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
Notices

The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

Expansion Draft Rules, Alignment & Schedule Matrix for Las Vegas

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-22-2016, 09:43 PM
  #1
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ϶(°o°)ϵ
Posts: 36,466
vCash: 500
Expansion Draft Rules, Alignment & Schedule Matrix for Las Vegas

The following rules were approved for the 2017 Expansion Draft, per release from the NHL:

Protected Lists
* Clubs will have two options for players they wish to protect in the Expansion Draft:
a) Seven forwards, three defensemen and one goaltender
b) Eight skaters (forwards/defensemen) and one goaltender
* All players who have currently effective and continuing "No Movement" clauses at the time of the Expansion Draft (and who to decline to waive such clauses) must be protected (and will be counted toward their club's applicable protection limits).

* All first- and second-year professionals, as well as all unsigned draft choices, will be exempt from selection (and will not be counted toward their club's applicable protection limits).

Player Exposure Requirements
* All Clubs must meet the following minimum requirements regarding players exposed for selection in the Expansion Draft:
i) One defenseman who is a) under contract in 2017-18 and b) played in 40 or more NHL games the prior season OR played in 70 or more NHL games in the prior two seasons.
ii) Two forwards who are a) under contract in 2017-18 and b) played in 40 or more NHL games the prior season OR played in 70 or more NHL games in the prior two seasons.
iii) One goaltender who is under contract in 2017-18 or will be a restricted free agent at the expiration of his current contract immediately prior to 2017-18. If the club elects to make a restricted free agent goaltender available in order to meet this requirement, that goaltender must have received his qualifying offer prior to the submission of the club's protected list.
* Players with potential career-ending injuries who have missed more than the previous 60 consecutive games (or who otherwise have been confirmed to have a career-threatening injury) may not be used to satisfy a club's player exposure requirements, unless approval is received from the NHL. Such players also may be deemed exempt from selection by the League.

Regulations Relating to Expansion Franchise
* The Las Vegas franchise must select one player from each presently existing club for a total of 30 players (not including additional players who may be acquired as the result of violations of the Expansion Draft rules).
* The Las Vegas franchise must select the following number of players at each position: 14 forwards, nine defensemen and three goaltenders.
* The Las Vegas franchise must select a minimum of 20 players who are under contract for the 2017-18 season.
* The Las Vegas franchise must select players with an aggregate Expansion Draft value that is between 60-100% of the prior season's upper limit for the salary cap.
* The Las Vegas franchise may not buy out any of the players selected in the Expansion Draft earlier than the summer following is first season.

The 30 NHL Clubs must submit their Protection List by 5:00 P.M. ET on Saturday, June 17, 2017.

The Las Vegas team must submit their Expansion Draft Selections by 5:00 P.M. ET on June 20 and the announcement of their selections will be released on June 21.


2017 NHL Draft Lottery
The Las Vegas franchise will be given the same odds in the 2017 NHL Draft Lottery as the team finishing with the third-fewest points during the 2016-17 regular season.

The Las Vegas franchise's First Round selection in the 2017 NHL Draft will be determined in accordance with the 2017 NHL Draft Lottery and, as a result, the Las Vegas franchise will be guaranteed no lower than the sixth overall selection.

The Las Vegas franchise then will select third in each subsequent round of the 2017 NHL Draft (subject to trades and other potential player transactions)

Alignment
The Las Vegas franchise will begin play in the Pacific Division of the Western Conference in 2017-18. There will be no other changes to the NHL's alignment.

2017-18 Schedule Matrix
Each club will continue to play an 82-game schedule, with 41 home games and 41 road games.
The schedule matrix, which ensures that all teams play in all arenas at least once each season, will be adjusted to the following in 2017-18:
Eastern Conference (Atlantic and Metropolitan Divisions - 8 Teams)
Within Conference (Division): 28 games
* 7 Teams: 2 Home / 2 Away
* 7 x 4 = 28 games
Within Conference (Non-Division): 24 games
* 4 Teams: 2 Home / 1 Away
* 4 Teams: 1 Home / 2 Away
* 4 x 3 = 12 games
* 4 x 3 = 12 games
Non-Conference: 30 games
* 15 Home / 15 Away
* 2 x 15 = 30


