HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

With Fehr end-around, owners hit new low—and waste lead

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-07-2012, 10:22 AM
  #101
syc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not Europe
Posts: 1,961
vCash: 500
Ya it's all Fehrs fault.

Just nix the season already. That should be enough to crush the 5 or 6 flaky American teams that are the cause for this whole mess.

Come on Twitch stick to your guns, don't fold to the union. Listen to your owners that charge $40 a ticket and then complain they lose money every year. Those are the fans and owners that will get you that billion dollar espn deal!

syc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2012, 10:22 AM
  #102
oilexport
Registered User
 
oilexport's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 866
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
no there doesn't.

There needs to be a system where any team that's well run can dominate, and where any team has to be well run to dominate. That's not the same as equal competition or parity, although parity is one way to get it done.

The Tampa Bay Rays got to the World Series in 2008, they're one of the poorest teams in MLB. And the Yankees have to assemble a very good squad and not waste precious roster space on overpaid bums to win anything. As long as it can be done, and has to be done intelligently, it's fine.

I think a salary cap would help MLB, but the thing is, just like with the NHL, a salary cap would probably be set at somewhere around the level the top 5 teams are already spending at. If you add the kind of cap floor the NHL has to the mix you have a toxic situation there just like exists here.


I would get rid of the salary floor in the NHL. There's better ways to accomplish the same thing.
don't agree at all this this thinking.

-the best coaches, training facilities, highest paid (best) players will always have an advantage over poor Teams. Sport is a game of upsets so you will always find a Tampa Bay in the mix but on average, the rich Team wins hands down. It's clearly unfair and you don't make sense.

The well run Team with money beats the well run Team without cash...

It's a uneven playing field period

Their are ways to fix the Salery Cap stuff and tweek it so that the loop holes are closed. The NHL is bang on with thier latest proposal, the players should have taken it. The Players may sqeeze the Owners for a better deal but it's not going to do the game much good. The Players are greedy...

oilexport is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2012, 10:24 AM
  #103
predfan98
Registered User
 
predfan98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,455
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrimper View Post
That right there is why it broke down.
Yes, that twitter quote from adater pretty much tells the tale. Fehr doesn't want a season, he just wants to stroke his big ego and the players are pretty stupid for following this clown. Fehr doesn't want a hockey season, listen to his video on tsn........ he is interested in his legacy with unions and pro sports.

The moderate owners came in , and walked out in disgust. They matched the make it whole and then the players wanted more and more and more. The players/union are not giving on anything at all. They are letting the sport burn for a small % of players at the top and not caring for the majority of players playing.....

There is no good faith from Fehr.

Fehr did ruin MLB. It is disgusted some so bad that it took 10 years to step back on a MLB field. I prefer college baseball now. I don't even watch on tv anymore.

Hockey can't afford fans to be so disgusted that they simply walk away.

predfan98 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2012, 10:24 AM
  #104
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,733
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Model62 View Post
I'm trying to understand this POV and I haven't gotten very far with it.

The entire context of the lockout negotiation is HOW MUCH CAN THE LEAGUE TAKE FROM THE PLAYERS. It starts with the players giving up dollars and rights and it will end with the players giving up dollars and rights. Everybody knows this, even the players. Even the Mighty Fehr. The only question is how much of each will the PA ultimately give.

The owners aren't "conceding," ever. They are offering to take less.
Hmmm, and under which NHL economic realities should the tables be turned the other way around?

I mean yes, I understand your point; but at what point does the PA also get a little desperate to get this Season started and not have it completely lost? How far are the owners expected to concede before the players say, OK? Let's play?

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2012, 10:24 AM
  #105
Dojji*
Fight the Hate
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
It's a uneven playing field period
Why is it about who has the advantage with you? I don't care if a team is at a competitive disadvantage as long as they can figure out how to overcome that disadvantage occasionally. And frankly, most of the worst teams in this league right now are teams that have lost their advantage because of how poorly they have run themselves, not because of how cash-poor they are. This is particularly true if the Leafs, Islanders, and Oilers. The lone obvious exception SHOULD be the Coyotes, and they're doing very well indeed.

