HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Chicago Blackhawks
Notices

Toews, Wirtz, and Bettman

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-05-2012, 01:17 AM
  #51
HawksFan74
Tread Lightly
 
HawksFan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 15,227
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rexy View Post
Winning team, and it was one game.

If I had season tickets I probably would have given them up.
Um... why? You can make money off selling them. You know the difference between season tix and individual ticket prices? Especially playoff tickets on the secondary market.

Hawks didn't win anything the last two years. 1 and done in the playoffs. That rational just doesn't work.

HawksFan74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 01:59 AM
  #52
Martini*
Gods Team
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,786
vCash: 500
How, in gods name, can anybody outside of Wirtz and his bean counters actually know if Rocky Wirtz is or isnt making money?

Bill Wirtz ran the Hawks like he knew how, as a business. There isnt one person here or anywhere else who can say they knew specificly just how much of a challenge it was running a NHL hockey team in Chicago. Not. One. He knew where his bread and butter was, and that was the STH's, and he stood by them, blindly and to a fault. It wasnt his problem he didnt put home games on television out of loyalty to them. Thats what he did, public and casual fan be damned. If you wanted to see the Hawks in Chicago, you went to the game. Not that, in the day of cable there wasnt avenues that you could go down to see Hawk home games, mind you, but the simple fact remains that Bill Wirtz did what he did and as a business model, it wasnt a bad idea, and thats the thing many blind to business cant actually comprehend. Wirtz was worth alot of money for his liquor distribution and never dipped outside of Hawk funds to pay for Hawk problems, and you cannot fault him for that.

Now, was he a hard liner? Sure, but not giving in and paying players such as Roenick "Michael Jordan" money is the least of what he could have done but decided against it. Wirtz's teams were in the playoffs for how many years straight so this delusion that he ripped this team apart when they were just at the point of actually being bad gets picked apart to the point t hat many just make something up and start believing it themselves. The worst things Wirtz ever did was listen to Pulford who was past his prime, hiring Smith who, while made a few decent draft picks, gutted this team of its identity, and came out of the lockout still thinking with rule changes the game was the same during the clutch and grab era. Wirtz spent money, foolishly in some cases, but he spent money.

Now Rocky gets all this praise for putting home games on TV, yet, many dont understand that it was McDonough who actually did. McNose is the person Hawk fans should be kneeling down in front of since all the media attention the Hawks get, even now while still nothing compared to the Bears, Bulls, and Flubs, is all because of him.Not Rocky. John McDonough has taken Bob Pulfords place as the right hand man of the next Wirtz and thru spectacular maketing, has made the Hawks a bit more relevent. And thru that marketing, I am almost positive he has spent a boat load of Wirtz's money, but thats just speculation, similar to anybody outside of the Hawks top exec's saying Wirtz makes money when he has stated countless times that he has been losing money.

Some people here need to understand business.

Martini* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 02:06 AM
  #53
HawksFan74
Tread Lightly
 
HawksFan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 15,227
vCash: 500
^You don't think Rocky gave McD the go ahead for home games on t.v. Rocky hired McD, he definitely played a role.

HawksFan74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 02:07 AM
  #54
Martini*
Gods Team
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,786
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by UsernameWasTaken View Post


It has nothing to do with being from Chicago or not...I'm not from Chicago and I see how important it was to put the games on local t.v. It's good for fans of a team everywhere for the local fan base to increase. One of the reasons I became more of a Hawks fan is b/c once the home games were put on tv my cousins in Chicago started watching more and becoming more interested in hockey...so I started following the Hawks, b/c it was easier for me to follow the team than it was to get kids from Chicago to start caring about the Leafs ... and it meant me/my cousins had a team in common.
The Hawks had the away games on local TV.

McDonough put home games on TV only because of the internet and getting very little in terms of advertising revenue was better then getting nothing thru an internet stream.


Seriously, has anybody here actually taken even a basic business course?

Martini* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 02:10 AM
  #55
HawksFan74
Tread Lightly
 
HawksFan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 15,227
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martini View Post
The Hawks had the away games on local TV.

McDonough put home games on TV only because of the internet and getting very little in terms of advertising revenue was better then getting nothing thru an internet stream.


