HFBoards

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

CBA Talk II: Shut up and give me YOUR money!

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-28-2012, 06:10 AM
  #826
Steveorama
Registered User
 
Steveorama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Mississauga, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,801
vCash: 500
For once, I agree with Kypreos.
Maclean's allegiances are pretty clear.
But anyone who actually thinks that this is about "survival", rather than ridiculously wealthy owners trying to grab enough money for a few more yachts, is delusional.
If the owners were seriously in dire financial straights, could they really afford to write off $6 million/day on this lockout?

Steveorama is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 06:52 AM
  #827
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 18,660
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barney Gumble View Post
heh-heh, what exactly have the owners offered to give up with this pending CBA over the old one?
Ten billion dollars

me2 is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 08:18 AM
  #828
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,912
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2 View Post
Ten billion dollars
Where? how?

The owners chose to not continue growing their business which revenues were $3.3billion last year, they didn't give it up, they chose not to make it, which in turns hurts their revenues going forward.

It's a bush league tactic, done by a bush league.

arsmaster is online now  
Old
11-28-2012, 08:52 AM
  #829
ItsAllPartOfThePlan
Registered User
 
ItsAllPartOfThePlan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,165
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammer79 View Post
Wow, I agree with Kypreos on something?
I actually agree with Maclean. I'm even more shocked.

ItsAllPartOfThePlan is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 09:13 AM
  #830
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,476
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammer79 View Post
Wow, I agree with Kypreos on something?
You're framing it wrong. You just disagree with something Doug MacLean said, which is a VERY NORMAL HUMAN ACTIVITY. Do not be alarmed.

Proto is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 09:35 AM
  #831
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,785
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
I actually agree with Kypreos. The NHL screwed up, but from the looks of these negotiations they don't realize how they screwed up. If you take the NHL's proposal, and revenue trends continue as is, there will be teams crying poor in another 8 years when 50/50 no longer becomes feasible.

y2kcanucks is online now  
Old
11-28-2012, 09:41 AM
  #832
Wisp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,002
vCash: 500
The poor Lupul family, caught I between this spat with Maclean and Kypreos.

Wisp is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 09:54 AM
  #833
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 18,502
vCash: 500
They both make some solid points for being, for the most part, idiots...the NHL did screw up the last CBA, and the players did make out like bandits because of it. I can understand why the NHL wants to take back that which they had mistakenly given away but it's not up to the PA to willingly hand over everything the NHL wants because they were stupid the last time around. Both sides have approached these negotiations with such mistrust and gamesmanship that its hard to have meaningful discussions going forward.

Canucker is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 09:55 AM
  #834
kanuck87
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,208
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammer79 View Post
Wow, I agree with Kypreos on something?
What was Kypreos' stance anyways?

MacLean brought some very good points to the table. The players are still making boatloads of money despite "losing" the last CBA negotiations. And no matter where they settle at this time around, the players will still be making boatloads of money.

kanuck87 is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 10:05 AM
  #835
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 18,502
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanuck87 View Post
What was Kypreos' stance anyways?

MacLean brought some very good points to the table. The players are still making boatloads of money despite "losing" the last CBA negotiations. And no matter where they settle at this time around, the players will still be making boatloads of money.
So because they'll still be making "boatloads" of money they should just sign any deal put before them? Why should they take less because the NHL screwed up so they can line the owners pockets even further? I understand they're going to have to take a hit with their percentage of revenues but the NHL has to give something back, and they've given nothing thus far.

Canucker is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 10:31 AM
  #836
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,912
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanuck87 View Post
What was Kypreos' stance anyways?

MacLean brought some very good points to the table. The players are still making boatloads of money despite "losing" the last CBA negotiations. And no matter where they settle at this time around, the players will still be making boatloads of money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
So because they'll still be making "boatloads" of money they should just sign any deal put before them? Why should they take less because the NHL screwed up so they can line the owners pockets even further? I understand they're going to have to take a hit with their percentage of revenues but the NHL has to give something back, and they've given nothing thus far.
The NHL doesn't want to acknowledge current contracts signed on the old CBA. That is the big problem.

They want players to roll over again, and have their negotiated salaries squeezed again.

