HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Notices

CBA Talk II: Shut up and give me YOUR money!

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-17-2012, 05:13 PM
  #476
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elbows of Bure View Post
But is your company mandated to compete against 29 other like companies for business?

Are you in a union with all the other employees of all the other companies with which your company is competing?

What are the termination provisions in your contract?

I feel fairly confident that your situation is absolutely not analogous to the NHL's, or any major league sport.
Why would it have to be exactly the same to apply? The NHL has chosen not to take any ownership of their situation. Instead they've chosen to blame it all on their employees. That's a poor business decision imo.

If I were the players, I'd ask for guaranteed raises too. The NHL is a company that should be growing and will if they put together a proper business model and take ownership of how they run the league and how their franchises are run.

Scurr is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 05:16 PM
  #477
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elbows of Bure View Post
But is your company mandated to compete against 29 other like companies for business?
There is competition in the market, yes. Small companies compete against larger companies with more buying power etc in the market.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elbows of Bure View Post
Are you in a union with all the other employees of all the other companies with which your company is competing?
For the most part. There are still some non union companies but most have gone union.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elbows of Bure View Post
What are the termination provisions in your contract?
You would be astonished at what we can get away with.

Scurr is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 05:26 PM
  #478
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 17,496
vCash: 500
I think there are a lot of people here who have no clue what unions are about. To suggest that they just give in and sign whatever deal the NHL throws at them for the mere fact they'll lose money that they'll never make up is assinine and completely against what a union stands for. A union is supposed to protect its members, past, current and future...to suggest folding because of a short term loss is self serving and not right for future members of the union.

I think the NHLPA understands that they are in for a loss of revenue but why should they succumb to taking a loss in money along with various other rights they've successfully fought for? Why shouldn't they try to mitigate the losses the NHL is trying to take from them? Why should they just accept any offer that the NHL tries to strongarm them into taking? Thats not how collective bargaining works. I'm not saying that the NHLPA's hands are clean in this mess, far from it...but the NHL can't just offer players cuts in every aspect of a new CBA and expect them to just happily sign their hard fought rights away...rights battled for through past lockouts.

Canucker is online now  
Old
11-17-2012, 05:26 PM
  #479
Elbows of Bure
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 434
vCash: 500
And it would be even a poorer decision for the NHL owners to stay the course.

Players can ask for guaranteed raises, but that doesn't mean they will get them, and it doesn't mean it's the smartest thing for them to ask for. Players want raises year to year? Well then, the owners won't give them guaranteed contracts (subject to the terms of the CBA).

The players represent a huge % of the owners liability. Not managing that asset through proper CBA negotiations will lose the owners money. I agree that the league could be run better; a huge part of that is determined on how the CBA plays out. I bet your company can afford to give you wages because employee wages do not represent 57+% of your company's expenses. Furthermore, if you aren't in a union, I bet the contractual liability you represent to your company is a fraction of what it is between NHL players and the NHL. If that's the case, you deserve that annual raise.

Elbows of Bure is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 05:42 PM
  #480
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elbows of Bure View Post
And it would be even a poorer decision for the NHL owners to stay the course.

Players can ask for guaranteed raises, but that doesn't mean they will get them, and it doesn't mean it's the smartest thing for them to ask for. Players want raises year to year? Well then, the owners won't give them guaranteed contracts (subject to the terms of the CBA).

The players represent a huge % of the owners liability. Not managing that asset through proper CBA negotiations will lose the owners money. I agree that the league could be run better; a huge part of that is determined on how the CBA plays out. I bet your company can afford to give you wages because employee wages do not represent 57+% of your company's expenses. Furthermore, if you aren't in a union, I bet the contractual liability you represent to your company is a fraction of what it is between NHL players and the NHL. If that's the case, you deserve that annual raise.
The biggest problem I have with what the NHL is asking for is that it isn't going to solve its problems. Gary is going after the players as the bad guys to save his job, which he hasn't been doing well at all.

Why did the NHL grow so much during a US recession? Because Gary reluctantly got around to making changes to the on ice product. What other reasons could there be? It's not like this cap has helped the small market teams like he promised. Since then he's let the game slowly regress. It's almost like he knows nothing about hockey...

