HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
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.

Is this a weak union?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-29-2004, 10:31 PM
  #51
Cully9
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 101
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
The players that are going to make into their 30s are the best players in the world. The Lecavaliers, Heatleys, Ovechkins, Crosbys of the world. Because that is what the NHL is about right. The ultimate competition. To find the best players in the world. And get them on your team. THe ones that make it, thats who the union represents.
Ah, but the union, er, association also represents the muckers and grinders too, doesn't it? If not, why should those guys pay dues, or stay on the sidelines if the NHL opens its doors, or sit idly by while they get thrown under the bus in this dispute?

Thus, the argument that the NHLPA puts forth that players don't have a long career so they need to make as much as they can while they can is garbage because the players that they are really representing are precisely the ones that have long careers.

Cully9 is offline  
Old
10-29-2004, 10:49 PM
  #52
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,266
vCash: 500
What is it you find wrong with that? Yes, the best of these athletes, in the ultimate competition, will have the ability to earn what people are willing to pay them, at least at one point in their career, and even after they hit their prime.

If you really want them to be an association, fine. The players unable to negotiate the league average salary, will get a cap. The best players wont be unionized. They just have agents. And since they arent unionized, you cant restrict their right to negotiate their market value with any owner they wish. If Bob Clarke wants to offer Iginla $9mil, so be it. If Washington wants to sign Crosby for $100mil 10yrs to go with Ovechkin, what are you going to do? They are all sitting there. Kovalchuk is a UFA. Who wants him? All the rest of the players are capped. You dont have to sign him. Maybe no one else will either. Maybe they will escape collusion charges when none are signed.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
10-29-2004, 11:20 PM
  #53
Cully9
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 101
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
What is it you find wrong with that? Yes, the best of these athletes, in the ultimate competition, will have the ability to earn what people are willing to pay them, at least at one point in their career, and even after they hit their prime.

If you really want them to be an association, fine. The players unable to negotiate the league average salary, will get a cap. The best players wont be unionized. They just have agents. And since they arent unionized, you cant restrict their right to negotiate their market value with any owner they wish. If Bob Clarke wants to offer Iginla $9mil, so be it. If Washington wants to sign Crosby for $100mil 10yrs to go with Ovechkin, what are you going to do? They are all sitting there. Kovalchuk is a UFA. Who wants him? All the rest of the players are capped. You dont have to sign him. Maybe no one else will either. Maybe they will escape collusion charges when none are signed.
What I find wrong with it is that it is outrageous to expect guys to pay into an association just so they can get bent over when it's time for a deal to get done.

The last thing the players want is for all of them to be free agents. With that much supply, there would be no reason for an owner to offer Crosby $100-million. Why offer Crosby that money (how a junior player would be eligible for this, I'm not sure) when you could turn around and get Kovalchuk or Iginla or Thornton or Lecavalier or Heatley or whomever? The players count on there being a limited supply of free agents, because it's that limited supply in a given year that drives up their prices, but that's getting off the point.

My point remains: don't sell this negotiation as anything but a fight for the top 5% of the players. Stop pretending it's for the future, or it's for the association as a whole, because it's not.

Cully9 is offline  
Old
10-30-2004, 12:56 AM
  #54
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
1.) The NHL decides that without a players union, it would be too difficult for all teams to be truely competetive. You have already mentioned anti-trust issues with the draft, what is to stop the NHL from reorganizing in a way that will allow them to have a draft and restrict free agency wihtout the union? Since the union decertified, it is no longer a matter of getting around negotiating so it can't be an unfair labor practice.
Labour law is largely inoperative. There is no way to get around the antitrust laws. Theoretically a merger of all 30 teams into one business would work but the problem in this case would be a) getting a merger deal put together, and b) getting the merger approved when the objective is to get around antitrust laws.

Take heart. The small market teams could probably survive and make money by developing and selling talent to the larger markets. It might kill certain markets, but I don't think anything would be for sure. I think it would be very interesting to watch.

Quote:
2.) The NHL shuts its doors and says that they will start up again as soon as a new players union comes forward and negotiates a CBA. There are plenty of players out there that feel that the NHLPA does not represent them. All it would take is a group of players to come together (Let's say 20 - 50 to start), negotiate a CBA that is contingent upon the new union getting enough players to fill out all 30 teams. I don't think it would take too long for a new union to form. I wouldn't be suprised if several started negotiating with the league.
Unions represent workers. If the NHL is shut down they don't have any workers to represent. The players can't be certified as a union if there is no employer-employee relationship. The workers would have already voted to decertify. The NHL would have to hire a bunch of employees first and then see if the players hired wanted to certify a union.