I would like to even things up a bit in MLB, but I think the same principle holds true. There's a number of teams right now seriously undertapping their markets in big league ball right now. The genuine small markets such as Cleveland and TB seem to be legitimately competitive as often as not. KC seems to be on the verge of joining that group as well, if they can get some pitching.

Houston, Seattle, Florida, not so much -- those should be much bigger markets than they are playing right now. Each of these areas has the economic strength to field a strong team, no doubt in my mind. The fact that they aren't, is damning.

I don't mind leveling the playing field to allow for competence to shine through. I mind artificially leveling the playing field to force incompetence to look as good as competence. See what I'm saying?


Last edited by Dojji*: 12-07-2012 at 10:30 AM.
Dojji* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2012, 10:26 AM
  #106
Mumbler*
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: And'over
Country: United States
Posts: 394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Model62 View Post
I'm trying to understand this POV and I haven't gotten very far with it.

The entire context of the lockout negotiation is HOW MUCH CAN THE LEAGUE TAKE FROM THE PLAYERS. It starts with the players giving up dollars and rights and it will end with the players giving up dollars and rights. Everybody knows this, even the players. Even the Mighty Fehr. The only question is how much of each will the PA ultimately give.

The owners aren't "conceding," ever. They are offering to take less.
Without the League the players have nothing to take from the NHL... You have this backwards it is, HOW MUCH CAN THE PLAYERS TAKE FROM THEIR EMPLOYER before the employer says forget it.

Mumbler* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2012, 10:28 AM
  #107
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,275
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilexport View Post
don't agree at all this this thinking.

-the best coaches, training facilities, highest paid (best) players will always have an advantage over poor Teams. Sport is a game of upsets so you will always find a Tampa Bay in the mix but on average, the rich Team wins hands down. It's clearly unfair and you don't make sense.

The well run Team with money beats the well run Team without cash...

It's a uneven playing field period

Their are ways to fix the Salery Cap stuff and tweek it so that the loop holes are closed. The NHL is bang on with thier latest proposal, the players should have taken it. The Players may sqeeze the Owners for a better deal but it's not going to do the game much good. The Players are greedy...
Too bad the rich teas make money.

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2012, 10:29 AM
  #108
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,447
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
no there doesn't.

There needs to be a system where any team that's well run can dominate, and where any team has to be well run to dominate. That's not the same as equal competition or parity, although parity is one way to get it done.

The Tampa Bay Rays got to the World Series in 2008, they're one of the poorest teams in MLB. And the Yankees have to assemble a very good squad and not waste precious roster space on overpaid bums to win anything. As long as it can be done, and has to be done intelligently, it's fine.

I think a salary cap would help MLB, but the thing is, just like with the NHL, a salary cap would probably be set at somewhere around the level the top 5 teams are already spending at. If you add the kind of cap floor the NHL has to the mix you have a toxic situation there just like exists here.

I would get rid of the salary floor in the NHL. There's better ways to accomplish the same thing. You can't have both a hard cap and a hard floor with markets of varying sizes and strengths. The math just doesn't work.
Good God no. The floor is great for hockey and it's fans. It prevents teams from spending absolutely nothing on salaries (or attempts to in NYI's case). Florida made the playoffs for the first time in a decade thanks to a cap floor they had to spend to.

I agree that the floor should likely change a bit. But by no stretch do I as a fan want to see it gone. What the NHL needs to do if they're forcing teams to spend beyond their means is support those teams with revenue sharing. They've offered to put more into the pot. Whether that's enough (not likely) who knows. But to remove the floor completely is probably one of the worse things the NHL could do (other than removing the cap completely).

__________________
"It’s not as if Donald Fehr was lying to us, several players said. Rather, it’s as if he has been economical with information, these players believe, not sharing facts these players consider to be vital."
Riptide is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2012, 10:30 AM
  #109
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,275
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
Good God no. The floor is great for hockey and it's fans. It prevents teams from spending absolutely nothing on salaries (or attempts to in NYI's case). Florida made the playoffs for the first time in a decade thanks to a cap floor they had to spend to.

I agree that the floor should likely change a bit. But by no stretch do I as a fan want to see it gone. What the NHL needs to do if they're forcing teams to spend beyond their means is support those teams with revenue sharing. They've offered to put more into the pot. Whether that's enough (not likely) who knows. But to remove the floor completely is probably one of the worse things the NHL could do (other than removing the cap completely).
Nope
The floor is cause teams to lose money. It has to go. The point is for the owners to make money. End of.