If the NHL came out from the beginning with one concession for the players (50% HRR) this deal would have been done a long time ago. They don't want just that, they want to keep their teeth in the union so they can keep coming back for more. The players had to get a hard liner in Fehr to draw a line in the sand, or they would end up like the NFL union. Pathetic.

Instead, Gary should be worried about the on ice product and finding ways to help those small and emerging markets compete. That's what the NHL needs to make money. We have no idea how well Columbus or Florida can do long term, nobody would go watch that crap, even here.

Gary isn't trying to fix anything, he's trying to save his ass. Where is the vision of what this should look like? Where is the leadership?


Last edited by Scurr: 11-17-2012 at 05:52 PM.
Scurr is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 05:43 PM
  #481
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
I think there are a lot of people here who have no clue what unions are about. To suggest that they just give in and sign whatever deal the NHL throws at them for the mere fact they'll lose money that they'll never make up is assinine and completely against what a union stands for. A union is supposed to protect its members, past, current and future...to suggest folding because of a short term loss is self serving and not right for future members of the union.

I think the NHLPA understands that they are in for a loss of revenue but why should they succumb to taking a loss in money along with various other rights they've successfully fought for? Why shouldn't they try to mitigate the losses the NHL is trying to take from them? Why should they just accept any offer that the NHL tries to strongarm them into taking? Thats not how collective bargaining works. I'm not saying that the NHLPA's hands are clean in this mess, far from it...but the NHL can't just offer players cuts in every aspect of a new CBA and expect them to just happily sign their hard fought rights away...rights battled for through past lockouts.
right on brother.

Scurr is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 05:57 PM
  #482
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,012
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by roach9 View Post
And if I'm D. Fehr, here's what I say to that:
  • The league as a whole has made money, lots of it. Without the 30 teams, there would be less competition, and less overall revenue (imagine a league with only 10 profitable teams; I suspect they would very quickly see decreased profits)
  • Players don't have a choice what team they play on; be it a profitable team or a team with a growing debt, so why should the players have to subsidize the 2/3 of the teams' losses? Again, the league as a WHOLE is making money

In sum, you cannot suggest that because 2/3 of the teams are losing money, the players ought to decrease their share of revenues, because ultimately, the league that every contracted player is assigned to is MAKING money. The fact that there are a plethora of franchises losing money, from a players perspective, is irrelevant.
I support this message.

arsmaster is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 06:10 PM
  #483
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,201
vCash: 500
While I'm on Gary Bettman's business acumen, how the hell did the league manage to ostracize the Great One? The most recognizable face in hockey, the greatest ambassador the game has ever seen, The one face in hockey recognizable over most of the US... and he hates Gary too. Nice business decision. I wonder how much money that's costing the players?

Scurr is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 06:12 PM
  #484
Reverend Mayhem
1 for you, 19 for me
 
Reverend Mayhem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Port Coquitlam, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,024
vCash: 940
Send a message via Skype™ to Reverend Mayhem
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
While I'm on Gary Bettman's business acumen, how the hell did the league manage to ostracize the Great One? The most recognizable face in hockey, the greatest ambassador the game has ever seen, The one face in hockey recognizable over most of the US... and he hates Gary too. Nice business decision. I wonder how much money that's costing the players?
NHL owes him money...still.

Reverend Mayhem is online now  
Old
11-17-2012, 06:14 PM
  #485
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend Mayhem View Post
NHL owes him money...still.
What a bunch of fools. I'd love to have the money to get in on one of these franchises, I think hockey has a bright future. One day they're going to smarten up and get some real leadership, everyone will prosper.

Scurr is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 06:22 PM
  #486
LuckyDay
Registered User
 
LuckyDay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: The Uncanny Valley
Posts: 282
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
I think there are a lot of people here who have no clue what unions are about. To suggest that they just give in and sign whatever deal the NHL throws at them for the mere fact they'll lose money that they'll never make up is assinine and completely against what a union stands for. A union is supposed to protect its members, past, current and future...to suggest folding because of a short term loss is self serving and not right for future members of the union.
Well if Hostess is any example of how to stand up for your rights as a worker...

