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, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

Differences Between the NHL's October 16th offer and current CBA

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-07-2013, 11:36 AM
  #51
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 14,213
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
Interesting math you used there.
You mean standard math.

Tawnos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 11:39 AM
  #52
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7,874
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
So you're saying if a player was genuinely dissatisfied with the union he would vote to keep it? How did you expect the Hamerliks of the union to vote? The vote shows absolutely nothing about the consensus of the players on their satisfaction of union leadership.
If Roman Hamrlik thought the PA was playing such needless hardball that it was hurting its membership, I expect he would have voted down the DOI, because the DOI was a negotiating ploy to help the PA play more hardball. Were the DOI in any way, shape or form serious (i.e., if players were legitimately talking about abolishing the union, the draft, the whole free agency system, guaranteed contracts, etc., and going into next season as individuals with no collective bargaining rights), then it would make sense, maybe, for Hamrlik to vote it up. But as it was, the day the 97% vote came in, you and I and everybody know that Don Fehr was very pleased with the outcome, had encouraged the vote hoping for that outcome, and that tells you all you need to know.

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 11:41 AM
  #53
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,328
vCash: 500
The union suggested that if the owners are unwilling to negotiate and appear likely to carry out their threat to cancel the entire season, that players would be better off to disband the union and just negotiate salaries the same way that CEO's do.

The effect of the union is to provide legal cover for the owners to pay far less in salaries than they otherwise would in a normal business environment.

The vote to allow Fehr the discretion of deciding on the players behalf which is the best road forward, unionized or all free agents, was overwhelmingly to trust Fehrs decision making.

The first time they voted brought the owners to the table to seriously bargain for the 1st time. When the deadline passed the owners offers got worse. The players re-voted and a deal came within 24 hrs. Who knows, maybe it's coincidence.

The players were being extorted by the mob syndicate and their one-trick pony consigliere into making huge concessions again even though the business was profitable. Of course they lose, you dont win in a fight against the mob, you maybe get to hold onto a little more of what you had than they originally wanted and count yourself lucky.

thinkwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 11:43 AM
  #54
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,669
vCash: 500
Compared to the early november offer, here's what the PA got:

- Lost $600M in earnings for 2012-2013
- Gained $80M in Make Whole
- Extended max contract length to 7-8 years from 5-7 years
- Higher year to year variation of salary
- Teams can't walk away from arbitration awards lower than $3.5M
- Higher cap for 2013-2014 of $64.3M (vs $60M), although lower floor

All in all, it looks like the PA spent $520M to get slightly better contractual rights which benefits only the top 10% of the PA members. I wouldn't be happy to have lost 1/3 of my wages to satisfy the stars if I was a 2nd-4th liner...

SuperUnknown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 11:43 AM
  #55
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,584
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Model62 View Post
So explain the 97% vote in favor of the Disclaimer of Interest move?

More fear of getting "mobbed"?
They had to support this vote. If they hadn't, the NHL would have eaten them for lunch at the negotiating table.

__________________
I've been looking for trouble... but trouble hasn't been cooperating!
Riptide is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 11:45 AM
  #56
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,584
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
Yeah, the deal the players got was significantly better for them than the October offer.

-It's not a $300m swing when you go from paying $211m to someone else paying $300m. It's a $511m swing.
-They didn't just get $64.3m as next year's cap. They got it as the minimum for the duration of the deal.
-They got a legitimate concession in the owners losing their ability to walk away from arbitration awards under $3.5m
Except that escrow is still there... so if somehow revenues fall sometime down the road (unlikely), the teams can still spend up to 64m, and then allow escrow to deal with ensuring that the PA only gets 50%.

