HFBoards

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

Who's side are you on if you were forced to pick sides? The owners? ... or the NHLPA?

View Poll Results: Who's side are you on if you were forced to pick sides? The owners? ... or the NHLPA?
The owners 144 48.65%
The NHLPA 152 51.35%
Voters: 296. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-04-2012, 09:43 PM
  #26
ChemiseBleuHonnete
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 9,396
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
Since the cap is based on revenues, then yes...a reduction in player % means lower cap and lower floor.

The players lost 24% but salaries increased what, 50%? Players won.

Whatever, I agree reducing salaries won't fix that much but I feel if salaries are reduced, there should be more revenue sharing in consequence. Small market teams will never be able to catch up to us. The better the habs, leafs, rangers, etc... do, no matter how well nashville does, they will still be small market(at this canadian dollar anyway).

There is a deal to be made for the long term success of the league and it's a reduction for players and more money in revenue sharing. I've heard owners have considered revenue sharing ideas yet players have not considered a reduction.

There's talk about "we'll lose X amount of money" at this estimate growth. Load of crap. I don't like that.

In fact I feel players should be given a % of the cap. This way if cap increases so does your pay. Essentially, the growth of the game helps players too. It's like a partnership.(ex: player gets 5% of 50 mil=2.5 mil. Cap goes up to 60 mil he gets 3 mil.)
That can't work. Essentially that means everyone has to spend to the cap-limit.

ChemiseBleuHonnete is offline  
Old
10-04-2012, 09:47 PM
  #27
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,140
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by franchise player View Post
That can't work. Essentially that means everyone has to spend to the cap-limit.
Uhm no.

When you add up contracts you can spend say 85% of max cap. Whatever the floor is in terms of percentage, say 80%, they can spend 80% min up to 100%.

You don't NEED to use your last 20% if you don't want to.

Granted, it's not a perfect idea, I'm just throwing something out that's outside the box.

LyricalLyricist is online now  
Old
10-04-2012, 09:52 PM
  #28
ChemiseBleuHonnete
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 9,396
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
Uhm no.

When you add up contracts you can spend say 85% of max cap. Whatever the floor is in terms of percentage, say 80%, they can spend 80% min up to 100%.

You don't NEED to use your last 20% if you don't want to.

Granted, it's not a perfect idea, I'm just throwing something out that's outside the box.
oh I see. Like a % of the upper-cap limit. That way the salaries adjust accordingly and you can spend a % of the cap as you see fit (from the floor all the way to the cap limit). It's a great idea imo.

ChemiseBleuHonnete is offline  
Old
10-04-2012, 09:56 PM
  #29
Habsterix*
@Habsterix
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,475
vCash: 500
After losing an entire season, after seeing the players give up a 24% salary rollback and agreeing to a salary cap the last time they negociated, I simply can't see how anyone could support the owners in this battle. They had their chance to fix things, to protect themselves against... themselves, and they didn't. They're still issuing those ludicrous contracts just days before the lockout! They're out of control and they are expecting the players to bail them out each time. Stu-pid!

Habsterix* is offline  
Old
10-04-2012, 09:57 PM
  #30
sheed36
Registered User
 
sheed36's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,954
vCash: 500
After watching this how can anyone not be on the players side..


sheed36 is offline  
Old
10-04-2012, 10:00 PM
  #31
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,140
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsterix View Post
After losing an entire season, after seeing the players give up a 24% salary rollback and agreeing to a salary cap the last time they negociated, I simply can't see how anyone could support the owners in this battle. They had their chance to fix things, to protect themselves against... themselves, and they didn't. They're still issuing those ludicrous contracts just days before the lockout! They're out of control and they are expecting the players to bail them out each time. Stu-pid!
They never said any 1 player makes too much. I understand going on NHLPA's side, but don't make things up here. People keep saying this. Bettman never said this, Daly didn't either. They said the share of revenues is too high for the players. At 57% is this really a surprise? Others major leagues who get more merchandise sales still have owners at higher percentage. yet...NHL gives players 57% as a group. I understand some saying 50-50, 49-51(players at 51) but suggesting players are suffering at 57%, I don't get that. 24% rollback turned into a 50% jump in revenues. The players won this CBA big time. Not to mention they exercised an option for another year at 57%. They did just fine.