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2012, 10:31 AM
  #110
BLONG7
Registered User
 
BLONG7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 12,262
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by predfan98 View Post
Yes, that twitter quote from adater pretty much tells the tale. Fehr doesn't want a season, he just wants to stroke his big ego and the players are pretty stupid for following this clown. Fehr doesn't want a hockey season, listen to his video on tsn........ he is interested in his legacy with unions and pro sports.

The moderate owners came in , and walked out in disgust. They matched the make it whole and then the players wanted more and more and more. The players/union are not giving on anything at all. They are letting the sport burn for a small % of players at the top and not caring for the majority of players playing.....

There is no good faith from Fehr.

Fehr did ruin MLB. It is disgusted some so bad that it took 10 years to step back on a MLB field. I prefer college baseball now. I don't even watch on tv anymore.

Hockey can't afford fans to be so disgusted that they simply walk away.
Hiring Fehr really backfired on these guys...brutal...

BLONG7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2012, 10:34 AM
  #111
Mumbler*
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: And'over
Country: United States
Posts: 394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLONG7 View Post
Hiring Fehr really backfired on these guys...brutal...
It absolutely did.

Mumbler* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2012, 10:35 AM
  #112
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,733
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryno23 View Post
What concessions have the owners made?
As someone pointed out to me a couple of months ago: There are the realities of the last CBA, and there are the economic realities of the League today. Going into these CBA negotiations, the realities that count are the current economic realities, not the realities of the previous CBA. I however took exception to that and argued that the players have at least the expectation that previously established contracts should hold water. And then what did the owners ultimately do? They ultimately came forward with a $ dollar, which has been increased to $300 million, to go towards accommodating those previous contracts. There isn't much more they can do and at the same time hope to get anyway near that 50/50 split that's deemed necessary to try to keep many teams from drowning. As it stands, trying to accommodate those established contracts at least to some degree means that 50/50 won't be 50/50 for probably close to 3 years from now.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2012, 10:36 AM
  #113
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,447
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryno23 View Post
What concessions have the owners made?

They owe the players $596 million in salary this upcoming year but they offered the players to pay only $200 million of that. Signing players in bad faith. Oh they gave another $100 million to make it $300 of the original players costs.

Look at it this way. I hire you and say I am going to pay you 50k a year. You get your first check and it shows you making only 35k and you ask why is that? I say well I only want to pay you 35k even though I said I would pay you 50K. You argue and threaten to quit and then I say ok I will give you 40k there ya go I made a concession. I am still not paying you the 50k I originally promised.


That is bad faith bargaining even before the lockout happened.

Now they want to take away contract length and not allow any owner to sign a guy for more than 5 years. Why does the NHL care how you sign your own employee?

They need to babysit the owners who circumvented the cap spirit and created the uneven playing field between large markets and small markets.

Why did the NHL put a salary cap floor in. Who cares what a team pay for salary it will only affect their product on the ice.

You name one concession that the players gave in.

How about the players giving into a cap and 24 % rollback in 04
That's not what was proposed. And where do the owners somehow owe the players 596 million? From the missed games this year? The players didn't produce, hence they don't get paid. If the players were that concerned about getting 100% of their salaries, they would never have agreed to escrow in 2004 - because only 2 of the last 7 years did the players receive 100% (well more actually) of their salaries.

The floor is there for the integrity of the product. To ensure that teams don't just spend the absolute bare minimum and that the team they ice isn't stocked full of 3rd liners and guys from the AHL. [edit] Like what I hear the Pirates do in baseball.

I think we've covered why teams want/need contract limits in the lockout thread.

