HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie
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.

UPDATE 3/28 - USA Hockey, USWNT reach deal, avoid boycott of World Championship

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-20-2017, 09:10 PM
  #351
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 67,774
vCash: 500
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/u-s-w...ns-productive/

Quote:
USA Hockey and the women’s national team say their marathon meeting Monday was productive and they hope to have an agreement this week that will end their ongoing wage dispute and avoid a boycott of the upcoming world championships.

The sides met for more than 10 hours Monday in Philadelphia and will continue discussions later this week. Players announced last week they’d boycott the upcoming world championships in Plymouth, Michigan, unless significant progress was made toward a labour agreement.

USA Hockey and players released statements Monday night saying they hoped a deal would be reached in time for the tournament, which begins March 31.
Progress, I hope.

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2017, 05:11 AM
  #352
WesMcCauley
Registered User
 
WesMcCauley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 5,988
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kurt View Post
Nobody is saying it's a human right to make a living from playing hockey. But it's anyone's right to deny their services if they're not being compensated in a way they deem adequate. You've given an example of someone who has done so. The women's national team is doing exactly the same thing, en masse.

It makes absolutely no sense to me how anyone could be opposed to someone having the right to making a choice like that. Is it a sexism thing or what?
My problem with it is that they expect to make a living from playing on the national team? They expect the national team to be their primary source of income? Im not from the US but in Europe thats not how things work at all and its insane to me. It has nothing to do with gender.

A previous post in the thread: "What I am hearing is that because professional women's hockey is not successful and the ladies cannot make a living doing it that it is now USAH's responsibility to operate and pay for a full time women's national team complete with a salary package, benefits, etc. That's not USAH's role".

The womens own league arent making enough money so they start to blame USA Hockey for it. You dont have to play for the national team, and you have a right to say hey we want something more for it. But they arent asking for a little more help. they are asking for 250k a year. Thats 5-10 years of income for the average american. I understand they will never get that amount but when they start that high they lose all credibility imo.


This is from the English mens national team in Soccer and they make alot more money than USA hockey does.

Back in 2012, English FA made a structured match fee formula where they were paying players who were part of the playing XI, £1,500 for a win, £1,000 for a draw and £750 for a defeat. Though England players decided to donate all the money from England match fees to “England Footballers Foundation support Cancer Research”.
They often also gets some money if they win the euros or olympics etc. But if they win the euros and lets say they get 200k each for that. The english FA make so much money from them winning that its not alot of money compared to the money they get from winning/TV deals, commercials etc.

NWHL etc dont generate alot of money so they want 250k to play for the national team and no way do the womens national team bring in enough money to justify that. They want 250k for beeing with the national team for how many days a year? They wanna be paid like superstars and like their league makes tons of money when they dont. They should focus on growing the NWHL, not cry about not beeing paid tons of money from playing on the national team. I have never seen anything like it, i dont know that much about USA hockey or other USA national teams but to me as a european this is insanity. It has absolutely nothing to do with gender.

My sister played on the national soccer team in my country(btw she didnt get 1$ for it), i watched, i supported them etc etc but when she retired most people stop following. She also worked part time at the same time she played in the top womens league in our country. She made some money from the team she played on, some money from her part time job and nothing from the national team. You dont have to play on the national team but its something most people wanna do. Its just not a very good product and the ratings etc speak for itself. Its kind of sad but most people that support and follow them are family, friends etc. Unless its the olympics, not many female sports have a big following.

I understand the women who play on the national team has said they will not play for 6k a year or what it is. Its not because they dont have the time etc, they just dont wanna have a part time job next to hockey or live on the money they make in the NWHL so they blame USA hockey for their lack of income. Funny that this happens less than 6 months after the NWHL cut their salaries in half because they didnt make enough money to pay their players the contracts they signed.

They want alot of money because male hockey players make millions in the NHL. Guess what, a friend of mine won a silver medal in the olympics in 2012 in London, bronze in the euros in 2015 and he works full time as a teacher on a sports highschool to help athletes finish school along with beeing able to be some of the best amateurs in the world in their sports. He has to work because his sport dont generate enough money to make a living from it alone.

