HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Notices

Lockout discussion thread 2.0

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-03-2012, 12:02 AM
  #201
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,023
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
Actually it depends upon the owner. For example, Illitch is making sure none of his employees are being laid off, so far. There have been quite a few owners who have been trying to keep people from being placed on unemployment lines. It was demonstrated in an earlier thread. That doesn't mean all of the owners are doing it, but at least some are. I also know that McGuire was talking about how well Lamoriello takes good care of his employees a couple of weeks ago.

Some of the owners are ensuring the common folks are being supported. What are the players doing? How many of them are getting paid to play in other leagues and using that money to help other players survive or send any of that money to hot dog sellers who truly need that money to survive? Ovechkin is still getting paid millions (over 5, I believe) to go pay in the KHL. I don't hear anything about him helping anyone in financial need.

The owners are trying to ensure that they get half of the money made by the league because it will ensure that not only will owners have a chance to make a profit, but that there will still be 30 teams in the league and keep jobs at all levels alive. The players only want to line their pockets.

If Cole wants to retire, I will miss him, but will move on as soon as we start playing. He had a great season for us, but I will live my life just as well when he retires as i do now. It is a hollow threat that will harm him far more than it will anyone else. Just like Ovechkin and others threatening to stay in the KHL. If they want to stay there, good riddance and goodbye. I would be far more significantly upset if the Habs ever lost so much money that they moved to another city than I would be if every player on the Habs quit today.
The players did not strike, the owners locked them out. Further, the players stated that they would play under the old CBA during negotiations. Morally, the players are not responsible for secondary job losses. IN PR terms of course, it would be wise for the palyers to start a fund for team staff, but they did not initiate this stoppage.

As for being happy to see Ovy stay in Russia. I want to see Ovy play hockey, in the NHL, live if possible, and the game would be lesser for his loss. We have lost enough. Do you suggest we should lose the pleasure of seeing the best players in the world because of our principles? Then we lose twice over. Not a wise choice.

bsl is offline  
Old
11-03-2012, 12:19 AM
  #202
OneSharpMarble
Registered User
 
OneSharpMarble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tusk View Post
No, he won't be one. He started pro at 20, not 18, and I'm saying that based on not knowing how old he is off the top of my head. Relax about that one my friend.

edit: will be 24 in May.
Well that is reassuring.

OneSharpMarble is offline  
Old
11-03-2012, 02:48 AM
  #203
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,023
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinyzombies View Post
I'm hoping for a cancelled season. I want a shot at the top two picks. ;>
You are so incorrect it's laughable. The Habs likely pick 15th or lower if we lose the season, because the NHL will have the same idiotic post lockout draft as last time.

This has been said here 1000 times. You not get it?

bsl is offline  
Old
11-03-2012, 06:48 AM
  #204
RC51
Registered User
 
RC51's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 3,633
vCash: 500
it sounds like the players will cave on all but one issue.
the players want the current contracts to be paid in full with no reductions. The league offered that the players contracts will reduce at the cost to the players.
The league has now offered to split that cost. Now that they are all talking about the money issue, things might still be salvaged. The league, it seems is willing to move off their " best offer ever made stance" But remember one of the key issues hiding in the background is the max contract length to 5 years. This is the one HUGE inflation club the players have used to drive the price up and up, as the GM's were able to HUGE front end loaded contracts. WE all know that many of those long 8-12 year contracts will not be fully done by the players as in the last 3-4 years are for CHEAP money and the player will likely just retire. Of course this hand shake agreement in NOT in the contract.
This CBA loophole is the biggest reason why the players money just came back to high levels after giving away 24% last time.
You can't trust the GM's to not use the loophole.

RC51 is offline  
Old
11-03-2012, 07:06 AM
  #205
SOLR
Registered User
 
SOLR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Toronto / North York
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,692
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
You are so incorrect it's laughable. The Habs likely pick 15th or lower if we lose the season, because the NHL will have the same idiotic post lockout draft as last time.

This has been said here 1000 times. You not get it?
Arguing about what a lottery scenario will produce seems like quite ridiculous to me. He's hoping for 1 and 2. Like I want to win at 6/49 every time I buy a ticket. It's no reason to insult the guy, particularly by saying he's incorrect before the lottery has actually taken place. That's just insulting yourself, a thousand times.

