HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Colorado Avalanche
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Around the League 2012-12 I: Gary and Donald sitting in a tree

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-22-2012, 06:19 AM
  #551
Ceremony
Moderator
Ten Tons
 
Ceremony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 73,248
vCash: 499
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonewolfe2015 View Post
Those 22 people have my admiration.

But wow, 728 NHLPA members?
For what it's worth...

@HeleneStJames: Out of 763 NHL players eligible to vote, 729 cast ballots: 706 in favor of enabling PA to disband, 22 against. No hanging chads. #NHLlockout

__________________
“It’s embarrassing. I’m embarrassed to be here right now. It’s not even funny. And it’s just embarrassing, the way we, you know, the energy we have in the room and the way we approach practices and the way we approach this game. It’s not how you’re going to win any games in this league." - Jean-Sebastien Giguere, April 8 2013
Ceremony is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-22-2012, 08:55 AM
  #552
Frenchy
Global Moderator
 
Frenchy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Alma, QC.
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,549
vCash: 3375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceremony View Post
For what it's worth...

@HeleneStJames: Out of 763 NHL players eligible to vote, 729 cast ballots: 706 in favor of enabling PA to disband, 22 against. No hanging chads. #NHLlockout
... the funny thing is that one vote was void

Frenchy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-22-2012, 10:24 AM
  #553
Foppa2118
Registered User
 
Foppa2118's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: 22 Acacia Avenue
Country: United States
Posts: 18,776
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundwaveIsCharisma View Post
That outlook, that the players are losing money, seems to neglect the fact that the owners are the ones that are taking the majority of the financial risks. If their teams lose money, the players are still going to get paid, they are the ones that have to spend the money to make their teams more attractive to fans, and they also risk a lot of money if they want to upgrade arenas or even more to get new ones.

The argument seems to be from fans that players should shut up because they make millions, the players seems to be that the owners should shut up because they make "billions". Honestly, both sides should shut up, they should get a really good team of financial/market experts in as arbitrators and figure out something that will work longterm.
This argument has never once held water with me. That because the players don't share the risk financially to run the team, the owners are entitled to more money. The owners don't share any risk whatsoever health wise either!!! They don't get out on the ice to take a few shifts. They don't back up the goalie every now and then. They don't do anything.

And it's the owners own business decision whether they want to push for a new arena, or make any other financial risks that they don't consult the players about. Why would they have to share in that risk? The players play hockey. The owners are business men.

It's also not fair IMO to characterize it that both sides are making a lot of money, and should shut up because only one side is insisting on MORE, by taking from the other side, and not offering them anything in return that they didn't already have. It's a shakedown.

Foppa2118 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-22-2012, 10:48 AM
  #554
volaju
Registered User
 
volaju's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 953
vCash: 500
Decent read:

Quote:
It’s not a coincidence that the most successful North American sports league also has the most rational approach to revenue sharing. Some 60% of the NFL’s $11 billion revenue pie is shared, which is why tiny Green Bay, Wisconsin can compete with big bad New York or Chicago. The other two Big Three leagues aren’t quite as egalitarian but have improved their models in recent years: MLB teams share nearly a third of local TV revenue, while NBA teams reportedly approach a 50% total revenue share (give or take a few complex calculations).

The NHL, meanwhile, has been sharing 4.5% of its $3.3 billion revenue (with not much more on the table in current talks.)
http://business.time.com/2012/12/19/...e-nhl-lockout/

volaju is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-22-2012, 04:01 PM
  #555
S E P H
@Krzysztof_WHL
 
S E P H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Avs Country!
Country: Poland
Posts: 4,440
vCash: 50
Sorry Vola, but that was a terrible, biased article.

S E P H is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-22-2012, 06:07 PM
  #556
Huis Clos*
Creamy Hamstrings
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Ballarado
Country: United States
Posts: 6,020
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by S E P H View Post
Sorry Vola, but that was a terrible, biased article.
Great article.

Huis Clos* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-22-2012, 07:09 PM
  #557
volaju
Registered User
 
volaju's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 953
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by S E P H View Post
Sorry Vola, but that was a terrible, biased article.
What's terrible about it?

volaju is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-22-2012, 07:32 PM
  #558
Freudian
Patty likes beef
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 29,118
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by volaju View Post
What's terrible about it?
I think it exaggerates the revenue sharing by other leagues and ignores that NHL has agreed to $220M (if I understand correctly) in revenue sharing.

