HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Ottawa Senators
Notices

Devellano CBA Comments

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-26-2012, 03:24 PM
  #101
Do Make Say Think
Soul & Onward
 
Do Make Say Think's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 16,323
vCash: 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuna99 View Post
Do you think he became a billionaire by paying himself fairly?
WHAT?!?!

Do Make Say Think is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-26-2012, 03:29 PM
  #102
Lenny the Lynx
Registered User
 
Lenny the Lynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,736
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by corksens View Post
By the way, if the Ottawa Senators made enough money for Melnyk to cover all of his liabilities (and player salaries) and then pay him $20 million a year that would be just fine.

But that isn't the case. He doesn't derive any salary from the team whatsoever. Any profit (2.6m as quoted before) is usually held over for the next years operating budget.

The only time Melnyk will realize any part of this investment is in it's eventual sale.
I agree with you - but the reason he doesn't pay himself a salary is the same reason every person who owns a private business understates their salary, because corporate tax rates are much lower than personal tax rates, especially for someone who makes a lot of money. Like half.

Lenny the Lynx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-26-2012, 04:30 PM
  #103
corksens
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 766
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BumperStumper View Post
I agree with you - but the reason he doesn't pay himself a salary is the same reason every person who owns a private business understates their salary, because corporate tax rates are much lower than personal tax rates, especially for someone who makes a lot of money. Like half.
+1. No argument there.

The very notion that he pays himself a 20 million dollar salary his hilarious for a number of reasons.

corksens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-26-2012, 09:50 PM
  #104
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,270
vCash: 500
The players aren’t entirely the product. The NHL brand is also very much part of the product. A brand the owners have cultivated and one that surely represents a sizeable amount of goodwill on their balance sheet.

Last time, the players were asked to be partners, working together hand in hand with the owners in a new era of harmony and co-operation to grow the revenues and share the gains. And of course, since costs going forward would be fixed, (cost certainty, risk free), then all new revenues would be almost entirely profit for the owners, so they could even afford to give the players a higher percentage as revenues grew and still both profit comfortably.

Now of course that was last cba, and the owners are surely entitled to say, as they have, that the last agreement was too fair for the players, the owners would like something less fair, and they have obviously found such a proposal. One that we might expect would be made when dealing with cattle.

Melnyk even owns many top stud race horses. He treats them better, and pays more for many of them than some of his players, but then they are thoroughbreds, not cattle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legend Killer View Post
So now the players want the rich owners to share money with the poor owners?? Did the owners of the successful teams sign up for that?
Well yes, yes they did. They more than just signed up for that - they locked the players out for a year and forced that system down their throats in a way that would have made Tony Soprano proud.

The thinking behind the last salary cap and rollback was that now the top teams are getting sometimes over a $50mil windfall in salary savings because of the salary cap, they would use that savings, from player pay cuts, to distribute as revenue sharing. And they all agreed to it.

With caveats. If the team was in a market with too many tv’s like NJ or Dallas, no soup for you! And if the teams failed to grow revenues at the league average rate, its revenue sharing cheque was clawed back each year for 3 years until they were only getting the half the rev sharing they originally hoped for.

And because of those rev sharing claw backs by the owners from the small markets that couldn’t keep up even though it was supposed to be a small market helping cba, and because of the non-existent sharing with big markets, all those same markets are now being pointed to as struggling markets needing revenue sharing, and the only way they can think of to restore it, is via another player pay cut. How about not cutting rev sharing to needy teams in the first place?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Legend Killer View Post
Why dont the rich players give money to the poor ones?
Well in a sense, they do. When this cba started, the Sens signed their top ufa heatley for $7.5 mil and Fisher for $4.2.

At the end of this cba Nashville signed Weber for $7.5 and Fisher for $4.2. And yet the cap nearly doubled. Who got all those gains?

Remember that in order to have all these restrictions on players, like restricting their free agency, placing salary caps, drafting them as if they were cattle, the owners need a union to collectively bargain with otherwise those actions would all be illegal collusion. And without all those salary restricting collusions that are only legal because the union agrees to them, the owners would be left with nothing to save them from themselves. Without the union, the owners would likely be spending a lot more on salaries. Probably back up to the 75% they started at when they first claimed they needed rules to protect them from themselves.

So when you say it’s the owners business and they should be able to do what they want and set their own rules, no, no they cant. All the rules they have created to protect them from themselves are illegal unless the union agrees to it. They cant just unilaterally do whatever they want. They need the union to agree. Meaning you negotiate, you give something, to get something. Maybe the owners should try asking nicer.

