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.

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-16-2017, 12:47 PM
  #101
TheSituation
Registered User
 
TheSituation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: New York City
Country: United States
Posts: 4,154
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by number72 View Post
1. No disrespect to them but I don't want my tax dollars going to this. It is bad enough tax money subsidizes artists and other trivial programs that offer little economic benefit to their citizens.

2. These women don't have it as half as bad as sledge hockey athletes or inner city/homeless people who can't even afford to play hockey (or sport for that matter). I don't like state paying their salary or subsidizing a free market that does not value their services. However, I'd be open to giving anyone a scholarship for education as that could generates something productive yet their request benefits themselves primarily (which allows them to pursue sport or any other interest).

3. There are a lot of people who have passions (even non-sporting) that consume time for which they are not compensated or subsidized. This is not the primary role of government or state run body to address. Most every competitive olympic sports is not a "smart" career move aside from perhaps the top few that dominate.

4. Sponsorships: There are a number of companies that sponsor NHL, SHL, KHL leagues and players. Go boycott and start a campaign for their "inequality" of women compared to men. The thing is that is their money and they are free to spend it how they wish.
But that is how you can sway the free market but going after government when there are people who are homeless, starving, medical distress - I'm sorry that doesn't add up.
Time to research your taxes, the USOC isn't funded by taxes.

TheSituation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2017, 12:51 PM
  #102
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,657
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyMomx2 View Post
As far as the inequities within USA Hockey, and the money they spend on the boys vs. the girls, this is what I know from experience at the very youngest ages where they are going to National Development Camps - parent out of pocket costs for each are vastly different. I know what I paid for my son to attend the U15 National Camp and I know what I spent for my daughter to attend the girls U16 camp. It wasn't the same, not even close, even taking into account inflation, cost differences, etc. for the different years they attended. Barely affected our wallet for our son to go. Made some sacrifices for the daughter to go a few years later.
Just to play devil's advocate here. How does USA Hockey get their funding? I honestly do not know. Is it all through sponsorships? Do they get fees from leagues throughout the country? Donations? All? Revenues from tournaments by various USA hockey teams? If it is sponsorships, are the sponsors specifically saying they want the money going towards the boys programs? If member leagues are paying fees, how much are they getting from boys leagues, how much from girls leagues? Are donations coming in that are specified for the boys program, but not the girls?

Secondly, as others have said. This IS a business. If the revenues they are receiving for the Mens World Championships, Mens World Jrs, Mens Olympics etc far exceed that of what they receive for the women's tournaments, well then I think it is understandable where they are going to re-invest that money.

As far as your experience, did you look into why the fees were so different for your son as compared to your daughter? Were the sponsors lining up to support the boys camp, while USA hockey was begging companies to sponsor the girls camp? Does the boys camp receive significant support from the NHL?

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2017, 12:52 PM
  #103
Burke the Legend
Registered User
 
Burke the Legend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,608
vCash: 50
I'm all for equality but how much of the pie should women's hockey get? Women's hockey is a few orders of magnitude smaller than men/boy's hockey, how much of USA hockey's budget should they get to achieve this "respect"? An outsized %?

The men's senior & U20 teams I assume pay for themselves because the world championships make money. Whatever surplus they make is I guess spread around to help fund all of USA hockey's other money losing programs. So how much more of that money does the woman's senior team (which falls into the money losing side of the ledger) deserve? And if they get it, would that be at the expense of youth/junior programs, who did nothing wrong to deserve cuts? The overall budget isn't going to change if these women get their way so their payout would be at someone else's expense.

Overall I get the impression these American women want to be treated like their professional male counterparts even though women's hockey is still very amateur and basically zero revenue generation. They really shouldn't be comparing themselves to NHL athletes, whose league is a 4$ billion business but instead other amateur olympic athletes in relatively obscure sports like hammer throw, field hockey, or short track speed skating. The American women seem to be a lot more zealous about this than the Canadian ones, who seem to be more content with their amateur status. Is it just that the Canadian team is well taken care of by Hockey Canada? I don't know, but we also saw this difference also in the whole CWHL vs NWHL mess, with the Canadians content to have a generally stable high level league that has some money to cover travel/arena expenses and maybe some stuff like uniforms but that's about it but at least gives the ladies a place to compete in high level senior hockey. Meanwhile the NWHL is just some way too ambitious professional venture and from what I gather plans seem to be actively collapsing.

Burke the Legend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2017, 12:53 PM
  #104
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,657
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Team Needed View Post
Pay the women better, market the sport properly, watch as you make more than you spent on marketing and paying them.

If you don't? Fire yourself and let someone who knows how to do their job take yours.
At what point so you stop throwing money into the pit? Are you offering up your checkbook? If you hire someone today to market women's hockey, how long do you give them until they are fired if they are not profitable? How many different people are you prepared to go through and how much money are you willing to throw away?

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2017, 12:58 PM
  #105
TorstenFrings
lebenslang grünweiss
 
TorstenFrings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Bremen
Country: Germany
Posts: 6,795
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyMomx2 View Post
As far as the inequities within USA Hockey, and the money they spend on the boys vs. the girls, this is what I know from experience at the very youngest ages where they are going to National Development Camps - parent out of pocket costs for each are vastly different. I know what I paid for my son to attend the U15 National Camp and I know what I spent for my daughter to attend the girls U16 camp. It wasn't the same, not even close, even taking into account inflation, cost differences, etc. for the different years they attended. Barely affected our wallet for our son to go. Made some sacrifices for the daughter to go a few years later.
Are you saying the 14 year old boys aren't bringing in the big moolah to pay for themselves?

But honestly, thank you for this. It was very interesting to read about someone's actual experience with it.

