HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Minnesota Wild
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

So who is bummed about the lockout? II

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-11-2012, 06:17 PM
  #401
forthewild
Registered User
 
forthewild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,645
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
Arbitration being moved means almost nothing. The concern the players have about arbitration is that teams are being given the same rights as players.
It almost certainly means everything as it makes it harder to get your max value from a team. Simply put praise isn't a fa if it wasn't for arbitration. It's a way players can increase the amount they get paid, moving it back is a way for teams to get better value on deals and thus reduce cost of paying players. Simply it's leverage for players

forthewild is offline  
Old
11-11-2012, 06:19 PM
  #402
forthewild
Registered User
 
forthewild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,645
vCash: 500
Plus if I remember correctly owners want same arbitration rights as players, as in teams can take player to arbitration any time players can. This is something NHL wants, in their initial proposal NHL removed arbitration all together

forthewild is offline  
Old
11-11-2012, 06:22 PM
  #403
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by forthewild View Post
It almost certainly means everything as it makes it harder to get your max value from a team. Simply put praise isn't a fa if it wasn't for arbitration. It's a way players can increase the amount they get paid, moving it back is a way for teams to get better value on deals and thus reduce cost of paying players. Simply it's leverage for players
I'm going to guess you don't know how arbitration works or what's proposed for changes since you're mentioning Parise. Simply put, none of the league's arbitration changes would have had even the slightest effect upon Parise's situation.

What's actually being proposed is to keep arbitration eligibility the same when looked at from a "years to UFA" perspective instead of a "years from being drafted." The change in eligibility simply corrects for the 28/8 change in UFA. It's not a meaningful issue. The changes to league arbitration rights are a far bigger issue, and even those aren't that big of a deal.

squidz* is offline  
Old
11-11-2012, 07:51 PM
  #404
GopherState
Repeat Offender...
 
GopherState's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: X Marks The Spot
Posts: 22,844
vCash: 500
Haven't really been paying attention to the Lockout minutia but tonight was supposed to be Parise's return to New Jersey/Phil Kessel moment. And for that I'm bummed.


__________________
Blog: First Round Bust: A Cast of Thousands celebrating a rather dodgy track record of Minnesota Wild Drafting.

"Will beats skill when skill doesn't have enough will."
-Doug Woog
1974 1976 1979 2002 2003 2014?
GopherState is offline  
Old
11-11-2012, 08:25 PM
  #405
NHL1674
Whatever...
 
NHL1674's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 12,701
vCash: 0
Russo retweeted this.

Quote:
Thursday Fehr said "large gap'' remained; Friday "We're not as far apart as NHL thinks''; Today "Don't see path to agreement'' #ImSoConfused
Sums up Fehr perfectly. He is a walking contradiction who is only looking out for his ego. He doesn't want to get a deal done....he just wants to play. More of the players are starting to look like blind sheep. They need to start paying attention to the warning signs. You've got former players coming out of the woodwork now telling them to open their eyes and to realize what's going on. Shouldn't that say something? Even guys like Bob McKenzie....reporters who are usually fair and unbiased...are speaking out more about the damage that Fehr is trying to do.

But the biggest red flag to the players should be this. With each passing day, more and more fans are leaning toward Bettman as opposed to supporting the NHLPA. Heck, at this point, it's becoming rare to find fans fully supporting the players. DANGER WILL ROBINSON! DANGER! Even though both sides got into this mess, Fehr has managed to make Bettman look decent. The players have seen the fans boo Bettman enough. They know we don't like the guy. So to see that man suddenly placed higher up on the ladder above Fehr should be a large neon sign telling you to wake the #$@! up and question your union leader!

I'm starting a countdown until the players start turning on each other, cuz it's gonna happen soon. Bettman will cancel the season, the big headed players with tons of money will start tweeting hateful comments towards the commissioner, and the 3rd and 4th line players will start questioning their leaders. Buckle up, kids!

NHL1674 is offline  
Old
11-11-2012, 08:30 PM
  #406
forthewild
Registered User
 
forthewild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,645
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
I'm going to guess you don't know how arbitration works or what's proposed for changes since you're mentioning Parise. Simply put, none of the league's arbitration changes would have had even the slightest effect upon Parise's situation.

