HFBoards

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

Lockout Discussion Thread 3.0

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-23-2012, 11:38 AM
  #26
Monctonscout
Monctonscout
 
Monctonscout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 30,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
on top of my head, Minny with Suter/Parize , NJ with Kovalchuk, NYR with Gomez/Redden, Edm with Souray, Buff with Leino, NYI with a pretty long list, TB with Vinny, Philly with Bryzgalov, TML with Komisarek, Habs with a few as well, Pitt with Martin...

and there's a lot more... half of these overpaid players being signed by small market teams...

so really ?



reality is, it's f***ing simple: if you can't afford a 10 Mil player -> DONT SIGN ONE.
The only small market in that group is TB and they paid to retain their own player, not the same as paying a crazy amount for a UFA with a front loaded 12 year deal a la Hossa/Kovalchuk etc.

Some teams can't afford to pay to the cap floor...and they have to.

Plus survival(see Nashville and TB) is keeping your best players, unfortiunately you are at the mercy of the market created by big maket owners right now. Nashville either has to pay a ridiculous amount to Weber or lose him for no immediate help.

Monctonscout is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 12:00 PM
  #27
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 22,450
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
on top of my head, Minny with Suter/Parize , NJ with Kovalchuk, NYR with Gomez/Redden, Edm with Souray, Buff with Leino, NYI with a pretty long list, TB with Vinny, Philly with Bryzgalov, TML with Komisarek, Habs with a few as well, Pitt with Martin...

and there's a lot more... half of these overpaid players being signed by small market teams...

so really ?



reality is, it's f***ing simple: if you can't afford a 10 Mil player -> DONT SIGN ONE.

Right, and why is that? Remember when Gainey refused to give out big deals or overpay players? He was destroyed by the media and fans for ''not being capable of bringing in top players''.

It always just takes one guy to get the ball rolling. After that, you have agents working hard to match that.

The players took full advantage of the situation. Lots of players decided to test the market. The league didn't foresee this happening when they signed the last CBA. Heck, even the players thought they got screwed. Turns out they got a lot more than they thought.
NHL eventually realized this was a problem, so they're addressing it now.
Who cares if the owners are part of why it happened. Pointing fingers doesn't fix the problem.

Kriss E is online now  
Old
11-23-2012, 12:22 PM
  #28
WhiskeySeven
Enlarged Member
 
WhiskeySeven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 13,676
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey Price View Post
Plus survival(see Nashville and TB) is keeping your best players, unfortiunately you are at the mercy of the market created by big maket owners right now. Nashville either has to pay a ridiculous amount to Weber or lose him for no immediate help.
Bingo you finally get it. This lockout is about the rich owners versus the poor owners - that's all it is.

The rampant ignorant morons who insist on hating the NHLPA and Fehr for every little comment don't understand it - this isn't the previous lockout, this one is entire fabricated. Record-setting revenues and attendance... there was no need for a lockout if the rich money-making owners just agreed to revenue share a bit more. Not that I'm saying I'd do it if I were a rich owner but that's all there is to it really. Instead they want to take the cut that supports the broke teams out of the players' pockets and understandably the players are mad as hell about that.

WhiskeySeven is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 12:25 PM
  #29
WhiskeySeven
Enlarged Member
 
WhiskeySeven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 13,676
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Right, and why is that? Remember when Gainey refused to give out big deals or overpay players? He was destroyed by the media and fans for ''not being capable of bringing in top players''.
No he wasn't. He was adored for being a fair negotiator right up until he ****ed everything up by gifting said giant contracts. Gomez, Spacek, Cammy and fkn Gionta. Wow what a haul Bob!

Quote:
It always just takes one guy to get the ball rolling. After that, you have agents working hard to match that.

The players took full advantage of the situation. Lots of players decided to test the market. The league didn't foresee this happening when they signed the last CBA. Heck, even the players thought they got screwed. Turns out they got a lot more than they thought.
NHL eventually realized this was a problem, so they're addressing it now.
Who cares if the owners are part of why it happened. Pointing fingers doesn't fix the problem.
It's called a market, I don't know how you can blame the players for signing contracts that owners willingly gave out. There's a salary cap, not every player can and will get overpaid. But when players like Skinner are getting 5m+ and everyone on HFBoards applauds it... it makes you wonder - maybe people on HFBoards don't have a clue about anything? Hmm.

