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.

What would a league without a union look like?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-23-2012, 10:18 AM
  #26
smithy
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 282
vCash: 500
Law student here with some background in sports law. Here goes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by atomic View Post
if there were no union would all current contract be void?
Probably yes. This would be disputed. The union would want to enforce past contracts, and the league would be fine with there being no contracts.

Quote:
Would we see teams playing 4 games in 4 nights?
I don't think so - owners wouldn't want to put their own teams at a disadvantage.

Quote:
If there was no union would the players get medical benefits? Retirement?
All things that are negotiable within the contract. No reason there couldn't be an organized pension without a union - I imagine many non-unionized companies do that.

Quote:
The draft would be gone. Everyone a free agent?
Yes. Who knows when you could even sign prospects... perhaps put options on them. It could become a race to the bottom, with scouts locking them down in their early teens or even childhood.

Quote:
I think the union couldn't sue the league until they tried to implement something. So if the union disbands they could say everyone is a free agent. If I were a team it might not be wise to give more than one year contract as who knows there might be a union tomorrow so you don't want to get stuck with huge contracts you can't unload.
The individual players can sue the league in a class action once the union disbands. Also the union does not want to say everyone is a free agent, they want to say that all past contracts are enforceable, because presumably this would just be a temporary tactic (one that would extend the lockout by a year, for sure) and the players would end up with lower salaries in the long run if they erased their past contracts and then signed new contracts under a new CBA (however long in the future that would be).

Quote:
Could they have a draft for foreign players? I don't think a foreign player is going to be able to sue about his rights to play for whatever team he wants.
No. A foreign player can sue. You don't need to be an American citizen or resident to be able to sue in the United States.

smithy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2012, 11:38 AM
  #27
Capsized
Parity is a Disease
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,225
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniorNelson View Post
We know what it would look like. It will look like the WHA did. The old WHA formed bacause the NHL was mean to players. It was intended to provide another market for players and fans to choose over the old school NHL.

What happened was each team signed one star to a massive contract (for those days,lol) and filled the roster with AHL calibre players. This is what would happen with a no cap NHL. As well, the marketplace will cruelly beat the poo out of some franchises. Some might move, some will fold.

Actually, this scenario is at least a year away, so some teams won't even be starting up again. What we are really talking about is a league floundering. I do not think Bettman will run it into the ground, what would he be, then?
Actually this is what happens in a cap league. Exactly what happens.

Capsized is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2012, 01:37 PM
  #28
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by baldrick View Post
At most a 20 team NHL probably less. Sorry Winnipeg, Ottawa, Calgary, Edmonton.
No chance for Quebec City and a second GTA team.
Nope, that's exactly backwards. The league will relocate to anywhere with a pulse before allowing franchises to fold.

Having franchises dropping like flies is the single fastest way to get teams into QC and GTA2.

  Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2012, 02:43 PM
  #29
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,266
vCash: 500
If there was no union, Bettman and the owners would have won?

Why are so many fans against this idea then? And the owners suing to prevent it?

Pro sports unions have got rid of the old reserve clause and have won free agency. Those are the main things players need. To lose the union now would mostly lose any pension contributions, grievance rights, any say in league rules or competition committees, and all the current players getting league minimum wage would probably get less. Im not sure if there are many players getting league minimum right now though.

But its hard to believe that without all these protections owners insist upon in order to protect them from themselves, that the players would be making less money. If that were likely, the owners wouldnt try to stop it from happening. So the current cba must already be saving the owners a lot of money. I guess the players are doing them a favour then by agreeing to one. Maybe the owners should try asking for concessions nicer then?

thinkwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2012, 03:39 PM
  #30
MrLouniverse
ScoreForCory
 
MrLouniverse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Fruits and Nuts
Country: United States
Posts: 871
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Millhaus View Post
[... stuff snipped]

So many seem to think that a 30 team sports league with each team fighting for the championship each year should be treated the same as 30 widget manufacturing companies fighting for their share of the widget market.

