HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Who's side are you on if you were forced to pick sides? The owners? ... or the NHLPA?

View Poll Results: Who's side are you on if you were forced to pick sides? The owners? ... or the NHLPA?
The owners 144 48.65%
The NHLPA 152 51.35%
Voters: 296. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-19-2012, 12:36 AM
  #751
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 10,096
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by e46330ivs View Post
I make roughly 36-37 $ pr hr. if my boss asked me to take a 12% pay cut in todays economy I dont think I would have a choice but to accept.
If your boss can replace you with someone making $32/hour who is equally productive, then that's where your salary is going.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:37 AM
  #752
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,729
vCash: 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
ok, I missed the part where you had it go back up to 50% in the last year.

By the way, just because player salaries go up doesn't mean the agreement "favours the players". If the owners get most of the growth, then it probably favours the owners ...
It's simple math. 57 now and 50% later isn't 50% total. Common sense.

Players start at 57, drop to 51 in year 3 and years 4-6 is an adjustment for the amount the owners lost in first 3 years, they get it back, but LATER. Money now>>Money after right? Simple finance logic. Players keep their money but league growth is reduced ONLY by the amount they got extra, that's it. In the end it's true 50-50.

LyricalLyricist is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:45 AM
  #753
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 10,096
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
It's simple math. 57 now and 50% later isn't 50% total. Common sense.

Players start at 57, drop to 51 in year 3 and years 4-6 is an adjustment for the amount the owners lost in first 3 years, they get it back, but LATER. Money now>>Money after right? Simple finance logic. Players keep their money but league growth is reduced ONLY by the amount they got extra, that's it. In the end it's true 50-50.
No, it makes sense, I just didn't read it properly the first time.

You can dampen all the numbers if the growth is below 5%, and keep them the same if above 5%.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 12:48 AM
  #754
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,729
vCash: 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
No, it makes sense, I just didn't read it properly the first time.

You can dampen all the numbers if the growth is below 5%, and keep them the same if above 5%.
The numbers are done by those who have better data but you get the point. I'm not anti-player here. I just feel 50-50 is way to go. Honouring contracts isn't a bad motto either but something's gotta give.

LyricalLyricist is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:24 AM
  #755
Zam Boni
Registered User
 
Zam Boni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: 8 km from the Globe
Country: Sweden
Posts: 1,162
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
Lol. That was a great explanation, and I thank you for it. The problem with it is that the NHL is NOT the only place where hockey players get paid to play hockey, it is NOT the only league where hockey players can earn a living. It is the BEST place, but not the only place, which is what I proved to our Educated Academic in an earlier post. I know that there is a 98-99% "failure rating" for getting into the NHL, but that was not the argument. DAChampion indicated that players take all of the risks with a 98-99% failure rating, but he didn't take into account that there are far more careers in hockey than just in the NHL. He failed to take that into account when claiming his "failure" numbers...unless he is trying to state that ONLY NHL players take risks in the hockey profession and everyone else playing professional hockey for lesser leagues and lesser salaries are not taking any risks at all. His percentages for his argument are wrong, but he just won't admit it. Apparently educated academics can not admit to being incorrect like we poor "Joe Blows"...or he only thinks success for hockey players is playing in the NHL.

Thanks for taking the time to do what DAChampion SHOULD have tried to do, but he didn't do it because he knew where he went wrong and was hoping to let the matter slide away.
No problems, it was a fun past time during a grueling Excel exercise and I found it pretty entertaining.

But really though, how many proffesional leagues and players are there. If we continue to focus on NA AHL obviously, and ECHL. Add 30 and 23 teams, carrying 25-30 players under contract?

That bumps the number of professional players into the 2000-2100 number range. Still pretty slim chances given our pool of some 640000 male players below 20 yo.

Would you consider CHL a professional league?
Are there any other leagues? Beyond ECHL and CHL my knowledge is limited.

Another issue is wheter you can call a stint ECHL a career at all?! In my view it is more like working at a ski resort a couple of years before getting an education and having a "real" career. No knocks on the guys working ski resorts, I did it myself.

Zam Boni is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 01:39 AM
  #756
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 10,096
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edmontreal View Post
No problems, it was a fun past time during a grueling Excel exercise and I found it pretty entertaining.