Workers don't have to have a union if they don't want one. They don't have to collectively agree to a set of rules that restricts their individual rights. They can decide to exercise their individual rights instead. The owners can't stop them from doing it.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
10-30-2004, 02:23 AM
  #55
Digger12
Registered User
 
Digger12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Defending the border
Posts: 14,497
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
Workers don't have to have a union if they don't want one. They don't have to collectively agree to a set of rules that restricts their individual rights. They can decide to exercise their individual rights instead. The owners can't stop them from doing it.

Tom
So are you saying that if I were an 18 year old junior phenom whose lifelong dream was to play in the NHL, I could do so without being a card carrying member of the NHLPA?

If that truly were the case, you'd think that there would be more cases of this than the current number, which is I believe ZERO.

I seem to recall the all-knowing, all-seeing Bicycle Repairman mentioning that you had to be an NHLPA member in order to play a single NHL game...so was he right, or are you?

Digger12 is offline  
Old
10-30-2004, 02:34 AM
  #56
Digger12
Registered User
 
Digger12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Defending the border
Posts: 14,497
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
Unrestricted free agency for all players all the time is the worst case scenario for the players and lots of players - the majority in my view - will see that as being better for them than a $31 million cap. They may see it better than any cap.
A) It won't be a 31M cap, that's simply a starting point and to be honest, that's a number people are surmising, not one that Bettman or Daly have specifically stated. Who knows where it would eventually be?

B) If the majority of players in your view would truly see a 100% UFA environment as preferable to any cap, then they are either the dumbest athletes on the planet or being represented by the dumbest agents on the planet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
It is easy to explain why a union helps Mike Commodore or Brian Pothier.
If it's so easy, please forward the explanation to the abovementioned players...they seem to be having difficulty seeing your point of view on this.

It's going to be an interesting November. We'll see if any of your elaborate theories come to pass.

Digger12 is offline  
Old
10-30-2004, 02:52 AM
  #57
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cully9
The last thing the players want is for all of them to be free agents. With that much supply, there would be no reason for an owner to offer Crosby $100-million. Why offer Crosby that money (how a junior player would be eligible for this, I'm not sure) when you could turn around and get Kovalchuk or Iginla or Thornton or Lecavalier or Heatley or whomever? The players count on there being a limited supply of free agents, because it's that limited supply in a given year that drives up their prices, but that's getting off the point.
I don't think this is off point at all. Somebody will offer Crosby that money because he is unique. I think there would be several teams that would put in bids for virtually every star player. Everybody wouldn't become a free agent every year. How many would depend on the length of the contracts and anybody stacking up big cash for any of these guys will want to lock them up long term.

A Bill Guerin certainly won't get $9 million or anywhere close to it in a wide open system. His money will go to younger, better players.

On the one hand, owners argue that the existing CBA drives up the salaries of RFAs because a few idiot owners pay too much, thereby affecting everyone else. On the other hand, they argue these players would get less in a completely free market because the owners will somehow restrain themselves. It's not logically consistent.

The owners need a CBA that protects themselves against each other, but if there was no CBA at all, they would pay less? Maybe - like I said, I don't think anyone can say for sure - but I doubt it. I doubt it very much.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
10-30-2004, 02:54 AM
  #58
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digger12
So are you saying that if I were an 18 year old junior phenom whose lifelong dream was to play in the NHL, I could do so without being a card carrying member of the NHLPA?
Of course not. As soon as you play you have to join. The players can vote to eliminate this though. That's what we are discussing.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
10-30-2004, 02:55 AM
  #59
SwisshockeyAcademy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,094
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
I don't think this is off point at all. Somebody will offer Crosby that money because he is unique. I think there would be several teams that would put in bids for virtually every star player. Everybody wouldn't become a free agent every year. How many would depend on the length of the contracts and anybody stacking up big cash for any of these guys will want to lock them up long term.

A Bill Guerin certainly won't get $9 million or anywhere close to it in a wide open system. His money will go to younger, better players.

