HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Islanders
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

2012-13 CBA Discussion Thread *NHL/NHLPA Please do Something!!*

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-16-2012, 02:25 PM
  #476
Isles Junkie
Registered User
 
Isles Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 8,142
vCash: 500
As much as I'd love to see this work & to see a full 82 games. Condensing the schedule will lead to a lot of tired & injured teams/players heading into the playoffs. They should just go with a 70-75 game schedule if they were to start November 2nd.

Isles Junkie is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 02:30 PM
  #477
Strummergas
Registered User
 
Strummergas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,637
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isle Junkie View Post
As much as I'd love to see this work & to see a full 82 games. Condensing the schedule will lead to a lot of tired & injured teams/players heading into the playoffs. They should just go with a 70-75 game schedule if they were to start November 2nd.
I agree and I imagine that will be one of the bargaining points off the NHL's proposal. The amount of games per week would be worse than during an Olympic year.

Strummergas is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 02:33 PM
  #478
Strummergas
Registered User
 
Strummergas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,637
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by puckstopper55 View Post
I would like to see the details, but a 50/50 split and no roll back is a great place to be. I hope the deal is for 10 years so we dont need to go through this again.

Interesting to note that the NHL wants a full 82 game schedule. Are the owners looking to recoup the $ lost or maybe so they dont have to reimburse the season tix holders?
They're definitely trying to recoup the as of now lost revenues. I suspect the players will try to bargain the amount of games down. If the owners gave a damn about the amount of money they invested in the players, they'd likely agree too. However, we've seen what they tried to pull earlier in the negotiations, so it wouldn't surprise me if they don't budge from this point.

Strummergas is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 02:38 PM
  #479
Islanders1932
Registered User
 
Islanders1932's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 4,492
vCash: 500
Oh please take this deal, I need hockey

Islanders1932 is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 02:39 PM
  #480
scott99
Registered User
 
scott99's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,966
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Islanders1932 View Post
Oh please take this deal, I need hockey
I think you just spoke for every hockey fan in the world (maybe not Russia, lol).

scott99 is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 02:41 PM
  #481
JKP
Registered User
 
JKP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Halifax, NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,722
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isle Junkie View Post
As much as I'd love to see this work & to see a full 82 games. Condensing the schedule will lead to a lot of tired & injured teams/players heading into the playoffs. They should just go with a 70-75 game schedule if they were to start November 2nd.
Gary said the full sked would only mean 1 extra game every 5 weeks. That doesn't seem like a real big hardship and if the players want to get paid full freight, they gotta play the full 82. That's the beauty of the offer. Dangling the full year's salary and no cash lost for the year.

Don't know if they'll go for it, but at least its movement and from a PR position, it will be tough for the players to say half isn't "fair".

JKP is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 02:44 PM
  #482
Strummergas
Registered User
 
Strummergas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,637
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKP View Post
Don't know if they'll go for it, but at least its movement and from a PR position, it will be tough for the players to say half isn't "fair".
It all depends on the other details of the proposal. I eagerly await hearing Fehr's response to the proposal.

Strummergas is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 03:02 PM
  #483
Isles Junkie
Registered User
 
Isles Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 8,142
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKP View Post
Gary said the full sked would only mean 1 extra game every 5 weeks. That doesn't seem like a real big hardship and if the players want to get paid full freight, they gotta play the full 82. That's the beauty of the offer. Dangling the full year's salary and no cash lost for the year.

Don't know if they'll go for it, but at least its movement and from a PR position, it will be tough for the players to say half isn't "fair".
Yeah, 1 extra game every 5 weeks doesn't sound terrible at all. I can see the NHLPA going for it.

Isles Junkie is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 03:16 PM
  #484
Blackhawkswincup
Global Moderator
 
Blackhawkswincup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicagoland
Country: United States
Posts: 109,507
vCash: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by Islanderfan17 View Post
I completely agree, this past playoffs was by far the most boring playoffs in a long time IMO. The only match ups that were exciting were the Sens/Rangers (mainly cause the Sens gave them a damn good run for their money) and the Pens/Flyers match up for the insanity of it all. The Bruins cup run was also kind of meh but still fun to watch because of the insane goaltending. The Hawks run in 2010 was the most fun playoffs in the past number of years IMO, watching that team offensively dominate their way to the cup was a treat.
^
Hawks/Yotes dueling OT's was entertaining (Disappointing in end as a Hawk fan but the series was entertaining)

