HFBoards

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

Bettman: Lock-out if there's no deal by sept. 15 | Part II.

View Poll Results: DO YOU THINK THE OWNERS WILL VOTE TO LOCKOUT THE PLAYERS?
YES, LOCKOUT 110 82.71%
NO, PLAY AND MAKE A TON OF MONEY 23 17.29%
Voters: 133. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-05-2012, 09:06 AM
  #76
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 60,020
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanW27 View Post
Any way the NHL goes with Replacement players? Gotta say I'd be interested in seeing it, and if the NHL wants to play hardball it makes some sense.

Would make for some very entertaining hockey with Journeyman players fighting to make a name for themselves.
I think replacement players is only an option in a players strike situation, whereas this is a owners lockout instead.

Players have guaranteed contracts I don't think legally the NHL could lock out the real players and bring in substitutes at cheaper costs and have it not challenged in court. If its the players that chose not to work in a strike situation than you have a different scenario.

I suggest the NHLPA finds replacement "owners" during a lockout and host games in other hockey arenas.

Heck Donald Fehr who came from Baseball could call up some major league baseball owners and set up a some winter classic games during the lockout. I wonder if Yankee Stadium or Wrigley Field (while sitting empty over the winter) would mind making a few million to host a few exhibition NHL games. .. NY Rangers verses Pittsburgh Pens in Yankee Stadium with Mark Messier and Mario Lemeiux as the coaches.

Its always easier to replace one owner than 20 some odd players.

__________________
Signature: There is no greater demonstration of Fan patience then to suggest to "Play the Kids " and be willing to accept the consequences of those actions..
Mess is offline  
Old
09-05-2012, 10:06 AM
  #77
TRP
Registered User
 
TRP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 519Land
Posts: 201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mess View Post
I think replacement players is only an option in a players strike situation, whereas this is a owners lockout instead.

Players have guaranteed contracts I don't think legally the NHL could lock out the real players and bring in substitutes at cheaper costs and have it not challenged in court. If its the players that chose not to work in a strike situation than you have a different scenario.

I suggest the NHLPA finds replacement "owners" during a lockout and host games in other hockey arenas.

Heck Donald Fehr who came from Baseball could call up some major league baseball owners and set up a some winter classic games during the lockout. I wonder if Yankee Stadium or Wrigley Field (while sitting empty over the winter) would mind making a few million to host a few exhibition NHL games. .. NY Rangers verses Pittsburgh Pens in Yankee Stadium with Mark Messier and Mario Lemeiux as the coaches.

Its always easier to replace one owner than 20 some odd players.
Except, due to licensing, it would be the Pittsburgh Yellow-Shirts vs. the New York Blue-Shirts.

TRP is offline  
Old
09-05-2012, 11:46 AM
  #78
The Messenger
Registered User
 
The Messenger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by achtungbaby View Post
You've been harping on this contraction thing for awhile now but this is just absurb. Yes, the remaining owners would have to pay out the contracted teams. Yes, it will probably never happen. But you're right, an owner of a team is entitled to whatever the market will bear for his franchise, which is why Atlanta basically tossed the keys to the business on Gary's desk. Which is also why Phoenix choose bankruptcy rather than lose even more for another season.

Would teams buy out other teams? No idea. I do know that they don't like handing money over for every sad sack franchise year after year. 10 years of doing that and pretty soon we're talking a billion dollars, or basically the money it would cost to buy them out.

The point is, you don't know and I don't know. Let's both act like that when giving our opinions.
You should read up on the reasons why Phoenix filed for Chapter II because it had nothing to do with losing money.

The Messenger is offline  
Old
09-05-2012, 12:17 PM
  #79
htpwn
Registered User
 
htpwn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Poland
Posts: 12,803
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Dancer View Post
You should read up on the reasons why Phoenix filed for Chapter II because it had nothing to do with losing money.
It had plenty to do with money. The team was hemorrhaging over $20 million per year.

htpwn is offline  
Old
09-05-2012, 12:41 PM
  #80
clawfirst
Registered User
 
clawfirst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 931
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post
It had plenty to do with money. The team was hemorrhaging over $20 million per year.
Because of their terrible lease agreement is what ND is getting at.

clawfirst is offline  
Old
09-05-2012, 12:54 PM
  #81
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 55,760
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by clawfirst View Post
Because of their terrible lease agreement is what ND is getting at.
Is the lease agreement stopping fans from attending games?

And the lease agreement would come down to money.