For example the most a NBA team can receive is $16M/year and if we assume half of NHL teams receives revenue sharing after the new CBA we get $14.6M/year per team. It goes without saying that anyone claiming NBA has 50% revenue sharing and NHL 4.5% revenue sharing is doing some dark math voodoo.

In MLB if we ignore that every team gives and receives from a pool since it's every team giving money to themselves and others, the rich teams share $400M to the poor teams in the league. That doesn't seem to be significantly more than NHL, given that revenues are more than twice as high compared to NHL.

Relatively speaking, NHL's revenue sharing isn't as small as the article wants to let on. NHL has by far the smallest television deal of all sports, so the common pool of external revenue is by far the smallest too.


Last edited by Freudian: 12-22-2012 at 07:45 PM.
Freudian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-22-2012, 10:48 PM
  #559
Bender
TheHockeyProspector
 
Bender's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,949
vCash: 7658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frenchy View Post
... the funny thing is that one vote was void
Ralphie Torres voted "3".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Foppa2118 View Post
This argument has never once held water with me. That because the players don't share the risk financially to run the team, the owners are entitled to more money. The owners don't share any risk whatsoever health wise either!!! They don't get out on the ice to take a few shifts. They don't back up the goalie every now and then. They don't do anything.

And it's the owners own business decision whether they want to push for a new arena, or make any other financial risks that they don't consult the players about. Why would they have to share in that risk? The players play hockey. The owners are business men.

It's also not fair IMO to characterize it that both sides are making a lot of money, and should shut up because only one side is insisting on MORE, by taking from the other side, and not offering them anything in return that they didn't already have. It's a shakedown.
C'mon now, join everyone else in the REAL WORLD. Every single successful business in the entire world has the OWNERS of that business making light years more than the employees!!! 57%??? 43%??? That is laughable in any 'real world' example.

Do you think rock stars making an album make more than the music distributor that sells their record? Do you think actors on TV shows make more than the networks that hire them?

Most importantly, do you really believe that NHL owners as a group, are all doing just fine and making lots of money and this is all about just making that much MORE money? If so, why wouldn't they have just taken the players LAST offer, to stop this nonsense and obvious damage to the sport, to just get back to the aforementioned 'money making madness'??

Don't get me wrong, I am NOT saying that all of these franchises are being run properly and efficiently or that there aren't a few of them that are beyond reproach because I am certain that there are.

The point is, as I've maintained all along, the NHL as a major sports league, saw the NBA and the NFL see their revenue split go to '50-50/49-51' with their new CBA deals and they wanted the same. That's pretty much the only conceivable argument that they can put forward that is actually worth anything. The fact that there are lots of franchises that are losing money and can't keep up?? Practically irrelevant in my view. Why? Because last time, Gary told everyone who would listen that what the league needed was 'linkage' between salaries and revenue to be successful...well, they got linkage, so they certainly shouldn't be crying about it. However, the players had to expect going down to 50-50. The other issues right now, in my view, are 'idiot-proofing' the existing system. (I still don't see how it prevents another moron from signing Wade Redden to that retarded contract.) The players are no better in this stupid dispute. They were and will continue to be paid VERY fairly and their salaries will continue to grow (damage to the game from the lockout notwitstanding). They should have taken the league's last offer because the rest of the crap that they are arguing on, is just a bunch of fluff. Contract length isn't going to restrict players that much. Term of the CBA??? If the NHLPA were actually smart, they'd ask for a 12-15 year CBA. A 50-50 split fifteen years from now is going to look fantastic after the NBA and NFL go through this AGAIN as well, in my opinion.

You can choose to view this as a shakedown and perhaps that's a term that can accurately describe the situation when you DON'T compare it to the other major sports and their recent CBAs.

If the NHLPA really doesn't like it, then maybe they should start their own league, with their own arenas and their own teams and branding and staff and all that great stuff that is apparently super easy to obtain. What other alternative do they have? Class action lawsuit? Triple damages?? Ok, the NHLPA does that and WINS, then the league shuts down? Hurray?

As far as the owners 'not taking health risks', well as you mentioned, they are business men. They didn't decide to play hockey for a living with all the risks that are involved with that. If the players can't handle the 'risks' involved, they can move over and there will be another guy right behind to take their spot, and he'll be real happy about it.

