HFBoards

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

Proposed new CBA (by me, not NHL or NHLPA)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-10-2012, 03:52 PM
  #1
Master Lok
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 7,066
vCash: 500
Proposed new CBA (by me, not NHL or NHLPA)

So in the other thread I has posted this:

Bob McKenzie had a good breakdown of the two sides stances in todays mornings team 1260 interview.

One of the big issues is the split of revenue. Currently players are earning 57% of revenue while the owners are earning 43% and the owners are taking the financial risk and paying all the expenses: medical, travel, advertising etc.

The owners' first offer was a flip - so that the owners would get 57% and the players 43%. The second offer was increased to 47% (I think) for the players.

The Players offer was merely a temporary reduction in their portion of revenue, but their share would increase by 2% every year until it was back up to 57% in four years time.

So according to Bob, that's a non starter. the players have not made an offer that was less than their 57% current share of revenues. According to Bob, he thought that it was the players stand that was least flexible and most intransigent.

------------------------------------------------------------

Question: what do you think a workable CBA could look like?

My proposal:
Revenue split 50% (owners) 50% players.

- salary cap will be calculated to the 50% revenue.
- no rollback but teams are allowed to a one time buy out of contracts at one third of remaining total contract value.

- cap floor remains the same.

- NHL contracts for players in the AHL do not count toward cap.

- a contract whose term ends with a player aged over 35, will have the cap hit impacting on the team salary cap regardless of whether the player retired or not.

So for e.g.- Player X has a cap hit of $7 million per season. He is aged 27. Contract runs for 13 more years. Because he will be over 35 by the time the contract ends (i.e. age 40), the $7 million cap hit will still count regardless if the player retires at age 38 or continues to play.

- otherwise, no max term on contracts. If an NHL team wants to lock down their young star, i.e. Taylor Hall for 10 years as soon as the ELC expires, he can do so as long as the he will be 35 or under by the time the contract ends or his cap hit will still count if he retires.

- ELC remains the same. UFA rules remains the same. RFA rules remain the same.

- close loophole of drafted college players who become UFA.


Still not sure about how to resolve some type of revenue sharing. Ideas are welcome.

Master Lok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 04:01 PM
  #2
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 27,441
vCash: 2768
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Lok View Post

Question: what do you think a workable CBA could look like?

My proposal:
Revenue split 50% (owners) 50% players.
Think this is what it should be
- salary cap will be calculated to the 50% revenue.
- no rollback but teams are allowed to a one time buy out of contracts at one third of remaining total contract value.
I don't think 1/3 would fly with the players. Probably have to be 2/3. I also wonder that instead of a major 24% rollback a 10% rollback is more acceptable.
- cap floor remains the same.
I want to see the cap floor closer to the cap max.
- NHL contracts for players in the AHL do not count toward cap.
I can't see a lot of teams liking this. This would be a loophole to making a hard cap a soft cap.
- a contract whose term ends with a player aged over 35, will have the cap hit impacting on the team salary cap regardless of whether the player retired or not.
Probably have to grandfather current contracts.
So for e.g.- Player X has a cap hit of $7 million per season. He is aged 27. Contract runs for 13 more years. Because he will be over 35 by the time the contract ends (i.e. age 40), the $7 million cap hit will still count regardless if the player retires at age 38 or continues to play.

- otherwise, no max term on contracts. If an NHL team wants to lock down their young star, i.e. Taylor Hall for 10 years as soon as the ELC expires, he can do so as long as the he will be 35 or under by the time the contract ends or his cap hit will still count if he retires.
I want a max simply because if you allow teams to give those big contracts we are going to have a mess in 10 years.
- ELC remains the same. UFA rules remains the same. RFA rules remain the same.
Not opposed to this staying the same.
- close loophole of drafted college players who become UFA.
So what happens to the players that teams don't want? It's quite rare that players actually screw over teams.

