HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
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.

Brooks: so why did the NHL go running to court after rumors of DOI vote?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-16-2012, 02:18 PM
  #1
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 53,641
vCash: 500
Brooks: so why did the NHL go running to court after rumors of DOI vote?

http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/range...ontent=Rangers

Quote:
[Bettman at emotional presser after last negotiation breakdown on possible decerfication/disclaimer of interest action by NHLPA:] “We don’t view it in the same way in terms of its impact as apparently the union may,” is what the discredited face of the NHL said.

Well, OK, but then what was the NHL doing rushing to U.S. District Court on Friday afternoon to file a class action complaint against the union in order to prevent the PA from disclaiming and/or decertifying?

Disclaiming and decertifying are neither maneuvers nor tenets PA executive director Don Fehr embraces easily. This true believer in the power of collective bargaining has been loath to go down this route even while the rank-and-file has coalesced behind the process over the last month.

And yet here is the No Hope League, in court rather than on ice, filing actions to prevent the PA from undertaking an action of its own that the league is on record as believing would have negligible impact, anyway.
...
Stop and think for a moment. Here is the league that just over a week ago was doing everything in its power to keep Don Fehr out of the bargaining process, and is now going to court to ensure he continues to represent the players in the bargaining process.
Brooks is certainly having a grand time poking holes in NHL's legal presentation.

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2012, 02:28 PM
  #2
JAX
Registered User
 
JAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sault Ste. Marie
Country: Canada
Posts: 896
vCash: 500
Brooks is clueless and most of his reads [mod]. He knows why the NHL had to do this but acts ignorantly to the reason. He's a PA Schill


Last edited by Fugu: 12-16-2012 at 06:36 PM. Reason: libelous
JAX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2012, 02:34 PM
  #3
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,251
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
Brooks is certainly having a grand time poking holes in NHL's legal presentation.
Man, those million dollar lawyers sure must be kicking themselves for not consulting a legal expert like Brooks.

Let's get real here, the only thing Brooks can poke is holes in his own articles.

For weeks now, the NHL has sent its messengers to deliver the message the NHLPA is not truly united behind Fehr and union leadership; that the players, left to their own decision-making process, would rush to accept whatever the league at the time had on the table.

Or, in another word, “Vote!”

Yet there in Paragraph 54 of the complaint is the NHL citing numerous examples of players articulating support for Fehr and the PA leadership which the league posits, “... do not suggest that the NHL players are unhappy with their Union representation [or] wish to oust current NHLPA leadership...”


Does Brooks have problems with reading comprehension or is he just plain dumb?

NHL has indirectly suggested that the union is not truly united, that has absolutely nothing to do with them being unhappy with Fehr.

Another "gem" from Brooks' latest verbal vomit:

Paragraph 102 is a good one. For months the NHL has been telling anyone who would listen that up to 18 of its franchises lose money, with many of those franchises in need of life support. For months the league has been instructing us not to confuse revenue with profits.

Fair enough.

But then these are the league’s own words right there in Paragraph 102: “The system of common employment rules [the CBA] instituted in 2005 improved the financial stability of the entire NHL, including most of its clubs...”

Most of its clubs?


Can't Brooks understand that most of the teams can still lose money even though the last CBA improved their financial position?

If PA had been smart, it would have told the players to **** about CBA negotiations. Had the PA even smarter, they would have gotten somebody much smarter than Brooks to drive their PR in media.

Brooks' incompetence is staggering.

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2012, 02:53 PM
  #4
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,926
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
Paragraph 102 is a good one. For months the NHL has been telling anyone who would listen that up to 18 of its franchises lose money, with many of those franchises in need of life support. For months the league has been instructing us not to confuse revenue with profits.
Has the NHL actually come out and said X amount of teams are losing money?

__________________
"It’s not as if Donald Fehr was lying to us, several players said. Rather, it’s as if he has been economical with information, these players believe, not sharing facts these players consider to be vital."
Riptide is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2012, 03:02 PM
  #5
rockinghorse
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
Man, those million dollar lawyers sure must be kicking themselves for not consulting a legal expert like Brooks.

Let's get real here, the only thing Brooks can poke is holes in his own articles.

For weeks now, the NHL has sent its messengers to deliver the message the NHLPA is not truly united behind Fehr and union leadership; that the players, left to their own decision-making process, would rush to accept whatever the league at the time had on the table.

