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.

Phoenix LXXII: Send in the Clowns

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-13-2013, 12:00 PM
  #76
PSGJ
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 523
vCash: 50
My trust in Bettman is such that if he tells me water is wet I will seriously start to doubt that it is.

PSGJ is offline  
Old
02-13-2013, 12:01 PM
  #77
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Country:
Posts: 29,683
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by goyotes View Post
On this point we can agree. I just hope the NHL does the right thing and moves them to QC, and not to Seattle which is an untested market, and I fear, after five years will prove no better than Phoenix as an NHL market.

I'm not sure I agree that Seattle is really that bad of destination. I relocated to the area recently and have been pleasantly surprised by the amount of hockey-- WHL teams, general interest, people walking around in NHL jerseys/caps, etc. (Not just Canucks gear either.)

I've seen a lot of the Wheeled Wing and Sharks attire especially. If you get someone who can handle the transplant-infused market plus bring in new fans like the San Jose group did in SJ, then the team could do well. In terms of growth, income, etc., it's a very lucrative, world class market. (Traffic is a ***** though.)

Fugu is offline  
Old
02-13-2013, 12:25 PM
  #78
CasualFan
Tortious Beadicus
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bay Area, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,191
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by goyotes View Post
In the end, it will likely be established that the NHL wasn't fighting for the Phoenix market any more than it fought for Winni, QC or Hartford. The NHL was buying time to get its ducks in a row for expansion and relocation. What is shameful is the NHL probably took the CoG's $50M under the false pretense that the NHL would secure ownership to keep the team in Glendale. Or as Daly called the first $25M, just an insurance policy the NHL will not need.
The NHL cannot dance without a partner. I see the league as nothing more than opportunists. And as long as guys like Ed Beasley and Art Lynch enjoy fine dining, private jets, and meetings in NYC, there will be lots of opportunities. Once the NHL has a city administration on board, how much effort does it really take to sway a couple of rubes on a city council? I have found it incredibly difficult to locate any evidence that suggests the NHL mislead anyone or did anything under false pretenses. The NHL appears to have simply allowed the imbeciles on the Glendale City Council to fully explore their egos and ineptitudes.

One of my favorite exchanges was during the second approval of $25MM. Here is Steve Frate's governance gem (excerpt from Minutes of May 10, 2011):

Quote:
Vice Mayor Frate asked for clarification on how the franchise has improved in the last year even without having the deal take place. Mr. Daly stated season ticket renewals were at 80%, which was the highest this club has ever had since they have been at the arena. He indicated this showed fans were excited about the future of this franchise on the ice and are showing their commitment. He added that 600 new season tickets have been purchased to date by new fans. Vice Mayor Frate ... stated if the Coyotes stay in Glendale, the city must bear a certain cost. He explained that as long as this cost remains below the cost of the estimated economic impact, then basic understanding dictates that this was in the best interest of the City of Glendale to keep the team
600 new tickets and Lynch's presentation was all the evidence Frate needed to sign off on another $25MM. Keep in mind that Frate had access to all the data which showed beyond any reasonable doubt that the NHL AMF was grossly disproportionate to the revenues the Coyotes generated; the NHL product was not viable in the market; and it was extremely unlikely that any potential owner would be able to complete a transaction. Frate willingly chose to discard all of the hard evidence and instead accepted the Lynch/Hocking projections while asking Daly a softball question about how the franchise was improving.

While the NHL was the benefactor, it doesn't appear that the league mislead anyone. In this excerpt, Daly didn't lead Frate to the water; Daly just stood by while Frate drank. Any potentially misleading activity would appear to have been conducted by Beasley, Lynch, Hocking. But even at that, no competent council would ever be swayed by the administration/consultant presentations. If you have not seen BarneyG and Othmar (ThomasL) analysis of the financial projections and bond prospectus, I encourage you to find them in the archives. If you want to fault the NHL for taking full advantage of the situation, I can respect that perspective. However, I do not see any grounds to accuse the NHL of misleading Glendale. The city did that to themselves.

CasualFan is offline  
Old
02-13-2013, 01:04 PM
  #79
goyotes
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,472
vCash: 500
CF - I think there is enough blame to go around and certainly the CoG was the cause of much of its own pain by trusting the NHL. But, I do believe the NHL at a minimum took advantage of the CoG, and by proxy, its citizens. That is something I would like to at least believe is beyond what a sports league does to its markets. IMO there is blood on the hands of the NHL. IMO also, the CoG could have done more to protect itself rather than blindly have faith in the NHL's promises that a buyer was in serious negotiations and would be closing within the next couple of weeks, not months. And, the NHL certainly could have lowered the price of the sale.

