HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Phoenix LXVI: Get Your Kicks On Thread LXVI

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-06-2012, 12:20 PM
  #501
saskganesh
Registered User
 
saskganesh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the Annex
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,046
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halibut View Post
I dont think they cant though. I think the league gave guarantees when the arena was built and financed and if they simply tried to move the team they'd be facing big lawsuits. I could be wrong but it sure seems like there is more to the league keeping a team in Glendale than just wanting to hold on to the market. I think they've got to show they've tried everything to keep the team there so if it comes to moving the team they have an argument to make in court.
They don't have a guarantee, but they do have a lease, which is currently up for negotiation. However, you have to consider the lease is dependent on the purchase, which itself is contingent on financing, financing that seems to be dependent itself on the details of the lease that remains unsigned.

I know that doesn't make anything clearer.

saskganesh is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 12:32 PM
  #502
cbcwpg
Registered User
 
cbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Between the Pipes
Country: United Nations
Posts: 5,856
vCash: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halibut View Post
I dont think they cant though. I think the league gave guarantees when the arena was built and financed and if they simply tried to move the team they'd be facing big lawsuits. I could be wrong but it sure seems like there is more to the league keeping a team in Glendale than just wanting to hold on to the market. I think they've got to show they've tried everything to keep the team there so if it comes to moving the team they have an argument to make in court.
There are no contracts, no guarantees, no secret handshakes, nothing keeping this team from moving.

There is nothing keeping this team in Glendale other than stubbornness, denial, and a cheque book that allows for a very large negative balance.

cbcwpg is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 12:46 PM
  #503
powerstuck
User Registered
 
powerstuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Quebec City
Country: Palestine
Posts: 2,381
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
Pricing for parking is charged to maximize profit. If there is a large supply of parking based on the demand for parkign the price will be lower then if the demand for parking exceeds the supply. You can get parking to Winnipeg Jets games for $10 because it's a downtown arena. And as full as it is, the amount of people going downtown for a Jets game is less than the people who drive downtown everyday for work. So there is an ample supply of parking in downtown Winnipeg in the evening.
I know how it works. The reason I didn't talk about Coyotes but about Cardinals is because Cards despite being not the top contender team this year in NFL they have a stong 60k+ average attendance in a 63k capacity stadium. Now, from what I've seen on google maps, the area around UoP Stadium / Jobbing.com Arena and Westgate Mall has parking, but lacks major public transportation...I would have expected that parking so close to the venue (and not in downtown) would cost a little bit more than $10.

I was basing myself of what I saw in Philadelphia. Basicly you've got the hockey arena, football stadium and baseball stadium on the same terrain, sourrounded by a pretty huge number of parking spaces. All 3 venues are about 5 minutes walking distance between eachother (parking spaces between them all) and they still charge you $25 in middle of March when football is over and baseball havent started yet.

powerstuck is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 01:24 PM
  #504
Wonko the Sane
It's you not me.
 
Wonko the Sane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Outside the Asylum
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,898
vCash: 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halibut View Post
I dont think they cant though. I think the league gave guarantees when the arena was built and financed and if they simply tried to move the team they'd be facing big lawsuits. I could be wrong but it sure seems like there is more to the league keeping a team in Glendale than just wanting to hold on to the market. I think they've got to show they've tried everything to keep the team there so if it comes to moving the team they have an argument to make in court.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcwpg View Post
There are no contracts, no guarantees, no secret handshakes, nothing keeping this team from moving.

There is nothing keeping this team in Glendale other than stubbornness, denial, and a cheque book that allows for a very large negative balance.
Ya, cbcwpg has it right, there are no guarantys.

When the arena was built there was a lease that tied the team to Glendale for the duration of the lease. The issue for Glendale is when the team went through bankruptcy the league opted to not keep the lease when they purchased the team (they could have, but would have been insane to). The guarantee that the team would stay in Glendale died at that point. The new lease with JIG would retie the team to Glendale, but as of right now under the NHL's lease with CoG the team can leave at the drop of a hat no questions asked and no (successful) lawsuit possible.

Wonko the Sane is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 01:30 PM
  #505
Halibut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,035
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcwpg View Post
There are no contracts, no guarantees, no secret handshakes, nothing keeping this team from moving.

