HFBoards

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

2012 CBA Discussion Part IV (Lockout talk here)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-21-2012, 10:05 AM
  #401
Kate08
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Kate08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Medford MA
Country: United States
Posts: 17,151
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackNgold 84 View Post
Typical. So the players should have to make concessions because the owners don't want to do more revenue sharing? That is a owners issue.. not a players. This is why i wish there weren't so many jobs on the line. The teams that don't make money would either fade away because god forbid teams like toronto, boston, and other teams make good money and have to spread it around.



I don't get why the players have to or should negotiate during the season. I don't want any player on my team or several not paying attention their job to get into a pissing contest during the season. People act like this **** wouldn't be happening if they negotiated during the season. The egos would still be there and it would stretched for a longer period of time.
How involved are a majority of the players in this process? How many of them are getting information from their team rep and going about their business? Maybe they're showing up to important meeting for the #solidarity, but day in and day out, these guys aren't sitting at that that table having the conversations.

If negotiating during the season could have spared us from this lockout, I don't know why you would be against it -- especially given so many of #theplayers have headed to foreign lands to play. You can't have it both ways, and they are trying to do just that -- which is why I (and a lot of people) have been turned off by how the PA has treated this whole process.

Kate08 is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 10:30 AM
  #402
Mr. Make-Believe
Moderator
Pass me another nail
 
Mr. Make-Believe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Erotic Fantasies
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,325
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patty59 View Post
Not sure about that, their share in real dollars goes up every year, but their share goes down percentage wise based on projected numbers.

While it might look good on paper, the fact is, you can't count on revenues to increase in the first couple years considering they stand to lose close to half this one. So in year 2 of the deal the players percentage of revenues will be quite a bit higher than the previous 57%.

I'd like to see them just freeze the cap at 69-70M until that number represents a 50-50 split.
They're not counting on that, though. They're not using the number projection as the hard offer. It's the percentage split that they're using. The dollar amounts are just projections as to what MAY happen or what is reasonable to predict may happen.

Mr. Make-Believe is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 10:45 AM
  #403
Mr. Make-Believe
Moderator
Pass me another nail
 
Mr. Make-Believe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Erotic Fantasies
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,325
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaoz View Post
I don't believe so MMB. I believe the monies allocated to players salaries increases every year by 1.75%, however if revenue increases at the rate suggested it would mean that their percentage of revenue would actually decrease. They want their 1.88 billion with a 1.75% increase each season regardless of what revenue does.

Mirtle looks a bit more closely at that very proposal right here and talks about just that issue:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...rticle5483375/

Again, the players want their money. They're creatively trying to find a way to make the financials work so that teams aren't losing so much money without cutting player salaries, and in fact increasing player salaries. As Dom mentions they want the owners to foot the bill for the lockout, meaning even more money out of pocket for them with teams already bleeding money.

So players want to increase revenue sharing, but the teams actually making money as few as they are don't want to. Can't really blame a franchise like Toronto for not wanting to have their profits cut into even more considering Rogers/Bell dropped 1.32 billion on the company (yes that included the Raptors, Marlies, and Toronto FC as well). Of course they aren't going to want to pay money to a team like Nashville so that they can go out and spend ridiculous amounts of money on a guy like Shea Weber (what is it, 40 million in the first two years) or so that Carolina can sign Jordan Staal to a 60 million dollar contract.

Other then the teams making actual money not wanting to increase revenue sharing, even if you still managed to convince them too that might help the teams that are losing money now make a small profit, but in many cases that doesn't allow them to spend to the Cap ceiling and still be profitable. They'd be turning a small profit yes (again, guys like Johnny Boychuk would turn a larger profit every season then many teams), but they still wouldn't be able to be competitive salary wise. Look at the teams losing money, look at how close to the cap floor most of those teams play it. Do you want an NHL where certain teams can be taken advantage of because they need to operate with an internal cap limit because the ceiling is too high for them to realistically reach? I don't for reasons stated previously, mainly, it doesn't make for a 30 team competitive league.
The league would technically be making more money overall if the players were making a smaller share of revenue. Which they would be even with the 1.75%.

But fair enough... If the PA scrapped the 1.75% and changed their offer to prorate to the half season, would that be fair?

And the thing that continues to not be part of the conversation, what do the players get for agreeing to that?

