HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Ottawa Senators
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Free Agency & General Offseason Thread Part IV: Will there be NHL hockey this year?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-12-2012, 08:01 PM
  #51
Do Make Say Think
Soul & Onward
 
Do Make Say Think's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 19,733
vCash: 500
50-50 split

Considerable revenue sharing

Problem solved: both sides make considerable concessions that both help the sustainability of the league for the short term.

Do Make Say Think is offline  
Old
08-12-2012, 08:05 PM
  #52
Holdurbreathe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,858
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WantEggRoll View Post
Ok now how much has everything else surrounding hockey increased during that time? If the price of heating, employees, equipment, transportation all went up since 2004 then obviously ticket prices would as well. Using isolated statistics to prove a point doesn't work very well. If Walsh can provide his readers with solid fact based stats showing that the price of tickets far exceeds the cost to run the team then maybe he has a point.

To get a realistic opinion of whether or not what Bettman said was true you'd have to study ticket growth patterns before the salary cap came in and then factor in the higher modern costs to see what they would have inflated to. Only at that point can you make a judgement on whether or not current ticket prices are too expensive.

I already addressed the massive contract offers in an earlier post.
Bettman stated the saving the owners were making by rolling back player salaries in 2005 would allow owners to lower ticket prices. He also claimed a salary cap would allow small market teams to survive.

The NHL (owners) got everything they asked for, they clawed back 24% on their largest expense, then added 39% in ticket prices for a product that grew its revenues by 50+% since 2005.

So while I appreciate the impact of increased costs on a business, every indication is problem Bettman claimed to be fixing has changed at all. So this CBA is rinse and repeat.

IMO looking to the players to continue to give back what was rightfully negotiated in a growing industry is a clear sign the problem isn't what Bettman would have you believe.

Bettman's claims about the economics of the league are only meant to obscure the issue, the lack of a reasonable revenue sharing plan.

Holdurbreathe is offline  
Old
08-12-2012, 08:05 PM
  #53
Qward
Because! That's why!
 
Qward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Behind you, look out
Posts: 14,031
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian Guy View Post
50-50 split

Considerable revenue sharing

Problem solved: both sides make considerable concessions that both help the sustainability of the league for the short term.
I think that is what the NHL expects. That is why they came in with the numbers they did.

Qward is offline  
Old
08-12-2012, 08:53 PM
  #54
Holdurbreathe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,858
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuietOnTheFront View Post
I don't think we'll see a repeat of 2004-05, but either a delayed start or shortened season seems probable right now. It seems like the NHL wants drastic and extreme changes, it all depends on the PA's counter and how much the owners are willing to bend.

From an outside perspective this whole aggressive approach by the owners makes absolutely no sense. You have a product that is generating revenue better than it ever has, why the need for radical change? Part of the reason salaries and player's rights have gotten out of control is because of owners and GM's throwing these so called "terrible" contracts at players. The owners got what they wanted the first go around at this, everyone thought they won, its time to take some of the onus on why problems in the game are the way they are. Its time to stop blaming the players.

Either way, it should be interesting to see how things develop these next few weeks.
It definitely does when you examine the disparity between the 30 teams revenue and what the growth in revenue has done to the revenue challenged teams in spending terms.

The current CBA was only a short term fix that allowed the poorer franchises to appear financially competitive, where no team could spend more than $39M. While the CBA did reduce the disparity in spending between the team, in did nothing to protect the revenue challenged team's from the resultant increase in costs realized by revenue growth.

So while revenue grew post-2005, it wasn't gained equally across all 30 franchises. Yet every franchise was required to spend more as league wide revenue grew.

Year ending 2011, just 11 clubs were shown making an operating profit, according to the most recent valuations of the NHL. The other 19 franchises need cost relief or a greater share of revenues.

Obviously the NHL owners have decided the answer is reduced costs based on the league's initial proposal.

IMO this strategy of attempting to reset player cost via clawbacks is doomed to fail, when the real issue is a comprehensive revenue sharing agreement, or contraction is required.


Last edited by Holdurbreathe: 08-12-2012 at 09:09 PM.
Holdurbreathe is offline  
Old
08-12-2012, 08:56 PM
  #55
Holdurbreathe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,858
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qward View Post
I think that is what the NHL expects. That is why they came in with the numbers they did.
Where in their proposal is revenue sharing addressed at the club level?

What Bettman proposed was the players take a smaller share of the total revenue. While this will help the cash strapped teams on the short term, it isn't sustainable should league revenues continue to climb.

