HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie
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.

This is why bettman does not want a luxury tax

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-04-2004, 05:30 PM
  #51
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,358
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring Back Bucky
That's not the context you used the quote in, and it's pretty cheap to pretend that it was.
Didn't you just yell at me for putting words in your mouth?

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
12-04-2004, 05:34 PM
  #52
Reilly311
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: United States
Posts: 1,211
vCash: 500
How would a cap allow Edmonton to keep their superstars exactly?

Reilly311 is offline  
Old
12-04-2004, 05:36 PM
  #53
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,358
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring Back Bucky
It's great that you can put words in my mouth, please allow me to use my own. I don't hate the Red Wings. I hate and blame the system that allows them to have such a disparity between their payroll and the Oilers. I admire the way they have been built, though I question if another system would allow them as much leeway as they have had. Hockey franchises can't be "bought" - look at the Rangers. I just have a passion for a team that doesn't have much chance under the last cba. It's not much different from how you must have felt when Red Wings fans were held hostage for so many years by mismanagement.
I can understand that and I understand that changes need to be made. I'd hope that you can understand my frustration when the Red Wings get blamed for everything, when really all they did was draft and trade well.

I too question if a different system, such as a hard cap, would have allowed them to accomplish what they have. I can't envision a scernario where they'd have stayed together after 1995, and I don't think that'd have been fair. The only system I want is one in which teams can keep their own guys toghether long enough to do something special. I don't think a hard cap is the way to do it.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
12-04-2004, 05:37 PM
  #54
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,358
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reilly311
How would a cap allow Edmonton to keep their superstars exactly?

If you're asking me, my point was that they wouldn't have been able to. No dynasty could.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
12-04-2004, 05:52 PM
  #55
Bring Back Bucky
Registered User
 
Bring Back Bucky's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Delicieux!
Country: Heard and McDonald Islands
Posts: 7,932
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
Didn't you just yell at me for putting words in your mouth?
I didn't yell, I typed

Bring Back Bucky is offline  
Old
12-04-2004, 05:56 PM
  #56
Bring Back Bucky
Registered User
 
Bring Back Bucky's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Delicieux!
Country: Heard and McDonald Islands
Posts: 7,932
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
I can understand that and I understand that changes need to be made. I'd hope that you can understand my frustration when the Red Wings get blamed for everything, when really all they did was draft and trade well.

I too question if a different system, such as a hard cap, would have allowed them to accomplish what they have. I can't envision a scernario where they'd have stayed together after 1995, and I don't think that'd have been fair. The only system I want is one in which teams can keep their own guys toghether long enough to do something special. I don't think a hard cap is the way to do it.

The funny thing is, we are on the opposite ends of the spectrum, but our points of view are really not that far apart. And so you will know, I don't hate the Wings at all, and yes I think they get unfairly singled out because they combine a huge payroll with great management and it creates that greatest breeder of hate: SUCCESS. There are lots of other big spenders, none have come close to the Wings for success or player loyalty in my humble ( :lol ) opinion. On my end, we get called whiners because we want change. And that, too, is largely due to success. We got spoiled in the 80's. I want an NHL where Detroit AND Edmonton can succeed. (I just don't care about Dallas or Vancouver).. Just kidding...

Bring Back Bucky is offline  
Old
12-04-2004, 05:58 PM
  #57
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
 
Fish on The Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Posts: 60,369
vCash: 500
correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't a luxury tax hurt the small smarket teams more than levelling the playing field? Say a team really doesn't care if they cross the threshold, lets call this team the Wings. Hypothetically they feel signing Jarome Iginla could push them over the top, so they sign him, going well over the threshold. Now, the Wings are able to take this hit, but the Flames would have absolutly no means of fielding a competetive offer. A luxury tax, if ignored, only furthers competetive imbalance does it not?