The most ridiculous thing is that even though revenues have exploded by over a billion dollars, the players are actually willing to take less money going forward. And that’s apparently not enough for Bettman and the 8 hardliners driving the lockout; they want even more - an actual pay cut. Incroyable!

thinkwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-26-2012, 10:06 PM
  #105
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,270
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by corksens View Post
I don't know where the hell you get your numbers from, but the rumored amount Melnyk paid for the Senators was $100m and $30m for the arena. The franchise is now rumored to be worth about $200m according to Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuations/list/) which which means he has POTENTIALLY doubled his money...nowhere near "4X" his investment. He's also owned the team for 9 years - a decade by April of this season.

That's about a 10% ROI - on a year to year basis. Not great for a guy with deep pockets such as his...all of this while ignoring the yearly shortfall that the Senators run at, and the fact that to realize any of this investment he has to sell the team (and something tells me it's not an easy thing to off-load).

Of course, we're ignoring the fact that the previous owner/shareholders of their team lost their friggin' shirts with the sale of the Sens to Melnyk. So while one owner prospered, others failed.

According to that link above Melnyk and the Senators made 2.6 million last year...about 400k less than the superstar Chris Phillips made in guaranteed money.
In about 8 years he doubled his money on the team? Thats pretty good, you have an investment advisor getting you getter returns? Do tell.

And that was just his return from the non HRR. You didnt include his money from his portion of the HRR. And you didnt mention what the arena was worth or generating, and if he didnt have the team, would all those companies be buying big sponsorships and suites just for the madonna concerts?

While Bryden lost his shirt, Melnyk prospered spectacularly. And not because of player salaries; salaries were actually higher for Melnyk. Maybe im learning a different lesson from that.

Melnyk likely would be paying himself a salary or making drawings each year. He could also lend the money to the team to cover its $4mil loss one year and get that money back as interest payments, from the team, which are expenses making it lose money. Plus he also wants operating profits each year on top of this. All these things add up to much more than Chris Phillips salary i'd figure.

thinkwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-27-2012, 04:39 AM
  #106
Nac Mac Feegle
wee & free
 
Nac Mac Feegle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,027
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by WantEggRoll View Post
Might I point out again that Develano is also one of the "cows" he was referring to. Develano is a member of the front office who is also paid by the owners. The only non-"cows" are the likes of Eugene Melnyk and the other 28 owners.

Just a quick comment on NHL players short careers as well. Now I'm going to make an assumption that 100k is a pretty good salary for your average person that went through four years of university and perhaps an additional stint of two-four years in some specialty school. Compare that to the lowest salary of 525K for an NHL player.

In ONE year they make about 5x what a normal highly educated person would. So after about four years they've essentially made 20 years worth of salary. If the average career of an NHLer is about 7 years that is the same as working for 35 years in a normal job.


Now take a player like Jason Spezza who essentially makes as much as a person would in 70 years in just one year of hockey. I'm sorry but I don't feel bad for any of these guys when it comes to their short careers and squabbles over money.
It's not that cut and dry.

Someone making half a million or more pays a much higher percentage of their income in taxes. There are also higher expectations both professionally and privately - Gary Roberts charges upwards of $10k for the total package of training/nutrition, etc, players also pay out of pocket for a significant amount of ice and gym time, and, of course, as a famous/wealthy person, there are much higher security expenses (especially in teh US and for families) as well. And let's not forget charities; these guys are all but required to hand over a big chunk of change to nearly anyone at their door with hat in hand. And let's not forget the frequent moving expenses - especially for journeymen.

Then you figure most guys are out of the league by 35. That money has to last one hell of a long time.

Sure, guys who plan it right are sitting pretty, but a lot of them aren't. I seriously doubt PJ Stock, for example, wanted to star in a Depends commercial. Most of these guys don't have all that much of an education, and a lot of them end up putting their money into terrible investments (Phillips may not be so keen on his beer bar in a few years when it's out of business) - or have it stolen outright.

Nac Mac Feegle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-27-2012, 08:24 AM
  #107
corksens
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 766
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
In about 8 years he doubled his money on the team? Thats pretty good, you have an investment advisor getting you getter returns? Do tell.

And that was just his return from the non HRR. You didnt include his money from his portion of the HRR. And you didnt mention what the arena was worth or generating, and if he didnt have the team, would all those companies be buying big sponsorships and suites just for the madonna concerts?

While Bryden lost his shirt, Melnyk prospered spectacularly. And not because of player salaries; salaries were actually higher for Melnyk. Maybe im learning a different lesson from that.