I know many ask why the NHL would lower its price, and it is a fair question. My response is the NHL knowingly paid a premium for the Coyotes, and the premium wasn't towards the value of the asset. The premium was for the right to control its markets. It was the NHL's interest in control that inflated the value of the franchise beyond reason. That, IMO, is a cost the NHL should bear and not an added cost to the value of the franchise. If relocation wasn't on the table through the Ballsilly/Moyes powerplay, and Moyes just sought basic bankruptcy, the asset would have been bought for a fair value through a local owner. The team would have cost very likely less than $70M, and off the new owner would have gone.

The only reason why the NHL paid $140M was to fight off the threat of a team being relocated without its control. It was the NHL's self-interest that inflated the price of the asset beyond what anyone will pay for it locally. And, the NHL had the perfect out by applying the found relocation money of the Thrashers to the Phoenix situation, while still making its owners whole, and while still protecting the league's interest, unrelated to the value of the Coyotes, to control locations.

In the end, if the league were serious about selling the Coyotes they would apply the relocation fee and sell the team for $80M which would be closer in line to the actual value the new owners paid for the Blues, a more highly valued team.

I really hope some reporter digs into this. Did the NHL do anything fraudulent or criminal? Of course not. Did the NHL operate ethically? I don't believe so. Did the NHL do right by a market it will soon leave? Not on your life. So they didn't give Phoenix the quick brush off it did to Atlanta, Winni, QC and Hartford. Big deal. None of those locations paid the NHL $50M to be ********* over either.

$50M...and not even a kiss. (I'm sensing a new thread title there).


Last edited by goyotes: 02-13-2013 at 01:23 PM.
goyotes is offline  
Old
02-13-2013, 01:15 PM
  #80
cbcwpg
Registered User
 
cbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Between the Pipes
Country: United Nations
Posts: 5,925
vCash: 350
^^^^

Like I said a while back... desperate people do desperate things.

And the NHL saw just how desperate the CoG was to keep the team and used that to their full advantage. The CoG never had to pay the $50M and could have walked and let the team go 3 years ago, but the NHL knew that was never going to happen. The knew the CoG was going to go all in.

And yes, maybe the NHL never broke any laws ( given the number of lawyers they have working for them, not surprising they had this all mapped out ) but to say the NHL was ethical.... never.

"Don't worry, it's just insurance" ---- Words to be worried about

cbcwpg is offline  
Old
02-13-2013, 01:18 PM
  #81
GuelphStormer
Registered User
 
GuelphStormer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Guelph, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,789
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CasualFan View Post
The NHL cannot dance without a partner. I see the league as nothing more than opportunists. And as long as guys like Ed Beasley and Art Lynch enjoy fine dining, private jets, and meetings in NYC, there will be lots of opportunities. Once the NHL has a city administration on board, how much effort does it really take to sway a couple of rubes on a city council? I have found it incredibly difficult to locate any evidence that suggests the NHL mislead anyone or did anything under false pretenses. The NHL appears to have simply allowed the imbeciles on the Glendale City Council to fully explore their egos and ineptitudes.

One of my favorite exchanges was during the second approval of $25MM. Here is Steve Frate's governance gem (excerpt from Minutes of May 10, 2011):



600 new tickets and Lynch's presentation was all the evidence Frate needed to sign off on another $25MM. Keep in mind that Frate had access to all the data which showed beyond any reasonable doubt that the NHL AMF was grossly disproportionate to the revenues the Coyotes generated; the NHL product was not viable in the market; and it was extremely unlikely that any potential owner would be able to complete a transaction. Frate willingly chose to discard all of the hard evidence and instead accepted the Lynch/Hocking projections while asking Daly a softball question about how the franchise was improving.

While the NHL was the benefactor, it doesn't appear that the league mislead anyone. In this excerpt, Daly didn't lead Frate to the water; Daly just stood by while Frate drank. Any potentially misleading activity would appear to have been conducted by Beasley, Lynch, Hocking. But even at that, no competent council would ever be swayed by the administration/consultant presentations. If you have not seen BarneyG and Othmar (ThomasL) analysis of the financial projections and bond prospectus, I encourage you to find them in the archives. If you want to fault the NHL for taking full advantage of the situation, I can respect that perspective. However, I do not see any grounds to accuse the NHL of misleading Glendale. The city did that to themselves.
indeed it was just daly's word on the 80% retention and the 600 new sth's (arguably, actually pretty decent #'s, all said), not even anything in writing let alone a speradsheet. yes, of course, glendale was governed by foolish ostriches and the nhl took advantage of that.

