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
Notices

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.

Best Hockey Analyst - Bob McKenzie

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-20-2004, 08:50 PM
  #51
Licentia
Registered User
 
Licentia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 683
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammy
Are you talking about the players here?
Its kinda obvious that you side on the side of the players, but I dont get it. They have been proven to care less about the game , the fans & the owners. Why dont you give the owners the same opportunity to show they dont care.
BTW, if the players dont like the salary cap rules, cant they just go play in some other league?
And btw, your Wal Mart analogy is really quite stupid. If the franchises are healthy, the NHL (Wal Mart) is healthy. Wal Mart is much more akin to the NHL than it is to individual franchises. See, in the real world if Wal mart stores were a franchises, it would be very bad for the franchisor (Wal MArt/NHL)if numerous stores were going down the tubes or losing $$$.
See, its really not all that complicated.
You are right. If the players don't like a cap, then they can take off!

I just can't understand why anyone sides with a player who makes $5 million a year. Like they are going to be so hard done by under a cap. :lol The players will still make tons of cash and the owners will have a league that will work for 30 teams. If the players were being forced to only make $50,000 a year after a cap - and the NHL didn't reduce their ticket prices drastically - then I could see people siding with them. Hell, I would be too! But they will still make millions under a cap or "cost certainty." So let's tell them to suck it up and sign a deal. Boo hoo hoo, Niklas Lidstrom won't make $10 million anymore. Tears are filling my eyes for him. He'll still be a multi-millionaire under a cap! Time to pull up the training diapers, stop the temper tantrums when you don't get what you want, and get on with the season NHLPA!!

Licentia is offline  
Old
09-20-2004, 09:15 PM
  #52
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,358
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Licentia
You are right. If the players don't like a cap, then they can take off!

I just can't understand why anyone sides with a player who makes $5 million a year. Like they are going to be so hard done by under a cap. :lol The players will still make tons of cash and the owners will have a league that will work for 30 teams. If the players were being forced to only make $50,000 a year after a cap - and the NHL didn't reduce their ticket prices drastically - then I could see people siding with them. Hell, I would be too! But they will still make millions under a cap or "cost certainty." So let's tell them to suck it up and sign a deal. Boo hoo hoo, Niklas Lidstrom won't make $10 million anymore. Tears are filling my eyes for him. He'll still be a multi-millionaire under a cap! Time to pull up the training diapers, stop the temper tantrums when you don't get what you want, and get on with the season NHLPA!!

My argument against a cap has nothing to do with what the players make. I agree they make too much, and I won't feel sorry for them if they have to take a major cut. I don't like a cap because it prevents a team from maintaning an elite status.


Last edited by hockeytown9321: 09-20-2004 at 09:26 PM.
hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
09-20-2004, 09:16 PM
  #53
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,358
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Licentia
And Canada doesn't?
Canada is a socialist country, which is one of the reasons all the Canadian teams expect handouts.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
09-20-2004, 09:25 PM
  #54
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,358
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammy
Are you talking about the players here?
Its kinda obvious that you side on the side of the players, but I dont get it. They have been proven to care less about the game , the fans & the owners. Why dont you give the owners the same opportunity to show they dont care.
BTW, if the players dont like the salary cap rules, cant they just go play in some other league?
And btw, your Wal Mart analogy is really quite stupid. If the franchises are healthy, the NHL (Wal Mart) is healthy. Wal Mart is much more akin to the NHL than it is to individual franchises. See, in the real world if Wal mart stores were a franchises, it would be very bad for the franchisor (Wal MArt/NHL)if numerous stores were going down the tubes or losing $$$.
See, its really not all that complicated.

And like I've said, the owners don't have the games interests at heart.

Capitalism is all about winners and losers. if its OK for the owners to operate under a capitalistic model in one aspect of their business, then to me its OK if they run the entire league that way. I hope all the Canadian teams fold. If they don't like how things are run, start their own league. Have a cap. I hope Nashville, Carolina, Anaheim, Phoenix, Columbus, Atlanta, Floirda, Tampa and everybody else that can't make enough money on their own to survive fold. Thats capitalism. Shut your mouth, suck it up, take responsiblity for your problems.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
09-20-2004, 09:42 PM
  #55
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
And like I've said, the owners don't have the games interests at heart.
Are you saying that the owners, who have an accumulated loss of ~$1.7B over the past 10 years, yet are still trying to keep their teams alive and playing in the NHL, don't have the games interest at heart? Do the players that are trying to maintain their multi-million dollar incomes have the games interest at heart? (And I know that many owners have actually made a profit over this time, but I'm willing to bet it's the same group of teams losing money the majority of the time).

