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.

Seattle V: Make It So(Do)...

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-22-2014, 02:56 PM
  #826
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,419
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Ya but tommy, if Im Hansen/Ballmer, no interest in the NHL & the lights on my dream of returning the NBA to Seattle not only got burnt out in Sacramento, then the glass coverings & bulbs kicked out in Milwaukee just how long do you expect Im going to be patient? Waiting around forever for a train that might not come for 10yrs? No. They'll just have to either engage & get involved, as I said dig & dig deep into their own pockets to make up the shortfall & buy into the NHL or pick up stakes, see ya, not happenin. That window closes, another opens. Move forward under new NHL 1st Champions who can thank Ballmer/Hansen for all of their work in establishing the parameters we now know exist within the city & counties thought processes in considering NHL 1st. Where the lines are drawn, how much public funding they might be willing to contribute. What their concerns are and so on. Hansen/Ballmer went out way beyond the end of the diving board here in their play for the Kings. Bellyflopped. There is no retreat. No Plan 'B' with these guys. It was/is NBA or bust. They busted.

Hansen owns the land. They'll be involved no matter what. It comes down to getting the funding changes to a NHL first/only to where Hansen, city and county say yes which means majority of the cost of the arena will be on the NHL group's hands with less public cost than the NBA first plan. Hansen could still provide some but not in the 290m range.

gstommylee is online now  
Old
04-22-2014, 03:01 PM
  #827
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,419
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nwpensfan View Post
Totally agree. I think/guess Hansen is slowly losing interest in that he only wanted the NHL as a second tenant and now it appears the NHL may be the only option. Need someone to step up and hold the NHL's feet to the fire to see just how interested in Seattle they are.
Hansen is in it for the long run. Right now there is no need to actually change it especially with the bucks situation still not been resolved.

If it comes to the point of having to change the MOU they'll go down that road when it become necessary. Right now actually the best plan in terms of financing it is both NBA and NHL. In terms of what's coming out of the private groups pocket. It doesn't surprise me if both Hansen and the NHL group is aiming to try to do that funding plan. More cheaper for the NHL group.

Remember Hansen spent a lot of time and effort trying to get the city council to approve the MOU in the first plan. Reopening the MOU to NHL first plan idea could be an even harder issue especially since how things are going on with the city council right now with the whole 15 minimal wage push by the newly elected council member.

Maybe they are all waiting for things to settle down in the city council before suggesting a plan to change the MOU.


Last edited by gstommylee: 04-22-2014 at 03:09 PM.
gstommylee is online now  
Old
04-22-2014, 03:48 PM
  #828
PCSPounder
Registered User
 
PCSPounder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Portland. So there.
Country: United States
Posts: 944
vCash: 500
This feels like "so you're telling me we have a chance" right now. (Trying to spare the bandwidth of same meme, utilization # 2 zillion)

There's simply a lot of recent NHL history suggest the league doesn't anoint a market before they get an arena. You can argue that extracting arenas out of Glendale and Sunrise (with all the resulting problems) should suggest the league go a different direction, and those are comparable size markets to Seattle. I don't see potential owners caving to Hansen's demands here, just because there IS a national precedence. I can easily be proven wrong... by someone making the investment. Not history.

PCSPounder is offline  
Old
04-22-2014, 04:09 PM
  #829
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,419
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCSPounder View Post
This feels like "so you're telling me we have a chance" right now. (Trying to spare the bandwidth of same meme, utilization # 2 zillion)

There's simply a lot of recent NHL history suggest the league doesn't anoint a market before they get an arena. You can argue that extracting arenas out of Glendale and Sunrise (with all the resulting problems) should suggest the league go a different direction, and those are comparable size markets to Seattle. I don't see potential owners caving to Hansen's demands here, just because there IS a national precedence. I can easily be proven wrong... by someone making the investment. Not history.
Sodo arena needs both NHL and NBA to make it financially viable The problem is getting the mou change to allow NHL group to build it. And its not as simple of remove NBA and add NHL. The figures for the NHL is completely different than of the NBA. City is willing take on 115m/120m for a NBA team cause the numbers make sense for them to do so.

But for a NHL team the numbers are much lower than of the NBA thus Seattle doesn't want to take up the same risk if not more of the risk for the NHL than they have for the NBA. There is a matter of the 80m (NBA first public cost is at 120m + 47m for transportation + key arena) on who's going to cover that plus the gap between the NHL and the NBA.