There is nothing keeping this team in Glendale other than stubbornness, denial, and a cheque book that allows for a very large negative balance.
I admit I dont know anything for sure but I've seen a few things that make me doubt it's that simple to walk away. The best single site resource I've found is this one. http://hockey.ballparks.com/NHL/Phoe.../newindex.htmm

.. and here are a couple quotes
"Glendale’s Mayor and City Council and Coyote officials made the announcement today at a 10 a.m. press conference at City Hall. Earlier in the day, the City Council approved a memo of understanding with the Ellman Companies, owner of the team, that will keep the team in Glendale for 30 years"

and this one.
"There simply aren't any subtle ways to deal with this situation anymore," a source said. City of Glendale spokesperson Julie Frisoni said the city has a policy of not discussing ongoing negotiations. She did say that city lawyers have investigated the lease and believe that in the event of bankruptcy, the city and its investment are well-protected."

These at least suggest to me that it wont be as simple as the league saying, "well we tried", and loading up the moving vans and shutting off the lights. I think if they try and move there very well could be lawsuits involved and possibly massive payments to the City of Glendale. I dont know that those lawsuits would go in Glendales favor but it could tie things up for awhile.

Halibut is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 01:38 PM
  #506
Wonko the Sane
It's you not me.
 
Wonko the Sane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Outside the Asylum
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,898
vCash: 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halibut View Post
I admit I dont know anything for sure but I've seen a few things that make me doubt it's that simple to walk away. The best single site resource I've found is this one. http://hockey.ballparks.com/NHL/Phoe.../newindex.htmm

.. and here are a couple quotes
"Glendale’s Mayor and City Council and Coyote officials made the announcement today at a 10 a.m. press conference at City Hall. Earlier in the day, the City Council approved a memo of understanding with the Ellman Companies, owner of the team, that will keep the team in Glendale for 30 years"

and this one.
"There simply aren't any subtle ways to deal with this situation anymore," a source said. City of Glendale spokesperson Julie Frisoni said the city has a policy of not discussing ongoing negotiations. She did say that city lawyers have investigated the lease and believe that in the event of bankruptcy, the city and its investment are well-protected."

These at least suggest to me that it wont be as simple as the league saying, "well we tried", and loading up the moving vans and shutting off the lights. I think if they try and move there very well could be lawsuits involved and possibly massive payments to the City of Glendale. I dont know that those lawsuits would go in Glendales favor but it could tie things up for awhile.
That all assumed that the team would remain solvent in the first case and that a BK court wouldn't vacate the lease in the second. Both these assumptions proved false and here we are.

(In actual fact the mayor supported letting the team escape BK without the lease 'cuz it would only take a few months to find a permanent owner and the $25M egg management fee was only an insurance policy that would never be cashed... Never trust a Bettman or Daly when they say they won't need money or give you a timeline)

Wonko the Sane is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 01:41 PM
  #507
Halibut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,035
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mungman View Post
That all assumed that the team would remain solvent in the first case and that a BK court wouldn't vacate the lease in the second. Both these assumptions proved false and here we are.

(In actual fact the mayor supported letting the team escape BK without the lease 'cuz it would only take a few months to find a permanent owner and the $25M egg management fee was only an insurance policy that would never be cashed... Never trust a Bettman or Daly when they say they won't need money or give you a timeline)
Fair enough, if they let it slip with the bankruptcy proceedings then they could be off the hook.

Halibut is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 01:46 PM
  #508
Wonko the Sane
It's you not me.
 
Wonko the Sane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Outside the Asylum
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,898
vCash: 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halibut View Post
Fair enough, if they let it slip with the bankruptcy proceedings then they could be off the hook.
Sorry, just found this pic. This is the metaphor for the original lease.. it has ceased to be.


Wonko the Sane is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 01:54 PM
  #509
cbcwpg
Registered User
 
cbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Between the Pipes
Country: United Nations
Posts: 5,856
vCash: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halibut View Post
Fair enough, if they let it slip with the bankruptcy proceedings then they could be off the hook.
Mungman answered your question, but I was going to add:

To me, the proof of the mobility of the Coyotes currently ( things will change if Jamison signs on ) has to do with what almost occurred 2 seasons ( or is it 3? this has been going on too long ... ) ago.