I'll give the owners the benefit of the doubt since they are the ones that lose money by running an NHL team.

I've got no problem with the owners trying to make their investment more profitable. When a player breaks an arm or leg, the player will heal and will still get paid, but the owner will suffer the financial loss due to the lost production. When a team of good to great players chokes in the first round of the playoffs, the players have still been paid, but the owner will suffer the financial loss because the team doesn't go deeper in the playoffs. If a player decides not to play to the best of his ability for whatever reason, he still gets paid, but the owner will suffer the financial loss due to the lost production. If a player decides to holdout (yes I know he is not obligated, blah, blah, blah...) the player at least in this case loses potential income, but again the owner will suffer the losses due to lost production.

The owner is the only one that will suffer financial loses in most every case, while the player will get paid in almost every case.

djhn579 is offline  
Old
09-20-2004, 09:48 PM
  #56
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,358
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
Are you saying that the owners, who have an accumulated loss of ~$1.7B over the past 10 years, yet are still trying to keep their teams alive and playing in the NHL, don't have the games interest at heart?

Right, thats what I'm saying. The owners have their financial interests at heart. Thats all. They could care less if you or I ever went to another game. They could care less if any of their fellow owners went broke. They could care less if any of their fellow owners ever won another game. Its all about maximizing profits. Don't let anybody fool you into thinking they have a more noble goal than that.

If they truly had the game's interest's at heart, they would compromise on a luxury tax now, before the game is ruined. They can have a cap all they want, but if they miss an entire season, its going to take alot more than that to fix things.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
09-20-2004, 09:52 PM
  #57
Sammy*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,501
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
And like I've said, the owners don't have the games interests at heart.

Capitalism is all about winners and losers. if its OK for the owners to operate under a capitalistic model in one aspect of their business, then to me its OK if they run the entire league that way. I hope all the Canadian teams fold. If they don't like how things are run, start their own league. Have a cap. I hope Nashville, Carolina, Anaheim, Phoenix, Columbus, Atlanta, Floirda, Tampa and everybody else that can't make enough money on their own to survive fold. Thats capitalism. Shut your mouth, suck it up, take responsiblity for your problems.
First of all , you should brush up on your theory . You dont have a clue what socialisim is.
secondly, I take it you would like to see, Jacksonville, Baltimore, Houston, Indianapolis, Green Bay, New Orleans,Carolina, Seattle... etc all fail in the NFL?, cause they are the benificiaries of socialisim.
BTW, why do you feel that the owners cannot make their own rules. Its their league after all & thats capitalisim.

Sammy* is offline  
Old
09-20-2004, 09:54 PM
  #58
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
A salary cap is is communistic.
Communism is how an economy is structured. It doesn't relate to how a company operating under a capitalistic economy shares the revenues within the company.

SuperUnknown is offline  
Old
09-20-2004, 10:08 PM
  #59
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
Right, thats what I'm saying. The owners have their financial interests at heart. Thats all. They could care less if you or I ever went to another game. They could care less if any of their fellow owners went broke. They could care less if any of their fellow owners ever won another game. Its all about maximizing profits. Don't let anybody fool you into thinking they have a more noble goal than that.

If they truly had the game's interest's at heart, they would compromise on a luxury tax now, before the game is ruined. They can have a cap all they want, but if they miss an entire season, its going to take alot more than that to fix things.
But if they CAN'T sustain the league anymore and if a more restrictive CBA is the only way to keep the league alive (and to develop/market it), if they love hockey, wouldn't they really try to get a deal that will provide us fans for years?

Also, you don't seem to grasp that there is a "labour" market and that market is up to negociations in a capitalistic world. Not negociating a new CBA wouldn't be very capitalistic at heart.

SuperUnknown is offline  
Old
09-20-2004, 10:11 PM
  #60
Licentia
Registered User
 
Licentia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 683
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
And like I've said, the owners don't have the games interests at heart.