Blackhawkswincup is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 03:20 PM
  #485
isles31
Poster Excellont
 
isles31's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: LI
Country: United States
Posts: 4,066
vCash: 500
wasnt really sure where to post this bc its very non-noteworthy, but i played open puck last night in Bethpage and had the privilege of meeting Marty Reasoner. Really a great guy, and im sure he dialed it down quite a bit, but he seemed to be...hmmmm...lumbering out there. it was later at night and again, it was a bunch of bums, so who knows.

sidenote: great offer from the NHL, but Fehr is gonna screw it royally. Once he does, the remaining fans will be 100pct on the owners side. They have moved dramatically off their starting point and a 50-50 split is MORE than fair...at least that is how the public will view it.

isles31 is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 03:37 PM
  #486
JKP
Registered User
 
JKP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Halifax, NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,722
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strummergas View Post
It all depends on the other details of the proposal. I eagerly await hearing Fehr's response to the proposal.
John Shannon from SportsNet said on twitter (https://twitter.com/JSportsnet):

- UFA at 28 & 8 yrs of service
- Rev share @ 200M
- Contracts capped at 5 yrs going forward
- arbitration still exists
- salaries for NHLers playing in the AHL would be part of the cap
- entry level apparently staying at 3 yrs

JKP is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 03:48 PM
  #487
Moosie
Registered User
 
Moosie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 2,048
vCash: 500
The NBA's compressed season last year was very exciting. I watched more basketball than I usually do. I don't want to get my hopes up. I guess a 50-50 split on revenues is a cut for the NHLPA, but I hope that's not a deal breaker.

Moosie is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 03:50 PM
  #488
scott99
Registered User
 
scott99's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,966
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKP View Post
John Shannon from SportsNet said on twitter (https://twitter.com/JSportsnet):

- UFA at 28 & 8 yrs of service
- Rev share @ 200M
- Contracts capped at 5 yrs going forward
- arbitration still exists
- salaries for NHLers playing in the AHL would be part of the cap
- entry level apparently staying at 3 yrs
This seems totally reasonable, almost like an offer the players might offer the owners.

scott99 is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 04:18 PM
  #489
isles31
Poster Excellont
 
isles31's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: LI
Country: United States
Posts: 4,066
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by scott99 View Post
This seems totally reasonable, almost like an offer the players might offer the owners.
i agree, its a great offer from the owners and i can see the fans going nuts if the PA turns it down. I could see the PA making a counter with minor tweaks, it being negged and they agree on this by the end of the week...or i can see Fehr telling everyone "they moved this far, lets keep holding out for more"

isles31 is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 04:27 PM
  #490
19 in a row
Registered User
 
19 in a row's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 1,750
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKP View Post
Gary said the full sked would only mean 1 extra game every 5 weeks. That doesn't seem like a real big hardship and if the players want to get paid full freight, they gotta play the full 82. That's the beauty of the offer. Dangling the full year's salary and no cash lost for the year.

Don't know if they'll go for it, but at least its movement and from a PR position, it will be tough for the players to say half isn't "fair".
Is my math fuzzy? I think that Isles had 9 games scheduled for October. Just over 23 weeks from Nov 2 - April 13 (unless they are adding weeks). Seems like 1 extra game every 2.5 weeks.

That may be even more than it seems when you squeeze it into a schedule but i guess that is doable wit lots and lots of back to back games. Does the NHLPA agree to this? Increase the rosters. I would prefer to see 75 games, why push it and create more injuries?

19 in a row is online now  
Old
10-16-2012, 04:38 PM
  #491
Fantom
Registered User
 
Fantom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,338
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKP View Post
John Shannon from SportsNet said on twitter (https://twitter.com/JSportsnet):

- UFA at 28 & 8 yrs of service
- Rev share @ 200M
- Contracts capped at 5 yrs going forward
- arbitration still exists
- salaries for NHLers playing in the AHL would be part of the cap
- entry level apparently staying at 3 yrs
ufa seems a tad long to me. However the players should strongly consider it if these are indeed the details.

Fantom is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 04:48 PM
  #492
scott99
Registered User
 
scott99's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,966
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantom View Post
ufa seems a tad long to me. However the players should strongly consider it if these are indeed the details.
UFA seems to fall in line with most other sports.

scott99 is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 05:40 PM
  #493
mitchy22
Registered User
 
mitchy22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,769
vCash: 500
Threw this up in the Business of Hockey Forum...

