HFBoards

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

CBA Negotiations III: Why Can't We All Just...Get Along?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-18-2012, 12:46 PM
  #676
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,548
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snotbubbles View Post
Being a licensed attorney, you should know that Supreme Court cases can be overruled.

Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) was overruled by Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009).

The law is not black and white, it's gray. As an attorney, you use way too many absolutes in your legal opinions when the reality is, that even an extremely seasoned attorney who know a certain law inside and out will tell you that anything can happen.


Of course cases can be overturned. I don't think I ever said that they couldn't (although Supreme Court cases are RARELY outrightly overturned, most of the time the court will simply set a new precendent to use instead of an older precedent). But the fact that a case can be overturned is not really an argument that I am somehow wrong...every case can be overturned. As it stands right now the law is what the law is and the lower courts are bound by this law. Banking on having a long standing Supreme Court precedent overturned, wherein the facts are nearly identical (i.e. the NFL operates in the same manner as the NHL), isn't really argument at all. Any seasoned lawyer will tell you that it is highly unlikely that the Supreme Court will overturn a long-standing precedent where the facts of the case are identical to all previous decisions, unless the decision is patently incorrect (which any seasoned lawyer will agree that the Copperweld and American Needle (and cases that cite to these decisions) are not patently incorrect).

Now, if you could point to some sort of precedent relating to the issue we are discussing that would prove me wrong, that is a different story. For instance, a court ruling that a major sports league operating the same way as the NHL is a single entity. There is one I know of that says in some instances the NFL could use the single entity defense, but that was relating to the ownership of old game footage, where the footage was owned by the NFL, not the teams individually. That is a completely different scenario than what we are dealing with here (and is a non-binding recent District Court decision that may or may not be in the appeals process at this time). Simply saying that it could be overturned by good lawyering (or whatever your argument is) is once again, not an argument.


Last edited by DrinkFightFlyers: 12-18-2012 at 01:02 PM.
DrinkFightFlyers is offline  
Old
12-18-2012, 01:16 PM
  #677
Snotbubbles
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,490
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post


Of course cases can be overturned. I don't think I ever said that they couldn't (although Supreme Court cases are RARELY outrightly overturned, most of the time the court will simply set a new precendent to use instead of an older precedent). But the fact that a case can be overturned is not really an argument that I am somehow wrong...every case can be overturned. As it stands right now the law is what the law is. Banking on having a long standing Supreme Court precedent overturned, wherein the facts are nearly identical (i.e. the NFL operates in the same manner as the NHL), isn't really argument at all. Any seasoned lawyer will tell you that it is highly unlikely that the Supreme Court will overturn a law standing precedent where the facts of the case are identical to all previous decisions, unless the decision is patently incorrect (which any seasoned lawyer will agree that the Copperweld and American Needle (and cases that cite to these decisions) are not patently incorrect).

Now, if you could point to some sort of precedent relating to the issue we are discussing that would prove me wrong, that is a different story. For instance, a court ruling that a major sports league operating the same way as the NHL is a single entity. There is one I know of that says in some instances the NFL could use the single entity defense, but that was relating to the ownership of old game footage, where the footage was owned by the NFL, not the teams individually. That is a completely different scenario than what we are dealing with here (and is a non-binding recent District Court decision that may or may not be in the appeals process at this time). Simply saying that it could be overturned by good lawyering (or whatever your argument is) is once again, not an argument.
Not really sure what your position is.

American Needle found that the NFL was not a single entity for the purposes of Intellectual Property rights for each individual team. But the Supreme Court left open the possibility that the individual teams in the NFL could work together to restrain trade when it stated, "Because some...restraints on compeition are necessary to produce the NFL's product, the Rule of Reason generally should apply, and teams' cooperation is likely to be permissible."

So even if the NHL is found not to be a single entity, the Supreme Court left a huge opening to the NFL and other sports leagues to reasonably restrain trade.