I dont know how much they give back to junior programs etc but in my country most of the money our national hockey federation(and other national sports federations) makes goes back to the clubs for junior programs etc.
Do people actually wanna support a national team and USA hockey when such a big % of the money they support them with goes to the players for just playing for the national team and not back to junior programs etc? Its insanity and has absolutely nothing to do with gender at all. I would love for my kids to make a living from playing sports no matter if they are female or male and im all for gender equality for the same jobs etc but this isnt about equality. Its about a bunch of athletes that are greedy as hell/lack of how the real world works and i would say the exact same thing if it was about men.

How much does the male USA hockey players make from playing on the national team? I feel like thats something that is missing in this conversation. They bring in alot more money than female USA hockey does from games, jersey sales etc etc. If the women make 250k a year, how much should/do the men make? Im not saying the women shouldnt get some money for beeing part of the national team, thats normal but asking for 250k a year is just insane unless they bring in tons of money from somewhere i dont know about and if they did that money shouldnt go to the players anyway but to junior programs etc. Its not normal(its disrespectful to everyone else) to pay national team players anywhere close to the % of the money they generate that the USA Womens hockey is asking for.


Last edited by WesMcCauley: 03-21-2017 at 11:39 AM.
WesMcCauley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2017, 06:05 AM
  #353
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,670
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IME View Post
Profits is the correct word. They don't lose money over jerseys. It's not like they sell jerseys below costs.
I would LOVE to see the numbers on what the profits are on the sale of jerseys for the women's team.

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2017, 09:05 AM
  #354
Burke the Legend
Registered User
 
Burke the Legend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,615
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
I would LOVE to see the numbers on what the profits are on the sale of jerseys for the women's team.
Better bust out that 4 digit calculator.

Burke the Legend is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2017, 11:31 AM
  #355
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 18,406
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
I would LOVE to see the numbers on what the profits are on the sale of jerseys for the women's team.
I posted the USA Hockey advertising and merchandising profits. Jerseys sales would be a component of that. Though we don't know what % of those profits are jerseys, nor what % would be attributable to the women's national team.

I would expect the %'s are on the small side, even for the men's national team.

mouser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2017, 11:46 AM
  #356
Roadrage
Registered User
 
Roadrage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Next door
Country: Netherlands
Posts: 414
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burke the Legend View Post
Better bust out that 4 digit calculator.
Giving it a buffer I see

Roadrage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2017, 10:02 PM
  #357
IME
Registered User
 
IME's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: The Cloud
Country: Canada
Posts: 653
vCash: 50
Everyone should check out this week's 30 Thoughts by Elliotte Friedman. He broadly outlines what Canada does for its Women's team.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/3...o-brent-burns/

IME is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2017, 10:15 PM
  #358
JVR21
Sexy Hexy
 
JVR21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 8,820
vCash: 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigFatCat999 View Post
Pay the women like you would pay the men. Support the team like you support the men. Schedule the women like you would the men. Develop the girls like you develop the boys.


Because the WOMEN are winning more medals than the men.
Feel free to donate your money to them, because they certainly aren't generating any profits themselves.

JVR21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2017, 10:21 PM
  #359
JVR21
Sexy Hexy
 
JVR21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 8,820
vCash: 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechire View Post
The national program is required by law to have women's hockey so actually no it won't continue.
Is this true? I'm curious because it's not as if Title IX applies unless USA Hockey is federally funded.

JVR21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-23-2017, 12:02 AM
  #360
dechire
Janmark Enthusiast
 
dechire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: inconnu
Posts: 13,523
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by JVR21 View Post
Is this true? I'm curious because it's not as if Title IX applies unless USA Hockey is federally funded.
The Ted Stevens Act, the law which allows for national governing bodies for amateur sports such as USA Hockey to exist, requires support for women's athletics. I quoted a relevant part on page 3. Or you can read it yourself here.

dechire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-23-2017, 12:25 AM
  #361
TorstenFrings
lebenslang grünweiss
 
TorstenFrings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Bremen
Country: Germany
Posts: 6,800
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JVR21 View Post
Is this true? I'm curious because it's not as if Title IX applies unless USA Hockey is federally funded.
I am going to take a wild guess here and say that USA Hockey probably profits from tax-exemption, so whether or not they have to comply with Title IX isn't in question. How much they need to do to be in compliance is.