Or, in another word, “Vote!”

Yet there in Paragraph 54 of the complaint is the NHL citing numerous examples of players articulating support for Fehr and the PA leadership which the league posits, “... do not suggest that the NHL players are unhappy with their Union representation [or] wish to oust current NHLPA leadership...”


Does Brooks have problems with reading comprehension or is he just plain dumb?

NHL has indirectly suggested that the union is not truly united, that has absolutely nothing to do with them being unhappy with Fehr.

Another "gem" from Brooks' latest verbal vomit:

Paragraph 102 is a good one. For months the NHL has been telling anyone who would listen that up to 18 of its franchises lose money, with many of those franchises in need of life support. For months the league has been instructing us not to confuse revenue with profits.

Fair enough.

But then these are the league’s own words right there in Paragraph 102: “The system of common employment rules [the CBA] instituted in 2005 improved the financial stability of the entire NHL, including most of its clubs...”

Most of its clubs?


Can't Brooks understand that most of the teams can still lose money even though the last CBA improved their financial position?

If PA had been smart, it would have told the players to **** about CBA negotiations. Had the PA even smarter, they would have gotten somebody much smarter than Brooks to drive their PR in media.

Brooks' incompetence is staggering.
Teams that lose money can charge that loss against another of their businesses that is making money. Who knows? Maybe some of the owners/teams want to show losses. They would not come out and say it. If that is the case what is the incentive to show profit?

Toronto does not want to show losses as Roger's is a publicly traded company and has shareholders to account to. I'm interested to know what's happening there?

I guess you would have to see the entire tax filing for each and that would be a giant octopus.

I still don't get why anyone wants to buy Phoenix.

rockinghorse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2012, 03:24 PM
  #6
Conflicted Habs fan
Registered User
 
Conflicted Habs fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Montreal
Country: Martinique
Posts: 523
vCash: 130
Enjoyable read! Truth of the matter is quite funny when you look at it. Glad to see Brooks has got the parody of this situation bang on

Conflicted Habs fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2012, 03:25 PM
  #7
Freudian
wild card, *****es
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 26,880
vCash: 50
Yet another serving of uninformed PA cheer leading from Brooks.

First of all, NHL are not trying "to prevent the PA from disclaiming and/or decertifying". If you can't grasp that, perhaps not writing a column on the subject would be appropriate.

Secondly, even if NHL doesn't fear decertification, choosing which court that hears the case seems like a good idea for a lot of reasons. The NHL and all their staff are situated in New York so it's more practical to be in a New York court. Also, any court that's more favorable to owners helps slam the door shut on NHLPAs attempts to pretend they aren't a union anymore.

Freudian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2012, 03:26 PM
  #8
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,547
vCash: 500
Oh Larry.

By filing suit first, the NHL establishes home ice advantage, choosing the Second Circuit to hear the case. It's a precautionary move, and a smart one. It doesn't indicate whether the NHL is "worried" or not and it certainly doesn't prevent the NHLPA from filing a DOI.

Crease is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2012, 05:12 PM
  #9
Xref
Registered User
 
Xref's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 311
vCash: 500
Brooks should stick to what he kinda sorta knows something about: basebore. His opinions on hockey are total hogwash. I stopped reading his crap many years ago.

The NHL isn't suing the PA to try to stop their actions. Rather, they are asking the district court to validate their lockout. If successful, any subsequent anti-trust suits that the PA tries to bring would be stymied.


Last edited by Xref: 12-16-2012 at 06:29 PM.
Xref is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2012, 07:08 PM
  #10
saskganesh
Registered User
 
saskganesh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the Annex
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,021
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockinghorse View Post

I still don't get why anyone wants to buy Phoenix.
After three years, nobody wants to buy Phoenix. Jamieson says he does but he keep failing to close.

saskganesh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-17-2012, 08:48 AM
  #11
Kimota
Nation of Poutine
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 20,944
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crease View Post
Oh Larry.

By filing suit first, the NHL establishes home ice advantage, choosing the Second Circuit to hear the case. It's a precautionary move, and a smart one. It doesn't indicate whether the NHL is "worried" or not and it certainly doesn't prevent the NHLPA from filing a DOI.
Exactly. And it also send a message to the players: it's hopeless to vote on this.