Not that the NHL is going out of business, but if the league can afford to wait the union out, and the past indicates favourably, why wouldn't they.

But it goes same with the union as well: the past indicates the individual owners will find every way they can cheat - and if they don't they could be found liable for collusion. They have few other recourses and no other way of making millions of dollars - they should just sign.

LuckyDay is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 06:26 PM
  #487
I in the Eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country:
Posts: 4,047
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
I support this message.
I kind of do, as well... Except some players do choose where they want to play (every year, there are players who decide where they want to play, via UFA)... and, each year, some of these players choose to sign with poor revenue / poor market teams... As an example, Shane Doan decided, on his own, to play on the Coyotes (poor market, low revenue) over Vancouver (good market, high revenue)... If players are freely deciding to sign with poor market / low revenue teams, they aren't blameless for supporting these poor revenue teams... It's not just the NHL that keeps these teams afloat (for their own reasons)... Those who belong to the NHLPA contribute to keeping these teams afloat as well (for their own reasons)... I think the players should subsidize for the poor market teams - or "partner" in keeping these teams alive... It's just a matter of how much should the players subsidize? IMO, the correct number is what is necessary to get hockey back this season... If the NHLPA believes the correct number is less than what is necessary to get hockey back this season, I hope they've thought this through...

I in the Eye is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 06:29 PM
  #488
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyDay View Post
They have few other recourses and no other way of making millions of dollars - they should just sign.
If they were that easily discouraged and lacked fortitude like that they never would have made it to the league in the first place. That's so weak.

If every time the bully comes for your lunch money you hand it over without a fight, he's coming back often and is probably going to be wearing your shoes and jacket soon too. You gotta make them earn it.


Last edited by Scurr: 11-17-2012 at 06:38 PM.
Scurr is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 06:35 PM
  #489
FiveAndGame
Registered User
 
FiveAndGame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,465
vCash: 500
Why should the NHLPA accept the NHL passing on the failure of their business model? The NHLPA fought for what they have and were granted everything they have by the NHL. Now the NHL believes that they gave up too much and are trying to take it all back, even after they signed the big money contracts.

FiveAndGame is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 06:39 PM
  #490
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 17,496
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyDay View Post
Well if Hostess is any example of how to stand up for your rights as a worker...

Not that the NHL is going out of business, but if the league can afford to wait the union out, and the past indicates favourably, why wouldn't they.

But it goes same with the union as well: the past indicates the individual owners will find every way they can cheat - and if they don't they could be found liable for collusion. They have few other recourses and no other way of making millions of dollars - they should just sign.
Can the league afford to wait out the players? Do they have the stomach to go that far? They have bills too, they have sponsors they need to keep happy and some markets have a very fragile hold on its fanbase. As much as the top teams control the direction of the negotiations for the NHL they have to realize they are playing a game where there will be consequences to the league as a whole if they continue down this road...just as there will be consequences to the players.

Canucker is online now  
Old
11-17-2012, 07:19 PM
  #491
shortshorts
broken athlete
 
shortshorts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,315
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
If the NHL was interested in taking responsibility for growing the game they could actually do better than 50% in some of those offers.
?

That didn't even answer my request/question.

shortshorts is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 07:46 PM
  #492
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 8,841
vCash: 500
The pro-Bettman posters don't seem to know what bargaining is. This would be bargaining:

"We want to go to 50% contracts next season, and we'll make up the difference for one year with a 'make whole provision' and then you're on your own. We also think front-loaded deals are a hindrance to the cap system, so we'd like to add only 5% variance between contracts year-to-year. Furthermore, the long-term deals are too long, and we'd like to limit contract lengths to 7 years.

Since we're requesting all of these things, we'd like to meet you halfway on your revenue sharing proposals and set up a more comprehensive revenue sharing program. Also, we're willing to continue to participate in the Olympics. And if you guys are willing to agree to everything else we've proposed, we'll lower unrestricted free agency to 26 years old / 6 years service from the current 27 and 7."