Snotbubbles is offline  
Old
12-18-2012, 01:38 PM
  #678
SeanCWombBroom
DownieFaceSoftener
 
SeanCWombBroom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,787
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snotbubbles View Post
DFF being a licensed attorney, you should know that Supreme Court cases can be overruled.
He's on the internet a lot for a lawyer. It only takes a bit of googling to undercut a lot of his absolutistic statements. "A violation is a violation. No ifs, ands, or buts." When people close to law know that's hardly the case. I'm not very interested in disclosing which two Acts I deal with on a regular basis (the regulatory bodies I've listed is a good clue), but Acts are far from absolutes.

SeanCWombBroom is offline  
Old
12-18-2012, 01:40 PM
  #679
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 37,858
vCash: 156
What makes the NHL related cases unique enough to warrant a different decision?

__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.
Beef Invictus is online now  
Old
12-18-2012, 01:54 PM
  #680
Prongo
Beer
 
Prongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 13,880
vCash: 500
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...medium=twitter

Good article here that is actually an expert in the field. Walsh(hate him or not) said the SN attorney has no background in any sports lawsuits. He is an intellectual property expert(no clue what the hell that is)

None of these cases by the PA's has ever gone long enough to make a decision. So all they can do is give their legal advice on what they think will happen.

Prongo is offline  
Old
12-18-2012, 02:05 PM
  #681
CootaRoo
Registered User
 
CootaRoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 258
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Invictus View Post
I know the NHL loses asstons of sponsorship money in this scenario, but I'd be fine with a 28 game season if it comes to that.
The owners, I would think, would absolutely love this (though Gary probably wouldn't - judging by his commentary on the subject) since they basically pay for 1/4 of the season and get full playoff revenues (for the teams that make it, obviously) while the players would never go for it as they would only make 1/4 of their salary and have to play the entire playoffs for free (for the players that make it, obviously).

CootaRoo is offline  
Old
12-18-2012, 02:08 PM
  #682
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,548
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snotbubbles View Post
Not really sure what your position is.

American Needle found that the NFL was not a single entity for the purposes of Intellectual Property rights for each individual team. But the Supreme Court left open the possibility that the individual teams in the NFL could work together to restrain trade when it stated, "Because some...restraints on compeition are necessary to produce the NFL's product, the Rule of Reason generally should apply, and teams' cooperation is likely to be permissible."

So even if the NHL is found not to be a single entity, the Supreme Court left a huge opening to the NFL and other sports leagues to reasonably restrain trade.
Well if you go back and follow from the beginning, it started with my saying any hypothetical lawsuit filed by the NHLPA would likely be under Section 1 of the Act (dealing with contracts and conspiracies to restrain trade). I then gave a rudimentary example of how the NHL draft is a textbook example of a restraint of trade. Someone then chimed in and brought up what may or may not have been the single entity theory, which then steered the conversation down that road of debating whether or not the NHL would be considered a single entity.

As for the Rule of Reason, it is a possibility that the NHL could win on some respects, but it does not mean that there are no violations. When the Anti-trust laws talk about restraint of trade, the court will look to what the relevant market is. Here that market is the NHL players. While some restraint of trade is permissible, if not necessary, an all-out restraint is not. As I said in earlier posts, it would be an uphill battle to say the least that the actions of the league are not an all-out restraint of trade (being that they set the salary limits, terms, etc). This is why, unlike most other industries, the sports leagues desperately need Unions to survive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DownieFaceSoftener View Post
He's on the internet a lot for a lawyer. It only takes a bit of googling to undercut a lot of his absolutistic statements. "A violation is a violation. No ifs, ands, or buts." When people close to law know that's hardly the case. I'm not very interested in disclosing which two Acts I deal with on a regular basis (the regulatory bodies I've listed is a good clue), but Acts are far from absolutes.
I've got news for you, DFS, most lawyers are on the internet a lot. It is how a good portion of the work we do gets done. I also like how you have mentioned several times that I am wrong, without pointing out why. In other words, what statements have I made that are incorrect, and why is it incorrect.

