HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Other Leagues > ECHL and other Minor Pro Leagues
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2

Globe and Mail's Shoalts Raises Five Troubling Rumours About CHL

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-15-2013, 11:55 AM
  #26
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
34-38-61-10-13
 
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Shogunate of Nofunia
Country: Fiji
Posts: 27,809
vCash: 1
Really? That few AHL teams are in the black? I honestly find that surprising.

No Fun Shogun is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-18-2013, 02:43 AM
  #27
SFTC Addict
Not Here To Be Liked
 
SFTC Addict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Middle of nowhere
Posts: 10,319
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
Really? That few AHL teams are in the black? I honestly find that surprising.
$1 million or whatever it is for an affiliation. Then you have NHL owned AHL franchises. They don't care. It really depends where you are. Take Ontario in the ECHL. They have led attendance for awhile now yet they aren't making money.

SFTC Addict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-18-2013, 06:29 PM
  #28
JeffNYI
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BK Triple Threat View Post
$1 million or whatever it is for an affiliation. Then you have NHL owned AHL franchises. They don't care. It really depends where you are. Take Ontario in the ECHL. They have led attendance for awhile now yet they aren't making money.

One of the biggest shocks I got was when I found out that putting the games on the radio meant the team paid the station for the airtime, rather than the station paying the team for the content..

And like you just said, the minor league teams have to pay the NHL team to be their affiliate.. and it's not cheap..

JeffNYI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2013, 02:28 AM
  #29
SFTC Addict
Not Here To Be Liked
 
SFTC Addict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Middle of nowhere
Posts: 10,319
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffNYI View Post
One of the biggest shocks I got was when I found out that putting the games on the radio meant the team paid the station for the airtime, rather than the station paying the team for the content..

And like you just said, the minor league teams have to pay the NHL team to be their affiliate.. and it's not cheap..
I would figure they would both be paying each other.

I think some AA teams don't have radio. If I recall Greenville doesn't or didn't. They just went through B2/America One. I think Cincinnati did the same exact thing. That meant you could only listen through your computer.

SFTC Addict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2013, 07:26 PM
  #30
JeffNYI
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BK Triple Threat View Post
I would figure they would both be paying each other.
Well your assumption was more correct than mine was.. I assumed the teams got paid by the stations..

Keep in mind it's not just hockey, either.. it's basically all minor league sports that have to pay to have their games aired..

Not sure how it works at the major league level.

Quote:
I think some AA teams don't have radio. If I recall Greenville doesn't or didn't. They just went through B2/America One. I think Cincinnati did the same exact thing. That meant you could only listen through your computer.
Yeap.

Way better option (cost-wise)... The radio stations want well over $1k/game.. and then for road games that end out of the time zone, they were really worried if you're gonna run past 11:00pm or whatever time the news broadcast was on.. I think they have a legal requirement to broadcast the news under the terms of their broadcasting license..

I spun my wheels for awhile meeting with radio stations, then instead got us a tape-delayed TV deal (instead of radio) with a local TV station that wasn't too high powered broadcast-wise, but they were on Time Warner Cable all over the city.. We got some good broadcasters, including a guy who did NHL games for Fox once in awhile.. and most importantly the financial aspect was spectacular for the team..

So knowing what I know now, I don't blame hockey teams for doing internet-only broadcasts... whereas before I knew what I know now, I thought it was a joke to not have a radio deal..

JeffNYI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2013, 08:06 PM
  #31
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 56,803
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffNYI View Post
Not sure how it works at the major league level.
Perhaps a better question for the BOH. However.....

ECHL and AHL have an agreement for online PPV for games ("nationally"). Regional/local deals are on a team-by-team basis.

ECHL San Francisco has a "radio" deal with a website (no OTA) and a local cable station for a few home games. I'm not sure the payments for those. (But considering both the early radio and TV had a lot of PSAs/team announcements, it might be that the team "buys" the "air" time, and has started to recoup with some sponsors buying ads.)

For NHL teams, part of the situation (paid for content vs purchase air time) is based on the age of the team, quality of play in recent seasons.

Now, there are national TV deals (and radio -- SiriusXM satellite radio carries all NHL games), US NBC/NBCSN (et al NBC stations for playoffs), TSN/CBC for Canada. (These pay millions of $$s to league which is split between teams as part of central revenues.)

CSN has regional coverage of Washington, Chicago, San Jose among other teams. MSG has the three NY teams plus NJD. FSN has regional coverage of a number of teams. Plus a few independents.

