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.

OT Sacramento looking to finance new arena; UPD NBA rejects relocation to Seattle bid

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-02-2013, 07:26 PM
  #126
maruk14
Registered User
 
maruk14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,916
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
I don't know where you get that the valuation from Seattle's offer doesn't include the loan payoff and the relocation fee. That's exactly why Sacramento doesn't have to match those particular parts of the deal because they don't have to pay it.
.
You can't just write all that stuff out of the offer and call it comparable from the Maloofs perspective - Hansens deal wins. That is the problem with that argument.

maruk14 is offline  
Old
03-02-2013, 08:47 PM
  #127
Nuclear SUV
Registered User
 
Nuclear SUV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 496
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
I don't know where you get that the valuation from Seattle's offer doesn't include the loan payoff and the relocation fee. That's exactly why Sacramento doesn't have to match those particular parts of the deal because they don't have to pay it.

If the league feels the offer is good enough to keep the team here, they're within their right to do so. It doesn't matter that they have a 'legally binding PSA'. They have to approve it and they don't have to because it's their league and their franchises just as much as it is the person who buys stake in the franchises.
The NBA does not want an anti-trust lawsuit. Don't forget that the State of Washington is an entity that has successfully sued a professional sports league.



Sacramento doesn't have to match the Hansen offer because they are now playing for the Milwaukee Bucks. The Maloofs can't negotiate with anyone but Hansen.

Nuclear SUV is offline  
Old
03-03-2013, 12:48 AM
  #128
AdmiralsFan24
Registered User
 
AdmiralsFan24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Country: United States
Posts: 4,930
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to AdmiralsFan24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuclear SUV View Post
Sacramento doesn't have to match the Hansen offer because they are now playing for the Milwaukee Bucks. The Maloofs can't negotiate with anyone but Hansen.
The Bucks owner has been adamant that he is not going to sell to anyone that moves the team. He had a deal to sell the team to Michael Jordan about 10 years ago but backed out when Jordan didn't give any assurances that the team would stay in Milwaukee.

AdmiralsFan24 is offline  
Old
03-03-2013, 10:20 AM
  #129
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 31,933
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by maruk14 View Post
You can't just write all that stuff out of the offer and call it comparable from the Maloofs perspective - Hansens deal wins. That is the problem with that argument.
Sure I can because the stuff that I was speaking of that is part of the valuation for Hansen's group is not all paid to the Maloofs and the parts that aren't paid to the Maloofs like the loan and the relocation fee are not needed for the Sacramento group to be part of their deal thus lowering their valuation of the franchise but keeping the deal competitive in the context of what they'd be paying the Maloofs. Nobody really knows what the terms are for the Sacramento end of it so to say either side wins is really just a guessing game.

Pinkfloyd is offline  
Old
03-03-2013, 11:29 AM
  #130
maruk14
Registered User
 
maruk14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,916
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
Sure I can because the stuff that I was speaking of that is part of the valuation for Hansen's group is not all paid to the Maloofs and the parts that aren't paid to the Maloofs like the loan and the relocation fee are not needed for the Sacramento group to be part of their deal thus lowering their valuation of the franchise but keeping the deal competitive in the context of what they'd be paying the Maloofs. Nobody really knows what the terms are for the Sacramento end of it so to say either side wins is really just a guessing game.
You are right, I am assuming the debt offer is above the franchise evaluation and I was assuming Hansen knew this and accounted for it. We don't know for sure unless we see the PSA and it could conceivably go either way.

But, you just said it yourself ... say the Sac group says, hey, we can pay less because we aren't paying back this loan. So now you have a franchise that is still loaded with debt and has a valuation much lower than it would be if its paid off = lesser offer. For the sake of making it simple:

Hansen - $525 franchise valuation and no debt
Mastrov - $450 franchised valuation + $75MM in assumed debt

Its not close in the eyes of the NBA and other owners.