It is difficult to discuss something as complex as anti-trust laws with someone who is not familiar with it. I don't know what your job is or what acts you deal with, but I can tell you a couple things. Not to be rude, but if you are not a lawyer (or at least someone with some legal training) then you don't have much grounds to argue about the law. And if you are a lawyer, then you should be pointing to the cases that I am citing (or other cases) that show that I am wrong. Also, your experience with other Acts have very little bearing on the Sherman Act, unless you are a lawyer dealing with those acts, in which case, as stated above, you should then be pointing out my inaccuracies with actual cases, not newspaper articles that back up my position.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline  
Old
12-18-2012, 02:13 PM
  #683
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,050
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by CootaRoo View Post
The owners, I would think, would absolutely love this (though Gary probably wouldn't - judging by his commentary on the subject) since they basically pay for 1/4 of the season and get full playoff revenues (for the teams that make it, obviously) while the players would never go for it as they would only make 1/4 of their salary and have to play the entire playoffs for free (for the players that make it, obviously).
Well, you're wrong.

Playoff revenue gets added to the season revenue before final HRR numbers are out.

So, while the players get the salary for about 1/4 of the games, after the playoffs are done, they'd get tons of money given to them by the league

Krishna is offline  
Old
12-18-2012, 02:28 PM
  #684
CootaRoo
Registered User
 
CootaRoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 258
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krishna View Post
Well, you're wrong.

Playoff revenue gets added to the season revenue before final HRR numbers are out.

So, while the players get the salary for about 1/4 of the games, after the playoffs are done, they'd get tons of money given to them by the league
The players make a paltry (and evenly split amongst all players at that) percentage of playoff revenue in the form of bonuses (in '10 the Flyers split like 500K amongst all players, iirc... so, 22K per players for 2.5 months of work? - certainly not 'tons' of money in my book, let alone the players') and then playoff revenues are factored into the next season's cap number (which is derived from the past season's HRR, of which playoff revenue is an input variable), but there are no 'salaries' during the playoffs, so... my point kinda still stands.

CootaRoo is offline  
Old
12-18-2012, 02:42 PM
  #685
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,050
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by CootaRoo View Post
The players make a paltry (and evenly split amongst all players at that) percentage of playoff revenue in the form of bonuses (in '10 the Flyers split like 500K amongst all players, iirc... so, 22K per players for 2.5 months of work? - certainly not 'tons' of money in my book, let alone the players') and then playoff revenues are factored into the next season's cap number (which is derived from the past season's HRR, of which playoff revenue is an input variable), but there are no 'salaries' during the playoffs, so... my point kinda still stands.
You're using two different figures in your points..

The bonus money that the players get in the playoffs are included in the CBA

The total revenue for the league still factors in the players' salaries. The players who pay more into revenue (players with larger contracts) would get more money back after the HRR final report is out than a player making league minimum.

Playoff Revenue has always been used to calculate the players share.

Krishna is offline  
Old
12-18-2012, 02:59 PM
  #686
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,548
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prongo View Post
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...medium=twitter

Good article here that is actually an expert in the field. Walsh(hate him or not) said the SN attorney has no background in any sports lawsuits. He is an intellectual property expert(no clue what the hell that is)

None of these cases by the PA's has ever gone long enough to make a decision. So all they can do is give their legal advice on what they think will happen.
He's talking about something different. He is talking about the actually ability of the players to decertify and file anti-trust related lawsuits. My argument, and presumably the arguments of those responding to me, is predicated on the assumption that they would be legally able to file such claims. If the courts ruled they couldn't because it is a sham decertification as the NHL is claiming, then the last few pages of arguments would be completely moot anyway. Haha.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline  
Old
12-18-2012, 03:01 PM
  #687
SeanCWombBroom
DownieFaceSoftener
 
SeanCWombBroom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,787
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
But if you are not a lawyer (or at least someone with some legal training) then you don't have much grounds to argue about the law. And if you are a lawyer, then you should be pointing to the cases that I am citing (or other cases) that show that I am wrong. Also, your experience with other Acts have very little bearing on the Sherman Act, unless you are a lawyer dealing with those acts, in which case, as stated above, you should then be pointing out my inaccuracies with actual cases, not newspaper articles that back up my position.
This is a thinly veiled argument from authority. Not very classy, from an alleged attorney.