And that is... Bettman had the owner of TNSE fly to New York City, with pen in hand, on the last day that the CoG had to make a choice as to if they were going to pay the first $25M payment. So while the CoG was wrestling with what to do, Mark Chipman and Bettman were in Gary's office with their feet up on the desk waiting to see if the phone was going to ring or not. The phone did ring and the rest is history. BUT, if the phone had not rung, on that day Mark Chipman would have become the new owner of the Coyotes and the team would have been immediately moved to Winnipeg.

So. It appears to me there is nothing in the way of the NHL moving the team.

cbcwpg is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 02:04 PM
  #510
ahplk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 251
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halibut View Post
I dont think they cant though. I think the league gave guarantees when the arena was built and financed and if they simply tried to move the team they'd be facing big lawsuits. I could be wrong but it sure seems like there is more to the league keeping a team in Glendale than just wanting to hold on to the market. I think they've got to show they've tried everything to keep the team there so if it comes to moving the team they have an argument to make in court.
What else do they need to show? 3 more years of this ****? Ha!

ahplk is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 02:25 PM
  #511
sipowicz
The Original
 
sipowicz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,665
vCash: 1989
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcwpg View Post
Mungman answered your question, but I was going to add:

To me, the proof of the mobility of the Coyotes currently ( things will change if Jamison signs on ) has to do with what almost occurred 2 seasons ( or is it 3? this has been going on too long ... ) ago.

And that is... Bettman had the owner of TNSE fly to New York City, with pen in hand, on the last day that the CoG had to make a choice as to if they were going to pay the first $25M payment. So while the CoG was wrestling with what to do, Mark Chipman and Bettman were in Gary's office with their feet up on the desk waiting to see if the phone was going to ring or not. The phone did ring and the rest is history. BUT, if the phone had not rung, on that day Mark Chipman would have become the new owner of the Coyotes and the team would have been immediately moved to Winnipeg.

So. It appears to me there is nothing in the way of the NHL moving the team.
I believe Chipman himself has said he was five minutes away from owning the Coyotes in the spring of 2010.

sipowicz is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 02:48 PM
  #512
Halibut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,035
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sipowicz View Post
I believe Chipman himself has said he was five minutes away from owning the Coyotes in the spring of 2010.
Sure he could have owned it but it doesnt mean there wouldnt be lawsuits if he tried to move the team. It's possible the City of Glendale could have screwed things up so badly that they have no guarantees or protection if they cant work out a deal with an owner but it is also possible that they could seek court action if the league had acted fraudently with them, i.e. convincing them to no longer require the location agreement as a way to get around the original lease. Admittedly the court case looks much weaker but with hundreds of millions at stake it might be worth their while to persue the case and get something out of the NHL.

Halibut is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 02:54 PM
  #513
CGG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 416
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,235
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halibut View Post
Sure he could have owned it but it doesnt mean there wouldnt be lawsuits if he tried to move the team. It's possible the City of Glendale could have screwed things up so badly that they have no guarantees or protection if they cant work out a deal with an owner but it is also possible that they could seek court action if the league had acted fraudently with them, i.e. convincing them to no longer require the location agreement as a way to get around the original lease. Admittedly the court case looks much weaker but with hundreds of millions at stake it might be worth their while to persue the case and get something out of the NHL.
I think it's more than obvious at this point that the City of Glendale is far, far better off without the Coyotes than with them. If they keep the Coyotes they will be subsidizing them to the tune of $15 million a year, with roughly $2.5 million in revenue in exchange for that. If the Coyotes leave, the city will be about $12 million better off each year.

The idea that Glendale can / will sue the NHL if the team leaves is laughable. Relocating the Coyotes is the best thing that could ever happen for Glendale.

CGG is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 03:27 PM
  #514
Halibut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,035
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CGG View Post
I think it's more than obvious at this point that the City of Glendale is far, far better off without the Coyotes than with them. If they keep the Coyotes they will be subsidizing them to the tune of $15 million a year, with roughly $2.5 million in revenue in exchange for that. If the Coyotes leave, the city will be about $12 million better off each year.

The idea that Glendale can / will sue the NHL if the team leaves is laughable. Relocating the Coyotes is the best thing that could ever happen for Glendale.
Sure but when have they done the best thing for Glendale?