But how can that be? A 31st widget manufacturing company can join the fight any time they want but a 31st team can't just join the league. Why is it ok for the league to keep their 'market' closed to any other competitors?
[... other stuff snipped]
So isn't a sports league just a giant antitrust violation from beginning to end? But it only matters when it comes to salaries? Why? Why can a league keeps it's ranks closed, limit the number of players on a roster and how many of those can play each game, and pick and chose what rules their games will be played under with no problems but limiting salaries is a no no?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xref View Post
Is it really just limited to sports? Out of curiosity, can anyone just open a McDonalds? Or a Wendy's? Or a Dairy Queen?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Millhaus View Post
No but anyone can open a restaurant...

Right, and anyone can start a hockey team, they just can't fly the NHL shield and join the NHL without going through the process to become an NHL franchise.

MrLouniverse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2012, 03:47 PM
  #31
atomic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 287
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
If there was no union, Bettman and the owners would have won?

Why are so many fans against this idea then? And the owners suing to prevent it?

Pro sports unions have got rid of the old reserve clause and have won free agency. Those are the main things players need. To lose the union now would mostly lose any pension contributions, grievance rights, any say in league rules or competition committees, and all the current players getting league minimum wage would probably get less. Im not sure if there are many players getting league minimum right now though.

But its hard to believe that without all these protections owners insist upon in order to protect them from themselves, that the players would be making less money. If that were likely, the owners wouldnt try to stop it from happening. So the current cba must already be saving the owners a lot of money. I guess the players are doing them a favour then by agreeing to one. Maybe the owners should try asking for concessions nicer then?
I think so few players make the league minimum is because agents can't get paid unless the player makes enough over league minimum to cover the the agents cut. So no agent would negotiate a league minimum salary for a player. Get rid of the union and an agent could get paid even if the guy makes 100k.

atomic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2012, 03:56 PM
  #32
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,266
vCash: 500
And if you found out that that wasnt true, that agents get 1-4% regardless of the value of the contract, what might your 2nd possible explanation be for why so few players get minimum salary now, but all of a sudden would if there was nothing forcing GMs to spend to the minimum.

thinkwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2012, 07:12 PM
  #33
LeBlondeDemon10
Registered User
 
LeBlondeDemon10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,629
vCash: 500
The owners would have too much power. Any entity with too much power enables the group in power to act omnipotent and corrupt. We saw this chapter in NHL history.

LeBlondeDemon10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2012, 08:38 PM
  #34
Millhaus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,586
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrLouniverse View Post
Right, and anyone can start a hockey team, they just can't fly the NHL shield and join the NHL without going through the process to become an NHL franchise.
Which if the players end up dissolving the union and suing for antitrust violations should be a reason for anyone who has tried to join the NHL and been rebuffed to sue for antitrust violations. The very fact that they can keep someone out is anticompetitive.

And don't get me wrong, I don't think they should have to admit anyone they don't want to. I think it is absurd that someone has decided that some but not all of the antitrust laws that the widget industry has to adhere to apply to sports leagues like the NHL. Either they should all apply or none should apply and leagues like this should be able to make their own rules, like agreeing CBA or no CBA that there is a salary cap of $X mil per year just like they limit rosters to 23, contracts to 50, and players with jerseys each game to 20. Why is an agreed upon cap on salaries an antitrust violation but an agreed upon roster limit not?

Millhaus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2012, 08:42 PM
  #35
seanlinden
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,731
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
If there was no union, Bettman and the owners would have won?

Why are so many fans against this idea then? And the owners suing to prevent it?

Pro sports unions have got rid of the old reserve clause and have won free agency. Those are the main things players need. To lose the union now would mostly lose any pension contributions, grievance rights, any say in league rules or competition committees, and all the current players getting league minimum wage would probably get less. Im not sure if there are many players getting league minimum right now though.

But its hard to believe that without all these protections owners insist upon in order to protect them from themselves, that the players would be making less money. If that were likely, the owners wouldnt try to stop it from happening. So the current cba must already be saving the owners a lot of money. I guess the players are doing them a favour then by agreeing to one. Maybe the owners should try asking for concessions nicer then?
This...

The closest / most recent environment we had closer to the free market was the pre-2004 CBA, where players regularily took 65%+ of the league revenue.

In a non-unionized environment, everything would be up to individual negotiations. The Sidney Crosby's of the league would be worth 2-3 times what they are today, they'd get a guaranteed conract with all the perks and likely a pension as well. The Mike Brown's of the league would likely be paid substantially less... and have much fewer perks. They would however have the freedom to select a team to sign with as soon as one is interested.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Millhaus View Post
Which if the players end up dissolving the union and suing for antitrust violations should be a reason for anyone who has tried to join the NHL and been rebuffed to sue for antitrust violations. The very fact that they can keep someone out is anticompetitive.

