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, 08:22 PM
  #76
Raider917
Registered User
 
Raider917's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,560
vCash: 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by vokiel View Post
If the NHLPA opts for decertification, doesn't it increase the chances of it happening? I want the league to implode and have the profitable teams reform a new league with brand new rosters through a draft.

Lets get Vinny!
maybe so. decertification doesnt seem that bad to me. it seems similar to the nfl and epl

Raider917 is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 08:58 PM
  #77
Protest the Hero
Registered User
 
Protest the Hero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,383
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
so, you too believe a 10/15% rollback is what will turn TB, PHX or CBJ (for example) into profitable franchises ? really ?
Where did I say that?

The league is pulling in more money than ever right now, the problem is they're spending more money than ever. Record revenues mean nothing when they're spending so much. At 57%, the cap was climbing way too quickly, and it's mostly thanks to a strong Canadian dollar.

Protest the Hero is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 09:35 PM
  #78
Reiher
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 615
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raider917 View Post
maybe so. decertification doesnt seem that bad to me. it seems similar to the nfl and epl
I've been following the lockout thread for quite some time and some of the back and forth bickering is interesting to say the least about picking one side or the other.

However I think I somewhat agree with this, correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't decertification at this point more or less destroy the work put in from the last CBA? I mean I kind of get the impression that decertification would essentially put all the players back into open market mode which has been stated several times that the players got 72% of the share then...

Not saying that this is what would happen in round 2 of an open market because surely some teams would absolutely collapse and the disparity between 4th liners and 1st line stars would be even larger, but from an owner's point of view I would think that decertification would be a horrible scenario IF the players can force each franchise to then operate as individual groups thus the players winning anti-trust cases breaking the resolve of all the owners cooperating together to flex their muscle.

Sure pensions, health benefits and all the good things from the union get tossed into the air, but you would think that the owners that want to ice a competitive team will agree to terms that will cover these things and perpetuate monster deals and potentially larger ones than currently exist.

But I'm just trying to interpret what I've heard about the implication of decertification and would like to hear someone else's view on this.

Reiher is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 09:38 PM
  #79
ECWHSWI
P.K. is perfect.
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 14,931
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest the Hero View Post
Where did I say that?

The league is pulling in more money than ever right now, the problem is they're spending more money than ever. Record revenues mean nothing when they're spending so much. At 57%, the cap was climbing way too quickly, and it's mostly thanks to a strong Canadian dollar.
they arent spending any more (in %) than 10 or 20 years ago.

and whatever they do with players salaries, it wont bring more fans to TB, FLO, CLB, PHX and co...

ECWHSWI is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 09:39 PM
  #80
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest the Hero View Post
Where did I say that?

The league is pulling in more money than ever right now, the problem is they're spending more money than ever. Record revenues mean nothing when they're spending so much. At 57%, the cap was climbing way too quickly, and it's mostly thanks to a strong Canadian dollar.
You are completely confused, because you don't know the actual facts.

It is true that player payroll is up 80% since the last lockout. However, total revenues after player payroll has been deducted are up a whopping ~176%. This is because total league revenue are up 80%, and the owners are now keeping 43% rather than 28% of revenue, so 1.8*0.43/0.28 - 1.00 = 1.76.

Further, the rise in the cap is not "mostly due to the Canadian dollar". When the cap went into effect, the dollar was at 85 cents and the cap was at 39 million in its first year and 44 million in its second year. Now, the cap would have been 70.2 million this year if there had been a season. Do you actually think that a ~17% rise in the Canadian dollar [where only 30-35% of league revenue come from the 7 canadian franchises] could possibly explain a 60% rise in the cap since the cap's second year? Think about it, it can explain at most ~6/60 = 10%, or one tenth of the total increase in the cap.

So I ask you, if only 10% of the total increase in cap is due to the Canadian dollar, and if the owners have had 176% growth in revenues even after player payroll has been removed, and these are all brilliant businessmen, how is it that the owners as a whole are claiming that half are losing money?