"X holds that A is true.
X is a legitimate expert on the subject matter.
The consensus of subject-matter experts agrees with X.
Therefore, there exists a presumption that A is true."

I deal with Acts every day. You're not going to hoodwink me.

SeanCWombBroom is offline  
Old
12-18-2012, 03:09 PM
  #688
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,548
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by DownieFaceSoftener View Post
This is a thinly veiled argument from authority. Not very classy, from an alleged attorney.

"X holds that A is true.
X is a legitimate expert on the subject matter.
The consensus of subject-matter experts agrees with X.
Therefore, there exists a presumption that A is true."

I deal with Acts every day. You're not going to hoodwink me.
Ok, I guess you are right. Once again you have failed to point out why I am wrong, other than the fact that you deal with acts every day (not the act we are talking about, but acts in general) without explaining what it is you do with them or why it would make me wrong or give you any insight as to why you are right. But I guess you are right. Damn, if you are not a lawyer, you should be one.

EDIT: Just out of curiosity, what is it that you do with acts? Are you an attorney? Paralegal? Secretary? Senator? Congressman? Proofreader? Law clerk? Archivist? Librarian? Law student? Legal assistant? College student? Courier? Professor? Police officer? Something I may have missed that would require you to deal with acts?

EDIT EDIT: As far as the classiness related to what I posted and the fact that you think I may or may not be an attorney...this is an internet message board. I am willing to bet there are plenty of posters within this and other forums whose posts would not be considered "classy" in whichever profession they may hold.


Last edited by DrinkFightFlyers: 12-18-2012 at 03:17 PM.
DrinkFightFlyers is offline  
Old
12-18-2012, 03:27 PM
  #689
CootaRoo
Registered User
 
CootaRoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 258
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krishna View Post
The players who pay more into revenue (players with larger contracts) would get more money back after the HRR final report is out than a player making league minimum.
So you're assuming a player split under 50% in which players would receive escrow from the owners (as opposed to vice versa) to reach the conclusion that players get mystery checks after the postseason? To my knowledge that didnt happen once during the term of the last CBA.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krishna View Post
Playoff Revenue has always been used to calculate the players share.
Yeah.. for the following year. Again, my point still stands.

CootaRoo is offline  
Old
12-18-2012, 03:29 PM
  #690
SeanCWombBroom
DownieFaceSoftener
 
SeanCWombBroom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,787
vCash: 500
You're getting heated. Perhaps the defense should rest.

Edit: It is bizarre that I call you out on an argument from authority and your response is to quiz me to ascertain facts so you can further your argument from authority. That's the weirdest response to a logical fallacy I've ever seen.

SeanCWombBroom is offline  
Old
12-18-2012, 03:44 PM
  #691
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,050
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by CootaRoo View Post
So you're assuming a player split under 50% in which players would receive escrow from the owners (as opposed to vice versa) to reach the conclusion that players get mystery checks after the postseason? To my knowledge that didnt happen once during the term of the last CBA.



Yeah.. for the following year. Again, my point still stands.
That's because your knowledge is wrong.

The owners had to write additional checks for the players once or twice during the last CBA because they made more money than anticipated.

The revenue for the year is still calculated using the playoff revenue. The revenue for that year is used to determine the salary cap for the following year.

The escrow rate is checked 4 times throughout the season and it changed to reflect the current revenue numbers. Of course a year with 1/3 of the games of a normal season would have numbers wrong. After the numbers are calculated with the playoff revenue included, if the numbers are too low for the players, they get the escrow money returned and then the rest of the left over money would still have to get split up to get the 57% player figure or whatever the new number is.

Krishna is offline  
Old
12-18-2012, 03:45 PM
  #692
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,050
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by DownieFaceSoftener View Post
You're getting heated. Perhaps the defense should rest.

Edit: It is bizarre that I call you out on an argument from authority and your response is to quiz me to ascertain facts so you can further your argument from authority. That's the weirdest response to a logical fallacy I've ever seen.

Krishna is offline  
Old
12-18-2012, 04:25 PM
  #693
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,548
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by DownieFaceSoftener View Post
You're getting heated. Perhaps the defense should rest.