...figured I'd throw it up here, as well.

Players will definitely come back with some kind of answer sooner rather than later. (Edit - If you don't like reading all of my words, just look at the bolded parts. Since I like you guys, I bolded even more than I did in the other area of the forum.)

Not that this season's growth won't be stagnated a bit because of the lockout, but I figured out some projections based on a 7-year deal with 5% growth/season over previous seasons. (Could be very optimistic, but I had to pick a number. I'm pretty sure my math is solid, but I'm too tired to go back and figure it out now. If there's a ton of interest, maybe I'll throw the spreadsheet up on Google for review.)

Regardless, this is how my numbers broke down:
An entire season lost (with the NHLPA getting 50% of HRR) is worth 6.14% of HRR over a 7-year deal.

Since I can't imagine that the NHL at this point will be willing to give that much up, we'll be dealing with smaller percentages of HRR and a portion of what Season 1 is worth. (Needless to say, it's not worth it for the players to lose an entire season anyways.)

Just within Season 1 of the deal, the breaking points look like this (Assuming 5% growth over the $3.3 billion/year HRR number, so $3.465 billion/year in the first year and increasing @5% through a 7-year deal):

1% of HRR difference over the 7-year deal lifetime = $282.1 million
Eclipsed at 14 games ($301.7 million @51% of HRR)


2% of HRR difference over the 7-year deal lifetime = $564.2 million
Eclipsed at 26 games ($571.3 million @52% of HRR)


3% of HRR difference over the 7-year deal lifetime = $846.4 million
Eclipsed at 38 games ($851.0 million @53% of HRR)

4% of HRR difference over the 7-year deal lifetime = $1,128.5 million
Eclipsed at 50 games ($1.140.9 million @54% of HRR)


I could keep going, but I can't imagine more than that is on the table. (Edit - It's also reasonable to think that Season 1 might be tossed by the 50 game lost point, if not sooner.). Yes, there are other factors, but those are the big numbers to think of for the players. We have no idea what the "losing" owners think of this, but you can definitely figure out what the players have to win/lose on the table. I also realize that figuring out playoff revenue and how parts of the regular season might vary in overall revenues aren't being taken into account. This also doesn't deal with how HRR is figured.

I just figured (and for all I know this exists in the thread already) that it'd be nice to see what the season is worth based on the old numbers as both sides jockey for 1% HRR in either direction.

,
Mitch

mitchy22 is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 05:47 PM
  #494
Homeland Security
Mod Supervisor
HFBoards
 
Homeland Security's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NY/FL
Country: United States
Posts: 15,558
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tavaresfan91 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKP View Post
John Shannon from SportsNet said on twitter (https://twitter.com/JSportsnet):

- UFA at 28 & 8 yrs of service
- Rev share @ 200M
- Contracts capped at 5 yrs going forward
- arbitration still exists
- salaries for NHLers playing in the AHL would be part of the cap
- entry level apparently staying at 3 yrs



Let's PLAY HOCKEY!!!!! COME ON BOYS!!!

__________________
Homeland Security is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 06:04 PM
  #495
Mr Wentworth
Arch Duke of Raleigh
 
Mr Wentworth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 5,306
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mitchy22 View Post
...figured I'd throw it up here, as well.

Players will definitely come back with some kind of answer sooner rather than later. (Edit - If you don't like reading all of my words, just look at the bolded parts. Since I like you guys, I bolded even more than I did in the other area of the forum.)

Not that this season's growth won't be stagnated a bit because of the lockout, but I figured out some projections based on a 7-year deal with 5% growth/season over previous seasons. (Could be very optimistic, but I had to pick a number. I'm pretty sure my math is solid, but I'm too tired to go back and figure it out now. If there's a ton of interest, maybe I'll throw the spreadsheet up on Google for review.)

Regardless, this is how my numbers broke down:
An entire season lost (with the NHLPA getting 50% of HRR) is worth 6.14% of HRR over a 7-year deal.

Since I can't imagine that the NHL at this point will be willing to give that much up, we'll be dealing with smaller percentages of HRR and a portion of what Season 1 is worth. (Needless to say, it's not worth it for the players to lose an entire season anyways.)