Western Conference (Central Division - 7 Teams)
Within Conference (Division): 26 games
* 4 Teams: 2 Home / 2 Away
* 1 Team: 3 Home / 2 Away
* 1 Team: 2 Home / 3 Away
* 4 x 4 = 16
* 1 x 5 = 5
* 1 x 5 = 5

Within Conference (Non-Division): 24 games
* 4 Teams: 2 Home / 1 Away
* 4 Teams: 1 Home / 2 Away
* 4 x 3 = 12 games
* 4 x 3 = 12 games

Non-Conference: 32 games
* 16 Home / 16 Away
* 2 x 16 = 32 games
Western Conference (Pacific Division - 8 Teams)
Within Conference (Division): 29 games
* 6 Teams: 2 Home / 2 Away
* 1 Team: 3 Home / 2 Away
* 6 x 4 = 24 games
* 1 x 5 = 5 games
Within Conference (Non-Division): 21 games
* 4 Teams: 2 Home / 1 Away
* 3 Teams: 1 Home / 2 Away
* 4 x 3 = 12 games
* 3 x 3 = 9 games
Non-Conference: 32 games
* 16 Home / 16 Away
* 2 x 16 = 32 games

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2016, 10:50 AM
  #2
Kobe Armstrong
Registered User
 
Kobe Armstrong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 9,795
vCash: 50
Is it really necessary to have a long, sit-down expansion draft? There's only one new team.. it seems like it will be boring television, I'm not quite sure why they can't just release a list of names.

Kobe Armstrong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2016, 10:59 AM
  #3
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,734
vCash: 500
So the alignment and schedule is exactly as we predicted.

And, no change to the playoff structure. Still with Wild Cards.

Much ado about not much of anything.

Nice to have verification.

MNNumbers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2016, 11:08 AM
  #4
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 66,689
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobe Armstrong View Post
Is it really necessary to have a long, sit-down expansion draft? There's only one new team.. it seems like it will be boring television, I'm not quite sure why they can't just release a list of names.
Doesn't sound like it'll be on TV.

Protected lists due 6/17/17. Expansion draft picks due 6/20/17. Announcement 6/21/17.

Guessing just a press release.

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-25-2016, 06:58 PM
  #5
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 66,689
vCash: 500
Saw a tweet this morning, IIRC from Dreger.

Las Vegas will not be allowed to start trading until June 1, 2017.

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2016, 12:04 PM
  #6
CupfortheSharks
Registered User
 
CupfortheSharks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,254
vCash: 500
I'm looking for some clarification on the expansion draft rules. I'm hoping someone here (Fugu maybe) can answer with certainty.

Joe Thornton and Patrick Marleau's contracts end after this season. I don't think either will be resigned before the expansion draft. It makes sense that they will not need to be protected as pending UFAs. However, they will both still be under a contract with a NMC. Can anyone confirm exactly how pending UFAs with NMCs will be handled?

Nikolay Goldobin played 9 games in the AHL in 2013-2014. He played a full season in the AHL last year and will play in the NHL/AHL this year. I would think he should be exempt from the expansion draft as a 2nd year professional. Can someone confirm?

The idea of protecting Brent Burns as a forward has been floated on the Sharks board. It's a bit a a stretch to protect a Norris finalist as a forward. However, he was drafted as a winger and has played games at the NHL level as a right wing. Are the rules that would prevent the Sharks from playing Burns as a winger for 10 games this season and protecting him as a forward?


Last edited by CupfortheSharks: 06-30-2016 at 12:23 PM.
CupfortheSharks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2016, 12:22 PM
  #7
BattleBorn
Global Moderator
Dead Dove-Do Not Eat
 
BattleBorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Country: Puerto Rico
Posts: 4,667
vCash: 859
Quote:
Originally Posted by CupfortheSharks View Post
I'm looking for some clarification on the expansion draft rules. I'm hoping someone here (Fugu maybe) can answer with certainty.

