HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

Owners want $31 million hard cap

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-15-2003, 03:04 PM
  #51
Motown Beatdown
Need a slump buster
 
Motown Beatdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Indianapolis
Country: United States
Posts: 8,563
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by degroat
You have no evidence, nor have you given any reasoning to your belief that an $80M cap would work.


And what evidence shows it wouldn't work at that number? The only thing we know is at the current number, it isn't working.

Look how many teams would be over 80 million if that was the Cap number. Now i know you, you'll say alot of teams will trim their payroll to get under that number. And thats the point of any tax/cap system. To lower salaries



Team Payroll

New York Yankees $180,322,403
New York Mets 116,253,927
Los Angeles 109,248,680
Texas 106,277,880
Boston 104,873,607

Atlanta 103,912,011
St. Louis 101,825,848
San Francisco 100,061,211
Philadelphia 95,338,704
Arizona 92,665,040

Seattle 92,268,063
Chicago Cubs 86,576,763
Anaheim 83,235,098
Houston 79,946,964
Colorado 78,738,492

Baltimore 75,502,154
Chicago White Sox 71,336,029
Minnesota 65,318,977
Cincinnati 65,083,196
Florida 63,281,152

Pittsburgh 62,314,723
Toronto 61,175,638
Detroit 59,006,941
Cleveland 58,108,824
San Diego 57,871,722

Oakland 56,596,691
Kansas City 48,475,322
Milwaukee 47,294,226
Montreal 45,853,889
Tampa Bay 31,660,602



http://espn.go.com/mlb/news/2003/0721/1583823.html

Motown Beatdown is offline  
Old
10-15-2003, 03:09 PM
  #52
degroat*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: http://nhl.degroat.n
Posts: 8,108
vCash: 500
An $80M luxury tax MIGHT lower the salaries by 5%. The NHL needs to cut salaries by 30%.

degroat* is offline  
Old
10-16-2003, 11:54 AM
  #53
Bure9*
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY
Posts: 1,097
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by degroat
A luxury tax may be ignored. A soft tax couldn't and wouldn't be ignored.

What's the difference?

Bure9* is offline  
Old
10-16-2003, 03:14 PM
  #54
degroat*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: http://nhl.degroat.n
Posts: 8,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bure9
What's the difference?
Ugh... A soft cap is a cap w/ exceptions where only a certain portion of a players salary would count towards the cap for some specific reason.

degroat* is offline  
Old
10-19-2003, 08:07 PM
  #55
kenabnrmal
Registered User
 
kenabnrmal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: the beach or rink
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,220
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by degroat
Ugh... A soft cap is a cap w/ exceptions where only a certain portion of a players salary would count towards the cap for some specific reason.
Wow, why the lack of tolerance for someone who simply didn't know the difference between two oft-misused terms. I think there were likely a number of people reading this thread who weren't quite sure of the difference.

Anyways, back to one of the better threads i've read around here lately...

kenabnrmal is offline  
Old
10-20-2003, 12:28 AM
  #56
Epsilon
#TeamHolland
 
Epsilon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Florence, SC
Posts: 37,609
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KL
"$35m. Dont like it? The WHA is offering $500k a year. Up to you."

--
KL
Now, getting out of fantasy land and back into the real business world...

Epsilon is online now  
Old
10-20-2003, 04:20 AM
  #57
degroat*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: http://nhl.degroat.n
Posts: 8,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenabnrmal
Wow, why the lack of tolerance for someone who simply didn't know the difference between two oft-misused terms. I think there were likely a number of people reading this thread who weren't quite sure of the difference.

Anyways, back to one of the better threads i've read around here lately...
Excuse me for getting sick of repeating the same damn thing in every other thread in this forum.

degroat* is offline  
Old
10-20-2003, 03:22 PM
  #58
kenabnrmal
Registered User
 
kenabnrmal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: the beach or rink
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,220
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by degroat
Excuse me for getting sick of repeating the same damn thing in every other thread in this forum.
So let someone else repeat it. Personally, this is the first thread I've ever read in this forum. Maybe it was this guy's as well.

kenabnrmal is offline  
Old
10-21-2003, 09:35 AM
  #59
blitzkriegs
Registered User
 
blitzkriegs's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Beach & Mtn & Island
Posts: 9,373
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EnergizerScotty
re-negotiate contracts. That's how it works. They did it in the NFL, they'd do it in the NHL.

