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
08-28-2012, 07:18 AM
  #151
Riddick
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,367
vCash: 500
i dont know if this is pertinent to the CBA but it looks like malkin may have signed a contract in the KHL in case this does go through? interesting to see(cant imagine he wouldnt but...) if he has an out clause that allows him to void the KHL contract to come back to the NHL.

Riddick is offline  
Old
08-28-2012, 08:15 AM
  #152
JKP
Registered User
 
JKP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Halifax, NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,725
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milliardo View Post
But that's because the set up is wrong. The players join this league because they want to, it's their free will. So by that, they have to accept the rules or else they are free to go to any other league the please.
But the point is the league is an illegal cartel that limits a player's freedom to sell his services. If the NHL operated as one single legal entity that simply had 30 geographic divisions, your view would be correct. But it doesn't. It's 30 different legal entities operating under one common set of rules and colluding to limit the rights and salaries of employees.

JKP is offline  
Old
08-28-2012, 09:01 AM
  #153
Fantom
Registered User
 
Fantom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riddick View Post
i dont know if this is pertinent to the CBA but it looks like malkin may have signed a contract in the KHL in case this does go through? interesting to see(cant imagine he wouldnt but...) if he has an out clause that allows him to void the KHL contract to come back to the NHL.
He signed a Week to week contract with his old KHL club. He only has to play one week at a time

Fantom is offline  
Old
08-28-2012, 10:07 AM
  #154
Milliardo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Zürich
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 1,596
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKP View Post
But the point is the league is an illegal cartel that limits a player's freedom to sell his services. If the NHL operated as one single legal entity that simply had 30 geographic divisions, your view would be correct. But it doesn't. It's 30 different legal entities operating under one common set of rules and colluding to limit the rights and salaries of employees.
I don't agree, it workes in other places so...if a league has rulse, a player can choose to play in this league or he can say, no I don't want that and go somewhere else.

I'm just sick and tired of millionaires whining and wanting more money. The owners carry the risk of losing money, so obvisously they shouls be entitled to at least 50% in revenue. Salaries went up like 75% since the first season after the last lockout and they're getting paid a boalod of money to play the game they love, what more do they want?

Milliardo is offline  
Old
08-28-2012, 10:25 AM
  #155
Bunk Moreland
Moderator
 
Bunk Moreland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 13,441
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milliardo View Post
I don't agree, it workes in other places so...if a league has rulse, a player can choose to play in this league or he can say, no I don't want that and go somewhere else.

I'm just sick and tired of millionaires whining and wanting more money. The owners carry the risk of losing money, so obvisously they shouls be entitled to at least 50% in revenue. Salaries went up like 75% since the first season after the last lockout and they're getting paid a boalod of money to play the game they love, what more do they want?
The NHL would fall apart in no time flat if it was a strict these are the rules or else, go play somewhere else they would. Another league would pop up in North America or the KHL would become by far the dominant league because as the product the players deserve to get paid a boatload for having the talent they have and risking injury night after night.

I hate that "they're getting paid to play the game they love" crap. No they're playing a game they love to get paid, if there was no money in it it would just be an weekend hobby for these guys it just so happens there's billions of dollars in sports these days so the salaries are going to be high.

Bunk Moreland is offline  
Old
08-28-2012, 12:35 PM
  #156
IslesNorway
Registered User
 
IslesNorway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Country: Norway
Posts: 2,998
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunk Moreland View Post
The NHL would fall apart in no time flat if it was a strict these are the rules or else, go play somewhere else they would. Another league would pop up in North America or the KHL would become by far the dominant league because as the product the players deserve to get paid a boatload for having the talent they have and risking injury night after night.

I hate that "they're getting paid to play the game they love" crap. No they're playing a game they love to get paid, if there was no money in it it would just be an weekend hobby for these guys it just so happens there's billions of dollars in sports these days so the salaries are going to be high.
So what about the guys who toil in the ECHL then? I'm sure they love the game otherwise they would've quit a long time ago, as they cannot possibly make enough money to actually earn a good living. People who are fortunate enough to become multi-millionaries from practicing their hobby should not complain. They deserve to be well paid but not to the point where thay are potentially killing the game.