Nobody disagrees that professional athletes make HUGE money, but the principal is...don't spend what you can't afford and honour the contracts you signed. That is all.

arsmaster is online now  
Old
11-28-2012, 10:58 AM
  #837
tantalum
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Missouri
Posts: 10,228
vCash: 500
Contracts are signed with the understanding that they will be governed by the terms of current and any future CBAs. The players signed the contracts knowing this as did the owners. The players signed contracts under a system where escrow was in play knowing that the dollar value on the paper may be higher than what they actually receive (or as happened TWICE in 7 years that dollar amount on paper was LESS than what they actually received). The whole thing about making whole and what not is quite frankly a joke. The terms of the deal they signed dictated that depending on the monies spent on the other 699 players they may never realize all that money (or they could receive more). They act like it is some sort of surprise or evil doing. If the owners and league felt the deals currently out there are 100% acceptable for a stable business model they would have just rolled over the old CBA into a new CBA.

If the owners look at the outstanding money and say "you know what, that is too much on yearly basis and we need to cut that back some in order to make it work" they have every right to do so. The contracts will be honoured based on what the terms of the CBA are. And really the players without those longer term deals that need a contract renewal in the next year or so should look very carefully at this make whole thing because what it is going to do is result in them getting less money. Neuvirth was 100% correct in his assessment that the PA negotiating stance is primarily concerned with the big money long term contract players.

I also have zero issue with the owners signing big contracts and then locking out players looking for contract restictions and reductions. Zero. It happens in business all the time. You operate to the best of your ability under the current climate even if you dislike that climate or believe the climate should be changed. You work at changing the climate to better suit your needs as a business....the ONLY opportunity the NHL has to do this is when the CBA comes up for renegotiation. So that is what they are doing. is it about lining pockets? Certainly, but that is what for profit business does. Problem is no matter what numbers you look at only a handful of teams make a profit so changes need to be made. A 57% cut of revenues (or 56.5% as the players last offer actually works out to) isn't sustainable and needs to be changed. Part of the way to get there is by a rollback of some sort. Complete avoidance of this by the PA just means those guys who aren't signed or need to sign in the next little bit will take the brunt of the cut. It needs to be reduced and reduced in a quick manner (i.e. not 5 or 6 years....also convenient that the PA really only wants to talk about a 5 year CBA length so those players can negotiate a new one. I'm sure it has nothing to do with holding the NHL hostage on it's 100 year anniversary).

And no just because the players may give back more this time around it doesn't mean they will have to each and every time a CBA comes up fro renewal. There needs to be a driving force for the owners to lockout and not settle and that driving force in professional sports has more to do with avoidance of loss on team operations over maximizing of profits. Because of that, if the we have the opposite situation where 25 or so teams are breaking even or profitable the owners have little need to ask for any givebacks from the players.

tantalum is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 11:04 AM
  #838
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,912
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tantalum View Post
Contracts are signed with the understanding that they will be governed by the terms of current and any future CBAs. The players signed the contracts knowing this as did the owners. The players signed contracts under a system where escrow was in play knowing that the dollar value on the paper may be higher than what they actually receive (or as happened TWICE in 7 years that dollar amount on paper was LESS than what they actually received). The whole thing about making whole and what not is quite frankly a joke. The terms of the deal they signed dictated that depending on the monies spent on the other 699 players they may never realize all that money (or they could receive more). They act like it is some sort of surprise or evil doing. If the owners and league felt the deals currently out there are 100% acceptable for a stable business model they would have just rolled over the old CBA into a new CBA.

If the owners look at the outstanding money and say "you know what, that is too much on yearly basis and we need to cut that back some in order to make it work" they have every right to do so. The contracts will be honoured based on what the terms of the CBA are. And really the players without those longer term deals that need a contract renewal in the next year or so should look very carefully at this make whole thing because what it is going to do is result in them getting less money. Neuvirth was 100% correct in his assessment that the PA negotiating stance is primarily concerned with the big money long term contract players.

