HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

Biggest reason for this prolonged lockout - Goodenow "we will not play under a cap"

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-23-2004, 10:53 PM
  #26
OlliMackBjugStud
Forever Ferkland
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,765
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by puck you
the only way we'll see those players on the ice anytime soon, is if the PA concedes its stance on barring cost-certainty from the NHL. The players can't win this, they are prolonging the inevitable.
1. if the owners accepted the players proposal, its still a huge loss for the players. relative to status quo, the owners give up NOTHING and GAIN everything in the players proposal. the players have already lost.

2. i dont even look forward to an NHL that is capped, certainly not at the toll its taking on the league.

3. it makes me sick that people are supporting this torched earth policy of the NHL owners. its such a childesh way of getting what you want. i suppose you are right, if the owners decide they would rather win this than have meaningful negotiations, there is nothing that can make them sign a CBA they dont like. and i really hate them for that because it is so unnecesary. why cant they just be this determined when they negotiate with the players individual contracts.

****** the owners and the horse they rode in on.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
11-23-2004, 11:03 PM
  #27
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
When? Why haven't they already done this? how can they possibly flush a season without even establishing a baseline for negotiations?

Central plank in what position? The owners haven't established that baseline yet, remember? Let's see their proposal for a cap. Let's see what age they want free agency. Let's see what the owners mean by significant revenue sharing. Let's see what the owners really want.

Tom
When? I'm guessing they'll present their full CBA early January.

Why? Because the players have refused to even start the process by examining and attempting to define hockey revenue.

How? It's their league, they can cancel games/season anytime they want.


You are getting two issues confused.

The NHL has established "cost certainty" as their central plank in their position. The PA has helped them by focussing on little else and by refusing any attempt at negotiating a definition of "hockey revenue", without which, cost certainty is impossible. Up until this point, there is no reason for the NHL to put their other positions forward until both sides have agreed on a suitable definition of hockey revenue. To do so would simply weaken their negotiating position later on.

The "baseline for negotiations" entailed by the post shutdown CBA will be to legally establish the framework for adoption at impasse. If the Union chooses to negotiate that CBA, then the NHL will oblige. Since it will undoubtably contain cost certainty and the owners definition of hockey revenues, I'm sure the players will reject it outright, but the presented CBA will be the baseline.

Now of course this is merely speculation on my part and perhaps the NHL's strategy is simply, let them sit, as improbable as it seems.

I am sure of one thing however. If the NHL's goal all along has been to work towards impasse, then they have been carefully planning this every step of the way with the help of the best lawyers money can buy, having learned from MLB's failure.


Last edited by SENSible1*: 11-23-2004 at 11:08 PM.
SENSible1* is offline  
Old
11-23-2004, 11:43 PM
  #28
struckmatch
Registered User
 
struckmatch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 4,141
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
1. if the owners accepted the players proposal, its still a huge loss for the players. relative to status quo, the owners give up NOTHING and GAIN everything in the players proposal. the players have already lost.

2. i dont even look forward to an NHL that is capped, certainly not at the toll its taking on the league.

3. it makes me sick that people are supporting this torched earth policy of the NHL owners. its such a childesh way of getting what you want. i suppose you are right, if the owners decide they would rather win this than have meaningful negotiations, there is nothing that can make them sign a CBA they dont like. and i really hate them for that because it is so unnecesary. why cant they just be this determined when they negotiate with the players individual contracts.

****** the owners and the horse they rode in on.

dr
Your entitled to your opinion, a one time 5% salary roll back isn't a major loss for the players. An essentially, non existent "luxury tax" does minimal to address the financial problems of this league.

We've had this discussion before, let's just agree to disagree.

struckmatch is offline  
Old
11-23-2004, 11:45 PM
  #29
gary69
Registered User
 
gary69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Then and there
Posts: 2,944
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=me2]I also doubt those top players break ranks immediately, its 3-6 months in the pressure starts building. The problem for the NHLPA is if enough do break ranks then the can get the 50% support they want to vote the punitive contracts into oblivion.