IslesNorway is offline  
Old
08-28-2012, 04:34 PM
  #157
Bunk Moreland
Moderator
 
Bunk Moreland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 13,441
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by IslesNorway View Post
So what about the guys who toil in the ECHL then? I'm sure they love the game otherwise they would've quit a long time ago, as they cannot possibly make enough money to actually earn a good living. People who are fortunate enough to become multi-millionaries from practicing their hobby should not complain. They deserve to be well paid but not to the point where thay are potentially killing the game.
The ECHL has absolutely nothing to do with my comment the skill level and revenue is so far apart it's absurd. I was saying the argument that they're getting paid to play a game they love and should shut up and take what ever is given to them is flat out wrong in my opinion. I believe they have the right to argue to get the biggest piece of pie that they can because with out the players there is no game.

Bunk Moreland is offline  
Old
08-28-2012, 04:41 PM
  #158
Bunk Moreland
Moderator
 
Bunk Moreland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 13,441
vCash: 50
Bettman just met with media it appears that the NHL has decided to offer a counter offer to the NHLPA's offer.. Some tweets I've read:

Botta:

Quote:
Gary Bettman calls NHL's counter-proposal to NHLPA "significant, with meaningful movement." Bettman says revenue sharing "will not break or break this deal" and sides are close enough on that issue. Big issue is contracts. Bottom line today: NHL really likes its proposal. NHLPA will respond tomorrow. If NHLPA rejects large parts of it, could be a while.
Aaron Ward:
Quote:
Bettman , 'this was a counter proposal to NHLPA' ..' it was a significant proposal' #TSN Bettman, 'NHL made counter proposal to move process along and get a common language' #TSN Bettman, 'by virtue of proposal,we are hoping for traction' #TSN
Take what you want from it.

Bunk Moreland is offline  
Old
08-28-2012, 07:11 PM
  #159
JKP
Registered User
 
JKP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Halifax, NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,725
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milliardo View Post
I don't agree, it workes in other places so...if a league has rulse, a player can choose to play in this league or he can say, no I don't want that and go somewhere else.

I'm just sick and tired of millionaires whining and wanting more money. The owners carry the risk of losing money, so obvisously they shouls be entitled to at least 50% in revenue. Salaries went up like 75% since the first season after the last lockout and they're getting paid a boalod of money to play the game they love, what more do they want?
I reiterate. Perhaps it's because you're not from North America and don't grasp the legal aspect, but it is illegal for the league to operate the way you suggest because it is not a single entity (the "league"). It is 30 individually owned legal entities and for them to restrict employee movement and salaries without the employee union permitting it is, strictly speaking, a violation of US and Canadian law.

Here's the some of the language from the NFL players anti-trust lawsuit against the NFL and its teams last year:

Quote:
"Plaintiffs are eight professional football players and one prospective professional football player who have entered into, and/or who seek to enter into, player contracts with National Football League ("NFL") teams, and the class of similar players whom they seek to represent."

"Defendants, the NFL and its separately-owned and independently- operated member teams, have jointly agreed and conspired to deny Plaintiffs the ability to provide and/or market their services in the major league market for professional football players through a patently unlawful group boycott and price-fixing arrangement or, in the alternative, a unilaterally-imposed set of anticompetitive restrictions on player movement, free agency, and competitive market freedom."

"The group boycotts, concerted refusals to deal and price fixing which Defendants are carrying out are per se illegal acts under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. They also constitute an unreasonable restraint of trade under the rule of reason. As a result of Defendants' anticompetitive agreements, Plaintiffs and other similarly situated current and future professional football players who are employed by or seeking employment by an NFL club will be prevented from offering or providing their services in a competitive market and from receiving a competitive market value for their services, and will be denied the freedom of movement available to employees in virtually every other industry in the United States."
IF the NHL owned all 30 teams, there would be no issues. You'd play under their rules or go play for some other hockey league because they would then be just a single employer in the market.

But it isn't a single entity, they are a cartel of 30 independently owned businesses and, as per above, are illegally suppressing employee rights except that the employees have granted that suppression of their legal rights via the CBA.

Only Major League Baseball is exempt from anti-trust laws in the US by an actual statute passed by congress. From wiki (emphasis added by me):

Quote:
Under the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, two or more non-affiliated companies in any other interstate business, were prohibited from colluding with each other to fix prices or establish schedules or rates. Enforcement of the Act reached its apotheosis in 1910 when the Supreme Court affirmed the government's order to dissolve the Standard Oil conglomerate. Yet it was argued that to keep baseball (the only large-scale professional sport in America during the 1920s) prosperous, granting it immunity from the Sherman Act was in the best interests of the game and the nation.
Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant because it is the law.