On the one hand, owners argue that the existing CBA drives up the salaries of RFAs because a few idiot owners pay too much, thereby affecting everyone else. On the other hand, they argue these players would get less in a completely free market because the owners will somehow restrain themselves. It's not logically consistent.

The owners need a CBA that protects themselves against each other, but if there was no CBA at all, they would pay less? Maybe - like I said, I don't think anyone can say for sure - but I doubt it. I doubt it very much.

Tom
There is certainly a valid point you make in the owners needing a CBA that protects themselves against each other. If that helps the overall competitiveness and health of the game i'm all for it. I would like to have a trial of 700 UFA's to see how the money shakes out. That will never happen of course.

SwisshockeyAcademy is offline  
Old
10-30-2004, 03:02 AM
  #60
Digger12
Registered User
 
Digger12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Defending the border
Posts: 14,497
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
Of course not. As soon as you play you have to join. The players can vote to eliminate this though. That's what we are discussing.

Tom
Just checking...

You're certainly correct, they could vote to eliminate this...but I don't think they would.

IMO they don't have the belly for it.

Digger12 is offline  
Old
10-30-2004, 03:19 AM
  #61
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digger12
A) It won't be a 31M cap, that's simply a starting point and to be honest, that's a number people are surmising, not one that Bettman or Daly have specifically stated. Who knows where it would eventually be?
It has been specifically stated by Bettman and Daly. In fact, they have declared they will not apologise for it. It's ridiculous. The owners have not begun to negotiate.

Quote:
B) If the majority of players in your view would truly see a 100% UFA environment as preferable to any cap, then they are either the dumbest athletes on the planet or being represented by the dumbest agents on the planet.
Ooh, good argument. Why? We are talking about the best 350 players in the world. What does the NHLPA do for them they can't do for themselves?

Quote:
If it's so easy, please forward the explanation to the abovementioned players...they seem to be having difficulty seeing your point of view on this.
The NHLPA protects jobs. In a free market system, Vincent Lecavalier would get a raise of at least $5 million a year. What would Montreal pay for him? Mike Commodore would not make anywhere close to $515,000 in a completely free system. The salary for the top half of the league would go up, the salaries for the bottom half would go down and Commodore is near the very bottom. Whether they would on balance go up or down is open to debate, but not that, surely.

Several franchises would probably fold. That would not affect Vincent Lecavalier, but it would affect Mike Commodore. He probably doesn't have a job in a 28 team NHL. He may not have one in a 30 team NHL. He's asking Lecavalier to take less over the next ten years, so that he gets a chance at a job. We can all understand that, but Lecavalier is already taking less than he would get as a free agent. What more does Lecavalier owe Commodore? Why?

Quote:
It's going to be an interesting November. We'll see if any of your elaborate theories come to pass.
Which theory are you talking about? In November? I don't expect anything to happen except more players going to Europe.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
10-30-2004, 03:26 AM
  #62
SwisshockeyAcademy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,094
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
It has been specifically stated by Bettman and Daly. In fact, they have declared they will not apologise for it. It's ridiculous. The owners have not begun to negotiate.



Ooh, good argument. Why? We are talking about the best 350 players in the world. What does the NHLPA do for them they can't do for themselves?



The NHLPA protects jobs. In a free market system, Vincent Lecavalier would get a raise of at least $5 million a year. What would Montreal pay for him? Mike Commodore would not make anywhere close to $515,000 in a completely free system. The salary for the top half of the league would go up, the salaries for the bottom half would go down and Commodore is near the very bottom. Whether they would on balance go up or down is open to debate, but not that, surely.

Several franchises would probably fold. That would not affect Vincent Lecavalier, but it would affect Mike Commodore. He probably doesn't have a job in a 28 team NHL. He may not have one in a 30 team NHL. He's asking Lecavalier to take less over the next ten years, so that he gets a chance at a job. We can all understand that, but Lecavalier is already taking less than he would get as a free agent. What more does Lecavalier owe Commodore? Why?



Which theory are you talking about? In November? I don't expect anything to happen except more players going to Europe.

Tom
I agree that in a completely free system Commodore may make only a 100 grand as there would be no minimum salary. I still think many other contracts would be lower too though. I is hard to say without seeing it for real.

SwisshockeyAcademy is offline  
Old
10-30-2004, 03:49 AM
  #63
Digger12
Registered User
 
Digger12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Defending the border
Posts: 14,497
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
Ooh, good argument. Why? We are talking about the best 350 players in the world. What does the NHLPA do for them they can't do for themselves?
'Ooh, good argument'?