But really though, how many proffesional leagues and players are there. If we continue to focus on NA AHL obviously, and ECHL. Add 30 and 23 teams, carrying 25-30 players under contract?

That bumps the number of professional players into the 2000-2100 number range. Still pretty slim chances given our pool of some 640000 male players below 20 yo.

Would you consider CHL a professional league?
Are there any other leagues? Beyond ECHL and CHL my knowledge is limited.

Another issue is wheter you can call a stint ECHL a career at all?! In my view it is more like working at a ski resort a couple of years before getting an education and having a "real" career. No knocks on the guys working ski resorts, I did it myself.
The top players in the ECHL count as $1000/wk, I'm not sure it counts as "making it", and the rookie salary is a few hundred dollars a week. You could probably consider it a severance package for the more promising failures.

No 15 year-old in the CHL tells you he that he's working hard, training at the gym and on the ice, and putting less effort into high school than necessary to be accepted at any serious university, so that he can make $700/week in the ECHL. He's part of the faiilure rate if he ends up there.

According to this thread,
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...d.php?t=282433
The salary cap in the ECHL is $10,000/week FOR THE ENTIRE team. That is about $450/week/player, and the league only plays for two thirds of the year. ECHL players are part of the failure rate.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 07:10 AM
  #757
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,729
vCash: 152
Just saw nhlpa's offers. I didn't see details but one said immediate 50-50 with no rollbacks and honoring contracts. I think that's fair. At best I'd suggest whatever extra a team spends can be using as an allowance for future years. For instance in this one year only a team is 5 mil over cap. In duration of agreement they can accumulate 5 mil under cap floor in compensation.

My guess is well see contracts honored but the 12.3% deferred.


Last edited by LyricalLyricist: 10-19-2012 at 07:15 AM.
LyricalLyricist is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 07:34 AM
  #758
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,156
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
I can't think of a single business in the world where that's true, it doesn't even describe the NHL.
I guess you should stick to math. The players do not pay a single cent into any of the operating costs, concession costs, adverising costs, player salaries, or any other salaries related to HRR in any way, shape , or form. The owners pay for everything. At least THAT much you should have gleaned from this entire thread.

The players simply choose a career, prepare for that career, make sacrifices to get to the top of their chosen profession. In other words, they do the same thing as anyone else who chooses, and prepares for, a career, whether or not they work harder is immaterial (and aguable). They do not put any money into the system, they simply draw money out of it. The owners pay for everything. Whether or not they make money, they have to pay for everything. Even when owners declare bankruptcy, the players get paid their full amount due. That is the type of business partnership we have in the NHLwners pay everything, players pay nothing, yet it is the owners who are "greedy" for wanting an EVEN 50/50 share of the revenue when hockey players' revenues are not even completely included in the entire scheme.

Keep in mind, we are simply seeing a correction of the pendulum effect. When hockey was developing, the owners were making money while players had to get "real" jobs to help pay the bills. Then, players unionized, got smart, and we saw the pendulum swing the other way to the point where they were getting the majority of the money. What we saw with the last CBA, and with this one, is the (hopefully) final adjustment of the pendulum to where it should be: 50/50 between two partners in an enterprise.

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 07:37 AM
  #759
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,156
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
28% for the owners in 2004, 43% for the owners in 2011, 57% for the owners in 2018, 67% for the owners in 2025, and so on and so forth.
Exactly why we need the pendulum to swing back until it hits 50/50. 28/72 was wrong in 2004, and 67/33 would be wrong in 2025. However, ensuring 50/50 as soon as possible will hopefully prevent the 67/33 later.

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 08:22 AM
  #760
rafal majka
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Country: Japan
Posts: 894
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
I guess you should stick to math. The players do not pay a single cent into any of the operating costs, concession costs, adverising costs, player salaries, or any other salaries related to HRR in any way, shape , or form. The owners pay for everything. At least THAT much you should have gleaned from this entire thread.
And THAT has nothing to do with anything. I pay ALL the costs related with my business: 3net lease (which includes the landlord's property taxes and insurance costs), financing, etc. But my employees make what the market dictates. When labour was scarce 5 years ago, I had to pay more to attract and keep employees. It's a fact of life in business. Labour will get in compensation what the market dictates. "At least THAT much you should have gleaned from this entire thread."

