Teams believe the floored will be lowered in the next CBA

Quote:
"I don't believe teams are finished spending and expect we'll see a second wave of contract signings after Parise and Suter come off the board," said one prominent agent. "However, many teams are operating under an assumption that the lower limit on payroll will be reduced in a new CBA. As a result, they are not spending with the same sense of urgency and vigor as in previous years to reach the floor."

At least one free agent who switched teams this summer would have likely received a higher offer from his old team had they truly felt the salary-cap floor would wind up being close to $54 million. Instead, they shopped for a cheaper replacement.

There's another factor in the lack of urgency, suggested another agent. This year's class of free agents is so mediocre that teams would rather find other ways to get to the salary-cap floor. If it ultimately exists.

"The UFA market is so thin that teams are not throwing money at average players," he said. "A LOT of teams are waiting on the Suter/Parise decisions and then I expect both more signings and a bunch of trades."
Quote:
"Some teams are in wait-and-see mode with respect to the spending parameters of a new CBA," said the agent.
http://insider.espn.go.com/nhl/blog/...each-cap-floor

The NHLPA is not going to like the floor being lowered. The NFL and NBA saw the minimum payrolls increase with the players taking a % cut. Then again,if the cap is set at $64.3M or $62M the floor will be lower than $54.2M. The players need something if they are going to take a cut.

RangerBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2012, 03:49 PM
  #90
Brooklyn Ranger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn, of course
Posts: 7,510
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
#1, a few people on this site are the only people I see who are against the alignment. The new alignment would be great. My guess is you are too young to remember the rivalries in the 80's. The division rivalries were much more intense. You think Rangers-Isles, Rangers-Flyer is big now? Nothing compared to the 80's.

#2, the players rejecting it was nothing more than a negotiating ploy. If you really think the players are against it, you are crazy. The attitude was "reject it now, and then we will use it as a bargaining chip." The re-alignment will be in place for the 2013-14 season.
You're forgetting one important fact: there were only 21 teams in the "good old days." In a 80 game season you got to see all the rivalries--both within and outside the divsion.

In the "new" NHL the teams that used to be (assuming the new alignment actually happens) in the conference with the Rangers (Boston, Montreal, Buffalo,Toronto and Ottawa--the latter gaining in status since the two teams finally met in the playoffs) will only come to the Garden once a season, the extra game being replaced by the ability to see all the teams from the old "western" conference come every year.

Do you really think that seeing a team like Anaheim or Nashville or Columbus or Winnipeg or Dallas or Colorado every year is going to somehow create a real rivalry? I don't and I'm a hardcore fan who goes to many of those games during the season. The hockey may decent, but the atmosphere in the Garden is completely dead. There's no passion to see western conference teams.

While another significant increase in price, might force me to give up my seasons, having this re-alignment forced on me would probably get me to give them, even if the price went down (which it won't).

Brooklyn Ranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2012, 08:12 AM
  #91
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,420
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooklyn Ranger View Post
You're forgetting one important fact: there were only 21 teams in the "good old days." In a 80 game season you got to see all the rivalries--both within and outside the divsion.

In the "new" NHL the teams that used to be (assuming the new alignment actually happens) in the conference with the Rangers (Boston, Montreal, Buffalo,Toronto and Ottawa--the latter gaining in status since the two teams finally met in the playoffs) will only come to the Garden once a season, the extra game being replaced by the ability to see all the teams from the old "western" conference come every year.

Do you really think that seeing a team like Anaheim or Nashville or Columbus or Winnipeg or Dallas or Colorado every year is going to somehow create a real rivalry? I don't and I'm a hardcore fan who goes to many of those games during the season. The hockey may decent, but the atmosphere in the Garden is completely dead. There's no passion to see western conference teams.

While another significant increase in price, might force me to give up my seasons, having this re-alignment forced on me would probably get me to give them, even if the price went down (which it won't).
Uhm, it was like that in the 80s, too. Patrick Division teams played each other 7 times and you played the teams in the other divisions 3 times each. Some teams only came to MSG one time. I loved the format they used right after the lockout as I could care less about seeing every team every year. One game against the West was fine for me, seeing them come to MSG every other year for more division games. However, I am willing to sacrifice a home game against Montreal, Toronto, etc., to get back to the divisional play-offs.

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2012, 08:16 AM
  #92
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,420
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Levitate View Post
Doesn't matter what the revenue split is, there will be the major teams who make money and drive the increasing revenues for the league and there will be the unprofitable teams who can't turn a profit for a variety of reasons.