Riptide is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2012, 10:37 AM
  #114
StoneColdFlower*
El Sid
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 539
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RC51 View Post
When one hires a top negotiator it is rather important that this top negotiator knows the true limit or where the line in the sand is. You can demand all you want be you cant cross the line in the sand that has the other side walk away for good. Well with what happened yesterday it sure is clear the Owners moved on the MONEY issue if you accept the rest of the contract. Players took the money and did NOT accept the other issues. Well there it is, the LINE was crossed, the players refused the NHL offer, the players did not get the most important information they needed. That this offer was that LINE IN THE SAND offer. Fehr misread the importance of this offer and he went to the media and that was his second huge mistake of the day. The owners are now livid, they don't want to talk anymore. They picked up their ball and went home. It's now a " Hell will freeze over before we come back". there must be a lot of players that saw all this unfold on tv and saw their man completely screwup. Wrong advise at the worst time is what the players got yesterday. The players could have accepted the NHL offer but decided to continue this and for what? is there any fan that does not know that hockey does NOT need another lockout for the next ten years in order to rebuild it's image. Is there any fan that does not know about the BIG FAT LOOPHOLE that allowed the players to get front loaded 15 year contracts in order to get around the CAP. These are the two things the players are at war over??????? WTF.
What the Hell are you even talking about? The last PA proposal includes an 8 year CBA, 8 year limits on contracts, and a 25% maximum difference between the highest and lowest paying years of the contract. These fix the loopholes and represent significant concessions on the part of the players from a CBA that was already supposed to have fixed the problems with the league. Demanding any more than that from the PA is greed, and I don't blame any of them for not taking it.

StoneColdFlower* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2012, 10:38 AM
  #115
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,733
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
Nope
The floor is cause teams to lose money. It has to go. The point is for the owners to make money. End of.
And here I always thought that the point is for hockey to be entertaining the fans, and the League to be trying to expand the interest in hockey to a wider audience.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2012, 10:39 AM
  #116
oilexport
Registered User
 
oilexport's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 866
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
Why is it about who has the advantage with you? I don't care if a team is at a competitive disadvantage as long as they can figure out how to overcome that disadvantage occasionally. And frankly, most of the worst teams in this league right now are teams that have lost their advantage because of how poorly they have run themselves, not because of how cash-poor they are. This is particularly true if the Leafs, Islanders, and Oilers. The lone obvious exception SHOULD be the Coyotes, and they're doing very well indeed.

I would like to even things up a bit in MLB, but I think the same principle holds true. There's a number of teams right now seriously undertapping their markets in big league ball right now. The genuine small markets such as Cleveland and TB seem to be legitimately competitive as often as not. KC seems to be on the verge of joining that group as well, if they can get some pitching.

I don't mind leveling the playing field to allow for competence to shine through. I mind artificially leveling the playing field to force incompetence to look as good as competence. See what I'm saying?
nobody is proposing to artificially level the playing field due to incompetence. If ya can't compete on a monetary basis, your screwed from the get go. That is not a level playing field and it's got nothing to do with incompetence. If your going to accept the fact that the Yankees got 5 times the money to run thier Team and then ya tell the poor Team to "run your club better to occasionally beat them", Thats unfair sir !!

oilexport is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2012, 10:42 AM
  #117
Seachd
Registered User
 
Seachd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Fail
Posts: 13,378
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbler View Post
I expect the NHL to let the NHLPA union throw the season away and offer much less moving forward. In the end the union will have cost the players much more than the concessions they are so against.
Even then some players will still say it's worth it, because this whole thing is about "the future", and as Chris Campoli says, they don't want future players to go without the benefits players now have.

Which we all know is a steaming pile of horse****. Sad if these guys actually believe this.

Seachd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2012, 10:43 AM
  #118
RedMenace
Zero ***** Given
 
RedMenace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Under the Bridge
Posts: 4,245
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian View Post
I know you are keeping up with events better than this. Bettman took everything off the table because the NHLPA failed to treat a take it or leave it proposal as a take it or leave it proposal but instead kept the goodies and tried to negotiate the rest. You know this. It had zero to do with the player-owner dynamic being there or not.
Then this isn't a "negotiation," it's an "ultimatum."

RedMenace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2012, 10:43 AM
  #119
Do Make Say Think
Soul & Onward
 
Do Make Say Think's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 15,718
vCash: 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seachd View Post
Even then some players will still say it's worth it, because this whole thing is about "the future", and as Chris Campoli says, they don't want future players to go without the benefits players now have.

Which we all know is a steaming pile of horse****. Sad if these guys actually believe this.
Well it's definitely not about Campoli's future!