Riptide is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 11:46 AM
  #57
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 14,213
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperUnknown View Post
Compared to the early november offer, here's what the PA got:

- Lost $600M in earnings for 2012-2013
- Gained $80M in Make Whole
- Extended max contract length to 7-8 years from 5-7 years
- Higher year to year variation of salary
- Teams can't walk away from arbitration awards lower than $3.5M
- Higher cap for 2013-2014 of $64.3M (vs $60M), although lower floor

All in all, it looks like the PA spent $520M to get slightly better contractual rights which benefits only the top 10% of the PA members. I wouldn't be happy to have lost 1/3 of my wages to satisfy the stars if I was a 2nd-4th liner...
Yeah, that arbitration change certainly doesn't affect the vast majority of the union...

Also, in a system with 5 year limits, 2nd liners would be getting a lot of 2-3 year deals and everyone else would be getting 1-2 year deals. With the number being 7 years, 2nd liners might get 4-5 year deals and you'd see a lot more 3 year deals among 3rd and 4th liners. So another thing that greatly affects the rank and file membership.

Tawnos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 11:48 AM
  #58
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 14,213
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
Except that escrow is still there... so if somehow revenues fall sometime down the road (unlikely), the teams can still spend up to 64m, and then allow escrow to deal with ensuring that the PA only gets 50%.
Yeah, I know. But it was something the PA was fighting for (why, I'm not sure. Maybe to prevent a ton of trades in the event the cap were to go below that point). Getting that is a concession because for them, it's better than what it actually was in the last CBA.

Tawnos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 11:50 AM
  #59
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7,874
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
-It's not a $300m swing when you go from paying $211m to someone else paying $300m. It's a $511m swing.
This is a bad misunderstanding. Here's the real math:

Going from 57 to 50% on current deals would have robbed the players of about $500M. The owners at first proposed players paying $211M to themselves, effectively, by having future caps lowered to account for extra money paid on current deals. This is entirely a net neutral for the players - one player pays the other. It was not a demand of owners, it was a suggestion for how the players could pay themselves to soften the blow of losing short term contract value. If players had said we like this October deal, except we don't see the need for this $211M make whole payment on our end, the owners would have said, "makes sense, and we don't care. WE were just suggesting how to manage your own money." So it makes no sense to add that $211M to the $300M owners actually ended up conceding. The $211M was going from player to player, not player to owner.

Quote:
-They didn't just get $64.3m as next year's cap. They got it as the minimum for the duration of the deal.
True, but not very consequential. No matter what, the owners won't pay out more than 50% in any given year. The nominal cap number just gives teams a starting point with a little more room to sign players, but through the escrow system that number will be brought down to 50% if it's ever exceeded.

Quote:
-They got a legitimate concession in the owners losing their ability to walk away from arbitration awards under $3.5m
Doesn't mean the players get paid any more on net. For every player who gets a nice award, another player faces reduced market demand. 50% is the only number of any real consequence.

Quote:
Every time the NHL said this was their best offer, they came up with another offer a few weeks later that was better. So yes, Fehr did a great job waiting them out until they gave him the best offer he felt like he was going to get.
The math still stands that the players lost $700M in salary to get $300M in concessions. The NHL may have moved, but nowhere close to enough to make it a win for players. What's more, we knew in October it wouldn't happen that way, because the player's offer than was only $500M more than the NHLs. Going forward past October was folly, a guaranteed loss.

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 11:50 AM
  #60
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,960
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jumptheshark View Post
Based upon what I have been told that we need to look at stuff like the pension the players get now to get an idea of things that got moved
But didn't the pension negotiations come later in the process after they finally got by all of the other issues?

Sincerely, I'm surprised and happy that the Make Whole thing was kept at $300mil, because there near the end it seemed that the owners were getting soft on possibly allowing it to go up to $400mil.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PRMan View Post
You forgot the max contract length from 5 years to 7/8 years and the difference between years going from 5%(?) to 35%. Those are big issues for the players long-term. Also the ELC second year contract limits being reduced.
Yes, I think contract lengths had been a big issue holding things up.