The revenue split is a red herring when it comes to the health of the league, it's just the owners wanting more money. Honestly I'd rather they lock out for another year or longer than drop the players share below 50%. That's ********, they're putting their health on the line for a league that barely acknowledges there's a problem with brain damage, what justification is there that they should be getting less than the owners

I'm sick of the the owners in pro sports holding the fans and players hostage over this kind of ****. The NFL is the absolute worst and it's disgusting, but every other league wants to be just like the NFL and have that kind of absolute control over their players.

Players are well compensated, no doubt, but when you compare them to the billionaire owners who view sports leagues as their play things then I'm not sure why I should feel any desire to side with the owners
Why do you care how much the players get unless you are an agent or related to a player? Why is the NFL disgusting? The leagues are in business to make money and the NFL is quite successful at doing so. If you are that opposed to it, philosophically speaking, then you should probably stop watching. The players money is guaranteed regardless of their performance, although in the NFL they can be cut and lose their salary, but that is why they negotiate on guaranteed money. The owners have a lot more risk, financially speaking. More risk has to come with more reward.

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2012, 08:25 AM
  #93
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,121
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
Why do you care how much the players get unless you are an agent or related to a player?
Why do you care how much the owners get unless you are one or are related to one?

Quote:
Why is the NFL disgusting? The leagues are in business to make money and the NFL is quite successful at doing so.
Moreso to do with the complete control they have over players and anything at all that goes on in the league...control that goes beyond what any other industry has in any way and control that has been pretty explicitly given to them by the government because...??? who knows.

Quote:
The owners have a lot more risk, financially speaking. More risk has to come with more reward.
I doubt it. I don't think any owners are going bankrupt because of their NHL teams (or sports teams in general). If they have money problems it's almost always because of other reasons. Players are groomed and brought up their entire lives to do one single thing, have little to no training at any thing else in their lives, and rarely even educated on money management. Player make a good living but they're one slight mishap away from never playing again, and then they're living in a life where they're suddenly on the outside of everything they've ever known and have no real skills outside of their sport. There was a great article about retired NFL players and the struggle many of them go through because *real life* is so drastically different than the life they've been groomed for and lived while playing up until that point.

edit: http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/79...former-players

While I really shouldn't care (and don't, too much) about squabbles between millionaires and billionaires, I do feel like the owners are spoiling for a lockout here and that irritates me


Last edited by Levitate: 07-06-2012 at 08:36 AM.
Levitate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2012, 08:27 AM
  #94
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,813
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
I get sick thinking about this. Im already in withdrawal for Rangers hockey. Thinking about a lockout is painful.

I just hope the two sides agree quickly.

I really don't want that realignment of the divisions, either. Our division is tough enough as it is.
It's a very weird initiative by the league. They're all about leveling playing fields, keeping every last team in the playoff hunt until the last game of the season. The loser's point, the cap, guaranteed positions for division winners... that helps level the playing field.

This realignment, it'll be like MLB. Teams will be out of the playoffs by December. Three teams in each division will lock up spots, the next two or three will leave the struggling teams in the dust. So many fanbases are going to be disinterested and jaded. Watch the stars on the Pirates of the NHL go to the Yankees and Red Sox.

The MLB model... I guess that's why we're hearing about revenue sharing. The cap floor will drop, teams will stop trying to be competitive, and owners will wait for their revenue sharing checks.

DutchShamrock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2012, 08:40 AM
  #95
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,813
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by -31- View Post
50-53%
Yeah, that's not how negotiations work.

See, usually one side says, "I want this" and the other side says, "hmm, well then I want this in return", then they shake hands and talk about the next issue.

Not too sure I've seen a negotiation where one side says, "I want you to have less money, and in return you can keep all the money I didn't take from you"


Great, looks like another round of "Poor billionaires", "the greedy players are only the product, employee and talent... why should they get to keep the deal that the owners forced down their throats 7 years ago"

Gotta love the juvenile view of blaming the players for simply not caving in and accepting the owners' proposed solution to the owner-created problems. Even an uneducated hockey player can see that these solutions aren't going to fix anything. The owners create rules and then just circumvent them. It won't matter what rules they make, they'll just figure out a new way to overpay for certain players and send things out of control. The only solution is some restraint. You can't legislate that.

DutchShamrock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2012, 12:04 PM
  #96
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,420
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Levitate View Post
Why do you care how much the owners get unless you are one or are related to one?