Hansen will also want some of his cost picked up as well as he's not going to pay 290m for a NHL only arena plan. He'll be more open if we know a NBA team is coming which is uncertain right now.

The NHL group has to pick up the cost of the expansion team which is looking at maybe 250-300m then another couple hundred million (300m+ range) just for the arena if they want to built it themselves. Its not that simple.

gstommylee is online now  
Old
04-22-2014, 06:15 PM
  #830
CHRDANHUTCH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Auburn, Maine
Country: United States
Posts: 15,025
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to CHRDANHUTCH Send a message via MSN to CHRDANHUTCH Send a message via Yahoo to CHRDANHUTCH
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
Hansen is in it for the long run. Right now there is no need to actually change it especially with the bucks situation still not been resolved.

If it comes to the point of having to change the MOU they'll go down that road when it become necessary. Right now actually the best plan in terms of financing it is both NBA and NHL. In terms of what's coming out of the private groups pocket. It doesn't surprise me if both Hansen and the NHL group is aiming to try to do that funding plan. More cheaper for the NHL group.

Remember Hansen spent a lot of time and effort trying to get the city council to approve the MOU in the first plan. Reopening the MOU to NHL first plan idea could be an even harder issue especially since how things are going on with the city council right now with the whole 15 minimal wage push by the newly elected council member.

Maybe they are all waiting for things to settle down in the city council before suggesting a plan to change the MOU.
Bucks are going nowhere, tommy, Hansen got burned once when he went full-in on Sacramento, then Vandiver et all took that franchise..... it's unlikely and you start to change the angle toward what NHL Ownership group is in discussions to help Hansen construct said arena, even if the MOU cannot simply be changed from NBA to NHL under the current scenario, that's what's been missing from this thread until another potential NBA option materializes, bc imo, any proposed arena in Milwaukee likely includes a provision for the Admirals, until then, BMO Harris Bank Bradley Center remains until Kohl's gift of an arena starts to fruition.

CHRDANHUTCH is offline  
Old
04-22-2014, 06:29 PM
  #831
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 30,728
vCash: 500
Did Hansen burn his bridges with the NBA in Sacramento? That last bit where he admitted to funding the anti-arena campaign may not have gone over too well with them, on top of the way the league ended up being pitted against Hansen with the Maloofs.

Fugu is online now  
Old
04-22-2014, 06:47 PM
  #832
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 22,816
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Did Hansen burn his bridges with the NBA in Sacramento? That last bit where he admitted to funding the anti-arena campaign may not have gone over too well with them, on top of the way the league ended up being pitted against Hansen with the Maloofs.
I would think somewhat yes, however, the really wild card there seems to be Ballmer. Off the wall. Oddball. Type of guy the NBA would like to have in the club but by the same token not someone who exactly follows protocols, rules of engagement. Im sure weve all known that type at some point in our lives huh? Get out the butterfly nets.... my understanding of it was that he was so incensed with the NBA that just as a matter of course, he might just go right ahead & build that arena anyway, secure an NHL franchise and never let the NBA back into town if he has his way about it. Highly entertaining fellow. Not the purest of motives for undertaking such a project but if it gets the job done & Seattle secures an NHL team, heck, if I ever ran into him, if you do, anyone else, feed the fire. Ask him "so, whats with the NBA, Adam Silver & Company anyway? Why do they hate you, us? Who operates like that."?.

Killion is offline  
Old
04-22-2014, 07:00 PM
  #833
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,419
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Did Hansen burn his bridges with the NBA in Sacramento? That last bit where he admitted to funding the anti-arena campaign may not have gone over too well with them, on top of the way the league ended up being pitted against Hansen with the Maloofs.
I believe NBA (silver) did come out saying that they didn't have any issues with that. Either way the ballot measure was tossed anyways due to technicalities.

gstommylee is online now  
Old
04-22-2014, 07:00 PM
  #834
PCSPounder
Registered User
 
PCSPounder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Portland. So there.
Country: United States
Posts: 944
vCash: 500
I do think Hansen burned bridges. I don't think anyone would mind if Ballmer gave Hansen a hip check and picked up the stick.

That clause in the Milwaukee sale agreement being just a month after the Seattle MOU (an amendable thing, of course) tells me it's not completely over. However, there's a difference between passing on a $500 million expenditure and passing on $200 million in private pledges with a franchise in the balance.