What's actually being proposed is to keep arbitration eligibility the same when looked at from a "years to UFA" perspective instead of a "years from being drafted." The change in eligibility simply corrects for the 28/8 change in UFA. It's not a meaningful issue. The changes to league arbitration rights are a far bigger issue, and even those aren't that big of a deal.
parise might have been a bad example, but given all the changes NHL is trying to get on the contracting issues moving arbitration back by a year makes a big difference to players.

so NHL wants a 5 year max, and 2 year ELC, with them trying to push arbitration back to 26 at the earliest it makes a huge difference to players.

basically a guy who enters NHL at 18, will have to sign at the very least 3 contracts before he's allowed arbitration. 2year elc, 5 year max, he's 25 and can't file for arbitration, his only real leverage is to hold out and that just doesn't work out.

you may not think that it makes a huge difference to players but it does, its another layer of their bargaining power being limited, if that was the only change NHL proposed it might not be so bad, but as proposed its a sizable cog in what NHL wants.

the other proposed changes where clubs get more rights are all a pull towards limiting player pay going forward and reducing club costs.

forthewild is offline  
Old
11-11-2012, 08:47 PM
  #407
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by forthewild View Post
parise might have been a bad example, but given all the changes NHL is trying to get on the contracting issues moving arbitration back by a year makes a big difference to players.

so NHL wants a 5 year max, and 2 year ELC, with them trying to push arbitration back to 26 at the earliest it makes a huge difference to players.

basically a guy who enters NHL at 18, will have to sign at the very least 3 contracts before he's allowed arbitration. 2year elc, 5 year max, he's 25 and can't file for arbitration, his only real leverage is to hold out and that just doesn't work out.

you may not think that it makes a huge difference to players but it does, its another layer of their bargaining power being limited, if that was the only change NHL proposed it might not be so bad, but as proposed its a sizable cog in what NHL wants.

the other proposed changes where clubs get more rights are all a pull towards limiting player pay going forward and reducing club costs.
Once again, you're missing the forest for the trees. How many players enter the league at age 18 each year? There's around 3-6 of them. Over a 6 year CBA we're talking about 18-36 players affected out of 700-900 players in the league. Even those in the 3% of the league that are potentially affected, they're not necessarily meaningfully affected either, only if they sign maximum length deals. Ultimately, that's not really likely. Furthermore, once again, this doesn't affect how much the players are paid, it only affects a few individuals. The actual purpose of a lot of this is to redistribute income within the NHLPA, pushing money from being paid to RFAs back to UFAs to earn.

Beyond that, a more typical scenario than your extremely rare 18 year old issue is one like Cal Clutterbuck. If he'd come up under the NHL's proposed system, he'd have a 2 year ELC, and would have been up for re-signing after just 80 NHL games instead of 154. In that situation, the team likely signs him for 2 years instead of 3. Now, instead of being paid $1.5MM in 2011-2012, he would have been on a brand new contract following his 19 goal, 34 point season and at the height of his value. He probably ends up with a 5 year contract (to buy out a UFA year) with an AAV around $3MM minimum. Instead of making around $13.5MM in his first 9 years, he makes around $18MM. There are more players in Clutterbuck's situation in regards to this than those extremely rare players negatively affected.

squidz* is offline  
Old
11-11-2012, 09:14 PM
  #408
Avder
Global Moderator
Michael Bay Mode GO!
 
Avder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Location: Location.
Country: United States
Posts: 34,536
vCash: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jopsey View Post
I was just thinking, if there is no season, what happens to the one and only LaPanta?
Quote:
Originally Posted by forthewild View Post
probably does it next season

honestly i doubt he was hired just for the chance of lockout, but who knows
Honestly I hope he was hired simply because they saw a lockout coming, and he could be had for ultra cheap. Hopefully he gets tossed aside without a second thought once the lockout is over and we get the "real" announcer that the Wild have secretly lined up but have been holding off on announcing because they dont want to deal with a pissed off FSNorth until it's too late for FSNorth to do anything.

But thats mostly just me dreaming....

But seriously **** Fox Sports North.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 00xtremeninja View Post
i would hope there are enough pissed off players that want to get together and fire Fehr
I think that's the only way we have a season at this point. The rank and file members who just want to get paid need to break ranks and either get Fehr fired, or outright fracture the union in two.

Fehr is not going to stop being a madman any time soon. It's up to the average players.. the ones who just show up and play the game every day for a couple hundred K to a million or two, to overpower the superelites and fehr.

