HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
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
10-18-2012, 04:16 PM
  #701
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raider917 View Post
what is it going to take for contraction to be a real possibility? a full season? 2 full seasons? whatever it takes i want it.
Contraction is a bad idea for the league, and for the NHLPA.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
10-18-2012, 04:19 PM
  #702
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
57% was not EARNED by the players, it was given to them.
What the players "earned" was ~72%, which is what they got in a free market system before the salary cap was instituted.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
10-18-2012, 04:20 PM
  #703
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,792
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raider917 View Post
cant some franchises just go bankrupt eventually?
Yes.

Thing is, from NHLPA perspective, more teams=more jobs. Fair enough.

As for NHL, while people complain about Bettman on lower market teams, it's a LONG term plan. There's now hockey players coming out of california. The sport is trending upwards. Perhaps not as fast as they hoped but for the good of the game a contraction isn't a good thing. Those teams are necessary for the long term growth. Short term? Yah, they cause problems but if NHL looks short term and doesn't try and grow the sport they will lose more and more ground in the US. A lot of people think adding canadian teams will increase revenues, absolutely true but CDN$ aside there's another issue. People in winnipeg will watch the NHL either way, they will buy merchandise and they will likely even do road trips to say calgary or whatever to watch games. They aren't lost costumers. if you can get a fanbase in nashville(which they appear to have done) you gain new fans and gain more ground. That's the NHL's plan. Long term I agree but short term there's issues for sure.

LyricalLyricist is online now  
Old
10-18-2012, 04:25 PM
  #704
Roulin
Registered User
 
Roulin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,113
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
First, it's more than 6 years since last lockout.

Second, you can't conclude cycle when it happened twice. The lockout in the past is not caused by salary caps as it wasn't present.

You can NEVER fix the gap between poor and rich teams but you can give them a fighting chance.

Also, there has been measures to fix the gap. You think removing front loaded contracts doesn't help the smaller owners? It helps playing field. See guys like weber wouldn't have got that crazy deal and nashville would've had a better deal.
Yup, it's been 7 seasons. The owners' latest offer (apparently "take it or leave it") is for 6 seasons with a mutual option for a 7th.

Do you really think this is the last time the owners demand a greater guaranteed share of HRR? From the moment the union agreed to cost certainty, this became a cycle. If you think 50/50 is the endgame, take a look at the NFL. These are businessmen. They may buy teams as fans, but now they find themselves in more familiar roles, they smell blood and can't resist.

Roulin is online now  
Old
10-18-2012, 04:25 PM
  #705
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
Yes.

Thing is, from NHLPA perspective, more teams=more jobs. Fair enough.

As for NHL, while people complain about Bettman on lower market teams, it's a LONG term plan. There's now hockey players coming out of california. The sport is trending upwards. Perhaps not as fast as they hoped but for the good of the game a contraction isn't a good thing. Those teams are necessary for the long term growth. Short term? Yah, they cause problems but if NHL looks short term and doesn't try and grow the sport they will lose more and more ground in the US. A lot of people think adding canadian teams will increase revenues, absolutely true but CDN$ aside there's another issue. People in winnipeg will watch the NHL either way, they will buy merchandise and they will likely even do road trips to say calgary or whatever to watch games. They aren't lost costumers. if you can get a fanbase in nashville(which they appear to have done) you gain new fans and gain more ground. That's the NHL's plan. Long term I agree but short term there's issues for sure.
It's a very good long-term plan, but it also negates the posts of some of the pro-owner types that each of the 30 teams is entitled to a profit.

Currently, with very limited revenue sharing, the league makes a total operating income of 160 million, and the majority of the teams are profitable. In light of the fact the league is in aggressive expansion mode rather than mature steady state, with 6+ teams in locations with no hockey history, that's a healthy income stream.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
10-18-2012, 04:27 PM
  #706
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,792
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
What the players "earned" was ~72%, which is what they got in a free market system before the salary cap was instituted.
Okay so 72% of a weaker league or 57% of a stronger one? Hmm. Yah, maybe if you're in grade 3 72% sounds better but 57% of a larger number worked out just fine for the players. It's about the growth of the game. People complain but NHL's plan increased revenues 50%. I like how people say "Owners are greedy, 50% increase in revenues, what are they doing here??" When in fact it should be the plan increased revenues 50% and as such player salaries grew. Maybe a good system isn't a bad thing?