Beside hoping for 3-5% odds vs 1/14 000 000(6/49) seems like a good bet to me.

SOLR is offline  
Old
11-03-2012, 10:29 AM
  #206
Raider917
Registered User
 
Raider917's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,560
vCash: 179
i want to see this lockout end. watching NBA highlights over and over is painful

Raider917 is offline  
Old
11-03-2012, 02:02 PM
  #207
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
A couple hundred million... 200 million dollars, you mean the players will get 55.2% rather than 50%?

They won't, not in this offer, the players still get 50/50, which means current contracts are hard to deal with.
At some point you are going to have to realize that there is supposed to be a negotiation process. The owners have made offers to try and get the lock out to end. The players are not doing anything but trying to hold the line. The players have to accept that the owners will get that 50/50 sooner than later. Of course, if the players don't negotiate properly, the lost money for a lost season will drop them below that 50% level far sooner than accepting a rollback. 50% of billions is a heck of a lot more than 0%. The funny thing is, the players will regain whatever rollback they may accept far sooner than imaginable due to the competitive nature of the owners.

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
11-03-2012, 02:06 PM
  #208
Roulin
Registered User
 
Roulin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,068
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
At some point you are going to have to realize that there is supposed to be a negotiation process. The owners have made offers to try and get the lock out to end. The players are not doing anything but trying to hold the line. The players have to accept that the owners will get that 50/50 sooner than later. Of course, if the players don't negotiate properly, the lost money for a lost season will drop them below that 50% level far sooner than accepting a rollback. 50% of billions is a heck of a lot more than 0%. The funny thing is, the players will regain whatever rollback they may accept far sooner than imaginable due to the competitive nature of the owners.
How do you figure?

Roulin is offline  
Old
11-03-2012, 02:15 PM
  #209
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,441
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RC51 View Post
it sounds like the players will cave on all but one issue.
the players want the current contracts to be paid in full with no reductions. The league offered that the players contracts will reduce at the cost to the players.
The league has now offered to split that cost. Now that they are all talking about the money issue, things might still be salvaged. The league, it seems is willing to move off their " best offer ever made stance" But remember one of the key issues hiding in the background is the max contract length to 5 years. This is the one HUGE inflation club the players have used to drive the price up and up, as the GM's were able to HUGE front end loaded contracts. WE all know that many of those long 8-12 year contracts will not be fully done by the players as in the last 3-4 years are for CHEAP money and the player will likely just retire. Of course this hand shake agreement in NOT in the contract.
This CBA loophole is the biggest reason why the players money just came back to high levels after giving away 24% last time.
You can't trust the GM's to not use the loophole.
Well, there's a way around that. Players who have signed a contract in the last 2-3 seasons would receive their averaged salary for the rest of their contract. Players who had "signing bonuses" would have that subtracted from those averaged salaries. This would lead the player's overall take closer to 50% as many are playing on front loaded contracts, and would give a lesson to all those owners who thought they were wise offering very long term front loaded contracts to circumvent the CBA and salary cap.

But who am I kidding, this would demand way too much on both parties to ever happen.

Ozymandias is offline  
Old
11-03-2012, 02:18 PM
  #210
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
The players did not strike, the owners locked them out.

Agreed. I never stated otherwise.

Further, the players stated that they would play under the old CBA during negotiations.

Of course they would continue to play, and receive 57% of the revenue, under the old CBA because they would be getting exactly what they want AND would then be able to hold the playoffs hostage if a deal wasn't reached by the end of the season. You don't get it. The players want to keep a higher percentage than 50% so they have every reason to want to keep playing under the old CBA that was giving them 57%. Heck, the players aren't getting a penny and are refusing to budge, what incentive do you imagine would exist to get them to move if they were still receiving their pay???

Morally, the players are not responsible for secondary job losses. IN PR terms of course, it would be wise for the palyers to start a fund for team staff, but they did not initiate this stoppage.

Both sides are at fault for the work stoppage. The owners, at least, are doing what they can to soften the blow to their non-hockey playing employees. The players? They are going oversees to stuff their pockets while the lock out is on.

