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.

Does Anybody Here Remember Vera Lynn? (CBA & Lockout Discussion) XXVIII ‎

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-14-2012, 10:58 PM
  #276
guyincognito
Registered User
 
guyincognito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 31,300
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
Ya, making 40m in year one doesn't matter. Right. That IS front loading.

The value of the contract is based on the signing bonus. That is what is the most important aspect of the deal, because it is guaranteed. It is considered part of the salary, and that is why you will never see a deal that isn't front loaded.
.
It's still "only" a 3 year $60M deal. He gets the upfront money as insurance in case he suffers a catastrophic injury, and then is "underpaid" for the second two years of the deal that will be honored, so there's a tradeoff for it.

Bring this stuff to the NHL and see how long they stay out.

guyincognito is offline  
Old
11-14-2012, 10:59 PM
  #277
tripleX
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 85
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
Ya, making 40m in year one doesn't matter. Right. That IS front loading.

The value of the contract is based on the signing bonus. That is what is the most important aspect of the deal, because it is guaranteed. It is considered part of the salary, and that is why you will never see a deal that isn't front loaded.
.
No need to spin on the syntax instead of looking at the contract detail. The discussion was whether the contract is guaranteed and then how NFL players can be cut to create cap room. What matters in this topic is "salary" being backloaded or frontloaded which decides when a player can be cut.

No matter how you spins, Brees is only guaranteed to see 60M even when he signed a 100M contract. You can't call a contract being guaranteed when only 60% is guaranteed.

tripleX is offline  
Old
11-14-2012, 11:03 PM
  #278
Langdon Alger*
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,112
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by billybudd View Post
Yep. In February 2005 eklund expressed similar optimism on his, I think blogspot page, then reported a deal had been reached. This was picked up by several media outlets.

The season was canceled later that night. This event is actually what made this guy "famous."

In other words, my guess is he thinks doing the same thing again will bring more notoriety,
I doubt it. The mainstream media and vast majority of hockey fans know Eklund's a phony, and I think Eklund knows that they know he's a phony. That's why he isn't purporting to have any inside knowledge of these talks.

I suspect Eklund thinks we'll have a season for the same reason I do: He doesn't buy into the characterization of Donald Fehr as this menace from another sport who doesn't care about how much harm he brings to the game and its players. I was an Expos fan, so I'm no great fan of his either, but the fact is that he represents the players and is doing what he thinks will get his charges the best deal. I think he also knows Bettman will come out with his best offer just before the drop-dead point, since that's basically what he did in 2004-05.

What Fehr doesn't want to do, however, is let that drop-dead point pass and cost his players a full season. Remember how the last lockout ended? The players couldn't afford to keep missing paychecks into the 2005-06 season, so they essentially caved to the large demands the NHL had, such as the salary cap and rollbacks. That happened even though everyone knew for YEARS beforehand that the labour situation was dire; that there would be a lengthy lockout that could wipe out a season or more; and that the players would have to be prepared to sign in lesser leagues for lesser pay or go without getting paid for a while. This year's labour stoppage, on the other hand, was supposed to be a short one at worst. How well-prepared do you think the players are to sit out a full season this time?

Simply put: They're not.

The vast majority of the players can't afford to go a year without a paycheck, and while they're buying into Fehr's wait-it-out approach in public, I will bet you dollars to donuts they're putting a lot of pressure on him to salvage this season, at least in part. Combine that with the fact that the owners clearly don't want to wipe out another season - as evidenced by the fact they've budged on their original demands so quickly - and I think there's no way the two sides let this season die, posturing or no posturing.

Langdon Alger* is offline  
Old
11-14-2012, 11:09 PM
  #279
mossey3535
Registered User
 
mossey3535's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DyerMaker66 View Post
You have no proof that revenue will not continue to grow: Is history not the best indicator for the future? Do you have a reason to believe that (excluding the current lockout) revenues are/ were going to suddenly take a nose dive? If that's the case, the NHL should plan for the worst scenario possible and pay the players minimum wage.

I think the NHL should just fold right now: Revenues are guaranteed to decrease! The NHL will never make money! The last 8 years were a farce!

It's possible, but it isn't going to happen. I mean, seeing as "only 3 teams made real money" who would notice anyway? It's possible for the players to make more at 43% this year than they did at 57% last year, but again that's not going to happen. If you believe otherwise you're just being foolish: Historical trends do not guarantee what will happen, but they are certainly the best indicator that we have. Does every business simply forget what sales it had in the most recent year (or most recent 8 years) and say "Well, that'll never happen again so we should lay-off 50% of our employees right now"?
All you've done here is proven that neither positive or negative growth is 100% accurately predicted by historical trends.