Avder is offline  
Old
11-11-2012, 09:41 PM
  #409
forthewild
Registered User
 
forthewild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,645
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
Once again, you're missing the forest for the trees. How many players enter the league at age 18 each year? There's around 3-6 of them. Over a 6 year CBA we're talking about 18-36 players affected out of 700-900 players in the league. Even those in the 3% of the league that are potentially affected, they're not necessarily meaningfully affected either, only if they sign maximum length deals. Ultimately, that's not really likely. Furthermore, once again, this doesn't affect how much the players are paid, it only affects a few individuals. The actual purpose of a lot of this is to redistribute income within the NHLPA, pushing money from being paid to RFAs back to UFAs to earn.

Beyond that, a more typical scenario than your extremely rare 18 year old issue is one like Cal Clutterbuck. If he'd come up under the NHL's proposed system, he'd have a 2 year ELC, and would have been up for re-signing after just 80 NHL games instead of 154. In that situation, the team likely signs him for 2 years instead of 3. Now, instead of being paid $1.5MM in 2011-2012, he would have been on a brand new contract following his 19 goal, 34 point season and at the height of his value. He probably ends up with a 5 year contract (to buy out a UFA year) with an AAV around $3MM minimum. Instead of making around $13.5MM in his first 9 years, he makes around $18MM. There are more players in Clutterbuck's situation in regards to this than those extremely rare players negatively affected.
no you missed the point, NHL wants to take away as much power away from players as they can when it comes to negotiating contracts

it takes away from players the ability to fight back sooner when dealing with negotiations.

Regarding a player like Clutterbuck, its also likely he gets a shorter contract because the team could bet on the history that he can't maintain that level of physical wear on his body and he goes thorough some hot cold periods (as he does) he gets injured (as he does) and the team comes back when he's 25 with no arbitration rights and says we'll offer you a 5 year deal at lower value then we would have in the case you could file for arbitration and his choices are to take it (making him 30 when it expires) or hold out and damage your value. you know of the old famed line, "lets see if you can keep up those numbers"

i don't know why you are fighting my point that Arbitration is important to players and is a big win for them in being able to extract max value.

there are so many more situations then just the 18, 20, 25, in almost every case a team can get a player to 25 and reduce the value on their "money deal" because they have no way of fighting back other then holding out/demanding a trade

when combined with other parts that the NHL is proposing arbitration is a key for teams in negotiations. you don't think players would love to get arbitration rights at age 24, or 23? just as NHL wants to get rid of it all together.

again pushing a players negotiating strength one year further, combined with a new way to help teams keep contracts lower (less years to prove your self) it's all part of the system in which owners have more power then players and are able to get closer to their number

yes players will still be paid, many will still be paid a large sum, but when NHL wants to get a 50/50 revenue split, AND are trying to get more power in contract negotiations they won't be able to get ALL they are asking for if they want anything resembling a season, they will have to give something back to the players which is exactly my point.

forthewild is offline  
Old
11-11-2012, 09:48 PM
  #410
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
ftw

It's not an issue of "missing the point." The issue is that your "points" aren't accurate. The changed year of arbitration is quite literally not changing anything from a UFA perspective. Players would become arbitration eligible at the same time as before in terms of "years until UFA."

There is only one situation where it actually has a meaningful negative effect upon players, but any negative effect upon those extremely rare circumstances would have a positive effect upon everyone else in the league. Every one of these is a reason players should support the changes. You say it's an issue "when combined" but all the issues you've mentioned have been positives to the majority of players, so you're just making an even greater argument for why the players should support it.

This is what happens when you start at a conclusion and try to make up arguments to support it. None of the complaints you've leveled have been accurate.

squidz* is offline  
Old
11-11-2012, 10:31 PM
  #411
forthewild
Registered User
 
forthewild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,645
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
ftw

It's not an issue of "missing the point." The issue is that your "points" aren't accurate. The changed year of arbitration is quite literally not changing anything from a UFA perspective. Players would become arbitration eligible at the same time as before in terms of "years until UFA."

There is only one situation where it actually has a meaningful negative effect upon players, but any negative effect upon those extremely rare circumstances would have a positive effect upon everyone else in the league. Every one of these is a reason players should support the changes. You say it's an issue "when combined" but all the issues you've mentioned have been positives to the majority of players, so you're just making an even greater argument for why the players should support it.