PCSPounder is offline  
Old
04-22-2014, 07:02 PM
  #835
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,419
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH View Post
Bucks are going nowhere, tommy, Hansen got burned once when he went full-in on Sacramento, then Vandiver et all took that franchise..... it's unlikely and you start to change the angle toward what NHL Ownership group is in discussions to help Hansen construct said arena, even if the MOU cannot simply be changed from NBA to NHL under the current scenario, that's what's been missing from this thread until another potential NBA option materializes, bc imo, any proposed arena in Milwaukee likely includes a provision for the Admirals, until then, BMO Harris Bank Bradley Center remains until Kohl's gift of an arena starts to fruition.
If the bucks aren't able to get the new arena built then the team is moving.

Hansen said he's not getting involved with the bucks till they went through all their local options and the NBA allows them to leave.

gstommylee is online now  
Old
04-22-2014, 07:03 PM
  #836
PCSPounder
Registered User
 
PCSPounder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Portland. So there.
Country: United States
Posts: 944
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
I believe NBA (silver) did come out saying that they didn't have any issues with that. Either way the ballot measure was tossed anyways due to technicalities.
I don't care what Silver said. If I'm the spokesman, I'm ALSO being advised not to take the stuff behind closed doors public. Of course, if Ballmer wasn't near the room, maybe the NBA could be sharper in their retorts.

PCSPounder is offline  
Old
04-22-2014, 07:04 PM
  #837
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,419
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCSPounder View Post
I do think Hansen burned bridges. I don't think anyone would mind if Ballmer gave Hansen a hip check and picked up the stick.

That clause in the Milwaukee sale agreement being just a month after the Seattle MOU (an amendable thing, of course) tells me it's not completely over. However, there's a difference between passing on a $500 million expenditure and passing on $200 million in private pledges with a franchise in the balance.
Let's not focus on the 2017 date for the bucks. its not simple as government approving the funding plan then poof arena meets shovel. There is a whole other process to go through before shovel meets ground. NBA will find out much sooner if the arena will happen or not.

gstommylee is online now  
Old
04-22-2014, 10:21 PM
  #838
CHRDANHUTCH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Auburn, Maine
Country: United States
Posts: 15,025
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to CHRDANHUTCH Send a message via MSN to CHRDANHUTCH Send a message via Yahoo to CHRDANHUTCH
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
If the bucks aren't able to get the new arena built then the team is moving.

Hansen said he's not getting involved with the bucks till they went through all their local options and the NBA allows them to leave.
IT'S ALL but a done deal, tommy, the Bucks are staying in Milwaukee, Kohl's gift promises them a new arena. Hansen's already been burned once and the NBA Has already said no to him in Sacramento by going w/ Vandiver et all....

it's Wisconsin's team, tommy, much like the Sonicsgate episode where Schultz was blindsided when it was revealed Bennett had no intention of staying in Seattle, and the deal to OKC WAS DONE. The same caveat tht binded the Coyotes to Glendale for the next 5 years applies to the Bucks and the arena gift, and isn't 2017 the drop dead date for renewing the MOU, if a franchise hasn't arrived by then in Seattle.

CHRDANHUTCH is offline  
Old
04-22-2014, 10:26 PM
  #839
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,419
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH View Post
IT'S ALL but a done deal, tommy, the Bucks are staying in Milwaukee, Kohl's gift promises them a new arena. Hansen's already been burned once and the NBA Has already said no to him in Sacramento by going w/ Vandiver et all....

it's Wisconsin's team, tommy, much like the Sonicsgate episode where Schultz was blindsided when it was revealed Bennett had no intention of staying in Seattle, and the deal to OKC WAS DONE. The same caveat tht binded the Coyotes to Glendale for the next 5 years applies to the Bucks and the arena gift, and isn't 2017 the drop dead date for renewing the MOU, if a franchise hasn't arrived by then in Seattle.
Promise does not mean guarantee. All i see is there is 200m of the arena cost already known. Its currently unknown if the goverment will provide the rest. Until the goverment actually approves a funding plan the bucks can still relocate. NBA wouldn't give them a hard deadline like that if it was 100% guaranteed that a new arena will happen for the bucks.