Still not sure about how to resolve some type of revenue sharing. Ideas are welcome.
see bold

joestevens29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 04:04 PM
  #3
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 27,441
vCash: 2768
Regardless of what happens I still don't think we will ever see a time where we have 30 healthy financial teams. I think the NHL needs to realize this.

joestevens29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 04:32 PM
  #4
Master Lok
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 7,066
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joestevens29 View Post
- no rollback but teams are allowed to a one time buy out of contracts at one third of remaining total contract value.
I don't think 1/3 would fly with the players. Probably have to be 2/3. I also wonder that instead of a major 24% rollback a 10% rollback is more acceptable.
Fair enough. I was doing this on the fly so I couldn't remember what the current buy out clause is. It has to be cheaper than the current buyout clause. A rollback maybe more acceptable but a) the NHLPA has already stated no rollback and b) some type of contract flexibility is needed for those teams who are already close to the cap currently. Either rollback or contract buyout.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joestevens29 View Post
- cap floor remains the same.
I want to see the cap floor closer to the cap max.
Fair enough - but a reduced cap would mean a closer floor since I believe it's a percentage and not a flat difference. i.e. higher the cap max, the greater the difference with the cap floor and vice versa.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joestevens29 View Post
- NHL contracts for players in the AHL do not count toward cap.
I can't see a lot of teams liking this. This would be a loophole to making a hard cap a soft cap.
This is as it is right now. the Rangers are hiding Wade Redden's contract in the AHL. They still have to pay the contract, but they're not hit by the cap. I'm not suggesting that we change this. But it does make cap calculations easier than including every single contract out there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joestevens29 View Post
I want a max simply because if you allow teams to give those big contracts we are going to have a mess in 10 years.
I thought about a max - but the more I thought about it - the more I ask myself - what's wrong with signing players for 10 years if they are young stars like Taylor Hall? What do fans want? Fans want stars who stay with the team - not constant changing mercenaries. If teams are silly enough to offer 10 year contracts, and young players who are silly enough to sign them - that's a good thing for fans.

If teams are silly enough to offer huge terms for players who shouldn't get them - they get punished for it. So be it. Poor management and poor contracts should punish the team.


Quote:
Originally Posted by joestevens29 View Post
- close loophole of drafted college players who become UFA.
So what happens to the players that teams don't want? It's quite rare that players actually screw over teams.
True but I was thinking it would really suck if we had drafted Justin Schultz and had lost him. and I remember Mike Comrie holding a gun to the Oilers head on his first contract. It should be a level playing field for all drafted players.

Thanks for the thoughtful comments joestevens.

Master Lok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 04:38 PM
  #5
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 27,441
vCash: 2768
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Lok View Post

I thought about a max - but the more I thought about it - the more I ask myself - what's wrong with signing players for 10 years if they are young stars like Taylor Hall? What do fans want? Fans want stars who stay with the team - not constant changing mercenaries. If teams are silly enough to offer 10 year contracts, and young players who are silly enough to sign them - that's a good thing for fans.

If teams are silly enough to offer huge terms for players who shouldn't get them - they get punished for it. So be it. Poor management and poor contracts should punish the team.

Yes they'll get punished but what happens when all of a sudden half the league has dead weight contracts? That's my worry, it's not bad right now but give it time the Isles won't be the only ones with long-term deals that are useless.

Although maybe they change something with buyouts where at a certain age buyouts are only at 1/3. Kinda like they have now for players under 25 or 26. Maybe they go to a 1/3 buyout for guys over 33 or 34?

Or something where a 1/3 buyout is applicable to the last 1/3 of a contract over 7 years.

I don't disagree that teams should be punished, but I just see it causing problems.




True but I was thinking it would really suck if we had drafted Justin Schultz and had lost him. and I remember Mike Comrie holding a gun to the Oilers head on his first contract. It should be a level playing field for all drafted players.

Maybe they just close the loophole and make it so players go back into the draft instead of being UFA's? Might make a player think twice, at the very least a team gets the player signed and then can trade him for close to full value if said player wants out.

Thanks for the thoughtful comments joestevens.
see bold

joestevens29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 04:39 PM
  #6
Mr Sakich
Registered User
 
Mr Sakich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Motel 35
Posts: 8,302
vCash: 500
for any deal longer than 5 years, the team that he plays the most games in the first 3 years has the cap hit without exception, even if he is traded.

Currently, what is going to happen with the long term deals is that the big market teams will soon be trading the players to small market teams when the player is old and his actual salary is very low. The small market team get the big cap hit with very little actual salary. This helps them get to the floor.

If a team like Vancouver has Luongo's hit even when he is 43, then it doesn't matter if they are saving money in the short term. Soon enough they will be forced to pay the piper. With the current rules, they have an easy way to avoid this in the future. I would like to see this loophole closed.

This would severly penalize the 13 year deals to guys into theire 40's.