WhiskeySeven is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 12:41 PM
  #30
Gally11
Registered User
 
Gally11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: St. John's
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
on top of my head, Minny with Suter/Parize , NJ with Kovalchuk, NYR with Gomez/Redden, Edm with Souray, Buff with Leino, NYI with a pretty long list, TB with Vinny, Philly with Bryzgalov, TML with Komisarek, Habs with a few as well, Pitt with Martin...

and there's a lot more... half of these overpaid players being signed by small market teams...

so really ?



reality is, it's f***ing simple: if you can't afford a 10 Mil player -> DONT SIGN ONE.
I guess it depends on what you define as overpay, but it's understood that smaller markets have to overpay to get players to go there, they don't necessarily raise market values.

I think what people are referring to is the Gomez/Redden/Bryzgalov/Luoungo/Vinny type contracts. Overpaid longterm, Souray was only 4 year contract and he wasn't overpaid that much at the time he signed it

Gally11 is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 01:00 PM
  #31
ScottFC
Registered User
 
ScottFC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: чуд
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,087
vCash: 500
Truth is it's not the fault of the Players or the Owners. The salary cap created an artificial market and whether the owners/players like it or not to stay competitive they had to work within those guidelines and play with the rules to outbid other teams (hence these crazy long term contracts). The problem is really that when they set the salary cap in 2004 they didn't account for this much of an increase in revenues to big market teams. The players have won out big time because of this but they still see it as they lost out after the last lockout and like they have to fight for their rights which is bull.

The problem is also that the NHL didn't consider that revenues would increase in big market teams and still operate at a loss in smaller markets only now these small markets are forced to pay a minimum salary cap even if they can't afford it so it's digging them even further into the red.

ScottFC is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 01:07 PM
  #32
Habs 4 Life
No Excuses
 
Habs 4 Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Montreal
Country: Italy
Posts: 32,865
vCash: 500
NHL cancels game through December 14th and also the ASG in Columbus. Not much of a surprise. If a deal isn't made by the 14th, I have a feeling Bettman announces the season is done which I think will be the case

Habs 4 Life is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 01:11 PM
  #33
Habtchum*
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,726
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habs 4 Life View Post
NHL cancels game through December 14th and also the ASG in Columbus. Not much of a surprise. If a deal isn't made by the 14th, I have a feeling Bettman announces the season is done which I think will be the case
Talk about killing the Goose that laid the Golden Eggs...

Habtchum* is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 01:17 PM
  #34
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 22,450
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiskeySeven View Post
No he wasn't. He was adored for being a fair negotiator right up until he ****ed everything up by gifting said giant contracts. Gomez, Spacek, Cammy and fkn Gionta. Wow what a haul Bob!
I have to doubt of your whereabouts if you think Gainey was applauded here or in the media. He was criticized for being too laid back, lacking aggressivity, and unable to attrack the big free agents, or make significant trades around the deadline.
Yes, when he had to re-sign some of our players, he got decent-good deals, but that has nothing to do with his work on trades/UFA. He was highly criticized.

After he made all those signings, people thought he lost it completely, others were willing to wait to see what comes of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiskeySeven View Post
It's called a market, I don't know how you can blame the players for signing contracts that owners willingly gave out. There's a salary cap, not every player can and will get overpaid. But when players like Skinner are getting 5m+ and everyone on HFBoards applauds it... it makes you wonder - maybe people on HFBoards don't have a clue about anything? Hmm.
Not sure who applauded Skinner at 5M..

In any event, again, like this lockout, it's not just one sided. The owners are dumb for dishing out that cash, but the agents play their part. If a player demands 7M, and that's the minimum or he walks, well, the GM/Owner are faced with an ultimatum. Either re-sign at an overpaying price, or lose a valuable asset. Sometimes, they'll let that player go, sometimes they'll sign.
But let's not pretend both sides don't play their part. It's not like the players come in asking for petty change and the owners just decide to give three times the amount, just for kicks.

The agents are there for a reason, they try to get the best deals possible to their clients. There's also the bidding wars on the open market.

There's so many reasons as to why players end up getting so much cash. Yes, in the end, owners are the ones paying it out, but the players are also playing their part, big time.