Just within Season 1 of the deal, the breaking points look like this (Assuming 5% growth over the $3.3 billion/year HRR number, so $3.465 billion/year in the first year and increasing @5% through a 7-year deal):

1% of HRR difference over the 7-year deal lifetime = $282.1 million
Eclipsed at 14 games ($301.7 million @51% of HRR)


2% of HRR difference over the 7-year deal lifetime = $564.2 million
Eclipsed at 26 games ($571.3 million @52% of HRR)


3% of HRR difference over the 7-year deal lifetime = $846.4 million
Eclipsed at 38 games ($851.0 million @53% of HRR)

4% of HRR difference over the 7-year deal lifetime = $1,128.5 million
Eclipsed at 50 games ($1.140.9 million @54% of HRR)


I could keep going, but I can't imagine more than that is on the table. (Edit - It's also reasonable to think that Season 1 might be tossed by the 50 game lost point, if not sooner.). Yes, there are other factors, but those are the big numbers to think of for the players. We have no idea what the "losing" owners think of this, but you can definitely figure out what the players have to win/lose on the table. I also realize that figuring out playoff revenue and how parts of the regular season might vary in overall revenues aren't being taken into account. This also doesn't deal with how HRR is figured.

I just figured (and for all I know this exists in the thread already) that it'd be nice to see what the season is worth based on the old numbers as both sides jockey for 1% HRR in either direction.

,
Mitch
The rumored length of this CBA is 6 years. Then there's the rumors about expansion to Toronto/Hamilton and Quebec.

So...if there is expansion in lets say, 4 years, then there should be a significant increase in HRR in the final 2-3 years of this CBA.

(Plus, all the "instant cash" in expansion fees paid to those who already own a team.)

Mr Wentworth is online now  
Old
10-16-2012, 06:04 PM
  #496
Tavaresfan91
Registered User
 
Tavaresfan91's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 1,605
vCash: 500
ELC are only 2 years now apparently! Someone said on the business of hockey thread! Anyone else see that

Tavaresfan91 is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 06:39 PM
  #497
CREW99AW
Registered User
 
CREW99AW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 29,224
vCash: 725
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10 Min Misconduct View Post
Let's PLAY HOCKEY!!!!! COME ON BOYS!!!
- UFA at 28 & 8 yrs of service
- Rev share @ 200M
- Contracts capped at 5 yrs going forward
- arbitration still exists
- salaries for NHLers playing in the AHL would be part of the cap
- entry level apparently staying at 3 yrs
Plenty to like in those suggestions.

I want to see limits on bonuses. Not so much the amount of bonuses, but the way they are structured. The Flyers offer sheet for Weber , with all the front loading, is an example of what I want to see nixed in the new cba. Front loading such large amounts, is a real handicap for mid-small market teams, trying to keep their rfas and compete for ufas.

and I love the proposal that NHLers playing in the AHL, would be part of the cap.

CREW99AW is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 07:04 PM
  #498
mitchy22
Registered User
 
mitchy22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,769
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazy Ivan View Post
The rumored length of this CBA is 6 years. Then there's the rumors about expansion to Toronto/Hamilton and Quebec.

So...if there is expansion in lets say, 4 years, then there should be a significant increase in HRR in the final 2-3 years of this CBA.

(Plus, all the "instant cash" in expansion fees paid to those who already own a team.)
Unfortunately, there's no way of knowing how any of the above would be dealt with until we see the full proposal (which we may never see anyways.)

How much of a bump do you think expansion would see? Are we sure that the owners included expansion fees as HRR in their proposal (and if so, was it in its entirety?) How expansion is dealt with would have to be very detailed, and we don't have much to work on.

For fun (again, and I'm bordering on delirious):

I'll figure 5% growth (year-to-year) over a 6 year deal, but I'll bump all revenues by 2/30 of Year 3's revenue as I have no idea what to guess each new team would bring. (This adds two average-year-3 revenue generating teams.) Expansion fees being shared would throw everything off. What if one team moves instead? (Relocation vs. expansion fee. The NHL has been floating the Coyotes, wouldn't they want some kind of recompense? I won't be shocked if the NHLPA doesn't get a single penny from expansion fees. I'm leaving that out.)

So here we go: 6 year deal @5% growth, with a 6.66% additive (2/30) bump in growth after Year 3 (on top of the 5% growth throughout).