In most cases, teams are paid for their content (and often supply play-by-play and analyst). (Usually in the millions to tens of millions per team. NYI is one of the highest at like $20m. Many US teams are probably in the $5-10m range, I'm guessing.) Teams not always public with those $$s.

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 04:07 PM
  #32
cyclonesdiehard
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S. Bank Arena
Posts: 12
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BK Triple Threat View Post
I would figure they would both be paying each other.

I think some AA teams don't have radio. If I recall Greenville doesn't or didn't. They just went through B2/America One. I think Cincinnati did the same exact thing. That meant you could only listen through your computer.

Cincinnati is on FM 100.3 The Fan for all their away games. Home games are on the computer or their phone app.


http://www.cycloneshockey.com/news/9...at-fort-wayne/

cyclonesdiehard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 10:35 PM
  #33
CrazyEddie20
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 419
vCash: 500
Generally, radio deals in the minor leagues work two ways - the team pays the radio station to air the games for the airtime, and the team gets advertising on that station/group of stations as well as cross-promotion. As well, the team generally gets to sell the advertising inventory during the game broadcasts and the coaches show (if they have one.)

Having the broadcasts being internet-only is basically a guaranteed money-loser unless the team draws huge crowds and has a fan base that follows the team closely. That said, a team with a GM/Sales manager that understands that the broadcast is part of the product can bring in a lot of extra revenue by selling the advertising inventory created by the broadcast, or using it as an incentive to push other corporate sponsorship packages. There's at least one team in the ECHL that brings in six-figure revenue from the radio broadcast. If you have a good announcer and a good sales staff, having an over-the-air broadcast is only an asset.

CrazyEddie20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 11:53 PM
  #34
JeffNYI
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyEddie20 View Post
Generally, radio deals in the minor leagues work two ways - the team pays the radio station to air the games for the airtime, and the team gets advertising on that station/group of stations as well as cross-promotion. As well, the team generally gets to sell the advertising inventory during the game broadcasts and the coaches show (if they have one.)

Having the broadcasts being internet-only is basically a guaranteed money-loser unless the team draws huge crowds and has a fan base that follows the team closely. That said, a team with a GM/Sales manager that understands that the broadcast is part of the product can bring in a lot of extra revenue by selling the advertising inventory created by the broadcast, or using it as an incentive to push other corporate sponsorship packages. There's at least one team in the ECHL that brings in six-figure revenue from the radio broadcast. If you have a good announcer and a good sales staff, having an over-the-air broadcast is only an asset.
The reality is what ends up happening with MOST teams is that the radio spots (or internet broadcast spots) are lumped in to sponsorship proposals with the view that nobody will actually pay for these spots as a stand-alone opportunity, so you might as well use them to project an added value to potential clients who are evaluating becoming/renewing/expanding their corporate partnerships with your team..

I'm blown away by your statement that a AA hockey team manages to generate over $99,999.99 in ad revenue as a result of their radio broadcasts.. The most loyal fans are, of course, already at the home games.. and for road games they will almost always watch the game on video either by 1) attending a "watch party" at a local sponsor's establishment with other fans (video feed of the game over the internet that the establishment puts on their TVs); or 2) pay to watch the game on video in their homes..

Radio (or audio-only over the internet) is honestly a last-option.. at least in my experience..

I'm not saying I doubt you.. $100k+ in CASH -- from the radio broadcast ALONE?

I pay homage to that team's sales staff.

JeffNYI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2013, 12:30 AM
  #35
CrazyEddie20
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 419
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffNYI View Post
The reality is what ends up happening with MOST teams is that the radio spots (or internet broadcast spots) are lumped in to sponsorship proposals with the view that nobody will actually pay for these spots as a stand-alone opportunity, so you might as well use them to project an added value to potential clients who are evaluating becoming/renewing/expanding their corporate partnerships with your team..

I'm blown away by your statement that a AA hockey team manages to generate over $99,999.99 in ad revenue as a result of their radio broadcasts.. The most loyal fans are, of course, already at the home games.. and for road games they will almost always watch the game on video either by 1) attending a "watch party" at a local sponsor's establishment with other fans (video feed of the game over the internet that the establishment puts on their TVs); or 2) pay to watch the game on video in their homes..

Radio (or audio-only over the internet) is honestly a last-option.. at least in my experience..