Mr Sakich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 04:49 PM
  #7
Perfect_Drug
Registered User
 
Perfect_Drug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,642
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Sakich View Post
for any deal longer than 5 years, the team that he plays the most games in the first 3 years has the cap hit without exception, even if he is traded.

Currently, what is going to happen with the long term deals is that the big market teams will soon be trading the players to small market teams when the player is old and his actual salary is very low. The small market team get the big cap hit with very little actual salary. This helps them get to the floor.

If a team like Vancouver has Luongo's hit even when he is 43, then it doesn't matter if they are saving money in the short term. Soon enough they will be forced to pay the piper. With the current rules, they have an easy way to avoid this in the future. I would like to see this loophole closed.

This would severly penalize the 13 year deals to guys into theire 40's.

Wouldn't it just make more sense that the Cap Hit simply be the amount the player is paid THAT season?


Front-loading contracts will be meaningless.


No need to ever sign a player past 35 unless they're performing at a VERY high level.

Perfect_Drug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 06:22 PM
  #8
MisterD
Registered User
 
MisterD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Saskazoo
Posts: 8,478
vCash: 50
If we switched to a 50/50 split effective this season, several teams would be over the cap, and buy-outs might not be enough to get them below. I think we have to implement a system that slowly gets the split down to 50/50.

-Seven year CBA - HRR% drops down by 2% every year until the 50/50 split is achieved. This ensures no rollbacks or larger escrows and doesn't necessarily require buy-outs.
-I agree on the idea about having no limits on contract length (i.e. contracts that extend to 35+ years of age or locked in cap-hits with no exceptions)
-Increase revenue sharing by 35%. Have it set-up so that all teams with a lower than average revenue get a basic revenue sharing number, if the meet certain targets (i.e. attendance numbers, etc.) they will qualify for further revenue sharing
-Increase ELC to 4 years
-Leave the arbitration system "as is"
-Increase UFA eligibility by one year

MisterD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 06:27 PM
  #9
Replacement
Now 11.5% more Zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 40,972
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Lok View Post

- NHL contracts for players in the AHL do not count toward cap.
Wouldn't this open up possibilities of other loopholes or a team finding ways to stash some cap down there. Why invoke that?
Quote:
- a contract whose term ends with a player aged over 35, will have the cap hit impacting on the team salary cap regardless of whether the player retired or not.

So for e.g.- Player X has a cap hit of $7 million per season. He is aged 27. Contract runs for 13 more years. Because he will be over 35 by the time the contract ends (i.e. age 40), the $7 million cap hit will still count regardless if the player retires at age 38 or continues to play.

.
As mentioned in the thread theres simply better ways to deal with this issue. The above is imo punitive but thereby for clubs and the fans of those clubs. So if a club is saddled with bad contractual decisions it prolongs the org associated agony.

Replacement is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 06:44 PM
  #10
JMecc
Oil Change 24/04/15!
 
JMecc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 249
vCash: 500
I wish they'd just have the players sign percentage contracts, like I've seen proposed on the board before. Say each team has a maximum of 100 pay points to hand out to players (maybe floor of 75) that never changes and then at the end of each year the players are paid per that. During the year, projections can be used for paychecks and then corrected on last few checks.

For example say we sign Nuge to 8.0 pts, i.e. an 8% stake. Every year the league calculates HRR, times 57% (or whatever they agree on), divide by 30 teams to get a number, like 70 million. Then Nuge gets 8% of that number.

Then contracts don't start out bad to them become sweetheart deals accidentally, and no debating cap for the next year - it's just fixed percentages of the actual year the player plays.

JMecc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2012, 08:37 AM
  #11
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 27,441
vCash: 2768
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMecc View Post
I wish they'd just have the players sign percentage contracts, like I've seen proposed on the board before. Say each team has a maximum of 100 pay points to hand out to players (maybe floor of 75) that never changes and then at the end of each year the players are paid per that. During the year, projections can be used for paychecks and then corrected on last few checks.

For example say we sign Nuge to 8.0 pts, i.e. an 8% stake. Every year the league calculates HRR, times 57% (or whatever they agree on), divide by 30 teams to get a number, like 70 million. Then Nuge gets 8% of that number.