The NHL owners are being risk-adverse, which is their prerogative. If you don't believe in that idea, that's cool. But I'd advise you to give up all your insurance then.

The historical record of my driving is that I've never been in an accident after more than ten years of driving. By your argument, shouldn't this trend be reasonably expected to continue? So I wouldn't need insurance then right?

The whole point of a linked cap system, and insurance in general, is that you're protecting yourself against the (maybe small/large) possibility of scenarios with negative outcomes.

In the case of that eventuality, the NHL is asking the players to SHARE the burden of lower than expected league growth. Or to reap the benefits of higher than expected growth. Theoretically this is best for both sides.

By offering de-linkage, the NHLPA is essentially insuring only itself. At the same time, it is limiting it's own earning potential. This is clearly only good for the players, and possibly worse for them - but they reduce their risk.

Which option makes more sense to you?

mossey3535 is offline  
Old
11-14-2012, 11:21 PM
  #280
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
 
Mr Jiggyfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 13,355
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tripleX View Post
No need to spin on the syntax instead of looking at the contract detail. The discussion was whether the contract is guaranteed and then how NFL players can be cut to create cap room. What matters in this topic is "salary" being backloaded or frontloaded which decides when a player can be cut.

No matter how you spins, Brees is only guaranteed to see 60M even when he signed a 100M contract. You can't call a contract being guaranteed when only 60% is guaranteed.
At what point did I ever say his contract was fully guaranteed? I said it was front loaded so he could make the bulk of his money upfront. Which he is doing. Are you disputing that 50m in the first two years isn't a front loaded contract?

The agents then put the phony years at the end to spread the bonus out.

The deal is structured to give the Saints cap relief in the beginning, and it would make little sense to cut him until the backend of the deal.

Mr Jiggyfly is offline  
Old
11-14-2012, 11:23 PM
  #281
DyerMaker66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 3,503
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mossey3535 View Post
All you've done here is proven that neither positive or negative growth is 100% accurately predicted by historical trends.

The NHL owners are being risk-adverse, which is their prerogative. If you don't believe in that idea, that's cool. But I'd advise you to give up all your insurance then.

The historical record of my driving is that I've never been in an accident after more than ten years of driving. By your argument, shouldn't this trend be reasonably expected to continue? So I wouldn't need insurance then right?
I agree with this 100%: If you feel as though you're a talented enough driver that you can avoid all collisions you shouldn't be forced to have insurance. That's your own decision to make. However, if you are involved in a collision and you are at fault the other party should be able to sue you for all that you're worth.


Quote:
The whole point of a linked cap system, and insurance in general, is that you're protecting yourself against the (maybe small/large) possibility of scenarios with negative outcomes.

In the case of that eventuality, the NHL is asking the players to SHARE the burden of lower than expected league growth. Or to reap the benefits of higher than expected growth. Theoretically this is best for both sides.

By offering de-linkage, the NHLPA is essentially insuring only itself. At the same time, it is limiting it's own earning potential. This is clearly only good for the players, and possibly worse for them - but they reduce their risk.

Which option makes more sense to you?
If you're expecting us to "share" the burden of lower than expected growth, then I'll be expecting you to give me a say in "our" business ventures (*cough* placing franchises in terrible locations *cough*).

DyerMaker66 is offline  
Old
11-14-2012, 11:28 PM
  #282
tripleX
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 85
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
At what point did I ever say his contract was fully guaranteed? I said it was front loaded so he could make the bulk of his money upfront. Which he is doing. Are you disputing that?

The agents then put the phony years at the end to spread the bonus out.

The deal is structured to give the Saints cap relief in the beginning, and it would make little sense to cut him until the backend of the deal.
Ok, so you agree NFL contracts aren't guaranteed and a star player like Brees can only be guaranteed 60% of the contract even after he holds out. Most NFL players are not stars like Brees and they are in even worse shape.

There is no comparison to the NHL players who are in better situation in terms of guaranteed contracts.

case closed.

tripleX is offline  
Old
11-14-2012, 11:30 PM
  #283
mossey3535
Registered User
 
mossey3535's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DyerMaker66 View Post
If you're expecting us to "share" the burden of lower than expected growth, then I'll be expecting you to give me a say in "our" business ventures (*cough* placing franchises in terrible locations *cough*).
Ok, then the players have to have a share of the burden of other financial aspects of the business.

