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
03-15-2017, 09:55 PM
  #51
TOGuy14
Registered User
 
TOGuy14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,333
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechire View Post
Literally nowhere do they demand equal pay. I feel like multiple people in this thread haven't even read the article.
Don't know about this particular article but I was reading earlier about a player or players who were complaining their cycles go in four years leading up to the olympics and they only get $1000 a month for the six months leading up to the Olympics, the other 42 months of the cycle they get nothing and it is hard to get by apparently

TOGuy14 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2017, 10:05 PM
  #52
dechire
Janmark Enthusiast
 
dechire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: inconnu
Posts: 13,523
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by TOGuy14 View Post
Don't know about this particular article but I was reading earlier about a player or players who were complaining their cycles go in four years leading up to the olympics and they only get $1000 a month for the six months leading up to the Olympics, the other 42 months of the cycle they get nothing and it is hard to get by apparently
Yes that's what the article said. I'm not sure where you got "equal pay' out of that. The issue is that they're expected to perform at games and tournament during the other 42 months without being paid. They're also expected to train during those months without USAH providing for it.

dechire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2017, 10:07 PM
  #53
McMozesmadness
5-14-6-1
 
McMozesmadness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Edmonton, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,071
vCash: 500
I've never been a supporter of women's sports, but 1000$ a month only for 6 months on Olympic years is a bit ridiculous. However, I highly doubt they make the USA program much money so... what do you expect?

Conflicted on this one.

McMozesmadness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2017, 10:13 PM
  #54
cheswick
Non-registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,737
vCash: 714
It's amateur athletics. Could be wrong but dont most amateur athletes only make money from sponsorships and winning events? Not sure how many get paid from their sports body.

cheswick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2017, 10:26 PM
  #55
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 dechire View Post
How about that they are expected to perform a job without being paid for it? That seems like a pretty good reason. Not "Oh we're not getting paid enough and we want more." They are unpaid for 42 out of 48 months. Would you sign on for that ?
Not sure if "job" is the right description since USA Hockey isn't running the women's national team as a business, nor making a profit off it.

Can anyone provide figures on how the other national federations compensate their women's teams vs the US?

mouser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2017, 10:27 PM
  #56
Gigantor The Goalie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: New London
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,866
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McMozesmadness View Post
I've never been a supporter of women's sports, but 1000$ a month only for 6 months on Olympic years is a bit ridiculous. However, I highly doubt they make the USA program much money so... what do you expect?

Conflicted on this one.
They don't make a lot of money because...wait for it...USA Hockey doesn't bother to market the game. USAH only has themselves to blame, not the players. If USAH really wanted to make things work out they would. Hockey Canada is doing fine with their women's team because they already went through this garbage in 1998. Would still like to see more marketing from them but they are miles ahead of the garbage that USAH is pulling.

Gigantor The Goalie is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2017, 10:29 PM
  #57
slewfoot7
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 5
vCash: 500
They aren't asking for much either. All they want is to have their equipment paid for, a proper wage so they can take time off work to train for the WHC to stay in shape, funding so that there's a development program identical to the men's NDTP, and lastly MARKETING. Get USAH to get off their lazy behinds and actually grow the sport.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/u-s-w...championships/

“None of those requests get addressed in our conversations,” Lamoureux-Morando said. Fair compensation, travel, relocation expenses, pregnancy benefits, worker’s compensation and disability insurance are all on a long list of requests.

“If you’re at the pinnacle of your sport, you should be able to make a living wage doing so,” Lamoureux-Morando said. “We should be able to make a living wage being the top female hockey players in the country and not have to hold second and third jobs.”

I doubt they bring in the money to justify a living wage and I also question being on the national team brings about the day to day labor where they should be compensated with a living wage.

in the article, Duggan says she's hoping this is a change for woman's sport, and being paid and what not. Men's sports can't continually fund women's sports, that's a pretty poor business model.

and yeah-- it's like my 3rd or 4th post, but don't judge my knowledge or experience by my number of posts.

slewfoot7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2017, 10:31 PM
  #58
theaub
34-38-61-10-13-15
 
theaub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,775
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
It's amateur athletics. Could be wrong but dont most amateur athletes only make money from sponsorships and winning events? Not sure how many get paid from their sports body.
Own the Podium has a budget of around $25M per year IIRC to provide targeted athletes/coaches/federations with money.