Without knowing the details of these supposed agreements between the elite players and the NHLPA its hard to say how valid they are or whether they come under similar rules to the above situation. The NHLPA may only be able to fine them if they are members. If they legally resign before crossing over the NHLPA might lose all power to fine them depending on what they signed.

QUOTE]

I don't think any players actually believe that they're going to have to pay any fines or risk their whole career. It's basically just another means to pressure the owners, part of the negotiating tactics, if you like.

I would think most of the players have conceded to miss the NHL this season and the next season until early 2006. (Mind you, those players in "need" can get 5000-6000 US$ a month net, so nobody's starving here). They're just waiting to see if all the owners are willing to do the same wait, risking possible fan alienation and even some franchises folding.

If it goes longer than that, or there's an impasse and subsequently replacements at that point, it's probably gonna get really ugly, lawsuits flying all over the place and players in a limbo.

One thing is for sure, it's not gonna do any good for NHL as a league if it gets to that.

gary69 is offline  
Old
11-23-2004, 11:50 PM
  #30
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
One thing is for sure, it's not gonna do any good for NHL as a league if it gets to that.
If sure seemed to help both the NBA and NFL.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
11-23-2004, 11:51 PM
  #31
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
When? I'm guessing they'll present their full CBA early January.

Why? Because the players have refused to even start the process by examining and attempting to define hockey revenue.
The players have refused this from the start. Why wait for January to present their full CBA?

Quote:
Up until this point, there is no reason for the NHL to put their other positions forward until both sides have agreed on a suitable definition of hockey revenue. To do so would simply weaken their negotiating position later on.
How so? If they are going to have to table their full CBA without this in January why not do it in September? How does it improve their negotiating position to wait? Surely you are not arguing that the purpiose of the lockout so far is to avoid weakening the owner's bargaining position. That's a pretty shoddy way to resolve this problem isn't it?

Quote:
The "baseline for negotiations" entailed by the post shutdown CBA will be to legally establish the framework for adoption at impasse.
In other words, we are weeks into a lockout and the owners have not tabled a single thing to advance the process. They haven't even tabled anything to advance the process towards impasse. They haven't negotiated yet, much less negotiated in good faith. When do they start?

Quote:
I am sure of one thing however. If the NHL's goal all along has been to work towards impasse, then they have been carefully planning this every step of the way with the help of the best lawyers money can buy, having learned from MLB's failure.
If the NHL goal all the way along has been to work toward impasse, they have already decided not to bargain in good faith. They will lose. It isn't enough to learn from MLB's failure. They still have to show good faith bargaining. Pretending to bargain in good faith doesn't cut it.

It is all very well for the Bettman apologists to dump all over the player proposal, but at least it is a proposal. The owners have yet to make one.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
11-24-2004, 12:09 AM
  #32
OlliMackBjugStud
Forever Ferkland
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,765
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by puck you
Your entitled to your opinion, a one time 5% salary roll back isn't a major loss for the players. An essentially, non existent "luxury tax" does minimal to address the financial problems of this league.

We've had this discussion before, let's just agree to disagree.
im not arguing the impact of the players concessions here. i am stating that they have already been the only party to give. which means they already lose, relative to what they have now.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
11-24-2004, 12:34 AM
  #33
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 21,307
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
It is all very well for the Bettman apologists to dump all over the player proposal, but at least it is a proposal. The owners have yet to make one.

Tom

Didn't they propose 6 systems? All be it very limited but still they were proposals put to the NHLPA, likely designed to be rejected, a bit like the players proposal.

me2 is offline  
Old
11-24-2004, 12:45 AM
  #34
gary69
Registered User
 
gary69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Then and there
Posts: 2,944
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
If sure seemed to help both the NBA and NFL.
But NHL, NHLPA and players could end up fighting it out in the courts for years, while better players have meanwhile moved on all over the world, and possibly other competing leagues have been set up or existing leagues have grown in stature.

It might be somewhat irrelevant what comes out eventually from the courts as NHL would have lost quite a bit of its' appeal as a league. Surely it would be better to negotiate a compromise than waste all those years.

gary69 is offline  
Old
11-24-2004, 12:46 AM
  #35
struckmatch
Registered User
 
struckmatch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 4,141
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
im not arguing the impact of the players concessions here. i am stating that they have already been the only party to give. which means they already lose, relative to what they have now.

dr
Thats the key, they had a lot in the previous CBA, they did very well. Maybe my definition of "concession" is different than yours, I don't only see it as something you give up, I see it as something meaningful and constructive, that you give up in negotiations.