Kimota is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-17-2012, 09:04 AM
  #12
HockeyCrazed101
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,171
vCash: 500
That's not really poking holes in the NHL's legal presentation. Similar to other obvious pro-PA and pro-owner writers, the objectivity on the situation is severly lacking.

For one, he's mischaracterizing the the purpose of the NHL claim. It's not about forcing the PA to keep Fehr in the room, it's about appealing to the courts and asking them not to allow the dissolution of the PA affect the legality of the lockout because they argue that the PA is only using the tactic for negotiating leverage. They also ran out and filed their claim first as a matter of legal protection. They have a better chance of getting the hearing in a employer friendly state such as New York than if they were to allow the PA to disclaim interest and file claims first in an employee friendly state.

I don't even think it's a matter of Brooks not doing his homework. I don't think he wants to because it doesn't suit his agenda. There are only a handful of people that really show both sides of the coin and unfortunately, they don't write nearly enough to drown out this kind of nonsense journalism.

HockeyCrazed101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-17-2012, 10:16 PM
  #13
silvercanuck
Registered User
 
silvercanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,899
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
Man, those million dollar lawyers sure must be kicking themselves for not consulting a legal expert like Brooks.

Let's get real here, the only thing Brooks can poke is holes in his own articles.

For weeks now, the NHL has sent its messengers to deliver the message the NHLPA is not truly united behind Fehr and union leadership; that the players, left to their own decision-making process, would rush to accept whatever the league at the time had on the table.

Or, in another word, “Vote!”

Yet there in Paragraph 54 of the complaint is the NHL citing numerous examples of players articulating support for Fehr and the PA leadership which the league posits, “... do not suggest that the NHL players are unhappy with their Union representation [or] wish to oust current NHLPA leadership...”


Does Brooks have problems with reading comprehension or is he just plain dumb?

NHL has indirectly suggested that the union is not truly united, that has absolutely nothing to do with them being unhappy with Fehr.

Another "gem" from Brooks' latest verbal vomit:

Paragraph 102 is a good one. For months the NHL has been telling anyone who would listen that up to 18 of its franchises lose money, with many of those franchises in need of life support. For months the league has been instructing us not to confuse revenue with profits.

Fair enough.

But then these are the league’s own words right there in Paragraph 102: “The system of common employment rules [the CBA] instituted in 2005 improved the financial stability of the entire NHL, including most of its clubs...”

Most of its clubs?


Can't Brooks understand that most of the teams can still lose money even though the last CBA improved their financial position?

If PA had been smart, it would have told the players to **** about CBA negotiations. Had the PA even smarter, they would have gotten somebody much smarter than Brooks to drive their PR in media.

Brooks' incompetence is staggering.
Isn't that a legal issue for the courts to decide? I don't see why the players are required to have union representation and by extension be bound by league imposed caps and the reserve clause.

silvercanuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-17-2012, 10:18 PM
  #14
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by silvercanuck View Post
I don't see why the players are required to have union representation and by extension be bound by league imposed caps and the reserve clause.
They're not.

If they want to go through the process of decertification, the courts won't stop them.

  Reply With Quote
Old
12-17-2012, 10:38 PM
  #15
c4fn8d
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 629
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyCrazed101 View Post
That's not really poking holes in the NHL's legal presentation. Similar to other obvious pro-PA and pro-owner writers, the objectivity on the situation is severly lacking.

For one, he's mischaracterizing the the purpose of the NHL claim. It's not about forcing the PA to keep Fehr in the room, it's about appealing to the courts and asking them not to allow the dissolution of the PA affect the legality of the lockout because they argue that the PA is only using the tactic for negotiating leverage. They also ran out and filed their claim first as a matter of legal protection. They have a better chance of getting the hearing in a employer friendly state such as New York than if they were to allow the PA to disclaim interest and file claims first in an employee friendly state.

I don't even think it's a matter of Brooks not doing his homework. I don't think he wants to because it doesn't suit his agenda. There are only a handful of people that really show both sides of the coin and unfortunately, they don't write nearly enough to drown out this kind of nonsense journalism.
Yes, as per Bettman's strategy a good defense consists of pre-emptive strikes: repeated lockouts and now a ensuring he files the lawsuits first.