JKP is offline  
Old
08-28-2012, 08:35 PM
  #160
Homeland Security
Mod Supervisor
HFBoards
 
Homeland Security's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NY/FL
Country: United States
Posts: 15,859
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunk Moreland View Post
Bettman just met with media it appears that the NHL has decided to offer a counter offer to the NHLPA's offer.. Some tweets I've read:

Botta:



Aaron Ward:


Take what you want from it.
Looks like the fire has been lit.

__________________
Homeland Security is offline  
Old
08-28-2012, 10:04 PM
  #161
Bunk Moreland
Moderator
 
Bunk Moreland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 13,441
vCash: 50
More news coming out tonight from a Darren Dreger:

Quote:
NHL proposed a 6 year term today. Players Share: 2012/13 - 51.6% 2013/14 - 50.5% 2014/15 - 49.6% 2015/16 - 50% 2016/17 - 50% 2017/18 - 50%
Quote:
I'm told league proposal reduce financial "ask" tabled in first proposal by $460 million including, by $120 million in Year 1.
Quote:
Proposed Salary Caps: all projected and fixed: 2012/13 - $58M 2013/14 -$60M. 2014/15-$62M. 2015/16-$64.2M. 2016/17 - $67.6M 2017/18 - $71.1M
That second quote gives me hope because that's an awful big chunk of change to decide not to ask for.. Was optimistic after players first proposal which didn't quite work out so I'm not going to get excited until we hear the players reaction tomorrow.

Bunk Moreland is offline  
Old
08-28-2012, 10:24 PM
  #162
Bunk Moreland
Moderator
 
Bunk Moreland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 13,441
vCash: 50
More from Aaron Ward:

Quote:
League has deemed proposal 'significant' and 'meaningful'.Issue is,if NHL moving off a position that has never been negotiated,is that in fact relevant.Would be same as if NHLPA proposed 65% of HRR and moved to lower % in later offer.Also indications that there is request to change HRR definition which would result in reduced share of HRR.Question to be asked now is what is definition of HRR under recent offer? This would essentially mean if you reduced player shares,you would reduce salaries.This would likely involve a salary rollback and significant escrow hit to players.Bottom line,players will want to know what their share will be under the CURRENT HRR definitions.We are back to determining if we have 2 sides on the same page and same issues or an inability to find 'common language'. #TSN
(multiple tweets)

Bunk Moreland is offline  
Old
08-29-2012, 02:25 AM
  #163
IslesNorway
Registered User
 
IslesNorway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Country: Norway
Posts: 2,998
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunk Moreland View Post
The ECHL has absolutely nothing to do with my comment the skill level and revenue is so far apart it's absurd. I was saying the argument that they're getting paid to play a game they love and should shut up and take what ever is given to them is flat out wrong in my opinion. I believe they have the right to argue to get the biggest piece of pie that they can because with out the players there is no game.
And without a team and League they can still play the ponds...


Last edited by IslesNorway: 08-29-2012 at 02:43 AM.
IslesNorway is offline  
Old
08-29-2012, 11:15 AM
  #164
Fantom
Registered User
 
Fantom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,360
vCash: 500
The latest proposal is for a six-year term on the new CBA.
The first three years would come in at fixed, pre-negotiated players' share dollar thresholds: 11 per cent, 8.5 per cent and 5.5 per cent less than the 2011-12 totals in the first three years respectively.
The players would also get a share in "upside hockey-related revenue growth" of over 10 per cent in each of the first three years.
For the final three years of the deal the league and players split revenues 50-50.
The players' share percentages under the league's new definition of hockey-related revenues would be gradually reduced over the course of the six-year deal.
The 2012-13 season would see the players receive a 51.6 per cent cut. In 2013-14 that total would drop to 50.5 per cent, before further dipping to 49.6 per cent in 2014-15.
For the following three seasons (2015-16 through 2017-18) the players would see an even 50 per cent.
The salary cap would see an immediate reduction followed by a gradual rise over the course of the deal.
The cap for 2012-13 - projected to be $70.2 million under the existing CBA - would be cut to a fixed $58 million under the latest proposal.
That number would rise to a fixed $60 million in 2013-14 and then to a fixed $62 million the following year.
Projected cap numbers for the final three years of the deal include: $64.2 million in 2015-16, $67.6 million in 2016-17 and $71.1 million in 2017-18.
The league's proposal did not include an across-the-board reduction (or "rollback") to existing contract values. Necessary adjustments would be financed entirely from a combination of modified contracting practices, increases in league-wide revenue and from the players' Escrow contributions.