Joe Thornton and Patrick Marleau's contracts end after this season. I don't think either will be resigned before the expansion draft. It makes sense that they will not need to be protected as pending UFAs. However, they will both be still under a contract with a NMC. Can anyone confirm exactly how pending UFAs with NMCs will be handled?

Nikolay Goldobin played 9 games in the AHL in 2013-2014. He played a full season in the AHL last year and will play in the NHL/AHL this year. I would think he should be exempt from the expansion draft as a 2nd year professional. Can someone confirm?

The idea of protecting Brent Burns as a forward has been floated on the Sharks board. It's a bit a a stretch to protect a Norris finalist as a forward. However, he was drafted as a winger and has played games at the NHL level as a right wing. Are the rules that would prevent the Sharks from playing Burns as a winger for 10 games this season and protecting him as a forward?
From what I've heard, players with NMCs that are expiring directly after the expansion draft are not required to be protected.

As for Goldobin, if I read the rules correctly, the only years that count are: 10 NHL games at age 18 or 19, and any professional above that age. If he was 20 during the AHL season and 21 this season I think he'd wind up being exposed since two years seems to be the ceiling and anything below two is exempt. I'd say he'd be entering his third year after the season is concluded. I could be reading that completely wrong, though.

As for the Burns stuff, you've got me.

ETA: Forgot about 9/15. My fault.


Last edited by BattleBorn: 06-30-2016 at 01:35 PM.
BattleBorn is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2016, 12:29 PM
  #8
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 15,965
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CupfortheSharks View Post
I'm looking for some clarification on the expansion draft rules. I'm hoping someone here (Fugu maybe) can answer with certainty.

Joe Thornton and Patrick Marleau's contracts end after this season. I don't think either will be resigned before the expansion draft. It makes sense that they will not need to be protected as pending UFAs. However, they will both be still under a contract with a NMC. Can anyone confirm exactly how pending UFAs with NMCs will be handled?
Expiring NMCs do not need to be protected - only "effective and continuing" NMCs need to be protected.

Quote:
Nikolay Goldobin played 9 games in the AHL in 2013-2014. He played a full season in the AHL last year and will play in the NHL/AHL this year. I would think he should be exempt from the expansion draft as a 2nd year professional. Can someone confirm?
The definition of professional season was listed in another thread (IIRC):
- for 18 or 19 yo (age as of 9/15): 10 or more NHL games played.
- for 20+ yo: 1 or more Professional (NHL or AHL) games played.

Goldobin (DOB 10/7/95) would have been considerred an 18 yo in '14-'15, so those 9 AHL games wouldn't count.
Goldobin would have been considered a 19 yo in '15-'16, so his 9 NHL games (and 60 AHL) would not count.
Next year will count (assuming he plays one or more AHL/NHL game) - so he will be a First yea professional at the expansion draft and be exempt.

Quote:
The idea of protecting Brent Burns as a forward has been floated on the Sharks board. It's a bit a a stretch to protect a Norris finalist as a forward. However, he was drafted as a winger and has played games at the NHL level as a right wing. Are the rules that would prevent the Sharks from playing Burns as a winger for 10 games this season and protecting him as a forward?
I don't recall any specific definitions of Defenseman - but I would assume a player would have to play the majority of his games as a D-man to qualify.

kdb209 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2016, 09:05 AM
  #9
CupfortheSharks
Registered User
 
CupfortheSharks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,254
vCash: 500
Thank you for the responses.

CupfortheSharks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2016, 12:08 PM
  #10
IME
Registered User
 
IME's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: The Cloud
Country: Canada
Posts: 621
vCash: 50
Odd question: How many games does a player have to play at a position to be considered a forward or a defenseman?

If the number of games is small enough, a team could theoretically move a forward down to defense to protect 7-3 instead of 8-1.

I know its a far-fetched scenario (though not impossible: See Fedorov) but a team with protection issues would look at all possible options.

IME is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2016, 05:10 PM
  #11
Method Man
Bring the Pain
 
Method Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 37,598
vCash: 50
I have a question as well, can a team choose to expose a player they do not have to expose?

For example the Flames will likely be re-signing and protecting Elliott, but otherwise all their goaltenders who are signed or they hold the rights to will be exempt. Could they for instance choose to expose David Rittich if the give him a qualifying offer first?