Sueing for damages could be lucrative, if they could get some of what they paid to build the arena back in a court case I think they'd be laughing.

Halibut is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 03:36 PM
  #515
Wonko the Sane
It's you not me.
 
Wonko the Sane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Outside the Asylum
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,898
vCash: 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halibut View Post
Sure but when have they done the best thing for Glendale?

Sueing for damages could be lucrative, if they could get some of what they paid to build the arena back in a court case I think they'd be laughing.
Or costly if the court finds against you and orders you to pay the defendants costs.

Wonko the Sane is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 05:44 PM
  #516
blues10
Registered User
 
blues10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,036
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halibut View Post
Sure but when have they done the best thing for Glendale?

Sueing for damages could be lucrative, if they could get some of what they paid to build the arena back in a court case I think they'd be laughing.
There is no court case nor will there ever be a court case. The COG signed that away years ago. Nice work Tindall.

blues10 is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 06:23 PM
  #517
TheLegend
Megathread Refugee
 
TheLegend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: The Anxiety Closet
Country: United States
Posts: 3,401
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CasualFan View Post
Really? According to the city documents the surcharge, rent, and naming rights are used to offset the JIG AMF, not the bond payments: http://www.glendaleaz.com/documents/...obingArena.pdf (See page 4)

You might want to hold off on stating things as facts until you actually know what you're talking about. But I like that you signed off with "try again". That made me laugh.
CF.... I'm referring to the original payoff plan.

I realize that things aren't the same.... NOW. Give me a little credit.

But I'll put the question forward, how is Glendale any better off paying off the arena debt if the number of income streams gets reduced??

TheLegend is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 06:27 PM
  #518
TheLegend
Megathread Refugee
 
TheLegend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: The Anxiety Closet
Country: United States
Posts: 3,401
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcwpg View Post
This is where we disagree.

Coyotes bring: 500,000 people to Westgate every year

Tanger brings (est.): 5,000,000 people to Westgate every year

Of the 500,000 people attending Coyotes games, the majority of them will NOT be spending money at Westgate. Of course some will, but after buying tickets, paying for parking, and knowing they are going to buy munchies and some pops at the game, most are not spending money at Westgate.

Of the 5,000,000 people attending Tanger, well, these people are not coming just to hang out, they are shoppers spending money. And even those that do just hang out and sit around and text all day long, will eat or drink something.

IIRC the CoG themselves were estimating that the revenue they will get from Tangers will be the same as the revenue they are getting from the Coyotes. So it's a wash. IMO though, shoppers are going to spend more and generate more revenue for the city than those going to hockey games.
So..... you feel an ESTIMATED number makes a better argument against a KNOWN one???

You have mocked CoG estimates in the past yet now you use them as a basis to make a point???

IOW..... you're guessing.... but then again that's just my opinion.

TheLegend is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 07:20 PM
  #519
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,174
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLegend View Post
CF.... I'm referring to the original payoff plan.

I realize that things aren't the same.... NOW. Give me a little credit.

But I'll put the question forward, how is Glendale any better off paying off the arena debt if the number of income streams gets reduced??
I thought it was all fairly straightforward. The net financial position is based on the balance of revenues and expenditures. Glendale is better off if the reduction in income streams is dwarfed by the money they save on subsidies paid to a prime tenant. The projected expenditures are much higher than all revenues combined. So they have to use money from other sources, and cut staff and services accordingly. If they didn't have so spend so much extra on subsidies to Jamison, they could instead pay down the arena debt.

Whileee is online now  
Old
12-06-2012, 09:05 PM
  #520
CasualFan
Tortious Beadicus
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bay Area, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,178
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLegend View Post
CF.... I'm referring to the original payoff plan.

I realize that things aren't the same.... NOW. Give me a little credit.

But I'll put the question forward, how is Glendale any better off paying off the arena debt if the number of income streams gets reduced??
They're not better off if the income streams get reduced.

But that's exactly what the JIG lease does. It's what makes the whole situation so comical. The city is reducing the income streams that were supposed to pay off the arena debt by diverting them to cover a portion of the JIG AMF. And that's the punchline: Glendale diverts all those revenues but it's not even close to enough to cover the AMF. There's nothing left to pay off the arena debt and there's not enough revenue to pay the JIG AMF. It really is spectacular.