We don't even know if there remains to be a deadline in our own agreement. When the final EIS is released the final terms of the umbrella agreement will be discuses that will essentially void the MOU 2017 deadline. Like i said i don't know if that 2017 deadline will continue, be extended or removed in the UA.

gstommylee is online now  
Old
04-22-2014, 11:45 PM
  #840
CHRDANHUTCH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Auburn, Maine
Country: United States
Posts: 15,025
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to CHRDANHUTCH Send a message via MSN to CHRDANHUTCH Send a message via Yahoo to CHRDANHUTCH
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
Promise does not mean guarantee. All i see is there is 200m of the arena cost already known. Its currently unknown if the goverment will provide the rest. Until the goverment actually approves a funding plan the bucks can still relocate. NBA wouldn't give them a hard deadline like that if it was 100% guaranteed that a new arena will happen for the bucks.

We don't even know if there remains to be a deadline in our own agreement. When the final EIS is released the final terms of the umbrella agreement will be discuses that will essentially void the MOU 2017 deadline. Like i said i don't know if that 2017 deadline will continue, be extended or removed in the UA.
sorry, but Hansen's been already been burned once, and I don't see the Bucks leaving Kohl's bequest behind to play in a temporary arena such as Key, tommy.

CHRDANHUTCH is offline  
Old
04-22-2014, 11:56 PM
  #841
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,419
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH View Post
sorry, but Hansen's been already been burned once, and I don't see the Bucks leaving Kohl's bequest behind to play in a temporary arena such as Key, tommy.
Not their choice. The team is out of khol's hands. Its up to the new owners and the government if they can come to an agreement or not.

If they can't get the arena construction started by nov of 2017 the NBA will buy the team from the new owners. Question remains if NBA will sell team to Seattle's group.

Essentially they have about a year and a half or so to get the arena plan approved in order to meet that 2017 deadline. I kinda expect the NBA will invoke that sale clause much sooner if it gets to a point of no new arena approved and sees that its unlikely that the deadline will get met. Its simple build a new arena and the team stays if not the team will be relocated.

If that NBA purchase clause is invoked by the NBA then you'll see Hansen get involved but like i said hard to say if seattle will get the team or not.

Key arena will be fine as a temporary facility while new one is built. It'll take 2 years to get sodo arena built so any team expansion or a team via relocation will have to play at the Key.


Last edited by gstommylee: 04-23-2014 at 12:08 AM.
gstommylee is online now  
Old
04-23-2014, 12:06 PM
  #842
Mightygoose
I Am Groot
 
Mightygoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Ajax, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,466
vCash: 500
Nothing really new from Bettman regarding expansion from yesterday

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/04/23...ansion-bettman

Quote:
“We are, much like the (New York) Islanders’ owner (Charles Wang), we get lots of expressions of interest — whether it’s from Quebec City, Seattle, Las Vegas, or Kansas City — and we’re listening, but we haven’t enacted a formal process to begin considering expansion,” said Bettman. “That’s not something we’re intent on doing right now, but we are listening.”
Hmmm..to the shout out for KC. Curious if that interest is from the city or an owner who wants a team there.....and needs a deal from the city.

All talk across the board for now so all one can do it 'listen'.

Mightygoose is offline  
Old
04-23-2014, 12:14 PM
  #843
Major4Boarding
Global Moderator
Private Equity
 
Major4Boarding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South of Heaven
Country: Scotland
Posts: 1,932
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightygoose View Post
Nothing really new from Bettman regarding expansion
from yesterday
http://www.torontosun.com/2014/04/23...ansion-bettman
Quote:
We are, much like the (New York) Islanders’ owner (Charles Wang), we get lots of expressions of interest — whether it’s from Quebec City, Seattle, Las Vegas, or Kansas City — and we’re listening, but we haven’t enacted a formal process to begin considering expansion,” said Bettman. “That’s not something we’re intent on doing right now, but we are listening.”
Maybe I missed a few other quotes here or there over the months, but this is the first I recall seeing the 4 oft-mentioned expansion sites grouped in one quote.

Not that it truly means anything at the moment, as its Bettmanese, but interesting nonetheless

Major4Boarding is offline  
Old
04-23-2014, 12:25 PM
  #844
powerstuck
User Registered
 
powerstuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Quebec City
Country: Serbia
Posts: 2,519
vCash: 500
What in the hell does Bettman wants to hear. He's been listening but not intended on doing something.

powerstuck is offline  
Old
04-23-2014, 12:28 PM
  #845
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 30,728
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Major4Boarding View Post
Maybe I missed a few other quotes here or there over the months, but this is the first I recall seeing the 4 oft-mentioned expansion sites grouped in one quote.