Kriss E is online now  
Old
11-23-2012, 01:35 PM
  #35
Monctonscout
Monctonscout
 
Monctonscout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 30,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiskeySeven View Post
Bingo you finally get it. This lockout is about the rich owners versus the poor owners - that's all it is.

The rampant ignorant morons who insist on hating the NHLPA and Fehr for every little comment don't understand it - this isn't the previous lockout, this one is entire fabricated. Record-setting revenues and attendance... there was no need for a lockout if the rich money-making owners just agreed to revenue share a bit more. Not that I'm saying I'd do it if I were a rich owner but that's all there is to it really. Instead they want to take the cut that supports the broke teams out of the players' pockets and understandably the players are mad as hell about that.
NHL players still should not be getting 57% of any pie. Any perception that they "gave away too much" last CBA is pure propaganda.

Monctonscout is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 02:07 PM
  #36
WhiskeySeven
Enlarged Member
 
WhiskeySeven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 13,676
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey Price View Post
NHL players still should not be getting 57% of any pie. Any perception that they "gave away too much" last CBA is pure propaganda.
Why not? Revenue comes from fans, fans come to see NHL games, NHL games are played by NHL players. (assuming a healthy revenue stream) Why shouldn't the players get the lion's share? The owners are merely investors, them demanding (up to) 50% of revenue is ludicrous in my opinion.

I'll respond to Kriss E shortly, suffice to say I think blaming agents for contracts offered, signed and paid by owners is a wrong way to look at things.

WhiskeySeven is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 02:22 PM
  #37
FrankMTL
Registered User
 
FrankMTL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,648
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiskeySeven View Post
Why not? Revenue comes from fans, fans come to see NHL games, NHL games are played by NHL players. (assuming a healthy revenue stream) Why shouldn't the players get the lion's share? The owners are merely investors, them demanding (up to) 50% of revenue is ludicrous in my opinion.

I'll respond to Kriss E shortly, suffice to say I think blaming agents for contracts offered, signed and paid by owners is a wrong way to look at things.
Because NHL owners take all the risk as seen by most NHL teams losing money. Do players risk losing money? No they don't...unless they're locked out which is the case right now obviously. Why would NHL players deserve more than a 50/50 split when most other more popouar sports leagues like the NFL and the NBA have these percentages..

NFL: Players 47%-48.5%, Owners 51.5%-53%

NBA: Players 50%, Owners 50%

Yes fans pay to see these players play, but where do they see them play? These huge multi million dollar arenas are not paid for by the players. Without the owners to build up the infrastructure to show the world these players talent, they would be nothing. Yes people could still watch them play, but they wouldn't be paying through the nose like they're doing now and would be making peanuts in comparison. You act like "these investors" are available just about on every street corner. It takes a lot of money and balls to own a majors sports team.

FrankMTL is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 02:29 PM
  #38
Talks to Goalposts
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,560
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
I have to doubt of your whereabouts if you think Gainey was applauded here or in the media. He was criticized for being too laid back, lacking aggressivity, and unable to attrack the big free agents, or make significant trades around the deadline.
Yes, when he had to re-sign some of our players, he got decent-good deals, but that has nothing to do with his work on trades/UFA. He was highly criticized.

After he made all those signings, people thought he lost it completely, others were willing to wait to see what comes of it.



Not sure who applauded Skinner at 5M..

In any event, again, like this lockout, it's not just one sided. The owners are dumb for dishing out that cash, but the agents play their part. If a player demands 7M, and that's the minimum or he walks, well, the GM/Owner are faced with an ultimatum. Either re-sign at an overpaying price, or lose a valuable asset. Sometimes, they'll let that player go, sometimes they'll sign.
But let's not pretend both sides don't play their part. It's not like the players come in asking for petty change and the owners just decide to give three times the amount, just for kicks.

The agents are there for a reason, they try to get the best deals possible to their clients. There's also the bidding wars on the open market.

There's so many reasons as to why players end up getting so much cash. Yes, in the end, owners are the ones paying it out, but the players are also playing their part, big time.


You're fixated on a red herring. The supposed giant contracts that are ruining things for the owners. This is a total irrelevancy. The players get the same amount of money in total regardless any contract signed. All a big contract does is take money away from other players to give it to that player, it has no net effect on ownership.