TorstenFrings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-23-2017, 12:49 AM
  #362
kabidjan18
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Country: United States
Posts: 2,164
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IME View Post
Everyone should check out this week's 30 Thoughts by Elliotte Friedman. He broadly outlines what Canada does for its Women's team.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/3...o-brent-burns/
The one thing we could change if we aren't already doing so as mentioned by Friedman is perhaps starting annual fundraisers. The rest is inapplicable, for reasons already hammered out. Now I don't want to prematurely accuse USAH, maybe they do have fundraisers annually and I'm not aware, but if they don't that'd be a good first step.

kabidjan18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-23-2017, 02:30 AM
  #363
kurt
the last emperor
 
kurt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,380
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by meldelaget View Post
My problem with it is that they expect to make a living from playing on the national team? They expect the national team to be their primary source of income? Im not from the US but in Europe thats not how things work at all and its insane to me. It has nothing to do with gender.

A previous post in the thread: "What I am hearing is that because professional women's hockey is not successful and the ladies cannot make a living doing it that it is now USAH's responsibility to operate and pay for a full time women's national team complete with a salary package, benefits, etc. That's not USAH's role".

The womens own league arent making enough money so they start to blame USA Hockey for it. You dont have to play for the national team, and you have a right to say hey we want something more for it. But they arent asking for a little more help. they are asking for 250k a year. Thats 5-10 years of income for the average american. I understand they will never get that amount but when they start that high they lose all credibility imo.


This is from the English mens national team in Soccer and they make alot more money than USA hockey does.

Back in 2012, English FA made a structured match fee formula where they were paying players who were part of the playing XI, £1,500 for a win, £1,000 for a draw and £750 for a defeat. Though England players decided to donate all the money from England match fees to “England Footballers Foundation support Cancer Research”.
They often also gets some money if they win the euros or olympics etc. But if they win the euros and lets say they get 200k each for that. The english FA make so much money from them winning that its not alot of money compared to the money they get from winning/TV deals, commercials etc.

NWHL etc dont generate alot of money so they want 250k to play for the national team and no way do the womens national team bring in enough money to justify that. They want 250k for beeing with the national team for how many days a year? They wanna be paid like superstars and like their league makes tons of money when they dont. They should focus on growing the NWHL, not cry about not beeing paid tons of money from playing on the national team. I have never seen anything like it, i dont know that much about USA hockey or other USA national teams but to me as a european this is insanity. It has absolutely nothing to do with gender.

My sister played on the national soccer team in my country(btw she didnt get 1$ for it), i watched, i supported them etc etc but when she retired most people stop following. She also worked part time at the same time she played in the top womens league in our country. She made some money from the team she played on, some money from her part time job and nothing from the national team. You dont have to play on the national team but its something most people wanna do. Its just not a very good product and the ratings etc speak for itself. Its kind of sad but most people that support and follow them are family, friends etc. Unless its the olympics, not many female sports have a big following.

I understand the women who play on the national team has said they will not play for 6k a year or what it is. Its not because they dont have the time etc, they just dont wanna have a part time job next to hockey or live on the money they make in the NWHL so they blame USA hockey for their lack of income. Funny that this happens less than 6 months after the NWHL cut their salaries in half because they didnt make enough money to pay their players the contracts they signed.

They want alot of money because male hockey players make millions in the NHL. Guess what, a friend of mine won a silver medal in the olympics in 2012 in London, bronze in the euros in 2015 and he works full time as a teacher on a sports highschool to help athletes finish school along with beeing able to be some of the best amateurs in the world in their sports. He has to work because his sport dont generate enough money to make a living from it alone.

I dont know how much they give back to junior programs etc but in my country most of the money our national hockey federation(and other national sports federations) makes goes back to the clubs for junior programs etc.
Do people actually wanna support a national team and USA hockey when such a big % of the money they support them with goes to the players for just playing for the national team and not back to junior programs etc? Its insanity and has absolutely nothing to do with gender at all. I would love for my kids to make a living from playing sports no matter if they are female or male and im all for gender equality for the same jobs etc but this isnt about equality. Its about a bunch of athletes that are greedy as hell/lack of how the real world works and i would say the exact same thing if it was about men.