Not that it truly means anything at the moment, as its Bettmanese, but interesting nonetheless

Dear god. I thought 2 expansion teams would be too much, and here we have four cities mentioned. Now... this being Bettman and all, that he actually names four cities specifically is kinda interesting, and furthermore that "we are listening"? That's smoke to me, so there's a fire somewhere.

Quote:
Originally Posted by powerstuck View Post
What in the hell does Bettman wants to hear. He's been listening but not intended on doing something.

It's "Bettman speak"... a way of not admitting he's doing something when he IS doing something. In my opinion.

Fugu is online now  
Old
04-23-2014, 12:35 PM
  #846
powerstuck
User Registered
 
powerstuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Quebec City
Country: Serbia
Posts: 2,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstommylee View Post
Not their choice. The team is out of khol's hands. Its up to the new owners and the government if they can come to an agreement or not.

If they can't get the arena construction started by nov of 2017 the NBA will buy the team from the new owners. Question remains if NBA will sell team to Seattle's group.

Essentially they have about a year and a half or so to get the arena plan approved in order to meet that 2017 deadline. I kinda expect the NBA will invoke that sale clause much sooner if it gets to a point of no new arena approved and sees that its unlikely that the deadline will get met. Its simple build a new arena and the team stays if not the team will be relocated.

If that NBA purchase clause is invoked by the NBA then you'll see Hansen get involved but like i said hard to say if seattle will get the team or not.

Key arena will be fine as a temporary facility while new one is built. It'll take 2 years to get sodo arena built so any team expansion or a team via relocation will have to play at the Key.
Tho, wouldn't the argument of ''build a new arena or you lose the team'' kinda be contradictory with Seattle temporary arena ? If new owners are not building today, what stop them from saying give us 2-3-5-10 more years and we will build. After all, a Seattle group does not currently have a new arena and until shovels hit the ground its still not a 100% guaranteed building.

powerstuck is offline  
Old
04-23-2014, 12:58 PM
  #847
cutchemist42
Registered User
 
cutchemist42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,248
vCash: 500
Don't trust Bettman speak, I mean he's even said Saskatoon years ago.

cutchemist42 is online now  
Old
04-23-2014, 01:05 PM
  #848
Mightygoose
I Am Groot
 
Mightygoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Ajax, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,466
vCash: 500
Yeah the naming of 4 cities does raise the eyebrow especailly with one of Bettman's mantra not wanting to raise expectations.

Leads me to my hypothesis that I conjered around time of Bob McKenzie's artcile back in December (last expansion thread).

Realignment appears to be a factor in expansion (still a silly reason IMO). First 2 preferences in order are Seatlle and Vegas. Though that will balance things out, Quebec is too good of a choice to pass up on that reason alone.

Plus going with Vegas over QC can spawn a very big PR issue up here and not in a good way. No Molson boycotts but still why irk such good paying customers

I think part of the listening (and not formal) process is looking for a 4th location that can be placed in the west to balance things out.

34 seems like allot but considering Shloat's piece saying at least 3 years away and still lots of moving parts to go and the last expansion was 4 teams. Do it in a 2-3 year phase in, it may not be too far fecthed after all.


Last edited by Mightygoose: 04-23-2014 at 02:10 PM.
Mightygoose is offline  
Old
04-23-2014, 01:37 PM
  #849
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,926
vCash: 500
Bank on Seattle, Vegas, Quebec & (other western city) announced in the next year to four years; and hold steady for an MLSE divorce.

KevFu is offline  
Old
04-23-2014, 01:38 PM
  #850
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,419
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerstuck View Post
Tho, wouldn't the argument of ''build a new arena or you lose the team'' kinda be contradictory with Seattle temporary arena ? If new owners are not building today, what stop them from saying give us 2-3-5-10 more years and we will build. After all, a Seattle group does not currently have a new arena and until shovels hit the ground its still not a 100% guaranteed building.
Oh for heaven shakes. The terms of the Seattle agreement is simple NBA gives us a team then the arena get's built. It won't be built on a maybe we will get a team. The repayment of the debt requires a team to be there. Seattle isn't going to do what KC did with their arena.

Regarding the bucks they do not have 5-10 years to get the new arena built. They have till nov 2017 to start construction of the arena or the NBA will buy the team from the new owners per sales agreement.

gstommylee is online now  
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 09:47 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.