... can i clarify something? the one set of circulating letters from the nhl to glendale that itemized monthly operating losses in 2010-11 and which totaled $24.8M contained no details. do you know if a) the nhl was required under the 10-11 amf to provide those details (ie., an actual operational accounting) and b) if so, was the nhl required to provide it (ie., over and above the simple, "we lost this much this month" letters) or was glendale under an obligation to actually ask for that accounting?

GuelphStormer is offline  
Old
02-13-2013, 01:19 PM
  #82
checkerdome
Registered User
 
checkerdome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 848
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcwpg View Post
According to her twitter, it's her.

Joyce Clark ‏@clarkjv
My first blog: When is a deal not a good deal?" http://www.joyceclarkunfiltered.com

She admits on her blog to not knowing David Stern; it's gotta be her.

checkerdome is offline  
Old
02-13-2013, 01:23 PM
  #83
CasualFan
Tortious Beadicus
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bay Area, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,191
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by goyotes View Post
CF - I think there is enough blame to go around
$50M...and not even a kiss. (I'm sensing a new thread title there).
I agree with pretty much everything you posted here. I'm not really trying to assess blame. I'm just augmenting some of the off the rails narrative by injecting a few documents that offer what would seem to be indisputable proof of what actually occurred.

On price, couldn't it be said that the NHL cultivating and delivering the Glendale Subsidy to potential owners was a defacto lowering of the price? The NHL certainly appears to want to recover the premium they paid but it looks to me that they shifted that burden to Glendale, not a potential owner.

I also think some additional review of professional sports operations would change your perspective on leagues taking advantage of the cities and, by proxy, their citizens. I understand wanting to believe that is beyond what a sports league does to its markets; but extorting public entities sure seems like the very core of the sports business model.

CasualFan is offline  
Old
02-13-2013, 01:28 PM
  #84
CasualFan
Tortious Beadicus
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bay Area, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,191
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuelphStormer View Post
... can i clarify something? the one set of circulating letters from the nhl to glendale that itemized monthly operating losses in 2010-11 and which totaled $24.8M contained no details. do you know if a) the nhl was required under the 10-11 amf to provide those details (ie., an actual operational accounting) and b) if so, was the nhl required to provide it (ie., over and above the simple, "we lost this much this month" letters) or was glendale under an obligation to actually ask for that accounting?
http://www.azcentral.com/ic/pdf/0509draft.pdf @ 4. Books and Audit

CasualFan is offline  
Old
02-13-2013, 01:29 PM
  #85
goyotes
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CasualFan View Post
I also think some additional review of professional sports operations would change your perspective on leagues taking advantage of the cities and, by proxy, their citizens. I understand wanting to believe that is beyond what a sports league does to its markets; but extorting public entities sure seems like the very core of the sports business model.
Agreed. It happens to other markets. The CoG may stand out as the worst (or best) illustration. My take was more from an ethics standpoint that I find it unacceptable that the NHL would find it acceptable to operate in this fashion. But, some say business ethics is an oxymoron.

Cheers

goyotes is offline  
Old
02-13-2013, 01:32 PM
  #86
GuelphStormer
Registered User
 
GuelphStormer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Guelph, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,789
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by goyotes View Post
The only reason why the NHL paid $140M was to fight off the threat of a team being relocated without its control. It was the NHL's self-interest that inflated the price of the asset beyond what anyone will pay for it locally. And, the NHL had the perfect out by applying the found relocation money of the Thrashers to the Phoenix situation, while still making its owners whole, and while still protecting the league's interest, unrelated to the value of the Coyotes, to control locations.
is that true? balsillie offered $212.5M for it. clearly, they nhl's offer was nowhere near that. if i recall, the reinsdorf bid was said to be $140M, withdrawn at the last minute and in essense, replaced by the NHL's bid for the same amount. again, i could be confused, but i recall JR withdrew so as not to muddy the waters while the nhl took on JB alone and also to not give baum another option. the nhl forced baum to either side with JB's big money offer to satisfy all creditors, or the NHL's offer to satisfy just the important creditors. additionally, the nhl's bid was tied to the larger issue of control of franchise placement (which ultimately was the issue it won on).

my point is that I dont think the NHL was ever obligated to actually spend $140M for the franchise. they just felt they had to bid that much in order to fend off JB's much bigger bid and still make baum feel like they werent scooping it up dirt cheap and screwing creditors. wasnt dell the biggest creditor at around $80M or $90M? essentially, the $140M covered everyone except moyes, swift and gretzky. but they didnt HAVE to bid that high, or would baum have rejected it if it had been any lower?