How much does the male USA hockey players make from playing on the national team? I feel like thats something that is missing in this conversation. They bring in alot more money than female USA hockey does from games, jersey sales etc etc. If the women make 250k a year, how much should/do the men make? Im not saying the women shouldnt get some money for beeing part of the national team, thats normal but asking for 250k a year is just insane unless they bring in tons of money from somewhere i dont know about and if they did that money shouldnt go to the players anyway but to junior programs etc. Its not normal(its disrespectful to everyone else) to pay national team players anywhere close to the % of the money they generate that the USA Womens hockey is asking for.
Sorry, but none of this matters. What matters is the players want money. Organizers are now faced with the decision of whether it's worthwhile to pay them or not.

Simple as that. And good for them. The end.

kurt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-23-2017, 08:58 AM
  #364
sharkhawk
Registered User
 
sharkhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Aurora, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 1,180
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechire View Post
The Ted Stevens Act, the law which allows for national governing bodies for amateur sports such as USA Hockey to exist, requires support for women's athletics. I quoted a relevant part on page 3. Or you can read it yourself here.
So the act requires the governing body to pay more money to the amateur athletes. Now I'm 100% confused.

sharkhawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-23-2017, 03:00 PM
  #365
dechire
Janmark Enthusiast
 
dechire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: inconnu
Posts: 13,523
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharkhawk View Post
So the act requires the governing body to pay more money to the amateur athletes. Now I'm 100% confused.
I don't know why you're confused since that's not what I said nor does the link I posted say that. Prior to the Ted Stevens Act(formerly the Amateur Sports Act of 1978) all Olympic and amateur sports were managed by the American Athletic Union(AAU) which did things like refusing to allow women to run track, marathons and races to "protect their reproductive health". The Act was adopted to remove power from the AAU and create the USOC and associated governing bodies for individual sports. It disallowed these organizations from discriminating against women athletes as the AAU had done. Meaning, as I said, that if women's hockey was removed from USAH the organization would be violating the law.

dechire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-23-2017, 03:24 PM
  #366
boredmale
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 32,697
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharkhawk View Post
The women want equal support for women's hockey. Will boycotting the event when it's held in the US help or hurt the sport?
Is anybody really going to notice? What exactly do the women have to hold hostage. I am guessing the amount of money that tournament generates when divided amongst all the teams is not that much

My guess is the women feel that since they are the main draw along with Canada they should get paid more then the other teams which in theory is bad because if the other teams don't get their cut of cash how can they develop so this tournament in the future just doesn't become a US vs Canada and everybody else tournament


Last edited by boredmale: 03-23-2017 at 03:31 PM.
boredmale is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-23-2017, 03:45 PM
  #367
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,670
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechire View Post
I don't know why you're confused since that's not what I said nor does the link I posted say that. Prior to the Ted Stevens Act(formerly the Amateur Sports Act of 1978) all Olympic and amateur sports were managed by the American Athletic Union(AAU) which did things like refusing to allow women to run track, marathons and races to "protect their reproductive health". The Act was adopted to remove power from the AAU and create the USOC and associated governing bodies for individual sports. It disallowed these organizations from discriminating against women athletes as the AAU had done. Meaning, as I said, that if women's hockey was removed from USAH the organization would be violating the law.
No, but if the women refuse to play, then USAH is not violating any law. If the next 20 on the list also refuse to play and the next 20 and so on, then there has to be a point when USAH just decides to not send a team to the tourney. The idea that USAH should employ these women so they can continue to win World Championships and be favorites for Gold at the Olympics is just silly. As I have said, if these women are unable to earn a living playing hockey, then it is time to move on to other endeavors. If they are able to continue training while working other jobs, then great. If not, so be it, that is how it goes. Most of them already got their college education paid for thanks to Title IX. If they didn't take advantage of that opportunity and earn a degree in a useful field, then too bad. Just like we say to the college football player who gets hurt his senior year or never gets drafted into the NFL, but didn't take school seriously and is now 23 years old and not able to get a job.

I have already mentioned my HS's lacrosse coach and another guy I know who played in the Arena Football League. Another name that comes to mind is someone named Lou Chisari. I worked with him years ago. He was a hammer thrower, went to the 96 Olympic Trials. Hurt his back warming up and had to withdraw. Started law school that fall after putting it off while training for the 96 games. During that time he worked as a bouncer and had some sponsorship money. When he went to law school he had to stop throwing and for his first few years out. Now, he is a lawyer and eventually started throwing again. Won the Masters 35 lb weight throw National Championship a few years ago. Point is, USAT&F was not paying him to train and "stay in shape". It was on him and eventually he realized it was time to move on.

