HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
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.

When the NHL cancels the season, Fehr will Fight to Repeal the Cap

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-21-2012, 03:00 PM
  #51
WingedWheel1987
Ken Holland's office
 
WingedWheel1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: GPP Michigan
Posts: 8,345
vCash: 500
I cant watch college basketball or football. The talent level on the field/court is abysmal compared to the NBA/NFL. The same is true about the AHL.

No way does the NHL get anybody to watch their sport with a bunch of 60k scrubs.

WingedWheel1987 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 03:02 PM
  #52
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 30,304
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by atomic View Post
The only way that happens if the players win a court battle. the league will never agree to it.

The ONLY thing players have to do is get rid of their union. Permanently.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 03:02 PM
  #53
Dojji*
Fight the Hate
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Number8 View Post
Which is exactly why the players are digging in -- whether you think it is smart of not.

Regardless of what you think, the owners will shut the players out over and over again until they get what they want -- namely pinning the players salaries and contract terms to a level that serves the lowest common denominator (the most underperforming teams in terms of revenue).
This is the case because the players demanded a salary floor. A A salary floor means expenses are set at a certain minimum level regardless of revenue. It stands to reason that it is then in the league's best interest to enforce a system that allows the weakest revenue teams to spend to the floor without being permanent money drains for any prospective owner. Especially those franchises locked into leases that are not easy to move out from under.

Dojji* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 03:03 PM
  #54
moosehead81
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Great White North
Country: Canada
Posts: 842
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
Very true. The thing is how long before an Owner revolt. Dolan will not wait 2 years to fight.
Nor will the new owners of the Jets who are likely thinking "what the hell did we buy last year?", nor will the Canucks, Penguins, Leafs, Flyers, Canadiens, Sabres, etc.. Sure would be interesting to listen in on their teleconferences, assuming some-one has the balls to stand up to Bettman and his cronies. What a fiasco this has turned out to be.

moosehead81 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 03:06 PM
  #55
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
No one's saying that this isn't hurting the owners.

But it's hurting the players more. A lot more in many cases. The owners usually have other revenue streams to fall back on. The players almost never do, and what revenue streams do exist tend to be far inferior to the "real thing" and/or require a great deal of travel to realize (such as those playing in Europe or the KHL).

If I have to cut off my own foot, in order to cut off my enemy's pinky toe, I'm going to think hard about just how much I really want that toe gone and how I'd much rather keep my own foot.
That's debatable.

When you pay $250 million for a hockey team and it's now worth $150M... that's real losses of money you already had.

When you don't play for a year and you lose $5M.... that's the loss of money you never had and hoped to get.

On the other hand, if you bought that team for $250M and hoped to sell it for $400M ..and its only worth $150M... you've lost $100M for real and $150M you hoped to get.

These are just made numbers, of course, but I'm just making a point.

We don't talk about the owners' side on this because we don't understand it.

We understand, in simple terms, not getting your paycheck. We understand, in simple terms, losing more money than you make.

but what we don't understand is the real complexity of sports team ownership. We rarely talk about the real motivations for sports team ownership and act as if it is some mom and pop pizza joint.

I don't understand it. I've read lots of articles, but most of it is speculation. There is no one-size-fits-all motivation.

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 03:06 PM
  #56
Stickmata
Registered User
 
Stickmata's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,489
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Number8 View Post
Which is exactly why the players are digging in -- whether you think it is smart of not.

Regardless of what you think, the owners will shut the players out over and over again until they get what they want --
No they won't. The latest league offer would likely ensure long term stability of the league. At least it would offer a better chance than what the players have offered.

As regards the players, I don't fault them at all for fighting the good fight. Everyone has the right to stand up for themselves and nobody can be forced to accept a job on terms that they don't agree with. My problem with this whole mess is that I think that DF and the players have made a huge mistake and it has cost us as fans. I think that they dramatically overestimated the amount of leverage they had and they made mistakes at almost every step of the way. I say this based on the fact that I believe they will wind up getting less than they could have gotten 2-3 months ago. And at the end of the day, they will have sacrificed hundreds of millions of dollars of salary for little to no gain. They have taken things personally, rather than making business decisions coldly and dispassionately. And we as fans will have missed a lot of hockey for no reason.