Last edited by DAChampion: 11-23-2012 at 09:46 PM.
DAChampion is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 09:55 PM
  #81
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
That's because I don't think it's as simple as that. What will determine if a player is overpaid, underpaid or fairly paid is performance. I understand that at the end of the day, 57% will remain 57%, but that's without considering performance.
The NHL is a zero-sum game, with only one team winning the cup every year and only 16 teams making the playoffs. As such, performance is a purely relative quantity.

These are the top-20 cap hits in the league according to capgeek:

Ovechkin, Alex F WAS 27 13 $9,538,462
2. Malkin, Evgeni F PIT 26 5 $8,700,000
3. Crosby, Sidney F PIT 25 5 $8,700,000
4. Staal, Eric F CAR 28 7 $8,250,000
5. Weber, Shea D NAS 27 14 $7,857,143
6. Nash, Rick F NYR 28 8 $7,800,000
7. Lecavalier, Vincent F TBL 32 11 $7,727,273
8. Parise, Zach F MIN 28 13 $7,538,462
9. Suter, Ryan D MIN 27 13 $7,538,462
10. Heatley, Dany F MIN 31 6 $7,500,000
11. Gaborik, Marian F NYR 30 5 $7,500,000
12. Stamkos, Steven F TBL 22 5 $7,500,000
13. Gomez, Scott F MTL 32 7 $7,357,143
14. Campbell, Brian D FLA 33 8 $7,142,875
15. Vanek, Thomas F BUF 28 7 $7,142,857
16. Spezza, Jason F OTT 29 7 $7,000,000
17. Iginla, Jarome F CGY 35 5 $7,000,000
18. Thornton, Joe F SAN 33 3 $7,000,000
19. Doughty, Drew D LAK 22 8 $7,000,000
20. Rinne, Pekka G NAS 30 7 $7,000,000

The total salary range is only 35%. However, it is clear that the performance range is far higher. Malkin only makes ~10% more than Nash, but I wouldn't be surprised if his value over replacement was *double* that of Nash and most of the players on that list.

As an aside, I'm surprised Zdeno Chara doesn't make the top-20. He plays 25 minutes a game in all situation, he is top-5 at all three zones for NHL dmen, he averages 50 points per season and plays +30 over the year, a leader in the locker room, he's also one of the top enforcers in the league and regularly injures quality players on division rivals... clearly an underpaid player at 6.9 million. His actual value to the Boston Bruins bottom line might be as much as 15 or 20 million per year, maybe more.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 09:57 PM
  #82
Protest the Hero
Registered User
 
Protest the Hero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,383
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
they arent spending any more (in %) than 10 or 20 years ago.

and whatever they do with players salaries, it wont bring more fans to TB, FLO, CLB, PHX and co...
It's impossible to have a conversation on here, where did I ever mention those teams you're talking about?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
You are completely confused, because you don't know the actual facts.

It is true that player payroll is up 80% since the last lockout. However, total revenues after player payroll has been deducted is up a whopping ~180%.

Further, the rise in the cap is not "mostly due to the Canadian dollar". When the cap went into effect, the dollar was at 85 cents and the cap was at 39 million in its first year and 44 million in its second year. Now, the cap would have been 70.2 million this year if there had been a season. Do you actually think that a ~17% rise in the Canadian dollar, where only 30-35% of league revenue come from the 7 canadian franchises, could possibly explain a 60% rise in the cap since the cap's second year? Think about it, it can explain at most ~6/60 = 10%, or one tenth of the total increase in the cap.
I mispoke, but the cap and league revenues are directly related to each other. The problem is 3 teams are driving most of that revenue, and the Canadian dollar is artificially raising it higher, compared to the actual health of the league.

Protest the Hero is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 10:48 PM
  #83
Craig71
Registered User
 
Craig71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,803
vCash: 500
Debate this to 300 pages if you want to, but the bottom line is that nobody wins in this whole mess, but the losers are us the fans and the thousands of unemployed workers that earn a living from NHL clubs.