Not sure what the exact split is between the three, but a guy I know was a pretty good trampoliner (if that's a word) and he got funding for entire Olympic cycles, not just in the immediate run-up to the games.

The USOC does something similar, but as a couple of articles have noted their funding for women's hockey is just the generic 'medal incentives' funding (60K for gold, 25K for silver, 10K for bronze), which is likely because there's no need for the USOC to provide additional funding as the US are basically a cinch to have a 50/50 shot at gold every time.

Would be interested to see if OtP provides the Canadian women's team with any funding, or if Hockey Canada is just rich enough to avoid these issues.

theaub is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2017, 10:43 PM
  #59
dechire
Janmark Enthusiast
 
dechire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: inconnu
Posts: 13,523
vCash: 50
I dug up the relevant portion of the Ted Stevens Act referenced earlier which is actually pretty straightforward albeit buried in a very long and boring law.


Quote:
"SEC. 202. (a) For the sport which it governs, a national governing
body is under duty to—
"(6) provide equitable support and encouragement for participation
by women where separate programs for male and female
athletes are conducted on a national basis;
There are a few things to note about this. It is a law passed by Congress and therefore USAH is legally required to adhere to it. And the entire basis of the act is that these are amateur athlete and any governing body must be non-profit. Meaning that the relative profit derived by women compared to men actually cannot be used as an argument. And the law itself doesn't provide for that argument.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
Not sure if "job" is the right description since USA Hockey isn't running the women's national team as a business, nor making a profit off it.

Can anyone provide figures on how the other national federations compensate their women's teams vs the US?
I used job based on what the person I was replying to was discussing. I'm really not sure what the proper title would be. Are they under some type of contract ? I'd assume so.

The US requires athletes to be amateurs(however they receive team sponsorships and can get stipends). Other nations actually pay their athletes to perform. It's hard to compare the US to other countries in this. If USAH fails to properly market women's hockey to gain sponsorships to pay for things like equipment and training, that's their own failure.

dechire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2017, 11:20 PM
  #60
kabidjan18
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Country: United States
Posts: 2,164
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gigantor The Goalie View Post
They don't make a lot of money because...wait for it...USA Hockey doesn't bother to market the game. USAH only has themselves to blame, not the players. If USAH really wanted to make things work out they would. Hockey Canada is doing fine with their women's team because they already went through this garbage in 1998. Would still like to see more marketing from them but they are miles ahead of the garbage that USAH is pulling.
This comment is wrong on so many levels.

First of all, any comparisons to Canada are completely misguided. Because of our Cold War History, the US has always refused to have any centralization involved with its sporting federations as a juxtaposition to the Russian system. We don't have a Ministry of Sport, and that's why Title IX only applies to collegiate sports. The Canadian government is the single-largest investor in Sport Canada, at roughly 200 million a year. USA Hockey runs on a business model, not like a government program, and naturally the products invested in most heavily are those that bring in the most revenue. Furthermore, Hockey is the most popular sport in Canada, while in America it lags in popularity among women behind soccer, softball, volleyball, basketball and track, without adding in football and baseball for the men. In American hockey as a general rule there isn't that much money to go around, or potential interest both at the spectator level and the participant level (since 60% of revenue comes from membership and fees).

Which brings us to marketing. Marketing is actually not free. It can actually be very expensive. They do market both National Teams to a certain extent. The type of vast and expansive marketing campaign you're suggesting would be wildly expensive. Then there's the question of whether or not the investment would produce any yields. Many sports leagues rise out of a presence of supply, and not demand. Often, there were a number of good athletes in a sport, therefore a league was formed, rather than there were a large body of consumers lacking suitable entertainment options, therefore a league was formed. The entertainment market is heavily saturated if not over-saturated. There is no shortage of entertainment options, and within the sports world male sports have traditionally had much higher returns than female sports. To this day the CWHL does not pay it's athletes salary, and remains a 5 team league. This, in traditionally hockey-crazed Canada, which doesn't struggle to pull in revenue from domestically hosted events like the US does even on the men's side. So not only is a large marketing campaign fiscally impossible, it would probably also be ineffective, and similar measures have taken place in other more popular american sports with little or no return on investment. Furthermore, while the minuscule revenue gains made from such an investment would likely lose USA Hockey money, those small gains would surely be used against them in negotiations against the players.