Would you, as a player, really want to open up this line of thinking?

If you were an owner, you would actually let your players tell you where you could relocate a franchise? I mean, it's all fine and good because we are third parties looking in from the outside. But if you gave up the opportunity cost of pumping 10's of millions dollars into the franchise in order to let it run, and your chances of even breaking even were not assured, you would still let your employees - who represent your greatest barrier to making a profit - have a say in how you run your business?

You're a better man than me.

mossey3535 is offline  
Old
11-14-2012, 11:31 PM
  #284
CpatainCanuck
Registered User
 
CpatainCanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,685
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DyerMaker66 View Post
I agree with this 100%: If you feel as though you're a talented enough driver that you can avoid all collisions you shouldn't be forced to have insurance. That's your own decision to make. However, if you are involved in a collision and you are at fault the other party should be able to sue you for all that you're worth.
Thank heavens for your sake then that we have car insurance laws!


Quote:
If you're expecting us to "share" the burden of lower than expected growth, then I'll be expecting you to give me a say in "our" business ventures (*cough* placing franchises in terrible locations *cough*).
Employees shouldn't be dictating where franchises go. That would be kind of dumb wouldn't it: a bunch of highschool dropouts trying to tell the owners how to make the league more profitable.

CpatainCanuck is offline  
Old
11-14-2012, 11:38 PM
  #285
mossey3535
Registered User
 
mossey3535's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,903
vCash: 500
Look, as a player there are certain 'unspoken rules' that are best left untouched.

This whole idea of players having a say in franchise business....these are people who don't even want to get involved in their own union. They hire other people to handle things that aren't hockey-related for them. As a hockey player, why would I want to even have the additional hassle of thinking about this? Personally I wouldn't mind but the vast majority of the league's players couldn't give two you-know-whats.

Owners own, players play. If you know any hockey players, you know why that saying is the status quo in the league. The only time it's even in question is every 6-odd years when a CBA comes up for negotiation. And to be honest, it's only a question then because the NHLPA has had dysfunctional leadership since the first Goodenow era (who can deny BG did a great job up until 2004?).

I always think it's funny that people say the NHLPA should have a say in league matters when most of the players themselves wouldn't touch them with a ten foot pole.


Last edited by mossey3535: 11-14-2012 at 11:44 PM.
mossey3535 is offline  
Old
11-14-2012, 11:43 PM
  #286
mossey3535
Registered User
 
mossey3535's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,903
vCash: 500
For example, what if the NHLPA had a say in where a franchise relocated? And for various political reason they (the NHLPA leadership, not the players) chose city XXX.

If city XXX flops, does the NHLPA bear fiscal responsibility? Would they want to? Would they want to be open to the possibility of being sued by the companies with broken contracts from the original city? Would they pony up for the relocation fee?

That crap is a Pandora's box and just rhetoric - in practice it would never work and everyone knows it.

mossey3535 is offline  
Old
11-14-2012, 11:44 PM
  #287
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
 
Mr Jiggyfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 13,355
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tripleX View Post
Ok, so you agree NFL contracts aren't guaranteed and a star player like Brees can only be guaranteed 60% of the contract even after he holds out. Most NFL players are not stars like Brees and they are in even worse shape.

There is no comparison to the NHL players who are in better situation in terms of guaranteed contracts.

case closed.
Uh, an NHL player at Parise's age can have his contract bought out for 2/3 of its value, so it isn't fully guaranteed either.

It is almost a given that part of Kovy's deal will be bought out.

Mr Jiggyfly is offline  
Old
11-14-2012, 11:47 PM
  #288
VeteranNetPresence
Hey, Orpheus!
 
VeteranNetPresence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,187
vCash: 500
this whole thing is about EGO - mediation won't help a damn thing just like last lockout

VeteranNetPresence is offline  
Old
11-14-2012, 11:47 PM
  #289
dennilfloss
Yes I love disco!
 
dennilfloss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,869
vCash: 500
NHL fans have nothing to fehr but fehr itself.

dennilfloss is online now  
Old
11-14-2012, 11:57 PM
  #290
tripleX
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 85
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
Uh, an NHL player at Parise's age can have his contract bought out for 2/3 of its value, so it isn't fully guaranteed either.

It is almost a given that part of Kovy's deal will be bought out.
You really like to argue just for the sake of arguing. You are comparing normal NFL contracts to abnormal and rare NHL contracts.