And don't get me wrong, I don't think they should have to admit anyone they don't want to. I think it is absurd that someone has decided that some but not all of the antitrust laws that the widget industry has to adhere to apply to sports leagues like the NHL. Either they should all apply or none should apply and leagues like this should be able to make their own rules, like agreeing CBA or no CBA that there is a salary cap of $X mil per year just like they limit rosters to 23, contracts to 50, and players with jerseys each game to 20. Why is an agreed upon cap on salaries an antitrust violation but an agreed upon roster limit not?
Nobody gets "kept out" of the NHL any more than any other industry. There will be a point when teams simply aren't interested in carrying more players.

For what it's worth, looking at soccer may be a good example for a non-unionized environment. The leagues don't have the ability to dictate how many players the teams carry, or how much they spend. They do have the ability to say that the games they oversee will have 11 players on the field, and some determined about of players eligible for each game.

The NHL can also certainly dictate who they would like to participate in their league though.... which does bring up the question, who owns the NHL? I suspect from a legal standpoint, it is 30 equal shares, which does bring up the question of whether or not the NHL is a giant anti-trust violation to begin with.


Last edited by seanlinden: 12-23-2012 at 08:49 PM.
seanlinden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2012, 09:29 PM
  #36
atomic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 287
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seanlinden View Post
This...

The closest / most recent environment we had closer to the free market was the pre-2004 CBA, where players regularily took 65%+ of the league revenue.

In a non-unionized environment, everything would be up to individual negotiations. The Sidney Crosby's of the league would be worth 2-3 times what they are today, they'd get a guaranteed conract with all the perks and likely a pension as well. The Mike Brown's of the league would likely be paid substantially less... and have much fewer perks. They would however have the freedom to select a team to sign with as soon as one is interested.



Nobody gets "kept out" of the NHL any more than any other industry. There will be a point when teams simply aren't interested in carrying more players.

For what it's worth, looking at soccer may be a good example for a non-unionized environment. The leagues don't have the ability to dictate how many players the teams carry, or how much they spend. They do have the ability to say that the games they oversee will have 11 players on the field, and some determined about of players eligible for each game.

The NHL can also certainly dictate who they would like to participate in their league though.... which does bring up the question, who owns the NHL? I suspect from a legal standpoint, it is 30 equal shares, which does bring up the question of whether or not the NHL is a giant anti-trust violation to begin with.
Interesting thoughts. A team like the rangers could sign 60 star players and then most of them would never get to play. Crosby pisses off the coach and he gets loaned to some european league or sent to the ahl.

atomic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2012, 09:41 PM
  #37
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,402
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Millhaus View Post
Which if the players end up dissolving the union and suing for antitrust violations should be a reason for anyone who has tried to join the NHL and been rebuffed to sue for antitrust violations. The very fact that they can keep someone out is anticompetitive.
A disclaimer or decertification would have zero impact on relations between the teams and the League - including any restrictions on ownership, territorial rights, or relocations. The Non Statutory Labor Exemption of a CBA only affects actions of the teams/League w.r.t. to the platers/employees.

It would have zero impact on the ability of a rejected owner to sue to join the League - courts have already rejected those arguments and upheld the rights of a partnership to choose whom they wish to do business with (and those decisions had absolutely nothing to do with the existence of any CBA).

kdb209 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2012, 12:32 AM
  #38
Orrthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 755
vCash: 500
I can't wait to see the amazing race NHL style. Sooner or later some owner will force the players to arrange and pay for their own travel.

Orrthebest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2012, 12:52 AM
  #39
Mant*
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
It would be funny watching how 650 of the players that voted for this start crying like a fat girl who dropped her ice cream and skinned her knee once the league starts paying them what they're really worth... which is a generous 100k per year. The only players a lack of union would benefit are the handful at the top.

But hey, at least all those third and fourth liners will have the satisfaction of knowing that it was their decision to give 90% of their own paychecks to Crosby. That'll give them a warm fuzzy.

Mant* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2012, 01:14 AM
  #40
OneSharpMarble
Registered User
 
OneSharpMarble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,203
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
If there was no union, Bettman and the owners would have won?