This is what happens when you start at a conclusion and try to make up arguments to support it. None of the complaints you've leveled have been accurate.
ok what would players rather have?

arbitration age 26 UFA 8yrs/28 or arbitration age 25 8yrs/28?

see it makes a big difference to them, anyway as i said its just ANOTHER point in the contract dispute, not THE ONLY point.

but what ever

forthewild is offline  
Old
11-11-2012, 10:40 PM
  #412
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by forthewild View Post
ok what would players rather have?

arbitration age 26 UFA 8yrs/28 or arbitration age 25 8yrs/28?

see it makes a big difference to them, anyway as i said its just ANOTHER point in the contract dispute, not THE ONLY point.

but what ever
What would you rather have?

$1.00 or $1.01?

See, it makes almost no difference to them. Furthermore, not changing arbitration is actually a significant concession to the players because not changing it gives them an extra year of arbitration they do not currently have.

squidz* is offline  
Old
11-11-2012, 11:00 PM
  #413
melinko
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 4,398
vCash: 500
I won't be officially worried until thanksgiving.

I'm only unofficially worried right now.

melinko is offline  
Old
11-11-2012, 11:26 PM
  #414
forthewild
Registered User
 
forthewild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,645
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
What would you rather have?

$1.00 or $1.01?

See, it makes almost no difference to them. Furthermore, not changing arbitration is actually a significant concession to the players because not changing it gives them an extra year of arbitration they do not currently have.
except the owners ARE changing it, pushing it back, and giving more power to the teams is a significant for the players.

also its not a .01 difference it might be something more like i dunno 200k, 400k, depending on player, yeah sure its just chump change.

edit:

NEW NHL PROPOSAL
Quote:
Maintenance of existing Salary Arbitration System subject to: (i) total mutuality of rights with regard to election as between Player and Club, and (ii) eligibility for election moved to five years of professional experience (from the current four years
here is some rules currenlty
EXPIRED CBA
Quote:
Teams can also ask for salary arbitration. But a player can be taken to arbitration only once in his career, and can never receive less than 85 per-cent of his previous year's salary. There are no such restrictions on the number of times a player can ask for arbitration, or the size of the salary awarded.
yeah it makes a HUGE difference to players.


Last edited by forthewild: 11-11-2012 at 11:32 PM.
forthewild is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 12:31 AM
  #415
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by forthewild View Post
except the owners ARE changing it, pushing it back, and giving more power to the teams is a significant for the players.

also its not a .01 difference it might be something more like i dunno 200k, 400k, depending on player, yeah sure its just chump change.

edit:

NEW NHL PROPOSAL


here is some rules currenlty
EXPIRED CBA


yeah it makes a HUGE difference to players.
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz
The changes to league arbitration rights are a far bigger issue, and even those aren't that big of a deal.
As I mentioned, the changes to the league's rights are meaningful. The things you were freaking about are not.

squidz* is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 12:35 AM
  #416
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by forthewild View Post
also its not a .01 difference it might be something more like i dunno 200k, 400k, depending on player, yeah sure its just chump change.
For the umpteenth time, we're not talking about "200k, 400k, depending on player." We're talking about a net average of $0 across the NHLPA. It's an issue of distribution, not of total dollars because it literally cannot have any effect upon total dollars. Furthermore, it's an issue of a small loss to very few players, coupled with a small gain to every other player in the league. Far more players are made better off by the change, and only the players in extremely rare scenarios at the very top of the league (a tiny elite that already gets a better deal than the vast majority of NHLPA membership) are negatively affected.

squidz* is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 02:11 AM
  #417
Northland Wild Man
Finnesotans?
 
Northland Wild Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Grand Forks, ND
Country: United States
Posts: 8,054
vCash: 500
I saw Russo's rant today, and was very discouraged. I really doubt there will be a season after what happened today with negotiations between the two sides. IMO Fehr must be removed if any hockey is going to happen this season.

Northland Wild Man is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 08:47 AM
  #418
Avder
Global Moderator
Michael Bay Mode GO!
 
Avder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Location: Location.
Country: United States
Posts: 34,536
vCash: 0
I think Fehr needs to be removed if we want to see NHL hockey ever again.

You just know that if this continues, and if the owners get even more desperate, that the next thing he is going to go after is the Salary Cap itself.