Whether I side with the players or owners, I think the players misread the situation and the extended work stoppage will have been for naught in the end.

Stickmata is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 03:07 PM
  #57
atomic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 287
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WingedWheel1987 View Post
I cant watch college basketball or football. The talent level on the field/court is abysmal compared to the NBA/NFL. The same is true about the AHL.

No way does the NHL get anybody to watch their sport with a bunch of 60k scrubs.
the difference in quality between college football and NFL is a lot different than the quality from ahl to nhl. and plenty of people watch college football. I am guessing the revenue from college football dwarfs the nhl revenue. and a lot of people prefer college basketball to pro basketball.

atomic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 03:09 PM
  #58
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
Simply not true. Fehr's offer does nothing to guarantee that the owners will get to a 50/50 HRR split at any time during the term of the CBA that Fehr has proposed.

The Fehr proposal does guarantee that players will get 50%+.
Guarantee?
PA's offer, by any reasonable expectation, gets the owners to 50-50 by year 5.
Early on, thanks to the escrow clause, the owners will probably even pay more than 57 percent, because the owners' lockout is causing serious damage to revenues.

But revenues can bounce back quickly.

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 03:10 PM
  #59
Number8
Registered User
 
Number8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,068
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stickmata View Post
No they won't. The latest league offer would likely ensure long term stability of the league. At least it would offer a better chance than what the players have offered.

As regards the players, I don't fault them at all for fighting the good fight. Everyone has the right to stand up for themselves and nobody can be forced to accept a job on terms that they don't agree with. My problem with this whole mess is that I think that DF and the players have made a huge mistake and it has cost us as fans. I think that they dramatically overestimated the amount of leverage they had and they made mistakes at almost every step of the way. I say this based on the fact that I believe they will wind up getting less than they could have gotten 2-3 months ago. And at the end of the day, they will have sacrificed hundreds of millions of dollars of salary for little to no gain. They have taken things personally, rather than making business decisions coldly and dispassionately. And we as fans will have missed a lot of hockey for no reason.

Whether I side with the players or owners, I think the players misread the situation and the extended work stoppage will have been for naught in the end.
A) History shows clearly that the first bolded sentence is not true.
B) Just about every economic analysis suggests that the second sentence is not true in the absence of meaningful and realistic revenue sharing in the NHL.

Number8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 03:10 PM
  #60
Stickmata
Registered User
 
Stickmata's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,489
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
The ONLY thing players have to do is get rid of their union. Permanently.
Yes, and then after a couple of years of about 30 players making millions and the remaing 570 players making $250,000 a year on two year, non-guaranteed contracts, watch how quickly the word 'union' starts to get whispered in locker rooms around the league.

Stickmata is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 03:11 PM
  #61
WingedWheel1987
Ken Holland's office
 
WingedWheel1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: GPP Michigan
Posts: 8,345
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stickmata View Post
Yes, and then after a couple of years of about 30 players making millions and the remaing 570 players making $250,000 a year on two year, non-guaranteed contracts, watch how quickly the word 'union' starts to get whispered in locker rooms around the league.
And those unions will eventually fight for the guy making millions again. Unions only exist to serve the 1% in today's world.

WingedWheel1987 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 03:11 PM
  #62
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mygameworn View Post
There will be no capless NHL. If that were to happen, the NHL would lose at least six teams. If you lose six teams thats 300 NHL contracts that won't exist anymore. Those 300 contracts would be possible UNION members.

The players are stupid, plain and simple. The NHL would look a LOT different. I don't know how anyone can still defend them.
Or those six teams could simply spend within their means.
And in the meantime, the owners might decide to engage in real revenue sharing to save the league.

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 03:13 PM
  #63
Number8
Registered User
 
Number8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,068
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by atomic View Post
the difference in quality between college football and NFL is a lot different than the quality from ahl to nhl. and plenty of people watch college football. I am guessing the revenue from college football dwarfs the nhl revenue. and a lot of people prefer college basketball to pro basketball.
You will have a hard time getting a knowledgeable hockey fan to agree with you that the talent level between the current AHL/NHL rosters isn't massive.

The AHL is riddled with journeymen players that would otherwise never get a sniff at the NHL under ordinary circumstances.