Capitalism is all about winners and losers. if its OK for the owners to operate under a capitalistic model in one aspect of their business, then to me its OK if they run the entire league that way. I hope all the Canadian teams fold. If they don't like how things are run, start their own league. Have a cap. I hope Nashville, Carolina, Anaheim, Phoenix, Columbus, Atlanta, Floirda, Tampa and everybody else that can't make enough money on their own to survive fold. Thats capitalism. Shut your mouth, suck it up, take responsiblity for your problems.
Yikes.

Canada's dollar has been more valuable than America's in the past. But it's not good for our economy for it to be more valuable, because 80% of our exports go to the US, and because it encourages tourism from the USA. If our dollar is worth more than the US dollar, then Americans would export from elsewhere, or use more of their own resources. The bank of Canada purposefully works to make sure our dollar never is equal to the American dollar. So it's not like we are poor or nothing.

The NHL wouldn't survive without Canada. That's just really nasty, what you said. I'm shocked!!


Last edited by Licentia: 09-20-2004 at 10:19 PM.
Licentia is offline  
Old
09-20-2004, 10:19 PM
  #61
Habs Icing
Formerly Onice
 
Habs Icing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 7,738
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
Canada is a socialist country, which is one of the reasons all the Canadian teams expect handouts.

That is the most ignorant statement I've read on this board. Most American teams are exempt from paying taxes while a team like the Habs pays 11 million in municipal taxes alone and they don't get and don't expect hand outs. Meanwhile, teams like Pittsburg and Buffalo keep whining for the local goverments to built them an arena. You should really educate yourself. Makes you look alot less ignorant.

Habs Icing is offline  
Old
09-20-2004, 10:43 PM
  #62
Carl Spackler
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 97
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by onice
That is the most ignorant statement I've read on this board. Most American teams are exempt from paying taxes while a team like the Habs pays 11 million in municipal taxes alone and they don't get and don't expect hand outs. Meanwhile, teams like Pittsburg and Buffalo keep whining for the local goverments to built them an arena. You should really educate yourself. Makes you look alot less ignorant.

Have to agree on that one. American teams are the ones that get socialist-style handouts from the government. Reminds me of Jack Kemp referring to soccer as a "European socialist sport" and football as an "Amercian capitalist sport" when the exact opposite is in fact true....

Carl Spackler is offline  
Old
09-20-2004, 10:43 PM
  #63
Sammy*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,501
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by onice
. You should really educate yourself. Makes you look alot less ignorant.
Not possible. The dye has been cast.

Sammy* is offline  
Old
09-20-2004, 10:44 PM
  #64
Digger12
Gold Fever
 
Digger12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Back o' beyond
Posts: 16,686
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
Capitalism is all about winners and losers. if its OK for the owners to operate under a capitalistic model in one aspect of their business, then to me its OK if they run the entire league that way. I hope all the Canadian teams fold. If they don't like how things are run, start their own league. Have a cap. I hope Nashville, Carolina, Anaheim, Phoenix, Columbus, Atlanta, Floirda, Tampa and everybody else that can't make enough money on their own to survive fold. Thats capitalism. Shut your mouth, suck it up, take responsiblity for your problems.
So that's what? A 15, 16 team league? With zero Canadian teams?

Sounds like a great strategy, at least if your aim is to drive a stake in the heart of the NHL.

Digger12 is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 02:47 AM
  #65
me2
Callng out the crap
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Blasting the bull***
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 29,335
vCash: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
And like I've said, the owners don't have the games interests at heart.

Capitalism is all about winners and losers. if its OK for the owners to operate under a capitalistic model in one aspect of their business, then to me its OK if they run the entire league that way. I hope all the Canadian teams fold. If they don't like how things are run, start their own league. Have a cap. I hope Nashville, Carolina, Anaheim, Phoenix, Columbus, Atlanta, Floirda, Tampa and everybody else that can't make enough money on their own to survive fold. Thats capitalism. Shut your mouth, suck it up, take responsiblity for your problems.
If all of the Canadian teams closed, Ducks, Wild, Tampa, Florida, Nasville,..

Just easier to list the teams that are left

Detroit, Philly, St Louis, Dallas, NYR, Colorado. How many of them lost money, NYR might bail as well since they lost money. Going to be very small league.

Lol the players salaries would fall by 50-60% at their next contract. In fact they would be playing 2-3x AHL wages because they wouldn't have any other choice but to accept what the teams offered.