And the relocation fee is paid to the NBA and other owners, not the Maloofs, so subtracting that from the purchase price doesn't work. I suppose you could but then you are taking money directly from the other owners. Again, not a comparable offer.

maruk14 is offline  
Old
03-03-2013, 11:39 AM
  #131
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,219
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
Sure I can because the stuff that I was speaking of that is part of the valuation for Hansen's group is not all paid to the Maloofs and the parts that aren't paid to the Maloofs like the loan and the relocation fee are not needed for the Sacramento group to be part of their deal thus lowering their valuation of the franchise but keeping the deal competitive in the context of what they'd be paying the Maloofs. Nobody really knows what the terms are for the Sacramento end of it so to say either side wins is really just a guessing game.
Again the relocation fee is GOING to the NBA not to the Maloofs. So the relocation fee IS NOT part of the 525m. Just cause the local bidders don't have to pay that fee doesn't mean you can claim its competitive. No one has seen either offers in FULL details. Only thing NBA cares about is the total value of the franchise. Hansen offer is making the Kings 525m in value making all NBA teams 30% more in value.

The fact that they won't match the 525m offer by Hansen. Having a 500m (for example) is not fair and competitive. NBA will not say no to Hansen's offer if Sacramento's group is being lead by Mark Mastrov (350m net worth). I can think of $20m reason why.

Getting Seattle a NBA team = One less team on revenue sharing one more team paying luxury tax.

NBA saying no to seattle's offer will hurt future sales on future franchises. IF NBA won't accept a 525m sale then who is going to offer that kind of money in future franchise sales?

Only way i find it fair that Sacramento keeps team if they are offering way more than 525m. IF NBA says no and allows a sale to anything less than525m imo is illegal anti-trust.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
03-03-2013, 02:30 PM
  #132
Nuclear SUV
Registered User
 
Nuclear SUV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 496
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
Nobody really knows what the terms are for the Sacramento end of it so to say either side wins is really just a guessing game.
It doesn't matter what is on the Sacramento end of the deal. There is a PSA, there is an exclusive bargaining clause. All Sacramento is doing is getting their ducks in a row for the next available NBA franchise.

Nuclear SUV is offline  
Old
03-03-2013, 02:51 PM
  #133
maruk14
Registered User
 
maruk14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,916
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuclear SUV View Post
It doesn't matter what is on the Sacramento end of the deal. There is a PSA, there is an exclusive bargaining clause. All Sacramento is doing is getting their ducks in a row for the next available NBA franchise.
I don't think any of this has caught the NBA off guard. I don't believe for a second anyone in Sac in the know was caught off guard by this. Rumors back in the fall (reported in the press) were that the Maloofs would entertain offers at $500MM.

The problem for Sac is that it's tough to make those numbers work in that market, which is why you see them making the argument $75MM in debt (a negative asset) can somehow be subtracted from the sale price because it doesn't immediately get paid back. It doesn't make sense. Then you end up with a franchise not worth as much + add'l debt.

maruk14 is offline  
Old
03-03-2013, 04:01 PM
  #134
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 31,933
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by maruk14 View Post
You are right, I am assuming the debt offer is above the franchise evaluation and I was assuming Hansen knew this and accounted for it. We don't know for sure unless we see the PSA and it could conceivably go either way.

But, you just said it yourself ... say the Sac group says, hey, we can pay less because we aren't paying back this loan. So now you have a franchise that is still loaded with debt and has a valuation much lower than it would be if its paid off = lesser offer. For the sake of making it simple:

Hansen - $525 franchise valuation and no debt
Mastrov - $450 franchised valuation + $75MM in assumed debt

Its not close in the eyes of the NBA and other owners.

And the relocation fee is paid to the NBA and other owners, not the Maloofs, so subtracting that from the purchase price doesn't work. I suppose you could but then you are taking money directly from the other owners. Again, not a comparable offer.
The debt to the city is irrelevant to the NBA. That only matters to the purchaser. Besides that, the arena deal that Stern worked out himself took care of that debt as well. Chances are any assumed debt is paid off with a new arena deal if it goes Sacramento's way. The NBA is not going to care about a debt the size we're speaking of especially when it's being handled one way or the other. That is moot to which offer is better.

And yes, you do add the relocation to the valuation of what Hansen is offering. The valuation is not what is given to the Maloofs. The valuation is for the franchise in total made by the purchaser which includes all costs to acquire regardless of who gets it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuclear SUV View Post
It doesn't matter what is on the Sacramento end of the deal. There is a PSA, there is an exclusive bargaining clause. All Sacramento is doing is getting their ducks in a row for the next available NBA franchise.
You might want to tell the people and officials of Sacramento that because that's not at all what is going on. The PSA is not impregnable when it comes to these things especially if the NBA sides with a different offer. And yes it is an option. They may get a suit due to it but until that right of theirs is challenged and overturned, it is still theirs to use if they so choose.