Just within Season 1 of the deal, the breaking points look like this (Assuming 5% growth over the $3.3 billion/year HRR number, so $3.465 billion/year in the first year and increasing @5% through a 6-year deal with aforementioned bump to Year 4):

1% of HRR difference over the 6-year deal lifetime = $243.7 million
Eclipsed at 12 games ($258.6 million @51% of HRR)

2% of HRR difference over the 6-year deal lifetime = $487.4 million
Eclipsed at 23 games ($505.4 million @52% of HRR)

3% of HRR difference over the 6-year deal lifetime = $731.1 million
Eclipsed at 33 games ($739.1 million @53% of HRR)

4% of HRR difference over the 6-year deal lifetime = $974.9 million
Eclipsed at 43 games ($981.2 million @54% of HRR)


Whatever it is, that's close enough (without expansion fees.) It's also all the math I feel like doing tonight since I'm on 3 hours of sleep and have been up since 4:30 AM.

Take it or leave it. (I realize I expanded FOR Year 4, instead of AFTER Year 4. It makes a difference, but even with all of this ****ing math, we're still talking about the NHLPA screwing themselves hard and quickly as they lose games. That's pretty much the point behind me bothering to begin with.)

,
Mitch


Last edited by mitchy22: 10-16-2012 at 07:10 PM.
mitchy22 is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 07:21 PM
  #499
Mr Wentworth
Arch Duke of Raleigh
 
Mr Wentworth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 5,306
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mitchy22 View Post
Unfortunately, there's no way of knowing how any of the above would be dealt with until we see the full proposal (which we may never see anyways.)

How much of a bump do you think expansion would see? Are we sure that the owners included expansion fees as HRR in their proposal (and if so, was it in its entirety?) How expansion is dealt with would have to be very detailed, and we don't have much to work on.

For fun (again, and I'm bordering on delirious):

I'll figure 5% growth (year-to-year) over a 6 year deal, but I'll bump all revenues by 2/30 of Year 3's revenue as I have no idea what to guess each new team would bring. (This adds two average-year-3 revenue generating teams.) Expansion fees being shared would throw everything off. What if one team moves instead? (Relocation vs. expansion fee. The NHL has been floating the Coyotes, wouldn't they want some kind of recompense? I won't be shocked if the NHLPA doesn't get a single penny from expansion fees. I'm leaving that out.)

So here we go: 6 year deal @5% growth, with a 6.66% additive (2/30) bump in growth after Year 3 (on top of the 5% growth throughout).

Just within Season 1 of the deal, the breaking points look like this (Assuming 5% growth over the $3.3 billion/year HRR number, so $3.465 billion/year in the first year and increasing @5% through a 6-year deal with aforementioned bump to Year 4):

1% of HRR difference over the 6-year deal lifetime = $243.7 million
Eclipsed at 12 games ($258.6 million @51% of HRR)

2% of HRR difference over the 6-year deal lifetime = $487.4 million
Eclipsed at 23 games ($505.4 million @52% of HRR)

3% of HRR difference over the 6-year deal lifetime = $731.1 million
Eclipsed at 33 games ($739.1 million @53% of HRR)

4% of HRR difference over the 6-year deal lifetime = $974.9 million
Eclipsed at 43 games ($981.2 million @54% of HRR)


Whatever it is, that's close enough (without expansion fees.) It's also all the math I feel like doing tonight since I'm on 3 hours of sleep and have been up since 4:30 AM.

Take it or leave it. (I realize I expanded FOR Year 4, instead of AFTER Year 4. It makes a difference, but even with all of this ****ing math, we're still talking about the NHLPA screwing themselves hard and quickly as they lose games. That's pretty much the point behind me bothering to begin with.)

,
Mitch
I understand that we are playing games with numbers based on unknowns, but, if expansion goes through, there will be (or should be) a boon in the final years, and yes, everybody - the NHL, the owners, and the NHLPA, should all get richer due to the boon.

And yes, based on what I've read so far, the players should take a long hard look at this proposal.

Mr Wentworth is online now  
Old
10-16-2012, 10:15 PM
  #500
Islanders1932
Registered User
 
Islanders1932's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 4,492
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKP View Post
John Shannon from SportsNet said on twitter (https://twitter.com/JSportsnet):

- UFA at 28 & 8 yrs of service
- Rev share @ 200M
- Contracts capped at 5 yrs going forward
- arbitration still exists
- salaries for NHLers playing in the AHL would be part of the cap
- entry level apparently staying at 3 yrs
What defines an NHLer? Would Cizikas be considered an NHLer? Ullstrom? Ness? They all played in the NHL over the course of the year. I just feel that would be hard to define.

Islanders1932 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 06:06 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.