HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

NHL to Expand 2 teams in Canada - THN

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-18-2012, 01:29 PM
  #576
startainfection
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Long Island
Posts: 5,502
vCash: 500
expansion is alot better than relocation

startainfection is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 01:30 PM
  #577
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 28,041
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Aki Berg View Post
This doesn't solve the issue so much as it delays it, no?

The owners won't go to war over 2-3% this time since they'd have $600 in expansion fees coming in, but what happens in 6 years when the CBA comes up again, and they have to get that 2-3% since adding another two teams just isn't an option?

Not only that, but the league needs to have a couple of soft landing sports for teams in trouble. It would be silly to burn those options just to avoid a prolonged work stoppage to get their house in order.

The proposed CBA is 6 yr term, with an extra year option. Seeing that NHL team ownership seems to turn over every decade or so, if the current owners get their windfall from the new CBA and add in expansion fees, they can cash out.

So yes, I think 'delaying' on the ideal linked share is in their interest if they're going to expand.

Fugu is online now  
Old
10-18-2012, 01:31 PM
  #578
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,995
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by startainfection View Post
expansion is alot better than relocation
sure but there's the question who gets the expansion teams.

gstommylee is online now  
Old
10-18-2012, 01:35 PM
  #579
vokiel
#NoTradesWithEDM
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Midgetland
Country: Martinique
Posts: 5,687
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
They do indeed. Through 2029 I believe, the building itself is profitable, Yormark papering the place with sponsorships and despite a sluggish gate after years of mediocrity Tallon's turning things around.
So? When is the last time they recorded any profits? Doesn't matter what kind of deal they have with the arena, if the lockout kills that momentum I think it'll be close to over. Unless they have had actual profit years and I'm completely wrong, I wouldn't feel safe about their situation. It's a good team, nice value, perfect for purchasing and move imho. (unlike the Blue Jackets and the Islanders)

Edit: Obviously Oilers are also close to it for arena reasons...

vokiel is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 01:44 PM
  #580
Buck Aki Berg
My pockets hurt
 
Buck Aki Berg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,311
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vokiel View Post
So? When is the last time [the Panthers] recorded any profits? Doesn't matter what kind of deal they have with the arena, if the lockout kills that momentum I think it'll be close to over. Unless they have had actual profit years and I'm completely wrong, I wouldn't feel safe about their situation. It's a good team, nice value, perfect for purchasing and move imho. (unlike the Blue Jackets and the Islanders)
Here's how I understand it, based on other discussions about the Panthers that I've read (corrections are welcome if I'm wrong)
  • The Panthers, on their own, lose money
  • The arena, with the Panthers, makes more money than the Panthers lose
  • The arena, minus the Panthers, would lose money

The lockout "killing momentum" from last season doesn't factor in, since this has been the case for more than just last year.

Buck Aki Berg is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 01:45 PM
  #581
JMROWE
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Hamilton Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 889
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigFatCat999 View Post
So expansion in Seattle, Quebec, relocate Yotes to Markham for a HUGE relocation fee to get back the losses for floating the Yotes?

Also, does this keep DRW in the West? WPG & SEA in the west, TOR2 & QC in the east.
Markham is not going to get the coyotes or an expansion team if they bulid that arena because one MLSE. will fight tooth & nail to keep them out & two I doubt Roustan can find an owner willing to pay 550 million for relocation & 650 million for expansion team . When they can go to Hamilton 60% less of the total costs of a team in Markham & have the support of MLSE. because MLSE. will do anything to keep an NHL. team out of Markham & if that means waiving there territory rights to Hamilton with little or no compensation to do it they will & with Global Spectrum takking over running Copps Coliseum & them saying there main goal is to get an NHL. for Hamilton .