Craig71 is online now  
Old
11-23-2012, 11:20 PM
  #84
Myron Gaines*
Trop Giou
 
Myron Gaines*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,391
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig71 View Post
Debate this to 300 pages if you want to, but the bottom line is that nobody wins in this whole mess, but the losers are us the fans and the thousands of unemployed workers that earn a living from NHL clubs.
Disregard this post please.

Continue debate.


Myron Gaines* is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 12:11 AM
  #85
habsfan92
Registered User
 
habsfan92's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 316
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
You are completely confused, because you don't know the actual facts.

It is true that player payroll is up 80% since the last lockout. However, total revenues after player payroll has been deducted are up a whopping ~176%. This is because total league revenue are up 80%, and the owners are now keeping 43% rather than 28% of revenue, so 1.8*0.43/0.28 - 1.00 = 1.76.

Further, the rise in the cap is not "mostly due to the Canadian dollar". When the cap went into effect, the dollar was at 85 cents and the cap was at 39 million in its first year and 44 million in its second year. Now, the cap would have been 70.2 million this year if there had been a season. Do you actually think that a ~17% rise in the Canadian dollar [where only 30-35% of league revenue come from the 7 canadian franchises] could possibly explain a 60% rise in the cap since the cap's second year? Think about it, it can explain at most ~6/60 = 10%, or one tenth of the total increase in the cap.


So I ask you, if only 10% of the total increase in cap is due to the Canadian dollar, and if the owners have had 176% growth in revenues even after player payroll has been removed, and these are all brilliant businessmen, how is it that the owners as a whole are claiming that half are losing money?
So your saying that the owners are basically making loads of money, all of them. And so they impose a lock out to make even more, jeopardizing current and future revenue streams just because. Even you can't believe this? I don't trust your numbers, but thanks for the effort. They may or may not be accurate, but I have too busy a life to verify. Remember that 23 teams travel to Canada with a weaker dollar and travel cost that exceed the growth of revenues.

habsfan92 is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 12:12 AM
  #86
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,400
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.
100% dead on. Great post and understanding of things.

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 12:54 AM
  #87
overlords
Global Moderator
Jack Arse
 
overlords's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Trolling Brian Wilde
Posts: 26,093
vCash: 500
One could also argue that the owners making more money could possibly have benefits for the fans, whereas the players making more money has no bearing on us whatsoever.

__________________



"overlords is one of my favorite people on this entire site." - Hfboards
overlords is online now  
Old
11-24-2012, 01:23 AM
  #88
ECWHSWI
P.K. is perfect.
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 14,931
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest the Hero View Post
It's impossible to have a conversation on here, where did I ever mention those teams you're talking about?



I mispoke, but the cap and league revenues are directly related to each other. The problem is 3 teams are driving most of that revenue, and the Canadian dollar is artificially raising it higher, compared to the actual health of the league.
huh, I have to repeat what you're saying or something really ?


and this lockout will not change that, next year the same teams will bring more or less the same revenues (%). If anything it will be worse as some of the poor teams, who are usually the ones having problems attracting fans, may lose some of their custommers.

ECWHSWI is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 01:25 AM
  #89
Habbadasher
Registered User
 
Habbadasher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: My couch
Country: Germany
Posts: 1,642
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
how is it that the owners as a whole are claiming that half are losing money?
I do not wish to debate with you, but you should know that even the NHLPA have not disputed the claim that 18 teams loose money. So far as I am aware, the PA has unfettered access to all 30 teams books, and have made on site audits of the books. Despite this, players, such as Ryan Miller, still say something like "we have trouble trusting them (the owners that they are loosing money)".

