HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

CBA Negotiations II: This is the song that never ends...

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-15-2012, 01:24 PM
  #901
Protest
C`est La Vie
 
Protest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Deptford, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 4,565
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OccupySouthBroadSt View Post
While this strike is insulting to the fans..I'm not sure how if you are a diehard hockey fan you won't watch hockey or less of it when it resumes? I'm just a bit baffled but then again I really enjoy watching the sport regardless.

Having said all this, def the losers in all of this are the fans and the workers at the stadiums etc. A coworker of mine works part time at night at the Wells Fargo Center doing concerts, the Flyers, Sixers etc and he's losing out on about 400 bucks per mo b/c of the strike. He's got 6 kids (don't ask why) and a wife that doesn't work (raising 6 kids is work of course) and literally has a family to feed...
I love hockey, but its just a sport. There's other hobbies I can have, or things I can do with my free time. I was a die hard Eagles fan for most of my life, but I've watched like one full game in the past 3 seasons. If you told me 3 years ago that that would be the case, I would have said you were insane. I mean I used to watch the draft when I was like 10 lol.

I'm not saying I'd never watch hockey again, but I definitely don't know if I'd watch much, or any of the first year after a full season lockout. I know I sure as hell wouldn't be going to any games anytime soon.

Protest is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 01:31 PM
  #902
FreshPerspective
We don't need one!
 
FreshPerspective's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Italy
Posts: 11,146
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest View Post
I love hockey, but its just a sport. There's other hobbies I can have, or things I can do with my free time. I was a die hard Eagles fan for most of my life, but I've watched like one full game in the past 3 seasons. If you told me 3 years ago that that would be the case, I would have said you were insane. I mean I used to watch the draft when I was like 10 lol.

I'm not saying I'd never watch hockey again, but I definitely don't know if I'd watch much, or any of the first year after a full season lockout. I know I sure as hell wouldn't be going to any games anytime soon.
No I think I follow you. I can understand having apathy for it more than before but for me at least.... totally cutting it out is unconscionable but yes it's about free time and designating time to something you enjoy. If you really enjoy something you find the time..at least this is what my ex girlfriends have lamented to me while they were trying to distract me from my hockey

FreshPerspective is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 03:57 PM
  #903
CharlieGirl
Get well soon Kimmo
 
CharlieGirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Kitchener, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,984
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spongolium* View Post
You mean like Fehr offering de-linked proposals? Something which an entire season was lost over in 2005. Or creating proposals hours before a meeting, turning up late regularly to meetings, being accused of hiding information from the players.

Just out of curiosity, why are you on the players side?
I'm disgusted with both sides in this lockout, however, I have a bigger problem with the owners expecting the players to accept all of their proposals with no interest in real negotiation; and expecting the players to save them from themselves. We've gone around and around on discussions surrounding contracts and the fact that the owners spent like drunken sailors up until the moment the lockout took effect. If the owners truly felt that salaries had gotten out of control and that they couldn't afford to continue on, then why go insane with signing players at inflated contract values?

I'm not convinced that teams like Minnesota didn't act in bad faith with the Parise/Suter contracts. If they entered into those contracts with no intention of ever paying out the negotiated amount, then they don't deserve my sympathy or support.

The ownership group wants change and wants it now, and wants everything their way. Period. The players have agreed to 50%/50% revenue sharing (which is the right number), but have offered to compromise and get there in a couple of years instead of immediately. Apparently compromise is of no interest to Bettman & Co. If that's the case, screw 'em.

CharlieGirl is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 05:30 PM
  #904
Snotbubbles
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlieGirl View Post
I'm disgusted with both sides in this lockout, however, I have a bigger problem with the owners expecting the players to accept all of their proposals with no interest in real negotiation; and expecting the players to save them from themselves. We've gone around and around on discussions surrounding contracts and the fact that the owners spent like drunken sailors up until the moment the lockout took effect. If the owners truly felt that salaries had gotten out of control and that they couldn't afford to continue on, then why go insane with signing players at inflated contract values?

I'm not convinced that teams like Minnesota didn't act in bad faith with the Parise/Suter contracts. If they entered into those contracts with no intention of ever paying out the negotiated amount, then they don't deserve my sympathy or support.