Last edited by me2: 09-21-2004 at 02:50 AM.
me2 is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 06:44 AM
  #66
Puckhead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Behind you!!!
Country: Italy
Posts: 703
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legolas
I think the players will lose this one as well. However, I see why they've taken their position. First of all, history has shown that players' unions have fought to the very bitter end to prevent a salary cap from being put in place. The NFL union was broken over that issue. The NBA union only agreed to a salary cap after public opinion turned against them and their own membership became divided. For players who are used to the ever increasing salaries, a salary cap is death, the NHLPA will do anything to stop it from happening.

As for Goodenow, he has every reason to be confident, rightly or wrongly. In his history, he's seen the owners cave into him without fail. He's seen his association and the agents absolutely dominate arbitration, contract negotiations, etc. He has no reason to think the owners won't cave again. He thinks he has all the leverage. I think he's wrong this time, but I can see why he thinks he's right.

I can see that aswell, but he is taking an awfully big risk this time around. It is not in the owners best interests to get hockey going again if it is going to run the same as before. There have to be dramatic changes, like a cap, to give the game credibility. I think Goodenow will fail this time and the players will become divided as this lockout goes on. Everyone talks about the January deadline as the breaking point for the owners to cave, just to fit in a season with playoffs. I think that when that comes and the owners don't give in, then the players will have to start looking in the mirror, and understand that they will be going the full year with no hockey. Very scary indeed.

Puckhead is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 06:56 AM
  #67
Puckhead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Behind you!!!
Country: Italy
Posts: 703
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by top_gun36
Even if they do have a cap @ $31 million, what happens to the teams that are over tha cap...kick players off the roster until they reach the cap
Several people in the hockey world have suggested a heavy fine for those teams going over the cap. $5 tax for every $1 over the cap is something I have read. That way, regardless of wanting to spend more on your team, that tax system would deter even the free spending NYR. Take last season as an example...
NYR payroll $77 million. If they get a cap of $31 million and tax it as stated above the Rangers would have had to pay...$261 million last season. Whatever they decide will have to be phased in to make it a little easier for those clubs who are way over the cap now.

I personally think that the proposed $31 million cap is too low. They should be in the neighbourhood of 38-42 million. Bettman and Daly simply picked 31 as a negotiating tool. That way when the PA comes to their senses and agrees to a cap, Goodenow will say "okay, but not 31 million, we won't take anything less than 40 million per team." Then Bettman will get the number he wanted all along, and the PA feels they have won back something for nothing.

Puckhead is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 07:07 AM
  #68
Puckhead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Behind you!!!
Country: Italy
Posts: 703
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
Canada is a socialist country, which is one of the reasons all the Canadian teams expect handouts.
I think don't Canada has the same leverage of offering to build stadiums and make out leases for those stadiums for $1 to attract franchises to their cities. Also, to compare the two is highly ignorant. The people in Canada don't want to foot the bill for an owner who already makes insane amouts of money. The States simply invent new tax strategies to get what they want for their sports teams.

Puckhead is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 09:18 AM
  #69
joechip
Registered User
 
joechip's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gainesville, Fl
Posts: 3,229
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to joechip
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
Well, there's nothing wrong with communism in and of itself, just that it is impossible to acheive, and every attempt at it has failed. For communism to work, you need total 100% cooperation from everyone inviolved. It can't happen in real life, and it certainly can't happen in pro sports.

the looser cap would be kinda like socialism, I guess. So why don't all the canucks want it?
Well, there seems to be a contradiction in your statements about communism. Every attempt at is has failed because it is inherently contrary to human nature, IMO. If we weren't individuals then communism would work just fine. Honestly, communism and socialism are the height of evil they ignore the individual's needs and, by extension, destroy the communications system within an economy, commonly known as prices. The potential for corruption is unlimited under those systems as opposed to the the limited and temporary corruption available in free markets. No system eliminates corruption and abuse, but a purely voluntary one will tend to minimize them, while socialism (and it's extreme version, communism) will tend to maximize them.

Now, that said, communes and communist like organizations work just fine for those who want to live that way, the problem lies in 'forcing' people to do so. All successful human interactions are voluntary, not coerced. I can see the need within the framework of professional hockey to have a kind-of 'collectivized' revenue system. The problem with the NHL labour situation is that both sides have mechanisms of coersion available to them. Bettman is right when he sited certain aspects of the current CBA as not being a free market. The most egregious of this is 'anti-collusion' laws in the face of mandatory negotiations with collectivised labor organizations.

That's the definition of an unequal playing field.