Fantom is offline  
Old
08-29-2012, 11:15 AM
  #165
Fantom
Registered User
 
Fantom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,360
vCash: 500
How does a team who would be say 15m over the cap fix that in a week or two ?

Fantom is offline  
Old
08-29-2012, 11:29 AM
  #166
Bunk Moreland
Moderator
 
Bunk Moreland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 13,441
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantom View Post
How does a team who would be say 15m over the cap fix that in a week or two ?
Boston Bruins » -$10,667,976
Minnesota Wild » -$10,648,867
Vancouver Canucks » -$9,568,333
Calgary Flames » -$8,468,332
Philadelphia Flyers » -$8,443,373
San Jose Sharks » -$7,041,667
Montreal Canadiens » -$5,697,976
Tampa Bay Lightning » -$5,046,916
Edmonton Oilers » -$4,733,333
Toronto Maple Leafs » -$4,673,333
Chicago Blackhawks » -$4,245,128
Los Angeles Kings » -$4,120,227
Buffalo Sabres » -$3,342,023
Pittsburgh Penguins » -$2,063,333
Washington Capitals » -$1,427,905
New York Rangers » -$308,334

Teams that would be over the cap with the proposed $58 ceiling.. (whoops I actually used $58.2 but you get the point)

Hello Mr. Wang I know you don't feel like spending but we need to get under the cap how about a first round pick and say David Krejci for a bag of pucks?

Or some sort of luxury tax will be put in place the first couple years until teams can manage to actually get under the cap.

Bunk Moreland is offline  
Old
08-29-2012, 12:08 PM
  #167
Fantom
Registered User
 
Fantom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunk Moreland View Post
Boston Bruins » -$10,667,976
Minnesota Wild » -$10,648,867
Vancouver Canucks » -$9,568,333
Calgary Flames » -$8,468,332
Philadelphia Flyers » -$8,443,373
San Jose Sharks » -$7,041,667
Montreal Canadiens » -$5,697,976
Tampa Bay Lightning » -$5,046,916
Edmonton Oilers » -$4,733,333
Toronto Maple Leafs » -$4,673,333
Chicago Blackhawks » -$4,245,128
Los Angeles Kings » -$4,120,227
Buffalo Sabres » -$3,342,023
Pittsburgh Penguins » -$2,063,333
Washington Capitals » -$1,427,905
New York Rangers » -$308,334

Teams that would be over the cap with the proposed $58 ceiling.. (whoops I actually used $58.2 but you get the point)

Hello Mr. Wang I know you don't feel like spending but we need to get under the cap how about a first round pick and say David Krejci for a bag of pucks?

Or some sort of luxury tax will be put in place the first couple years until teams can manage to actually get under the cap.
Wang would be like yes i see you need to get under the cap. However they just lowered what i need to spend on my team. SO no thanks

Fantom is offline  
Old
08-29-2012, 12:39 PM
  #168
IslesNorway
Registered User
 
IslesNorway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Country: Norway
Posts: 2,998
vCash: 500
Teams would have to trade or waive players to get under the cap which is why the players will reject this, but they knew this was coming anyway

IslesNorway is offline  
Old
08-29-2012, 02:54 PM
  #169
rikker
fan since '75.
 
rikker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Niagara
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,516
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IslesNorway View Post
And without a team and League they can still play the ponds...
the fact is that they don't have to. people will pay decent money to watch the PLAYERS, not the owners. if the owners started their own league, and the players started their own, the owners would all be forced to bankrupt their franchises.

also, the players are the ones that are at risk of being in wheelchairs by the time they're 50.

i don't trust the owners...

rikker is offline  
Old
08-29-2012, 04:26 PM
  #170
CREW99AW
Registered User
 
CREW99AW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 29,379
vCash: 1300
Quote:
Originally Posted by IslesNorway View Post
Teams would have to trade or waive players to get under the cap which is why the players will reject this, but they knew this was coming anyway
I expect the players and teams near the cap ceiling, would balk at a dispersal draft.
But, oh how sweet would it be to see the isles pick up a quality forward or defenseman
in such a move?


http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-pu...0452--nhl.html
Dispersal Draft

Now here's where things get sexy.

Some of the NHL's revenue-generating teams were in favor of a dispersal draft in 2005, allowing players with hefty salaries to simply be plucked from rosters. The players, again, shot it down, and according to the Mercury News via On The Wings, the amnesty buyouts were a compromise.