The ownership group wants change and wants it now, and wants everything their way. Period. The players have agreed to 50%/50% revenue sharing (which is the right number), but have offered to compromise and get there in a couple of years instead of immediately. Apparently compromise is of no interest to Bettman & Co. If that's the case, screw 'em.
At the end of the day who are you screwing?

By sticking to your guns you lose salary that you can't get back. The players don't have a lifetime to earn this type of money. The owners just move on to their other toys.

If by some miracle the owners actually caved and kept things the way they were there would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 3-5 teams who would be bankrupt in the next 5 years. If 1 teams folds that's 40 or so union members with no job. If 5 teams fold, that's 200. But hey, at least they didn't have to have a rollback and they got a cushioned landing to 50/50.

Snotbubbles is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 06:22 PM
  #905
CharlieGirl
Get well soon Kimmo
 
CharlieGirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Kitchener, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,984
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snotbubbles View Post
At the end of the day who are you screwing?

By sticking to your guns you lose salary that you can't get back. The players don't have a lifetime to earn this type of money. The owners just move on to their other toys.

If by some miracle the owners actually caved and kept things the way they were there would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 3-5 teams who would be bankrupt in the next 5 years. If 1 teams folds that's 40 or so union members with no job. If 5 teams fold, that's 200. But hey, at least they didn't have to have a rollback and they got a cushioned landing to 50/50.
The players aren't demanding that nothing changes though. They're looking to work together to get to the point where owners feel they need to be to keep teams financially viable. The owners aren't looking for reasonable - they want immediate rollbacks, plus pushing back the FA age so that they have the players under their thumbs for at least 3 contracts, and limiting contract lengths (which may end up blowing up in their faces, in some cases).

You're right though - the players have more to lose than owners do, particularly in poor markets.

Would you be okay if your boss gave you a raise and then came to you 2 weeks later to tell you that you were not only not going to get the raise you were promised, but that he was going to start paying you less than you did previously?

Yes, the players are well paid, but they also make a lot of money for the league. And let's not pretend that some owners didn't make an absolute ton of money as a result of the salary cap, our Flyers included.

CharlieGirl is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 06:46 PM
  #906
Flyerfan808
Registered User
 
Flyerfan808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Honolulu, HI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlieGirl View Post
I'm disgusted with both sides in this lockout, however, I have a bigger problem with the owners expecting the players to accept all of their proposals with no interest in real negotiation; and expecting the players to save them from themselves. We've gone around and around on discussions surrounding contracts and the fact that the owners spent like drunken sailors up until the moment the lockout took effect. If the owners truly felt that salaries had gotten out of control and that they couldn't afford to continue on, then why go insane with signing players at inflated contract values?

I'm not convinced that teams like Minnesota didn't act in bad faith with the Parise/Suter contracts. If they entered into those contracts with no intention of ever paying out the negotiated amount, then they don't deserve my sympathy or support.


The ownership group wants change and wants it now, and wants everything their way. Period. The players have agreed to 50%/50% revenue sharing (which is the right number), but have offered to compromise and get there in a couple of years instead of immediately. Apparently compromise is of no interest to Bettman & Co. If that's the case, screw 'em.
I disagree, I think that teams offer those kinds of contracts for two reasons:

1) There are teams out there who are desperate enough to pay it.
2) The players demand them.

For that, I think that the players are at least partly to blame for getting us to where we are.

Flyerfan808 is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 06:55 PM
  #907
McNasty
Registered User
 
McNasty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Rutgers
Country: United States
Posts: 5,758
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlieGirl View Post
I'm disgusted with both sides in this lockout, however, I have a bigger problem with the owners expecting the players to accept all of their proposals with no interest in real negotiation; and expecting the players to save them from themselves. We've gone around and around on discussions surrounding contracts and the fact that the owners spent like drunken sailors up until the moment the lockout took effect. If the owners truly felt that salaries had gotten out of control and that they couldn't afford to continue on, then why go insane with signing players at inflated contract values?

I'm not convinced that teams like Minnesota didn't act in bad faith with the Parise/Suter contracts. If they entered into those contracts with no intention of ever paying out the negotiated amount, then they don't deserve my sympathy or support.