I think that one thing that the PA may have up it's sleeve are the repeated requests for arbitrators. They will likely be called to testify and give their opinions on whether they feel that this impasse can be lifted by negotiations. Or whether the NHL is treating the Union in such a fashion that repeated attempts at negotiating are met with no serious consideration.

c4fn8d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-17-2012, 10:58 PM
  #16
Boltsfan2029
Registered User
 
Boltsfan2029's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In deleted threads
Country: United States
Posts: 6,280
vCash: 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by c4fn8d View Post
Yes, as per Bettman's strategy a good defense consists of pre-emptive strikes: repeated lockouts and now a ensuring he files the lawsuits first.

I think that one thing that the PA may have up it's sleeve are the repeated requests for arbitrators. They will likely be called to testify and give their opinions on whether they feel that this impasse can be lifted by negotiations. Or whether the NHL is treating the Union in such a fashion that repeated attempts at negotiating are met with no serious consideration.
Mediators, not arbitrators, correct? Wouldn't those same mediators also be bound to point out that the PA asked for the last meeting and then refused to budge? Total waste of not only the parties' time, but also that of the federal mediators.

Boltsfan2029 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-17-2012, 11:01 PM
  #17
c4fn8d
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 629
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boltsfan2029 View Post
Mediators, not arbitrators, correct? Wouldn't those same mediators also be bound to point out that the PA asked for the last meeting and then refused to budge? Total waste of not only the parties' time, but also that of the federal mediators.
You are correct, my bad they were mediators. I believe that because Fehr had been planning this for awhile, he will show that it was the NHL that did not give negotiations a fair shake. They did not officially discuss any proposal put forth by the PA. He will also show that each proposal put forth by the NHL was given proper diligence and communication before putting together a counter proposal.

Plus the players finally did cave and go to 50%-50% linked. But then the NHL pulled out the hill to die on card which was contract term and a splash of CBA length.

c4fn8d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-17-2012, 11:10 PM
  #18
Boltsfan2029
Registered User
 
Boltsfan2029's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In deleted threads
Country: United States
Posts: 6,280
vCash: 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by c4fn8d View Post
You are correct, my bad they were mediators. I believe that because Fehr had been planning this for awhile, he will show that it was the NHL that did not give negotiations a fair shake. They did not officially discuss any proposal put forth by the PA. He will also show that each proposal put forth by the NHL was given proper diligence and communication before putting together a counter proposal.
Which doesn't change the fact the the PA called for the last mediation, showed up and refused to negotiate. It would be very tricky to have the mediators testify against the league for doing that and not point out that the PA did the exact same thing. Also, the mediators cannot testify as to any due diligence or communication about counter proposals to each NHL offer, as they weren't involved.

Lastly, if it works like civil mediations (not sure about labor law), anything that happened in the mediation sessions is strictly confidential and can't be disclosed, anyway.

Boltsfan2029 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-17-2012, 11:13 PM
  #19
c4fn8d
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 629
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boltsfan2029 View Post
Which doesn't change the fact the the PA called for the last mediation, showed up and refused to negotiate. It would be very tricky to have the mediators testify against the league for doing that and not point out that the PA did the exact same thing. Also, the mediators cannot testify as to any due diligence or communication about counter proposals to each NHL offer, as they weren't involved.

Lastly, if it works like civil mediations (not sure about labor law), anything that happened in the mediation sessions is strictly confidential and can't be disclosed, anyway.
It was Daly who said to the media that the contract length was a hill to die on. That sounds fairly non-negotiable. How can you negotiate off that?

c4fn8d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-17-2012, 11:24 PM
  #20
Boltsfan2029
Registered User
 
Boltsfan2029's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In deleted threads
Country: United States
Posts: 6,280
vCash: 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by c4fn8d View Post
It was Daly who said to the media that the contract length was a hill to die on. That sounds fairly non-negotiable. How can you negotiate off that?
I don't think we're talking about the same thing.

You said:
Quote:
I think that one thing that the PA may have up it's sleeve are the repeated requests for arbitrators. They will likely be called to testify and give their opinions on whether they feel that this impasse can be lifted by negotiations. Or whether the NHL is treating the Union in such a fashion that repeated attempts at negotiating are met with no serious consideration.
I'm merely pointing out that the PA was equally guilty at mediation of refusing to negotiate. If the PA puts a mediator on the stand and asks if the league refused to negotiate, the league would simply ask on cross-examination if the PA refused to negotiate. The answer would be yes to both. So, the PA calling the mediator to ask that question would be self-defeating because the mediator would also testify against the PA.