Mr. Make-Believe is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 10:49 AM
  #404
Mr. Make-Believe
Moderator
Pass me another nail
 
Mr. Make-Believe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Erotic Fantasies
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,325
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrOverGretzky View Post
No I actually like the players offer...if it was made back in October and would have saved the season. I don't like it now and here's why:

The NHLPA has yet to make a complete proposal, but I am told one is coming around 11 am this morning. The NHL has made three. And by complete, I mean complete so each side knows what they are giving up from top to bottom on every issue not just a few - which is what the NHLPA proposals deal with - a few items at a time. To complicated to get into here but as an example: We'll agree to 50/50 split but here's what we want on pension, health care and so on. You can't determine a total cost on the NHLPA offers because they don't tell what they are asking on other items. The NHL offers do that.

The players offer on which they propose a 1,75 % increase that will eventually lead to a 48% share for players was a perfect offer, back in October. here's the problem I have with it:

The NHLPA's question is who pays for the lockout. They aren't asking who's paying the people let out of work in arena's restaurants, bars, cab drivers, officials, scorekeepers, etc. They are asking "who pays the players?" Their increase is based on what the players would have earned in full had there been no lockout. IN FULL. No matter what the revenue is this year.

And for each and every subsequent year up until year 5 they are adding 1.75% to what they would have recieved this year regardless of what the revenue is. So what if revenue drops? How many people here have said they'll never return, never watch another game, never buy another jersey?

It's now based on a hypothetical because we don't know how revenues are going to go but yet they want not only a guarantee of what they would have earned, but an increase to it.

It was the perfect offer, if it came before October 1. And honestly, I believe one the owners would have accepted.
To be fair, the owners were offering flat dollar amounts for two seasons and then nothing, based on a perceived increase in revenue being able to cover that amount. It's been part of the conversation on both sides.

Other than that, I understand where you're coming from. Didn't take the lack of a complete proposal into account and that's where I've went wrong in evaluating this process. Bad on the PA for doing that. I still think that that the numbers presented warranted more than the 15 minutes of time that the NHL gave them... But whatever. Minor detail. Both sides have been guilty of handling these negotiations poorly.

Mr. Make-Believe is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 10:52 AM
  #405
Mr. Make-Believe
Moderator
Pass me another nail
 
Mr. Make-Believe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Erotic Fantasies
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,325
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kate08 View Post
How involved are a majority of the players in this process? How many of them are getting information from their team rep and going about their business? Maybe they're showing up to important meeting for the #solidarity, but day in and day out, these guys aren't sitting at that that table having the conversations.

If negotiating during the season could have spared us from this lockout, I don't know why you would be against it -- especially given so many of #theplayers have headed to foreign lands to play. You can't have it both ways, and they are trying to do just that -- which is why I (and a lot of people) have been turned off by how the PA has treated this whole process.
I think they should have been open to talking during the season as well. I don't believe that the PA thought that by refusing to do so, we would be on the brink of losing a season. The word on the street for years has been how well this CBA was working... I think many took that to heart and didn't see the attrition on the horizon.

But... No excuse. Regardless of how the players believed things were going (good or bad) I don't see the harm in starting the conversation early in the process. The refusal to do so was a mistake.

Mr. Make-Believe is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 10:56 AM
  #406
Mr. Make-Believe
Moderator
Pass me another nail
 
Mr. Make-Believe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Erotic Fantasies
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,325
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lopey View Post
Here is the latest on the NEW proposal by the NHLPA.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=409972
This still doesn't seem like much of a step forward to me. But perhaps I don't understand it.

Mr. Make-Believe is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 10:59 AM
  #407
Kate08
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Kate08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Medford MA
Country: United States
Posts: 17,151
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Make-Believe View Post
I think they should have been open to talking during the season as well. I don't believe that the PA thought that by refusing to do so, we would be on the brink of losing a season. The word on the street for years has been how well this CBA was working... I think many took that to heart and didn't see the attrition on the horizon.

But... No excuse. Regardless of how the players believed things were going (good or bad) I don't see the harm in starting the conversation early in the process. The refusal to do so was a mistake.
Do you (or Dom, or anyone) know if there was a vote around whether or not to negotiate during the season? It just seems silly to me to NOT give yourself the extra time, especially given how far removed most of the players actually are from the process. How much of an effect would negotiations really had on the players and the product on the ice?