The ownership group wants change and wants it now, and wants everything their way. Period. The players have agreed to 50%/50% revenue sharing (which is the right number), but have offered to compromise and get there in a couple of years instead of immediately. Apparently compromise is of no interest to Bettman & Co. If that's the case, screw 'em.
I hear what you're saying and I agree with you, but on the same token once deals like that became precedent players who wanted them were usually able to get them.

I still don't see the need to cap contract length at 5 years, maybe something longer sure but there are two type of long term deals. There are deals like Mike Richards' where he forgoes some of his potential money in exchange for long term security, versus deals like Hossa, Pronger, Luongo, where there are artificial years designed to allow cap circumcention.

All things considered I agree with you to an extent, but I think players and agents bear some of the responsibility for the contract situation getting out of control.

McNasty is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 06:58 PM
  #908
Flyerfan808
Registered User
 
Flyerfan808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Honolulu, HI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlieGirl View Post
The players aren't demanding that nothing changes though. They're looking to work together to get to the point where owners feel they need to be to keep teams financially viable. The owners aren't looking for reasonable - they want immediate rollbacks, plus pushing back the FA age so that they have the players under their thumbs for at least 3 contracts, and limiting contract lengths (which may end up blowing up in their faces, in some cases).

You're right though - the players have more to lose than owners do, particularly in poor markets.

Would you be okay if your boss gave you a raise and then came to you 2 weeks later to tell you that you were not only not going to get the raise you were promised, but that he was going to start paying you less than you did previously?

Yes, the players are well paid, but they also make a lot of money for the league. And let's not pretend that some owners didn't make an absolute ton of money as a result of the salary cap, our Flyers included.
The owners last proposal includes a make whole, so no, it's not rollback.

They're raising the FA to 28, but also reducing the length of ELC's by 1 year. Meaning they own your rights for longer, but you get your first raise sooner.

Please explain why you think capping contracts will "blow up in their face if they're not careful." At least this way you will never see 13 year 100M contracts anymore. Isn't this the owners way of trying to rectify the current situation of players demanding retirement contracts and teams trying to circumvent the cap.

Flyerfan808 is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 06:59 PM
  #909
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beef Runner
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 42,006
vCash: 500
Players can demand whatever contract they want. It's still the owner's decision to actually offer it. Just because they demand it, doesn't mean it's going to happen. Their worth gets determined by market value, which is determined by how much the owners are willing to pay certain players.

For instance, Weber didn't demand his offer from the Flyers. That was gifted to him by the Flyers and Snider.

__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.
Beef Invictus is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 08:38 PM
  #910
CharlieGirl
Get well soon Kimmo
 
CharlieGirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Kitchener, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,984
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyerfan808 View Post
The owners last proposal includes a make whole, so no, it's not rollback.

They're raising the FA to 28, but also reducing the length of ELC's by 1 year. Meaning they own your rights for longer, but you get your first raise sooner.

Please explain why you think capping contracts will "blow up in their face if they're not careful." At least this way you will never see 13 year 100M contracts anymore. Isn't this the owners way of trying to rectify the current situation of players demanding retirement contracts and teams trying to circumvent the cap.
I haven't read the latest on the 'make whole' offer so my understanding may be outdated - the last I heard it was a 'make whole' using players' money to pay them. Sort of like your boss deducting $20 a week from your pay and then maybe giving you a "raise" of $1000 at the end of the year. Did you really get a raise?

I think limiting contract lengths to 5 years (for example), owners may end up paying players more in the long run. Using Richards' contract as an example, after 5 years the odds are that he would be signed for a higher amount than he's currently scheduled to make; and again with his 3rd contract during the period (simply due to anticipated increased revenues via inflation). Richards' 12-year deal ensures his team that they're going to have him under contract and he'll likely be a very good deal in the next few years.

I can understand the league wanting to eliminate the "retirement" contracts, but I'm not sure why the owners want to do that -- using Pronger's contract as an example, his cap hit would have been a lot higher had those last couple of years not been allowed, and the Flyers may not have been able to sign him and fit him under the cap.