40 million is perfect.
How is 40 mil perfect? Most teams in the NHL are running in the RED with payrolls over 35 mil, let alone 40 mil.

blitzkriegs is online now  
Old
10-21-2003, 09:38 AM
  #60
blitzkriegs
Registered User
 
blitzkriegs's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Beach & Mtn & Island
Posts: 9,373
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Love
A sub $40 million payroll is very low IMO. A look at last year's payrolls shows that 19 teams were above 35 million, and 24 were above 30:

1 N.Y Rangers $69.2
2 Detroit $68.0
3 St. Louis $61.8
4 Dallas $61.8
5 Colorado $60.8
6 Philadelphia $55.7
7 Toronto $54.9
8 New Jersey $51.2
9 Washington $50.4
10 Monteal $48.6
11 San Jose $45.1
12 Chicago $44.4
13 Phoenix $43.9
14 Los Angeles $41.8
15 N.Y. Islanders $41.5
16 Anaheim $38.8
17 Carolina $38.4
18 Boston $36.9
19 Vancouver $35.3
20 Calgary $33.6
21 Buffalo $31.5
22 Edmonton $31.5
23 Florida $31.2
24 Pittsburgh $31.2
25 Ottawa $28.5
26 Tampa Bay $28.9
27 Columbus $27.4
28 Atlanta $27.0
29 Nashville $23.3
30 Minnesota $21.1

Source

Dated 2/2/03, there have been some significant changes, but using this (the most up to date I could find) it is clear that a cap, hard or soft < $40M will cause a major change. Of course contracts will be grandfathered, but a $40M cap will force roughly half the league to overhaul their roster.
BUT the problem is that most of the teams with salaries above 30 million are LOSING MONEY!!

plus, a 40 mil cap does not necessarily equate to a reduction in ticket prices for the lower end teams or those hovering around 40 mil right now.

blitzkriegs is online now  
Old
10-21-2003, 09:45 AM
  #61
blitzkriegs
Registered User
 
blitzkriegs's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Beach & Mtn & Island
Posts: 9,373
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
They dont have to give the player anything actually.

example .. the Canucks didnt want to give Letowski a 10% increase, so they didnt. They simply replaced him with a cheapr Jason King. Whats wrong with that ?

Letowski was able to get his contract from another team, why should he have been precluded from that ? CLB decided he was worth X, he decided it was fair and he took it.

It works both ways, Mike Comrie is worth a whole lot more than the 10% increase the Oil gave him, but they are now able to keep his rights by giving him a simple 10% increase

I see nothing wrong with the current system. It allows teams to spend whatever they choose on players.

DR

yeah, but this is only happening now b/c of the fractured economic system today. DO you think that Bryan Berard would be floating around on the 'outside' if this was 2/3 years ago? NO way!

blitzkriegs is online now  
Old
10-21-2003, 09:47 AM
  #62
degroat*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: http://nhl.degroat.n
Posts: 8,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenabnrmal
So let someone else repeat it. Personally, this is the first thread I've ever read in this forum. Maybe it was this guy's as well.
The question was directed at me, therefore I answered it. I got annoyed because this was the 2nd time in THIS THREAD that I explained this. Don't like it? Deal with it.

degroat* is offline  
Old
10-21-2003, 06:43 PM
  #63
kenabnrmal
Registered User
 
kenabnrmal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: the beach or rink
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,220
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by degroat
The question was directed at me, therefore I answered it. I got annoyed because this was the 2nd time in THIS THREAD that I explained this. Don't like it? Deal with it.
Deal with it....oooooooooh. Sure put me in my place. If it annoys you, don't answer it. I could really care less. If you want to act like a tough guy, go ahead. Simply suggesting a different way to go about it.

kenabnrmal is offline  
Old
11-05-2003, 05:09 PM
  #64
FearTheFlyers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlad The Impaler
I am pessimistic as a fan. Money has ruined part of this game already and I don't see the end.

I remember VERY well the *apparent* hard stance the NHL took before they signed the last (absolutely horrible) CBA. They said at first they'd never bend. Well, they did. They dropped the soap big time.

I have a lot of sympathy for all the fans who fear for their team and all the problems resulting from this. But I have absolutely ZERO pity for any of these organizations, even the smaller markets, who signed that piece of junk.

You don't agree to something that will make you lose money, it's as simple as that. I bet it will be the same thing all over again. Players will make a few small concessions and so will the league. And players will keep on pocketing money, teams will operate under crappy budget, lose money. Meanwhile, the fans and the game will suffer.