Bender is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-22-2012, 10:58 PM
  #560
Frenchy
Global Moderator
 
Frenchy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Alma, QC.
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,549
vCash: 3375
ok, now things are getting very serious, when Michael Bublé gets in the middle of the lockout

http://tvasports.ca/hockey/lnh/lock-...ycott-22122012

Quote:
We have to add the name of the popular Canadian singer to those who want to boycott the National Hockey League.

In an interview with Sportsnet Saturday, Canadian singer Michael Bublé said he was frustrated over the current lockout in the NHL and he encourages people to stop buying products from the league.

"If the entire season is canceled and if the owners and players are stupid enough to do it, I hope the fans will respect themself and boycott the league."

He also said he doubted the intentions of the owners and the players to get an agreement before January.

"There was no chance that there is hockey before January. I think this has always been the plan from both sides. "

...
i didnt translate the last part of the article , since it was a little summary of some past events that have nothing to do with Bublé

Frenchy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2012, 12:21 AM
  #561
Bonzai12
Registered User
 
Bonzai12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Denver CO
Country: United States
Posts: 6,795
vCash: 767
Send a message via Yahoo to Bonzai12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bender View Post
Most importantly, do you really believe that NHL owners as a group, are all doing just fine and making lots of money and this is all about just making that much MORE money? If so, why wouldn't they have just taken the players LAST offer, to stop this nonsense and obvious damage to the sport, to just get back to the aforementioned 'money making madness'??

All the TV dough is still there to keep them flush with cash. $180M for nothing is pretty nice.

Quote:
The NBC Sports Group, a subsidiary of Comcast, is paying the league about $180 million in rights fees this season -- and a network spokesman said on Monday that the NHL will receive all of that money even if no games are played in 2012-13.
http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/...L-lockout.html

Bonzai12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2012, 02:55 PM
  #562
Foppa2118
Registered User
 
Foppa2118's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: 22 Acacia Avenue
Country: United States
Posts: 18,776
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundwaveIsCharisma View Post
That outlook, that the players are losing money, seems to neglect the fact that the owners are the ones that are taking the majority of the financial risks. If their teams lose money, the players are still going to get paid, they are the ones that have to spend the money to make their teams more attractive to fans, and they also risk a lot of money if they want to upgrade arenas or even more to get new ones.

The argument seems to be from fans that players should shut up because they make millions, the players seems to be that the owners should shut up because they make "billions". Honestly, both sides should shut up, they should get a really good team of financial/market experts in as arbitrators and figure out something that will work longterm.
This just isn't a valid argument. The players play the game, the owners spend money on their business. It doesn't matter if the team loses money. The players are paid to play hockey. That is their contribution. Without that, the owners make ZERO money.

Financial risk has nothing to do with why the players should be contributing more money. It has nothing to do with them. That is the owners sole job. Contributing money into their business. They make the business decisions without the players approval. They reap the benefits. They take the losses if they're making bad decisions. They don't do anything else except contribute money.

I won't disagree the players need to contribute a little more than under the previous CBA, but not for this reason. They have to contribute ALL the health risks (except for PL and Sather's cigar smoking) and contribute a litte more financially because the owners don't think it's fair? Why don't we pick a few owners names out of a hat every year and break their nose, or their leg, or hit them over the head and give them a concussion that may affect them for the rest of their life. I think that's what's needed if you want everyone to share risk.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bender View Post
C'mon now, join everyone else in the REAL WORLD. Every single successful business in the entire world has the OWNERS of that business making light years more than the employees!!! 57%??? 43%??? That is laughable in any 'real world' example.

Do you think rock stars making an album make more than the music distributor that sells their record? Do you think actors on TV shows make more than the networks that hire them?

Most importantly, do you really believe that NHL owners as a group, are all doing just fine and making lots of money and this is all about just making that much MORE money? If so, why wouldn't they have just taken the players LAST offer, to stop this nonsense and obvious damage to the sport, to just get back to the aforementioned 'money making madness'??

Don't get me wrong, I am NOT saying that all of these franchises are being run properly and efficiently or that there aren't a few of them that are beyond reproach because I am certain that there are.