What the hell is this, grade school? No need to get all indignant. :lol

And who's "we"? I only see you talking about this magical top 350 players like it's actually relevant. Keep going, though. Don't let me stop your roll.

Personally I think the number of guys making below the average NHL salary is a much more relevant number, but whatever. It's 2:33 AM by my watch, I'm pretty much on here only for light amusement at this point...but please, go ahead with the 3 page dissertations, it's not like I haven't read it here 300 times already in the past month or so.

Quote:
The NHLPA protects jobs.
So when Saskins came on national TV and said in plain English that the lower teir members of the NHLPA shouldn't expect job security, how does that protect jobs exactly?

Quote:
The NHLPA protects jobs. In a free market system, Vincent Lecavalier would get a raise of at least $5 million a year. What would Montreal pay for him? Mike Commodore would not make anywhere close to $515,000 in a completely free system. The salary for the top half of the league would go up, the salaries for the bottom half would go down and Commodore is near the very bottom. Whether they would on balance go up or down is open to debate, but not that, surely.

Several franchises would probably fold. That would not affect Vincent Lecavalier, but it would affect Mike Commodore. He probably doesn't have a job in a 28 team NHL. He may not have one in a 30 team NHL. He's asking Lecavalier to take less over the next ten years, so that he gets a chance at a job. We can all understand that, but Lecavalier is already taking less than he would get as a free agent. What more does Lecavalier owe Commodore? Why?
I thought I asked you to send your explanation to Mike and Brian? What made you think I wanted to hear it? I'm not a current NHLPA member like they are...

Quote:
Which theory are you talking about? In November? I don't expect anything to happen except more players going to Europe.
I never asked what you were expecting. Geez, you sure seem to think people wait on your every word, don't you?

Anyway, sweet dreams 'Tom'. Try not to take yourself so damn seriously...you might live longer.

Digger12 is offline  
Old
10-30-2004, 05:33 AM
  #64
QQQ
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 48
vCash: 500
Light reading

Yes, it's quite interesting point counter point. Has an attempt at a theoretical UFA based NHL like the mock drafts already been made on the boards? I'd like to explore what it would look like. How would a team be put together? Current contracts would be honoured but all the rest without contracts? How would it work?

QQQ is offline  
Old
10-30-2004, 12:26 PM
  #65
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,266
vCash: 500
It would sure be radically different from the way things work now.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
10-30-2004, 02:33 PM
  #66
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digger12
Personally I think the number of guys making below the average NHL salary is a much more relevant number, but whatever.
Personally, I reject unsupported arguments. Why would you think this? Why would you think that the top 350 players - that's about the number who would have to vote to decertify - would be the "dumbest people on the planet" to follow their own best interests?

The rest of your post was pathetic. Why'd you bother? If you aren't going to address the points I made, why play in this sandbox? Why post something that everyone can see dodges the issues I raised? It makes you look foolish. I'm not indignant - I'm laughing and I'm not laughing with you.

But whatever. You really knocked my argument around, didn't you? I answered every issue you raised and you ignored every one that I put forward.

Here is where you started:

And if I were Bettman, I'd take that in a second and laugh all the way to the bank. Do you honestly think the NHLPA would profit from a 100% UFA scenario?

When this was challenged, you went to:

I was just trying to point out that the idea of Goodenow using the 100% UFA card as some sort of hammer in a negotiation is likely a fool's gambit.

When this was disputed, the retreat was to:

If the majority of players in your view would truly see a 100% UFA environment as preferable to any cap, then they are either the dumbest athletes on the planet or being represented by the dumbest agents on the planet.

When asked to explain this, you ran to:

You're certainly correct, they could vote to eliminate this...but I don't think they would. They don't have the belly for it.

And finally instead of explaining why you think that, you resort to:

Anyway, sweet dreams 'Tom'. Try not to take yourself so damn seriously...you might live longer.

I appreciate the advice but how seriously I take myself isn't very relevant. If this is the best that you can do, how do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

Is the NHLPA a strong union? Yes, they are. If they are not strong, the players will turf the union completely because they are better off without one than with a weak one. That isn't very hard to understand, is it?

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
10-30-2004, 03:06 PM
  #67
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,266
vCash: 500
So under which system is Commodore better off?