JMROWE is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 01:53 PM
  #582
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,761
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMROWE View Post
Markham is not going to get the coyotes or an expansion team if they bulid that arena because one MLSE. will fight tooth & nail to keep them out & two I doubt Roustan can find an owner willing to pay 550 million for relocation & 650 million for expansion team . When they can go to Hamilton 60% less of the total costs of a team in Markham & have the support of MLSE. because MLSE. will do anything to keep an NHL. team out of Markham & if that means waiving there territory rights to Hamilton with little or no compensation to do it they will & with Global Spectrum takking over running Copps Coliseum & them saying there main goal is to get an NHL. for Hamilton .
If someone does step in and buy the Coyotes, it'll likely be on the terms that the team is kept there for the short-term to see if the new owner can turn things around. That could give Markham the time to get up and ready.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 02:01 PM
  #583
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,995
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
If someone does step in and buy the Coyotes, it'll likely be on the terms that the team is kept there for the short-term to see if the new owner can turn things around. That could give Markham the time to get up and ready.
Which i assume will leave Seattle to an expansion?

gstommylee is online now  
Old
10-18-2012, 02:29 PM
  #584
Buck Aki Berg
My pockets hurt
 
Buck Aki Berg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,311
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMROWE View Post
Markham is not going to get the coyotes or an expansion team if they bulid that arena because one MLSE. will fight tooth & nail to keep them out & two I doubt Roustan can find an owner willing to pay 550 million for relocation & 650 million for expansion team . When they can go to Hamilton 60% less of the total costs of a team in Markham & have the support of MLSE. because MLSE. will do anything to keep an NHL. team out of Markham & if that means waiving there territory rights to Hamilton with little or no compensation to do it they will & with Global Spectrum takking over running Copps Coliseum & them saying there main goal is to get an NHL. for Hamilton .
People keep saying "Oooooh, MLSE be pissed if Markham gets a team - they gon' fight it!"

So what? What can they actually really do? Sure they can take the league to court, but then what do they do if they lose*? What is "fight tooth and nail" if the courts side with the league on this, stomp their feet and throw a tantrum?

People need to stop looking at MLSE as if they outrank the league in which it participates.

*Personally, I think that if the league can sufficiently prove that a Markham team won't cannibalize any sizeable portion of Leafs Nation™, MLSE won't have a leg to stand on.


Last edited by Buck Aki Berg: 10-18-2012 at 02:34 PM.
Buck Aki Berg is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 02:52 PM
  #585
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,534
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morris Wanchuk View Post
IMO there are 4 "soft landing spots"

Quebec
Seattle
Southern Ontario
KC

Burn 2 of those with expansion + you keep 2 open for relocation.
I really don't consider KC a soft landing spot. Not when you look at STL and their 2011 27th place revenue standing. With a bigger market, likely a better team, and 45 years of building brand and a fan base, STL is gonna be higher in revenue on the average season than KC. And if STL is 27th, Kansas City probably isn't an NHL market solution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
sure but there's the question who gets the expansion teams.
Easy: the two cities that bring the highest expansion fees.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vokiel View Post
So? When is the last time they recorded any profits? Doesn't matter what kind of deal they have with the arena, if the lockout kills that momentum I think it'll be close to over. Unless they have had actual profit years and I'm completely wrong, I wouldn't feel safe about their situation. It's a good team, nice value, perfect for purchasing and move imho. (unlike the Blue Jackets and the Islanders)

Edit: Obviously Oilers are also close to it for arena reasons...
Let's say you've got a small business on the side, apart from your usual job (which pays you $50,000). You've got all the money from your other job, but the small business for the year lost $313. Time to pack up the small business? Or is it a manageable number considering the business is your side hobby, you really like it, and it's ONLY $300?

Well, let's say your primary business pays you more than $50K. Let's say it's a $1.2 billion corporate empire. And your hockey team loses $7.5 million.

In each case, the same percentage of the person's yearly value is being wasted on their side business. You guys look at these teams as if they are stand-alone businesses. They're not.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
If someone does step in and buy the Coyotes, it'll likely be on the terms that the team is kept there for the short-term to see if the new owner can turn things around. That could give Markham the time to get up and ready.
It's not like Seattle and Quebec have arenas sitting there empty. They're all at the same "give us a team and we get the shovels in the ground" stage.

KevFu is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 02:58 PM
  #586
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,761
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
It's not like Seattle and Quebec have arenas sitting there empty. They're all at the same "give us a team and we get the shovels in the ground" stage.
And yet people are talking Expansion as if there could be two new teams going into the 2013-14 Season.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 03:29 PM
  #587
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,534
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Aki Berg View Post
People keep saying "Oooooh, MLSE be pissed if Markham gets a team - they gon' fight it!"