Pinkfloyd is offline  
Old
03-03-2013, 05:03 PM
  #135
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,219
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
The debt to the city is irrelevant to the NBA. That only matters to the purchaser. Besides that, the arena deal that Stern worked out himself took care of that debt as well. Chances are any assumed debt is paid off with a new arena deal if it goes Sacramento's way. The NBA is not going to care about a debt the size we're speaking of especially when it's being handled one way or the other. That is moot to which offer is better.

And yes, you do add the relocation to the valuation of what Hansen is offering. The valuation is not what is given to the Maloofs. The valuation is for the franchise in total made by the purchaser which includes all costs to acquire regardless of who gets it.


You might want to tell the people and officials of Sacramento that because that's not at all what is going on. The PSA is not impregnable when it comes to these things especially if the NBA sides with a different offer. And yes it is an option. They may get a suit due to it but until that right of theirs is challenged and overturned, it is still theirs to use if they so choose.
Never has the NBA EVER rejected a sale for something else than money issues.

You want to know why Sacramento is not matching the offer cause it DOES NOT pencil out in Sacramento. 525m or more offer + a 400m dollar arena does not pencil out there.

The whole oh we can take off the debt off the offer and there is our fair and competitive offer is nothing more than an excuse as too why they won't match it.

They do not have the deep pocketed owner trying to buy the kings. We do. Is the kings in better financial hands with mastrov and his group no. Hansen and his group will make the league more financially stable than Mastrov will ever do.

Relocation fee is NOT part of the valuation of offer. Never has been never will be. You take off the debt and the fee from the 525m and you offer that much guess what. Your making a offer for the franchise at 425m franchise value. Thus the rest of the franchise will not be as high with Hansen's offer than with the 425m value.

NBA says no to 525m then the NBA will ever get a franchise value at that much. Seattle always has and always will be a superior market.

525m is what hansen would be paying if he bought maloofs share and the rest of the minority owners share. Only way the relocation fee would be part of the valuation is if NBA owned the kings but they do not.


Last edited by gstommylee: 03-03-2013 at 05:24 PM.
gstommylee is offline  
Old
03-03-2013, 05:38 PM
  #136
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 31,933
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
Never has the NBA EVER rejected a sale for something else than money issues.

You want to know why Sacramento is not matching the offer cause it DOES NOT pencil out in Sacramento. 525m or more offer + a 400m dollar arena does not pencil out there.

The whole oh we can take off the debt off the offer and there is our fair and competitive offer is nothing more than an excuse as too why they won't match it.

They do not have the deep pocketed owner trying to buy the kings. We do. Is the kings in better financial hands with mastrov and his group no. Hansen and his group will make the league more financially stable than Mastrov will ever do.

Relocation fee is NOT part of the valuation of offer. Never has been never will be. You take off the debt and the fee from the 525m and you offer that much guess what. Your making a offer for the franchise at 425m franchise value. Thus the rest of the franchise will not be as high with Hansen's offer than with the 425m value.

NBA says no to 525m then the NBA will ever get a franchise value at that much. Seattle always has and always will be a superior market.

525m is what hansen would be paying if he bought maloofs share and the rest of the minority owners share. Only way the relocation fee would be part of the valuation is if NBA owned the kings but they do not.
You keep thinking that...we've gone over this time and time again. I'm not going to continue this. I have and will continue to disagree with your points on this. There is plenty of evidence out there that disagrees with your point as well. There's quite simply more to this than what you're willing to admit. But that's fine...everyone has their biases.

Pinkfloyd is offline  
Old
03-03-2013, 07:19 PM
  #137
achdumeingute
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NorCal
Posts: 2,262
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
Again the relocation fee is GOING to the NBA not to the Maloofs. So the relocation fee IS NOT part of the 525m. Just cause the local bidders don't have to pay that fee doesn't mean you can claim its competitive. No one has seen either offers in FULL details. Only thing NBA cares about is the total value of the franchise. Hansen offer is making the Kings 525m in value making all NBA teams 30% more in value.