__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bA3LN_8hjM8.

Vaive and Ludzik on collapse, and Phaneuf.
ULF_55 is offline  
Old
09-05-2012, 12:59 PM
  #82
achtungbaby
Registered User
 
achtungbaby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,080
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Dancer View Post
You should read up on the reasons why Phoenix filed for Chapter II because it had nothing to do with losing money.
I guess we'll tell that to the people who don't give a crap about the team one way or another. Problem is, they don't give a crap and don't buy tickets.

achtungbaby is offline  
Old
09-05-2012, 01:19 PM
  #83
htpwn
Registered User
 
htpwn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Poland
Posts: 12,803
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by clawfirst View Post
Because of their terrible lease agreement is what ND is getting at.
The lease agreement was strict and unfortunately for Coyotes fans, Jerry Moyes and the City of Glendale couldn't see eye-to-eye on any concessions which would have eased the financial strain on the franchise. That said, the lease wasn't the worst in professional sports or even in the NHL. It was overblown by the media in that regard. The Coyotes problems went well beyond a lease, or an incompetent owner, or attendance. It was a combination of factors that led the team down a path to massive losses and eventual bankruptcy.

htpwn is offline  
Old
09-05-2012, 01:28 PM
  #84
The Messenger
Registered User
 
The Messenger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post
It had plenty to do with money. The team was hemorrhaging over $20 million per year.
The owner of Phoenix was bankrupt not the franchise. Moyes put it in bankruptcy to circumvent the NHL rules about selling/moving of franchises. ( the Balsillie saga). It went to court, the NHL won.

I am not saying that the Coyotes were not losing money as they were but so do 18 out of the current teams. There have been about 4 different groups willing to buy them from the NHL since then but political pressure (Goldwater) has de-railed every one of them.

Any money the team was losing was excaberated with the on-going saga.

The Business of Hockey has a mamouth (60 threads) thread on this topic. It has been well covered over there. Very good read for those interested.

The Messenger is offline  
Old
09-05-2012, 01:32 PM
  #85
daveleaf
Registered User
 
daveleaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,571
vCash: 500
I just hate it when discussions turn into semantics and....."..it wasn't totally that way..."

Sure ND. Lets go on to say they were shafted by the lease agreement and let's go on and further say it was a plan devised by Balsille and Moyes because NHL wanted nothing to do with Balsille and Moyes was bleeding money everywhere. Sure, Balsille wouldn't have got his hands on that team that way but in the end he offered more money to all the creditors than what it is being sold for today. As well it would have kept owners from having to foot the bill for Phoenix for the last few seasons. In the end the team was loosing money hand over fist, enough that their petition for bankruptcy court was accepted and acted on. Who knew?

I am glad Bettman made a line in the sand. Half a million people are happy about it and probably another million around the area that would have attended to watch a real hockey team play. There would have been a progressive owner in the group....let's start the RIM insults coming now.....and there would have been one less franchise sucking on wind.

Guess what? Players would have been happy too since revenue would have been way up......cough cough....maybe that is what Gary was worried about all the time. :-)

So what happens now? Jamieson get the team, within the next two years magically relocates to anywhere not named Hamilton, Ontario and begins there third life. In the end all the other owners get shafted for the bill, creditors got shafted (Hello our greatest hockey player ever Wayne Gretzky) but GB is one happy puppy,.....right?

daveleaf is offline  
Old
09-05-2012, 01:33 PM
  #86
zeke
#TeamReimer
 
zeke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 28,012
vCash: 500
The Yankees "lose money" every year too.

Annual profits/losses are not the way to judge the finances of a sports team.

And the league should always, ALWAYS be trying to expand to new markets. That's the only way to grow.

Failed and Relocated franchises are a fact of life for EVERY major sports league, not just the NHL.

zeke is offline  
Old
09-05-2012, 01:35 PM
  #87
The Messenger
Registered User
 
The Messenger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by daveleaf View Post
I just hate it when discussions turn into semantics and....."..it wasn't totally that way..."

Sure ND. Lets go on to say they were shafted by the lease agreement and let's go on and further say it was a plan devised by Balsille and Moyes because NHL wanted nothing to do with Balsille and Moyes was bleeding money everywhere. Sure, Balsille wouldn't have got his hands on that team that way but in the end he offered more money to all the creditors than what it is being sold for today. As well it would have kept owners from having to foot the bill for Phoenix for the last few seasons. In the end the team was loosing money hand over fist, enough that their petition for bankruptcy court was accepted and acted on. Who knew?