I'm not saying I doubt you.. $100k+ in CASH -- from the radio broadcast ALONE?

I pay homage to that team's sales staff.
It's true - but it's an exception. I'll freely admit that. But it is possible.

Let's not forget that if the broadcast is produced properly (meaning, by a minimally competent broadcaster) the ads sold by the sales staff can run over the streaming video too. And if you approach the right businesses, you can sell the ads. It's just a matter of identifying those businesses.

CrazyEddie20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2013, 10:30 PM
  #36
TBIF
Registered User
 
TBIF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 289
vCash: 500
Could the CHL take an MLS style ownership to keep the league afloat?

TBIF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2013, 11:38 PM
  #37
CrazyEddie20
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 419
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBIF View Post
Could the CHL take an MLS style ownership to keep the league afloat?
They already ventured down the single-entity path back in the 1990s when the Central Hockey league was formed. It didn't work then. It doesn't really work for "Major League" Soccer, either.

CrazyEddie20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2013, 01:43 PM
  #38
JeffNYI
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyEddie20 View Post
They already ventured down the single-entity path back in the 1990s when the Central Hockey league was formed. It didn't work then. It doesn't really work for "Major League" Soccer, either.
Wellllllllll....

The real plan back then was for a company named Global Entertainment to convince (in some cases, trick) cities into building brand new ~6,000 seat arenas. Of course, the arena would need an anchor tenant and -- oh what luck -- Global just happened to own their own hockey league that would not only supply the team, but Global would also MANAGE the building too.

All for a price, of course.

Basically the CHL existed as a pawn to suck money out of city governments.

JeffNYI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2013, 02:00 PM
  #39
CrazyEddie20
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 419
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffNYI View Post
Wellllllllll....

The real plan back then was for a company named Global Entertainment to convince (in some cases, trick) cities into building brand new ~6,000 seat arenas. Of course, the arena would need an anchor tenant and -- oh what luck -- Global just happened to own their own hockey league that would not only supply the team, but Global would also MANAGE the building too.

All for a price, of course.

Basically the CHL existed as a pawn to suck money out of city governments.
Not quite.

Global was the WPHL, Inc. parent corporation. The Central Hockey League was a single-entity organization founded by Horn Chen. The single-entity league merged into the WPHL, with the WPHL being the surviving entity but taking the Central Hockey League name.

Global is/was in the business of building arenas - if city governments want an arena built and overpay, make bad bond issues, or whatever, that's the city's problem, not Global's. These aren't unilateral contracts.

CrazyEddie20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2013, 02:37 PM
  #40
SFTC Addict
Not Here To Be Liked
 
SFTC Addict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Middle of nowhere
Posts: 10,319
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBIF View Post
Could the CHL take an MLS style ownership to keep the league afloat?
Don't follow this soccer you speak of but they did what?

SFTC Addict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2013, 02:38 PM
  #41
SFTC Addict
Not Here To Be Liked
 
SFTC Addict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Middle of nowhere
Posts: 10,319
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyEddie20 View Post
Generally, radio deals in the minor leagues work two ways - the team pays the radio station to air the games for the airtime, and the team gets advertising on that station/group of stations as well as cross-promotion. As well, the team generally gets to sell the advertising inventory during the game broadcasts and the coaches show (if they have one.)

Having the broadcasts being internet-only is basically a guaranteed money-loser unless the team draws huge crowds and has a fan base that follows the team closely. That said, a team with a GM/Sales manager that understands that the broadcast is part of the product can bring in a lot of extra revenue by selling the advertising inventory created by the broadcast, or using it as an incentive to push other corporate sponsorship packages. There's at least one team in the ECHL that brings in six-figure revenue from the radio broadcast. If you have a good announcer and a good sales staff, having an over-the-air broadcast is only an asset.
Easy guess....Wheeling....eer I mean....Alaska.

SFTC Addict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2013, 02:53 PM
  #42
JeffNYI
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyEddie20 View Post
Not quite.

Global was the WPHL, Inc. parent corporation. The Central Hockey League was a single-entity organization founded by Horn Chen. The single-entity league merged into the WPHL, with the WPHL being the surviving entity but taking the Central Hockey League name.
.. and now Global is the CHL parent corporation..

I think we're both talking about the same thing.


Quote:
Global is/was in the business of building arenas
.. in which they use the CHL to provide an instant anchor tenant.. (sorry to repeat myself)

Quote:
- if city governments want an arena built and overpay, make bad bond issues, or whatever, that's the city's problem, not Global's. These aren't unilateral contracts.
Agreed.