The fact that they won't match the 525m offer by Hansen. Having a 500m (for example) is not fair and competitive. NBA will not say no to Hansen's offer if Sacramento's group is being lead by Mark Mastrov (350m net worth). I can think of $20m reason why.

Getting Seattle a NBA team = One less team on revenue sharing one more team paying luxury tax.

NBA saying no to seattle's offer will hurt future sales on future franchises. IF NBA won't accept a 525m sale then who is going to offer that kind of money in future franchise sales?

Only way i find it fair that Sacramento keeps team if they are offering way more than 525m. IF NBA says no and allows a sale to anything less than525m imo is illegal anti-trust.
Isn't the offer 341m for 65%, putting the team valuation at 525m? Hansen isn't buying 100%.

achdumeingute is offline  
Old
03-03-2013, 08:14 PM
  #138
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,219
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by achdumeingute View Post
Isn't the offer 341m for 65%, putting the team valuation at 525m? Hansen isn't buying 100%.
Correct total value of the team is at 525m. But the argument is that Sacramento doesn't have match the 525m valuation. That they can take away the debt and relocation fee (no idea why people think relocation fee is included) from the 525m and that would be their fair and competitive offer.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
03-03-2013, 08:39 PM
  #139
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 31,933
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
Correct total value of the team is at 525m. But the argument is that Sacramento doesn't have match the 525m valuation. That they can take away the debt and relocation fee (no idea why people think relocation fee is included) from the 525m and that would be their fair and competitive offer.
There's more to it than that. The Maloofs' share is about 53%. Hansen's purchase is for both theirs and an additional 12%. If the Sacramento offer involves giving the Maloofs 300 million, they don't have to buy the additional 12% being sold and would conceivably offer more money to the Maloofs than Seattle is but less overall.

Pinkfloyd is offline  
Old
03-03-2013, 09:48 PM
  #140
Nuclear SUV
Registered User
 
Nuclear SUV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 496
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
You might want to tell the people and officials of Sacramento that because that's not at all what is going on. The PSA is not impregnable when it comes to these things especially if the NBA sides with a different offer. And yes it is an option. They may get a suit due to it but until that right of theirs is challenged and overturned, it is still theirs to use if they so choose.

Sacramento is getting their ducks in a row for the next available NBA franchise. Believing anything else is delusional. We in Seattle know how this works, we just went through it.

If you think the NBA is going to block the Hansen-Balmer deal, you are delusional. They didn't block the Sonics move and they won't bock this one. They won't deny a fellow owner when they themselves someday may want to sell.

Nuclear SUV is offline  
Old
03-03-2013, 10:22 PM
  #141
nwpensfan
Registered User
 
nwpensfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: The 14th Tee
Country: United States
Posts: 2,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuclear SUV View Post
Sacramento is getting their ducks in a row for the next available NBA franchise. Believing anything else is delusional. We in Seattle know how this works, we just went through it.

If you think the NBA is going to block the Hansen-Balmer deal, you are delusional. They didn't block the Sonics move and they won't bock this one. They won't deny a fellow owner when they themselves someday may want to sell.
This is the part that is conveniently ignored by some.

nwpensfan is online now  
Old
03-03-2013, 10:22 PM
  #142
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 31,933
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuclear SUV View Post
Sacramento is getting their ducks in a row for the next available NBA franchise. Believing anything else is delusional. We in Seattle know how this works, we just went through it.

If you think the NBA is going to block the Hansen-Balmer deal, you are delusional. They didn't block the Sonics move and they won't bock this one. They won't deny a fellow owner when they themselves someday may want to sell.
There wasn't a competitive offer in Seattle's instance to even consider. There is here. Why would they even bother telling Kevin Johnson that they'd listen if they were going to do it anyway? That would only sour relations between the NBA and any potential city in the future since that was merely the NBA leading them on.

This deal that is on the table will not be there for the NBA at a later time. This isn't a ducks in the row attempt. Believing that is delusional on your part. No city is going to have an agreement to build an arena just to be told, 'Well, wait for the next team that we have no idea when it would be available.' That's quite a silly and ridiculous supposition on your part.