I also have zero issue with the owners signing big contracts and then locking out players looking for contract restictions and reductions. Zero. It happens in business all the time. You operate to the best of your ability under the current climate even if you dislike that climate or believe the climate should be changed. You work at changing the climate to better suit your needs as a business....the ONLY opportunity the NHL has to do this is when the CBA comes up for renegotiation. So that is what they are doing. is it about lining pockets? Certainly, but that is what for profit business does. Problem is no matter what numbers you look at only a handful of teams make a profit so changes need to be made. A 57% cut of revenues (or 56.5% as the players last offer actually works out to) isn't sustainable and needs to be changed. Part of the way to get there is by a rollback of some sort. Complete avoidance of this by the PA just means those guys who aren't signed or need to sign in the next little bit will take the brunt of the cut. It needs to be reduced and reduced in a quick manner (i.e. not 5 or 6 years....also convenient that the PA really only wants to talk about a 5 year CBA length so those players can negotiate a new one. I'm sure it has nothing to do with holding the NHL hostage on it's 100 year anniversary).

And no just because the players may give back more this time around it doesn't mean they will have to each and every time a CBA comes up fro renewal. There needs to be a driving force for the owners to lockout and not settle and that driving force in professional sports has more to do with avoidance of loss on team operations over maximizing of profits. Because of that, if the we have the opposite situation where 25 or so teams are breaking even or profitable the owners have little need to ask for any givebacks from the players.
Knowing there are people who follow this belief, I'm all for decertification.

You sound like Doug Maclean.

arsmaster is online now  
Old
11-28-2012, 11:19 AM
  #839
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 20,119
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tantalum View Post
Problem is no matter what numbers you look at only a handful of teams make a profit so changes need to be made.
The thing is, each franchise has seen it's value increase since the last CBA. Even a money pit like the Yotes (which is an easy enough problem to solve - move the franchise to Quebec City). How many businesses in the "real world" has this happen? (re: experience so-called "accounting losses" but see the actual equity of the company increase). And it's not like these owners (who have other business ventures) can't make use of these "losses" to apply against their other companies they run.

As well, for owners who own their arena's & other sports teams like the Caps owner - having a steady tenant (even if it is experiencing an operating loss) is a plus.

Barney Gumble is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 11:26 AM
  #840
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,476
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanuck87 View Post
What was Kypreos' stance anyways?

MacLean brought some very good points to the table. The players are still making boatloads of money despite "losing" the last CBA negotiations. And no matter where they settle at this time around, the players will still be making boatloads of money.
Comcast is worth 70 billion dollars. Why do they deserve more money from the players in addition to restricting the rights for players to choose where they make a living until later in their career?

This isn't, "the league is losing money and the players need to help out". This is "some teams are losing money but the league on a whole is raking in cash and wants the players to foot the bill for the languishing franchises that inept NHL management created."

The anti-player sentiment is bizarre.

Proto is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 11:30 AM
  #841
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 18,502
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tantalum View Post
Contracts are signed with the understanding that they will be governed by the terms of current and any future CBAs. The players signed the contracts knowing this as did the owners. The players signed contracts under a system where escrow was in play knowing that the dollar value on the paper may be higher than what they actually receive (or as happened TWICE in 7 years that dollar amount on paper was LESS than what they actually received). The whole thing about making whole and what not is quite frankly a joke. The terms of the deal they signed dictated that depending on the monies spent on the other 699 players they may never realize all that money (or they could receive more). They act like it is some sort of surprise or evil doing. If the owners and league felt the deals currently out there are 100% acceptable for a stable business model they would have just rolled over the old CBA into a new CBA.

If the owners look at the outstanding money and say "you know what, that is too much on yearly basis and we need to cut that back some in order to make it work" they have every right to do so. The contracts will be honoured based on what the terms of the CBA are. And really the players without those longer term deals that need a contract renewal in the next year or so should look very carefully at this make whole thing because what it is going to do is result in them getting less money. Neuvirth was 100% correct in his assessment that the PA negotiating stance is primarily concerned with the big money long term contract players.