CharlieGirl is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 09:15 PM
  #911
healthyscratch
Registered User
 
healthyscratch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Philly
Posts: 5,462
vCash: 633
Katie Strang ‏@KatieStrangESPN
#CBA Can confirm what @aaronward_nhl first reported, that Gary Bettman suggested to NHLPA's Don Fehr that two sides take 2-week moratorium


Well, that's good.

healthyscratch is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 12:04 AM
  #912
CharlieGirl
Get well soon Kimmo
 
CharlieGirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Kitchener, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,984
vCash: 500
I'll go back to Gary needing a dictionary.

Way to crap all over the people who have been laid off, or had their pay reduced as a result of the lockout. You know, the ones who weren't making millions, but working at minimum wage jobs. And way to crap all over the fans.

CharlieGirl is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 12:59 AM
  #913
Flyerfan4life
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Richmond BC, Canada
Country: England
Posts: 13,253
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by healthyscratch View Post
Katie Strang ‏@KatieStrangESPN
#CBA Can confirm what @aaronward_nhl first reported, that Gary Bettman suggested to NHLPA's Don Fehr that two sides take 2-week moratorium


Well, that's good.
put a fork in it... this season is done...

Flyerfan4life is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 08:21 AM
  #914
Protest
C`est La Vie
 
Protest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Deptford, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 4,565
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snotbubbles View Post
At the end of the day who are you screwing?
That seems a bit too personal of a question for an internet hockey forum.

Protest is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 08:23 AM
  #915
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,156
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest View Post
That seems a bit too personal of a question for an internet hockey forum.

Krishna is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 08:38 AM
  #916
MsWoof
Registered User
 
MsWoof's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,245
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by healthyscratch View Post
Katie Strang ‏@KatieStrangESPN
#CBA Can confirm what @aaronward_nhl first reported, that Gary Bettman suggested to NHLPA's Don Fehr that two sides take 2-week moratorium


Well, that's good.
Yeah, taking a 2 week holiday is a great way to negotiate.

MsWoof is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 08:58 AM
  #917
Snotbubbles
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlieGirl View Post
The players aren't demanding that nothing changes though. They're looking to work together to get to the point where owners feel they need to be to keep teams financially viable. The owners aren't looking for reasonable - they want immediate rollbacks, plus pushing back the FA age so that they have the players under their thumbs for at least 3 contracts, and limiting contract lengths (which may end up blowing up in their faces, in some cases).

You're right though - the players have more to lose than owners do, particularly in poor markets.

Would you be okay if your boss gave you a raise and then came to you 2 weeks later to tell you that you were not only not going to get the raise you were promised, but that he was going to start paying you less than you did previously?

Yes, the players are well paid, but they also make a lot of money for the league. And let's not pretend that some owners didn't make an absolute ton of money as a result of the salary cap, our Flyers included.
If my alternative was to take a pay cut or not get paid at all, I know what I'm choosing. Would I be okay with it, no. But I know a ton of people in the last few years who were given the option to: "Take a X% decrease in salary or get laid off". People took the salary reduction.

I also find revenue sharing a bad idea without some serious guidelines on how the revenue share money should be used. I don't want a Jeff Loria-type owner to get a ton of revenue sharing money, and instead of using to make a market viable, they pocket it as profit. The owners against revenue sharing just got a ton of ammunition this week thanks to Mr. Loria who is the poster child for why revenue sharing is not a good idea.

Snotbubbles is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 09:03 AM
  #918
Flyotes
DownieFaceSoftener
 
Flyotes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,207
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlieGirl View Post
I'll go back to Gary needing a dictionary.

Way to crap all over the people who have been laid off, or had their pay reduced as a result of the lockout. You know, the ones who weren't making millions, but working at minimum wage jobs. And way to crap all over the fans.
You're so pro-player I'm not sure you realize that this applies equally to players and owners.

It is the best argument you've made thusfar.

Apparently, the owners and the players can't get together and work this out so that the cities that pay them don't suffer.