I understand why players try to avoid personal contract negotiations during the season, but to me, this is totally different and much larger stakes.

Kate08 is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 11:23 AM
  #408
RealKrug47*
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Dracut,Mass
Country: United States
Posts: 3,745
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Make-Believe View Post
This still doesn't seem like much of a step forward to me. But perhaps I don't understand it.

I think they were about $270 million off last offer and this is the PA's first complete propsal. Plus the NHL is looking it over and didnt storm out of the office

RealKrug47* is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 11:29 AM
  #409
BlackNgold 84
Registered User
 
BlackNgold 84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Massachusetts
Country: United States
Posts: 2,288
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kate08 View Post
How involved are a majority of the players in this process? How many of them are getting information from their team rep and going about their business? Maybe they're showing up to important meeting for the #solidarity, but day in and day out, these guys aren't sitting at that that table having the conversations.

If negotiating during the season could have spared us from this lockout, I don't know why you would be against it -- especially given so many of #theplayers have headed to foreign lands to play. You can't have it both ways, and they are trying to do just that -- which is why I (and a lot of people) have been turned off by how the PA has treated this whole process.
I just don't think it would be any different. The egos of bettman/owners and fehr are astounding to me. I think a lot of players might not be at every meeting but now you have the rep talking to guys during the crunch of the season. It could distract more than it could help. I just don't think the deal would've been done during the season.

BlackNgold 84 is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 11:34 AM
  #410
Kate08
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Kate08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Medford MA
Country: United States
Posts: 17,151
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackNgold 84 View Post
I just don't think it would be any different. The egos of bettman/owners and fehr are astounding to me. I think a lot of players might not be at every meeting but now you have the rep talking to guys during the crunch of the season. It could distract more than it could help. I just don't think the deal would've been done during the season.
You don't think that being months further along in this process would have made a difference? I honestly don't know what to tell you then.

A deal might not have been done during the season, but IMO with a 3 - 4 month head start on talks (with a break for the playoffs), and we'd all be going to/watching a game on Friday.

Kate08 is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 11:45 AM
  #411
JMiller
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Watertown
Posts: 14,093
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Make-Believe View Post
This still doesn't seem like much of a step forward to me. But perhaps I don't understand it.
I think the big move is that the players have come off of their stance for "make whole" being paid out in real dollars (based on projections of league growth) and have moved to it being paid out as a percentage of revenues moving forward. Its more about the framing of the issue than the number. I may be way off- but that's my impression.

JMiller is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 11:46 AM
  #412
Kaoz
Ima Krejciist.
 
Kaoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,617
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackNgold 84 View Post
Typical. So the players should have to make concessions because the owners don't want to do more revenue sharing? That is a owners issue.. not a players. This is why i wish there weren't so many jobs on the line. The teams that don't make money would either fade away because god forbid teams like toronto, boston, and other teams make good money and have to spread it around.
According to the only numbers I've seen out there, the Boston Bruins barely make money and wouldn't contribute to revenue sharing. You're thinking of Toronto, NYR, Montreal, and Edmonton (although Katz claims to be losing money on the franchise). The reason they make good money (and a team like Boston makes money period) in this system with these player salaries is because they're willing to drive up ticket prices and fans are willing to spend. Well done. Introduce more revenue sharing and take away a lot of those profits where's the benefit to Toronto (for instance) to keep doing so. Lower ticket prices, increase positive public perception, give less money away to revenue sharing, make similar money anyway but lower overall NHL revenue. Then, you look at a team like Edmonton staying 10+mill below the cap to make the profit they are, then consider their arena issues they're having at the moment.

Thank god for the strong Canadian dollar right now else the NHL would be in serious serious trouble. There's something you want to put all your faith in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Make-Believe View Post
The league would technically be making more money overall if the players were making a smaller share of revenue. Which they would be even with the 1.75%.

But fair enough... If the PA scrapped the 1.75% and changed their offer to prorate to the half season, would that be fair?

And the thing that continues to not be part of the conversation, what do the players get for agreeing to that?
That depends, how do you forecast what effects this lockout will have on NHL revenue going forward? How do you know it will in fact grow exponentially every year? What if it plateaus or shrinks for whatever reason? What concessions do the players make then?