LyricalLyricist is online now  
Old
10-04-2012, 10:12 PM
  #32
Habsterix*
@Habsterix
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,475
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
They never said any 1 player makes too much. I understand going on NHLPA's side, but don't make things up here. People keep saying this. Bettman never said this, Daly didn't either. They said the share of revenues is too high for the players. At 57% is this really a surprise? Others major leagues who get more merchandise sales still have owners at higher percentage. yet...NHL gives players 57% as a group. I understand some saying 50-50, 49-51(players at 51) but suggesting players are suffering at 57%, I don't get that. 24% rollback turned into a 50% jump in revenues. The players won this CBA big time. Not to mention they exercised an option for another year at 57%. They did just fine.
Making things up? Hahahaha! Wasn't it Bettman himself, the idiot, saying that the players were making too much money? Again, it's the owners who hand out those ****ing contracts (the GM's I know, but the owners approve the big deals). They are the ones who set the market place, set precedents. See, you are probably one to blame Scott Gomez for the contract that he has. I personally chose to blame Glen Sather and the Rangers' ownership for offering well above market value. What's a player to do? Refuse the ridiculous offers thrown at them?

The problem is that the owners hit a homerun the last time around but they never expected the Canadian dollar to remain that high for so long. They didn't anticipate the hockey revenues to be what they are and now that they realize the size of the pie, they want a bigger piece! Greed!

Here, in more words: Open letter to Geoff Molson

Habsterix* is offline  
Old
10-04-2012, 10:22 PM
  #33
Westcoasthabsfan
Registered User
 
Westcoasthabsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: In Pandoras Box
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,256
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheed36 View Post
After watching this how can anyone not be on the players side..

Love it.....

Westcoasthabsfan is offline  
Old
10-04-2012, 10:28 PM
  #34
One Man Rock Band
Slater's Gonna Slate
 
One Man Rock Band's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Habville
Country: Canada
Posts: 43,819
vCash: 500
The owners signed the deal to get it here, so live with it.

The NHLPA are being ignorant too, but so its the NHL because they signed the deal originally.

But I blame Bettman most of all, it wouldn't even matter if he didnt keep trying to make the NHL succeed in so many stupid places. Everyone would be richer if he just ran the league while only trying to expand little bits at a time instead of throwing all of his biscuits into one basket kind of thing.

What pisses me off most about this, is that 1) they should have been talking about this a year ago, not now and 2) they are only discussing a 5-6 year extension. Give me 10-15 years, because I'm not going to invest any money into the NHL if you're just going to strike again in 5-years.

One Man Rock Band is offline  
Old
10-04-2012, 10:35 PM
  #35
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,140
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsterix View Post
Making things up? Hahahaha! Wasn't it Bettman himself, the idiot, saying that the players were making too much money? Again, it's the owners who hand out those ****ing contracts (the GM's I know, but the owners approve the big deals). They are the ones who set the market place, set precedents. See, you are probably one to blame Scott Gomez for the contract that he has. I personally chose to blame Glen Sather and the Rangers' ownership for offering well above market value. What's a player to do? Refuse the ridiculous offers thrown at them?

The problem is that the owners hit a homerun the last time around but they never expected the Canadian dollar to remain that high for so long. They didn't anticipate the hockey revenues to be what they are and now that they realize the size of the pie, they want a bigger piece! Greed!

Here, in more words: Open letter to Geoff Molson
Did you read a word I said? It's not that complicated...

LyricalLyricist is online now  
Old
10-04-2012, 10:37 PM
  #36
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,140
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawkeyeCB View Post
The owners signed the deal to get it here, so live with it.

The NHLPA are being ignorant too, but so its the NHL because they signed the deal originally.

But I blame Bettman most of all, it wouldn't even matter if he didnt keep trying to make the NHL succeed in so many stupid places. Everyone would be richer if he just ran the league while only trying to expand little bits at a time instead of throwing all of his biscuits into one basket kind of thing.

What pisses me off most about this, is that 1) they should have been talking about this a year ago, not now and 2) they are only discussing a 5-6 year extension. Give me 10-15 years, because I'm not going to invest any money into the NHL if you're just going to strike again in 5-years.
Well, bettman wanted a year ago, NHLPA didn't.

Also, bettman is just the owner's rep. When owners go unanimous in voting for a lockout, blaming bettman just gets old. He does what he's told.

LyricalLyricist is online now  
Old
10-04-2012, 10:44 PM
  #37
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,888
vCash: 500
For the owners only because Donald Fehr is doing his best to prevent talks from moving forward.