GuelphStormer is offline  
Old
02-13-2013, 01:40 PM
  #87
GuelphStormer
Registered User
 
GuelphStormer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Guelph, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,789
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CasualFan View Post
look at you. mr. fingertips. thnx.

so glendale was allowed to pop over and make the nhl open up the books but it seems they didn't think it worth the cab fare and instead just accepted a bunch of faxed form letters.

ok, so bettman's butt is covered (of course it is, what was I thinking?)

GuelphStormer is offline  
Old
02-13-2013, 01:56 PM
  #88
cheswick
Non-registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,002
vCash: 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuelphStormer View Post
indeed it was just daly's word on the 80% retention and the 600 new sth's (arguably, actually pretty decent #'s, all said), not even anything in writing let alone a speradsheet. yes, of course, glendale was governed by foolish ostriches and the nhl took advantage of that.

... can i clarify something? the one set of circulating letters from the nhl to glendale that itemized monthly operating losses in 2010-11 and which totaled $24.8M contained no details. do you know if a) the nhl was required under the 10-11 amf to provide those details (ie., an actual operational accounting) and b) if so, was the nhl required to provide it (ie., over and above the simple, "we lost this much this month" letters) or was glendale under an obligation to actually ask for that accounting?
It totalled approx $36 million. $24.8 was the amount withdrawn from the escrow account.

http://www.azcentral.com/ic/communit...es-invoice.pdf

cheswick is offline  
Old
02-13-2013, 02:09 PM
  #89
CerebralGenesis
Registered User
 
CerebralGenesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 23,563
vCash: 500
I think Seattle would be a fine market for the league. Have to imagine that other people think the same and they will get their shot at a team shortly though.

Hopefully next time I go out to visit I can watch a game

CerebralGenesis is offline  
Old
02-13-2013, 03:11 PM
  #90
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Country:
Posts: 29,683
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CerebralGenesis View Post
I think Seattle would be a fine market for the league. Have to imagine that other people think the same and they will get their shot at a team shortly though.

Hopefully next time I go out to visit I can watch a game

I may even buy you a beer, and we can talk lockout during the intermission.

Fugu is offline  
Old
02-13-2013, 04:14 PM
  #91
XX
... Waiting
 
XX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: 48th State
Country: United States
Posts: 27,349
vCash: 500
Quote:
On pages 5 and 6 of the TLHocking study it describes Conseco Fieldhouse, home to the Indiana Pacers. The TLHocking study obtained a 2010 major study prepared by Hunden Strategic Partners entitled “Impact of the Indiana Pacers.” It demonstrated that the Pacers were important to the venue and stated that the operating costs with the Pacers averaged $17.4M a year and without the Pacers averaged $21.1M a year. But the more relevant part of the Hunden study created a benchmark cost for running an arena based on the cost per seat. The HSP study was based on NBA facilities but it is also relevant for NHL facilities. The TLHocking study on page 6 quotes from the Hunden survey, “HSP studied a number of large, NBA facilities (or those that are NBA-ready) and observed that revenue and expenses vary but generally follow a line with an average $777 per seat with an average deviation of seven percent, suggesting a reasonable operating expense per seat of $722 to $831 per seat. The estimated expenses at Conseco are $819 per seat, six percent above the average of this sample and within the average range of costs.”

The use of a per seat cost seems to be the most accurate measure of arena operating costs. Based upon the figures used in the HSP study using the seating capacity of Jobing.com publicly listed as 17,799 and an average cost per seat of $777 the cost of operating Jobing.com would be $13,829,823. It then seems reasonable to peg any lease management agreement for Jobing.com arena at $14M annually with some kind of CIP escalator included.
Anyone want to tear that apart? Was Glendale not previously paying for the operating cost of the arena? If so, that would explain why the Coyotes were 15+ million in the hole every year, regardless of what they did.

http://joyceclarkunfiltered.com/

XX is offline  
Old
02-13-2013, 04:27 PM
  #92
Ryan34222
Registered User
 
Ryan34222's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,147
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Llama19 View Post
Now we have the other side to the story, unfiltered...