As for being happy to see Ovy stay in Russia. I want to see Ovy play hockey, in the NHL, live if possible, and the game would be lesser for his loss. We have lost enough. Do you suggest we should lose the pleasure of seeing the best players in the world because of our principles? Then we lose twice over. Not a wise choice.
I want to see the Bruins, the Leafs, and the Flyers (as well as other teams). I don't care about seeing specific players who are not on my team. I have no rivalry with Ovechkin and neither hate nor love the guy. I hate the Bruins as passionately as I love the Habs. I want to see the Bruins. If we lost Ovechkin it would simply be another player gone like happens all the time. The NHL survived the loss of Gretzky, Lemieux, Messier, Lidstrom, etc...it will easily survive the loss of Ovechkin as he will get replaced with the next big super star. Also, unless Ovechkin really gets his act together, his 65 points last season doesn't really qualify him to be considered one of the absolute best anymore, either. I know, it is probably one bad season, but if it isn't, the Caps are actually better off without him. 10 million for a guy not even in the top 30 in total points would be brutal if that became his new norm.

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
11-03-2012, 02:19 PM
  #211
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,441
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
You are so incorrect it's laughable. The Habs likely pick 15th or lower if we lose the season, because the NHL will have the same idiotic post lockout draft as last time.

This has been said here 1000 times. You not get it?
Habs odds were around 10-12th the last time around and they drafted 5th.

It's a LOTTERY.

Habs odds would be around 15th this time around, doesn't mean that's the pick they'll get, they could still end-up with a top pick, or even the 20th.

Ozymandias is offline  
Old
11-03-2012, 02:35 PM
  #212
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roulin View Post
How do you figure?
Based on historical results. Last negotiation, the players lost around 25% in rollbacks. Over the course of the CBA that just ended, the players regained an overall 63.5% due to increased salaries. Remember, as players come up for free agency, owners get into a bidding war to gain their services. As such, salaries go up for the players every year. If an owner perceives a need for a player, he tries to get him. If there is only one owner who wants that player, the salary is lower than the player may want. If two or more owners want him, we have a bidding war and thus a Prust gets $2.5 million per season.

So, as I have stated all along, yes, a rollback drops players 2 steps back. However, as long as revenues keep increasing and salary caps keep increasing, the players' salary will take another 5 leaps forwards. The really interesting part is that, even if the revenue doesn't increase, and the rollbacks are not regained, the players' salaries are guaranteed, whether the NHL gains money or loses money, throughout the course of the CBA.

One of the most important things the NHL has for the players are the guaranteed contracts that let players get paid their full salary during the course of their negotiated CBA even if they perform like crap or if the team they sign with loses money. The owners have no such guarantees.

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
11-03-2012, 03:04 PM
  #213
Talks to Goalposts
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,560
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
Based on historical results. Last negotiation, the players lost around 25% in rollbacks. Over the course of the CBA that just ended, the players regained an overall 63.5% due to increased salaries. Remember, as players come up for free agency, owners get into a bidding war to gain their services. As such, salaries go up for the players every year. If an owner perceives a need for a player, he tries to get him. If there is only one owner who wants that player, the salary is lower than the player may want. If two or more owners want him, we have a bidding war and thus a Prust gets $2.5 million per season.

So, as I have stated all along, yes, a rollback drops players 2 steps back. However, as long as revenues keep increasing and salary caps keep increasing, the players' salary will take another 5 leaps forwards. The really interesting part is that, even if the revenue doesn't increase, and the rollbacks are not regained, the players' salaries are guaranteed, whether the NHL gains money or loses money, throughout the course of the CBA.

One of the most important things the NHL has for the players are the guaranteed contracts that let players get paid their full salary during the course of their negotiated CBA even if they perform like crap or if the team they sign with loses money. The owners have no such guarantees.
The players got 57% of the revenue no matter what in the last CBA. That their salary increases were due to the owners not being able to control themselves is the biggest misconception I see during this lockout. Its based on a fundamental misunderstanding in how the CBA worked.

Talks to Goalposts is offline  
Old
11-03-2012, 03:10 PM
  #214
Roulin
Registered User
 
Roulin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,068
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
Based on historical results. Last negotiation, the players lost around 25% in rollbacks. Over the course of the CBA that just ended, the players regained an overall 63.5% due to increased salaries. Remember, as players come up for free agency, owners get into a bidding war to gain their services. As such, salaries go up for the players every year. If an owner perceives a need for a player, he tries to get him. If there is only one owner who wants that player, the salary is lower than the player may want. If two or more owners want him, we have a bidding war and thus a Prust gets $2.5 million per season.