Method Man is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2016, 05:25 PM
  #12
Mike Jones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,494
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 100 Third Graders View Post
I have a question as well, can a team choose to expose a player they do not have to expose?
I suppose they can expose anyone they want as long as it's within the rules of the draft.

Mike Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2016, 06:09 PM
  #13
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 66,689
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 100 Third Graders View Post
I have a question as well, can a team choose to expose a player they do not have to expose?

For example the Flames will likely be re-signing and protecting Elliott, but otherwise all their goaltenders who are signed or they hold the rights to will be exempt. Could they for instance choose to expose David Rittich if the give him a qualifying offer first?
Teams are required (as a minimum) to expose one goalie, one 40/70 defenceman and two 40/70 forwards -- all signed through at least 2017-2018.

So, they'll have to have one guy to expose. Any player with 3 or more years of pro (NA) experience would not be exempt. Have to think the Flames might re-sign Johnson through 2018 to make that minimum goalie available (or acquire a guy to expose).

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2016, 11:41 PM
  #14
Method Man
Bring the Pain
 
Method Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 37,598
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
Teams are required (as a minimum) to expose one goalie, one 40/70 defenceman and two 40/70 forwards -- all signed through at least 2017-2018.

So, they'll have to have one guy to expose. Any player with 3 or more years of pro (NA) experience would not be exempt. Have to think the Flames might re-sign Johnson through 2018 to make that minimum goalie available (or acquire a guy to expose).
I understand they have to expose someone, I am asking if a team can choose not to exercise the exemption for a particular player, because Rittich does technically meet those goaltender requirements.

Method Man is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2016, 12:10 PM
  #15
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 66,689
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 100 Third Graders View Post
I understand they have to expose someone, I am asking if a team can choose not to exercise the exemption for a particular player, because Rittich does technically meet those goaltender requirements.
There has to be a guy who does meet the contract through 17-18 minimum, surely?

If Calgary does not make a goalie available per the expansion draft requirements, they will be fined, and/or lose draft pick or player.

To avoid that, they'll have to sign or trade for a guy.

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2016, 01:36 PM
  #16
Method Man
Bring the Pain
 
Method Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 37,598
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
There has to be a guy who does meet the contract through 17-18 minimum, surely?

If Calgary does not make a goalie available per the expansion draft requirements, they will be fined, and/or lose draft pick or player.

To avoid that, they'll have to sign or trade for a guy.
They do not have to have a player signed, they just have to extend a qualifying offer to an RFA prior to the submitting of the protected list and expose them.

You are just repeating what we know for sure, but you aren't answering or even addressing what I am asking.

Can a team choose to expose a player they do not have to expose. The exempt players are exempt so that established teams can hold onto their prospects, but there has been nothing saying they can't expose someone they don't need to.

Method Man is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2016, 01:43 PM
  #17
BattleBorn
Global Moderator
Dead Dove-Do Not Eat
 
BattleBorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Country: Puerto Rico
Posts: 4,667
vCash: 859
Quote:
Originally Posted by 100 Third Graders View Post
...The exempt players are exempt so that established teams can hold onto their prospects, but there has been nothing saying they can't expose someone they don't need to.
I think you're getting a little deep in to what you think the intent of the rule is. I'm sure it's put in place to protect prospects, but I imagine it's also in place to make sure Vegas isn't given a roster of prospects from which to draft in the expansion. The 40/70 rule with forwards and defensemen seems to support that.

I would imagine that the teams are going to need to follow the rules to the word. There is no value added to Vegas' side of the deal by any team exposing a player that is exempt. Those players are exempt for a reason (whether it's prospect protection or Vegas protection,) and a specific team's situation doesn't change those reasons.

BattleBorn is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2016, 01:44 PM
  #18
Mike Jones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,494
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 100 Third Graders View Post
Can a team choose to expose a player they do not have to expose.
Are you asking if a team can protect fewer players than allowed? Say 6-3-1 or 7-1 or something like that?

Mike Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2016, 03:45 PM
  #19
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 66,689
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Jones View Post
Are you asking if a team can protect fewer players than allowed? Say 6-3-1 or 7-1 or something like that?
He's looking at the goalie position, not skaters. (And one particular team.)