I also have zero issue with the owners signing big contracts and then locking out players looking for contract restictions and reductions. Zero. It happens in business all the time. You operate to the best of your ability under the current climate even if you dislike that climate or believe the climate should be changed. You work at changing the climate to better suit your needs as a business....the ONLY opportunity the NHL has to do this is when the CBA comes up for renegotiation. So that is what they are doing. is it about lining pockets? Certainly, but that is what for profit business does. Problem is no matter what numbers you look at only a handful of teams make a profit so changes need to be made. A 57% cut of revenues (or 56.5% as the players last offer actually works out to) isn't sustainable and needs to be changed. Part of the way to get there is by a rollback of some sort. Complete avoidance of this by the PA just means those guys who aren't signed or need to sign in the next little bit will take the brunt of the cut. It needs to be reduced and reduced in a quick manner (i.e. not 5 or 6 years....also convenient that the PA really only wants to talk about a 5 year CBA length so those players can negotiate a new one. I'm sure it has nothing to do with holding the NHL hostage on it's 100 year anniversary).

And no just because the players may give back more this time around it doesn't mean they will have to each and every time a CBA comes up fro renewal. There needs to be a driving force for the owners to lockout and not settle and that driving force in professional sports has more to do with avoidance of loss on team operations over maximizing of profits. Because of that, if the we have the opposite situation where 25 or so teams are breaking even or profitable the owners have little need to ask for any givebacks from the players.
Neuvirth's comments may have had some truth to them, but he (and others) are blind to the fact that a) star players are the bread and butter of the league, nobody goes to watch Michael Neuvirth and b) the better that the league's elite players do, the better the rest of the players will do because of it.

You seriously believe that all these owners have "operated at the best of their ability under the current climate"? You think undermining their own salary cap and CBA and then crying foul later are sound business practices? Give me a break.

Sure, there needs to be a "driving force" for the owners to lock the players out...it's greed. It's not for the benefit of the league, its for the benefit of the owners.

Canucker is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 11:34 AM
  #842
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 20,119
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
Neuvirth's comments may have had some truth to them, but he (and others) are blind to the fact that a) star players are the bread and butter of the league, nobody goes to watch Michael Neuvirth and b) the better that the league's elite players do, the better the rest of the players will do because of it.
You mean paying a goalie with just over 100 NHL games under his belt, who's a backup making over a million dollars, isn't fair?

Barney Gumble is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 11:36 AM
  #843
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,476
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barney Gumble View Post
The thing is, each franchise has seen it's value increase since the last CBA. Even a money pit like the Yotes (which is an easy enough problem to solve - move the franchise to Quebec City). How many businesses in the "real world" has this happen? (re: experience so-called "accounting losses" but see the actual equity of the company increase). And it's not like these owners (who have other business ventures) can't make use of these "losses" to apply against their other companies they run.

As well, for owners who own their arena's & other sports teams like the Caps owner - having a steady tenant (even if it is experiencing an operating loss) is a plus.
This is a completely overlooked aspect of hockey "losses", by the way. Look at this quote from a Jonah Keri article about the notoriously cash-strapped Frank McCourt when he owned the Dodgers:

Quote:
Originally Posted by "Jonah Keri"
]It's a system, first and foremost, in favor of owners who fall in line with the commissioner's office. When McCourt bought the Dodgers for $430 million in 2004, he did so using approximately no dollars of his own. This was not a problem at all, because McCourt said all the right things, choosing compliance over controversy, curtsies over Cubanisms. When he finally sold the team to Guggenheim Partners last summer, McCourt owed heavy debts to numerous creditors. Still, the final purchase price was $2.15 billion. Even after settling his accounts, this was a pretty decent return for an initial investment of nothing.
Source: http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-tr...print?id=42760

A team might lose 5 million a year and see the value of their franchise increase by 7. The NHL is completely disingenuous when it comes to the way they spin economics.

Proto is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 11:42 AM
  #844
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 20,119
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proto View Post
This is a completely overlooked aspect of hockey "losses", by the way. Look at this quote from a Jonah Keri article about the notoriously cash-strapped Frank McCourt when he owned the Dodgers:



Source: http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-tr...print?id=42760

A team might lose 5 million a year and see the value of their franchise increase by 7. The NHL is completely disingenuous when it comes to the way they spin economics.
It's not isolated to sports teams. I read something about one of the Harry Potter movies grossing over a billion dollars but Warner Brothers declaring a "loss" on the books for that particular film at around $100 million. Course, most movie studios would tell you that virtually no movies make money. Jack Nicholson was smart in asking for a "cut" of the *gross receipts* for Batman.