It's a difficult and frustrating situation, but if solutions were so apparent then measures would have already been taken to implement them, and what USA Hockey is doing may not be morally right but it is not illegal.

kabidjan18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2017, 11:26 PM
  #61
Mork
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,501
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Mork
Any way you look at it, the women aren't getting a fair shake and they deserve better.

The CBC Radio news said Canada will not compete either if the US women sit out. I heard it three times on the hour.

Mork is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2017, 11:32 PM
  #62
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 52,941
vCash: 1020
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mork View Post
The CBC Radio news said Canada will not compete either if the US women sit out.
I wasn't being entirely literal the last time I said it, but would they actually bother going through with the tournament if Canada and the USA both sit out? That would absolutely destroy ticket sales, make the result of the tourney completely illegitimate, and draw nothing but bad publicity to the situation.

tarheelhockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2017, 11:43 PM
  #63
Mork
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,501
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Mork
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
I wasn't being entirely literal the last time I said it, but would they actually bother going through with the tournament if Canada and the USA both sit out? That would absolutely destroy ticket sales, make the result of the tourney completely illegitimate, and draw nothing but bad publicity to the situation.
Maybe it has to come to that.

These women want to build careers in hockey and simply can't wait long enough for that to happen without a gamechanging event, now.

Mork is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2017, 11:50 PM
  #64
Random Forest
aka hockeyfreak7
 
Random Forest's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 15,367
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gigantor The Goalie View Post
It's ridiculous because study's show that if you market the game people will come and watch. USAH has all the resources to properly market the team but they don't. They do the bare minimum and reap all the rewards that come with it.
Citation please.

Random Forest is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2017, 11:52 PM
  #65
TorstenFrings
lebenslang grünweiss
 
TorstenFrings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Bremen
Country: Germany
Posts: 6,800
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
I wasn't being entirely literal the last time I said it, but would they actually bother going through with the tournament if Canada and the USA both sit out? That would absolutely destroy ticket sales, make the result of the tourney completely illegitimate, and draw nothing but bad publicity to the situation.
And if they do play the tournament without both, which one of them is relegated?

TorstenFrings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2017, 11:57 PM
  #66
Tom ServoMST3K
PAINT LIVES!
 
Tom ServoMST3K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Just off 75
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,200
vCash: 949
Not familiar enough with the mechanism's involved to comment.

Too many questions. How does compensation work right now? Everything in the article was vague. Where does this funding fall under? I have no idea how olympic/sport funding works in the united states. Very complicated issue. Hopefully we get an expert to come in and shed some light.

The tournament is doomed business wise without Canada and the United States, but does that matter to the IIHF?

Tom ServoMST3K is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2017, 12:11 AM
  #67
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 dechire View Post
I dug up the relevant portion of the Ted Stevens Act referenced earlier which is actually pretty straightforward albeit buried in a very long and boring law.
Quote:
"SEC. 202. (a) For the sport which it governs, a national governing
body is under duty to—
"(6) provide equitable support and encouragement for participation
by women where separate programs for male and female
athletes are conducted on a national basis;
There are a few things to note about this. It is a law passed by Congress and therefore USAH is legally required to adhere to it. And the entire basis of the act is that these are amateur athlete and any governing body must be non-profit. Meaning that the relative profit derived by women compared to men actually cannot be used as an argument. And the law itself doesn't provide for that argument.
Thanks. I haven't read through the law, but my first impression from the part you quoted is the use of the word "equitable", which does not have the same legal meaning as the word "equal".

Do you know the details of support USA Hockey provides to the men's national team that they don't provide to the women's national team?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dechire View Post
I used job based on what the person I was replying to was discussing. I'm really not sure what the proper title would be. Are they under some type of contract ? I'd assume so.