So what? What can they actually really do? Sure they can take the league to court, but then what do they do if they lose*? What is "fight tooth and nail" if the courts side with the league on this, stomp their feet and throw a tantrum?

People need to stop looking at MLSE as if they outrank the league in which it participates.

*Personally, I think that if the league can sufficiently prove that a Markham team won't cannibalize any sizeable portion of Leafs Nation™, MLSE won't have a leg to stand on.
The key part of this rumor being plausible is the fact that MLSE was just sold. The NHL has to approve all transfers of ownership and could essentially strong-arm the new owners into accepting a second team in their market as part of the terms of sale: "We don't sign off on that unless you sign off on THIS."

My opinion is the proper way to go would be to plan ahead for the NEXT transfer of ownership with MLSE. Rogers/Bell ain't gonna work together for ever. So you re-work MLSE's territory as part of the terms of sale approval:
#1 - Hamilton is not in your market anymore if you want to take over ownership.
#2 - Since you want to CO-OWN the team, each of you is getting the rights to the market, so if you wanna split, we'll just give one of you a Toronto expansion team (and you'll share the media rights like you do now).

KevFu is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 03:34 PM
  #588
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,534
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
And yet people are talking Expansion as if there could be two new teams going into the 2013-14 Season.
On June 25, 1997 the NHL announced expansion teams in Atlanta, Minnesota, Nashville and Columbus.

First games:
Nashville - October of 1998
Atlanta - October of 1999
Minnesota - October of 2000
Columbus - October of 2000

KevFu is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 03:38 PM
  #589
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,761
vCash: 500
I'll give you this...

If Expansion is indeed something that the League has mulled over recently, it might have been decided that it could be used as a bargaining tool with the PA. The idea here being that Expansion could be considered for sometime around 2015. Now, I figure typically that Expansion plans for such a date wouldn't be announced until next summer, but if it's included as part of any negotiation package with the PA, well then it'd be quite unreasonable to expect to keep so many mouths quite until next summer. So, therefore the League might very well announce Expansion plans whenever a new CBA has finally been agreed on. However, I'd still say that such plans would be for no earlier than 2015, and I'd say that the League would announce it as 'we're opening up for bids for two Expansion franchises for that date'. I doubt that the League would immediately come out and commit to two specific sites anytime soon.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 03:42 PM
  #590
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,995
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post

Easy: the two cities that bring the highest expansion fees.

Let's say you've got a small business on the side, apart from your usual job (which pays you $50,000). You've got all the money from your other job, but the small business for the year lost $313. Time to pack up the small business? Or is it a manageable number considering the business is your side hobby, you really like it, and it's ONLY $300?

Well, let's say your primary business pays you more than $50K. Let's say it's a $1.2 billion corporate empire. And your hockey team loses $7.5 million.

In each case, the same percentage of the person's yearly value is being wasted on their side business. You guys look at these teams as if they are stand-alone businesses. They're not.




It's not like Seattle and Quebec have arenas sitting there empty. They're all at the same "give us a team and we get the shovels in the ground" stage.
Well Seattle is out then if its who ever pays the most for an expansion fee cause who ever is owner of Seattle team will seriously overpay the value of the market to even have a chance to win an expansion team if they are going against Quebec city and another team in Ontario.

And if thats the case than the NHL has to guaratee Seattle that they get the next trouble city.

Regarding not having a empty arena ready and won't built NHL ready until there is a NBA team, you can go ahead and blame Seattle and King county government regarding Seattle's arena cause its them that don't want an empty arena.


Last edited by gstommylee: 10-18-2012 at 03:50 PM.
gstommylee is online now  
Old
10-18-2012, 03:52 PM
  #591
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,534
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
I'll give you this...