Donald Fehr............."cancelling professional sports games wherever I show up."

SouthernHab is offline  
Old
10-04-2012, 11:14 PM
  #38
Rosso Scuderia
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,977
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
Makes sense to me. You expect owners to be businessmen. Now when players are crying over a few thousand dollars when they make millions, what happened to being humble? Now suddenly they are businessmen too. Funny how that works.
But the OP is not talking about "a few thousand dollars", he's talking about millions.

You guys talk like losing 500k a year over 6 years is nothing because they make 4M$ annually. 500K$/year makes a ******** of a difference in a multiyear contract.

I'm sorry but that is just jealous people talking. Its not because they are paid in millions means that they should accept a 10-20%+ paycut.

I rather not go too deep with the numbers... And I know the players will see their salary reduced but saying they should accept a paycut, no matter how much, because they are millionaire is a pretty weak argument. Like 5M$ instead of 6M$ is nothing for millionaire.. because they are millionaire.

Rosso Scuderia is offline  
Old
10-04-2012, 11:14 PM
  #39
habsfan92
Registered User
 
habsfan92's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 316
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
Well, bettman wanted a year ago, NHLPA didn't.

Also, bettman is just the owner's rep. When owners go unanimous in voting for a lockout, blaming bettman just gets old. He does what he's told.
Totally agree with everything you're saying. League wanted to talk last December, NHLPA refused. NHLPA whining how they gave up so much last CBA. Salary cap never..yeah their salaries went up what? 15-25%? How awful. Nice they tie salaries to revenue, but I think it should be profit based. Unfortunately the two sides would never agree on the definition of HRR & HRE's.
Here's a thought, how about players that get paid for endorsements share that with others players in the league like the revenue gets shared by profitable owners with have-nots down south?

Isn't Fehr the guy that had the baseball players strike just before the playoffs?? Expo fans robbed. They were awesome that year. Sure they want to play in good faith.

habsfan92 is offline  
Old
10-04-2012, 11:39 PM
  #40
vokiel
#NoTradesWithEDM
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Montréal
Country: Martinique
Posts: 6,447
vCash: 500
The owners because they're trying to help the habs in getting rid of you know who.

vokiel is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 01:20 AM
  #41
No Team Needed
Registered User
 
No Team Needed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: essex
Posts: 3,131
vCash: 500
The players. I'll also support them when they start using strikes in the middle of season and playoff play to re-negotiate whatever they lose in this current CBA battle. It's a pandora's box Bettman and the BoG opened.

No Team Needed is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 01:21 AM
  #42
GoHomez
Registered User
 
GoHomez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: 8 km from the Globe
Country: Sweden
Posts: 1,153
vCash: 500
Both sides are obviously to blame here, but if I gotta go with one side I'll pick the players.

I lose a lot of respect for the NHLPA for their unwillingsness to negotiate this deal earlier. On the other hand, the first NHL offer was a real low ball and would probably have been the same offer last summer. Maybe a little bit serious more serious first offer from the NHL would have drawn the PA to the table earlier.

The owners, locking out the players one year to get their hard cap in place, only to spend the next 8 years trying their best to circumvent it.
Handing out three contract totalling over $300 M over 40 years only to lock out the players a couple of weeks later.
NHL is profitable, some franchises are not. According to Forbes, Phoenix lost $25M with a payroll of roughly $55M. Show me how decreasing salaries are going to make them profitable?
If revenues are up 50% (how many companies beat that!?) and you're claiming you're still losing money, maybe you're doing something wrong?!


50/50 split of revenues and increased revenue sharing, or start cutting money losing franchises.

GoHomez is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 01:30 AM
  #43
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,140
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosso Scuderia View Post
But the OP is not talking about "a few thousand dollars", he's talking about millions.

You guys talk like losing 500k a year over 6 years is nothing because they make 4M$ annually. 500K$/year makes a ******** of a difference in a multiyear contract.

I'm sorry but that is just jealous people talking. Its not because they are paid in millions means that they should accept a 10-20%+ paycut.

I rather not go too deep with the numbers... And I know the players will see their salary reduced but saying they should accept a paycut, no matter how much, because they are millionaire is a pretty weak argument. Like 5M$ instead of 6M$ is nothing for millionaire.. because they are millionaire.
K, so the average salaries of players went up since last lockout. In fact, the minimum salaries went up. The RFA level was abolished(players get top dollars after 3 years) and we're talking about paycuts? Everything helped the players here. More teams were able to compete in the marketplace. RFA was merely a status and not a limitation. They went back 24% but the cap increase nearly 50%.