Joyce Clark Unfiltered
not to bring up old irrelevant stuff here but from the 'when is a deal not a good deal' article

"The City declined and Mr. Moyes declared bankruptcy. He tried to convince the City to support the sale of the team to Mr. Jim Balsillie of RIM with relocation of the team to Canada and to accept nominal annual payments from him."

my memory is not very good tbh. i dont remember an annual payment from Saint Jimmy being offered?

anyone remember this?

Ryan34222 is offline  
Old
02-13-2013, 04:37 PM
  #93
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CerebralGenesis View Post
I think Seattle would be a fine market for the league. Have to imagine that other people think the same and they will get their shot at a team shortly though.
Not much disagreement on that. I figure Seattle is the next new location, whenever that should prove to be.

 
Old
02-13-2013, 05:11 PM
  #94
Fourier
Registered User
 
Fourier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Waterloo Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,711
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
I'm not sure I agree that Seattle is really that bad of destination. I relocated to the area recently and have been pleasantly surprised by the amount of hockey-- WHL teams, general interest, people walking around in NHL jerseys/caps, etc. (Not just Canucks gear either.)

I've seen a lot of the Wheeled Wing and Sharks attire especially. If you get someone who can handle the transplant-infused market plus bring in new fans like the San Jose group did in SJ, then the team could do well. In terms of growth, income, etc., it's a very lucrative, world class market. (Traffic is a ***** though.)
The NHL may move the Yote's to Seattle just to test your loyalty!!!

Fourier is offline  
Old
02-13-2013, 05:20 PM
  #95
Undertakerqc
Registered User
 
Undertakerqc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,282
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
Not much disagreement on that. I figure Seattle is the next new location, whenever that should prove to be.
Quebec is, but Seattle should follow soon after throught expansion, if they can ever get the new arena construction confirmed. To far behind now.

Undertakerqc is offline  
Old
02-13-2013, 05:30 PM
  #96
CasualFan
Tortious Beadicus
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bay Area, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,191
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX View Post
Anyone want to tear that apart? Was Glendale not previously paying for the operating cost of the arena? If so, that would explain why the Coyotes were 15+ million in the hole every year, regardless of what they did.

http://joyceclarkunfiltered.com/
I have no desire to read or review blogs by Robocall guy masquerading as Joyce Clark. Just reading the line you quoted "the cost of operating Jobing.com would be $13,829,823. It then seems reasonable to peg any lease management agreement for Jobing.com arena at $14M annually" is enough for me to conclude it's another zero wattage effort.

Anyway, if you are so inclined, over the summer there was a BOH exercise to determine what legitimate arena management costs look like. You can pick up the thread starting at #986 and follow it through #114 on LX: Pinocchio's Future. Or, if you're sane enough to not want to wade through all that, BarneyG brilliantly summarized how consultants like Hocking and Hunden create fictional results.

CasualFan is offline  
Old
02-13-2013, 06:08 PM
  #97
OthmarAmmann
Money making machine
 
OthmarAmmann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: NYC
Posts: 2,563
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuelphStormer View Post
indeed it was just daly's word on the 80% retention and the 600 new sth's (arguably, actually pretty decent #'s, all said), not even anything in writing let alone a speradsheet. yes, of course, glendale was governed by foolish ostriches and the nhl took advantage of that.
Who cares about an audit.? Unless they had 3000 season ticket holders that's a pretty significant decline

OthmarAmmann is offline  
Old
02-13-2013, 06:11 PM
  #98
OthmarAmmann
Money making machine
 
OthmarAmmann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: NYC
Posts: 2,563
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcwpg View Post
According to her twitter, it's her.

Joyce Clark ‏@clarkjv
My first blog: When is a deal not a good deal?" http://www.joyceclarkunfiltered.com
It seems to imply that we've been getting the filtered version...

OthmarAmmann is offline  
Old
02-13-2013, 08:04 PM
  #99
ajmidd12
Know-It-All
 
ajmidd12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Hungover
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,553
vCash: 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX View Post
Anyone want to tear that apart? Was Glendale not previously paying for the operating cost of the arena? If so, that would explain why the Coyotes were 15+ million in the hole every year, regardless of what they did.

http://joyceclarkunfiltered.com/
Joyce wrote it... Enough said.

ajmidd12 is offline  
Old
02-13-2013, 08:07 PM
  #100
pondnorth
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
Not much disagreement on that. I figure Seattle is the next new location, whenever that should prove to be.
Are the Basketball and arena deals complete?Strange no media reports covering those events having happened.

pondnorth is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:17 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.