Habbadasher is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 02:08 AM
  #90
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habbadasher View Post
I do not wish to debate with you, but you should know that even the NHLPA have not disputed the claim that 18 teams loose money. So far as I am aware, the PA has unfettered access to all 30 teams books, and have made on site audits of the books. Despite this, players, such as Ryan Miller, still say something like "we have trouble trusting them (the owners that they are loosing money)".
I am not disputing that around half the owners are losing money. I am sorry if my post was misunderstood, I will try again.

The numbers,are clear, there is record growth in revenue, much higher than growth in player payroll. 180% vs 80%. Yet, half the owners are losing money, why?

I will give the answer. There are two parts.

First, no matter what, some teams will grow more than others. The NHL has the least revenue sharing if the major sports leagues. It is inevitable that some teams will lose money... Even if player payroll was at.30%, you would have many money losing teams.

Second, and this is the complex point that a lot of people do not get, a decrease on player payroll does not mean an,increase in profits. It means more money available for other expenses. Owners want to win, and only one team can host 16 home playoff games. Savings on players = investments in drafting, scouting, management, psychologists, trainers, coaches, etc. Teams have admitted that the reason the last CBA had not saved them is that other hockey related expenses went up.

This is why the NHLPA has requested cost controls on non player payroll. They do not want to have another lockout in give or six years, as the Bettman plan will necessitate.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 02:12 AM
  #91
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsfan92 View Post
So your saying that the owners are basically making loads of money, all of them. And so they impose a lock out to make even more, jeopardizing current and future revenue streams just because. Even you can't believe this? I don't trust your numbers, but thanks for the effort. They may or may not be accurate, but I have too busy a life to verify. Remember that 23 teams travel to Canada with a weaker dollar and travel cost that exceed the growth of revenues.
You don't trust my numbers?

It is not that hard to look up that league revenues have grown much faster than the Canadian dollar, it to look up the fact that most league revenue is from the us teams.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 02:14 AM
  #92
ECWHSWI
P.K. is perfect.
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 14,931
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habbadasher View Post
I do not wish to debate with you, but you should know that even the NHLPA have not disputed the claim that 18 teams loose money. So far as I am aware, the PA has unfettered access to all 30 teams books, and have made on site audits of the books. Despite this, players, such as Ryan Miller, still say something like "we have trouble trusting them (the owners that they are loosing money)".
would you trust your boss if he was 1. telling you he was losing money 2. the only solution to that is to cut your salary in half ? (for example) 3. would you trust someone who's first move is to find a way to not honour the contract he gave you a month or two ago ?

ECWHSWI is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 02:20 AM
  #93
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habbadasher View Post
I do not wish to debate with you, but you should know that even the NHLPA have not disputed the claim that 18 teams loose money. So far as I am aware, the PA has unfettered access to all 30 teams books, and have made on site audits of the books. Despite this, players, such as Ryan Miller, still say something like "we have trouble trusting them (the owners that they are loosing money)".
I am not disputing that around half the owners are losing money. I am sorry if my post was misunderstood, I will try again.

The numbers,are clear, there is record growth in revenue, much higher than growth in player payroll. 180% vs 80%. Yet, half the owners are losing money, why?

I will give the answer. There are two parts.

First, no matter what, some teams will grow more than others. The NHL has the least revenue sharing if the major sports leagues. It is inevitable that some teams will lose money... Even if player payroll was at.30%, you would have many money losing teams.

Second, and this is the complex point that a lot of people do not get, a decrease on player payroll does not mean an,increase in profits. It means more money available for other expenses. Owners want to win, and only one team can host 16 home playoff games. Savings on players = investments in drafting, scouting, management, psychologists, trainers, coaches, etc. Teams have admitted that the reason the last CBA had not saved them is that other hockey related expenses went up.

This is why the NHLPA has requested cost controls on non player payroll. They do not want to have another lockout in give or six years, as the Bettman plan will necessitate.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 03:01 AM
  #94
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,777
vCash: 50
I'm really down for no nhlpa. Blow them up and remove guaranteed contracts. If some players get more then no problem but they gotta earn it every year or bye bye.