I don't see the light at the end of the tunnel yet.
I doubt the same will happen this year.Why? because there are owners that will lose less money by not fielding a team.

FearTheFlyers is offline  
Old
11-05-2003, 05:18 PM
  #65
caber24
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: In Flames..
Posts: 1,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EnergizerScotty
hahahaha good luck..

caber24 is offline  
Old
11-07-2003, 08:46 AM
  #66
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,755
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blitzkriegs
BUT the problem is that most of the teams with salaries above 30 million are LOSING MONEY!!

plus, a 40 mil cap does not necessarily equate to a reduction in ticket prices for the lower end teams or those hovering around 40 mil right now.
1) ticket prices have nothing to do with anything but the market. if teams could cut payroll in half and raise ticket prices, they would.

2) if 15 teams cant afford their payrolls, then those 15 teams shouldnt have agreed to pay the salaries to those players.

Its not like every player can play for NYR, DET and DAL.

The owners have 100 % control of what they pay to the players. If player X thinks NYR (for example) will pay him more, then its up to his agent to get NYR to offer him a contract. If no contract is offered by NYR, then whats the player going to do about it ? His only option to is to play for the money being offered by the teams offering. If he doesnt like the offer, the player doesnt have to play either. The teams should then use the money on someone else.

DR

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
11-07-2003, 04:50 PM
  #67
xander
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Section A Lynah Rink
Posts: 4,082
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
The owners have 100 % control of what they pay to the players. If player X thinks NYR (for example) will pay him more, then its up to his agent to get NYR to offer him a contract. If no contract is offered by NYR, then whats the player going to do about it ? His only option to is to play for the money being offered by the teams offering. If he doesnt like the offer, the player doesnt have to play either. The teams should then use the money on someone else.

DR
what if player x is offered said contract by the NYR and his team cannot aford to match it? Furthermore, what if player x is the best player on his team? Should his team be seprived of it's best player becouse it does not live in an ecconomic enviroment as affluent as NYC?

The NHL is a hockey league. In order for the league to make money it has to safegaurd the competitiveness of the league. If top talent leaves smaller market franchises becouse those franchises can not compete economically with larger teams then it hurts the competitivness of the league and the league suffers.

xander is offline  
Old
11-07-2003, 05:14 PM
  #68
DEBASER
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 276
vCash: 500
a salary cap will only benefit the league if every team is able to keep a payroll at the level of the cap. for example, if the cap is set at 40 mil, there are a number of teams who will not have a payroll that high. this is where revenue sharing comes into play - the league needs it in order to allow small market teams to have a comparable payroll to big market teams. the NHL should look at the NBA as an example - no team in the nba can't afford to pay top dollar in order to keep their best players. there are no fire sales in the nba because contract size is such a huge issue.

DEBASER is offline  
Old
11-07-2003, 06:13 PM
  #69
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,755
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by xander
what if player x is offered said contract by the NYR and his team cannot aford to match it? Furthermore, what if player x is the best player on his team? Should his team be seprived of it's best player becouse it does not live in an ecconomic enviroment as affluent as NYC?

The NHL is a hockey league. In order for the league to make money it has to safegaurd the competitiveness of the league. If top talent leaves smaller market franchises becouse those franchises can not compete economically with larger teams then it hurts the competitivness of the league and the league suffers.
a) if the team cant match it, they shouldnt.
b) team A who lost player X will have *some* money remaining since that player left. Its not like they didnt budget something for that player. They should spend it on another player .. because
c) not all players can play for NYR, PHI and DET.

It sure hurt MIN, CRL and FLA .. all who made it very far in recent years in the playoffs. That big contract CGY gave to Iginla sure has helped them, right ? Its a falacy to think that just because you have money that you will succeed.

DR

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
11-07-2003, 06:50 PM
  #70
xander
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Section A Lynah Rink
Posts: 4,082
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
a) if the team cant match it, they shouldnt.
b) team A who lost player X will have *some* money remaining since that player left. Its not like they didnt budget something for that player. They should spend it on another player .. because
c) not all players can play for NYR, PHI and DET.

It sure hurt MIN, CRL and FLA .. all who made it very far in recent years in the playoffs. That big contract CGY gave to Iginla sure has helped them, right ? Its a falacy to think that just because you have money that you will succeed.