I am glad Bettman made a line in the sand. Half a million people are happy about it and probably another million around the area that would have attended to watch a real hockey team play. There would have been a progressive owner in the group....let's start the RIM insults coming now.....and there would have been one less franchise sucking on wind.

Guess what? Players would have been happy too since revenue would have been way up......cough cough....maybe that is what Gary was worried about all the time. :-)

So what happens now? Jamieson get the team, within the next two years magically relocates to anywhere not named Hamilton, Ontario and begins there third life. In the end all the other owners get shafted for the bill, creditors got shafted (Hello our greatest hockey player ever Wayne Gretzky) but GB is one happy puppy,.....right?
Holy Mackinaw, what's this all about? I was merely disproving a myth the Phoenix a Coyotes went bankrupt. They didn't!

The Messenger is offline  
Old
09-05-2012, 01:38 PM
  #88
daveleaf
Registered User
 
daveleaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,571
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeke View Post
The Yankees "lose money" every year too.

Annual profits/losses are not the way to judge the finances of a sports team.

And the league should always, ALWAYS be trying to expand to new markets. That's the only way to grow.

Failed and Relocated franchises are a fact of life for EVERY major sports league, not just the NHL.
Amazing that a franchise looses money every year but is still listed as one of the most valued sports franchises in the world.

daveleaf is offline  
Old
09-05-2012, 01:40 PM
  #89
daveleaf
Registered User
 
daveleaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,571
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Dancer View Post
Holy Mackinaw, what's this all about? I was merely disproving a myth the Phoenix a Coyotes went bankrupt. They didn't!
I thought there was a shhhhhh?

The magic of edit. :-)

Hold on to your pants, just making a point like you were. Doesn't mean we are not still friends.

daveleaf is offline  
Old
09-05-2012, 01:47 PM
  #90
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 55,760
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by daveleaf View Post
I thought there was a shhhhhh?

The magic of edit. :-)

Hold on to your pants, just making a point like you were. Doesn't mean we are not still friends.
Blockbuster Canada didn't declare bankuptcy.

Quote:
The company is now on the block - its 400-plus stores will be kept open by receiver Grant Thornton Ltd. as it pursues a sale. Employees have been told they will now be paid weekly instead of bi-weekly, have been issued their vacation pay and told not to sell gift certificates for the foreseeable future.

"The company's stores are open for business," the receiver said in a statement. "The receiver expects to initiate a process in the near term to identify parties interested in purchasing Blockbuster Canada's enterprise and assets."

There's reason to believe there will be interest in the Canadian company. Brahm Eiley of Convergence Consulting Group Ltd. estimated the company was profitable, and generated about $400-million (Canadian) in revenue in 2010 - including rentals and the sale of movies and items such as popcorn and candy.
http://m.theglobeandmail.com/report-...service=mobile

I miss Blockbuster a lot more than the people of Phoenix would miss the Coyotes.

/rant

ULF_55 is offline  
Old
09-05-2012, 01:49 PM
  #91
daveleaf
Registered User
 
daveleaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,571
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55 View Post
Blockbuster Canada didn't declare bankuptcy.



http://m.theglobeandmail.com/report-...service=mobile

I miss Blockbuster a lot more than the people of Phoenix would miss the Coyotes.

/rant
Me too. I hate ordering movies from a dish/cable.

daveleaf is offline  
Old
09-05-2012, 01:54 PM
  #92
The Messenger
Registered User
 
The Messenger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55 View Post
Blockbuster Canada didn't declare bankuptcy.



http://m.theglobeandmail.com/report-...service=mobile

I miss Blockbuster a lot more than the people of Phoenix would miss the Coyotes.

/rant
There's a difference between being put into bankruptcy to protect from creditors (ala Pittsburgh Penguins) and put into bankruptcy to enable an illegal sale. (Phoenix Coyote).

But I also miss Blockbuster.

The Messenger is offline  
Old
09-05-2012, 02:16 PM
  #93
zeke
#TeamReimer
 
zeke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 28,012
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by daveleaf View Post
Amazing that a franchise looses money every year but is still listed as one of the most valued sports franchises in the world.
yup. now you're getting it. annual profits/losses don't mean much.

zeke is offline  
Old
09-05-2012, 02:29 PM
  #94
paulster2626
Don't Mess with me
 
paulster2626's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,192
vCash: 400
What a load... All I know is that in Phoenix when I saw the place was half full and mentioned it to someone, a Coyote fan turned around and told me "Hey! This is a GOOD crowd!!"