Agreeing with some here... It really looks as though Fehr caused as many problems for the players as much as he possibly helped them. In the end, the players wanted to get back to the game more than they wanted to hold out and fight for some of the things that Fehr was trying to get them. The players could've gotten pretty much all they got 1 1/2 to two months early, without the loss of so much of the Season and related salary.


Last edited by MoreOrr: 01-07-2013 at 11:57 AM.
MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 11:52 AM
  #61
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
Also, in a system with 5 year limits, 2nd liners would be getting a lot of 2-3 year deals and everyone else would be getting 1-2 year deals. With the number being 7 years, 2nd liners might get 4-5 year deals and you'd see a lot more 3 year deals among 3rd and 4th liners. So another thing that greatly affects the rank and file membership.
To expound the importance of contract term limits in the players eyes...

Longer term contracts reduces the supply of high tier UFA talent each off-season, which in turn causes bidding wars for mid-tier guys. Just because 10% of the league gets long term deals, it still affects the economics for everyone else.

Crease is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 11:54 AM
  #62
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,077
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
The math still stands that the players lost $700M in salary to get $300M in concessions. The NHL may have moved, but nowhere close to enough to make it a win for players. What's more, we knew in October it wouldn't happen that way, because the player's offer than was only $500M more than the NHLs. Going forward past October was folly, a guaranteed loss.
Money isn't the only "concession" they received from that October offer, and it was probably the least important.

Scurr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 11:54 AM
  #63
cheswick
Non-registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,694
vCash: 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
You mean standard math.
You give me $10 under one scenario. I use $5 to pay my brother and $5 to pay myself.

Second scneario you give me $10, and you give my brother $6.

Your math: Me and my brother are better off by $11. I save $5 that I gave my brother plus your giving him $6.

Real math, In total we're getting $6 extra. My brother is getting $1 extra, I'm saving $5.

cheswick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 11:55 AM
  #64
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7,874
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperUnknown View Post
Compared to the early november offer, here's what the PA got:

- Lost $600M in earnings for 2012-2013
- Gained $80M in Make Whole
- Extended max contract length to 7-8 years from 5-7 years
- Higher year to year variation of salary
- Teams can't walk away from arbitration awards lower than $3.5M
- Higher cap for 2013-2014 of $64.3M (vs $60M), although lower floor

All in all, it looks like the PA spent $520M to get slightly better contractual rights which benefits only the top 10% of the PA members. I wouldn't be happy to have lost 1/3 of my wages to satisfy the stars if I was a 2nd-4th liner...
The $80M figure is wrong. In October, the league proposed players paying themselves $211M. That's zero dollars going from owner to players. By December, the league proposed owners paying players $300M. That's a $300M swing. Still far less than what they lost, but important.

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 11:56 AM
  #65
Halibut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,593
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperUnknown View Post
Compared to the early november offer, here's what the PA got:

- Lost $600M in earnings for 2012-2013
- Gained $80M in Make Whole- Extended max contract length to 7-8 years from 5-7 years
- Higher year to year variation of salary
- Teams can't walk away from arbitration awards lower than $3.5M
- Higher cap for 2013-2014 of $64.3M (vs $60M), although lower floor

All in all, it looks like the PA spent $520M to get slightly better contractual rights which benefits only the top 10% of the PA members. I wouldn't be happy to have lost 1/3 of my wages to satisfy the stars if I was a 2nd-4th liner...
Nope. As Tawnos pointed out the make whole provision was originally going to be counted as part of the players share meaning it would count as part of their share of revenue and further reduce salaries even more. The changes to make whole are a $500 million swing in their favor. That alone is practically worth everything it cost them in lost salary never mind pensions and the rest of the concessions they achieved.