JeffNYI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2013, 07:44 PM
  #43
CrazyEddie20
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 419
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffNYI View Post
.. and now Global is the CHL parent corporation..

I think we're both talking about the same thing.




.. in which they use the CHL to provide an instant anchor tenant.. (sorry to repeat myself)



Agreed.
Not quite. The MLS was and is still somewhat of a single-entity league - meaning the league owns the teams, as the CHL was under Chen. The MLS encourages the development of soccer-specific stadiums, but doesn't do all the work on the way Global's subsidiary does.

The WPHL and CHL went through a forward merger (where the bidder survives and the target is subsumed into the bidder corporation), and one of the things they acquired was the CHL name, which they use as a d/b/a.

Now, Global does build arenas and place CHL teams in those arenas as anchor tenants. HOWEVER, the difference is that Global's subsidiary corporation, WPHL Inc. (doing business as the Central Hockey League) does not own those teams. In a single-entity league, like "Major League" Soccer, the league's corporate entity owns the teams.

With Global, a separate business organization owns the team, and Global manages the arena. Here's the difference: with a single-entity league, the league has a true interest in every team being successful. This isn't so in the CHL model. If a team fails, it's not on Global; they make their money from the league dues, the management fees for the arenas they manage, and building new arenas... though they haven't done well in any of those categories lately.

CrazyEddie20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2013, 09:07 PM
  #44
JeffNYI
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyEddie20 View Post
Not quite. The MLS was and is still somewhat of a single-entity league - meaning the league owns the teams, as the CHL was under Chen. The MLS encourages the development of soccer-specific stadiums, but doesn't do all the work on the way Global's subsidiary does.

The WPHL and CHL went through a forward merger (where the bidder survives and the target is subsumed into the bidder corporation), and one of the things they acquired was the CHL name, which they use as a d/b/a.

Now, Global does build arenas and place CHL teams in those arenas as anchor tenants. HOWEVER, the difference is that Global's subsidiary corporation, WPHL Inc. (doing business as the Central Hockey League) does not own those teams. In a single-entity league, like "Major League" Soccer, the league's corporate entity owns the teams.

With Global, a separate business organization owns the team, and Global manages the arena. Here's the difference: with a single-entity league, the league has a true interest in every team being successful. This isn't so in the CHL model. If a team fails, it's not on Global; they make their money from the league dues, the management fees for the arenas they manage, and building new arenas... though they haven't done well in any of those categories lately.

You know when you write a really good response .. and then you check 45 minutes later to see if there was a response to YOUR post, but there's none.. and then you check again in another half an hour - still no response.. then again a few hours later..

Still nothing.

Hope I didn't leave you hanging.

I'm saying a triangle has 3 sides.. you're proving the Pythagorean theorem..

Excellent post by you.

JeffNYI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2013, 09:46 PM
  #45
CrazyEddie20
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 419
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffNYI View Post
You know when you write a really good response .. and then you check 45 minutes later to see if there was a response to YOUR post, but there's none.. and then you check again in another half an hour - still no response.. then again a few hours later..

Still nothing.

Hope I didn't leave you hanging.

I'm saying a triangle has 3 sides.. you're proving the Pythagorean theorem..

Excellent post by you.
Thanks, Jeff!

The single-entity concept is interesting. I would not, by any means, consider Major League Soccer to be successful. They lose tens of millions of dollars a year, and it's one of the worst kept secrets in the business of sports that MLS attendance figures are grossly inflated through comp tickets and other means. In fact, it's been reported by several outlets that if you know where to go before games (in major markets, no less) fans will just hand you a ticket gratis. Further, the single-entity concept as instituted by MLS has given many the impression that the league is rigged, or if not outright rigged, certain markets are favored to draw ratings and increase the league's media profile. Ever wonder why Beckham played for Los Angeles and not Columbus? It's not hard to figure out.

Also, don't take what I've said to mean that the Central Hockey League doesn't want it's teams to be successful on the balance sheet. They do, but aside from Quad City (which is currently owned and operated by the league) they have a very small interest in any one team being successful. As long as the league is operating, one or two teams failing in a given year doesn't drag the league down as a business entity.