DR
Oh i'm aware of that, I'm from New York.

However, it's also a falacy to think that you can compete consistantly (more than a one year or two) in a small market. Min, CRL, Fla, they where all one year shots. Who's back there every year? Detroit, Colorado, Philidelphia, dallas...

These teams have the financial capability to keep there stars and add the talent nessisary to win year in and year out. Your absolultly need good managment (may I also take this time to raise suport for the tar and feathering Jim Dolan and Glen Sather as soon as possible). but you need good management backed up by strong financial standings to be a perenial contender. Why should that right be restricted to a select group of teams?

no, not all players can play for NYR, PHI, DET, COL, ect. However the majority of the best players will when given the chance. You seem to be working under the assumption that all players are created equall. Loosing your best player and replacing him with a good player is not a way to build a championship. Why should small market teams be put at that disadvantage?

xander is offline  
Old
11-07-2003, 08:19 PM
  #71
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,755
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by xander
Why should small market teams be put at that disadvantage?
because life isnt always fair ? why should the Dolans have to give the owners in CGY money that is rightfully theirs ?

more importantly, why should the fans of NYR see their money go to pay Jarom Iginla to play for CGY ?

Im a fan of VAN and I would lose no sleep if they decided they couldnt afford Bertuzzi.

Anyhow, I dont disagree that a few changes to the CBA would help, but I totally am against the concept of a salary cap.

Just remember fans, be careful what you wish for.

DR

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
11-07-2003, 08:43 PM
  #72
xander
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Section A Lynah Rink
Posts: 4,082
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
because life isnt always fair ? why should the Dolans have to give the owners in CGY money that is rightfully theirs ?

more importantly, why should the fans of NYR see their money go to pay Jarom Iginla to play for CGY ?

Im a fan of VAN and I would lose no sleep if they decided they couldnt afford Bertuzzi.

Anyhow, I dont disagree that a few changes to the CBA would help, but I totally am against the concept of a salary cap.

Just remember fans, be careful what you wish for.

DR
No, life isn't fair, but the NHL isn't life.

Ranger fans should see there money going to other teams becouse it creates a more competitve league, and thus a better product.

As for the dolans, well the NY rangers are part of the NHL, the NHL is in the interest of protecting the financial stability of it's teams, and creating a competitive enviroment. If this meens a salary cap, then the money the Ranger's share is part of there membership in that league. If they don't like it, as you've said many times, they don't have to play.

besides, a cap would be the best thing to ever happen to the rangers, might force them to rebuild with youth and prevent them from throwing bad contracts at under-acheiveing veterans.

xander is offline  
Old
11-10-2003, 06:11 AM
  #73
txpd
Registered User
 
txpd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 43,011
vCash: 500
I am amused by fans of the few teams that have a revenue base that can support a big payroll roster. they understand the financial advantage and don't want to lose it. in many cases they would rather lose 10 teams out of the league than give up that advantage. however that advantage has forced teams to need to win to sell tickets to spend more than they can afford to the tune of 10's of millions of dollars a year. there are 15 teams in that catagory. there are another 6 or 8 that refuse to pay that kind of money and choose losing games to losing money. many teams overbudget or not have the perfection of the defense first systems like the trap that neutralize talented expensive players on the other team. several have managed to win with less talented teams by ruining the game. Its been 10 years since a team other then the Rangers, Devils, Red Wings, Stars, or Avalanche have won the Stanley Cup. $$$$$$$$$. In order for the league to come to an agreement on the cba there must be two-thirds approval? there are 20 teams that are losing $10m a year or more and or are unwilling to lose
$10m or more in order to attempt to compete in a league so severely tilted toward the few big dollar teams. I can not imagine a scenario where those 20 teams cut a deal with the NHLPA that leaves the competive advantage so strongly with those few 5 to 7 teams that can afford payrolls between $45m and $70m and not lose money. The last two seasons the Capitals lost $20m each year with a $50m payroll. Do the math. $50m-$20m=$30m. The Capitals are a middle of the pack team in terms of available revenue. a salary cap in the $30-$35m range fits their cost needs. a salary cap also end another practice that hurts the game. The brand name free agents only sign with those few teams.
Detroit, Dallas, Philadelphia, NY Rangers, Toronto, St. Louis, Colorado. In many cases those players turn down more money with a rank and file team to sign with one of the above. Salary cap will change that. It will open the door for many more teams to sign these players, because there will be cap limitations will eliminate those teams from competing for some top free agents. I guess that last thing a Ranger or Red Wing fan would want to see is Atlanta or Vancouver be able to snatch a derien hatcher off the free agent market because NY or Detroit have hit their cap limits.

txpd is online now  
Old
11-10-2003, 07:17 AM
  #74
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 17,101
vCash: 500
.