The owners need to share their revenue, otherwise the NHL will always be a league of "haves" and "have nots" and filled with labour strife.

Holdurbreathe is offline  
Old
08-12-2012, 09:11 PM
  #56
Qward
Because! That's why!
 
Qward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Behind you, look out
Posts: 14,031
vCash: 500
relax dude.

Everyone knows during a negotiation you demand more than you expect so you can "give" a little.

When it comes down to it, it is a business. These billionaires are billionaires for a reason. They are here to make money. If the players are that upset about it they can go to Russia.

Hate on Bettman and the owners all you want, but the NHL is growing.

Not a single team made the list of top 50 sports franchises in the world. I would like to see someone on that list before I die.

Qward is offline  
Old
08-12-2012, 09:20 PM
  #57
Nabokov20
Karlsson for Chuck
 
Nabokov20's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,678
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qward View Post
Things that I want out of the new CBA.

-Limit on length of contract (five years)

That would just drive up salaries and the subsequent salary cap. Plus less financial security for the "lesser" players (i.e., high turnover for 3rd and 4th liners), whom have a say in the CBA too.

-Salary and cap hit must match. (25m over 5 years = 5m per year, not 10, 10, 3, 1, 1)

Anyone with the slightest understanding of time value of money would not agree to this. Besides, inflation is real.

-1 way contracts still apply to cap hit when sent to minors. (no more burying players)

Tend to agree with this notion. That said, I'm sure the owners would push for non-guaranteed contracts (a la the NFL).

Things that I want out of the new CBA.

-Limit on length of contract (five years)

That would just drive up salaries and the subsequent salary cap. Plus less financial security for the "lesser" players (i.e., high turnover for 3rd and 4th liners), whom have a say in the CBA too.

-Salary and cap hit must match. (25m over 5 years = 5m per year, not 10, 10, 3, 1, 1)

Anyone with the slightest understanding of time value of money would not agree to this. Besides, inflation is real.

-1 way contracts still apply to cap hit when sent to minors. (no more burying players)

Tend to agree with this notion. That said, I'm sure the owners would push for non-guaranteed contracts (a la the NFL).

Nabokov20 is offline  
Old
08-12-2012, 09:25 PM
  #58
Holdurbreathe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,858
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qward View Post
relax dude.

Everyone knows during a negotiation you demand more than you expect so you can "give" a little.

When it comes down to it, it is a business. These billionaires are billionaires for a reason. They are here to make money. If the players are that upset about it they can go to Russia.

Hate on Bettman and the owners all you want, but the NHL is growing.

Not a single team made the list of top 50 sports franchises in the world. I would like to see someone on that list before I die.
Relaxed as can be, just providing information for those that are interested.

I don't believe I expressed any hate for Bettman or the owners, just an opinion on what I see as the underlying reason for the labour issues the NHL has had.

As far as an NHL team being in the top 50 richest franchises, you aren't going to live long enough to see that day, regardless of how long you live.

BTW the NHL isn't growing in a sustainable way, no league can survive when over half of the teams are losing money... unless of course the franchises have a meaningful revenue sharing arrangement like the NFL.

Since you are such a fan of the top 50 franchises, you will know many of the 50 places are held by teams in that league.


Last edited by Holdurbreathe: 08-12-2012 at 09:31 PM.
Holdurbreathe is offline  
Old
08-12-2012, 09:30 PM
  #59
Qward
Because! That's why!
 
Qward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Behind you, look out
Posts: 14,031
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nabokov20 View Post
Things that I want out of the new CBA.

-Limit on length of contract (five years)

That would just drive up salaries and the subsequent salary cap. Plus less financial security for the "lesser" players (i.e., high turnover for 3rd and 4th liners), whom have a say in the CBA too.

-Salary and cap hit must match. (25m over 5 years = 5m per year, not 10, 10, 3, 1, 1)

Anyone with the slightest understanding of time value of money would not agree to this. Besides, inflation is real.

-1 way contracts still apply to cap hit when sent to minors. (no more burying players)

Tend to agree with this notion. That said, I'm sure the owners would push for non-guaranteed contracts (a la the NFL).
Salary cap is based on revenue. Not how much players are getting paid. You want to pay 2 guys 8 million a year. Fine. You have to make sacrifices elsewhere. Maybe that 4 million guy is going to leave to a team willing to pay him 5.