The US requires athletes to be amateurs(however they receive team sponsorships and can get stipends). Other nations actually pay their athletes to perform. It's hard to compare the US to other countries in this. If USAH fails to properly market women's hockey to gain sponsorships to pay for things like equipment and training, that's their own failure.
USA Hockey has a charter to promote hockey. They don't have an obligation to market hockey in the pursuit of sponsorships.

mouser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2017, 12:27 AM
  #68
kabidjan18
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Country: United States
Posts: 2,164
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
Thanks. I haven't read through the law, but my first impression from the part you quoted is the use of the word "equitable", which does not have the same legal meaning as the word "equal".

Do you know the details of support USA Hockey provides to the men's national team that they don't provide to the women's national team?
The amendment in 98' changed nothing but amateur status and trademarking the title, the rest carries over from the 78' act passed after the hysteria from losing the 72' Basketball final. Suing on the grounds of the "Amateur Sports Act" is kinda hard when none of the players are amateurs anymore, and athletes are literally signing contracts with US sanctioned bodies. If any group could make some headway it would be the USWNT but the differences in compensation structure and base salary between the men and the women make things interesting...

kabidjan18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2017, 01:16 AM
  #69
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 52,941
vCash: 1020
Quote:
Originally Posted by TorstenFrings View Post
And if they do play the tournament without both, which one of them is relegated?
Imagine the looks on Team South Korea's faces when they find out Canada has been relegated to their division.


tarheelhockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2017, 01:56 AM
  #70
snipes
Registered User
 
snipes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,769
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
I wasn't being entirely literal the last time I said it, but would they actually bother going through with the tournament if Canada and the USA both sit out? That would absolutely destroy ticket sales, make the result of the tourney completely illegitimate, and draw nothing but bad publicity to the situation.
For Hockey Canada and USA Hockey.

$1000/month for the 6 months leading up the Olympics and barely anything else during other times of the years prior to the Olympics. That's ridiculous, those are organizations generating huge sums of money.

I stand with the ladies on this one. Glad to see the Canadian ladies showing solidarity with the American girls. They deserve more than what they are currently getting.

No one is saying these girls should make millions or be compensated absurdly. I mean honestly, for example, would $2000/month per player under the National Team umbrella (say 22-28 or so players fall under this umbrella for each of Canada and USA) be that devastating financially to the federations?

Canada v USA women's game have produced some of the most exciting hockey at any level (2010 and 2014 Olympic Gold games were amazing).

snipes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2017, 02:35 AM
  #71
Fenway
Global Moderator
Bruins Historian
 
Fenway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Boston-Cambridge MA
Country: United States
Posts: 22,344
vCash: 7395348
Here is the reality

USA Hockey can turn around and say any player that boycotts Plymouth will not be considered for the Olympics.

Quote:
The players are seeking a contract with USA Hockey that they say “includes appropriate compensation.” The players have had contracts only in Olympic years and are seeking a deal that covers the rest. According to the statement released by a law firm representing players, USA Hockey has paid players $1,000 a month during their six-month Olympic residency period and “virtually nothing” the rest of the time.

USA Hockey released a statement this afternoon: “We acknowledge the players’ concerns and have proactively increased our level of direct support to the Women’s National Team as we prepare for the 2018 Winter Olympic Games,” executive director Dave Ogrean said. “We have communicated that increased level of support to the players’ representatives and look forward to continuing our discussions.”

USA Hockey also said it plans to continue dialogue with the team. But it also could field a replacement team for the event.

“In our role as the national governing body, USA Hockey trains and selects teams for international competition,” USA Hockey president Jim Smith said in the release. “USA Hockey’s role is not to employ athletes, and we will not do so. USA Hockey will continue to provide world-leading support for our athletes.”

The U.S. team was to prepare for the tournament by training at Centre Ice Arena in Traverse City on March 22-28. They were to arrive in Plymouth on the 29th and kick off the tournament March 31, against Canada.

Fenway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2017, 03:18 AM
  #72
snipes
Registered User
 
snipes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,769
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenway View Post
Here is the reality

USA Hockey can turn around and say any player that boycotts Plymouth will not be considered for the Olympics.
I'm sure making them martyrs would really strengthen the position and good will towards USA Hockey that the women shouldn't be compensated better than they currently are.