When 1/2 full is a busy night, you're not going to survive for long, no matter what your lease agreement is.

paulster2626 is offline  
Old
09-05-2012, 02:33 PM
  #95
htpwn
Registered User
 
htpwn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Poland
Posts: 12,803
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Dancer View Post
The owner of Phoenix was bankrupt not the franchise. Moyes put it in bankruptcy to circumvent the NHL rules about selling/moving of franchises. ( the Balsillie saga).
You've contradicted yourself in the first two sentences. First you say that Moyes was the one who was bankrupt, and then you imply that he put the team into bankruptcy. The latter is correct, the former is not.

Jerry Moyes never cared about circumventing the NHL rules about the moving of franchises. That was Balsillie's (or rather, Rodier's) scheme through and through. Moyes simply wanted an 'out.' He was tired of funding the losses of a team that he never really wanted in the first place. He was tired of being made a fool of by the league. Balsillie gave him a good as shot as any to get back something for the franchise and he took it. Certainly if Jerry Reinsdorf's supposed offer was even remotely respectable, Moyes would have sold the team to him instead.

Quote:
It went to court, the NHL won.
The NHL "won" in that sense that they prevented Balsillie from buying the team. It wasn't in the way they wanted though.

The league had no intention of buying the team. They wanted the case thrown out from the beginning, arguing that Moyes had signed away his right to declare bankruptcy. The court disagreed. They also argued that there should be no auction for the team and certainly not one with Balsillie participating. The court disagreed. They wanted a ruling saying that they had an exclusive right to control franchise locations and movement. The court deliberately side-stepped it. We'll never know for sure but one has to wonder what would have happened if the city of Glendale took the Judge's warning and didn't side with the NHL's bid for the team.

Quote:
I am not saying that the Coyotes were not losing money as they were but so do 18 out of the current teams. There have been about 4 different groups willing to buy them from the NHL since then but political pressure (Goldwater) has de-railed every one of them. Any money the team was losing was excaberated with the on-going saga.

The Business of Hockey has a mamouth (33 threads) thread on this topic. It has been well covered over there. Very good read for those interested.
How can you argue that? The league had taken over the operations of the Coyotes in November 2008, a full 8 months before the team declared bankruptcy. No other team was in that dire straights. No other team was losing even close to what the Coyotes were losing.

No bids other than Balsillie's and the NHL's were put in on during bankruptcy. Three years on and every potential owner that has stepped forward has failed in their quest to close. The reasons go well beyond Goldwater. Reinsdorf's scheme involved a CFD on an enterprise that would declare bankruptcy two years later. Ice Edge couldn't even afford to buy an AHL team for Thunder Bay, let alone an NHL club. Hulsizer tried to have the city pay $100 million for parking rights they already owned and then after his deal with the Coyotes fell apart, tried to buy the Blues. He couldn't even put up the required capital. Guess we'll have to wait and see how Jamison does but he's been on the scene for over a year now unable to close.

htpwn is offline  
Old
09-05-2012, 02:58 PM
  #96
The Messenger
Registered User
 
The Messenger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post
You've contradicted yourself in the first two sentences. First you say that Moyes was the one who was bankrupt, and then you imply that he put the team into bankruptcy. The latter is correct, the former is not.

Jerry Moyes never cared about circumventing the NHL rules about the moving of franchises. That was Balsillie's (or rather, Rodier's) scheme through and through. Moyes simply wanted an 'out.' He was tired of funding the losses of a team that he never really wanted in the first place. He was tired of being made a fool of by the league. Balsillie gave him a good as shot as any to get back something for the franchise and he took it. Certainly if Jerry Reinsdorf's supposed offer was even remotely respectable, Moyes would have sold the team to him instead.



The NHL "won" in that sense that they prevented Balsillie from buying the team. It wasn't in the way they wanted though.

The league had no intention of buying the team. They wanted the case thrown out from the beginning, arguing that Moyes had signed away his right to declare bankruptcy. The court disagreed. They also argued that there should be no auction for the team and certainly not one with Balsillie participating. The court disagreed. They wanted a ruling saying that they had an exclusive right to control franchise locations and movement. The court deliberately side-stepped it. We'll never know for sure but one has to wonder what would have happened if the city of Glendale took the Judge's warning and didn't side with the NHL's bid for the team.