Talks to Goalposts is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 02:45 PM
  #39
Myron Gaines*
Trop Giou
 
Myron Gaines*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,391
vCash: 500
BRB maintaining arenas don't cost money

Myron Gaines* is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 03:23 PM
  #40
HCH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The Wild West
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,599
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankMTL View Post
These huge multi million dollar arenas are not paid for by the players. Without the owners to build up the infrastructure to show the world these players talent, they would be nothing.
In many cases the taxpayers are the ones who build the facilities and the related infrastructure for sports venues. Many of these taxpayers have no interest in sports yet their dollars are spent for the enjoyment of a relatively small group.

Two groups benefit from this arrangement... the players and the owners. In many cases, if the owners actually had to build their own facilities there would be a lot less available to the players. A good portion of the revenue currently collected would go towards paying mortgages.

A good reference book is "Field of Schemes"

HCH is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 03:36 PM
  #41
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,315
vCash: 500
Arenas do not cost money, they are very profitable to maintain by hosting events, etc.

Further, the maintenance costs are probably subtracted from the HRR calculation.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 03:38 PM
  #42
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,315
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankMTL View Post
Because NHL owners take all the risk as seen by most NHL teams losing money. Do players risk losing money? No they don't...unless they're locked out which is the case right now obviously. Why would NHL players deserve more than a 50/50 split when most other more popouar sports leagues like the NFL and the NBA have these percentages..

NFL: Players 47%-48.5%, Owners 51.5%-53%

NBA: Players 50%, Owners 50%

Yes fans pay to see these players play, but where do they see them play? These huge multi million dollar arenas are not paid for by the players. Without the owners to build up the infrastructure to show the world these players talent, they would be nothing. Yes people could still watch them play, but they wouldn't be paying through the nose like they're doing now and would be making peanuts in comparison. You act like "these investors" are available just about on every street corner. It takes a lot of money and balls to own a majors sports team.
Why do you hate capitalism?

In a free market system, players get 72% of revenue.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 03:41 PM
  #43
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,315
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talks to Goalposts View Post
You're fixated on a red herring. The supposed giant contracts that are ruining things for the owners. This is a total irrelevancy. The players get the same amount of money in total regardless any contract signed. All a big contract does is take money away from other players to give it to that player, it has no net effect on ownership.
TtG, I tried explaining to him the other thread that every time one player is overpaid, you get other players being underpaid by the exact same dollar amount. He somehow convinced himself that this could not be.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 03:51 PM
  #44
Frozenice
the random dude
 
Frozenice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,058
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankMTL View Post
Because NHL owners take all the risk as seen by most NHL teams losing money. Do players risk losing money? No they don't...unless they're locked out which is the case right now obviously. Why would NHL players deserve more than a 50/50 split when most other more popouar sports leagues like the NFL and the NBA have these percentages..

NFL: Players 47%-48.5%, Owners 51.5%-53%

NBA: Players 50%, Owners 50%

Yes fans pay to see these players play, but where do they see them play? These huge multi million dollar arenas are not paid for by the players. Without the owners to build up the infrastructure to show the world these players talent, they would be nothing. Yes people could still watch them play, but they wouldn't be paying through the nose like they're doing now and would be making peanuts in comparison. You act like "these investors" are available just about on every street corner. It takes a lot of money and balls to own a majors sports team.
Losing money by what definition? A long time ago a GM told his players the team had lost $2 million this year. When they questioned him on it he told them he had made $4 million the year before and this year he was only going to make $2 million, therefore the team had lost $2 million.

So much of this making and losing money is bogus accounting. If a team's franchise value goes up by $5 million and they make a couple million on other events at the arena and if they pay off $!0 million dollars worth of loans, are they really losing money?

Don't worry though, when we enter the deflationary part of this economic cycle these clowns will really lose a lot of money and they will learn that balloons can deflate a lot faster then they it took for them to be inflated.

Frozenice is online now  
Old
11-23-2012, 03:52 PM
  #45
habsfan92
Registered User
 
habsfan92's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 316
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottFC View Post
Truth is it's not the fault of the Players or the Owners. The salary cap created an artificial market and whether the owners/players like it or not to stay competitive they had to work within those guidelines and play with the rules to outbid other teams (hence these crazy long term contracts). The problem is really that when they set the salary cap in 2004 they didn't account for this much of an increase in revenues to big market teams. The players have won out big time because of this but they still see it as they lost out after the last lockout and like they have to fight for their rights which is bull.