Really, I get it DA. I don't think you're an idiot or anything like that. Your education speaks for itself but you can't sit here and pretend those on owners side are completely off base here. That's the impression you're giving. You're using numbers to prove a point, I can use the same numbers to prove another opposite point as shown above. It's a pointless game to play. I don't mind if players make double by next CBA as long as it's because the game grew. That simple. The NHL is not a premier league in the US. It needs to establish itself first then we can worry about the compensations.

LyricalLyricist is online now  
Old
10-18-2012, 04:28 PM
  #707
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roulin View Post
Yup, it's been 7 seasons. The owners' latest offer (apparently "take it or leave it") is for 6 seasons with a mutual option for a 7th.

Do you really think this is the last time the owners demand a greater guaranteed share of HRR? From the moment the union agreed to cost certainty, this became a cycle. If you think 50/50 is the endgame, take a look at the NFL. These are businessmen. They may buy teams as fans, but now they find themselves in more familiar roles, they smell blood and can't resist.
Every penny the owners save from lower player salaries will eventually be shifted to investments in better drafting, scouting, etc, as per economic laws. We'll be back to having too many teams losing money in 2018, and another lockout.

The players were right to request that other hockey expenses be capped.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
10-18-2012, 04:30 PM
  #708
Roulin
Registered User
 
Roulin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,113
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roulin View Post
The wealthy owners are playing the long game. They are turning their jobs into increasingly can't fail propositions (even if they Wang things up). If they succeed, franchise values will be through the roof when they decide to sell. Every billionaire will be begging to get into the NHL/NBA/NFL owners club. From a money POV, I think they are betting this makes lockout losses look like chump change. And it'll keep the little guys from demanding revenue sharing, and make keeping the Balsillies out of the club easier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
I don't think you get it, if they are giving more into revenue sharing they are losing profits. They made more last CBA.
...yes, more revenue sharing = less profits. If the small market teams can get money back from their employees, there won't be a revenue sharing battle within the BOG. That was my point.

Roulin is online now  
Old
10-18-2012, 04:32 PM
  #709
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,792
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roulin View Post
Yup, it's been 7 seasons. The owners' latest offer (apparently "take it or leave it") is for 6 seasons with a mutual option for a 7th.

Do you really think this is the last time the owners demand a greater guaranteed share of HRR? From the moment the union agreed to cost certainty, this became a cycle. If you think 50/50 is the endgame, take a look at the NFL. These are businessmen. They may buy teams as fans, but now they find themselves in more familiar roles, they smell blood and can't resist.
See, I consider players businessmen too. Half these guys own property on the side and manage assets. This isn't 1920s.]

Look, you're talking about 10 years from now. I can see that too, but it doesn't change what is fair NOW. Maybe in 10 years i'll be on players side but for now, 50-50 is fair to me. That's what matters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
It's a very good long-term plan, but it also negates the posts of some of the pro-owner types that each of the 30 teams is entitled to a profit.

Currently, with very limited revenue sharing, the league makes a total operating income of 160 million, and the majority of the teams are profitable. In light of the fact the league is in aggressive expansion mode rather than mature steady state, with 6+ teams in locations with no hockey history, that's a healthy income stream.
I don't disagree. I don't think the league is dying and bleeding money, I never said that. I just feel revenues from big markets are driving the prices up and the cap up. If you want growth, give smaller teams a fighting chance. I have no issue with say 51%-49% in players favour for example but a slightly reduced lower cap floor. This way it gives big teams the chance to spend but small teams the flexibility. Not too much of a deviation though. That wouldn't put a good product on the ice.

LyricalLyricist is online now  
Old
10-18-2012, 04:39 PM
  #710
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,792
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roulin View Post
...yes, more revenue sharing = less profits. If the small market teams can get money back from their employees, there won't be a revenue sharing battle within the BOG. That was my point.
Well, they already offered up more so there's no battle required. Revenue sharing will be beefed up as per the NHL's proposal.