Fish on The Sand is offline  
Old
12-04-2004, 07:02 PM
  #58
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,358
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring Back Bucky
The funny thing is, we are on the opposite ends of the spectrum, but our points of view are really not that far apart. And so you will know, I don't hate the Wings at all, and yes I think they get unfairly singled out because they combine a huge payroll with great management and it creates that greatest breeder of hate: SUCCESS. There are lots of other big spenders, none have come close to the Wings for success or player loyalty in my humble ( :lol ) opinion. On my end, we get called whiners because we want change. And that, too, is largely due to success. We got spoiled in the 80's. I want an NHL where Detroit AND Edmonton can succeed. (I just don't care about Dallas or Vancouver).. Just kidding...
See, two people can have a reasonable disagreement. It is possible.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
12-04-2004, 07:05 PM
  #59
Bring Back Bucky
Registered User
 
Bring Back Bucky's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Delicieux!
Country: Heard and McDonald Islands
Posts: 7,932
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
See, two people can have a reasonable disagreement. It is possible.

We don't have to start hugging all the time now, do we??

Bring Back Bucky is offline  
Old
12-04-2004, 07:12 PM
  #60
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,358
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring Back Bucky
We don't have to start hugging all the time now, do we??
No, I'll let you do that with your fellow canucks.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
12-04-2004, 10:53 PM
  #61
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring Back Bucky
On my end, we get called whiners because we want change. And that, too, is largely due to success. We got spoiled in the 80's. I want an NHL where Detroit AND Edmonton can succeed.
No. You get called whiners because you whine. To be fair, the team whines instead of taking responsibility, too. But the fans don't have to buy it. How on earth a team - or their fans - can expect to win when they produced one player in a decade is beyond me. Edmonton absolutely cannot succeed doing that. They have zero chance of being any good. None. Nada. Zip.

The only way they can improve the talent if they can't find good hockey players themselves is to trade the good ones they have for two or three prospects. They will have to keep doing that no matter what CBA is employed because if they don't, they eventually end up with zero good hockey players. They have to buy young talent with older players because they don't produce any talent themselves.

Instead of admitting that with every trade, Lowe - and Sather before him - blamed money. "Oh boohoo," they said, "We have to trade these guys because we can't afford them." We could crank the salaries back to the 1960's and Edmonton still makes all those trades because otherwise they don't have any good players at all.

Detroit built a terrific organization top to bottom. Thay built a foundation on a series of dazzling drafts. They had the patience to stay the course even when it looked like they would never win. They finally began a streak that firmly established them as one of history's great teams. As a result they generate awesome revenues and they can pay their legends like legends deserve to be paid. While it is true they are in a better market than Edmonton, it is also true that they compete - and very favourably - with NBA, MLB, and NFL teams.

Why can't Edmonton do exactly the same thing? If you believe they can't because of the CBA, okay, but before you can convince a serious fan outside Edmonton let's see them build that terrific organization, have a series of great drafts and find that young championship core like Detroit did a dozen years ago or Ottawa and Tampa Bay have done recently.

If the Oilers have to break up that young championship core because of money, I'd call it fair to complain about inequity. That's when it is legitimate to pipe up and say, "Hey there is something wrong here. We can't compete even when we manage better than anybody else. We are tearing apart a champion."

Until the Oilers build anything but mediocrity, it's whining to blame the CBA. It's whining when Kevin Lowe does it, and it's whining when his fans do it. All the Oilers have proved is that they can't compete when their management can't find hockey players.

Well, duh.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
12-05-2004, 07:29 AM
  #62
Bring Back Bucky
Registered User
 
Bring Back Bucky's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Delicieux!
Country: Heard and McDonald Islands
Posts: 7,932
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
No. You get called whiners because you whine. To be fair, the team whines instead of taking responsibility, too. But the fans don't have to buy it. How on earth a team - or their fans - can expect to win when they produced one player in a decade is beyond me. Edmonton absolutely cannot succeed doing that. They have zero chance of being any good. None. Nada. Zip.

The only way they can improve the talent if they can't find good hockey players themselves is to trade the good ones they have for two or three prospects. They will have to keep doing that no matter what CBA is employed because if they don't, they eventually end up with zero good hockey players. They have to buy young talent with older players because they don't produce any talent themselves.

Instead of admitting that with every trade, Lowe - and Sather before him - blamed money. "Oh boohoo," they said, "We have to trade these guys because we can't afford them." We could crank the salaries back to the 1960's and Edmonton still makes all those trades because otherwise they don't have any good players at all.

Detroit built a terrific organization top to bottom. Thay built a foundation on a series of dazzling drafts. They had the patience to stay the course even when it looked like they would never win. They finally began a streak that firmly established them as one of history's great teams. As a result they generate awesome revenues and they can pay their legends like legends deserve to be paid. While it is true they are in a better market than Edmonton, it is also true that they compete - and very favourably - with NBA, MLB, and NFL teams.