Why are so many fans against this idea then? And the owners suing to prevent it?

Pro sports unions have got rid of the old reserve clause and have won free agency. Those are the main things players need. To lose the union now would mostly lose any pension contributions, grievance rights, any say in league rules or competition committees, and all the current players getting league minimum wage would probably get less. Im not sure if there are many players getting league minimum right now though.

But its hard to believe that without all these protections owners insist upon in order to protect them from themselves, that the players would be making less money. If that were likely, the owners wouldnt try to stop it from happening. So the current cba must already be saving the owners a lot of money. I guess the players are doing them a favour then by agreeing to one. Maybe the owners should try asking for concessions nicer then?
I don't think so. Player agents would eat the owners alive as they try to outbid each other. In a cap league the owners can't even control their own spending, when the cap is gone and every player is up for grabs what do you think will happen?

Teams that don't have the big cash flow will become farms for Toronto, NYR and Montreal. Owners will certainly not win when franchises that don't spend and don't produce results go under.

Lower end players will certainly feel the impact but than again so will lower end owners in the value of their franchises. I have a feeling franchise value is going to hit the bottom of the bucket in a league without revenue sharing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mant View Post
It would be funny watching how 650 of the players that voted for this start crying like a fat girl who dropped her ice cream and skinned her knee once the league starts paying them what they're really worth... which is a generous 100k per year. The only players a lack of union would benefit are the handful at the top.

But hey, at least all those third and fourth liners will have the satisfaction of knowing that it was their decision to give 90% of their own paychecks to Crosby. That'll give them a warm fuzzy.
It will even be funnier when those players go overseas for more money and the NHL sinks in quality and other leagues surpass it.

OneSharpMarble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2012, 02:24 AM
  #41
xkirax
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 35
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by smithy View Post
Law student here with some background in sports law. Here goes.



Probably yes. This would be disputed. The union would want to enforce past contracts, and the league would be fine with there being no contracts.



I don't think so - owners wouldn't want to put their own teams at a disadvantage.



All things that are negotiable within the contract. No reason there couldn't be an organized pension without a union - I imagine many non-unionized companies do that.



Yes. Who knows when you could even sign prospects... perhaps put options on them. It could become a race to the bottom, with scouts locking them down in their early teens or even childhood.



The individual players can sue the league in a class action once the union disbands. Also the union does not want to say everyone is a free agent, they want to say that all past contracts are enforceable, because presumably this would just be a temporary tactic (one that would extend the lockout by a year, for sure) and the players would end up with lower salaries in the long run if they erased their past contracts and then signed new contracts under a new CBA (however long in the future that would be).



No. A foreign player can sue. You don't need to be an American citizen or resident to be able to sue in the United States.
Mod...
#1 you said the contracts will be voided lol please show me a case where this has happened... unless the contracts the players signed states they are voted incase of a dersertification they wont be..... or maybe they will It depends on what court hears it....


Last edited by Killion: 12-24-2012 at 10:23 AM. Reason: easy there...
xkirax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2012, 07:32 AM
  #42
Concordski
Knockoff Jets FTW
 
Concordski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 6,849
vCash: 663
Look at professional wrestling. Hockey'd be a nightmare without a union.

Concordski is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2012, 07:57 AM
  #43
Capsized
Parity is a Disease
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,225
vCash: 500
Teams that deserve a quality roster will have one. Teams that don't won't. The disease of parity would be cured and hockey would be presented at the highest possible quality in markets that actually want to see it. Owners that choose to invest in quality and market that quality wisely would reap the rewards of profit. Those owners who fail to present quality will drown in their own incompetence.

Capsized is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2012, 09:00 AM
  #44
smithy
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 282
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by xkirax View Post
Mod...
#1 you said the contracts will be voided lol please show me a case where this has happened... unless the contracts the players signed states they are voted incase of a dersertification they wont be..... or maybe they will It depends on what court hears it....
While this isn't a settled point of law, I've taken classes with NBA and NBPA lawyers who think that, if the CBA disappears, the contracts become void. The contracts are unenforceable because they were signed under a system that, in absence of a CBA, is a trust, and therefore illegal.

Mod...