Then contracts don't start out bad to them become sweetheart deals accidentally, and no debating cap for the next year - it's just fixed percentages of the actual year the player plays.
No one is going to sign percentage deals.

joestevens29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2012, 12:14 PM
  #12
Master Lok
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 7,066
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
Wouldn't this open up possibilities of other loopholes or a team finding ways to stash some cap down there. Why invoke that?
I'm not suggesting anything different that what we currently have right now. NHL contracts hidden in the AHL are not included in the cap on the current CBA.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
As mentioned in the thread theres simply better ways to deal with this issue. The above is imo punitive but thereby for clubs and the fans of those clubs. So if a club is saddled with bad contractual decisions it prolongs the org associated agony.
Absolutely. The club has several choices - a) buyout the contract in the summer. b) Hide the player in the AHL but they're on the hook for paying the salary. c) Keep the player the NHL and endure the pain.

Sometimes pain is the only real way for people (aka General Managers) to learn from their mistakes.

Master Lok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2012, 12:19 PM
  #13
Master Lok
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 7,066
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMecc View Post
I wish they'd just have the players sign percentage contracts, like I've seen proposed on the board before. Say each team has a maximum of 100 pay points to hand out to players (maybe floor of 75) that never changes and then at the end of each year the players are paid per that. During the year, projections can be used for paychecks and then corrected on last few checks.
Not a chance. It's an idea in theory but lacks practicality. Trades, new signing etc. would all be more difficult because the percentages remain the same.

For e.g. 2012 cap is $50 million. Gomez is signed for $5 million or 10%. If the cap goes up to 55 million next year, the team gains extra cap flexibility in the non-percentage scenario. In the percentage scenario - nothing is changed as Gomez contract increases to 5.5 million and hence the team is stuck with no flexibility. In order to add players, they would have to subtract - it would be much harsher cap world.

Master Lok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2012, 12:31 PM
  #14
I am the Liquor
Fire Mact
 
I am the Liquor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sunnyvale
Country: Canada
Posts: 35,520
vCash: 1271
New salary cap of 35mill.

Cap would include ahl salaries.

Salary cap is increased by 2mill per year for ten years. (new cba would be a ten year agreement)

Players would face an immediate rollback of 50%.

Cap hits will be calculated as to what each player makes each season.

Everything else stays the same.

Dont like it, go work at Safeway.

10% of all league revenue would go to a designated charity. (different one for each of the ten years)

Ticket prices league wide would be reduced by 15%.


Last edited by I am the Liquor: 09-11-2012 at 12:37 PM.
I am the Liquor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2012, 01:00 PM
  #15
Mowzie
Asst. Dishwasher
 
Mowzie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Lebanon, Alberta
Country: Lebanon
Posts: 8,410
vCash: 500
12 Yr. CBA.

Year 1-4: Owners 46%-Players 54%
Year 5-8: Owners 48%-Players 52%
Year 9-12: Owners 50%-Players 50%

Cap floor is 30% less that cap ceiling.

Up to 6M of cap space can be tradable, but a max of 3M per transaction. No team may acquire more than $6M in cap space.

On contracts longer than 5 years, there cannot be more than a 30% drop off or climb over the course of the deal. This will kill the Parise/Suter type deals.

UFA stays at 27/7

CONTRACT/ RELOCATE PHOENIX!!!!!!1!!!!

Lower ticket prices!!!

Mowzie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2012, 01:40 PM
  #16
Hoogaar23
Registered User
 
Hoogaar23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,498
vCash: 500
Make salary the same in every year of a contract. No front loading, no token tack on years at the end. A 10 year $100M deal is $10M/year. Would instantly close one of the biggest loopholes in the current CBA.

Hoogaar23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2012, 02:13 PM
  #17
Cloned
Dial M for Michelle
 
Cloned's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 23,170
vCash: 500
Eliminate RFA compensation. Only give the original team the right to match.

This alone should be a big enough bone to the players that they would be willing to accept lower salary.

__________________

Sig AND X-mas avatar courtesy of The Nemesis

"Pull yourself together!" - Solid Snake to Otacon, multiple times in the series
Cloned is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2012, 02:23 PM
  #18
I am the Liquor
Fire Mact
 
I am the Liquor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sunnyvale
Country: Canada
Posts: 35,520
vCash: 1271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloned View Post
Eliminate RFA compensation. Only give the original team the right to match.

This alone should be a big enough bone to the players that they would be willing to accept lower salary.
That would send the average salary through the roof.