What will save the Central Hockey League at this point? Hard to say. The CHL has been on life support for several years. If there is truth to the rumor that six teams are actively looking for other places to play, as published by Shoalts and confirmed to me by a PHPA player rep (in another league, but they get good info), the league is in hospice care, so to speak. While there are two expansion teams coming in next year, only one of those team does anything to reduce operating costs across the league, while the other will more than offset that reduction in the wrong direction.

If six teams bail and two come in, it's a six-team league next year. Even if Casper, WY comes in, it's then a seven-team league with unsustainable travel. Granted, we don't know which six teams are the smart six looking for somewhere else to play, but it would be extraordinarily difficult for this league to survive an exodus of half its' teams.

CrazyEddie20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2013, 12:28 AM
  #46
PCSPounder
Registered User
 
PCSPounder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Portland. So there.
Country: United States
Posts: 947
vCash: 500
MLS: partly because of single entity, Seattle and Portland and Vancouver prop up the league. Well, Los Angeles does get real paid crowds, Philly ain't bad, Salt Lake ain't bad, Kansas City has turned into a winner with their stadium, and if DC gets a new stadium, a lot of the losses go away.

PCSPounder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2013, 04:09 PM
  #47
Jackets Woodchuck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 682
vCash: 500
I would think san Antonio would be making money in the AHL as they own the arena (i.e. pay no rent and get all the concessions and parking $$$).

Jackets Woodchuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2013, 06:18 PM
  #48
CrazyEddie20
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 419
vCash: 500
Some stories are now getting out there that Bloomington is in serious trouble.

On February 27, "The Junior Hockey News" published a piece entitled "The End Of The Central Hockey League Could Be Opening More Junior Markets," which is available at:

http://thejuniorhockeynews.com/?p=11215

Essentially, the article stated that Bloomington had been taken over by the CHL, that Tulsa is in conversations with the NAHL and USHL, and that another team is seeking a minority investor.

The same website updated the story the next day: http://thejuniorhockeynews.com/?p=11289 after the GM of Bloomington stated to the Bloomington Pantagraph that the CHL had not taken over the team. Pantagraph article available at: http://www.pantagraph.com/sports/pro...a4bcf887a.html

Now, look no further than the masthead of "The Junior Hockey News" to gauge its' credibility - convicted felon Joe Kolodziej (see: http://archives.record-eagle.com/2004/nov/2hockey.htm ) lists himself as publisher in the update and as a "hockey professional, agent, advisor, [and] writer" on the "About" page. Clearly, this is not Arthur Ochs Sulzberger and the New York Times.

However - it does appear that the Hunnewell-Vitales are out in Bloomington. The story has been picked up on several other blogs, and the fact that the team is denying everything in the paper is interesting.

CrazyEddie20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-05-2013, 02:09 PM
  #49
mk80
Registered User
 
mk80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 199
vCash: 500
Lets remember though, the original article on this comes from a source that has a reputation for starting vicious rumors.

Bloomington is not a stable franchise, so that part can be believed, but I don't think it is true considering team representatives have responded. Unlike Quad City where the front office staff were no where to be found.

Tulsa on the other, I don't see them going to juniors unless any other pro options have been exhausted, as they are one of the more stable franchises in the league. I'm sure the USHL and NAHL would love to get into that market. But I would think they would try to make a jump to the ECHL before juniors if/when the CHL falls apart.

mk80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-05-2013, 07:24 PM
  #50
CrazyEddie20
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 419
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkhockeygoalie View Post
Lets remember though, the original article on this comes from a source that has a reputation for starting vicious rumors.

Bloomington is not a stable franchise, so that part can be believed, but I don't think it is true considering team representatives have responded. Unlike Quad City where the front office staff were no where to be found.

Tulsa on the other, I don't see them going to juniors unless any other pro options have been exhausted, as they are one of the more stable franchises in the league. I'm sure the USHL and NAHL would love to get into that market. But I would think they would try to make a jump to the ECHL before juniors if/when the CHL falls apart.
Yeah, as I said, the individual who identifies himself as "publisher" of that website has four felony convictions, per the other article I cited. That does severely undermine the credibility of the website.

Just because team officials have responded doesn't mean that what was written isn't true. The team is obviously going to try and mitigate the damage the article may cause to their business.

I Could see Tulsa in the AHL before the ECHL - they'd need some nearby teams to go to the ECHL with them to make it work. There are already four AHL teams fairly close to Tulsa - but of course, they'd need to buy a franchise and move it to get into the AHL.

CrazyEddie20 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 09:47 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.