Let me make it more clear:
==============================
Ok, so you agree NFL contracts aren't guaranteed and a star player like Brees can only be guaranteed 60% of the contract even after he holds out. Most NFL players are not stars like Brees and they are in even worse shape.

NFL contracts aren't guaranteed and it's no comparison to the NHL players who are in better situation in terms of majority of contracts being guaranteed.
==============================

case closed.

tripleX is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 12:11 AM
  #291
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
 
Mr Jiggyfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 13,355
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tripleX View Post
You really like to argue just for the sake of arguing. You are comparing normal NFL contracts to abnormal and rare NHL contracts.

Let me make it more clear:
==============================
Ok, so you agree NFL contracts aren't guaranteed and a star player like Brees can only be guaranteed 60% of the contract even after he holds out. Most NFL players are not stars like Brees and they are in even worse shape.

NFL contracts aren't guaranteed and it's no comparison to the NHL players who are in better situation in terms of majority of contracts being guaranteed.
==============================

case closed.
Sorry, still disagree, because as I touched on in the previous thread, the flip side of open contracts, means NFL players can renegotiate their deals after two years.

So NFL players rarely get stuck in a bad contract, whereas NHL players are locked into their deals, even if they outperform their contracts (see Letang, Kris)

NHL players may have guaranteed contracts, but they have no true signing bonuses, can't renegotiate bad deals and still can be bought out.

I also touched on how rookies under PT CBA got paid a kings ransom for doing zilch. Guys like Young and Russell earned tens of millions, and they were busts.

It is far from a closed case.


Last edited by Mr Jiggyfly: 11-15-2012 at 12:16 AM.
Mr Jiggyfly is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 12:16 AM
  #292
SERE 24
LGR
 
SERE 24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 9,167
vCash: 500
So these guys meet only for a handful of days here and there over the two months the lockout has been going on and they talk for a couple of hours when they do, resorting to ridiculous, childish, unprofessional antics simply to 'get at' each other and 'play mind games'. They spend more time trying to spin the media surrounding the lockout in their favor as if this is some political battle ground and the public they're generating spin for is ultimately going to go to the polls and vote NHL or NHLPA when all the campaigning is done, and ultimately, little else is happening... right?


Last edited by ThirdManIn: 11-15-2012 at 11:12 AM. Reason: keep this crap to yourself.
SERE 24 is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 12:55 AM
  #293
DyerMaker66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 3,503
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mossey3535 View Post
Ok, then the players have to have a share of the burden of other financial aspects of the business.

Would you, as a player, really want to open up this line of thinking?
They do: That's why a portion of their salaries are placed in escrow.
Quote:
If you were an owner, you would actually let your players tell you where you could relocate a franchise? I mean, it's all fine and good because we are third parties looking in from the outside. But if you gave up the opportunity cost of pumping 10's of millions dollars into the franchise in order to let it run, and your chances of even breaking even were not assured, you would still let your employees - who represent your greatest barrier to making a profit - have a say in how you run your business?

You're a better man than me.
NHL players are the greatest barrier in keeping the owners from a profit? I don't agree with that line of thinking at all: It's been clearly shown that at the very least the San Jose Sharks are purposely in the red; how many others are doing this? How many are in the red as a result of a bad managing or bad franchise location? The players are the only thing bringing you money.

They listened to Bettman about franchise location and I trust the players more than I trust him.

DyerMaker66 is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 12:56 AM
  #294
Bourne Endeavor
Moderator
( _)>⌐■-■ (⌐■_■)
 
Bourne Endeavor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,180
vCash: 5158
Quote:
Originally Posted by mossey3535 View Post
Sorry, I don't understand the question. I never stopped watching hockey so watching football was something I started to do with my cousins and it became a habit. Did I understand correctly?
Oh, thought you meant you picked it up because of the lockout. Pretty much why I started watching the NFL.

Bourne Endeavor is online now  
Old
11-15-2012, 01:03 AM
  #295
mossey3535
Registered User
 
mossey3535's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DyerMaker66 View Post
They do: That's why a portion of their salaries are placed in escrow.
NHL players are the greatest barrier in keeping the owners from a profit? I don't agree with that line of thinking at all: It's been clearly shown that at the very least the San Jose Sharks are purposely in the red; how many others are doing this? How many are in the red as a result of a bad managing or bad franchise location? The players are the only thing bringing you money.