Last edited by Killion: 12-24-2012 at 10:24 AM. Reason: ref'd to edit...
smithy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2012, 11:08 AM
  #45
atomic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 287
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orrthebest View Post
I can't wait to see the amazing race NHL style. Sooner or later some owner will force the players to arrange and pay for their own travel.
or show them their nice new team bus.

atomic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2012, 02:08 PM
  #46
chasespace
Registered User
 
chasespace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Williston, FL
Posts: 3,676
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by xkirax View Post
Mod...
#1 you said the contracts will be voided lol please show me a case where this has happened... unless the contracts the players signed states they are voted incase of a dersertification they wont be..... or maybe they will It depends on what court hears it....
All contracts adhere to any current, future, and past CBA. If there is no CBA then there is nothing for them to adhere to therefore they would be unenforceable.


Last edited by chasespace: 12-24-2012 at 02:15 PM.
chasespace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2012, 06:16 PM
  #47
xkirax
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 35
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by smithy View Post
While this isn't a settled point of law, I've taken classes with NBA and NBPA lawyers who think that, if the CBA disappears, the contracts become void. The contracts are unenforceable because they were signed under a system that, in absence of a CBA, is a trust, and therefore illegal.

Mod...
lol if that was true they would show some kind of precedence something you fale to do. Just like back in the day it was ok for whites and color people to go to different schools tell a court ruled on it that was not the case. nothing has show any precedence on hat your saying is true if your going to cite a semi source can we get some names? Mod...

http://www.startribune.com/sports/blogs/183635241.html

Quote:
"The NBA argued the same thing – that player contracts would be void because the CBA no longer applies once the Union decertifies or disclaims interest. The league is arguing that the player contract is governed by, and is in, the CBA. By extension if the collective bargaining relationship between the players and the owners is over by way of the disclaimer or decertification, then player contracts should also cease thereby becoming void.

"That is an ambitious argument. It would meet with resistance from the players. It may also be a tough argument to make successfully in court. A judge may not want to strike down the contracts unless the player contracts actually says the contract is void under these circumstances. So may be a tough one for the NHL to prevail on but there is nothing wrong with advancing the argument. We do that kind of stuff all the time at law."
here is what one of the pro's say.... Mod


Last edited by Killion: 12-24-2012 at 06:34 PM. Reason: not reqd...
xkirax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2012, 07:04 PM
  #48
chasespace
Registered User
 
chasespace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Williston, FL
Posts: 3,676
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by xkirax View Post
lol if that was true they would show some kind of precedence something you fale to do. Just like back in the day it was ok for whites and color people to go to different schools tell a court ruled on it that was not the case. nothing has show any precedence on hat your saying is true if your going to cite a semi source can we get some names? Mod...

http://www.startribune.com/sports/blogs/183635241.html



here is what one of the pro's say.... Mod
But there is no precedence in this case, only theory and projection. IF it goes to court then all leagues will finally have a precedence to go off of.

And it's not that hard from a legal standpoint to make the argument that if a union decertifies then all contracts to all union members are null and void. The union negotiated the CBA, the CBA set the terms for their contracts, there is no current CBA so the contracts cannot be enforced, if the union goes away then there cannot legally be a CBA so there for any contracts that adhere to a CBA wouldn't be legal. Ergo, all current contracts would be illegal and therefore removed.

chasespace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2012, 08:13 PM
  #49
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by xkirax View Post
lol if that was true they would show some kind of precedence something you fale to do.
Until a PA - any PA - actually goes through with decertification, it won't be possible to point at precedence.

IMO two things are extremely likely. (1) if (still a big "IF") the PA wants to decertify, the courts won't stop it from doing so. (2) All contracts will be voided from that moment forward, with all players becoming UFA, and the draft abolished.

I, personally, hope that all comes to pass.

  Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2012, 08:47 PM
  #50
Flyerfan808
Registered User
 
Flyerfan808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Honolulu, HI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,002
vCash: 500
Almost immeadiately, players would get more money, but league parity would be destroyed.

Over time, the league would be divided into the "large market teams" (the "haves") with stacked teams and the "small market teams" (the "have nots") teams full of 3rd and fourth liners. Fans of the disenfranchised teams would realize how utterly hopeless it is, stop caring, and move on.

Eventually those teams would fold and the players would lose jobs.

So basically, in the long run: the players lose, the owners lose, and the fans lose.

Flyerfan808 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 05:35 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.