If Expansion is indeed something that the League has mulled over recently, it might have been decided that it could be used as a bargaining tool with the PA. The idea here being that Expansion could be considered for sometime around 2015. Now, I figure typically that Expansion plans for such a date wouldn't be announced until next summer, but if it's included as part of any negotiation package with the PA, well then it'd be quite unreasonable to expect to keep so many mouths quite until next summer. So, therefore the League might very well announce Expansion plans whenever a new CBA has finally been agreed on. However, I'd still say that such plans would be for no earlier than 2015, and I'd say that the League would announce it as 'we're opening up for bids for two Expansion franchises for that date'. I doubt that the League would immediately come out and commit to two specific sites anytime soon.
I'd agree with that. Even when you have your two teams picked out beforehand (like the TB/ARZ expansion in MLB I mentioned before), you still go through the motions of the process because having that information is immensely valuable.

Not only is any city that wants in is a market full of customers you can try to reach without putting a team there; but you also have the ability to use this information for: Potential relocation sites, preseason games, minor league affiliations, NHL Network carriage, Arena financing leverage, arena lease leverage, etc.

KevFu is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 09:17 PM
  #592
JMROWE
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Hamilton Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 889
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Aki Berg View Post
People keep saying "Oooooh, MLSE be pissed if Markham gets a team - they gon' fight it!"

So what? What can they actually really do? Sure they can take the league to court, but then what do they do if they lose*? What is "fight tooth and nail" if the courts side with the league on this, stomp their feet and throw a tantrum?

People need to stop looking at MLSE as if they outrank the league in which it participates.

*Personally, I think that if the league can sufficiently prove that a Markham team won't cannibalize any sizeable portion of Leafs Nation™, MLSE won't have a leg to stand on.
LOOK MLSE. has been able to keep a team out of Hamilton for years what makes you think they will let a team take root in Markham which is a heck of lot closer in MLSE. territory than Hamilton is . Another thing an NHL. team in Markham would just not effect the leafs you got to factor in the Raptors & Marlies who are also owned by MLSE. too they are already struggleing at the gate & NHL. team in Markham could hit both the Raptors & Marlies very hard . I can see your point if Toronto did not have the Raptors & Marlies & where not owned by MLSE. but the fact is they do & if they do build this arena Markham & Roustan dose try to get NHL. team you can bet that MLSE. will pull out all the stops to make sure it dose not happen & if that means sueing both the NHL. & any possible owner for a TO2 team they will & all they really have to do is threaten to sue & the NHL. will say no to a TO2 team trust me they did it to Hamilton durring the Balsille fiasco .

JMROWE is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 09:32 PM
  #593
JMROWE
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Hamilton Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 889
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
If someone does step in and buy the Coyotes, it'll likely be on the terms that the team is kept there for the short-term to see if the new owner can turn things around. That could give Markham the time to get up and ready.
I doubt it because any future owner of the coyotes will be bleeding money right out of the gate & you combine that with a 250 million dollar territory fee to MLSE. I doubt you will find anyone dumb enough to pay it after going through hell in Phoenix . When they can move the coyotes to Hamilton for far less money & lot less resistance from MLSE. .

JMROWE is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 09:44 PM
  #594
htpwn
Registered User
 
htpwn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Poland
Posts: 12,284
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
2 teams via expansion then the rest would have to wait for relocation which was my point

if that the case that NHL will fight tooth and nail then its unlikely that Canada will get two new teams imo. It would be one at the most and that'll be Quebec City. It would be ridiculous to have the Seattle market wait even longer when they finally addressed the arena problem and yes i am assuming that the sodo arena gets built.

Winnipeg had no other option but to wait for a relocation.

Why should Ontario get another team while other markets like Quebec city or Seattle for example wait.

Lets take care of other regions that don't have a team before adding an additional team where there is currently already a team.
Because a team in Markham could very well bring in double the expansion fees that Quebec City and Seattle could.

htpwn is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 10:28 PM
  #595
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,995
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post
Because a team in Markham could very well bring in double the expansion fees that Quebec City and Seattle could.
i get the point about the expansion fee i still find it ridiculous that the NHL would continue to ignore Seattle especially after it gets the arena issue taken care of just cause some other area can give the league more money for a fee. Yes i am still assuming the sodo arena gets built.

gstommylee is online now  
Old
10-18-2012, 10:31 PM
  #596
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,761
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
i get the point about the expansion fee i still find it ridiculous that the NHL would continue to ignore Seattle especially after it gets the arena issue taken care of just cause some other area can give the league more money for a fee. Yes i am still assuming the sodo arena gets built.
What sometimes gets lost in some of these discussions is that it isn't always cities that get ignored, but rather potential owners of teams. And where there isn't yet clearly one, then there isn't such as thing as the "city being ignored".