The rest are young players that are developing and getting ready for the next step in their career.

I might as well argue that Wayne Gretzky was ready to play in the pros as a 14 year old.

Number8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 03:14 PM
  #64
cbcwpg
Registered User
 
cbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Between the Pipes
Country: United Nations
Posts: 6,064
vCash: 500
Get rid of the cap, fine....

then get rid of guaranteed contracts

The ultimate pay for play sport is golf. Perform and you get paid. Suck and you starve. Would love to see the NHLPA try and do this.

cbcwpg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 03:16 PM
  #65
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 17,743
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
No one's saying that this isn't hurting the owners.

But it's hurting the players more. A lot more in many cases. The owners usually have other revenue streams to fall back on. Heck many owners aren't making a dime on their teams right now. Meanwhile the players almost never have alternate revenue streams, and what revenue streams do exist tend to be far inferior to the "real thing" and/or require a great deal of travel to realize (such as those playing in Europe or the KHL).

If I have to cut off my own foot, in order to cut off my enemy's pinky toe, I'm going to think hard about just how much I really want that toe gone and how I'd much rather keep my own foot.
You know why the owners have these other revenue streams? Because, in general, they are skilled business men. Most of them bought a hockey team either because they are fans, or for tax reasons, not because they are profitable. They are not going to agree to lose more money just so they can continue to own a hockey team. For most teams it is going to come down smart business. Without a cap parity will vanish because teams like the Sharks, Predators, Blues, etc will simply choose to ice an inferior team to keep the budget balanced. More than a few would likely choose to just sell or shut down their team all-together.

A good businessman does not allow one investment to 'save' another. Each business (and revenue stream) must justify itself or it is not worth keeping. Claiming the owners make money elsewhere and they should foolishly dump it into a losing investment (the NHL) just shows a total lack of understanding on how a business is run (which is probably why you do not own a hockey team).

The players appear to be deeply dillusional. They absorb none of the risk of running a franchise, every dollar they make (after taxes and insurance, etc) is 100% profit. The owners have to pay leases, pay staff, utility bills, etc. The owners stand to lose money every year, the players (as long as they are healthy and playing) are guaranteed to never lose money. How the players think that equates to them getting more than 50% of the pot boggles my mind.

If I was an owner I would absolutely shut down my unprofitable team were the salary cap removed, and I bet I love hockey a LOT more than some of the owners.

hockeyball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 03:17 PM
  #66
Laus Deo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 31
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stickmata View Post
Fehr can't go after anything, because the only leverage the players have left, at all, is decertification, which takes DF out of the picture. The players have zero leverage whatsoever beyond decertification, which is exactly why they're doing it. Don Fehr has failed and either players cave and take the offer on the table, or they decertify and DF goes home.
The third option is that the owners cave and take the offers on the table.

Regardless.

When hockey does return I think that the style of hockey should become more European style since the 5 year limit on insurance is what this is really about.

The teams are afraid that if they have players on their team with uninsurable years they are responsible for the balance. Also, previous injuries may be excluded from coverage by the underwriters. Owners are seeing the high number of diagnosed concussions climb to 60 last year. They are fearful of being held responsible/liable. Pronger is already a casualty. Crosby-just give it time.

So a less aggressive, more penalized, Euro style hockey would help solve the problems of insurance liability by reducing the rate of injuries.

Laus Deo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 03:21 PM
  #67
Number8
Registered User
 
Number8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,068
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
You know why the owners have these other revenue streams? Because, in general, they are skilled business men. Most of them bought a hockey team either because they are fans, or for tax reasons, not because they are profitable. They are not going to agree to lose more money just so they can continue to own a hockey team. For most teams it is going to come down smart business. Without a cap parity will vanish because teams like the Sharks, Predators, Blues, etc will simply choose to ice an inferior team to keep the budget balanced. More than a few would likely choose to just sell or shut down their team all-together.

A good businessman does not allow one investment to 'save' another. Each business (and revenue stream) must justify itself or it is not worth keeping. Claiming the owners make money elsewhere and they should foolishly dump it into a losing investment (the NHL) just shows a total lack of understanding on how a business is run (which is probably why you do not own a hockey team).