Why can't Edmonton do exactly the same thing? If you believe they can't because of the CBA, okay, but before you can convince a serious fan outside Edmonton let's see them build that terrific organization, have a series of great drafts and find that young championship core like Detroit did a dozen years ago or Ottawa and Tampa Bay have done recently.

If the Oilers have to break up that young championship core because of money, I'd call it fair to complain about inequity. That's when it is legitimate to pipe up and say, "Hey there is something wrong here. We can't compete even when we manage better than anybody else. We are tearing apart a champion."

Until the Oilers build anything but mediocrity, it's whining to blame the CBA. It's whining when Kevin Lowe does it, and it's whining when his fans do it. All the Oilers have proved is that they can't compete when their management can't find hockey players.

Well, duh.

Tom
Bravo, tom, a wonderful post, you win the junior high "snotty internet user award"

That paragraph about the Oilers making those trades or they wouldn't have any decent players at all??? What does that mean??? They TRADED DECENT PLAYERS and showed savvy in getting young prospects who could HOPEFULLY step into the skates of the departed. Pretty suspect of you to suggest that the team wouldn't have decent players without those deals. I don't recall any Gms deciding to "give" the Oilers any great players for nothing.

Given that you think Tom Poti is the only "decent player" developed by the Oilers, I might suggest that you spend more time trying to be clever and snide in the cyberworld than you ever have watching hockey. Find an Oilers or even Rangers fan who thinks Tom Poti is a decent player...

By that same token, Ryan Smyth is a 94 draft pick. Ales Hemsky, who admittedly took a large step backwards last year, is well recognized as one of the most naturally talented young players in the league. Jarret Stoll is likely the future captain of this team, and Alexei Semenov will be a top 3 defenceman within 2 years.
Horcoff is developing into a fine two way center. Doug Lynch & Jeff Deslauriers are fantastic prospects ready to take the next step, and if you'd like to check out the OHL stats of Rob Schremp, I think you'll see why Oilers fans are pleased with the direction the club is taking..

THere's probably some better use of your time than repeatedly being rude to Oilers fans. I know I for one have respect for fans of all teams, and would never be silly enough to group them together and be so outwardly disrespectful. I don't assume that all Canuck fans are angry young adults who live with their parents, so why don't you be a bit less snide yourself. It makes the world a better place you know.

Bring Back Bucky is offline  
Old
12-05-2004, 09:40 AM
  #63
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,358
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin

Detroit built a terrific organization top to bottom. Thay built a foundation on a series of dazzling drafts. They had the patience to stay the course even when it looked like they would never win. They finally began a streak that firmly established them as one of history's great teams.
Really good point about having patience. a hard cap does not allow you to have much patience. And there are very few dynasties in any sport that won right away. It always takes a few years to put everything together.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
12-05-2004, 09:52 AM
  #64
kn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 5
vCash: 500
Let's use Vancouver instead of Edmonton as the example. Stellar trades have brought in a core of stars like Naslund (31), Morrison (29), Bertuzzi (29) and Jovanovski (28). Other trades and draft picks have augmented the core players. Burke mentioned on OTR that the payroll is already at ~$47-$48 million. The threat of arbitrartion forced his hand in signing Morrison at $3.55 million and Cloutier (28) at $3.05 million.

* How long can management keep this team together with the continued inflationary pressure of salary arbitration?

* Can Vancouver convince these players to stick around when they reach unrestricted free agency (or convince them to forego UFA status by re-signing long-term)? Will Vancouver be able to compete for their services when the free spenders now have a chance to bid for them?

* How can Vancouver afford to bring in additional players?

* How will Vancouver fans feel when the core is traded away or signed by the free spenders? Unless I'm mistaken, Edmonton made some good trades also, bringing in Weight, Guerin, and Joseph.

kn is offline  
Old
12-05-2004, 11:09 AM
  #65
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,556
vCash: 500
Burke speaks the owners position on TV, but I would expect him to, just as I would expect him to stand up and defend Bertuzzi. I still, maybe improperly, suspect that deep down, Burke can see another position other than the one he is dutifully presenting for the owners. But if Mr Burke is saying there are problems with salaries, well then, im listening. What I hear him say, is that Billy Bean ball only works so long. Eventually you hit a wall. Ottawas core is mostly 4-9 years away from free agency and we are already approaching a $45-50 mil payroll.