And, again, if it works like it does in civil court, the mediator could not be called as a witness in the first place, so the whole scenario would really be moot, anyway.

Boltsfan2029 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-17-2012, 11:29 PM
  #21
MaritimeHockeyNut
BRUINSrCHAMPS nextyr
 
MaritimeHockeyNut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Maritimes
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,440
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian View Post
Yet another serving of uninformed PA cheer leading from Brooks.

First of all, NHL are not trying "to prevent the PA from disclaiming and/or decertifying". If you can't grasp that, perhaps not writing a column on the subject would be appropriate.

Secondly, even if NHL doesn't fear decertification, choosing which court that hears the case seems like a good idea for a lot of reasons. The NHL and all their staff are situated in New York so it's more practical to be in a New York court. Also, any court that's more favorable to owners helps slam the door shut on NHLPAs attempts to pretend they aren't a union anymore.
Great post. I must admit i dont follow brooks. So unsure if he is serious or just making jest of this whole senerio. either way the nhl is just proacting instead of reacting to the fehr lead chaos thats to come.

MaritimeHockeyNut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-18-2012, 07:39 AM
  #22
HockeyCrazed101
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,171
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by c4fn8d View Post
It was Daly who said to the media that the contract length was a hill to die on. That sounds fairly non-negotiable. How can you negotiate off that?
The same way the league has said that delinkage is a non-starter and won't be considered by the league under any circumstances and yet the PA continues to try and negotiate delinkage (either whole or partial) in every one of their proposals. If contract issues are the most important issue to the players, why haven't they shown the same determination in negotiating contracts as they have delinkage?

HockeyCrazed101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-18-2012, 07:42 AM
  #23
HockeyCrazed101
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,171
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by c4fn8d View Post
Yes, as per Bettman's strategy a good defense consists of pre-emptive strikes: repeated lockouts and now a ensuring he files the lawsuits first.

I think that one thing that the PA may have up it's sleeve are the repeated requests for arbitrators. They will likely be called to testify and give their opinions on whether they feel that this impasse can be lifted by negotiations. Or whether the NHL is treating the Union in such a fashion that repeated attempts at negotiating are met with no serious consideration.
As far as I know, an arbitrator isn't proof that one side wants to negotiate because. I don't think it's against the law or considered bad faith negotiating if one side, especially the side that has all the financial risk, wants to reach an agreement on terms they can mutally agree to rather than what someone forces them to accept. There is nothing in the law that says a negotiation has to include increasing flexibility. One or both sides are allowed to have a strict negotiating stance.

HockeyCrazed101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-18-2012, 09:43 AM
  #24
cheswick
Non-registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,732
vCash: 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyCrazed101 View Post
The same way the league has said that delinkage is a non-starter and won't be considered by the league under any circumstances and yet the PA continues to try and negotiate delinkage (either whole or partial) in every one of their proposals. If contract issues are the most important issue to the players, why haven't they shown the same determination in negotiating contracts as they have delinkage?
It's been reported that in the PA's final proposal, the one in which was a direct response to the leagues in which Fehr said they were close, full linkage was in it (they removed the guarantees of the players share never going down which they had in it previously)

cheswick is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-18-2012, 10:03 AM
  #25
HockeyCrazed101
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,171
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
It's been reported that in the PA's final proposal, the one in which was a direct response to the leagues in which Fehr said they were close, full linkage was in it (they removed the guarantees of the players share never going down which they had in it previously)
Someone mentioned it (and I verified it with reports on the PA proposal details) - the PA suggested that the cap start at 67.2M and that the cap can never go below that number. Linkage currently has everything tied together while this suggestion delinks certain aspects of the set up. I don't see it as being a huge deal so long as the salaries are tied to actual revenues but I would think if the league has any issue with this detail (as well as the mid-level cap exception), it's because it puts small market teams as a larger disadvantage. If the cap is artificially set too high and delinked from actual revenue, then that means small market teams will be forced to spend higher than they would normally have to in order to try and compete.

HockeyCrazed101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:40 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.