Halibut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 11:58 AM
  #66
cheswick
Non-registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,694
vCash: 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halibut View Post
Nope. As Tawnos pointed out the make whole provision was originally going to be counted as part of the players share meaning it would count as part of their share of revenue and further reduce salaries even more. The changes to make whole are a $500 million swing in their favor. That alone is practically worth everything it cost them in lost salary never mind pensions and the rest of the concessions they achieved.
But Tawnos used make believe math. The Net gain was $300 million. Not $500 milliom.

cheswick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 11:58 AM
  #67
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 14,213
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
This is a bad misunderstanding. Here's the real math:

Going from 57 to 50% on current deals would have robbed the players of about $500M. The owners at first proposed players paying $211M to themselves, effectively, by having future caps lowered to account for extra money paid on current deals. This is entirely a net neutral for the players - one player pays the other. It was not a demand of owners, it was a suggestion for how the players could pay themselves to soften the blow of losing short term contract value. If players had said we like this October deal, except we don't see the need for this $211M make whole payment on our end, the owners would have said, "makes sense, and we don't care. WE were just suggesting how to manage your own money." So it makes no sense to add that $211M to the $300M owners actually ended up conceding. The $211M was going from player to player, not player to owner.
The point of what I was saying only works within the context of comparing the deal in October to the deal today. Overall, obviously the players can just say "no we don't want to do that" and there'd be no make whole at all. In the context of the comparison of the two deals, $511m is the number. In the context of the entire process, $300m is the number.

Quote:
True, but not very consequential. No matter what, the owners won't pay out more than 50% in any given year. The nominal cap number just gives teams a starting point with a little more room to sign players, but through the escrow system that number will be brought down to 50% if it's ever exceeded.

Doesn't mean the players get paid any more on net. For every player who gets a nice award, another player faces reduced market demand.
As I said to you a while back, not everything is about the bottom line in dollars. Some things are about player rights in terms of movement, which have an enormous amount of value to the union. I was just listing ways in which this deal is better than October's. I wasn't trying to justify them.

Quote:
The math still stands that the players lost $700M in salary to get $300M in concessions. The NHL may have moved, but nowhere close to enough to make it a win for players. What's more, we knew in October it wouldn't happen that way, because the player's offer than was only $500M more than the NHLs. Going forward past October was folly, a guaranteed loss.
How about looking at it this way. The NHL was staying hardline on the 5 year contract limits and ended up settling at 7. Over the next 8 years, let's say that the players sign 20 deals that reach 6 years. The average on these deals is $4m. And let's say they also sign 20 deals that reach 7 years. The average on these deals is $5m. That means that the NHLPA gained $280m over the life of the deal on that issue alone ($80m on the extra year on the 6 year contracts, $200m on the extra 2 years of the 7 year deals). Add that to the $300m in make whole, and suddenly the $120m remaining divided over the whole union doesn't seem so bad.

Tawnos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 11:58 AM
  #68
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7,874
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
Money isn't the only "concession" they received from that October offer, and it was probably the least important.
Yeah, Pro-PA folks will say this all day: they got honor, they got political power, they got whatever. I'm an economist. I'm not going to argue with you that the owners got honor or valor or whatever. If it doesn't add up to dollars, it doesn't count. This isn't like a sweatshop where working conditions are a real problem. everything on the table here was a means to one end: money.

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 11:59 AM
  #69
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,669
vCash: 500
Maybe you guys should read closer... I specifically mentionned the early november offer (where the NHL said they could still fit in an 82 game schedule) where the make whole didn't come out of the players share.

As to the "walk away" from arbitration rights, how many players have been affected by that in the past 7 years? 10? So that's worth spending hundred of millions?

SuperUnknown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 12:01 PM
  #70
CerebralGenesis
Registered User
 
CerebralGenesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 24,005
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian View Post
Fehr's big mistake was to not even negotiate off that offer and get a 82 game season in. He could have gotten some contracting concessions and the players would have been better off.

Instead, now the players have to act as if pensions were the win for them because having a fight for the sake of a fight can't be the only reason why the season starts in late January, right?
Pretty mucch nailed it.