And it would widen the gap between the have's and the have not's, something the league has been working to rectify.

I am the Liquor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2012, 02:53 PM
  #19
Cloned
Dial M for Michelle
 
Cloned's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 23,170
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am the Liquor View Post
That would send the average salary through the roof.

And it would widen the gap between the have's and the have not's, something the league has been working to rectify.
You'd still have 50% liinkage at the end.

It's a concession I could see the owners making. The average salary goes up, but eventually some of it goes back into escrow and the ultimate result is still 50%.

Don't really see it making a bigger difference between the have's and have not's - there will still be a hard cap, and if you move the floor closer to the cap, there wouldn't be that difference. It would only accentuate good versus poor management.

Cloned is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2012, 03:00 PM
  #20
I am the Liquor
Fire Mact
 
I am the Liquor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sunnyvale
Country: Canada
Posts: 35,520
vCash: 1271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloned View Post
You'd still have 50% liinkage at the end.

It's a concession I could see the owners making. The average salary goes up, but eventually some of it goes back into escrow and the ultimate result is still 50%.

Don't really see it making a bigger difference between the have's and have not's - there will still be a hard cap, and if you move the floor closer to the cap, there wouldn't be that difference. It would only accentuate good versus poor management.
Without real revenue sharing the cap system that is directly linked to revenues isnt working and wont work in the future.

I am the Liquor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2012, 03:05 PM
  #21
Cloned
Dial M for Michelle
 
Cloned's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 23,170
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am the Liquor View Post
Without real revenue sharing the cap system that is directly linked to revenues isnt working and wont work in the future.
Agreed here.

Cloned is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2012, 03:14 PM
  #22
Oilfan2
Oil the way..
 
Oilfan2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,009
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am the Liquor View Post
New salary cap of 35mill.

Cap would include ahl salaries.

Salary cap is increased by 2mill per year for ten years. (new cba would be a ten year agreement)

Players would face an immediate rollback of 50%.

Cap hits will be calculated as to what each player makes each season.

Everything else stays the same.

Dont like it, go work at Safeway.

10% of all league revenue would go to a designated charity. (different one for each of the ten years)

Ticket prices league wide would be reduced by 15%.
I like it...Owners should decide between themselves what's good for the league and institute it. Players would play for whatever the owners decide they should or go elsewhere.
All this trying to decide who gets what percentage is silly....That should be the owner's perogative.

Oilfan2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2012, 04:26 PM
  #23
AlanHUK
5-14-6-1
 
AlanHUK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Nottingham, England
Country: England
Posts: 1,859
vCash: 822
Cap remains at the current 70.2m untill 50% of HRR reaches that point, that 7% eventual difference is added into the revenue sharing pool.

Players can't complain about losing money any more as there will be no rollback, they won't lose a cent.

The league gets down to the 50/50, the money they end up saving goes into the revenue sharing pool, that extra income won't be noticed as missing by the big team owners because they didn't have it before and it helps the smaller teams.

The eventual saving would be 7.7m per team.

This would mean instead of 18 teams losing money only 6 would be (source forbes):


PHX 24.4 (not sure how the 25m from COG plays into it)
CBJ 13.7
TBL 8.5
Anh 8.4
NYI 8.1
SJS 7.8
-----------
NSH 7.5
WSH 7.5
FL 7
NJD 6.1
MIN 5.9
BUF 5.6
WPG 5.2
CAR 4.4
STL 2.7
LA 2
DAL 1.1
PIT 0.2

Total: ~125m

AlanHUK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2012, 04:36 PM
  #24
I am the Liquor
Fire Mact
 
I am the Liquor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sunnyvale
Country: Canada
Posts: 35,520
vCash: 1271
The Forbes numbers are not accurate.

I am the Liquor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2012, 06:06 PM
  #25
ponokanocker
Registered User
 
ponokanocker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,518
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am the Liquor View Post
New salary cap of 35mill.

Cap would include ahl salaries.

Salary cap is increased by 2mill per year for ten years. (new cba would be a ten year agreement)

Players would face an immediate rollback of 50%.

Cap hits will be calculated as to what each player makes each season.

Everything else stays the same.

Dont like it, go work at Safeway.

10% of all league revenue would go to a designated charity. (different one for each of the ten years)

Ticket prices league wide would be reduced by 15%.


I love it.

ponokanocker 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 10:58 PM.

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

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