Quote:
That is the type of business partnership we have in the NHLwners pay everything, players pay nothing, yet it is the owners who are "greedy" for wanting an EVEN 50/50 share of the revenue when hockey players' revenues are not even completely included in the entire scheme..
You're fixated on a ratio.

Quote:
Keep in mind, we are simply seeing a correction of the pendulum effect. When hockey was developing, the owners were making money while players had to get "real" jobs to help pay the bills. Then, players unionized, got smart, and we saw the pendulum swing the other way to the point where they were getting the majority of the money. What we saw with the last CBA, and with this one, is the (hopefully) final adjustment of the pendulum to where it should be: 50/50 between two partners in an enterprise.
Do you know the 100-year history of the NHL and the 45-year history of the NHLPA? Have you read, say, Net Worth? The "pendulum" has arguably swung to the players' favour for perhaps 20 years at best and yet you have the unmitigated audacity to whine about "fairness" for owners?

rafal majka is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 09:02 AM
  #761
IceDaddy
24 and Counting
 
IceDaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,916
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
Just saw nhlpa's offers. I didn't see details but one said immediate 50-50 with no rollbacks and honoring contracts. I think that's fair. At best I'd suggest whatever extra a team spends can be using as an allowance for future years. For instance in this one year only a team is 5 mil over cap. In duration of agreement they can accumulate 5 mil under cap floor in compensation.

My guess is well see contracts honored but the 12.3% deferred.

If they get the full contracts they are back close to 57-43 which would be a non starter for the NHL.

IceDaddy is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 09:13 AM
  #762
IceDaddy
24 and Counting
 
IceDaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,916
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by impudent_lowlife View Post
And THAT has nothing to do with anything. I pay ALL the costs related with my business: 3net lease (which includes the landlord's property taxes and insurance costs), financing, etc. But my employees make what the market dictates. When labour was scarce 5 years ago, I had to pay more to attract and keep employees. It's a fact of life in business. Labour will get in compensation what the market dictates. "At least THAT much you should have gleaned from this entire thread."



You're fixated on a ratio.



Do you know the 100-year history of the NHL and the 45-year history of the NHLPA? Have you read, say, Net Worth? The "pendulum" has arguably swung to the players' favour for perhaps 20 years at best and yet you have the unmitigated audacity to whine about "fairness" for owners?
How many of the current owners have owned their teams for more than 25 years?

IceDaddy is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 09:25 AM
  #763
Habsterix*
@Habsterix
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,475
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HabsRock View Post
I am still shocked to see people who think 50-50 of HRR is unfair for the players......
I'm personally shocked (well, not really) to see fans trusting anything coming out of Gary Bettman's mouth! Too many fans are gullible, hopeless and desperate sheep hearing what they want to hear. Don't trust what he says, period. They underlying truth is far from what he's showing and thankfully this time around, the players have Fehr on their side and with them, a vast majority of the fans.

Habsterix* is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 09:36 AM
  #764
IceDaddy
24 and Counting
 
IceDaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,916
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsterix View Post
I'm personally shocked (well, not really) to see fans trusting anything coming out of Gary Bettman's mouth! Too many fans are gullible, hopeless and desperate sheep hearing what they want to hear. Don't trust what he says, period. They underlying truth is far from what he's showing and thankfully this time around, the players have Fehr on their side and with them, a vast majority of the fans.
I dont listen to Bettman necessarily, I just think 50-50 is fair for both sides.

IceDaddy is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 09:52 AM
  #765
rafal majka
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Country: Japan
Posts: 894
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HabsRock View Post
How many of the current owners have owned their teams for more than 25 years?
What does that have to do with anything? Dryden brought up the "historical swinging of the pendulum" and that a balance was now "fair". I just pointed out that in a historical perspective, the pendulum needs to swing the players' way a few more decades in order for things to balance out. Both are illogical arguments that have no bearing whatsoever on the outcome of current negotiations.

rafal majka is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 10:21 AM
  #766
IceDaddy
24 and Counting
 
IceDaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,916
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by impudent_lowlife View Post
What does that have to do with anything? Dryden brought up the "historical swinging of the pendulum" and that a balance was now "fair". I just pointed out that in a historical perspective, the pendulum needs to swing the players' way a few more decades in order for things to balance out. Both are illogical arguments that have no bearing whatsoever on the outcome of current negotiations.