I'm gonna miss you when the season starts

CerebralGenesis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 12:03 PM
  #71
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 14,213
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
Yeah, Pro-PA folks will say this all day: they got honor, they got political power, they got whatever. I'm an economist. I'm not going to argue with you that the owners got honor or valor or whatever. If it doesn't add up to dollars, it doesn't count. This isn't like a sweatshop where working conditions are a real problem. everything on the table here was a means to one end: money.
Discounting the fact that these things are important to unions when doing your own calculations doesn't make them not true. It makes you out of touch with the reality of the situation.

Tawnos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 12:04 PM
  #72
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,960
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
The $80M figure is wrong. In October, the league proposed players paying themselves $211M. That's zero dollars going from owner to players. By December, the league proposed owners paying players $300M. That's a $300M swing. Still far less than what they lost, but important.
Was there even a Make Whole offer in October? I thought the first Make Whole offer was made in November.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 12:05 PM
  #73
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7,874
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
The point of what I was saying only works within the context of comparing the deal in October to the deal today. Overall, obviously the players can just say "no we don't want to do that" and there'd be no make whole at all. In the context of the comparison of the two deals, $511m is the number. In the context of the entire process, $300m is the number.
This is such a brazen disregard for math I don't even know how to respond to it. If I propose you pay yourself $5, and then later we negotiate that I pay you $5 instead, you don't get to say that you negotiated for me to pay you $10. It's ****ing incomprehensible.


Quote:
As I said to you a while back, not everything is about the bottom line in dollars. Some things are about player rights in terms of movement, which have an enormous amount of value to the union. I was just listing ways in which this deal is better than October's. I wasn't trying to justify them.
They have enormous value because you say so. Whatever you say the psychic value of being able to sign for 7 years as opposed to 5 is, I'm gonna let you run with it. Doesn't move a red cent, and I don't care.


Quote:
How about looking at it the was. The NHL was staying hardline on the 5 year contract limits and ended up settling at 7. Over the next 8 years, let's say that the players sign 20 deals that reach 6 years. The average on these deals is $4m. And let's say they also sign 20 deals that reach 7 years. The average on these deals is $5m. That means that the NHLPA gained $280m over the life of the deal on that issue alone. Add that to the $300m in make whole, and suddenly the $120m remaining divided over the whole union doesn't seem so bad.
No, they didn't. Because every "gain" you describe comes out of the market demand for another player when he goes to make a deal. 50% is the be all and end all here. No matter what the deals look like, how long they're for, whether they were decreed by an arbitrator or negotiated with management, the PA as a whole gets 50% of HRR. Period. You can describe all the contracts that can be signed under this rule or that rule all day, but every time you describe one contract that's bigger thanks to this negotiation, another will necessarily have to be smaller. These are all fiscally net neutral issues.

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 12:05 PM
  #74
Model62
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,169
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
Yeah, that arbitration change certainly doesn't affect the vast majority of the union...

Also, in a system with 5 year limits, 2nd liners would be getting a lot of 2-3 year deals and everyone else would be getting 1-2 year deals. With the number being 7 years, 2nd liners might get 4-5 year deals and you'd see a lot more 3 year deals among 3rd and 4th liners. So another thing that greatly affects the rank and file membership.
There's also an indirect inflationary effect that long term superstar deals have on middle tier deals (I made a chart here: short version: with superstars on long deals, revenue growth gets redirected down the roster as superstars don't "reset" to cap max deals as often.)

Model62 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 12:06 PM
  #75
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,077
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
Yeah, Pro-PA folks will say this all day: they got honor, they got political power, they got whatever. I'm an economist. I'm not going to argue with you that the owners got honor or valor or whatever. If it doesn't add up to dollars, it doesn't count. This isn't like a sweatshop where working conditions are a real problem. everything on the table here was a means to one end: money.
Don't get me wrong, it is all about money.

Contract term limit

Variance

buy outs

a higher cap

pension

They gained a lot more than the 300m the owners are forking over.

Scurr 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 04:15 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.