Melnyk likely would be paying himself a salary or making drawings each year. He could also lend the money to the team to cover its $4mil loss one year and get that money back as interest payments, from the team, which are expenses making it lose money. Plus he also wants operating profits each year on top of this. All these things add up to much more than Chris Phillips salary i'd figure.
These guys don't meet with the average investment advisor in the back of a bank. A 10% annual ROI isn't that much for someone with 120m in the game.

If you read the forbes link you'd see that the $200m valuation includes the arena as well - and therefore likely includes a good chunk of non-HRR. But why are we talking about that? What does a Madonna concert have to do with the Ottawa Senators other than sharing a building? You could argue that companies feel compelled to buy tickets, but that isn't making Melnyk rich.

Melnyk isn't likely taking a salary or a draw from the team. We know this team operates on razor sharp margins...why do we suddenly think Melnyk is making a mint on it?

Face it, even with a relatively successful franchise like Ottawa, the owner still isn't making much in relation to the amount invested. Add in a continuously rising cap and before you know it we'll be back to 2000 where teams spend 3-4 times others.

There is no reason the owners shouldn't be getting a deal comparable to what the other, more successful, franchises are getting...50% or more.

corksens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-27-2012, 08:25 AM
  #108
corksens
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 766
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nac Mac Feegle View Post
It's not that cut and dry.

Someone making half a million or more pays a much higher percentage of their income in taxes. There are also higher expectations both professionally and privately - Gary Roberts charges upwards of $10k for the total package of training/nutrition, etc, players also pay out of pocket for a significant amount of ice and gym time, and, of course, as a famous/wealthy person, there are much higher security expenses (especially in teh US and for families) as well. And let's not forget charities; these guys are all but required to hand over a big chunk of change to nearly anyone at their door with hat in hand. And let's not forget the frequent moving expenses - especially for journeymen.

Then you figure most guys are out of the league by 35. That money has to last one hell of a long time.

Sure, guys who plan it right are sitting pretty, but a lot of them aren't. I seriously doubt PJ Stock, for example, wanted to star in a Depends commercial. Most of these guys don't have all that much of an education, and a lot of them end up putting their money into terrible investments (Phillips may not be so keen on his beer bar in a few years when it's out of business) - or have it stolen outright.
Ever priced out an MBA?

corksens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-27-2012, 09:08 AM
  #109
Lenny the Lynx
Registered User
 
Lenny the Lynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,736
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nac Mac Feegle View Post
It's not that cut and dry.

Someone making half a million or more pays a much higher percentage of their income in taxes. There are also higher expectations both professionally and privately - Gary Roberts charges upwards of $10k for the total package of training/nutrition, etc, players also pay out of pocket for a significant amount of ice and gym time, and, of course, as a famous/wealthy person, there are much higher security expenses (especially in teh US and for families) as well. And let's not forget charities; these guys are all but required to hand over a big chunk of change to nearly anyone at their door with hat in hand. And let's not forget the frequent moving expenses - especially for journeymen.

Then you figure most guys are out of the league by 35. That money has to last one hell of a long time.

Sure, guys who plan it right are sitting pretty, but a lot of them aren't. I seriously doubt PJ Stock, for example, wanted to star in a Depends commercial. Most of these guys don't have all that much of an education, and a lot of them end up putting their money into terrible investments (Phillips may not be so keen on his beer bar in a few years when it's out of business) - or have it stolen outright.
This is crazy.

Anyone who is not sitting pretty after a 10+ year career making over 500K a year has nobody to blame but themself.

All of those costs you list are totally insignificant at that pay grade - even with 2x the tax rate they still bring home like 350K a year in after tax income.

I'm not saying players don't deserve a decent part of the revenues, but crying poor in a system with a minimum salary of $625K a year is not going to fly with the common people.

If they make bad investments, blow their money on fancy cars and expensive houses, or get robbed, that's their own problem. In that case its not going to make any difference if the minimum salary goes up to a million a year, some people are still going to blow it all and no CBA is going to fix that.

Lenny the Lynx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-27-2012, 09:52 AM
  #110
corksens
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 766
vCash: 500
I love the notion that a player only has a working life till 35 and then has to live off of their previous earnings.

I know it isn't as glamorous, but nothing is stopping these guys from getting a decent job when they're hockey career is over.

Most NFL'ers have to (career average of 3 years) find work after.