IMO, the concessions the players have made, are far from meaningful.

struckmatch is offline  
Old
11-24-2004, 12:49 AM
  #36
OlliMackBjugStud
Forever Ferkland
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,765
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by puck you
Thats the key, they had a lot in the previous CBA, they did very well. Maybe my definition of "concession" is different than yours, I don't only see it as something you give up, I see it as something meaningful and constructive, that you give up in negotiations.

IMO, the concessions the players have made, are far from meaningful.
well, quid pro quo. something for something.... what is something of meaningful significanance the owners are willing to concede in exchange ?

thats the NHL i dont want to see.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
11-24-2004, 01:44 AM
  #37
struckmatch
Registered User
 
struckmatch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 4,141
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
well, quid pro quo. something for something.... what is something of meaningful significanance the owners are willing to concede in exchange ?

thats the NHL i dont want to see.

dr
Who knows, I don't think they have even gotten beyond any other aspect of the CBA other than cost certainty, and a salary cap. I'd assume that if the players conceded to a meaningful luxury tax, the owners would have to concede something significant as well.

struckmatch is offline  
Old
11-24-2004, 05:13 AM
  #38
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,920
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
seems to me at least 300 players have found a place to play without the NHL.
But how many are actually making a living? From what I understand, the money most are earning barely covers their insurance premiums to play there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by me2
Apparently employees retain the right to not join the union even where it appears compulsory unionism is in their CBA (provided they pay dues).
Note, the NHL CBA does not require joining the PA. They are forced to pay the dues, but can refuse to join. I'm sure those who do refuse can be counted on one hand, but speculation in this area isn't really needed.

PecaFan is offline  
Old
11-24-2004, 07:24 AM
  #39
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
The players have refused this from the start. Why wait for January to present their full CBA?
It establishes the players intransigence to even start the negotiating process.


Quote:
How so? If they are going to have to table their full CBA without this in January why not do it in September? How does it improve their negotiating position to wait? Surely you are not arguing that the purpiose of the lockout so far is to avoid weakening the owner's bargaining position. That's a pretty shoddy way to resolve this problem isn't it?
The CBA tabled in January will be a full one, with all points covered. It will be the one used at impasse, it the players continue to refuse to negotiate.

The owners won't table the same proposal now because they haven't established the definition of hockey revenue yet through negotiations with the union and they would significantly change other clauses based on what is and isn't included in hockey revenue. The players refusal for the past 5 years to define "hockey revenue", even going so far as being willing to let this season be cancelled without discussing it, will be used to justify the owners impostition of their definition in the January CBA. If my suspicions are correct, the definition of hockey revenue will not be open for discussion once the CBA is tabled.

They won't do it in December because they have established that the players are willing to waste a season instead of starting the negotiationg process. This process has been all about establishing the players unwillingness to even begin negotiations by examining the scope of the problem.

Quote:
In other words, we are weeks into a lockout and the owners have not tabled a single thing to advance the process. They haven't even tabled anything to advance the process towards impasse. They haven't negotiated yet, much less negotiated in good faith. When do they start?
We are YEARS into this process, with the players consistently refusing to even begin the negotiating process.

The owners put 6 proposal on the table, all of which were designed to show that the players were unwilling to discuss any link between salaries and revenue no matter how different the form used to apply that link. They have served their purpose perfectly.


Quote:
If the NHL goal all the way along has been to work toward impasse, they have already decided not to bargain in good faith. They will lose. It isn't enough to learn from MLB's failure. They still have to show good faith bargaining. Pretending to bargain in good faith doesn't cut it.
I think that even you will admit that the owners have been preparing for this battle for quite some time and have carefully planned this process every step of the way with the help of experts in labour relations legalities. I don't claim to be privvy to their reasoning or ultimate goal, so I'm just taking an outsiders guess at what is happening, but I'm sure they have factored the NHLPA's predictable responses into their equation.