But could you imagine if the teams near the floor were given a chance to poach big contract players on long-term deals? And by that we mean, could you imagine the New York Islanders not having to convince a star free agent to sign on Long Island but rather having him forced to play there?

George Malik thinks there might be an informal dispersal draft anyway:

In plain English, there isn't a rollback per se, but there's a rollback via escrow, and there's a rollback via reducing the cap without a rollback--which may or may not mean that there would be another round of buyouts, yielding a de-facto "dispersal draft," just like last time around.

CREW99AW is offline  
Old
08-29-2012, 06:51 PM
  #171
JKP
Registered User
 
JKP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Halifax, NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,725
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rikker View Post
the fact is that they don't have to. people will pay decent money to watch the PLAYERS, not the owners. if the owners started their own league, and the players started their own, the owners would all be forced to bankrupt their franchises.

also, the players are the ones that are at risk of being in wheelchairs by the time they're 50.

i don't trust the owners...
Completely disagree. The vast majority of people have affinity to the teams, not the players. Players come and go, especially now in the free agency era. The teams have staying power over time and are what people root for.

JKP is offline  
Old
08-30-2012, 02:04 AM
  #172
IslesNorway
Registered User
 
IslesNorway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Country: Norway
Posts: 2,998
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rikker View Post
the fact is that they don't have to. people will pay decent money to watch the PLAYERS, not the owners. if the owners started their own league, and the players started their own, the owners would all be forced to bankrupt their franchises.

also, the players are the ones that are at risk of being in wheelchairs by the time they're 50.

i don't trust the owners...
In theory yes but in practise no. They'd still need someone to run the team and pay the bills so when you take that into consideration they'd be much worse off. Also, consider all the people who work for the NHL and their teams in some capacity, all that would then have to come directly from the players pockets, so a players owned league dream is about a big a pipe dream as you can get.

They are employees who are extremely well paid to do their jobs and in this case they should not be holding the entire League to ransom.

IslesNorway is offline  
Old
08-30-2012, 03:06 AM
  #173
OlTimeHockey
Registered User
 
OlTimeHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: home
Country: China
Posts: 15,967
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IslesNorway View Post
In theory yes but in practise no. They'd still need someone to run the team and pay the bills so when you take that into consideration they'd be much worse off. Also, consider all the people who work for the NHL and their teams in some capacity, all that would then have to come directly from the players pockets, so a players owned league dream is about a big a pipe dream as you can get.

They are employees who are extremely well paid to do their jobs and in this case they should not be holding the entire League to ransom.
I disagree. Oregon, Seattle and San Francisco could have teams.....and no owners, just play naked! Four periods a game would be the first rule.


(get it? 4:20!)

I think it's an egalitarian Marxist sentiment. The players deserve the crux, not the capitalist who has to pay out of pocket in many cases to support the team (some claim $20M annually). I would LOVE to make an owner happy if it meant playing the game I love for a few million bucks annually......and I'd happily pay taxes and redistribute my wealth and all that!


If you wanna think a chef could open a restaurant on his own, I'll show you a well decorated restaurant that is boarded up and for sale in no time. (and conversely, if you wanna rely on WalMart, for groceries or auto parts, nice judgment call! Hope you do well with that kinda cheap, inept help!)

People don't get the whole yin/yang of economics. Or politics. But that's for another forum....


And I despise our ownership. Have for a long time.

OlTimeHockey is offline  
Old
08-30-2012, 02:56 PM
  #174
rikker
fan since '75.
 
rikker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Niagara
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,516
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKP View Post
Completely disagree. The vast majority of people have affinity to the teams, not the players. Players come and go, especially now in the free agency era. The teams have staying power over time and are what people root for.
honestly? if you switched the Tigers with the Islanders, you would still pay what you are to watch the Tigers? i understand the whole 'go for a team/city' thing, but i definitely would not. i'd rather talent ove location, anyday.

rikker is offline  
Old
08-30-2012, 02:59 PM
  #175
rikker
fan since '75.
 
rikker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Niagara
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,516
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IslesNorway View Post
In theory yes but in practise no. They'd still need someone to run the team and pay the bills so when you take that into consideration they'd be much worse off. Also, consider all the people who work for the NHL and their teams in some capacity, all that would then have to come directly from the players pockets, so a players owned league dream is about a big a pipe dream as you can get.

They are employees who are extremely well paid to do their jobs and in this case they should not be holding the entire League to ransom.
come on, you're American. if anyone should understand supply and demand, it should be you...

if the players started their own league (not a pipe dream), the owners would buckle...

rikker is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:32 AM.

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.