What is so special about athletes that if they burn through their initially high income that they are too good to make a modest living after?

corksens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-27-2012, 10:56 AM
  #111
Tuna99
Registered User
 
Tuna99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,262
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by corksens View Post
I love the notion that a player only has a working life till 35 and then has to live off of their previous earnings.

I know it isn't as glamorous, but nothing is stopping these guys from getting a decent job when they're hockey career is over.

Most NFL'ers have to (career average of 3 years) find work after.

What is so special about athletes that if they burn through their initially high income that they are too good to make a modest living after?
We agree on this unfortunately, the idea that players should not have to work after they have played NHL hockey for a few years is completely asinine, one of the stupid arguments the players make .

Tuna99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-27-2012, 11:55 AM
  #112
Micklebot
Registered User
 
Micklebot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,602
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nac Mac Feegle View Post
It's not that cut and dry.

Someone making half a million or more pays a much higher percentage of their income in taxes. There are also higher expectations both professionally and privately - Gary Roberts charges upwards of $10k for the total package of training/nutrition, etc, players also pay out of pocket for a significant amount of ice and gym time, and, of course, as a famous/wealthy person, there are much higher security expenses (especially in teh US and for families) as well. And let's not forget charities; these guys are all but required to hand over a big chunk of change to nearly anyone at their door with hat in hand. And let's not forget the frequent moving expenses - especially for journeymen.

Then you figure most guys are out of the league by 35. That money has to last one hell of a long time.

Sure, guys who plan it right are sitting pretty, but a lot of them aren't. I seriously doubt PJ Stock, for example, wanted to star in a Depends commercial. Most of these guys don't have all that much of an education, and a lot of them end up putting their money into terrible investments (Phillips may not be so keen on his beer bar in a few years when it's out of business) - or have it stolen outright.

Taxes: With deep pokects comes the ability to shelter some of your earnings from taxes. You mentioned 2 in your post, charities, and business invesments.

Out of Pocket expenses: They are provided with free alternatives to gym, ice time, and personal training costs by the teams. If they choose to pay for it out of pocket, it's because their salary affords them that luxury. It certainly is not a burden.

Moving expesnse: Not sure about FA moves, but all assignments (whether traded to another team or sent to an affiliate) are covered by the gaining team, in the past they even paid 6 months rent or mortgage (not sure what they did in the last CBA)

PJ Stock: He has a job with CBC paying him handsomely; he didn't need to do the comercial, he chose to.

Education level: The league and PA offer career counceling and continuing education programs.

If these guys aren't sitting pretty, it's their own fault.

Micklebot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-27-2012, 12:07 PM
  #113
ZSensFan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 121
vCash: 500
I'm loving the discussion on this page, funny how no broadcasters talk about these things, which seem obvious to a bunch of hockey loving Joes like us. Both the owners and the players have it exceedingly well, if a player has to work after the age of 35 due to bad investments I have zero sympathy, as I have to work after the age of 35.

ZSensFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-27-2012, 12:59 PM
  #114
Do Make Say Think
Soul & Onward
 
Do Make Say Think's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 16,323
vCash: 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
The players arenít entirely the product. The NHL brand is also very much part of the product. A brand the owners have cultivated and one that surely represents a sizeable amount of goodwill on their balance sheet.

Last time, the players were asked to be partners, working together hand in hand with the owners in a new era of harmony and co-operation to grow the revenues and share the gains. And of course, since costs going forward would be fixed, (cost certainty, risk free), then all new revenues would be almost entirely profit for the owners, so they could even afford to give the players a higher percentage as revenues grew and still both profit comfortably.

Now of course that was last cba, and the owners are surely entitled to say, as they have, that the last agreement was too fair for the players, the owners would like something less fair, and they have obviously found such a proposal. One that we might expect would be made when dealing with cattle.

Melnyk even owns many top stud race horses. He treats them better, and pays more for many of them than some of his players, but then they are thoroughbreds, not cattle.



Well yes, yes they did. They more than just signed up for that - they locked the players out for a year and forced that system down their throats in a way that would have made Tony Soprano proud.

The thinking behind the last salary cap and rollback was that now the top teams are getting sometimes over a $50mil windfall in salary savings because of the salary cap, they would use that savings, from player pay cuts, to distribute as revenue sharing. And they all agreed to it.

With caveats. If the team was in a market with too many tvís like NJ or Dallas, no soup for you! And if the teams failed to grow revenues at the league average rate, its revenue sharing cheque was clawed back each year for 3 years until they were only getting the half the rev sharing they originally hoped for.