LyricalLyricist is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 03:03 AM
  #95
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,777
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
I am not disputing that around half the owners are losing money. I am sorry if my post was misunderstood, I will try again.

The numbers,are clear, there is record growth in revenue, much higher than growth in player payroll. 180% vs 80%. Yet, half the owners are losing money, why?

I will give the answer. There are two parts.

First, no matter what, some teams will grow more than others. The NHL has the least revenue sharing if the major sports leagues. It is inevitable that some teams will lose money... Even if player payroll was at.30%, you would have many money losing teams.

Second, and this is the complex point that a lot of people do not get, a decrease on player payroll does not mean an,increase in profits. It means more money available for other expenses. Owners want to win, and only one team can host 16 home playoff games. Savings on players = investments in drafting, scouting, management, psychologists, trainers, coaches, etc. Teams have admitted that the reason the last CBA had not saved them is that other hockey related expenses went up.

This is why the NHLPA has requested cost controls on non player payroll. They do not want to have another lockout in give or six years, as the Bettman plan will necessitate.
Fwiw owners want long term deal and its nhlpa who refuses long term. So this "bettman wants to do it again in 5 years" is essentially a fallacy.

LyricalLyricist is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 03:27 AM
  #96
ECWHSWI
P.K. is perfect.
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 14,931
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
I'm really down for no nhlpa. Blow them up and remove guaranteed contracts. If some players get more then no problem but they gotta earn it every year or bye bye.
would means (probably) no Emelin on the Habs, no Markov, no Diaz, no Weber, no OV for the Caps, maybe no Datsyuk for the wings (34 already, ).

also means HUGE signing bonuses for the top players so if they get canned they get most of the money anyway.

we're not talking about the NFL here where lots of teams make good to great profits, so I dont think that many would like to can a player a year after giving a 15 Mil signing bonus... would pretty much guarantee small market teams wont get any star players, ever.

we'd be back to the 90's and early 00's where only a few teams (remember the Colorado-Detroit-Philly-NY days ?) had a decent to good chance at the cup.

ECWHSWI is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 03:28 AM
  #97
ECWHSWI
P.K. is perfect.
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 14,931
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
Fwiw owners want long term deal and its nhlpa who refuses long term. So this "bettman wants to do it again in 5 years" is essentially a fallacy.
if history teaches us anything, with Betman at the helm, the risk of another lockout/strike in the next 5 to 7 years is HUGE.

ECWHSWI is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 04:32 AM
  #98
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
Fwiw owners want long term deal and its nhlpa who refuses long term. So this "bettman wants to do it again in 5 years" is essentially a fallacy.
That is a fair point. I do not follow why the players don't want a 15 year deal or whatever, the social dynamics are such that they will be the weaker party on the near future.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 04:34 AM
  #99
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
would means (probably) no Emelin on the Habs, no Markov, no Diaz, no Weber, no OV for the Caps, maybe no Datsyuk for the wings (34 already, ).

also means HUGE signing bonuses for the top players so if they get canned they get most of the money anyway.

we're not talking about the NFL here where lots of teams make good to great profits, so I dont think that many would like to can a player a year after giving a 15 Mil signing bonus... would pretty much guarantee small market teams wont get any star players, ever.

we'd be back to the 90's and early 00's where only a few teams (remember the Colorado-Detroit-Philly-NY days ?) had a decent to good chance at the cup.
The habs would be one of the power teams now.

However, so would Boston and Toronto ...

DAChampion is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 06:41 AM
  #100
Roulin
Registered User
 
Roulin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,109
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
I'm really down for no nhlpa. Blow them up and remove guaranteed contracts. If some players get more then no problem but they gotta earn it every year or bye bye.
- no guaranteed contracts
- no cost certainty, cap, minimum or maximum salary
- no ELC

...I love it. Let the market decide every year. Players might not like the possibility of switching cities more often, but it's hard to complain about the opportunity to play for market value, given the alternative.

Roulin is online now  
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 09:06 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.