Give and take. Then you start negotiating in one direction or the other on the various issues. What the owners are doing is offering to take a lot and then offering to take less and pretending they're meeting in the middle. Coupled with a laughable media strategy, this has absolutely crushed the league's position. Bettman is a joke right now and despite doing a lot of good for the league's bottom line, he should be removed immediately so that a season can be saved (which will also be good for the owners bottom line).

The NHL's position is the equivalent of me walking up to someone on the street and having this conversation:

"Give me $100"

"What? No"

"Fine, give me $75"

"What do I get?"

"Nothing"

"No!"

"You're so unreasonable. Fine, this is my last and best offer. Give me $50. Look at how generous I am? I've already given you $50 and you're unwilling to meet me half way and give me $50? You're a greedy jerk who doesn't want to come to an agreement."


Last edited by Proto: 11-17-2012 at 07:56 PM.
Proto is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 07:52 PM
  #493
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 8,841
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VeteranNetPresence View Post
i'm guessing you missed the the guaranteed part. the PA is calling for raises regardless of how revenues are doing. damn right that's some nerve
You're completely missing the point of the offers Fehr is making. The point is to highlight the shameful misrepresentation of growth numbers the NHL uses when it makes its "woe is me" self-flagellation tours through the media. The NHL is projecting growth to fall to 5% in the next period, despite the fact that growth was in the neighbourhood of 7.5-8.0% the past 7 years, and around 10% the last two years, all of which occurred during the biggest American recession in 85 years.

On its face, this is a laughable assertion. So what does Fehr do? He makes two proposals, with the chief difference between them being whether they use 5% growth or actual growth to account for how long it takes the players to accept a 50% share. The league and the PA both know growth will be higher than 5%, and that any offer that allows for higher than 5% growth to shrink the players percentage faster is a better deal for the league. But they have to admit that they're ************ everybody to accept the better deal. Fehr is baiting them, as he should.

Proto is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 08:05 PM
  #494
shortshorts
broken athlete
 
shortshorts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,315
vCash: 500
Except it's more like,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Proto View Post
"Give me $100 back from the 200 I paid you, I'm going broke"

"What? No"

"Fine, give me $75"

"What do I get?"

"You'll get your money back in a couple weeks, I promise"

"No! I want to keep it, I don't gain anything from this!"

"I can't pay you if I have no money, so I'm trying to resolve the money issues right now!"

"Nope, I'm going to keep it."

"You're so unreasonable. Fine, this is my last and best offer. Give me $50."

"Nope"
Your stranger analogy doesn't even remotely compare to the situation at hand.

The situation is a boss losing money and trying to fix it with salary cuts, rather than targeting the direct cause of money loss(a different argument). This is what is wrong with the Owners stance. While what you say is true about the owners going "yeah, well i'm taking less from you!!!" that tactic has been equally if not more despicable than Fehr's tactics. It is obvious he is great at his job. It is too bad his greatness is going to destroy the league.

The current framework of the CBA will cause money loss regardless of what either sides does, until the CBA framework is completely reworked.

I am neither for the Owners or Players. As a matter of fact, I am completely okay with missing a year of Hockey if it meant they fixed the entire CBA, and guarantee(as theoretically possible as it can be) a healthy league.

shortshorts is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 08:10 PM
  #495
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 8,841
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shortshorts View Post
Except it's more like,

The situation is a boss losing money

Hahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhaha

Seriously. I can't even catch my breath here. You think the league is losing money? Is this a fanta sea?

Proto is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 08:14 PM
  #496
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 17,496
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shortshorts View Post
Except it's more like,



Your stranger analogy doesn't even remotely compare to the situation at hand.

The situation is a boss losing money and trying to fix it with salary cuts, rather than targeting the direct cause of money loss(a different argument). This is what is wrong with the Owners stance. While what you say is true about the owners going "yeah, well i'm taking less from you!!!" that tactic has been equally if not more despicable than Fehr's tactics. It is obvious he is great at his job. It is too bad his greatness is going to destroy the league.

The current framework of the CBA will cause money loss regardless of what either sides does, until the CBA framework is completely reworked.

I am neither for the Owners or Players. As a matter of fact, I am completely okay with missing a year of Hockey if it meant they fixed the entire CBA, and guarantee(as theoretically possible as it can be) a healthy league.
It's hard to take the "I'm going broke" part serious when you just see the guy walk out of a Rolex store with a beautiful watch on each wrist.