You do not like the idea of cap hit matching salary? So you are cool with Holmgren, Sathers and other GM's of large markets making offers to players that with either financial handcuff small markets or prevent them from matching all together.
Contracts that start off at 14 million and end in 1 are dirty pool and need to go.

Preventing a GM from burying a contract forces him deal with his consequences. Sather buried Avery and Redden.
Lets look at the Redden situation a little closer.
in 2008 Redden signed a 6 year 39 million dollar contract with NYR figuring this is where he is going to play to the end. After 2 years Sathers over the honeymoon period and buries him the AHL because his cap hit would interfere with acquiring new players. Now Redden has a decision to make. Does he play in a sub par league collecting his money, or does he break his contract to play in the NHL again with another team. How is this fair to Wade?

Qward is offline  
Old
08-12-2012, 09:36 PM
  #60
Holdurbreathe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,858
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qward View Post
Salary cap is based on revenue. Not how much players are getting paid. You want to pay 2 guys 8 million a year. Fine. You have to make sacrifices elsewhere. Maybe that 4 million guy is going to leave to a team willing to pay him 5.

You do not like the idea of cap hit matching salary? So you are cool with Holmgren, Sathers and other GM's of large markets making offers to players that with either financial handcuff small markets or prevent them from matching all together.
Contracts that start off at 14 million and end in 1 are dirty pool and need to go.

Preventing a GM from burying a contract forces him deal with his consequences. Sather buried Avery and Redden.
Lets look at the Redden situation a little closer.
in 2008 Redden signed a 6 year 39 million dollar contract with NYR figuring this is where he is going to play to the end. After 2 years Sathers over the honeymoon period and buries him the AHL because his cap hit would interfere with acquiring new players. Now Redden has a decision to make. Does he play in a sub par league collecting his money, or does he break his contract to play in the NHL again with another team. How is this fair to Wade?
Stop hating on the GMs that are performing their duties per the owners agreed to rules as written in the CBA.

Redden should have protected himself by asking for a NMC.

Interesting how anyone can play devil's advocate, isn't it.

Holdurbreathe is offline  
Old
08-12-2012, 09:39 PM
  #61
Qward
Because! That's why!
 
Qward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Behind you, look out
Posts: 14,031
vCash: 500
Sorry, I just see all the garbage on Twitter and stuff from hockey analysts and players complaining. I can't help but side for the owners.

Qward is offline  
Old
08-12-2012, 10:06 PM
  #62
Holdurbreathe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,858
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qward View Post
Sorry, I just see all the garbage on Twitter and stuff from hockey analysts and players complaining. I can't help but side for the owners.
Here's are a couple of example of why possibly some analysts are spouting off as they are.

"We're not making money, and that's one reason we need to fix our system. We need to fix how much we're spending right now. [The Wild's] revenues are fine. We're down a little bit in attendance, but we're up in sponsorships, we're up in TV revenue.

And so the revenue that we're generating is not the issue as much as our expenses and [the Wild's] biggest expense by far is player salaries." — Craig Leipold, Minnesota Wild owner, to Star Tribune on April 11, 2012

In July of 2012 this same owner added $198M to his player expenses, it is the players fault right??

Paraphrasing: Ed Snider of the Flyers is a notable hawk in the current labor negotiations. This same gentleman agreed to pay Weber $52 million in signing bonuses within the next three calendar years while engaged in an effort to prevent players from receiving even a nickel in signing bonuses going forward.

Here is an owner using his financial might in an attempt to buld up the Flyers, while at the same time pledging to bankroll a lockout in order to stop the competition from ever doing this again.

There are many more instances of owners acting in a fashion that is positive for their team, yet negative for the league.

IMO for the NHL to grow and have continued success the owners have to put the league first, it starts with a revenue sharing program that allows all franchises to be financially competitive.

Holdurbreathe is offline  
Old
08-12-2012, 10:10 PM
  #63
Nabokov20
Karlsson for Chuck
 
Nabokov20's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,678
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qward View Post
Salary cap is based on revenue. Not how much players are getting paid. You want to pay 2 guys 8 million a year. Fine. You have to make sacrifices elsewhere. Maybe that 4 million guy is going to leave to a team willing to pay him 5.

In every business, if costs go up, the consumer bites the bullet or the margins fail. Trust me, the financial costs of short-term contracts would just be transferred onto the fans (i.e., ticket sales, TV deals, merchandise) and since hockey has inelastic demand (in certain markets), we, the customers, would bite the bullet. Revenue goes up, salary cap goes up.