How can you argue that? The league had taken over the operations of the Coyotes in November 2008, a full 8 months before the team declared bankruptcy. No other team was in that dire straights. No other team was losing even close to what the Coyotes were losing.

No bids other than Balsillie's and the NHL's were put in on during bankruptcy. Three years on and every potential owner that has stepped forward has failed in their quest to close. The reasons go well beyond Goldwater. Reinsdorf's scheme involved a CFD on an enterprise that would declare bankruptcy two years later. Ice Edge couldn't even afford to buy an AHL team for Thunder Bay, let alone an NHL club. Hulsizer tried to have the city pay $100 million for parking rights they already owned and then after his deal with the Coyotes fell apart, tried to buy the Blues. He couldn't even put up the required capital. Guess we'll have to wait and see how Jamison does but he's been on the scene for over a year now unable to close.
I don't disagree with you, for gawd's sake thiis all started with a claim that Coyotes went bankrupt. They didn't, they may have eventually but they did not go bankrupt.

The Messenger is offline  
Old
09-05-2012, 04:13 PM
  #97
daveleaf
Registered User
 
daveleaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,571
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Dancer View Post
I don't disagree with you, for gawd's sake thiis all started with a claim that Coyotes went bankrupt. They didn't, they may have eventually but they did not go bankrupt.
LOL.....sorry old timer. I started all this with my rant. Just to clarify my rant is with the way Gary Bettman makes and massages rules and numbers for that matter.

When Phoneix moves and they will eventually people will finally see what a complete waste of time this venture was.

daveleaf is offline  
Old
09-05-2012, 04:22 PM
  #98
The Messenger
Registered User
 
The Messenger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by daveleaf View Post
LOL.....sorry old timer. I started all this with my rant. Just to clarify my rant is with the way Gary Bettman makes and massages rules and numbers for that matter.

When Phoneix moves and they will eventually people will finally see what a complete waste of time this venture was.
LOL, its OK, it has been rather therapeutic, having to do all this bobbing and weaving. Obviously a sore spot with everyone and understandably so (I even got called out for an edit).

The Messenger is offline  
Old
09-05-2012, 04:47 PM
  #99
rojac
HFBoards Sponsor
 
rojac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Waterloo, ON
Posts: 6,481
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by daveleaf View Post
LOL.....sorry old timer. I started all this with my rant. Just to clarify my rant is with the way Gary Bettman makes and massages rules and numbers for that matter.

When Phoneix moves and they will eventually people will finally see what a complete waste of time this venture was.
I'm not sure protecting the NHL's right to determine who can own a team and where those teams can be located will be considered a waste of time.

rojac is offline  
Old
09-05-2012, 07:01 PM
  #100
daveleaf
Registered User
 
daveleaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,571
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rojac View Post
I'm not sure protecting the NHL's right to determine who can own a team and where those teams can be located will be considered a waste of time.
In a perfect world Rojac I would agree with you but how the NHL has operated for as long as I can remember now and again with Bettman it seems rules are massaged and bent for who they choose. Gary's history of choosing owners is not all that great, we just have to look back at Atlanta's history to see that. The small point I was making, that in business, usually the first deal is the best deal. When you actually look at it, Balsille's deal actually gave significant more money to the creditors than anyone has proposed or is proposing. It would have cost the NHL and the owners less. Players would have benefited since there would have been a much stronger franchise and directly affected the salary cap and players average salaries. In the end Gary shafted the games greatest ambassador Gretzky but even he is too classy to say anything negative. Jamieson will get his team and I have no problem with that and he will move that team in short order to another city. Hockey will not and can not survive in the desert. It's a fact of life that seats need to be sold out to all if not just about all games to make profits in this league and Phoenix has had a hell of a time trying to do that. With a bad lease or good lease. You can only give so many tickets away in good faith hoping to generate interest before it erodes the value of those tickets.

I agree with Zeke that you need to explore all these markets to grow the game but unlike baseball, that has teams all over America, which is a baseball crazed fan base. The same can't be said for Canada. We are hockey crazy in Canada and yet there should be another team in Toronto and there isn't. Hamilton would desperately love a team and support it but it is not there as well. Quebec city is a hell of a hockey market and there are some cities out east as well.

My thing is why not grow the game here. We have hockey fans that are dying to see live NHL hockey here yet we keep on trying to send it down south. Grow the game here, in time, if interest continues, there is always time to venture down the road again.

daveleaf 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 10:04 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.