So, as I have stated all along, yes, a rollback drops players 2 steps back. However, as long as revenues keep increasing and salary caps keep increasing, the players' salary will take another 5 leaps forwards. The really interesting part is that, even if the revenue doesn't increase, and the rollbacks are not regained, the players' salaries are guaranteed, whether the NHL gains money or loses money, throughout the course of the CBA.

One of the most important things the NHL has for the players are the guaranteed contracts that let players get paid their full salary during the course of their negotiated CBA even if they perform like crap or if the team they sign with loses money. The owners have no such guarantees.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talks to Goalposts View Post
The players got 57% of the revenue no matter what in the last CBA. That their salary increases were due to the owners not being able to control themselves is the biggest misconception I see during this lockout. Its based on a fundamental misunderstanding in how the CBA worked.
What TTG said. If teams spend more than the agreed split, the players give it back in escrow. The owners wanted absolute cost certainty, and they got it, regardless of free agent spending.

Roulin is offline  
Old
11-03-2012, 04:48 PM
  #215
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roulin View Post
What TTG said. If teams spend more than the agreed split, the players give it back in escrow. The owners wanted absolute cost certainty, and they got it, regardless of free agent spending.
That is not contrary to the point that the players gave up 24% to gain 63.5%. I am using real percentages and numbers. Their 24% rollback turned into a 63.5% gain over the life of the last CBA. That is why I keep saying that a rollback is not going to hurt the players as much as losing an entire season of salary. It is also why I keep saying that the rollback is quite likely to get wiped out by the end of the next CBA in the same way this one was. Even with a Cap the owners will spend (many, not all) in order to try and win.

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
11-03-2012, 05:03 PM
  #216
Roulin
Registered User
 
Roulin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,068
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
That is not contrary to the point that the players gave up 24% to gain 63.5%. I am using real percentages and numbers. Their 24% rollback turned into a 63.5% gain over the life of the last CBA. That is why I keep saying that a rollback is not going to hurt the players as much as losing an entire season of salary. It is also why I keep saying that the rollback is quite likely to get wiped out by the end of the next CBA in the same way this one was.
I mostly agree with this. At this point, players are taking a stand based on principle more than personal finance. It looks like a lost year will cost players more than preserving signed contracts will gain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
Even with a Cap the owners will spend (many, not all) in order to try and win.
...but that argument, I don't think has anything to do with the rest. Once the CBA is in place, team spending does not affect the players' share at all.

Roulin is offline  
Old
11-03-2012, 07:13 PM
  #217
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,325
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
I want to see the Bruins, the Leafs, and the Flyers (as well as other teams). I don't care about seeing specific players who are not on my team. I have no rivalry with Ovechkin and neither hate nor love the guy. I hate the Bruins as passionately as I love the Habs. I want to see the Bruins. If we lost Ovechkin it would simply be another player gone like happens all the time. The NHL survived the loss of Gretzky, Lemieux, Messier, Lidstrom, etc...it will easily survive the loss of Ovechkin as he will get replaced with the next big super star. Also, unless Ovechkin really gets his act together, his 65 points last season doesn't really qualify him to be considered one of the absolute best anymore, either. I know, it is probably one bad season, but if it isn't, the Caps are actually better off without him. 10 million for a guy not even in the top 30 in total points would be brutal if that became his new norm.
If the players had walked out from the playoffs there could have been significant legal penalties. All the NHL had to do was to reach a walkout-prevention agreement before starting the season -- they didn't try.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
Habs odds were around 10-12th the last time around and they drafted 5th.

It's a LOTTERY.

Habs odds would be around 15th this time around, doesn't mean that's the pick they'll get, they could still end-up with a top pick, or even the 20th.
It's a biased lottery, and some outcomes are vastly more likely than others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
At some point you are going to have to realize that there is supposed to be a negotiation process. The owners have made offers to try and get the lock out to end. The players are not doing anything but trying to hold the line.
At some point you will have to start following the news.

Both the players and the owners have made offers, and the players have offered a long-term 13% cut in salaries versus trend as a concession. It is up to the owners to make concessions now. The players are not asking for much: they want their contracts honoured.