The point is, as I've maintained all along, the NHL as a major sports league, saw the NBA and the NFL see their revenue split go to '50-50/49-51' with their new CBA deals and they wanted the same. That's pretty much the only conceivable argument that they can put forward that is actually worth anything. The fact that there are lots of franchises that are losing money and can't keep up?? Practically irrelevant in my view. Why? Because last time, Gary told everyone who would listen that what the league needed was 'linkage' between salaries and revenue to be successful...well, they got linkage, so they certainly shouldn't be crying about it. However, the players had to expect going down to 50-50. The other issues right now, in my view, are 'idiot-proofing' the existing system. (I still don't see how it prevents another moron from signing Wade Redden to that retarded contract.) The players are no better in this stupid dispute. They were and will continue to be paid VERY fairly and their salaries will continue to grow (damage to the game from the lockout notwitstanding). They should have taken the league's last offer because the rest of the crap that they are arguing on, is just a bunch of fluff. Contract length isn't going to restrict players that much. Term of the CBA??? If the NHLPA were actually smart, they'd ask for a 12-15 year CBA. A 50-50 split fifteen years from now is going to look fantastic after the NBA and NFL go through this AGAIN as well, in my opinion.

You can choose to view this as a shakedown and perhaps that's a term that can accurately describe the situation when you DON'T compare it to the other major sports and their recent CBAs.

If the NHLPA really doesn't like it, then maybe they should start their own league, with their own arenas and their own teams and branding and staff and all that great stuff that is apparently super easy to obtain. What other alternative do they have? Class action lawsuit? Triple damages?? Ok, the NHLPA does that and WINS, then the league shuts down? Hurray?

As far as the owners 'not taking health risks', well as you mentioned, they are business men. They didn't decide to play hockey for a living with all the risks that are involved with that. If the players can't handle the 'risks' involved, they can move over and there will be another guy right behind to take their spot, and he'll be real happy about it.
You completely misinterpreted my point, and ironically made my same argument in the last paragraph. It has nothing to do with whether the owners should make more money. Of course they should. Why you ask? BECAUSE THEY"RE ARE TAKING THE FINANCIAL RISK!!! That's their only contribution to the partnership. THE ONLY ONE!!!

They are business men. If they can't take the risks involved, they should get out of the business. But instead they want to rig a system, where every owner is guaranteed a profit, no matter how poorly they run it, or how poor of a market they're in. And what a surprise the other businessmen don't want to give more of their own money to make this happen for crappy businessmen making poor decisions in poor markets, so they refuses to give more, which leaves Bettman to insist on the players fitting the bill.

This is why the Leafs owner "turned purple" and stormed out of New York when the other owners agreed to offer up more money to the players at the beginning of negotiations. That's mostly HIS money.

This is not 04, most of the teams did not lose money. Only a handfull of teams are struggling, and mostly because of being poorly or managed, or being in markets they shouldn't be in. Gary thought the same system that worked for leagues like the NFL and NBA, whose revenue pool is ridiculously larger, would work for the NHL, where every percentage point counts that much more, and each side fights that much harder to keep from losing it. It can't work the same as the other leagues, and it doesn't.

Foppa2118 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-26-2012, 09:34 AM
  #563
Bender
TheHockeyProspector
 
Bender's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,949
vCash: 7658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foppa2118 View Post
This is not 04, most of the teams did not lose money. Only a handfull of teams are struggling, and mostly because of being poorly or managed, or being in markets they shouldn't be in. Gary thought the same system that worked for leagues like the NFL and NBA, whose revenue pool is ridiculously larger, would work for the NHL, where every percentage point counts that much more, and each side fights that much harder to keep from losing it. It can't work the same as the other leagues, and it doesn't.
I heard somewhere that the reason Bettman is sticking so hard on keeping these teams in 'poor' markets (attendance wise) is because they are in traditionally very good TV markets in those areas.

Don't know how accurate that is but I guess it would make 'some' sense for something that might work out in the future for these struggling franchises.

Bender is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2012, 08:05 PM
  #564
Foppa2118
Registered User
 
Foppa2118's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: 22 Acacia Avenue
Country: United States
Posts: 18,776
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bender View Post
I heard somewhere that the reason Bettman is sticking so hard on keeping these teams in 'poor' markets (attendance wise) is because they are in traditionally very good TV markets in those areas.

Don't know how accurate that is but I guess it would make 'some' sense for something that might work out in the future for these struggling franchises.
The argument I always heard is similar, but it was because he was trying to get a major network deal after the ESPN one expired and that was an incentive for the networks to have fans in both the south and northern US. He never got that, and instead got the Vs deal. Perhaps that played into the bigger NBC deal too, but the majority of their games are still on the old Vs channel.