I will NOT accept an NBA style soft-cap, let alone an MLB style "luxury tax". A hard cap with a hard floor is the only real way to put all teams on the same playing field.

Avder is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 09:57 AM
  #419
rynryn
Progress to the Mean
 
rynryn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 22,866
vCash: 50
i don't care if it's a smear campaign by the NHL and their...what did Walsh call them? media mouthpieces? Its way more effective than the PAs campaign of contradicting themselves. The league will grow 7%! No, 5% now! We're eager and available to talk any time! Sorry we're 6 hours late to this very important meeting! We've submitted multiple proposals...that are all roughly the same thing. Gee, i wonder why the NHL didn't bother countering.
PA: cheese, pepperoni, onions, green olives, and thin crust
NHL: cheese, pepperoni, green peppers, black olives, pan pizza
PA: how about cheese, onions, green olives, pepperoni on a thin crust?
NHL: Uh...Cheese, onions, black olives, pepperoni on a traditional crust.
PA: closer! Okay, try this one: Thin crust, Cheese, pepperoni, green olives, and onions! That's better, right? Hey, we're trying to compromise here. There's room if you just make the effort, NHL.
NHL: Burritos.

rynryn is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 10:48 AM
  #420
Avder
Global Moderator
Michael Bay Mode GO!
 
Avder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Location: Location.
Country: United States
Posts: 34,536
vCash: 0
Reverse the PA and NHL in that back and forth and I think you've got it.

Avder is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 11:09 AM
  #421
Jarick
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 24,908
vCash: 500
Fehr has done an excellent job at keeping as much of the players' rights as possible, but at some point he is going to have to compromise. I'm not sure if this weekend is the last negotiating for a while or not, but if they don't get back to the table the players should take a long look at whether it's worth keeping him or not.

And bash Fehr all you want, but without him, the players don't get a step down to 50/50 while keeping HRR and having the NHL pull back on the contract changes proposed.

My biggest criticism with him is how he seems to be delaying negotiations and allowing his players to say stupid crap in the media. If the guys would shut up and stop putting their feet in their mouths I am guessing it wouldn't be 99% of the fans attacking them over the owners.

I also think he could have gotten these concessions from the NHL a lot sooner if he would have been more forthcoming with his proposals. Hell, just start at 57 and work to 50 by year five and a lot of fans would have been more understanding.

But if the players can't check their egos and make a deal, let them lose out on all that salary. The NHL has come close enough IMO.

Jarick is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 11:58 AM
  #422
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
I wholly disagree with any claim that "without Fehr, players don't get a step down to 50/50 while keeping HRR." The league offered 49/51 with unchanged HRR and almost the exact same contracting setup as their last offer prior to 9/15. They added, when making that proposal that it was very much up for discussion but the PA declined to negotiate against it. They absolutely would have made a deal on 9/14 with a two year step down and the current other terms (or better, but possibly without make whole) without losing any of the season. The players would have been far better off in that scenario as they've already lost much more salary than they can possibly hope to regain over that deal since.

Put simply, by refusing to negotiate prior to 9/15, Fehr picked a fight that had no winning scenario for the players, and now they're stuck with it.

squidz* is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 12:42 PM
  #423
bozak911
Ignoring Idiots
 
bozak911's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avder View Post
Reverse the PA and NHL in that back and forth and I think you've got it.
read it again...

The NHL is the one negotiating. The PA is the one re-wording their demands.

bozak911 is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 03:18 PM
  #424
bozak911
Ignoring Idiots
 
bozak911's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
The more I read about the NHL's proposed changes to contracting, the more I am left with a WTF thought bubble over my head...

They are asking A LOT of contracting concessions... I gotta side with the PA on these.

bozak911 is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 03:26 PM
  #425
llamapalooza
Hockey State Expat
 
llamapalooza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: San Francisco
Country: United States
Posts: 7,701
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bozak911 View Post
The more I read about the NHL's proposed changes to contracting, the more I am left with a WTF thought bubble over my head...

They are asking A LOT of contracting concessions... I gotta side with the PA on these.
The NHL also demanded 43%. They said the players had to pay for Make Whole. They said that 50/50 was off the table if they couldn't get an 82 game season.

When Bettman says "we won't accept a contract without these contracting factors in place", that's just a move to get the union to budge. It really just means "we aren't going to make the next proposal on these factors." We've seen Fehr pull the same move loads of times.

llamapalooza 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 06:52 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.