Im sure once the historical perspective is pointed out to the 7-8 owners who lose massive amounts of money they will be OK with it.



I just wish anyone on the players side would address the facts that some teams are losing money, and losing alot of it. All we hear from them is we wont take less money. Its not fair, we took less last time( but not really) and etc. The same garbage as always.

I also wish someone would ask the owners why they signed all those contracts over the summer if they would not honour them

IceDaddy is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 10:38 AM
  #767
habsfan92
Registered User
 
habsfan92's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 327
vCash: 500
Should be 50/50, cap should start at 65 mill, contracts should be honoured but adjust for cap. Teams should still pay those stupid contracts, but not allowed to trade the players or if they do then they should still be on the hook for the difference between the cap hit & actual dollars. players get their contracts honoured, teams still suffer from stupid contracts given out, drop the puck.

habsfan92 is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 11:17 AM
  #768
rafal majka
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Country: Japan
Posts: 894
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HabsRock View Post
I just wish anyone on the players side would address the facts that some teams are losing money, and losing alot of it. All we hear from them is we wont take less money. Its not fair, we took less last time( but not really) and etc. The same garbage as always.
Some teams are losing money. But even at a 50/50 split of HRR some teams are still going to lose money.

The NHL, being a dysfunctional oligopoly, cannot deal with the fact that it needs NFL-style revenue sharing between teams in order for all teams to profit.

Charles Wang has run the NY Islanders into the ground since he became owner in 2000. With the mistakes of Mike Milbury, Alexei Yashin and Rick DiPietro on his resume, Wang deserves to make a profit just because he's an owner?

rafal majka is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 11:18 AM
  #769
Fozz
Registered User
 
Fozz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 6,799
vCash: 500
A few key items to keep in mind:
- there are 30 owners and there are 740 players. 50/50 isn't really 50/50 when you consider this.
- owning a sports team is similar to owning real estate... You can make or loose money during the ownership period but the real value in terms of profit is when you sell.

Fozz is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 11:19 AM
  #770
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,156
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
The top players in the ECHL count as $1000/wk, I'm not sure it counts as "making it", and the rookie salary is a few hundred dollars a week. You could probably consider it a severance package for the more promising failures.

No 15 year-old in the CHL tells you he that he's working hard, training at the gym and on the ice, and putting less effort into high school than necessary to be accepted at any serious university, so that he can make $700/week in the ECHL. He's part of the faiilure rate if he ends up there.

According to this thread,
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...d.php?t=282433
The salary cap in the ECHL is $10,000/week FOR THE ENTIRE team. That is about $450/week/player, and the league only plays for two thirds of the year. ECHL players are part of the failure rate.
That is just ignorant. You are saying people making $450-$1000 per week are failures? Wow, there are billions of failures on the planet. Repulsive way to look at it. If they are earning a living (yes, $450 is earning a living. It is not a fantactic one, but it is still a living), paying their taxes, and doing what they want, who are you to call them failures? Wow, I work at an inner city school, so I guess a significant portion of my students and their parents are failures according to you. Great elitist bs you are spewing there. Please try to remember that there are a significant number of people who aim for University educations that do not succeed in that lofty goal who also go on to careers where they get paid a low wage. Are they all failures, too? What an incredibly, and ignorantly, broad definition of failure....

Of course, since it is simply a way for you to dismiss a significant number of employed and paid hockey players from the discussion disproving your 98-99% math, no wonder you want to dismiss anyone who isn't making millions playing hockey as failures.

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 11:29 AM
  #771
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,156
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edmontreal View Post
No problems, it was a fun past time during a grueling Excel exercise and I found it pretty entertaining.

But really though, how many proffesional leagues and players are there. If we continue to focus on NA AHL obviously, and ECHL. Add 30 and 23 teams, carrying 25-30 players under contract?