The players appear to be deeply dillusional. They absorb none of the risk of running a franchise, every dollar they make (after taxes and insurance, etc) is 100% profit. The owners have to pay leases, pay staff, utility bills, etc. The owners stand to lose money every year, the players (as long as they are healthy and playing) are guaranteed to never lose money. How the players think that equates to them getting more than 50% of the pot boggles my mind.

If I was an owner I would absolutely shut down my unprofitable team were the salary cap removed, and I bet I love hockey a LOT more than some of the owners.
I agree with much of your post. However, you cannot argue that these players are not special. They have talents and abilities that the vast majority of hockey players do not have.

I would not pay $75 to go and see Ed Jones play if Ed were an average beer league player.

It's the same reason George Clooney gets paid the money he gets paid for a movie. As much as I'd like to claim otherwise, I'm not George. Although I am very very charming and handsome!!! (joke)

Number8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 03:21 PM
  #68
Nab77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 312
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post

If I was an owner I would absolutely shut down my unprofitable team were the salary cap removed, and I bet I love hockey a LOT more than some of the owners.
And lose the the capital you've invested in it? Why not run it on 20M budget and make some money?

Nab77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 03:23 PM
  #69
JMT21
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 823
vCash: 500
Fehr can try to eliminate the cap all he wants........ but no salary cap will surely see the elimination of guaranteed contracts..... no question about it. The two will never go hand in hand again.

The top 6-7 teams would likely boost their payrolls in the 100M range but the bottom feeders will drop their payrolls maybe as low as 30M. Those teams will have an almost impossible task of signing any guys with higher than 2nd / 3rd line talent.

Not gonna happen.

JMT21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 03:25 PM
  #70
Laus Deo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 31
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
You know why the owners have these other revenue streams? Because, in general, they are skilled business men. Most of them bought a hockey team either because they are fans, or for tax reasons, not because they are profitable. They are not going to agree to lose more money just so they can continue to own a hockey team. For most teams it is going to come down smart business. Without a cap parity will vanish because teams like the Sharks, Predators, Blues, etc will simply choose to ice an inferior team to keep the budget balanced. More than a few would likely choose to just sell or shut down their team all-together.

A good businessman does not allow one investment to 'save' another. Each business (and revenue stream) must justify itself or it is not worth keeping. Claiming the owners make money elsewhere and they should foolishly dump it into a losing investment (the NHL) just shows a total lack of understanding on how a business is run (which is probably why you do not own a hockey team).

The players appear to be deeply dillusional. They absorb none of the risk of running a franchise, every dollar they make (after taxes and insurance, etc) is 100% profit. The owners have to pay leases, pay staff, utility bills, etc. The owners stand to lose money every year, the players (as long as they are healthy and playing) are guaranteed to never lose money. How the players think that equates to them getting more than 50% of the pot boggles my mind.

If I was an owner I would absolutely shut down my unprofitable team were the salary cap removed, and I bet I love hockey a LOT more than some of the owners.
The risk for putting their health on the line is what you are conveniently disregarding.

The contract is "I will work my tail off, I will be the best I can, I will work when not feeling my best, I will fight, I will block shots, I will break orbital bones, vertebrae, femurs, tibias, feet, toe and ankle bones, hands, arms, noses, lose teeth, skin. I will dislocate shoulders and hips, be hit, bruised, lose eye sight and incurr brain damage. I will get surgery, rehab and do it all over again. " Do they get a thank you from anyone? A kick in the nads from the owners is more like it.

There are other things that they give up and do for the game and it's fans far beyond the scope of this message board.

For all that would you not expect to be fairly compensated?

You are probably one of the ones who'd do it for free.


Last edited by Laus Deo: 12-21-2012 at 03:32 PM.
Laus Deo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 03:27 PM
  #71
Soundwave
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 24,476
vCash: 500
Time to become an NBA fan and pick up NFL football if that happens. Screw the NHL and especially the NHLPA.

Soundwave is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 03:28 PM
  #72
WingedWheel1987
Ken Holland's office
 
WingedWheel1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: GPP Michigan
Posts: 8,345
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundwave View Post
Time to become an NBA fan and pick up NFL football if that happens. Screw the NHL and NHLPA.
I recommend being a Heat or OKC Thunder fan if you plan on watching the NBA. You should be set for the next decade.