We talk about reduction, but it has greatly benefitted the players. I have no ill will about that. They played under an agreed system and profited, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Now that the terms of the agreement are finished(after NHLPA extended an extra year), why is it jealousy when the obvious needs to be said? NFL, NBA and others make less than 50% of revenues, NHL players make 57%. We have more expenses(equipment, cooling, etc...) yet this is acceptable? I've never said the players deserve nothing, but they don't deserve 57% either.

You talk about players taking a paycut. You planning to make a business and giving your employees 57% of your revenues? Then of course, you take that 43%, pay expenses, pay taxes, and now what? That's logical?

Quote:
Originally Posted by habsfan92 View Post
Totally agree with everything you're saying. League wanted to talk last December, NHLPA refused. NHLPA whining how they gave up so much last CBA. Salary cap never..yeah their salaries went up what? 15-25%? How awful. Nice they tie salaries to revenue, but I think it should be profit based. Unfortunately the two sides would never agree on the definition of HRR & HRE's.
Here's a thought, how about players that get paid for endorsements share that with others players in the league like the revenue gets shared by profitable owners with have-nots down south?

Isn't Fehr the guy that had the baseball players strike just before the playoffs?? Expo fans robbed. They were awesome that year. Sure they want to play in good faith.
I also think it should be profit based, however many would mark unjust expenses. It's a very hard system to manage but yes, that would likely be the epitomy of fairness.

LyricalLyricist is online now  
Old
10-05-2012, 01:34 AM
  #44
Frozenice
the random dude
 
Frozenice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,299
vCash: 500
I'd like to see the Canadian teams secede from the NHL.

We'd have better hockey, labour peace and our weak teams would be propped up by revenue sharing from television, radio and merchandising sales. We could easily support 10 -12 teams and have international tournaments like the Canada Cup.

Frozenice is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 01:40 AM
  #45
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,140
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edmontreal View Post
Both sides are obviously to blame here, but if I gotta go with one side I'll pick the players.

I lose a lot of respect for the NHLPA for their unwillingsness to negotiate this deal earlier. On the other hand, the first NHL offer was a real low ball and would probably have been the same offer last summer. Maybe a little bit serious more serious first offer from the NHL would have drawn the PA to the table earlier.

The owners, locking out the players one year to get their hard cap in place, only to spend the next 8 years trying their best to circumvent it.
Handing out three contract totalling over $300 M over 40 years only to lock out the players a couple of weeks later.
NHL is profitable, some franchises are not. According to Forbes, Phoenix lost $25M with a payroll of roughly $55M. Show me how decreasing salaries are going to make them profitable?
If revenues are up 50% (how many companies beat that!?) and you're claiming you're still losing money, maybe you're doing something wrong?!


50/50 split of revenues and increased revenue sharing, or start cutting money losing franchises.
Because revenues are in USD i'd argue the canadian dollar rising skewed the true growth of the league. The fact the big money markets like montreal and toronto now had their revenues increased by over 50% just by the fact the CDN was on par with the USD surely skews the perception of a 1.1 million dollar growth. The winter classic, the NBC deal and the addition of winnipeg also increased the numbers. However, in 2004 to 2012, did a team like dallas make 50% more revenues? I'd imagine they didn't, because none of these elements affected them, except the NBC deal.

The fact of the matter is there is no simple solution. BOTH parties will have to take a cut. Revenue sharing needs to increase and players need to accept an immediate cut(technically, they already are by refusing to sign).

The NHL and NHLPA are both acting like separate entities. Granted, it is true, but the fact they don't see themselves as a partnership is disturbing. Growth of the game=more money, more jobs. Demanding something that doesn't make sense now wil bankrupt teams and reduce jobs. Demanding too much from the players will push fans away. It's just a stupid cycle.

Then again, I am not upset and WILL watch hockey when it returns. These guys are businessmen and will do business and despite what everyone thinks, players are businessmen too. I see this as two companies working on a merger, I don't consider it employee vs owner. Sports unions aren't real unions, it's businessmen, lawyers, etc... Nothing else. People need to get over the notion that with these figures this is the small guy vs the big guy. Businessmen vs businessmen, that's all it is.