Seriously, has anybody here actually taken even a basic business course?
Did you read his post? He's stressing the importance of home games on t.v. to follow a team? Not the economics of it.

HawksFan74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 02:14 AM
  #56
Martini*
Gods Team
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,786
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawksFan74 View Post
^You don't think Rocky gave McD the go ahead for home games on t.v. Rocky hired McD, he definitely played a role.
I think Rocky hired a person who knew specificly how to do a great job with very little to work with. John McDonough is a marketing genius, nobody can take that away from him, if McD tells you that this and that have to be done, you take his word for it.

Rocky wasnt stupid in that reguard.

Martini* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 02:16 AM
  #57
Martini*
Gods Team
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,786
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawksFan74 View Post
Did you read his post? He's stressing the importance of home games on t.v. to follow a team? Not the economics of it.
In this day and age? Home games on TV mean very little with the advent of streaming online web sites. Its all about economics and is the only reason the Hawks home games are televised.

Martini* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 02:19 AM
  #58
HawksFan74
Tread Lightly
 
HawksFan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 15,227
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martini View Post
I think Rocky hired a person who knew specificly how to do a great job with very little to work with. John McDonough is a marketing genius, nobody can take that away from him, if McD tells you that this and that have to be done, you take his word for it.

Rocky wasnt stupid in that reguard.
He was smart enough to hire McD! How stupid can he be? Also, nobody here was privy to who made the decision to put the Hawks home game's on.

McD's had done a decent job but with huge assist from the team's success. If the team was a bottom dweller the past five years they would still struggle to pack that place.

HawksFan74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 02:21 AM
  #59
HawksFan74
Tread Lightly
 
HawksFan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 15,227
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martini View Post
In this day and age? Home games on TV mean very little with the advent of streaming online web sites. Its all about economics and is the only reason the Hawks home games are televised.
Still has nothing to do with his point. Home games on t.v. attract new fans is what he was saying.

#2 The majority of the public does not watch sports on streaming web sites. Watching Hockey in non HD is a chore not to mention some crappy stream. Everybody understands that the Hawks make money via advertising during home game. Where Bill's philosophy was broadcasting games hurt season ticket holders and that maybe it would draw more people to the stadium.

It wasn't some genius conclusion Rocky and McD came up with. They just did what every other team in the NHL was doing.


Last edited by HawksFan74: 10-05-2012 at 02:28 AM.
HawksFan74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 02:29 AM
  #60
Martini*
Gods Team
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,786
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawksFan74 View Post
He was smart enough to hire McD! How stupid can he be? Also, nobody here was privy to who made the decision to put the Hawks home game's on.
From the Hawks website ;
Upon his arrival to the Blackhawks, McDonough welcomed back Hall of Famers Bobby Hull, Stan Mikita and Tony Esposito as team ambassadors, and helped foster a landmark partnership with WGN Television and Comcast SportsNet which allowed all 82 regular-season games to be broadcast on television for the first time in team history. The Blackhawks also announced a partnership with Chicagoís WGN Radio 720 to become the teamís new radio broadcast rightsholder.

Funny that a guy who turned around the Flubs from a bottom dweller to one of the hottest tickets in town turns to his old cronies at WGN to put the Hawks not only on a superstation but also one of the flagship AM radio channels in all of the U.S when a year before the Hawks were paying radio stations to broadcast their brand, huh?

Quote:
Originally Posted by HawksFan74 View Post
McD's had done a decent job but with huge assist from the team's success. If the team was a bottom dweller the past five years they would still struggle to pack that place.
Like the Cubs?
McD has done more then a decent job. He turned a forgotten franchise and sport in Chicago into something nobody else could have done or would have touched.

Martini* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 02:29 AM
  #61
UsernameWasTaken
Let's Go Blue Jays!
 