They listened to Bettman about franchise location and I trust the players more than I trust him.
That's the thing - the players have to bear the consequences of fluctuations in revenue that is generated by hockey.

However, there are many other costs to the business that are hockey-related but generate no revenue. The players bear no risks in regard to those costs, such as an increase in travel expenses, or employee salaries. The players aren't the only people employed by an NHL team.

Again, as a player you would never want to open that door. I guess they are lucky you are not determining these things for them.

As for trusting players more than an actual businessman in terms of franchise location...well I'm going to let that statement speak for itself.

mossey3535 is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 01:08 AM
  #296
DyerMaker66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 3,503
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CpatainCanuck View Post
Thank heavens for your sake then that we have car insurance laws!
Yeah, they cost me money even when I have no need for them: Thank heavens for that!

Quote:
Employees shouldn't be dictating where franchises go. That would be kind of dumb wouldn't it: a bunch of highschool dropouts trying to tell the owners how to make the league more profitable.
Because the owners certainly know what they're doing:
- 3 lockouts under GB
- 1 missed season
- 5 relocations under GB
- (apparently) 27 teams not making a profit

These dudes are the greatest businessmen of all-time! Their judgement can totally be trusted.

DyerMaker66 is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 01:12 AM
  #297
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 11,817
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mossey3535 View Post
As for trusting players more than an actual businessman in terms of franchise location...well I'm going to let that statement speak for itself.
It doesn't have to do so. Ask Doan about Phoenix or Fisher about Nashville. Really tough on the blanket statements for players and what their choices would be. A lot of times we are hearing the poster's own assumptions.

SJeasy is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 01:14 AM
  #298
mossey3535
Registered User
 
mossey3535's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,903
vCash: 500
This is the problem I have with a lot of supposedly 'Pro-PA' people in here. You guys would have the players takes things on that

a) no player would want to actually do

and

b) in many cases would open the players up to large financial ramifications

For most of you, your rationale is a purely moral one. You'd have these guys do things that might not be in their best interest, but for those of us looking from the outside in seems like the 'right thing to do'.

For example, moving Phoenix. Simple idea right? Boom, it makes more revenue. Or does it?

What is their local TV deal? How much will it take to break the contracts in Phoenix? Will Glendale city council sue? How much will the relocation fee cost? All these things and more will factor into the new location and it may or may not result in that franchise making money.

Remember, Phoenix still contributes revenue. It's losses are borne by their owners and the league. The revenue it does generate is added to league HRR - around $67M. Let's say that it suddenly generates twice the revenue - now $145M. That's $67M/30 teams so $2.2M per team - that's barely one player.

Ok, now what happens if it costs $100M to move the franchise? Are we really looking at a windfall? Will the NHLPA be on the hook for part of that money? How are they going to generate that kind of money? Union fees?

It's not as simple as it seems.

mossey3535 is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 01:16 AM
  #299
mossey3535
Registered User
 
mossey3535's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
It doesn't have to do so. Ask Doan about Phoenix or Fisher about Nashville. Really tough on the blanket statements for players and what their choices would be. A lot of times we are hearing the poster's own assumptions.
Ok, so the NHLPA has a choice to move Phoenix to KC, Seattle, or Vegas. I'm picking harder choices than Markham here.

You ask the captains from all 30 teams to make a decision. How do they make it?

Of course there are assumptions here. I'm going to assume Shane Doan has no idea about demographic surveys, market viability, the structure of TV deals, or arena loans. I think that's a pretty good assumption.

mossey3535 is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 01:17 AM
  #300
DyerMaker66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 3,503
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mossey3535 View Post
That's the thing - the players have to bear the consequences of fluctuations in revenue that is generated by hockey.

However, there are many other costs to the business that are hockey-related but generate no revenue. The players bear no risks in regard to those costs, such as an increase in travel expenses, or employee salaries. The players aren't the only people employed by an NHL team.
So they take-away from HRR (a cost/income relationship that is specifically spelled out in the CBA) but it has no bearing on the players? You must work for Bettman.

Quote:
Again, as a player you would never want to open that door. I guess they are lucky you are not determining these things for them.

As for trusting players more than an actual businessman in terms of franchise location...well I'm going to let that statement speak for itself.


Atlanta will totes work,bro! The league needs Phoenix! A team in Hamilton will be top 10 in revenue but we'll ignore that market at all costs!

Oh and we should totes invite Boots Del Biaggio into our club!

/speaksforitself

DyerMaker66 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 06:49 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.