You do not like the idea of cap hit matching salary? So you are cool with Holmgren, Sathers and other GM's of large markets making offers to players that with either financial handcuff small markets or prevent them from matching all together.
Contracts that start off at 14 million and end in 1 are dirty pool and need to go.


I looked at it from a players/financial perspective. I'd much rather get paid $10m, $10m , $3m, $1m, $1m than $5m per year over 5 years. The present value of those cash flows favors the front loaded one and it ain't even close. As a player, I could care less about how GMs don't/can't resign their players before July 1st. They know the rules, right? Besides, if you build a winning franchise (within; not Toronto's mentality), the fans will come and the players will want to stay...unless all they care about is the money.

Preventing a GM from burying a contract forces him deal with his consequences. Sather buried Avery and Redden.
Lets look at the Redden situation a little closer.
in 2008 Redden signed a 6 year 39 million dollar contract with NYR figuring this is where he is going to play to the end. After 2 years Sathers over the honeymoon period and buries him the AHL because his cap hit would interfere with acquiring new players. Now Redden has a decision to make. Does he play in a sub par league collecting his money, or does he break his contract to play in the NHL again with another team. How is this fair to Wade?


I agree with the first sentence complete. That said, the owners would simply push for non-guaranteed contracts. With regards to Redden, how is $39m not fair? He clearly isn't worth his contract or else he'd be in the NHL. Yeah, it would undoubtedly suck riding the bus down in the AHL, but it's a dog eat dog world out there. Believe me, I'd sacrifice my left nut to play hockey for a living...especially $39m.
your parts are in bold.

Nabokov20 is offline  
Old
08-13-2012, 05:15 AM
  #64
John Holmes*
Spuds MacLean™
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 5,211
vCash: 500
This ******* ******** clown says the Ryan talk is heating up and the Sens are players.

John Holmes* is offline  
Old
08-13-2012, 05:16 AM
  #65
John Holmes*
Spuds MacLean™
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 5,211
vCash: 500
Haha...

Is there a memo I missed?

John Holmes* is offline  
Old
08-13-2012, 07:42 AM
  #66
Lenny the Lynx
Registered User
 
Lenny the Lynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,026
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qward View Post
Preventing a GM from burying a contract forces him deal with his consequences. Sather buried Avery and Redden.
Lets look at the Redden situation a little closer.
in 2008 Redden signed a 6 year 39 million dollar contract with NYR figuring this is where he is going to play to the end. After 2 years Sathers over the honeymoon period and buries him the AHL because his cap hit would interfere with acquiring new players. Now Redden has a decision to make. Does he play in a sub par league collecting his money, or does he break his contract to play in the NHL again with another team. How is this fair to Wade?
People make it out like the players are getting screwed sometimes but they have to take some of the blame for signing contracts that put them at risk.

Wade is in the AHL because he didn't live up to his end of the deal either. If it wasn't fair he could always walk away, but he won't because he's getting 20M to play in the minors for a few years.

I think what the new CBA should do is somehow force teams to make a decision on cases like this - either you are keeping him up or you are buying him out - you shouldn't be allowed to send an established pro down for 4 seasons.

Lenny the Lynx is offline  
Old
08-13-2012, 08:23 AM
  #67
BK201
Registered User
 
BK201's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,420
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Holmes View Post
This ******* ******** clown says the Ryan talk is heating up and the Sens are players.
Who? And link?

BK201 is offline  
Old
08-13-2012, 08:59 AM
  #68
Marty Straka
Don't Stop Believin'
 
Marty Straka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,849
vCash: 500
If it's blocked out it's not a credible source so don't post it.

__________________
Marty Straka
Twitter: @JT_YosH
Marty Straka is offline  
Old
08-13-2012, 09:25 AM
  #69
Larionov
Registered User
 
Larionov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,135
vCash: 500
I am amused by the player agents taking to Twitter in an attempt to shame Bettman. Guess what, guys - it won't work. He doesn't care. This isn't a PR battle, and the owners frankly don't care about that anyway. It is a business negotiation, and Bettman's job is to squeeze the players' sensitive parts as hard as he can.

The benefit Bettman has is that the players know he isn't afraid to drop the bomb. After all, he did it before. Whether they admit it or not, this will cause the NHLPA to make some significant concessions prior to Sept. 15 in order to avoid a lockout. If they give enough, Bettman may take those gains, say thank you, and sign a new CBA. This is what I am betting. I don't think we are in danger of losing a whole season because this time because unlike last time, Bettman won't be able to keep the owners united. It wouldn't be long before the divisions between large and small market teams spill into the open. (This is what Goodenow was betting on the last time, but it didn't happen.) I think his best strategy is to hold a potential lockout over the players' heads, get what he can from them, and sign a new deal.