Well I agree with Mr Burke. If he is saying it is still difficult to build a team, he would know. And I want him to have the ability to build a team. But, if the wall he is talking about, is that sooner or later your core hits free agency at 31 years old, well yes, this is the wall. It has to be there. It is systemically fair, even if when you hit it you feel individually hard done by. Some people are going to hit it, and complain, and think the system is unfair, but tough, it isnt unfair. Fair means some teams have to rebuild against their will because they have to. Just as a hard cap would make them do. Yes some rich teams will be able to take the 40% chance with this payroll while Edmonton cant. Tough. Not enough to blow the system up for. Edmonton has other equally valid options and that is the road they have to take. With a stiff upper lip. Like men. Statistically, they will have a better odds of developing a winner over the next 5 years than the team that they lost their expensive players to, if they play their cards right.

Edmonton has made many great trades. And they have to continue to do it until they have drafted enough players that together they have a core to grow with. Edmonton is doing it right. Its hard. It takes years. They have no reason to complain. They have had great teams for so long. Patience.

If anyone should not be complaining, it is Edmonton. That last year of Edmontons dynasty was getting boring. We all knew at the start of the season Edmonton would win. There was no excitement in the league. Oilers were the New York Yankees. We split Gretzkys goals and assists in playoff pools because it was no fair allowing one person to get him on their own. Everyone wanted Edmonton torn down for the good of the game, it was getting boring watching them continue to win all the time.

Listening to their cries of hard done-by-ness now are sometimes hard to take.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
12-05-2004, 12:05 PM
  #66
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kn
Let's use Vancouver instead of Edmonton as the example. Stellar trades have brought in a core of stars like Naslund (31), Morrison (29), Bertuzzi (29) and Jovanovski (28). Other trades and draft picks have augmented the core players. Burke mentioned on OTR that the payroll is already at ~$47-$48 million. The threat of arbitrartion forced his hand in signing Morrison at $3.55 million and Cloutier (28) at $3.05 million.
And so it should be climbing rapidly. That's an excellent team. The Canucks paid Morrison and Cloutier market value. The difference on the revenue side is just as stark. Revenues literally double with a good team. Shouldn't payroll also double?

Quote:
How will Vancouver fans feel when the core is traded away or signed by the free spenders? Unless I'm mistaken, Edmonton made some good trades also, bringing in Weight, Guerin, and Joseph.
The last time it happened, fans cheered. The core of stars - Bure, Messier et al - were part of a team that had one the highest payrolls in the league. They finished 22nd in a 26 team league. The fans were disgusted and glad to see the team ripped apart.

If they win, they can run a $60 million payroll. If they lose their payroll had better be in the $30 million range. Either way they will make money. They only sustain whopping losses when they have a losing team with a winner's payroll.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
12-05-2004, 12:34 PM
  #67
Orange
Registered User
 
Orange's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,158
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
Revenues literally double with a good team. Shouldn't payroll also double?
No. That's exactly the type of thinking that leads to high inflation. If revenues double league-wise, then yes, I'll concede that payroll should double, league-wise. Team revenues fluctuate and except for marginal players, salaries only inflate. By your logic, payroll should be halved if revenues are halved. Players taking paycuts ... now that would be the day !

Orange is offline  
Old
12-05-2004, 12:39 PM
  #68
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,556
vCash: 500
Every player proposal has offered paycuts.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
12-05-2004, 12:43 PM
  #69
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
That paragraph about the Oilers making those trades or they wouldn't have any decent players at all??? What does that mean???
What do you think it means? It means if the Oilers had not traded away the assets from the Championship team they would have nobody today. When was the last time a team won without producing talent?

Never.

Quote:
They TRADED DECENT PLAYERS and showed savvy in getting young prospects who could HOPEFULLY step into the skates of the departed.
I agree. So why did Oiler fans whine with every trade? They whined when Weight was obtained as a prospect and they whined when they traded him for prospects. They whined about every trade in between.