Canucker is online now  
Old
11-17-2012, 08:30 PM
  #497
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 8,841
vCash: 500
Look, I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I believe during the last lockout, the Levitt report tagged NHL losses at around 270 million dollars on 2 billion in revenue. Since that point (when salary totals were around 75% of league revenue), the league's revenue has grown by 50% to 3.3 billion and the players share is locked at 57%. A rudimentary grasp of math would suggest that an 18% drop in player's share, plus a 1.3 billion increase in revenues means the league is turning a substantial profit.

Proto is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 08:48 PM
  #498
shortshorts
broken athlete
 
shortshorts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,315
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proto View Post
Hahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhaha

Seriously. I can't even catch my breath here. You think the league is losing money? Is this a fanta sea?
The league in total isn't. Many individual bosses are. The league has too many individual teams that are losing. That is why I stated the CBA needs a complete revamp.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
It's hard to take the "I'm going broke" part serious when you just see the guy walk out of a Rolex store with a beautiful watch on each wrist.
It was a simple analogy. The Owners aren't going "broke". They are just losing money, regardless of how minuscule those losses seem to them, it's the premise of owning a business to not lose money.

The point being, is there are way too many losses in certain markets. The NHL is trying to fix that by taking money away from the players. That is wrong, but so is the PA's stance in these negotiations. If both parties are going to kill multiple years, there better be a CBA that is theoretically going to keep the league healthy for years to come. If they (the NHL and the NHLPA) cancel a year only for the 50/50 and minor contractual rights, then this league is a joke.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Proto View Post
Look, I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I believe during the last lockout, the Levitt report tagged NHL losses at around 270 million dollars on 2 billion in revenue. Since that point (when salary totals were around 75% of league revenue), the league's revenue has grown by 50% to 3.3 billion and the players share is locked at 57%. A rudimentary grasp of math would suggest that an 18% drop in player's share, plus a 1.3 billion increase in revenues means the league is turning a substantial profit.
While the NHL may be making "substantial profit", that profit isn't evenly distributed. There are way too many teams that are losing money.

shortshorts is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 09:07 PM
  #499
StrictlyCommercial
Registered User
 
StrictlyCommercial's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shortshorts View Post
The league in total isn't. Many individual bosses are. The league has too many individual teams that are losing. That is why I stated the CBA needs a complete revamp.


It was a simple analogy. The Owners aren't going "broke". They are just losing money, regardless of how minuscule those losses seem to them, it's the premise of owning a business to not lose money.

The point being, is there are way too many losses in certain markets. The NHL is trying to fix that by taking money away from the players. That is wrong, but so is the PA's stance in these negotiations. If both parties are going to kill multiple years, there better be a CBA that is theoretically going to keep the league healthy for years to come. If they (the NHL and the NHLPA) cancel a year only for the 50/50 and minor contractual rights, then this league is a joke.



While the NHL may be making "substantial profit", that profit isn't evenly distributed. There are way too many teams that are losing money.
So there are two choices:
Make the player's share smaller giving some teams HUGE profits and others break even.
OR
Increase revenue sharing giving some teams moderate profits and all teams break even without having labour stoppages.

...
And thus is our intractable dispute.

StrictlyCommercial is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 09:07 PM
  #500
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 8,841
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shortshorts View Post
While the NHL may be making "substantial profit", that profit isn't evenly distributed. There are way too many teams that are losing money.
Of course, but I don't see why it's the PA that has to push revenue sharing. It's an absurd notion.

Personally, I think there should be some more revenue sharing and each team should be able to trade a percentage share of their salary cap (for the immediate season only). Something like a team can trade 10% of their cap space and it's split into a 5% chunk and two 2.5% chunks. You can't trade future years and you can't split it any differently than that.

Combined with a bit more revenue sharing, and you'd have lower end teams that aren't losing money and could push for higher salaries when they're successful (and slough off salary when they're not). It would also allow big market teams to acquire cap space and gain some advantage from driving revenue. (That or just widen the disparity between the floor and the ceiling).

Proto 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 09:41 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.