What should the players get to make the league viable? To make NHL teams profitable? What else can they be given other then more money?

Kaoz is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 11:59 AM
  #413
Shaun
beauty
 
Shaun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Country: Italy
Posts: 21,434
vCash: 500
Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie
So, to review, NHLPA is prepared to go to 50-50 immediately, but wants $393M over four years as part of so-called "Make Whole."

NHL offered $211m the last time.

Shaun is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 12:08 PM
  #414
BlackNgold 84
Registered User
 
BlackNgold 84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Massachusetts
Country: United States
Posts: 2,288
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaoz View Post
According to the only numbers I've seen out there, the Boston Bruins barely make money and wouldn't contribute to revenue sharing. You're thinking of Toronto, NYR, Montreal, and Edmonton (although Katz claims to be losing money on the franchise). The reason they make good money (and a team like Boston makes money period) in this system with these player salaries is because they're willing to drive up ticket prices and fans are willing to spend. Well done. Introduce more revenue sharing and take away a lot of those profits where's the benefit to Toronto (for instance) to keep doing so. Lower ticket prices, increase positive public perception, give less money away to revenue sharing, make similar money anyway but lower overall NHL revenue. Then, you look at a team like Edmonton staying 10+mill below the cap to make the profit they are, then consider their arena issues they're having at the moment.

Thank god for the strong Canadian dollar right now else the NHL would be in serious serious trouble. There's something you want to put all your faith in.



That depends, how do you forecast what effects this lockout will have on NHL revenue going forward? How do you know it will in fact grow exponentially every year? What if it plateaus or shrinks for whatever reason? What concessions do the players make then?

What should the players get to make the league viable? To make NHL teams profitable? What else can they be given other then more money?
So you believe if the players all made about 30 % or more less than they make now the owners still wouldn't have their heads up their collective ***** and we wouldn't be in this situation? if you do, good on you. But when it comes to team owners. Greed and bottom line wins out. I think we'd be having this debate no matter what the players salaries were. Both sides want to take I get that.

I don't know if this has been done yet or even talked about. But has anyone asked to have the owners open up their books and show whos getting paid and what? i assume they have i'm actually just wondering.

BlackNgold 84 is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 12:11 PM
  #415
BlackNgold 84
Registered User
 
BlackNgold 84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Massachusetts
Country: United States
Posts: 2,288
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kate08 View Post
You don't think that being months further along in this process would have made a difference? I honestly don't know what to tell you then.

A deal might not have been done during the season, but IMO with a 3 - 4 month head start on talks (with a break for the playoffs), and we'd all be going to/watching a game on Friday.
If the deal wouldn't be done during the season whats the point of having discussions? you'd find yourself in the same place. They'd break for the playoffs as you said. And you'd have to think they'd be talking in what.. july? when did they start talking this summer (honest question this whole thing has been hazy). Plus I have to keep on going back to it. Fehr's and bettman's egos would still be taken front seat to this. I mean we're hearing that some players don't feel like they're getting all the information.. How do you think they'd feel during the season?

BlackNgold 84 is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 12:16 PM
  #416
Kate08
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Kate08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Medford MA
Country: United States
Posts: 17,151
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackNgold 84 View Post
If the deal wouldn't be done during the season whats the point of having discussions? you'd find yourself in the same place. They'd break for the playoffs as you said. And you'd have to think they'd be talking in what.. july? when did they start talking this summer (honest question this whole thing has been hazy). Plus I have to keep on going back to it. Fehr's and bettman's egos would still be taken front seat to this. I mean we're hearing that some players don't feel like they're getting all the information.. How do you think they'd feel during the season?
You're not getting it.

If they had started talks during the season, they would have had a head start. They would be 2, 3, 4 months ahead of where they are right now. The conversations that are happening now would have been happening in August.

More time would have been a good thing, and I'd be willing to bet players would have gotten more information had the negotiated during the season given that the teams were together at that point. Now, everyone is scattered across the freaking planet. It's a lot easier for a rep to give a quick 10 - 15 minute after practice with all of the guys in the room than to call each one, or send out a blast email and hope they were clear.

Kate08 is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 12:21 PM
  #417
BlackNgold 84
Registered User
 
BlackNgold 84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Massachusetts
Country: United States
Posts: 2,288
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kate08 View Post
You're not getting it.