Ta,

joechip is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 09:46 AM
  #70
habitual_hab
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: bc
Posts: 217
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joechip
Well, there seems to be a contradiction in your statements about communism. Every attempt at is has failed because it is inherently contrary to human nature, IMO. If we weren't individuals then communism would work just fine. Honestly, communism and socialism are the height of evil they ignore the individual's needs and, by extension, destroy the communications system within an economy, commonly known as prices. The potential for corruption is unlimited under those systems as opposed to the the limited and temporary corruption available in free markets. No system eliminates corruption and abuse, but a purely voluntary one will tend to minimize them, while socialism (and it's extreme version, communism) will tend to maximize them.

Now, that said, communes and communist like organizations work just fine for those who want to live that way, the problem lies in 'forcing' people to do so. All successful human interactions are voluntary, not coerced.
Economic policy is determined in secret; in law and in principle, popular involvement is nil. A corporation, factory, or business is the economic equivalent of fascism: decisions and control are strictly top-down. People are not compelled to purchase the products or rent themselves to survive, but those are the sole choices.

The political system is closely linked to economic power, both through personnel and broader constraints on policy. Efforts of the public to enter the political arena must be barred: liberal elites see such efforts as a dangerous "crisis of democracy," and they are intolerable to statist reactionaries ("conservatives"). The political system has virtually no flow from bottom to top, apart from the local level; the general public appears to regard it as largely meaningless.

The media present a spectrum of opinion, largely reflecting tactical divisions within the state-corporate nexus. True, they are never obedient enough for the commissars. The media were bitterly condemned for undermining public morale during the war in Vietnam, playing into the hands of the imperial aggressors and their local agents. For the totalitarian mind, again, no degree of servility is enough.

There are dissidents and other information sources. Foreign radio broadcasts reach virtually no one, but alternative media exist. Dissidents are bitterly condemned as "anti-American" and "supporters of Communism" as demonstrated by the fact that they condemn the evils of the American system instead of marching in parades denouncing the crimes of official enemies. But they are not severely punished, at least if they are privileged and of the right color. Again, the concept "anti-American" is particularly striking, the very hallmark of a totalitarian mentality.


Totalitarian "ommunism" doesn't work for me but there are alternatives to the US model of society.

And the US is no paragon of free markets - subsidies, grants, tax breaks, tariffs, etc. - the US couldn't survive in a free market.

habitual_hab is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 10:24 AM
  #71
Heavy D
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 52
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Licentia
And that's fine. With a cap in place, it becomes the skills of the management that make the difference, rather than how much a team can pay.
I agree 100%. I prefer an NHL where shrewd management makes a bigger difference to the quality of the team than the bottomless bank accounts of certain free-spenders.

Heavy D is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 11:03 AM
  #72
Adam West
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 298
vCash: 500
New SuperLeague

So does your new superleague also disband the nhlpa, along w/ the canadian franchises, altogether b/c im having trouble understanding the simultaneous support of a union and capitalism. Wouldn't a free market system negate the need of a labour union since the market would undoubtedly dictate player value.

Not being an ass, just wondering.

Adam West is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 12:35 PM
  #73
Go Flames Go*
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 943
vCash: 500
Bob Mckenzie needs to lose some weight, he always reports and trade and then the player always ends up on a different team. Sportsnet has there own Bob Mckenzie mini me in Gordon Stelleick.

Go Flames Go* is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 01:00 PM
  #74
Seachd
Registered User
 
Seachd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Fail
Posts: 18,033
vCash: 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Go Flames Go
he always reports and trade and then the player always ends up on a different team.
When has that happened exactly?

Seachd is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 01:44 PM
  #75
Licentia
Registered User
 
Licentia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 683
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2
If all of the Canadian teams closed, Ducks, Wild, Tampa, Florida, Nasville,..

Just easier to list the teams that are left

Detroit, Philly, St Louis, Dallas, NYR, Colorado. How many of them lost money, NYR might bail as well since they lost money. Going to be very small league.

Lol the players salaries would fall by 50-60% at their next contract. In fact they would be playing 2-3x AHL wages because they wouldn't have any other choice but to accept what the teams offered.
I like your avatar me2. Goodenow is just as foolishly persistent as Taraq Aziz, in a losing cause.

My 300th post!!


Last edited by Licentia: 09-21-2004 at 01:47 PM.
Licentia 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 02:41 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2017 All Rights Reserved.