Last edited by Habsfan18: 11-03-2012 at 07:51 PM. Reason: merge
DAChampion is online now  
Old
11-03-2012, 09:53 PM
  #218
WeThreeKings
Registered User
 
WeThreeKings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 32,161
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to WeThreeKings
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
If the players had walked out from the playoffs there could have been significant legal penalties. All the NHL had to do was to reach a walkout-prevention agreement before starting the season -- they didn't try.



It's a biased lottery, and some outcomes are vastly more likely than others.



At some point you will have to start following the news.

Both the players and the owners have made offers, and the players have offered a long-term 13% cut in salaries versus trend as a concession. It is up to the owners to make concessions now. The players are not asking for much: they want their contracts honoured.
The owners already proposed a deal which had 50/50 revenue sharing and the players contracts would be honored, their cap-hits would be reduced but the amount of dollars they were paid wouldn't be.

WeThreeKings is offline  
Old
11-03-2012, 10:04 PM
  #219
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,325
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WeThreeKings View Post
The owners already proposed a deal which had 50/50 revenue sharing and the players contracts would be honored, their cap-hits would be reduced but the amount of dollars they were paid wouldn't be.
I think just the contracts for next season total more than 50% of revenue, not including all the 1-year contracts teams would need to add to fill their rosters.

If players get paid their contract value next year, then we're not having 50/50 next year.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
11-03-2012, 10:48 PM
  #220
PyrettaBlaze*
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,264
vCash: 500
The Steve Fehr and Bill Daly meeting still hasn't ended. It started early this afternoon. Good sign imo.

PyrettaBlaze* is offline  
Old
11-04-2012, 07:24 AM
  #221
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roulin View Post
I mostly agree with this. At this point, players are taking a stand based on principle more than personal finance. It looks like a lost year will cost players more than preserving signed contracts will gain.



...but that argument, I don't think has anything to do with the rest. Once the CBA is in place, team spending does not affect the players' share at all.
I could be wrong, but wouldn't an owners willingness to spend directly affect the salary of the player he is signing? When Perry and Getzlaf come up for free agency they will recover whatever rollback loses they may suffer by the huge salaries they will command. That is what I mean when I say the owners will end up giving money back in salary. Like I said, it was exactly what happened last time.

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
11-04-2012, 10:03 AM
  #222
WeThreeKings
Registered User
 
WeThreeKings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 32,161
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to WeThreeKings
Taking a look at the AHL scorers..

Niederreiter, Connolly, Sheppard, etc. These talented youngsters who were rushed by their teams finally get to play in the league they should be playing in. This is great and might actually help their careers.

WeThreeKings is offline  
Old
11-04-2012, 10:15 AM
  #223
Roulin
Registered User
 
Roulin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,068
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
I could be wrong, but wouldn't an owners willingness to spend directly affect the salary of the player he is signing? When Perry and Getzlaf come up for free agency they will recover whatever rollback loses they may suffer by the huge salaries they will command. That is what I mean when I say the owners will end up giving money back in salary. Like I said, it was exactly what happened last time.
Any gains made by one player in free agency equal losses by the rest. The pot is only so big (the agreed upon % of revenue).

If (to keep the math simple), revenues equal $100 and the split is 50/50, but teams go on an offseason spending spree and the players end up with $53, they give that extra $3 back in escrow payments.

Getzlaf and Perry might get a big payday. It means they individually will be rich, and whichever team signs them might be paying more than other teams, but the owners as a whole will not be "giving money back in salary." The prospect of a free agent frenzy shouldn't impact negotiations at all.

Roulin is offline  
Old
11-04-2012, 05:03 PM
  #224
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,325
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WeThreeKings View Post
Taking a look at the AHL scorers..

Niederreiter, Connolly, Sheppard, etc. These talented youngsters who were rushed by their teams finally get to play in the league they should be playing in. This is great and might actually help their careers.
I've always wondered if the 2005 lockout contributed to the success of the 2003 draft.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
11-04-2012, 09:57 PM
  #225
OneSharpMarble
Registered User
 
OneSharpMarble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
SN 590 The FAN ‏@FAN590
Report: NHL and NHLPA could resume full labour negotiations as early as Tuesday.
Snagged this from another site. Sounds promising, we need a short season so bad.

OneSharpMarble 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 06:14 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.