Larionov is offline  
Old
08-13-2012, 09:38 AM
  #70
Daffy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 601
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marty Straka View Post
If it's blocked out it's not a credible source so don't post it.
To be totally honest, the guy seems like a total d-bag, but he actually is spot on a lot of the time. He's broken a lot of signings/trades before Dreger/Bobby Mac etc. Not to say he isn't wrong on some, because he is, but I think what he says is worth discussing.

Daffy is offline  
Old
08-13-2012, 09:42 AM
  #71
Lenny the Lynx
Registered User
 
Lenny the Lynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,026
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larionov View Post
I am amused by the player agents taking to Twitter in an attempt to shame Bettman. Guess what, guys - it won't work. He doesn't care. This isn't a PR battle, and the owners frankly don't care about that anyway. It is a business negotiation, and Bettman's job is to squeeze the players' sensitive parts as hard as he can.

The benefit Bettman has is that the players know he isn't afraid to drop the bomb. After all, he did it before. Whether they admit it or not, this will cause the NHLPA to make some significant concessions prior to Sept. 15 in order to avoid a lockout. If they give enough, Bettman may take those gains, say thank you, and sign a new CBA. This is what I am betting. I don't think we are in danger of losing a whole season because this time because unlike last time, Bettman won't be able to keep the owners united. It wouldn't be long before the divisions between large and small market teams spill into the open. (This is what Goodenow was betting on the last time, but it didn't happen.) I think his best strategy is to hold a potential lockout over the players' heads, get what he can from them, and sign a new deal.
I hope you are right, but Bettman is playing a dangerous game, especially considering its Fehr in charge of the NHLPA. I think the league has a lot more to lose from a lockout than they have to gain from the incremental benefits of this new CBA.

With better terms the NHL could increase their overall revenues by maybe 10% annually. A lockout would cost them 100% of one year, so even with overall revenue increasing it might take them 5-10 years to get that back. And on top of that you have to factor in that the popularity of the league will take a hit.

I think the owners should care about the PR battle - not in the sense of who is right and who is wrong, or what loyal fans are thinking (because even if they locked out for 5 years I'd watch when they came back). They have to worry about the fringe fans and keeping the popularity of the sport rising - its been a good few years for the NHL in the USA and they need to keep trying to grow the sport.

Lenny the Lynx is offline  
Old
08-13-2012, 09:51 AM
  #72
Marty Straka
Don't Stop Believin'
 
Marty Straka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,849
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daffy View Post
To be totally honest, the guy seems like a total d-bag, but he actually is spot on a lot of the time. He's broken a lot of signings/trades before Dreger/Bobby Mac etc. Not to say he isn't wrong on some, because he is, but I think what he says is worth discussing.
Who?

Marty Straka is offline  
Old
08-13-2012, 09:56 AM
  #73
Tuna99
Registered User
 
Tuna99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,322
vCash: 500
Bettman to me has ZERO credibility anymore - he is saying that the owners cannot work under this agreement 3 weeks after two small market clubs hand out $100 million contracts to good but not elite NHL players - Crosby is his own story but is Zach Parise really worth $100 Million?

The U.S. franchises are in more trouble than ever before under the deal Bettman lost a full NHL season for - one franchise has moved and Phoenix is about to.

I'm with the players on this one - if the owners lock the player out after giving out $100 million contract - how does this even make sense??

Bettman is good, but him crying poverty and salary roll backs is a joke - I just don't see any fan taking his side this time.

Tuna99 is offline  
Old
08-13-2012, 10:16 AM
  #74
Daffy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 601
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marty Straka View Post
Who?
The guy who's twitter account is blocked out on here lol. Personally, I don't like how he goes about things, but I have seen him nail stories before the so called top guys.

Daffy is offline  
Old
08-13-2012, 11:21 AM
  #75
Marty Straka
Don't Stop Believin'
 
Marty Straka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,849
vCash: 500
They are all bogus... they don't break anything they have the stupidest rumours and anything they get right they rip off others.. hell one of them said Coliacavo signed with the Flyers yesterday.. Is it true? nope.

Marty Straka is offline  
Closed Thread

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 03:52 AM.

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.