Yes, it will make investments can't fail investments for certain teams but bigger markets lose a little value too as less profits, it all balances out. Besides, isn't that the point? The more attractive a franchise looks, the more a billionaire investor with big pockets can invest in it and put more money into it. You want guys with deep pockets who can handle a loss, not bottom of the tier investors.

Look, depends how you see it? Does it benefit teams? Sure. But, why is that a problem? They can put more in marketting and growth for the game. The league is only as good as it's weakest link and if you improve that link, you improve the league.

Now, if they can cut costs too, well, that's a bonus but I don't consider 50-50 a cost cutting move even though it is, it's just fair to me. The other things are merely part of an agreement to improve the value of the league and the potential growth. As a fan, yes, I want best product on the ice and I want everyone happy but if you want a bigger talent pool, grow the game, this is only way.

LyricalLyricist is online now  
Old
10-18-2012, 04:40 PM
  #711
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,792
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Every penny the owners save from lower player salaries will eventually be shifted to investments in better drafting, scouting, etc, as per economic laws. We'll be back to having too many teams losing money in 2018, and another lockout.

The players were right to request that other hockey expenses be capped.
If you cap hockey expenses it's not a bad thing either, but to a degree. For every capped scouting it results in actual talented players being overlooked due to budget. A fair cap isn't a bad thing.

LyricalLyricist is online now  
Old
10-18-2012, 04:51 PM
  #712
uiCk
GrEmelins
 
uiCk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: MTL
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,284
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
Well, both sides refused to give in. The NHL went in and made that step forward and instead of being "okay, lets tweak the minor details" it became a "okay, now lets negotiate off this" which the NHL already brought forward what they claim is their best deal. I can't imagine NHL deviating too much from current stance.
The NHL was supposed to take the step "forward", since any future agreement will be in the benefit for the owners, comparative to the last agreement.

The 2nd part of your post is a bit confusing, since tweaking and negotiations is kind of the same, given the ambiguity of what consists tweaking.
NHL always comes out with the "best deal", even though they keep caving in and coming up with a new one.

There must be other clauses other then the 50/50, that seem to make the gap between the NHL and NHLPA. My guess is to what constitutes the revenue share.

The NHL must make it work, and must make the NHLPA understand the urgency. Right now, given Bettmans reaction today, it still seems to be a battle of egos, and most likely refusal of Bettman to admit failure in his speculative work.

IMO, somewhere along the lines, if Bettman goes out and says "well, bunch of speculative markets have not been successful YET, and i need the whole league to work to make these markets work/minimize the exposure these teams have/will have on the NHL economy, if not, 2-6 teams might disappear, meaning less teams, less players available to have NHL jobs"
He might get some sympathy and a ground to work on, and make the NHLPA understand it's relation to the health of the NHL.

Right now it's, "You make to much, gimme, or i wont let you play"

uiCk is online now  
Old
10-18-2012, 05:14 PM
  #713
JGRB
#EllerThugLife
 
JGRB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,616
vCash: 500
It honestly seems at this point like they are grasping at straws. The longer this waits out, the longer it will take them to recoup their losses on both sides. Both in absolute dollar terms, and in "interest" with the loss of growth that is sure to result from this lockout.

Can the NHL not afford to wait 2-3 years to get to 50/50 as the PA has tabled? Christ it's been supporting the Yotes for twice that long already. Another 2-3 years isn't going to bankrupt the league.

Greed.... from both sides. Mostly owners though.

JGRB is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 05:16 PM
  #714
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,792
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by JGRB View Post
It honestly seems at this point like they are grasping at straws. The longer this waits out, the longer it will take them to recoup their losses on both sides. Both in absolute dollar terms, and in "interest" with the loss of growth that is sure to result from this lockout.

Can the NHL not afford to wait 2-3 years to get to 50/50 as the PA has tabled? Christ it's been supporting the Yotes for twice that long already. Another 2-3 years isn't going to bankrupt the league.