One side is clearly off balance in this dance, unable to understand the other's tactics; while the other is following a carefully crafted plan and is watching the headscratching and laughing.


Quote:
It is all very well for the Bettman apologists to dump all over the player proposal, but at least it is a proposal. The owners have yet to make one.

Tom
There is no need for the owners to make a full CBA proposal at this time. Having established the players unwillingness to attempt to define the problems facing the league and refusal to attempt to negotiate any definition of hockey revenue they have gotten everything they wanted and expected from this phase in the process.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
11-24-2004, 07:33 AM
  #40
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
When? I'm guessing they'll present their full CBA early January.

Why? Because the players have refused to even start the process by examining and attempting to define hockey revenue.

Why the ******* would the owners wait until January to make their first legitimate proposal ???? It's the most assinine thinkg I've ever seen. It shows that they could care less about the season, and are looking forward to cancelling this year.

It's not up to the players to attempt to define "hockey revenue". The players proposal doesn't need to define "hockey revenue".

The owners, can't even call it a proposal, paragraph ties salaries to "hockey revenues", therefore it's up to them to define what "hockey revenues" are.

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
11-24-2004, 07:37 AM
  #41
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2
Didn't they propose 6 systems? All be it very limited but still they were proposals put to the NHLPA, likely designed to be rejected, a bit like the players proposal.
The players propsal, could be seen as legitimate, as it was 100+ pages, and very detailed.

The 6 owners proposals were a paragraph each in length, that's hardly what I'd call a legitmate proposal.

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
11-24-2004, 07:40 AM
  #42
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary69
But NHL, NHLPA and players could end up fighting it out in the courts for years, while better players have meanwhile moved on all over the world, and possibly other competing leagues have been set up or existing leagues have grown in stature.
The court phase of this will be decided relatively quickly if the owners declare impasse.

The players are free right now, and have always been, to play wherever they wanted in the world. However, if they want to play in the highest paying league in the world, they will end up coming back to the NHL.

Their will be no "competing leagues" formed in North America. Brand loyalty and lack of suitable facilities render this option meaningless.

Quote:
It might be somewhat irrelevant what comes out eventually from the courts as NHL would have lost quite a bit of its' appeal as a league. Surely it would be better to negotiate a compromise than waste all those years.
The loss of a few stars willing to forgoe millions of dollars of never to be recouped earnings to the dubious principle of "no cost certainty" will be quickly overcome as a new generation of players replaces them. Most players will reluctantly return.

The damage to the league will be short term and the owners will have reduced the NHLPA to it's proper role and their share of revenues to a managable %.

The players have seriously miscalculated the owners willingess to absorb short term losses for long term gain. If they offered real and serious concessions based on a heavy luxury tax and changing the arbitration process, then they might be able to move the owners off their "cost certainty" stance, but the tax must be stiff enough to act as a de facto cap. Even in this "compromise scenario" the owners still win.

The players continue to delude themselves into believing the owners won't see this through to the end. This delusion will end up costing them millions of dollars and Goodenow his job.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
11-24-2004, 07:46 AM
  #43
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
Why the ******* would the owners wait until January to make their first legitimate proposal ???? It's the most assinine thinkg I've ever seen. It shows that they could care less about the season, and are looking forward to cancelling this year.

It's not up to the players to attempt to define "hockey revenue". The players proposal doesn't need to define "hockey revenue".

The owners, can't even call it a proposal, paragraph ties salaries to "hockey revenues", therefore it's up to them to define what "hockey revenues" are.
Clearly the owners have gotten everything they wanted out of this phase of the process and are willing to cancel the season.

Perhaps the NHLPA should be asking themselves why?

My original quote should have stated that they have refused to negotiate a definition of hockey revenue. The owners won't unilaterally declare a definition of hockey revenue until the intransigence of the players position has been clearly established.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
11-24-2004, 08:01 AM
  #44
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
Clearly the owners have gotten everything they wanted out of this phase of the process and are willing to cancel the season.

Perhaps the NHLPA should be asking themselves why?