Sacramento is not going to wait for the NBA. If this falls through, Sacramento will likely focus on snagging the Coyotes.

Pinkfloyd is offline  
Old
03-03-2013, 10:35 PM
  #143
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,219
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
There's more to it than that. The Maloofs' share is about 53%. Hansen's purchase is for both theirs and an additional 12%. If the Sacramento offer involves giving the Maloofs 300 million, they don't have to buy the additional 12% being sold and would conceivably offer more money to the Maloofs than Seattle is but less overall.
if local group is offering 300m for 53% of the team then they are offering more than 525m. Yahoo reports that they are offering slightly less than what Hansen is offering thus they aren't offering 300m for 53% of the team. You still run into the issue of maloofs not selling to mastrov's group. Then NBA will have to deal with the maloofs. Doesn't matter how much Mastrov's group offers. There is still the issue of him having enough net worth to be able to properly run the franchise.


Last edited by gstommylee: 03-03-2013 at 10:42 PM.
gstommylee is offline  
Old
03-03-2013, 10:36 PM
  #144
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,219
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
There wasn't a competitive offer in Seattle's instance to even consider. There is here. Why would they even bother telling Kevin Johnson that they'd listen if they were going to do it anyway? That would only sour relations between the NBA and any potential city in the future since that was merely the NBA leading them on.

This deal that is on the table will not be there for the NBA at a later time. This isn't a ducks in the row attempt. Believing that is delusional on your part. No city is going to have an agreement to build an arena just to be told, 'Well, wait for the next team that we have no idea when it would be available.' That's quite a silly and ridiculous supposition on your part.

Sacramento is not going to wait for the NBA. If this falls through, Sacramento will likely focus on snagging the Coyotes.
NBA never gave Seattle the same treatment Sacramento is getting now. NHL is not going to sacramento.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
03-03-2013, 10:52 PM
  #145
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 31,933
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
if local group is offering 300m for 53% of the team then they are offering more than 525m. Yahoo reports that they are offering slightly less than what Hansen is offering thus they aren't offering 300m for 53% of the team.
This is merely an assumption on your part. Yahoo reports a lot of things that doesn't mean it's accurate. You nor I know the offer so leave it at that instead of assuming.

Pinkfloyd is offline  
Old
03-03-2013, 10:55 PM
  #146
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,219
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
This is merely an assumption on your part. Yahoo reports a lot of things that doesn't mean it's accurate. You nor I know the offer so leave it at that instead of assuming.
Adrian Wojnarowski has been pretty accurate to date on whats been going with the kings-seattle situation. He's the one that reported that the sacramento offer is slightly less than what Hansen is offering. He's one of the best NBA reporters. I trust him.

If sacramento's offer was way more than Hansen's offer it would probably been leaked out.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
03-03-2013, 10:55 PM
  #147
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 31,933
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
NBA never gave Seattle the same treatment Sacramento is getting now. NHL is not going to sacramento.
The NBA's treatment of Seattle is irrelevant. You have no idea what the NHL is willing to consider so again, stop making assumptions of things. It lets that bias seep through even more. The thought that Mastrov's net worth has some doubt about his ability to own the team is laughable.

Pinkfloyd is offline  
Old
03-03-2013, 10:58 PM
  #148
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 31,933
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
Adrian Wojnarowski has been pretty accurate to date on whats been going with the kings-seattle situation. He's the one that reported that the sacramento offer is slightly less than what Hansen is offering. He's one of the best NBA reporters. I trust him.
And I've read that report. It gives no clear indication of what the actual offer is. I've shown you how they can have a lower offer but be a stronger bidder and that is not refuted by that 'source'.

Pinkfloyd is offline  
Old
03-03-2013, 11:00 PM
  #149
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,219
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
And I've read that report. It gives no clear indication of what the actual offer is. I've shown you how they can have a lower offer but be a stronger bidder and that is not refuted by that 'source'.
I don't see how Mastrov can be a stronger bidder than Hansen/ballmer/nordstroms.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
03-03-2013, 11:01 PM
  #150
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 31,933
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
I don't see how Mastrov can be a stronger bidder than Hansen/ballmer/nordstroms.
Of course not because you have a horse in this race.

Pinkfloyd 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 06:26 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.