UsernameWasTaken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,735
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martini View Post
In this day and age? Home games on TV mean very little with the advent of streaming online web sites. Its all about economics and is the only reason the Hawks home games are televised.
Despite your banging on about your business knowledge you've vastly under-estimated the degree to which "casual fans" drive the Hawks' ticket base and vastly over-estimated the # of hockey fans who watch NHL games via online streaming


Last edited by Holden Caulfield: 10-05-2012 at 02:35 AM. Reason: not neccessary
UsernameWasTaken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 02:35 AM
  #62
Martini*
Gods Team
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,786
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawksFan74 View Post
Still has nothing to do with his point. Home games on t.v. attract new fans is what he was saying.
Proof of this where?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawksFan74 View Post
#2 The majority of the public does not watch sports on streaming web sites.
The majority of the public doesnt watch hockey.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawksFan74 View Post
Watching Hockey in non HD is a chore not to mention some crappy stream.
Everybody understands that the Hawks make money via advertising during home game.
Very little. Consider the advertising that is played during hockey games and you will see specificly that it is the lowest rung of advertising. Mostly liquor commercials who no doubt are getting a kick back or reduced add fee if Wirtz actually carries that brand of liquor. Wirtz is a genuis for providing such a service, no doubt, but I highly doubt the fee is too much in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawksFan74 View Post
Where Bill's philosophy was broadcasting games hurt season ticket holders and that maybe it would draw more people to the stadium.
And? What, prey tell, is wrong with that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawksFan74 View Post
It wasn't some genius conclusion Rocky and McD came up with. They just did what every other team in the NHL was doing.
Those same teams crying poor and locking out again?

Martini* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 02:43 AM
  #63
Martini*
Gods Team
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,786
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by UsernameWasTaken View Post
Despite your banging on about your business knowledge you've vastly under-estimated the degree to which "casual fans" drive the Hawks' ticket base and vastly over-estimated the # of hockey fans who watch NHL games via online streaming
The "casual fan", which is being turned onto another avenue to spending their hard earned dollar now that yet another lock out is upon this sport?

As for online streaming, how many "fans" have turned to streaming as of now to actually watch a hockey game now that there is no NHL?


Makes you wonder.......

Martini* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 02:52 AM
  #64
Martini*
Gods Team
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,786
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HossTheBoss View Post
Well, for starters, Rocky ate 8M+ in salary last year to pay players to not be on the roster. Nevermind the commitments Rocky's handed out to guys like Keith and Hossa. If Bill was around, those deals don't happen. Hell, you probably have a hard time getting him to pay Kane and Toews what they're worth, nevermind Sharp or Seabrook.
You dont know that.

Wirtz also gave the go ahead for the Habby, Augroin,Lapointe, signings, further diminshing this speculation that he didnt spend money.

Martini* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 02:57 AM
  #65
HawksFan74
Tread Lightly
 
HawksFan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 15,227
vCash: 500
Quote:
Proof of this where?
His point had nothing to do with proof. He was talking about attracting viewers and you're talking about economic implications of tv games. That being said, are you going to tell me that TV viewership of sports doesn't attract fans??!?!

Quote:
The majority of the public doesnt watch hockey.
We are talking about hockey fans, are we not? What does non hockey fans have to do with this discussion? You are talking in circles and making absolutely no sense!

The majority of hockey viewers are not watching hockey on crappy streams. Those people are typically your out of market diehards.

Quote:
And? What, prey tell, is wrong with that?
Have no idea what the first part means? What is wrong with not putting home games on t.v.? You're the economic genius, you can figure that out for yourself.

Expecting to draw new fans by not showing off your product is a stupid business model. If was fairly obvious when it was in place that it did NOT work! Not only that but it only served to alienate the fan base further and pit them against him. Let's not forget the PPV playoff games. Bill was in his own world and simply had not caught up with the times.

HawksFan74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 03:01 AM
  #66
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,628
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martini View Post
The Hawks had the away games on local TV.

McDonough put home games on TV only because of the internet and getting very little in terms of advertising revenue was better then getting nothing thru an internet stream.


Seriously, has anybody here actually taken even a basic business course?

1. Bill only put away games on because he didn't have control over them.

2. The internet is why McD put games on TV? What advertising was he losing, the $ they where losing because of games on TV was next to nothing. They put games back on TV to draw new fans. People usually won't go see a team until they know them and there was no better way to get fans to the stadium then to put the games on TV, it's free advertising for your team.