Greed.... from both sides. Mostly owners though.
So the top 10 revenue teams giving up more revenue sharing means greed?

LyricalLyricist is online now  
Old
10-18-2012, 05:20 PM
  #715
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,792
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by uiCk View Post
The NHL was supposed to take the step "forward", since any future agreement will be in the benefit for the owners, comparative to the last agreement.

The 2nd part of your post is a bit confusing, since tweaking and negotiations is kind of the same, given the ambiguity of what consists tweaking.
NHL always comes out with the "best deal", even though they keep caving in and coming up with a new one.

There must be other clauses other then the 50/50, that seem to make the gap between the NHL and NHLPA. My guess is to what constitutes the revenue share.

The NHL must make it work, and must make the NHLPA understand the urgency. Right now, given Bettmans reaction today, it still seems to be a battle of egos, and most likely refusal of Bettman to admit failure in his speculative work.

IMO, somewhere along the lines, if Bettman goes out and says "well, bunch of speculative markets have not been successful YET, and i need the whole league to work to make these markets work/minimize the exposure these teams have/will have on the NHL economy, if not, 2-6 teams might disappear, meaning less teams, less players available to have NHL jobs"
He might get some sympathy and a ground to work on, and make the NHLPA understand it's relation to the health of the NHL.

Right now it's, "You make to much, gimme, or i wont let you play"
What failure does Bettman have to admit? When he took the position NHL made 400 million, it makes 3.3 billion now. That's failure?

Does Bettman HAVE to say that? It's throwing franchises under the bus. He represents them and as such he would never do it but if NHLPA doesn't get it....

I wasn't clear, my bad. By tweaking I meant "okay, there's a few details we could change" and by negotiating it's more along the lines of "Nice start but how about this?"

LyricalLyricist is online now  
Old
10-18-2012, 05:21 PM
  #716
WhiskeySeven
Enlarged Member
 
WhiskeySeven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 13,700
vCash: 500
I hate the NHL and its owners. What a bunch of crooks.

WhiskeySeven is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 05:25 PM
  #717
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
So the top 10 revenue teams giving up more revenue sharing means greed?
They're not making a donation, they're making an investments.

The proper term is "wise".

DAChampion is online now  
Old
10-18-2012, 05:25 PM
  #718
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,792
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiskeySeven View Post
I hate the NHL and its owners. What a bunch of crooks.
So you know the EXACT details of the new proposal?

LyricalLyricist is online now  
Old
10-18-2012, 05:26 PM
  #719
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,792
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
They're not making a donation, they're making an investments.

The proper term is "wise".
Yes, and if those 'investments' work out don't the players make more too?

Why is to one sided for you guys? Holy crap.

LyricalLyricist is online now  
Old
10-18-2012, 05:31 PM
  #720
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
Yes, and if those 'investments' work out don't the players make more too?

Why is to one sided for you guys? Holy crap.
I'm entirely in favor of expansion, I would be happy if the league went to 32 teams.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
10-18-2012, 05:47 PM
  #721
uiCk
GrEmelins
 
uiCk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: MTL
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,284
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
What failure does Bettman have to admit? When he took the position NHL made 400 million, it makes 3.3 billion now. That's failure?

Does Bettman HAVE to say that? It's throwing franchises under the bus. He represents them and as such he would never do it but if NHLPA doesn't get it....

I wasn't clear, my bad. By tweaking I meant "okay, there's a few details we could change" and by negotiating it's more along the lines of "Nice start but how about this?"
Considering that there are only handfull of teams who represent the majority of revenue in the NHL, i would have to give props to those teams for bringing in the revenue and strength of canadian dollar.

He doesn't have to say anything in public, all these discussions are and should be behind closed doors. It's no secret bettman has been pushing for people (including the league) to invest into markets, which we can assume, was pitched to investors as "future profitable markets".
He's not going to throw anyone under the bus, unless he keeps at his strategy of divulging the negotiations to the public, and his personal "feelings". Same goes to the NHLPA; both sides are trying to gain public support, which shows their dishonesty in the process of wanting to make it work, on BOTH sides.

uiCk is online now  
Old
10-18-2012, 05:58 PM
  #722
impudent_lowlife
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Country: Japan
Posts: 782
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roulin View Post
...yes, more revenue sharing = less profits. If the small market teams can get money back from their employees, there won't be a revenue sharing battle within the BOG. That was my point.
Revenue sharing within the NHL (not with players but between franchises) is the most important part of this CBA negotiation. The top NHL teams don't want to share with the bottom teams and want to get the revenue for the bottom teams from the players. It's not rocket science.