That bumps the number of professional players into the 2000-2100 number range. Still pretty slim chances given our pool of some 640000 male players below 20 yo.

Would you consider CHL a professional league?
Are there any other leagues? Beyond ECHL and CHL my knowledge is limited.

Another issue is wheter you can call a stint ECHL a career at all?! In my view it is more like working at a ski resort a couple of years before getting an education and having a "real" career. No knocks on the guys working ski resorts, I did it myself.
I have not been able to find out how many professional leagues there are in the world, unfortunately. However, there do seem to be leagues in far more contries than I ever imagined, and they are paying salaries of varying amount. Obviously, the salaries are at least enough for people to earn a living at them because they ARE attracting those North American players who do not make the NHL.

I won't only focus on North American leagues because it is incorrect to dismiss leagues around the world that players can go to in order to pursue their dream while still earning a living there. Whether or not the living is comparable to NHL salaries was never the argument, that is just a new side issue being tossed up by DAChampion as a smoke screen to cover his screwup with his numbers. He didn't realize that there were other paying leagues wolrd wide...unless he truly believes people making less than 6 figure salaries are failures, of course. Considering some of his views of teachers and common "Joe Blows", I am starting to fear for him on that point, though...

Keep in mind, he was trying to say anyone who isn't earning a living playing hockey was a failure, and that was where he came up with his 98-99% because he didn't count all of the other leagues that pay people to play hockey. His math was off and he is unwilling to admit it, that is all.

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 11:31 AM
  #772
rafal majka
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Country: Japan
Posts: 894
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fozz View Post
A few key items to keep in mind:

- owning a sports team is similar to owning real estate... You can make or lose money during the ownership period but the real value in terms of profit is when you sell.
Exactly. It's the one major point that owner sycophants fail to realize.

rafal majka is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 11:41 AM
  #773
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,156
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by impudent_lowlife View Post
And THAT has nothing to do with anything. I pay ALL the costs related with my business: 3net lease (which includes the landlord's property taxes and insurance costs), financing, etc. But my employees make what the market dictates. When labour was scarce 5 years ago, I had to pay more to attract and keep employees. It's a fact of life in business. Labour will get in compensation what the market dictates. "At least THAT much you should have gleaned from this entire thread."

I have figured that out. It is why I agree with the owners stance of a 50/50 split. The owners have determined what they can afford for the Labour and are now trying to get the emplyees/partners to agree to it. Like I said, did you ever give over 50% of your revenue to your employees? There is no good reason at all for the NHL owners to do it, either...especially when said employees are supposedly partners, as well.

You're fixated on a ratio.

Sure. A "fair" ratio that I have expained over an over.

Do you know the 100-year history of the NHL and the 45-year history of the NHLPA? Have you read, say, Net Worth? The "pendulum" has arguably swung to the players' favour for perhaps 20 years at best and yet you have the unmitigated audacity to whine about "fairness" for owners?
Yes, I do know that the owners used to screw the players for decades. You do know the old adage "two wrongs don't make a right", don't you? Do you really have the "unmitigated audacity to whine" about how the owners should not receive their fair due because players used to get screwed over?? Please tell me that is not your position. I believe there needs to be fairness between two partners in an enterprise even if one partner used to be bad.

By the way, argue with me all you want. I enjoy debates. They are fun. If you want to act like DAChampion and simply start tossing insults at me, **** off. I don't need to be called a whiner because you don't like my position, and I don't feel like trading barbs with two people at the same time. Whining would be me simply saying "You are wrong because I say so. Let the poor owners do whatever they want. I know you are but what am I?." What I am doing is arguing and using evidence to support my view.

So, since the market, as being currently dictated by the people who pay every single cost associated with the markert, is now being set at a 50/50 ratio, I guess I have gleaned that the Labour in question is going to get what the market is dictating.

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 11:51 AM
  #774
la25ecoupe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,777
vCash: 500
So Molson is evil?

la25ecoupe is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 11:55 AM
  #775
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,156
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by la25ecoupe View Post
So Molson is evil?
No, Molson isn't evil, he just deserves to be screwed over because some other owners 25-75 years ago screwed over the players.

Sigh...

Drydenwasthebest 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 01:11 AM.

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.