The brand name free agents only sign with those few teams.
Detroit, Dallas, Philadelphia, NY Rangers, Toronto, St. Louis, Colorado. In many cases those players turn down more money with a rank and file team to sign with one of the above. Salary cap will change that. It will open the door for many more teams to sign these players, because there will be cap limitations will eliminate those teams from competing for some top free agents. I guess that last thing a Ranger or Red Wing fan would want to see is Atlanta or Vancouver be able to snatch a derien hatcher off the free agent market because NY or Detroit have hit their cap limits.


Yes and no to the above.

Any big name free agent will look at dollars outside of the NHL to satisfy their need for a higher earning power. To that end, the teams in those cities mentioned, specifically NY, can offer a player more advantages in marketing their name and likeness outside of the game. Thus making those cities more attractive.

While I do believe that a cap is needed in the NHL, there will ALWAYS be the have's and have nots. Just they will be coming from different sources. Would you then look to place limits on a players ability to earn outside of the game?

That would be outrageous.

pld459666 is online now  
Old
11-10-2003, 08:40 AM
  #75
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,606
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
1) ticket prices have nothing to do with anything but the market. if teams could cut payroll in half and raise ticket prices, they would.
^

This ain't totally true... If ticket prices would be based solely on the market value (the targeted market), then you wouldn't see so many empty seats.

Empty seats = for that price point, the offer is higher than the demand. However, teams can't reduce substantially their ticket prices because of their payroll (which is what, 80-90% of all costs?). In other words, the salaries do have an impact on ticket prices.

Here's another example... To sustain demand at a higher price point, teams now have marketing teams selling tickets, which they didn't have in the past. Those marketing teams are added costs, which add to the ticket prices. They need those marketing teams because in order not to lose money they need the ticket prices at a minimum (between the profitability point and the closing point), which is higher than what the market would push for. However, since it's a monopolistic type of business (most fans can only buy hockey tickets from their own teams), they don't have to match demand.

Yet another way of why higher salaries have affected the ticket prices: the shift in targeted market. While "normal" people used to be the targets for hockey sales, this has been shifted to business since the last CBA, because hockey needed to increase their revenues to pay the higher salaries. The hockey minds presumed that bringing a star to town would help them sell more corporate tickets, which at short term worked but in the long term wasn't a wise decision. The problem with such a market shift is that in sports you need to keep the "normal" people interested in your product, and you have to make it available to them, otherwise when they lose interest and stop supporting you so will the business.

The last example is that the teams now build their budget over the winning team template. The team makes the playoffs, it has a chance to make money. The team doesn't, it loses money. Since about half the teams do not make the playoffs, this means half the teams lose money. The teams have more incentive to invest in better players at higher costs (than what they could usually support) in order to make the playoffs and make profits. The side result is that to invest in higher costing players, they need to increase their revenues, and since most revenues come from gate revenues, they need to increase ticket prices. Like I said above, to increase the ticket prices and still sustain demand, they will have to shift market targets, possibly alienating some fans and having a negative long term effect or else increase marketing and what else, which increases costs and ticket prices even further (since it's a monopolistic type of business where they don't have to reach the equilibrium of the market). Another downside of such practice is that business sales will be affected by team performance. Business only have an incentive to buy hockey tickets for their best customers or affiliates if the hockey tickets are something of value in the overall market. In other words, their value tilts with the bandwagoners, which isn't necessarily good for the team or sport.

To end this, I'd like to say that the equilibrium point between the offer and the demand is where the team and the fans benefit the most as a whole. As such, the current hockey situation is less than optimal and it isn't such a surprise that hockey fans are leaving in droves, making the financial situation of the NHL even worse day by day.

It is time for the owners and the players to set back hockey ticket prices closer to the equilibrium point to revive the interest of the fans. It won't happen overnight though, as the demand curve is currently moving down and they need to get it to move up slowly. In order to do this, both parties will have to reach an agreement on a cba that greatly reduces salaries, a lot more than the 5% offered by the players.

SuperUnknown 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 12:03 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.