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 10:34 PM
  #597
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,995
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
What sometimes gets lost in some of these discussions is that it isn't always cities that get ignored, but rather potential owners of teams. And where there isn't yet clearly one, then there isn't such as thing as the "city being ignored".
Hopefully there will be one soon in the coming months. I doubt we'll see a puck drop in Seattle within the next 2-3 years anyways. Plus i was assuming there was a NHL Seattle owner out there. The issue i see with Seattle is there is no chance it'll outbid for expansion if a couple Canadian cities want a team as well. So it comes down to a relocation team which chances are high that we may wait quite a while.

This is why there is no NHL only scenario as part of the plan.


Last edited by gstommylee: 10-18-2012 at 10:40 PM.
gstommylee is online now  
Old
10-18-2012, 10:42 PM
  #598
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,761
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
Hopefully there will be one soon in the coming months. I doubt we'll see a puck drop in Seattle within the next 2-3 years anyways.
Just to make my attitude clear.... I'd be thrilled to see the NHL get a team anywhere in the northwest US, Seattle or Portland. It's the primest real-estate for the NHL to get itself into. Can't deny though that southern Ontario isn't another prime target to get another team, if the League can get it passed the Maple Leafs, and without jeopardizing the Sabres in any real way.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 10:48 PM
  #599
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,995
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Just to make my attitude clear.... I'd be thrilled to see the NHL get a team anywhere in the northwest US, Seattle or Portland. It's the primest real-estate for the NHL to get itself into. Can't deny though that southern Ontario isn't another prime target to get another team, if the League can get it passed the Maple Leafs, and without jeopardizing the Sabres in any real way.
I'm not saying that Ontario wouldn't be good for another team its just its just putting other markets a side just cause they can provide a larger fee.

if both PHX stays and islanders remain in their region, relocation may not be a option unless there are other teams that become available. There is no chance Seattle gets a team via expansion as long as there are multiple cities wanting a team that can give a large expansion fee than Now you understand why i mean by ignoring Seattle.

Any shot seattle has at getting a team in the near future (2-3 years at least) phx deal has to fall apart.

gstommylee is online now  
Old
10-18-2012, 11:49 PM
  #600
Bosswally
Registered User
 
Bosswally's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Johnson City, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 353
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMROWE View Post
Markham is not going to get the coyotes or an expansion team if they bulid that arena because one MLSE. will fight tooth & nail to keep them out & two I doubt Roustan can find an owner willing to pay 550 million for relocation & 650 million for expansion team . When they can go to Hamilton 60% less of the total costs of a team in Markham & have the support of MLSE. because MLSE. will do anything to keep an NHL. team out of Markham & if that means waiving there territory rights to Hamilton with little or no compensation to do it they will & with Global Spectrum takking over running Copps Coliseum & them saying there main goal is to get an NHL. for Hamilton .
ya about Hamilton "Under NHL rules, an expansion or relocation of a team to Hamilton could potentially be blocked by the Buffalo Sabres or the Toronto Maple Leafs, because Copps Coliseum, the likely venue for a Hamilton NHL team, is located less than 50 miles from the Sabres' and the Leafs' home arenas.[25] Roughly 15% of the Sabres' business comes from residents of the area of Ontario between Hamilton and Buffalo, and the Sabres or the Leafs could require "an enormous indemnification payment" to allow an additional team to be established within a 50-mile radius."

and thats why Hamilton probably won't get a team unless the owner has really deep pockets, from articles i've read the number thrown around the last time Balsillie tried to do his thing was $100 million US...each to the Sabres and the Leafs and now the NHL is worth more so I wouldn't be surprised if it was $150 million each plus the $500 million dollar expansion fee you are talking close to a billion US dollars just to get the team plus whatever start up costs for staff, remodeling the arena, paying the players, etc. where as in Markham you will only have to pay the Leafs and there is potentially much more money to be made up there instead of in Hamilton

Bosswally 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 03:42 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.