Everyone of us can probably fill this thread with someone with a similar story. Not much of a market for Track and Field on the professional level and even less so in the weight events. Same as women's hockey. Fair or not is immaterial, it is what it is. At least for now.

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-24-2017, 08:54 AM
  #368
Inkling
Same Old Hockey
 
Inkling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,812
vCash: 500
Does the Women's World Championship have relegation like the Men's? If the US doesn't send a team or sends a team with limited talent, are they at risk of having to compete in a lower division next year?

Inkling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-24-2017, 09:16 AM
  #369
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,670
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inkling View Post
Does the Women's World Championship have relegation like the Men's? If the US doesn't send a team or sends a team with limited talent, are they at risk of having to compete in a lower division next year?
If they have relegation, that technically is a risk every year. If it were to happen, I am willing to bet more than 99% of the US population will not care or even know that it happened.

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-24-2017, 10:02 AM
  #370
rj
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Indiana
Posts: 1,469
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechire View Post
I don't know why you're confused since that's not what I said nor does the link I posted say that. Prior to the Ted Stevens Act(formerly the Amateur Sports Act of 1978) all Olympic and amateur sports were managed by the American Athletic Union(AAU) which did things like refusing to allow women to run track, marathons and races to "protect their reproductive health". The Act was adopted to remove power from the AAU and create the USOC and associated governing bodies for individual sports. It disallowed these organizations from discriminating against women athletes as the AAU had done. Meaning, as I said, that if women's hockey was removed from USAH the organization would be violating the law.
The authorities that run boxing in the U.S. openly violate federal law all the time through the unenforced Muhammad Ali Act including the main power player in the sport currently Al Haymon, and the government does nothing about it. So it's not like "uh oh! they're violating the Ted Stevens Act!" means the Justice Department will automatically get involved or that anything would actually happen.

rj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-24-2017, 10:26 AM
  #371
offkilter
Registered User
 
offkilter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 572
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
If they have relegation, that technically is a risk every year. If it were to happen, I am willing to bet more than 99% of the US population will not care or even know that it happened.
The IIHF top level world championship is split between two groups of four teams called A and B. Group A is made of the top four teams in the world rankings, and B is made of five through eight. After the group stage the bottom two teams in group B play a best of 3 to decide who gets relegated to division IA.

In the likelyhood that Team USA boycotts the tournament and USAH doesn't ice a team the IIHF will likely forgo the relegation round and relegate team USA as punishment. If USAH fields a team made of players not involved with the boycott then the team is under no threat of relegation.

offkilter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-24-2017, 10:48 AM
  #372
ThatGuy22
Registered User
 
ThatGuy22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,372
vCash: 500
At this point, USAH should just announce and hold open tryouts. Send the 25 best female skaters that show up and try out, and let them play. Do the same thing come next August for the Olympics.

ThatGuy22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-24-2017, 12:21 PM
  #373
TJL48
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: St. Paul
Posts: 348
vCash: 500
I agree. Spend the money on youth programs. That will help grow the game more than paying a team no one watches.

TJL48 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-24-2017, 12:46 PM
  #374
Burke the Legend
Registered User
 
Burke the Legend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,615
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by TJL48 View Post
I agree. Spend the money on youth programs. That will help grow the game more than paying a team no one watches.
Which is what USAH members' dues are supposed to be for. Not subsidize elite players whose hockey skills already got them a fairly valuable free ride through university.

The only justification the ladies would have is if their tournaments made money and they didn't get to see any of it, but that's clearly not the case.

Burke the Legend is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-24-2017, 03:24 PM
  #375
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,670
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by offkilter View Post
The IIHF top level world championship is split between two groups of four teams called A and B. Group A is made of the top four teams in the world rankings, and B is made of five through eight. After the group stage the bottom two teams in group B play a best of 3 to decide who gets relegated to division IA.

In the likelyhood that Team USA boycotts the tournament and USAH doesn't ice a team the IIHF will likely forgo the relegation round and relegate team USA as punishment. If USAH fields a team made of players not involved with the boycott then the team is under no threat of relegation.
Oh well. Not going to lose sleep over it.

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:50 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.