Sir Psycho T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 03:09 AM
  #67
HawksFan74
Tread Lightly
 
HawksFan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 15,227
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martini View Post
Very little. Consider the advertising that is played during hockey games and you will see specificly that it is the lowest rung of advertising. Mostly liquor commercials who no doubt are getting a kick back or reduced add fee if Wirtz actually carries that brand of liquor. Wirtz is a genuis for providing such a service, no doubt, but I highly doubt the fee is too much in the first place.
?
Really. What exactly is that little number the Blackhawks receive from their deals with Comcast & WGN? Let's not forget the NBC deal. Let's also take in to account the advertising on the boards, do you know how much that has jacked up the past couple of years? None of that happens without t.v.

HawksFan74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 03:22 AM
  #68
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,628
vCash: 500
As for the OP I am so sick and tired of the NHLPA and their stupid media campaign.

Instead of sitting in the room and hammering out a deal or even putting out 1 ONE! offer of their own they are just going around talking about how much they don't care about money how bad the owners are and how they love us fans.

Meanwhile they don't negotiate at all and hired a head of their PA that everyone knew would lead to a lockout.

This isn't a lockout this is a players strike and a stupid 1 at that for many reasons.

1. The players don't want to give up any $ despite being the highest paid by % athletes of any team sport in the world. Yes the NHL players make a larger % of their leagues revenue then any other sport on the planet, think about that.

2. They are only looking at 2004 when they gave up alot because they had to, to keep the league from going backrupt, they aren't looking at where the world is at now. They figure they gave up tons then so they don't need to give up anything now, except the world now is now is a much worse economical state then when it was in 2004.

3. The players are looking at simply the % they'll make and not what the % of what they make will be. Here is what I mean, the NHLPA would be SO much better off taking 45% today while the league could quickly get back to where it was having only lost a few games and therefore only a small amount of the 3.3 billion they made last year. The league is at it's all time high in terms of popularity and growth, missing a whole year not only ends any hope of growing but brings losing $ into it. If the players hole off and get their 50% say in a year it would be 50% of 1.5 billion, at best, because the league will lose millions upon millions in revenue by missing a whole year. But the players don't see that because Fehr has them blinded. Mike Modano said it best in his statements recently about how the lockout cost the players millions and the current players should settle ASAP!

Sir Psycho T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 03:28 AM
  #69
Martini*
Gods Team
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,786
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawksFan74 View Post
His point had nothing to do with proof. He was talking about attracting viewers and you're talking about economic implications of tv games. That being said, are you going to tell me that TV viewership of sports doesn't attract fans??!?!
You said;
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawksFan74 View Post
Still has nothing to do with his point. Home games on t.v. attract new fans is what he was saying.
And I said, post proof that home games on television attracts new fans.

Simple question, and one that begs to be answered when its been repeated ad nausem that the fastest way to turn casual fans into actual hockey fans is by actually taking them to an actual hockey game and seeing the sport first hand.

Wait, I get it. So, by having twice as many games on television the thought that somebody clicking their remote might suddenly or accidentally turn on a hockey game and be mesmerized by the grace and speed of the game? Well, you might have an arguement if people actually watched hockey. But alas, they dont. Ratings back up that sad truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawksFan74 View Post
We are talking about hockey fans, are we not?
You said;
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawksFan74 View Post
#2 The majority of the public does not watch sports on streaming web sites.
And to that I said the majority of the public doesnt watch hockey, and on that note, I am right. Now, since we are talking about hockey fans instead of the majority of the public, which is what you said, dedicated hockey fans will indeed watch hockey via streaming sites, why not? Now, before I go into detail, lets remedy what else you have said and answer these questions as a whole;
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawksFan74 View Post
What does non hockey fans have to do with this discussion?
You said it with;
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawksFan74 View Post
#2 The majority of the public does not watch sports on streaming web sites.
You tell me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawksFan74 View Post
You are talking in circles and making absolutely no sense!
Huh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawksFan74 View Post
The majority of hockey viewers are not watching hockey on crappy streams. Those people are typically your out of market diehards.
Which is, exactly what is the entire hockey fanbase?


Quote:
Originally Posted by HawksFan74 View Post
Have no idea what the first part means? What is wrong with not putting home games on t.v.? You're the economic genius, you can figure that out for yourself.
When Bill Wirtz did it? It was a different time, and there was nothing wrong with the actual business model of getting fans to actually pay to see home games instead of giving it away for free. Why should he when he was selling the place out and making huge amounts of money? It wasnt broke, why fix it? He had all the seats filled in the old Stadium every single game and Bill never cried poor, not once when the Hawks made the playoffs for how many decades straight.