Flyotes is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 09:22 AM
  #919
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,156
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsWoof View Post
Yeah, taking a 2 week holiday is a great way to negotiate.
NHL should be like the PA and take a 6 month holiday

Krishna is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 09:31 AM
  #920
PAZUZU
Registered User
 
PAZUZU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Philly 'burbs
Country: United States
Posts: 170
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snotbubbles View Post
If my alternative was to take a pay cut or not get paid at all, I know what I'm choosing. Would I be okay with it, no. But I know a ton of people in the last few years who were given the option to: "Take a X% decrease in salary or get laid off". People took the salary reduction.
I see what you are saying, but Gary Bruce Bettman went on TV and said the NHL made record profits last year. How can you ask your employees to give money back when you claim your company made record profits?

PAZUZU is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 10:35 AM
  #921
Snotbubbles
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PAZUZU View Post
I see what you are saying, but Gary Bruce Bettman went on TV and said the NHL made record profits last year. How can you ask your employees to give money back when you claim your company made record profits?
Because the NHL is actually 30 different companies where the top few make a majority of the profits. According to Forbes, the Maple Leafs, Canucks, Oilers, Rangers and Canadiens actually had operating profits (EBIT) of $212M. The other 25 teams lost $86M. So when you combine them all together the league acutally made 126M in profits, which may be a record, but put into context isn't really a pretty picture.

I will admit that a team like the Flyers isn't really there to make a profit, but to simply break even or possibly (I say possibly because I don't have access to their books) be used as a tax shelter for profits. But not every team is like that.

Snotbubbles is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 11:02 AM
  #922
CharlieGirl
Get well soon Kimmo
 
CharlieGirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Kitchener, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,984
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DownieFaceSoftener View Post
You're so pro-player I'm not sure you realize that this applies equally to players and owners.

It is the best argument you've made thusfar.

Apparently, the owners and the players can't get together and work this out so that the cities that pay them don't suffer.
I know it applies to both sides -- and both sides will end up hurting if this lockout continues for much longer. The PR damage has already been done, but if the entire season is cancelled, getting the league back to where it was even after the last lockout will take years, and most of the strides the league has made in non-traditional markets will be lost forever.

CharlieGirl is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 12:25 PM
  #923
bennysflyers16
Registered User
 
bennysflyers16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 18,549
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krishna View Post
NHL should be like the PA and take a 6 month holiday
So because you are frustrated and not getting your way , you just quit , not in his job description?

Not all teams want a lockout, and Fehr has done zero and has Gary steaming and increasing his offer everytime. Fehr will take nothing seriously until there is no other alternative.

I know you 100% blame the PA, but little Gary has met his match and is rattled like never before.

For the record, my view is both sides are equally ****ed and share equal blame.

bennysflyers16 is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 12:27 PM
  #924
El Emperor
Registered User
 
El Emperor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Woodstown, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 1,300
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlieGirl View Post
I know it applies to both sides -- and both sides will end up hurting if this lockout continues for much longer. The PR damage has already been done, but if the entire season is cancelled, getting the league back to where it was even after the last lockout will take years, and most of the strides the league has made in non-traditional markets will be lost forever.
Is it safe to say that Phoenix is done? I cannot see anyone taking on that franchise as an owner. It was already an uphill battle, but now it won't have any chance.

El Emperor is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 12:49 PM
  #925
BringBackStevens
Registered User
 
BringBackStevens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 12,439
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snotbubbles View Post
Because the NHL is actually 30 different companies where the top few make a majority of the profits. According to Forbes, the Maple Leafs, Canucks, Oilers, Rangers and Canadiens actually had operating profits (EBIT) of $212M. The other 25 teams lost $86M. So when you combine them all together the league acutally made 126M in profits, which may be a record, but put into context isn't really a pretty picture.

I will admit that a team like the Flyers isn't really there to make a profit, but to simply break even or possibly (I say possibly because I don't have access to their books) be used as a tax shelter for profits. But not every team is like that.
If the league as a whole is a plus, then that tells me the main issue isn't league expenses (player salaries) but 1) bad markets and 2) not enough revenue sharing. If you take salaries down across the board the gaps between those top 5 teams you mentioned and the rest is going to be exactly the same

Also, those Forbes numbers need to be taken with a gigantic graint of salt. I'm sure some teams are hurting, but like you said theres a lot more to it than the numbers you are going to see there for some teams (Flyers)

BringBackStevens 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 11:23 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.