And because of those rev sharing claw backs by the owners from the small markets that couldnít keep up even though it was supposed to be a small market helping cba, and because of the non-existent sharing with big markets, all those same markets are now being pointed to as struggling markets needing revenue sharing, and the only way they can think of to restore it, is via another player pay cut. How about not cutting rev sharing to needy teams in the first place?




Well in a sense, they do. When this cba started, the Sens signed their top ufa heatley for $7.5 mil and Fisher for $4.2.

At the end of this cba Nashville signed Weber for $7.5 and Fisher for $4.2. And yet the cap nearly doubled. Who got all those gains?

Remember that in order to have all these restrictions on players, like restricting their free agency, placing salary caps, drafting them as if they were cattle, the owners need a union to collectively bargain with otherwise those actions would all be illegal collusion. And without all those salary restricting collusions that are only legal because the union agrees to them, the owners would be left with nothing to save them from themselves. Without the union, the owners would likely be spending a lot more on salaries. Probably back up to the 75% they started at when they first claimed they needed rules to protect them from themselves.

So when you say itís the owners business and they should be able to do what they want and set their own rules, no, no they cant. All the rules they have created to protect them from themselves are illegal unless the union agrees to it. They cant just unilaterally do whatever they want. They need the union to agree. Meaning you negotiate, you give something, to get something. Maybe the owners should try asking nicer.

The most ridiculous thing is that even though revenues have exploded by over a billion dollars, the players are actually willing to take less money going forward. And thatís apparently not enough for Bettman and the 8 hardliners driving the lockout; they want even more - an actual pay cut. Incroyable!
You don't seem to be aware that the NHL has made more than one offer, each one less drastic than the previous in order to get the PA to talk. But the PA doesn't want to talk because god gave them the right to claim no less than 1.87 billion dollars.
This lockout is the PA's fault because they have not negotiated.

Do Make Say Think is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-29-2012, 10:11 AM
  #115
jordan7hm
Registered User
 
jordan7hm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,311
vCash: 500
The entire system needs to be blown up. The North American sports model is incredibly broken, and it succeeds because we eliminated market competition and created public subsidies for monopolies.

I hope the lockout never ends and the system fails instead. Otherwise it's just going to be a never ending cycle of this ********.

jordan7hm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-01-2012, 08:25 AM
  #116
Nac Mac Feegle
wee & free
 
Nac Mac Feegle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,027
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by corksens View Post
I love the notion that a player only has a working life till 35 and then has to live off of their previous earnings.

I know it isn't as glamorous, but nothing is stopping these guys from getting a decent job when they're hockey career is over.

Most NFL'ers have to (career average of 3 years) find work after.

What is so special about athletes that if they burn through their initially high income that they are too good to make a modest living after?
I'm not saying they retire a bunch of paupers. I'm simply suggesting this outlandish idea that a guy who made 20 mil during the course of his career magically has 20 sitting in his bank account the minute he retires. Private school for kids, living in a gated community (some areas in the US you have to if you have money) adds up to over $100k a year easily (or more).

People seem to forget that most NHLers aren't exactly the brightest bulbs. If they don't get a job somewhere within the hockey community, they really aren't that employable unless they use their name to start up a business (and even then most of them have no business sense).

And what's so bad about someone who is one of the top 300 on the planet at their profession living a good life? Isn't that why all of us strive for excellence? Work hard, reach the top of your field, and reap the rewards of it? Why is it ok for people born into their billions (or obtain their billions through less than legitimate means) allowed to scrimp as much as they can from their employees?

Really, what the hell is the point of trying to reach the highest professional ranks - in any field - if there aren't great rewards?

Nac Mac Feegle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-01-2012, 08:46 AM
  #117
Lenny the Lynx
Registered User
 
Lenny the Lynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,736
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nac Mac Feegle View Post
I'm not saying they retire a bunch of paupers. I'm simply suggesting this outlandish idea that a guy who made 20 mil during the course of his career magically has 20 sitting in his bank account the minute he retires. Private school for kids, living in a gated community (some areas in the US you have to if you have money) adds up to over $100k a year easily (or more).
Nobody has ever said that bolded part.

But anyone who makes $20 mil over the course of a 15-20 year career and is not well set up at the end of it has nobody to blame but themself. If they got a better deal in the CBA and made $25 or $30 million instead over that period, they would still be broke at the end because they will make bad decisions with their money and pissed it away.

I have no sympathy for that and it has nothing to do with the NHLs economic system, its the same thing as someone who wins the lottery, blows it all in a couple years and ends up worse off than they were.

Lenny the Lynx 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 03:16 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.