Last edited by Barney Gumble: 11-28-2012 at 11:48 AM.
Barney Gumble is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 11:43 AM
  #845
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 18,502
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proto View Post
Comcast is worth 70 billion dollars. Why do they deserve more money from the players in addition to restricting the rights for players to choose where they make a living until later in their career?

This isn't, "the league is losing money and the players need to help out". This is "some teams are losing money but the league on a whole is raking in cash and wants the players to foot the bill for the languishing franchises that inept NHL management created."

The anti-player sentiment is bizarre.
I agree. Any way you slice it, everyone is overpaid in sports/entertainment...but I would rather see more players make millions rather than a handful of owners add to their billions. Not saying that the owners shouldn't make more than they were in the previous CBA, but they shouldn't be crying poverty and trying to shred the PA to get there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barney Gumble View Post
You mean paying a goalie with just over 100 NHL games under his belt, who's a backup making over a million dollars, isn't fair?
I know huh? Who's looking out for poor Neuvirth? He's alone on an island.

Canucker is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 11:53 AM
  #846
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,476
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barney Gumble View Post
It's not isolated to sports teams. I read something about one of the Harry Potter movies grossing over a billion dollars but Warner Brothers declaring a "loss" on the books for that particular film at around $100 million. Course, most movie studios would tell you that virtually no movies make money. Jack Nicholson was smart in asking for a "cut" of the *gross receipts* for Batman.
My favourite recent story was Robert Downey Jr when he filmed Iron Man 2. He was a big enough star that he didn't sign on with a "you're stuck for the sequels" clause in his contract for the first film. Subsequently, when it was a huge hit, he requested a share of box office revenue for Iron Man 2 and all subsequent films where he portrays Iron Man. This included, of course, The Avengers, for which he netted a reported 60+ million dollars: a tidy profit indeed, especially in comparison to the reported salaries paid to the other stars.

Movie studios move all of their losses to the films and all of the profits to merchandising and future digital/blue-ray sales. It is a funny parallel the way they try to pretend they're spending hundreds of millions to make a movie they're "sure" will not make anything.

Proto is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 12:11 PM
  #847
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 20,119
vCash: 500
I'm guessing the Fishsticks (one of the "other problem teams") will look better financially (and on the ice one would hope) in the future (re: move to Brooklyn). Course, when you have Charles Wang as the owner.....

Barney Gumble is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 05:46 PM
  #848
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tantalum View Post
Problem is no matter what numbers you look at only a handful of teams make a profit so changes need to be made.

I don't know that I'd call 17 teams a "handful".

opendoor is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 07:21 PM
  #849
LongRoad
Registered User
 
LongRoad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tantalum View Post
Contracts are signed with the understanding that they will be governed by the terms of current and any future CBAs.
If you want a contract governed by future CBAs you include a clause in your contract stating that it is subject to future CBAs. These are complex legal agreements, they aren't governed by 'you should know', they're governed by the terms of the contracts.

Without it you need to find an implied term in contract law. If you want to find an implied term it has to have been obvious that the term was included, at the time the contract was agreed to, to both parties. Given the fact that contracts haven't been written off in the past over CBAs, why would either party think that was an obvious term of current contracts?


Last edited by LongRoad: 11-28-2012 at 07:46 PM.
LongRoad is offline  
Old
11-28-2012, 07:38 PM
  #850
MajorCanuck
Cup Please
 
MajorCanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Surrey, BC
Posts: 685
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LongRoad View Post
If you want a contract governed by future CBAs you include a clause in your contract stating that it is subject to future CBAs. These are complex legal agreements, they aren't governed by 'you should know', they're governed by the terms of the contracts. This is called an implied term in contract law. If you want to find an implied term it has to have been obvious that the term was included, at the time the contract was agreed to, to both parties. Given the fact that contracts haven't been written off in the past over CBAs, why would either party think that was an obvious term of current contracts?
I heard somewhere NHL contracts already contain clauses that basically state that the contract is subject to change with future CBAs. otherwise the league wouldnt even try to do roll backs with getting sued by the players

MajorCanuck 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 03:55 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.