If an NHL revenue plan similar to that of the NFL is not implemented in this CBA, it'll be lockout after lockout for the forseeable future.

impudent_lowlife is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 06:00 PM
  #723
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,389
vCash: 500
Totally on the players side at this point, considering the fact that the owners are the ones that didn't even took the time to review the players' offer.

MXD is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 06:23 PM
  #724
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,403
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
The 276% they have to play with is AFTER salaries are accounted for. You are clearly weak at math, as it is explicit in my equation: (0.43*1.8/0.28 = 2.76), either that or you respond to posts without reading them.
Yup, I am weak at Math...lol. I am not a math teacher. My guess is that you are weak at Math , too, based on your 98-99% statement and your inability to explain how a 7% drop in the Players' share of the HRR would somehow mean a loss of 25% on their contracts. The difference is, I guess, that we "Joe Blows" admit our weaknesses and work at improving them with the help of others. Educated Academics appear all too willing to ignore their weaknesses and deride others in an attempt to cover them up. (At some point are you actually going to stick to appropriate debate and discussion or are you really only interested in trying to prove you are more intelligent than me? Lol. If it means that much to you: You win, you are more intelligent than me! Now can we just debate and discuss without the snide BS we keep playing with? I would imagine others are even more amused/annoyed/disgusted/etc with our silly little back-and-forth than I am and which you seem to truly wish to continue...)

You do realize that you ignored the pertinent point of my reply where it demonstrated that, even with a 25% decrease in salary in 2005 the players made significant gains in terms of salary throughout the recently ended CBA. As I stated, they took 2 steps back to take 5 strides forward. Yes, the owners made a profit. So did the players. I have also never been against the players getting a fair share of the revenues, nor have I ever said all 30 teams need to make a profit (notice I didn't even insult your reading comprehension on that one). I clearly have stated all along that the players deserve a fair share of the revenue as do the owners (as a group). I have clearly stated that dividing the HRR in half is fair and necessary because the owners take all of the financial risks of running the business of hockey BUT the players are an important source of the revenues brought in due to what they provide in terms of entertainment value. At the same time, there are a lot of other factors that the owners are responsible for that also brings money into the revenue pie (which I explained when I showed you how marketability of the team brand is quite significant in terms of income generated in the NHL). I have never had an issue with players getting paid, I just feel that, in a partnership where ONLY one partner covers all costs but is also responsible for generating a significant amount of income, the split of the revenue should be fair. Due to what the players do provide, I feel they should be equal partners in the revenue, even though they do not provide any actual cash from their own wallets to cover costs or expenses.

Heck, let's not even discuss the amount of money the players get from endorsements, personal appearances and autograph signings that they do NOT contribute to the NHL revenues and simply pocket...I love how everything the owners do even remotely related to hockey must be counted towards the HRR pie, but money that the players get due to them being NHL stars doesn't have to be included in the HRR pie. The owners have to include advertising revenue as part of the HRR, but player endorsements and related paid signings and other areas where players make money due to hockey fame is not included in the HRR.

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 06:30 PM
  #725
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PyrettaBlaze View Post
Bad news guys... Bettman said he's "totally disappointed" and that the NHLPA's offer didn't even come close to a 50/50 split. Said they aren't speaking the same language and that today was a step backwards.

****.

Donald Fehr doing what he does best.

Not enough damage has been done to the sport of hockey for Fehr's liking.

He destroyed the Expos with his extortion. He will destroy several NHL franchises in this go round.

Attendance in the MLB was down by 20% the following season after the strike. Fehr left a wake of destruction behind............just like he will once this fiasco ends.

SouthernHab is online now  
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 06:24 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.