I have seen no provisions for exposing a player that is nominally exempt/protected, excluding players with NMCs have to waive it to be exposed.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/i...n-draft-format
Quote:
One goaltender who is under contract in 2017-18 or will be a restricted free agent at the expiration of his current contract immediately prior to 2017-18. If the club elects to make a restricted free agent goaltender available in order to meet this requirement, that goaltender must have received his qualifying offer prior to the submission of the club’s protected list.
Still, says nothing about experience of goalie to be exposed. Just that he's either under contract or has received a QO.

For the Flames... two UFAs next summer (Elliott, Johnson).

https://www.capfriendly.com/players/jon-gillies
Gillies is pending RFA and won't be exempt.

https://www.capfriendly.com/players/david-rittich
Rittich is exempt

(Mason and Schneider also exempt)

With a QO, Gillies could be the guy the Flames expose.

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2016, 06:23 PM
  #20
Method Man
Bring the Pain
 
Method Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 37,598
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
He's looking at the goalie position, not skaters. (And one particular team.)

I have seen no provisions for exposing a player that is nominally exempt/protected, excluding players with NMCs have to waive it to be exposed.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/i...n-draft-format


Still, says nothing about experience of goalie to be exposed. Just that he's either under contract or has received a QO.

For the Flames... two UFAs next summer (Elliott, Johnson).

https://www.capfriendly.com/players/jon-gillies
Gillies is pending RFA and won't be exempt.

https://www.capfriendly.com/players/david-rittich
Rittich is exempt

(Mason and Schneider also exempt)

With a QO, Gillies could be the guy the Flames expose.
Gillies is exempt too as he will only be in his second professional season by either definition.

Method Man is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2016, 06:23 PM
  #21
Method Man
Bring the Pain
 
Method Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 37,598
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Jones View Post
Are you asking if a team can protect fewer players than allowed? Say 6-3-1 or 7-1 or something like that?
I am asking of a team can choose to expose a prospect that is automatically exempt.

Method Man is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2016, 07:10 PM
  #22
Mike Jones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,494
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 100 Third Graders View Post
I am asking of a team can choose to expose a prospect that is automatically exempt.
If a prospect is exempt (Whether it's because of number of years of service or whatever) I don't think there's really anything a team can do. It sounds like the league is going to punish anyone going outside the lines on this one.

Mike Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2016, 07:46 PM
  #23
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 4,921
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 100 Third Graders View Post
I am asking of a team can choose to expose a prospect that is automatically exempt.
I think that's moot. Exempt is exempt.

If the idea is "we'd rather lose this exempt guy than one of our non-exempt guys, but we can't protect all our non-exempt guys."

The way to deal with that is you can call McPhee in Las Vegas and trade the prospect you'd rather give up for a conditional draft pick: The condition being "Las Vegas gives us a 1st round pick if they select __________ in the expansion draft."

So Vegas ends up with "An exposed guy you're willing to give up AND the exempt prospect you're willing to give up" but not the non-exempt player you couldn't fit on your list.

To my knowledge, no rule prevents you from sending Las Vegas an asset in return for McPhee selecting a player from the exposed list you mutually agree on.


(And I would highly anticipate the Garth Snow and the Islanders striking a deal with McPhee - or McPhee and another team - on whom Las Vegas takes, since McPhee is coming to Las Vegas from the Islanders organization)

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2016, 08:04 PM
  #24
DaveG
Global Moderator
How's the thesis?
 
DaveG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Raleigh NC
Country: United States
Posts: 37,831
vCash: 50
Awards:
Any word on if ATOs/PTOs count toward the year count for this? IE: if someone had played a few games with an AHL team after their college season was done but their professional contract didn't begin until the next season?

DaveG is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2016, 08:25 PM
  #25
Method Man
Bring the Pain
 
Method Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 37,598
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveG View Post
Any word on if ATOs/PTOs count toward the year count for this? IE: if someone had played a few games with an AHL team after their college season was done but their professional contract didn't begin until the next season?
I do not think it would count.

Method Man is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:46 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2017 All Rights Reserved.