Anyway, I didn't mean to deny you credit and I enjoy reading your posts. I hope you read this as amicable, which is the way it's intended. I just think you might have got a little outside yourself here. Unless you meant to answer your question by saying that the JIG lease puts Glendale in the worst possible position because not only does it reduce the number of income streams that pay off the arena debt - but it also creates even more debt.

I guess you could say that is the thesis statement of Clarkonomics: I pay my existing debt by creating more debt.

It is so brilliantly stupid that I feel humbled every time I hear someone vehemently defending the economics of the JIG lease. If you are a believer in dualism, Glendale provides proof of absolute enlightenment because they have demonstrated absolute incomprehension. Other cities have done similar things but Glendale really is special.

From the city's perspective, if they just held the line at a $5MM or $6MM JIG subsidy, then it's a workable deal for them. Not great but workable. It would still have some really bad components such as the affiliate subleasing, giving away the parking rights and, as Othmar commonly and astutely points out, the city indemnifies JIG against their own failure to act with the low penalty rate for not booking non-hockey events; and they give JIG a put on the arena so if by some miracle it does make money, JIG cashes in on it instead of the city. But I digress, at $5MM or $6MM it might be possible to make a case to support approving the JIG lease.

If the team were not there, the city would have an arena debt problem. With the JIG lease, the city has that exact same arena debt problem *plus* they created a whole new JIG AMF debt problem of roughly $8MM per year. Also, without the team, they would at least introduce the potential to create revenue with the arena. Instead they went with the plan that guarantees them 20 years of unfunded arena debt plus introduces a new underfunded AMF debt load.

Visionaries.

CasualFan is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 10:30 PM
  #521
sipowicz
The Original
 
sipowicz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,665
vCash: 1989
Quote:
Originally Posted by blues10 View Post
There is no court case nor will there ever be a court case. The COG signed that away years ago. Nice work Tindall.
Court case over what anyway? 16 straight years of losses but "thy team shall never move", team has been hanging by a thin thread in Glendale for three years, when Chipman almost bought the Coyotes two years ago it wasn't to try to make a go of it in the desert, he had Bettman's blessing to relocate immediately.

sipowicz is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 11:05 PM
  #522
powerstuck
User Registered
 
powerstuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Quebec City
Country: Palestine
Posts: 2,381
vCash: 500
If there is a legal obligation for the league to stay in Glendale, why do they need a $300M deal ? If Glendale has legal rights over NHL rage-quitting the area, why give them a penny. I think it's because the NHL can leave whenever it pleases them that Glendale has been pourring money over the league and the team for the last 3 years.

powerstuck is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 12:20 AM
  #523
aqib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,373
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halibut View Post

and this one.
"There simply aren't any subtle ways to deal with this situation anymore," a source said. City of Glendale spokesperson Julie Frisoni said the city has a policy of not discussing ongoing negotiations. She did say that city lawyers have investigated the lease and believe that in the event of bankruptcy, the city and its investment are well-protected."
Ok those lawyers were stupid. Clearly they didn't study bankruptcy law. One of the easiest things for a company to do in bankruptcy is get out of any real estate lease it wants. How do you think KMart was able to close so many stores when it was in bankruptcy. It had leases all over the country.

aqib is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 12:26 AM
  #524
aqib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,373
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLegend View Post
1) Yes they could have paid down some of the debt. Then be left with near zero mechanisms in place to pay off the rest of it. Hardly a real solution.

.
If you had taken the Ballsillie offer of $50 million and now owed approximately $100 million on the arena instead of $150 million you could have then either sold the arena and cut your losses or hired an arena manager to book events. Its not like you would have sold it for nothing like the Pontiac Silverdome. MSG bought and renovate the forum in LA and spent over $80 million on it to make it a concert venue, surely you could have gotten something for the arena.

aqib is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 01:24 AM
  #525
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 21,840
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by aqib View Post
If you had taken the Ballsillie offer of $50 million...
To the best of my knowledge aqib, that decision wasnt Legends
to make, nor do I believe he was even consulted on the matter....

savvy?

Killion 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 07:23 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.