Moreso to do with the complete control they have over players and anything at all that goes on in the league...control that goes beyond what any other industry has in any way and control that has been pretty explicitly given to them by the government because...??? who knows.



I doubt it. I don't think any owners are going bankrupt because of their NHL teams (or sports teams in general). If they have money problems it's almost always because of other reasons. Players are groomed and brought up their entire lives to do one single thing, have little to no training at any thing else in their lives, and rarely even educated on money management. Player make a good living but they're one slight mishap away from never playing again, and then they're living in a life where they're suddenly on the outside of everything they've ever known and have no real skills outside of their sport. There was a great article about retired NFL players and the struggle many of them go through because *real life* is so drastically different than the life they've been groomed for and lived while playing up until that point.

edit: http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/79...former-players

While I really shouldn't care (and don't, too much) about squabbles between millionaires and billionaires, I do feel like the owners are spoiling for a lockout here and that irritates me
1) I don't care how much the owners make. I just don't want a lockout and want the games to be played. I could not care less if the players were paid minimum wage or if they got 100% of the revenues.

2) Complete control? How? Any control the owners have were collectively bargained. If the owners had complete control they would have got the 18-game regular season and 2 pre-season games like they wanted, and practices would be in full pads with hitting 3 times a week all season, training camp would be 2-a-days for 4 weeks.

3) I am well aware of the struggles of many former NFL'ers. I happen to know a former Giant very well and through him and my memorabilia dealings have met many others. Not sure why it is the owners fault the players did not receive educations. In the NFL, they now have symposiums for rookies to help them make those decisions. And yes, owners can go bankrupt with poor financial decisions. As Francesa said about Charles Wang, "I know him very well and he has lost his shirt with this team. BUT, he does have a lot of shirts." Wang's outside interests is what has kept him afloat this whole time.

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2012, 10:25 PM
  #97
nyrmessier011
Registered User
 
nyrmessier011's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Charlotte/NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,347
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to nyrmessier011
Seems all is going as expected so far through a couple meetings--apparently just understanding where each other stand. I would expect that next week they get down to some issues.

Re the Globe and Mail article: It makes sense that the owners stance, or Bettman's leaked "wish list," is for the players share of HRR to be under 50%. As I've stated before, based on rough calculations, every 1% reduction equates to roughly $33M in league wide revenues shifting from players to owners. While this is key issue, based on Bettman's negotiating history I would expect them to agree to a middle ground closer to the original 54% number that was agreed on in the previous CBA. From that the owners can gain leverage on other issues they want to deal away with: Contract length, contract payment scales, arbitration.

The issue of the floor vs ceiling will be interesting, IMO. Could see some infighting among the owners as they weigh affordability vs parity.

These are just my thoughts, and I will come with a lot of them as this goes along. I joined HF in 2005 specifically to discuss the lockout.

I would guess Brooks will have some information in tomorrow's Slap Shots.

nyrmessier011 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2012, 06:28 PM
  #98
RangerBoy
1994 FOREVER
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,005
vCash: 500
Bettman and Fehr met yesterday in Toronto. They will meet again in Toronto on Friday.

Quote:
Fehr said the talks touched on player safety and travel issues. The sides also exchanged positions on big-ticket items: revenue sharing, team salary floors, free agency, structuring of multi-year contracts, escrow percentages and conference realignment.
http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey...aining-resumes

Do they have enough time to work out all of that stuff by early September? They will need time to put the deal in writing. Have the lawyers look over the agreement. Have the owners and players vote. That takes about 2 weeks. Camps begin September 16. Labor Day is September 3.

RangerBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2012, 06:30 PM
  #99
-31-
portnor, pls
 
-31-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,838
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchShamrock View Post
Not too sure I've seen a negotiation where one side says, "I want you to have less money, and in return you can keep all the money I didn't take from you"
Didn't catch the last CBA talks?

-31- is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2012, 06:32 PM
  #100
Blueshirt Believer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 6,110
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
Bettman and Fehr met yesterday in Toronto. They will meet again in Toronto on Friday.



http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey...aining-resumes

Do they have enough time to work out all of that stuff by early September? They will need time to put the deal in writing. Have the lawyers look over the agreement. Have the owners and players vote. That takes about 2 weeks. Camps begin September 16. Labor Day is September 3.
I'm guessing we are going to lose a little bit of time, but its probably going to be minimal. Maybe a week or two.

Blueshirt Believer 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 02:50 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.