My original quote should have stated that they have refused to negotiate a definition of hockey revenue. The owners won't unilaterally declare a definition of hockey revenue until the intransigence of the players position has been clearly established.
Exactly the owners entire thought process has been:

Cancell the season & try to break the union.

Getting a deal done, and playing hockey has NEVER been important to them, and frankly as a fan and season ticket holder I find that disgusting.

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
11-24-2004, 08:33 AM
  #45
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
Exactly the owners entire thought process has been:

Cancell the season & try to break the union.

Getting a deal done, and playing hockey has NEVER been important to them, and frankly as a fan and season ticket holder I find that disgusting.
Given the stance taken by the players, the owners were given little choice but to follow this path.

Frankly I find the players stance disgusting.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
11-24-2004, 08:40 AM
  #46
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
Given the stance taken by the players, the owners were given little choice but to follow this path.

Frankly I find the players stance disgusting.
Given little choice to not put a legitimate proposal on the table until January ???

Not realizing that whatever gains they make are will be washed out by the loss of a season, and momentum in new NHL markets.

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
11-24-2004, 08:51 AM
  #47
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
Given little choice to not put a legitimate proposal on the table until January ???

Not realizing that whatever gains they make are will be washed out by the loss of a season, and momentum in new NHL markets.
They are following the advice of their experts and attempting to create maximum leverage while preparing for the legal battle to come.

Given that the players refuse to negotiate on something they deem essential to running their business, they have to take the appropriate actions to achieve their goal. Surely you're not suggesting that they don't have the right to decide on which principles they want to base their business.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
11-24-2004, 11:09 AM
  #48
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
They are following the advice of their experts and attempting to create maximum leverage while preparing for the legal battle to come.

Given that the players refuse to negotiate on something they deem essential to running their business, they have to take the appropriate actions to achieve their goal. Surely you're not suggesting that they don't have the right to decide on which principles they want to base their business.
I can't see how not making any legitimate offer until January can be perceived as "bargaining in good faith".

The NHL will make one offer and then cancell the entire season ??? Why not make that same offer in August or September ???

Cancelling the NHL for one or more seasons will cause th edeath of some franchise IMO. People in in certain US markets will realize that they get along just fine without the NHL.

Thye owners are the ones refusing to negotiate, as they have yet to submit even one single offer that could be used to jump start talks between the two sides.

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
11-24-2004, 11:31 AM
  #49
fan mao rong
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: port royal , pa
Posts: 968
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
I can't see how not making any legitimate offer until January can be perceived as "bargaining in good faith".


How is it, in your estimation, that a salary cap is not a legitimate offer? How is a luxury tax that would put a $1 million tax on a team that wishes to go from the threshold to a payroll of $60 million a legitimate offer? Or when that team wants to continue up to $70 million in payroll the total tax would be $3 million? Which team would be inhibited from spending $61 million instead of $60 million or $73 million instead of $70 million? But legally there all legitimate and good faith offers because that is what the parties want. Good faith bargaining does not require the constant juggling of numbers to accomodate the other side but only to negotiate with an open mind. I believe the owners have followed the correct legalities to this point and should have a case in the future.

fan mao rong is offline  
Old
11-24-2004, 11:32 AM
  #50
tantalum
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Missouri
Posts: 11,202
vCash: 500
How is it the owners and only the owners?

The players don't want a cap and the owners don't want a luxury tax. The middle ground the NHLPA leaning people want to talk about is a stiffer luxury tax but the NHLPA has already made it known that any significant luxury tax is a non-starter. They view it as a cap. It isn't just the owners that aren't willing to go to the middle ground. The players don't want to either.

AS well, I think when all is said and done the middles ground will be a heck of a lot closer to the owners opening proposals than to the players. As such it is the players that will have to move first and most I think. Accept tying salaries to revenues and get to discussing what percentage it should be.

Yep the owners will make one offer and cancel the season. It's called using the ulitmate bargaining chip to their advantage. They believe in their position whole heartedly I think. Do the players? Will they risk losing a complete year of wages out of a 10 year career? or at that time when Bettman says the season is done do they immediately send Goodenow to Bettman with hat in hand to save a portion of the season? That is what the league thinks will happen. I don't think we'll see it the other way around.

tantalum 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 01:36 AM.

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

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