LyricalLyricist is online now  
Old
10-05-2012, 01:42 AM
  #46
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,140
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frozenice View Post
I'd like to see the Canadian teams secede from the NHL.

We'd have better hockey, labour peace and our weak teams would be propped up by revenue sharing from television, radio and merchandising sales. We could easily support 10 -12 teams and have international tournaments like the Canada Cup.
I'd argue the teams would make less and so would the players.

More players for less teams=supply high, price goes down.

Same teams played over and over(less GP)=less demand, less profit. Would you want to play calgary 7 times, then toronto 7 times, then ottawa 7 times, etc...? God, i'd get fed up.

LyricalLyricist is online now  
Old
10-05-2012, 01:52 AM
  #47
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,127
vCash: 500
the players, ainec.


Owners got the deal they wanted, completely, a few years ago... at the expense of a full season. On top of that, right up until the lockout began, they were STILL signing players to massive deals under the previous agreement.

The utter hypocrisy of then crying poor and trying to strong arm their employees into taking a roll back of the contracts they just gave them, even though league revenue is way up and their representative couldn't stop boasting about how strong and viable the league was, is laughable.

it's silly to frame it as not wanting to "feel sorry" for the players who are filthy rich playing a game...

if people want to argue the insanity of athletes making that kind of money... fine. though it's puzzling to me how the same argument isn't that much stronger in regards to the insanity of fat rich white guys padding their personal fortunes (some of which inherited, or acquired in shady business practices) without even lifting a finger or breaking a sweat.



and this whole "players shouldn't be taking away jobs from overseas players" is just as bogus. It's called labour, why on earth should they feel bad for finding an employer willing to pay them for it? Do the people making that argument also cry foul everytime some doctor or lawyer decides to move to a new city to take a new job?
Do you people really hate free markets that much?

crazy some of the comments that come up with this mess.


bottom line is that both sides are being greedy, but hey, that's what capitalism is all about, it's the name of the game... GET PAID...

if really don't like it, put your money where your mouth is and go vote for the marxist party.

Miller Time is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 02:21 AM
  #48
Rosso Scuderia
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,977
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
Well, bettman wanted a year ago, NHLPA didn't.

Also, bettman is just the owner's rep. When owners go unanimous in voting for a lockout, blaming bettman just gets old. He does what he's told.
Quite honestly, I don't think talking in the middle of the season would have led to anything. They had plenty of time to discuss in the off-season and at this point, there's really no progress.

The owners and Bettman had one idea in my mind from the start and it was a lock-out. They know no matter what, they would still come out as winners because there's no way the players could keep the 57% of the revenues. So they basically had nothing to lose since they know they would get all that money loss in the lock-out back in the upcoming years, while the players were guaranteed to see their salary reduced and potentially lose 1 year of salary. The biggest losers in the lock-out, except the fans, are the players so the owners will not feel the urgency of saving the season until they get what they want.

Gorges said the players are willing to play and start the season while negotiating.. but there's no way the owners would accept that.

So when I hear Daly and Bettman say that they are sorry for the fans.. that is absolute ******** to me.

Rosso Scuderia is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 03:38 AM
  #49
HockeyF3ind
Registered User
 
HockeyF3ind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,827
vCash: 500
The players everyday all day.

They signed contracts in good faith with owners who now want to bargain their way out of contracts they themselves signed, clearly in bad faith.

The players put their bodies and to a certain extent their lives on the line for us to enjoy. The owners put money on the line, and generally speaking, its money they don't really need to survive off of since many owners are billionaires.

Although I admit I'm actually biased since I have personally have been ****ed over by an NHL owner (Aquilini in Vancouver) who bought up my last apartment building and renovicted (evictions justified by renovations) everyone in the building. So yeah, **** the greedy owners and the bags of money they rode in on.

Billionaires will never get my sympathy, as they often get their billions by screwing over the little guy. In this case the little guys are a bit stronger and can fend for themselves, hence our current predicament.

HockeyF3ind is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 08:17 AM
  #50
Protest the Hero
Registered User
 
Protest the Hero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,383
vCash: 500
I'd love to support the players, but at least the NHL has sent a counter proposal to the one the NHLPA presented the first time. The NHLPA has been so stubborn that they've refused to negotiate, they sent their initial proposal and apparently that's enough for them. Fehr is just as bad as Bettman.

Also, maybe I'm looking at them through rose coloured glasses, but there's no way the players would go on strike entering the playoffs.

Protest the Hero 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 02:17 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.