This story is already on CNN, I wonder how the public perception would view banning these female athletes from the Olympics?

snipes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2017, 03:45 AM
  #73
Fenway
Global Moderator
Bruins Historian
 
Fenway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Boston-Cambridge MA
Country: United States
Posts: 22,344
vCash: 7395348
Quote:
Originally Posted by snipes View Post
I'm sure making them martyrs would really strengthen the position and good will towards USA Hockey that the women shouldn't be compensated better than they currently are.

This story is already on CNN, I wonder how the public perception would view banning these female athletes from the Olympics?
Women's hockey in the US is not a revenue producer at any level especially in the NCAA. Attendance is family and friends which is sad but also the reality.

The rink in Plymouth has 3.500 seats and can squeeze in 1,000 standing room so that isn't a lot of revenue.

http://www6.ticketingcentral.com/V2/...1A0DFB1E&og=-1

TV revenue in the US is next to nothing for women. It's a raw deal for the ladies but nobody is making a killing on this tornament. Hockey Canada at least knows the games will be on TSN. In the US the games will be on NHL Network as a time buy from USA Hockey.

Fenway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2017, 03:50 AM
  #74
snipes
Registered User
 
snipes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,769
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenway View Post
Women's hockey in the US is not a revenue producer at any level especially in the NCAA. Attendance is family and friends which is sad but also the reality.

The rink in Plymouth has 3.500 seats and can squeeze in 1,000 standing room so that isn't a lot of revenue.

http://www6.ticketingcentral.com/V2/...1A0DFB1E&og=-1

TV revenue in the US is next to nothing for women. It's a raw deal for the ladies but nobody is making a killing on this tornament. Hockey Canada at least knows the games will be on TSN. In the US the games will be on NHL Network as a time buy from USA Hockey.
That's also a product of the marketing/money invested into it to a degree.

These women typically work other jobs (at least the ones I know playing in the CWHL have other jobs/careers) while playing at the highest level in their field.

Imagine if they had funding to be full-time hockey players and financial support from USA Hockey and Hockey Canada. Sure, the women will never be as talented, fast, big, or skilled as the Men. At the same time, the Canada v USA women's games are some of the most exciting hockey you can watch. It doesn't even need to be big dollars, my own reflections on this led me to think around $2000/month per player is reasonable. I think at least? Maybe I'm off. I get the revenue generation argument.

I still think more money should be poured into the women's game. Without USA Hockey and Hockey Canada leading the way, we'll never know what potential the women's game could have. At least internationally between the two superpowers, I'd like to see them be compensated more reasonably. I think the product would improve as well, and it's already damn exciting when these two nations get together and battle it out.

snipes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2017, 05:49 AM
  #75
Tom ServoMST3K
PAINT LIVES!
 
Tom ServoMST3K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Just off 75
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,200
vCash: 949
Quote:
Originally Posted by snipes View Post
That's also a product of the marketing/money invested into it to a degree.

These women typically work other jobs (at least the ones I know playing in the CWHL have other jobs/careers) while playing at the highest level in their field.

Imagine if they had funding to be full-time hockey players and financial support from USA Hockey and Hockey Canada. Sure, the women will never be as talented, fast, big, or skilled as the Men. At the same time, the Canada v USA women's games are some of the most exciting hockey you can watch. It doesn't even need to be big dollars, my own reflections on this led me to think around $2000/month per player is reasonable. I think at least? Maybe I'm off. I get the revenue generation argument.

I still think more money should be poured into the women's game. Without USA Hockey and Hockey Canada leading the way, we'll never know what potential the women's game could have. At least internationally between the two superpowers, I'd like to see them be compensated more reasonably. I think the product would improve as well, and it's already damn exciting when these two nations get together and battle it out.
Marketing can't make people like a thing they don't like. While I love watching women's hockey, and would fully support a league with my eyeballs and money, I realize it's a difficult game to market, especially in Canada. If I wanted to watch a "better" hockey product, there are dozens of leagues in Manitoba alone that have an average team better than the Canadian Women's National team.

But honestly, that paragraph above is all the more reason to give out more money to the national teams, to help the women train, as it's tougher for them to make hockey a full time thing.

Tom ServoMST3K 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 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.