He accepts the owners offer and the top 350 players vote to decertify?

or

He hangs with the top players and the union negotiates together a deal best for all?

If we wants to go against his union to get something done now, and then the top players vote to decertify the union, is he better off? The top players he is breaking ranks with most likely will be. Maybe he needs their support more than they need his.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
10-30-2004, 08:23 PM
  #68
BLONG7
Registered User
 
BLONG7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 12,261
vCash: 500
The title says, is this a weak union? It's not a union! It is a PA that is full of itself just like it's leader Knob Goodenow!

BLONG7 is offline  
Old
10-30-2004, 09:40 PM
  #69
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,513
vCash: 500
I think it is a weak union simply because I'm sure there are a lot of players that don't agree with the current NHLPA approach. You don't hear them because they don't all want to commit in the media (yet), but when Pierre Dagenais is saying that a secret vote would shake up the NHLPA, he's not talking just for himself, but for all the other players he knows and has spoken to. There is unrest already in the NHLPA, and that is the sign of a weak union. Signs like players spreading to the four winds and not sticking together is just another proof.

SuperUnknown is offline  
Old
10-30-2004, 10:28 PM
  #70
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
So under which system is Commodore better off?

He accepts the owners offer and the top 350 players vote to decertify?
How do the top 350 decertify a union when they're outnumbered nearly 2 to 1?

PecaFan is offline  
Old
10-31-2004, 01:00 AM
  #71
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
How do the top 350 decertify a union when they're outnumbered nearly 2 to 1?
There are 690 jobs in the NHL. The first ruling the NLRB was asked to make involved a demand from the NHLPA for a list of exactly who was being locked out. Only players actually playing in the NHL are in the NHLPA.

Link here

Which 690 guys would have been on the roster on opening night? Those are the players who are locked out and those are the players who can vote. The owners obviously have some choice in the matter, but for sure the list will include the 500 or so players with guaranteed one way contracts.

The NHL can probably add whichever other players they want to the list to fill out a complete roster. Those 690, plus the injured players are the players who get to vote. The other 500 or so players teams have under contract won't get a vote because they aren't members of the NHLPA without a roster spot.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
10-31-2004, 09:29 AM
  #72
jcorb58
Registered User
 
jcorb58's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,477
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
It's not a myth. Its the truth.

Who benefits the most from the players fighting the owners on a salary cap?

Not the older players of today. They've already made their money and they are losing money they'll never get back by holding out.

The young players are losing precious development time by holding out. They'll never reach their potential if they can't get the NHL experience they need right now. They may or may not be able to get back the money they are losing right now. It would depend upon what they end up with versus what they would get right now.

But for players who have yet to be drafted, they'll be the biggest beneficiaries if the owners don't get the cap that they want.

Restricted entry level salaries doesn't mean that they are selling out the rookies because the rookies eventually become veterans and what the owners save on paying the rookies, they'll give back to the veterans. Entry level restrictions just delays the money the players get, except for the top rookie prospects that don't pan out.




That sounds more like the NHL fans and their backing of the NHL owners. It's not like the NHL players don't have highly educated agents looking out for their best interests.
You said it THEIR best interest. As an agent you only care about your clients earnings because it directly affects yours. If they made an equal rate for every player they signed instead of a % would they care as much about if their client made 1mill or 10 mill ?

jcorb58 is offline  
Old
10-31-2004, 07:21 PM
  #73
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,266
vCash: 500
You mean if only agents were more like Alan Eagleson?

thinkwild is offline  
Old
10-31-2004, 07:39 PM
  #74
Hasbro
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Hasbro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: South Rectangle
Country: Sami
Posts: 29,649
vCash: 500
Since everybody expects the league just to declare an impasse, does the PA have a plan to deal with that contingency? If not they could be marching their membership off a cliff. Richie Phillups did as much to the Umpires union so it isn't out of the realm of possibility.

Hasbro is online now  
Old
10-31-2004, 07:56 PM
  #75
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,266
vCash: 500
Does the NHL really want to have its franchise values plummet by doing that? What do they win? Do they really want everyone hating their product, which is their star players? The ones everyone wants. THe ones that cause a trade board to be constantly active with dreams of landing a star for a prospect and the infamous 2nd rounder?

I havent seen many trade threads looking for Bohonos, Pothier, Ference, or Commodore.

thinkwild 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 01:59 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.