Do Make Say Think is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2012, 10:47 AM
  #120
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,733
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedMenace View Post
Then this isn't a "negotiation," it's an "ultimatum."
At what point in this Lockout/non-Season should an offer be a "take it or leave it" offer or else the Season is a no-go?

As Bettman stated yesterday, they didn't want any part of the Season to be lost, but yet here things stand with two months down the drain.

A few people here have been saying that the owners's latest offer was like an ultimatum, though in different words, that the owners shouldn't present it that way, that it's not reasonable as part of the negotiation process... I ask all of you: How much more of the Season do you want to be lost? When should the owners ultimately expect the players to take their proposals seriously, and thus finally get down to playing hockey?


Last edited by MoreOrr: 12-07-2012 at 10:54 AM.
MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2012, 10:48 AM
  #121
santiclaws
Registered User
 
santiclaws's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,956
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian Guy View Post
Well it's definitely not about Campoli's future!
What I think a lot of people are missing is that from the players' perspective, this negotiation was always about the next 2-3 CBA's, not just this one. They are trying to reverse the trend of the owners using the lockout as "Plan A" in order to make the players capitulate to the owners' demands every time.

santiclaws is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2012, 10:51 AM
  #122
Seachd
Registered User
 
Seachd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Fail
Posts: 13,378
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by santiclaws View Post
What I think a lot of people are missing is that from the players' perspective, this negotiation was always about the next 2-3 CBA's, not just this one. They are trying to reverse the trend of the owners using the lockout as "Plan A" in order to make the players capitulate to the owners' demands every time.
Salaries are still skyrocketing. You think that offends future players?

Seachd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2012, 10:54 AM
  #123
THW
Registered User
 
THW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 582
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by santiclaws View Post
What I think a lot of people are missing is that from the players' perspective, this negotiation was always about the next 2-3 CBA's, not just this one. They are trying to reverse the trend of the owners using the lockout as "Plan A" in order to make the players capitulate to the owners' demands every time.
Fehr's history of striking before playoffs is what drove this lockout. That is his M.O. and it poisons the process. The owners knew that missing a part of a season would be easier to repair than playing a season and having the playoffs and its publicity and money lost.

THW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2012, 10:54 AM
  #124
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,817
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedMenace View Post
Then this isn't a "negotiation," it's an "ultimatum."
For a long time, the NHL was not negotiating. Now they are. Wednesday they gave the players a proposal that essentially said "We'll give you A B and C if you give us X Y and Z. Yes or no?"

The NHLPA came back to the table with a counterproposal that contained A B and C but not X Y and Z.

Rather than simply saying no and going forward with more discussion, Fehr pushes back the meeting several hours and then walks into the room with a counterproposal he knows isn't going to be recieved well at all, and basically erases two days of productivity and goodwill. He is purposely being dense and you can see the frustration from Bettman Daly et al. I mean, kudos to the guy if he has an end game that the majority of players are on-board with. I just don't know if thats the case anymore.


Last edited by Crease: 12-07-2012 at 11:00 AM.
Crease is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2012, 10:55 AM
  #125
Model62
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 896
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Hmmm, and under which NHL economic realities should the tables be turned the other way around?

I mean yes, I understand your point; but at what point does the PA also get a little desperate to get this Season started and not have it completely lost? How far are the owners expected to concede before the players say, OK? Let's play?
It's not really a question about how much "the owners are expected to concede" before the players sign ('cause they haven't conceded anything (from the baseline of the expired CBA) and they aren't gonna; the ultimate outcome of this will be all gain for the League).

The question you're really asking is how much are the players willing to give up in earnings in defense of some percentage (in dollars and rights) of what they had before? I don't know how much pain the PA will tolerate. I think they have taken more than anyone expected they would, and that may be frustrating the owners.

The League's reaction to yesterday's developments (the PA countering a "take-it-or-leave-it" offer) suggests to me that it's important that whatever offer is ultimately accepted has to be a League offer, and not a PA offer.

Lately I've been thinking that the League's rollout last year of its realignment proposal -- drafted without any input from the PA -- was a harbinger of what was to come, Lockout-wise, and a message to the PA about how the League intended to negotiate; we set the terms, and you accept or you don't.

Model62 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 07:53 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.