The problem is also that the NHL didn't consider that revenues would increase in big market teams and still operate at a loss in smaller markets only now these small markets are forced to pay a minimum salary cap even if they can't afford it so it's digging them even further into the red.
I am nodding my head in agreement.
Gotta lower that cap number and change that calculation that is based on HRR. Thanks NHLPA for understanding.

habsfan92 is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 03:52 PM
  #46
FrankMTL
Registered User
 
FrankMTL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,648
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HCH View Post
In many cases the taxpayers are the ones who build the facilities and the related infrastructure for sports venues. Many of these taxpayers have no interest in sports yet their dollars are spent for the enjoyment of a relatively small group.

Two groups benefit from this arrangement... the players and the owners. In many cases, if the owners actually had to build their own facilities there would be a lot less available to the players. A good portion of the revenue currently collected would go towards paying mortgages.

A good reference book is "Field of Schemes"
There's still probably about 50 percent (or more) of NHL arenas that are mostly privately funded.

-Rexall Place
-Rogers Arena
-MTS Centre
-ACC
-Bell Centre
-Scotiabank Place
-MSG
-TD Garden
-Wells Fargo Center (mostly private)
-Prudential Center (mostly settlemant money from city of Newark in a lease dispute)
-Consol Energy Center (mostly private)
-Tampa Bay Times Forum (split private and government, so public)
-Verizon Center


This is just from the eastern conference. Yes there are arenas that a built on public funds, but its still takes owners with deep pockets to build a lot of these arenas, and on top of that own these teams and run the day to day operations. Lots of risks involved.

FrankMTL is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 03:56 PM
  #47
FrankMTL
Registered User
 
FrankMTL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,648
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frozenice View Post
Losing money by what definition? A long time ago a GM told his players the team had lost $2 million this year. When they questioned him on it he told them he had made $4 million the year before and this year he was only going to make $2 million, therefore the team had lost $2 million.

So much of this making and losing money is bogus accounting. If a team's franchise value goes up by $5 million and they make a couple million on other events at the arena and if they pay off $!0 million dollars worth of loans, are they really losing money?

Don't worry though, when we enter the deflationary part of this economic cycle these clowns will really lose a lot of money and they will learn that balloons can deflate a lot faster then they it took for them to be inflated.
Well its a lot easier to use numbers that are available then to try and figure out numbers that aren't...You can think what you want to think, but these are the facts that are given to us.

FrankMTL is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 03:57 PM
  #48
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,315
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankMTL View Post
There's still probably about 50 percent (or more) of NHL arenas that are mostly privately funded.

-Rexall Place
-Rogers Arena
-MTS Centre
-ACC
-Bell Centre
-Scotiabank Place
-MSG
-TD Garden
-Wells Fargo Center (mostly private)
-Prudential Center (mostly settlemant money from city of Newark in a lease dispute)
-Consol Energy Center (mostly private)
-Tampa Bay Times Forum (split private and government, so public)
-Verizon Center


This is just from the eastern conference. Yes there are arenas that a built on public funds, but its still takes owners with deep pockets to build a lot of these arenas, and on top of that own these teams and run the day to day operations. Lots of risks involved.
Molson might make more money off the bell Center than he does off the habs.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 03:59 PM
  #49
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,315
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talks to Goalposts View Post
You're fixated on a red herring. The supposed giant contracts that are ruining things for the owners. This is a total irrelevancy. The players get the same amount of money in total regardless any contract signed. All a big contract does is take money away from other players to give it to that player, it has no net effect on ownership.
TtG, I tried explaining to him the other thread that every time one player is overpaid, you get other players being underpaid by the exact same dollar amount. He somehow convinced himself that this could not be.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 03:59 PM
  #50
FrankMTL
Registered User
 
FrankMTL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,648
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Arenas do not cost money, they are very profitable to maintain by hosting events, etc.

Further, the maintenance costs are probably subtracted from the HRR calculation.
It still takes money to build these arenas...who cares if they make money. Are any players putting money forward to build arenas? They should, they'd make more money that way and would control a larger percentage of profit right?

FrankMTL is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:08 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.