Foppa2118 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 09:50 AM
  #565
Bender
TheHockeyProspector
 
Bender's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,949
vCash: 7658
New NHL offer apparently

http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/87...er-source-says

Bender is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 10:30 AM
  #566
Frenchy
Global Moderator
 
Frenchy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Alma, QC.
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,549
vCash: 3375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bender View Post
God , i hope both sides will finally stop trolling us and that we'll finally have hockey again

Frenchy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 01:19 PM
  #567
S E P H
@Krzysztof_WHL
 
S E P H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Avs Country!
Country: Poland
Posts: 4,440
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frenchy View Post
God , i hope both sides will finally stop trolling us and that we'll finally have hockey again
Totally, and I know Freudian has been following this lockout very closely and he thinks there should be a deal.

Overall this is good news for more negotiating.

S E P H is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 01:45 PM
  #568
Frenchy
Global Moderator
 
Frenchy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Alma, QC.
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,549
vCash: 3375
Quote:
Originally Posted by S E P H View Post
Totally, and I know Freudian has been following this lockout very closely and he thinks there should be a deal.

Overall this is good news for more negotiating.
On RDS , they already said that the players will probably reject the offer.

Frenchy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 01:51 PM
  #569
S E P H
@Krzysztof_WHL
 
S E P H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Avs Country!
Country: Poland
Posts: 4,440
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frenchy View Post
On RDS , they already said that the players will probably reject the offer.
I don't understand why they can't build it into negotiating than just reject it right then and there (and it has been from both sides). This is why the NHL absolutely sucks with lockouts and throwball league is #1.

S E P H is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 01:52 PM
  #570
Lonewolfe2015
Registered User
 
Lonewolfe2015's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 11,263
vCash: 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by S E P H View Post
I don't understand why they can't build it into negotiating than just reject it right then and there (and it has been from both sides). This is why the NHL absolutely sucks with lockouts and throwball league is #1.
Maybe if NHL players went to college they'd be educated enough to make real business decisions.

Lonewolfe2015 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 01:57 PM
  #571
Cypher
#GenieArmy
 
Cypher's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,549
vCash: 140
I like the $60 million Upper Limit for the start of the 2013/14 season, but hate that each Club will be entitled to execute up to one “Compliance Buy-Out” prior to the 2013/14 season pursuant to which payments made to the Player will not be charged against the team’s Cap, but will be charged against the Players’ Share.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/i...ec-27-proposal

Cypher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 10:10 PM
  #572
Frenchy
Global Moderator
 
Frenchy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Alma, QC.
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,549
vCash: 3375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cypher View Post
I like the $60 million Upper Limit for the start of the 2013/14 season, but hate that each Club will be entitled to execute up to one “Compliance Buy-Out” prior to the 2013/14 season pursuant to which payments made to the Player will not be charged against the team’s Cap, but will be charged against the Players’ Share.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/i...ec-27-proposal
That's the part, that they said, the players will say no to.

Frenchy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 10:21 PM
  #573
Frenchy
Global Moderator
 
Frenchy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Alma, QC.
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,549
vCash: 3375
Quote:
Originally Posted by S E P H View Post
I don't understand why they can't build it into negotiating than just reject it right then and there (and it has been from both sides). This is why the NHL absolutely sucks with lockouts and throwball league is #1.
Both side have a date in mind and it's arround mid January. They both know that most NHL teams dont make any money and dont attrack most of their fans b4 Xmas . Plus they know that the TV ratings, for NHL games, are at their lowest in the US, as long as the NFL is playing . So mid-January is the key moment where the NHL can catch a bit of the spotlight again and where their fans in the US, are starting to watch Hockey a little bit ... untill Baseball's season .

Until then, they are gonna troll us as much as they want .

Frenchy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 11:21 AM
  #574
chet1926
Registered User
 
chet1926's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver
Country: United States
Posts: 3,956
vCash: 500
At this point if there is no season its on the players. Its very clear to me that the owners are willing to play ball, now its time for the players to play ball as well.

The owners have consistently made concessions in the interest of trying to get a deal done and all the players have done is tell everyone how mistreated they are.

The most current offer on the table is probably the best offer that any major sport has. I'd say this offer, offers more to the players than either the NFLs or NBAs most current deals offer and the players would be incredibly stupid to just throw this one out.

chet1926 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 11:44 AM
  #575
Freudian
Patty likes beef
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 29,118
vCash: 50
A stupid criminal stole Cumiskey's hockey trunk, wore the stuff, took a picture and put it on the internet.

He was identified, arrested and everything but the skates were recovered.

Freudian is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 07:59 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.