I actually love the NBA so i am half joking, but not really.

WingedWheel1987 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 03:31 PM
  #73
EbonyRaptor
Registered User
 
EbonyRaptor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Boonies
Country: United States
Posts: 3,026
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
There are a lot of guys in this generation who will benefit if the cap goes away.

The union is the union. it's not only about the 700 guys right now. It's about the 700 guys in 2 years, in 6 years and in 10 years.
I think Captain Bob is right about the union being a union. Or to be more precise - the union leadership grabs as much as they can for themselves today with no cares for the future of the sport. Without a cap, the NHL will revert back to the league of haves and have nots with teams folding and TV money dwindling when no one wants to watch uncompetitive hockey. But, the elite stars will get mega deals from the rich teams until the bottom falls out ... but by then Fehr will have moved on to screw up some other sport.

Fehr is just being the weasel that he is - nothing new there, but if the players in leadership can't see what removing the cap will do to the NHL, then ... let's put it this way - they don't have the intellectual capacity to be in leadership positions.

EbonyRaptor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 03:31 PM
  #74
Turbofan
The Full 60 Minutes
 
Turbofan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,288
vCash: 50
We all know Wikipedia isn't exactly an 'experts' knowledge repository. But there are a few bits of the Wikipedia entry on 'Salary Cap' that I like (and some that I don't). I generally agree with the bolded sections:

Quote:
In theory, there are two main benefits derived from salary caps - promotion of parity between teams, and control of costs.

Primarily, an effective salary cap prevents wealthy teams from certain destructive behaviours, such as signing a multitude of high-paid star players to prevent their rivals from accessing talented players and ensuring victory through superior economic power. With a salary cap, each club has roughly the same economic power to attract players, which contributes to parity by producing roughly equal playing talent in each team in the league, and in turn brings economic benefits, both to the league and to its individual teams.

Leagues need to ensure a degree of parity between teams so that games are exciting for the fans and not a foregone conclusion. The leagues that have adopted salary caps generally do so because they believe letting richer teams accumulate talent affects the quality of the sporting product they want to sell. If only a handful of dominant teams are able to win consistently and challenge for the championship, many of the contests will be blowouts by the superior team, reducing the sport's attractiveness for fans at the stadium and viewers on television. Television revenue is an important part of the income of many sports around the world, and the more evenly matched and exciting the contests, the more interesting the television product, meaning the value of the television broadcast rights is higher. An unbalanced league also threatens the financial viability of the weaker teams, because if there is no long term hope of their team winning, fans of the weaker clubs will gravitate to other sports and leagues, and these teams would eventually drop out of the league and possibly fold.

The need for parity is more pronounced in leagues that use the franchise model, rather than the promotion and relegation model, used in European football. The structure of a promotion and relegation system means weaker teams struggle against the threat of relegation, adding importance and excitement to the matches of weaker teams. International club competitions such as the UEFA Champions League also means that the top clubs always have something to play for, even in the most unbalanced of national leagues.

A salary cap can also help to control the costs of teams and prevent situations in which a club will sign high-cost contracts for star players in order to reap the benefits of immediate popularity and success, only to later find themselves in financial difficulty because of these costs. Without caps, there is a risk that teams will overspend in order to win now at the expense of long term stability, and team owners who use the same risk-benefit analysis used in business may risk not just the fortunes of their own team but the reputation and viability of the whole league.

Sports fans are generally looking to support a team for life, not just a product to purchase for the short term. If teams regularly go bankrupt or change markets the same way businesses do, then the whole sport looks unstable to the fans, who may lose interest and switch their support to a more stable sport where their team and their rivals are more likely to be playing in the long term.

Turbofan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 03:33 PM
  #75
Do Make Say Think
Soul & Onward
 
Do Make Say Think's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 17,898
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WingedWheel1987 View Post
And those unions will eventually fight for the guy making millions again. Unions only exist to serve the 1% in today's world.
That is a silly thing to say.

Truth is it's a failure of leadership that leads organizations to only care about the top dogs: it's something that is not intrinsic to unions (or businesses for that matter)

Do Make Say Think 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 07:58 AM.

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.