Now, did he adapt to the times in the internet age? Of course he didnt. But he was obviously stuck in his ways, and considering it was his team, why should anybody even care when nobody could change his mind no matter what? It was what it was, and pointing a crooked finger at a guy who didnt have to change his views no matter what is just arguing for the sake of hearing one speak.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawksFan74 View Post
Expecting to draw new fans by not showing off your product is a stupid business model. If was fairly obvious when it was in place that it did NOT work!
It did. Like it or not. Wirtz made enough money that he felt comfortable protecting his STH's and didnt budge a bit for nobody. That, says enough about the mans character to me and his loyalty to those who actually spent money to see his product on the ice. So loyal, that he never had to increase ticket prices 200% to compensate other avenues of marketing so a family of four could go out and actually afford to see a game.

Bill Wirtz gets a bad rap, but if you actually understand business, you would respect what he did and be impressed.He knew what if you went to the game, you would be hooked and that watching hockey on TV wasnt the same. The guy was old school and that isnt a bad thing considering ratings for Hawk games now prove him right all along.

Martini* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 03:32 AM
  #70
Martini*
Gods Team
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,786
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Psycho T View Post
1. Bill only put away games on because he didn't have control over them.
Thats speculation only because he put them on a Chicago station. He didnt have to allow Sprtchannel or whatever it was to broadcast them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Psycho T View Post
2. The internet is why McD put games on TV?
Yes
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Psycho T View Post
What advertising was he losing, the $ they where losing because of games on TV was next to nothing.
But it was something. And an avenue for Wirtz to promote the liquor brands he carries. Its win/win.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Psycho T View Post
They put games back on TV to draw new fans. People usually won't go see a team until they know them and there was no better way to get fans to the stadium then to put the games on TV, it's free advertising for your team.
You have to get those "new fans" to actually watch them on television.

Martini* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 03:43 AM
  #71
Martini*
Gods Team
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,786
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawksFan74 View Post
Really. What exactly is that little number the Blackhawks receive from their deals with Comcast & WGN? Let's not forget the NBC deal. Let's also take in to account the advertising on the boards, do you know how much that has jacked up the past couple of years? None of that happens without t.v.
Now, I have no idea what the numbers are, but I did find this;

http://blackhawks.nhl.com/ext/sponsorbrochure.pdf

Which is a couple years old. Now, it is giving numbers to prospective clients that are insane, and might actually have some sort of merit as to why Blackhawk games have been sold out for the last few years while there are many open patches of empty seating here and there.

Now, if these numbers from advertising and NBC deals, and CSN were so great, then why in gods name is Wirtz crying poor? Why is there a lockout? Where does TV fit into this debate when there is a lockout with teams crying poor? If TV actually ment something, then why is all of this happening right now?

Martini* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 06:44 AM
  #72
coldsteelonice84
Registered User
 
coldsteelonice84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 24,721
vCash: 10592
I understand business and the Wirtz model was not a business model at all. It was suicide for spite. Nobody bought Hawks merch, very few people went to the games, they never sold out, maybe the opener and a couple games max.

coldsteelonice84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 06:58 AM
  #73
MadhouseOnMadison
Man crush on Amonte
 
MadhouseOnMadison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,520
vCash: 500
Anyway, back on topic...

Shut up, Toews.

MadhouseOnMadison is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 07:48 AM
  #74
MagicSlap*
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,471
vCash: 500
Who cares if Toews said it? If it's how he feels then I really don't care. People get so bent out of shape when someone does or says anything even slightly not PC. Toews obviously loves the game and is frustrated, obviously he's not going to call out the guy who signs HIS checks.

MagicSlap* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 08:10 AM
  #75
coldsteelonice84
Registered User
 
coldsteelonice84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 24,721
vCash: 10592
Toews really isn't saying anything the fans aren't already thinking. This is an owners/commish driven lockout, just like the last one. This time though, the league needs to meet closer to the players side or contract/move these so called money pit teams. They created a mess with over expansion. It was Bettman's vision and the owners wanted the expansion fees but now they have a mess and they need to figure out how to fix it without slashing salaries dramitically, which is only a quick fix anyway.

coldsteelonice84 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 06:06 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.