Edit: It is bizarre that I call you out on an argument from authority and your response is to quiz me to ascertain facts so you can further your argument from authority. That's the weirdest response to a logical fallacy I've ever seen.
I don't think it is bizarre. You aren't responding to my arguments directly, other than by saying you deal with acts every day (which, by the way, sounds like the authority argument you are calling me out on). There is not much else I can write that hasn't already been posted, especially when you haven't actually responded to the argument that preceded my "authority" argument.

As a response to you calling me out on my authority argument, I guess I don't really have a response. You say that you deal with acts every day, but don't say in what context.

If you are a lawyer, then you would either have said so already or would have a better understanding of how the legal system works, or at very least, made arguments based on the cases that I have cited to, not ignored them and cited to newspaper articles.

If you are not lawyer, then your understanding of the subject matter is an issue. If you don't understand the subject matter, my explanations and arguments are worthless to you, just like your explanations and arguments are worthless to me. Reading a couple blog posts and articles as well as the text of the act is not a good footing for arguing about anti-trust law.

Again, if you have some sort of information that says I am wrong I would be happy to see it. It certainly would not be the first time I have been wrong about things (legally, or otherwise). But to this point, you have not shown me anything.

You have:

-described, somewhat accurately, the process in which the Supreme Court hears a case.
-described, incorrectly, how the Sherman Act works
-described, incorrectly, the applicability of the single entity theory
-cited to articles that were hypothesizing about the outcome of a case that has since been decided the way I said it was
-cited to an article talking about the labor exemption that I had written about
-made accusations that I am not what I say I am
-said that I wasn't very classy
-made arguments about the fact that I used an authority argument (which, if you will go back, you were the first one to bring in the fact that they have some sort of leg up because of your position)

What you have failed to do is show me some sort of actual reason why I am wrong and you are right. So I am sorry that I brought my background and profession into this. I guess I should not have done that. But I will concede anyway, that based on your airtight arguments, that I am wrong and you are right. I never should have gone down this path with someone who deals with acts on a daily basis.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline  
Old
12-18-2012, 04:43 PM
  #694
Damaged Goods
Registered User
 
Damaged Goods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 2,026
vCash: 500
Ether.

Damaged Goods is offline  
Old
12-18-2012, 05:27 PM
  #695
Flyerfan4life
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Richmond BC, Canada
Country: England
Posts: 12,054
vCash: 500
can someone point me to were i can discuss Flyers news plz? ??

Flyerfan4life is offline  
Old
12-18-2012, 06:20 PM
  #696
Broad Street Elite
Registered User
 
Broad Street Elite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,363
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyerfan4life View Post
can someone point me to were i can discuss Flyers news plz? ??
There's a quality Flyers thread over at Lemon Party.

Broad Street Elite is offline  
Old
12-18-2012, 06:33 PM
  #697
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 37,858
vCash: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broad Street Elite View Post
There's a quality Flyers thread over at Lemon Party.
Nobody anywhere should ever heed this man's advice. Ever.

On a serious note...what Flyers news!? Bickering over some kind of legal stuff related to the CBA negotiations is about as newsworthy as anything else currently going on in the NHL world.

Beef Invictus is online now  
Old
12-18-2012, 06:43 PM
  #698
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,050
vCash: 50
Big fan of lemon party

probably my favorite flyers related blog

Krishna is offline  
Old
12-18-2012, 06:47 PM
  #699
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,548
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Invictus View Post
Nobody anywhere should ever heed this man's advice. Ever.

On a serious note...what Flyers news!? Bickering over some kind of legal stuff related to the CBA negotiations is about as newsworthy as anything else currently going on in the NHL world.
I'd also like to point out that I suggested having the above discussions via PM so as to not hijack the thread.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline  
Old
12-18-2012, 06:50 PM
  #700
Go For It
Registered User
 
Go For It's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Collegeville, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,056
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
I'd also like to point out that I suggested having the above discussions via PM so as to not hijack the thread.
If the choice is your debate or a debate about whether it's okay to eat at a certain restaurant, I think I'll take the legal debate.

Go For It 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 01:09 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.