If they had started talks during the season, they would have had a head start. They would be 2, 3, 4 months ahead of where they are right now. The conversations that are happening now would have been happening in August.

More time would have been a good thing, and I'd be willing to bet players would have gotten more information had the negotiated during the season given that the teams were together at that point. Now, everyone is scattered across the freaking planet. It's a lot easier for a rep to give a quick 10 - 15 minute after practice with all of the guys in the room than to call each one, or send out a blast email and hope they were clear.
You don't know that. There has been no timeline to these negotiations. It has been rather uneven, and theres been a lot of stops and starts. Everyone is scattered? I'm gonna say a good portion of players are still state side. IF theres trouble with players getting information (which I can agree with since theres are a lot of members in the PA) it would be tougher during the season. And how would they do these discussions? would it be on holiday breaks or all star weekend? Very hard to talk to every rep since some teams don't have the same days off. It already sounds like a mess just thinking about it.

BlackNgold 84 is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 12:21 PM
  #418
Mr. Make-Believe
Moderator
Pass me another nail
 
Mr. Make-Believe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Erotic Fantasies
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,325
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaoz View Post
That depends, how do you forecast what effects this lockout will have on NHL revenue going forward? How do you know it will in fact grow exponentially every year? What if it plateaus or shrinks for whatever reason? What concessions do the players make then?

What should the players get to make the league viable? To make NHL teams profitable? What else can they be given other then more money?
But if the amount of money the players get is directly tied to revenue, then I guess the players just get less money... No?

The only thing different is the current contracts honored (prorated with no percentage increase). Everything else accounts for that.

Mr. Make-Believe is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 12:22 PM
  #419
Therick67
Registered User
 
Therick67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: South of Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 4,485
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kate08 View Post
You're not getting it.

If they had started talks during the season, they would have had a head start. They would be 2, 3, 4 months ahead of where they are right now. The conversations that are happening now would have been happening in August.

More time would have been a good thing, and I'd be willing to bet players would have gotten more information had the negotiated during the season given that the teams were together at that point. Now, everyone is scattered across the freaking planet. It's a lot easier for a rep to give a quick 10 - 15 minute after practice with all of the guys in the room than to call each one, or send out a blast email and hope they were clear.
This league has had 4 work stoppages in the last 20 years, those months may have made a difference, but history tells me they probably wouldn't have.

Therick67 is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 12:27 PM
  #420
BlackNgold 84
Registered User
 
BlackNgold 84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Massachusetts
Country: United States
Posts: 2,288
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Therick67 View Post
This league has had 4 work stoppages in the last 20 years, those months may have made a difference, but history tells me they probably wouldn't have.
Bingo.. the minute the players hired fehr they were gonna play hardball. Also the players said they could play out the season. Then again i have to go back to donald fehr haha. The players wanted to "win" this cba for what they thought they gave up last cba. Talking during the season only makes communication more difficult.

BlackNgold 84 is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 12:27 PM
  #421
EverettMike
Registered User
 
EverettMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Everett, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 21,330
vCash: 500
Criticizing the players for not negotiating the deal during the season is as silly as criticizing the owners for not letting the league run under an expired deal.

Only deals that are clearly going to be easy (like the last MLB deal) get done early.

EverettMike is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 12:31 PM
  #422
ranold26
The real Gahden
 
ranold26's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: 127.0.0.1
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,371
vCash: 500
boys and girls... we have some traction.

ranold26 is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 12:32 PM
  #423
Kate08
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Kate08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Medford MA
Country: United States
Posts: 17,151
vCash: 500
I give up.

Kate08 is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 12:33 PM
  #424
Ladyfan
Miss you Savvy !
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: next to the bench
Country: Scotland
Posts: 26,196
vCash: 420
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranold26 View Post
boys and girls... we have some traction.
Do tell ???

Will we have something to be thankful for ?

__________________
"Bergeron...Bergeron !!!"
Ladyfan is online now  
Old
11-21-2012, 12:38 PM
  #425
Therick67
Registered User
 
Therick67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: South of Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 4,485
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ladyfan View Post

Will we have something to be thankful for ?
Hopefully they don't let JJ back in the room.

Therick67 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 08:16 AM.

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

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