Quote:
Given that you think Tom Poti is the only "decent player" developed by the Oilers, I might suggest that you spend more time trying to be clever and snide in the cyberworld than you ever have watching hockey. Find an Oilers or even Rangers fan who thinks Tom Poti is a decent player...
Well, I think he is decent, but okay. The Oilers have produced zero good players under this CBA. None. Zip. Nada.

So how come Oiler fans blame the CBA instead of their management for their mediocrity?

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
12-05-2004, 12:48 PM
  #70
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,556
vCash: 500
Because they want the ability to buy a team.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
12-05-2004, 01:02 PM
  #71
Orange
Registered User
 
Orange's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,158
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
Every player proposal has offered paycuts.
Yeah, the most ridicule thing ever proposed. I mean real pay cuts ! Not paycuts that would be recuperated in a year due to the inflation problem. A pay cut is not a pay cut if you're certain to regain it in the not so distant future ! In the real world, when you take a paycut, it's money you're most likely to never see again ... At the current inflation level a 50% paycut would be recuperated in 5 years by the players. It's ridiculous !

Besides, in my post, I was talking about every single player of a team negociating a paycut because of lower revenues, not PA offering 5% roll back as bargaining chip. Not the same thing at all !

Orange is offline  
Old
12-05-2004, 01:18 PM
  #72
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,556
vCash: 500
Every player was offering a 5% cut on their entire contract. Alfie is signed for 5 years. He is offering 5% off each year. Redden, jovo, and Chara take a 5% pay cut. The comparable using them, ask for 5% less. Of course all players still get raises and make the money back. But instead of a scale of increases starting :
$1.3 mil
$1.9 mil
$2.3 mil
$4.5mil
$6mil

They get raises from
$850k
$1.2mil
$1.8 mil
$3.5 mil
or some such framework. Each player of course make the money back because they are in a system that allows them raises until they are allowed to become free agents. But the overall system of salaries will be ata lower level.

Redden doesnt ask for $4.5 mil because he examines the cost of feeding his dog, and calculates he needs that much. He is asking for it because that is the value the owners have set as the value for someone of his ability. They are willing to let the owners reset this value lower.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
12-05-2004, 01:32 PM
  #73
Orange
Registered User
 
Orange's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,158
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
But the overall system of salaries will be ata lower level.
So what ? It's meaningless ! All you do is differ the resolution of the current problem to a later time. A time that we're sure to get to if nothing is done to insure control over the curent salary inflation. Rollbacks do nothing to solve the problem. Salaries increase faster than revenues, that's the problem.

Orange is offline  
Old
12-05-2004, 01:38 PM
  #74
Brent Burns Beard
DontTouchMyDonskoi!
 
Brent Burns Beard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,081
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orange
So what ? It's meaningless ! All you do is differ the resolution of the current problem to a later time. A time that we're sure to get to if nothing is done to insure control over the curent salary inflation. Rollbacks do nothing to solve the problem. Salaries increase faster than revenues, that's the problem.
so in your world, management bears no responsibilty to make offers in accordance with their budget ?

why not just set every player salary at 500k and be done with it ? i mean, its not like 500k per year isnt a fortune in its ownright. this way the owners never even have to think !

if making millions of dollars was supposed to easy, everyone would be doing it. its difficult and requires superb management planning and forecasting for a reason ! so why do these owners and their fan supporters figure a profit should be so easy ?

dr

Brent Burns Beard is online now  
Old
12-05-2004, 01:58 PM
  #75
Orange
Registered User
 
Orange's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,158
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
so in your world, [...]
Yes, my world ... the real one. Where are you posting from ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
[...]management bears no responsibilty to make offers in accordance with their budget ?
They are. They still will be under a cap. Problem is local decisions which may be in accordance to one's budget is not necesseraly optimal league-wise. With a cap or strong luxury tax, decisions are sound locally and globaly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
why not just set every player salary at 500k and be done with it ?
Because that's just ridiculous. Players wouldn't accept that !

Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
if making millions of dollars was supposed to easy, everyone would be doing it. its difficult and requires superb management planning and forecasting for a reason ! so why do these owners and their fan supporters figure a profit should be so easy ?
Ho ... I read a "there's risk involved in investment" and "Why should owners be garanteed profits ?" type of argument. Well there is risk involved and owners are not garanteed profits.

But, a cap or luxury tax would not eliminate risk and owners are allowed to make changes to their buisness if it's losing money. And that's just what they're doing !

Orange 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 11:28 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.