TorstenFrings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2017, 01:07 PM
  #106
SCBlueLiner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 180
vCash: 500
Serious?

USA Hockey has been pushing girls hockey non-stop for years. Pickup any issue of USA Hockey Magazine and you will see this. If you have kids playing youth hockey you see this. If you are involved in youth hockey at your local association, or at the affiliate or district level you see this. Girls hockey is being pushed and supported by USA Hockey in this country, as much as it can be. Yes, there is no NTDP for girls. Also consider, there is no corresponding league like the USHL for a girls NTDP team to play in.

I say all this because do you know how this is playing out for those of us who are on the ground level, involved with USA Hockey, have kids playing under the USAH umbrella? Not very well. Not very well for the ladies, that is. They are making USA Hockey look bad and embarrassing all of American hockey right now. Now the social justice warriors will come out and have a field day without really knowing any of the facts, any of the structures, or anything else about USA Hockey.

One of two things will happen, I see our USA Hockey registration fee going up to pay for the women's national team's demands, or I see the men's USNTDP going away. Neither of which is going to play well with those of us in the American hockey public. BTW, the USNTDP is funded with money from the NHL, not from USA Hockey.

SCBlueLiner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2017, 01:10 PM
  #107
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,657
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyMomx2 View Post
As the Mom of two female hockey players, one who is just finishing up her college career, one who has attended a National Camp and a son who has attended a National Camp, as well as a former professional in the world of mens hockey, I can tell you folks who think this is about money for these ladies pockets couldn't be more wrong than you are. This is about the girls game period and the money and focus that USA Hockey lacks on the girls side of the game starting at the beginner level. The differences in how the boys/men are treated vs. the girls/womens would have had every NCAA athletic school in the country in hot water over Title IX. USA Hockey could stand to take a look at Hockey Canada and how they have done right by their girls and women's national teams and programs.
When they are saying they want to be paid in non-Olympic years, then I must beg to differ. It may not all be about their salaries, but obviously that is part of the issue.

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2017, 01:20 PM
  #108
SCBlueLiner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 180
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyMomx2 View Post
As the Mom of two female hockey players, one who is just finishing up her college career, one who has attended a National Camp and a son who has attended a National Camp, as well as a former professional in the world of mens hockey, I can tell you folks who think this is about money for these ladies pockets couldn't be more wrong than you are. This is about the girls game period and the money and focus that USA Hockey lacks on the girls side of the game starting at the beginner level. The differences in how the boys/men are treated vs. the girls/womens would have had every NCAA athletic school in the country in hot water over Title IX. USA Hockey could stand to take a look at Hockey Canada and how they have done right by their girls and women's national teams and programs.
I have trouble understanding this. In the USA Hockey youth structure there is Youth hockey and there is Girls hockey. Notice there is no Boys hockey. That is because Youth hockey is for both boys and girls and Girls hockey is exclusively for girls. As I stated in a previous post, hockey for girls is being pushed by USA Hockey and pushed pretty hard at the youngest levels. It is seen as an opportunity for growth.

SCBlueLiner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2017, 01:36 PM
  #109
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 52,831
vCash: 1020
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCBlueLiner View Post
I have trouble understanding this. In the USA Hockey youth structure there is Youth hockey and there is Girls hockey. Notice there is no Boys hockey. That is because Youth hockey is for both boys and girls and Girls hockey is exclusively for girls. As I stated in a previous post, hockey for girls is being pushed by USA Hockey and pushed pretty hard at the youngest levels. It is seen as an opportunity for growth.
Yeah, I'm a little confused by that as well. My boys play in a league with girls -- same costs across the board. Maybe the development paths diverge into differently-priced programs at some point? If so, that's pretty messed up.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2017, 01:55 PM
  #110
hlrsr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,527
vCash: 500
Wouldn't the women be better off pitching what a great business idea investing in women's hockey is instead of invoking identity politics?

Hm, actually, maybe not.

hlrsr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2017, 01:56 PM
  #111
SCBlueLiner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 180
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
Yeah, I'm a little confused by that as well. My boys play in a league with girls -- same costs across the board. Maybe the development paths diverge into differently-priced programs at some point? If so, that's pretty messed up.
Not on the USA Hockey level. You pay the same registration fee for boys as you do for girls. Maybe you are referring to the USA Hockey Development Camp system? I would answer that it becomes an economies of scale. There is a camp system for each but I would say that because of the larger number of boys in the system there is a need for more camps for boys to accommodate the larger numbers of players, and with your fixed costs being equal, because there are more boys than girls that they price per boy is going to be lower than the price per girl.

I know last year when my son advanced to a USA Hockey district camp there was a separate and identical girls camp being conducted at the same facility.

SCBlueLiner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2017, 02:00 PM
  #112
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 18,392
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
Just to play devil's advocate here. How does USA Hockey get their funding? I honestly do not know. Is it all through sponsorships? Do they get fees from leagues throughout the country? Donations? All? Revenues from tournaments by various USA hockey teams? If it is sponsorships, are the sponsors specifically saying they want the money going towards the boys programs? If member leagues are paying fees, how much are they getting from boys leagues, how much from girls leagues? Are donations coming in that are specified for the boys program, but not the girls?

Secondly, as others have said. This IS a business. If the revenues they are receiving for the Mens World Championships, Mens World Jrs, Mens Olympics etc far exceed that of what they receive for the women's tournaments, well then I think it is understandable where they are going to re-invest that money.

As far as your experience, did you look into why the fees were so different for your son as compared to your daughter? Were the sponsors lining up to support the boys camp, while USA hockey was begging companies to sponsor the girls camp? Does the boys camp receive significant support from the NHL?
USA Hockey's 2014 financial report:

Revenue:
- $25.2m from membership fees
- $3.9m from tournaments & exhibitions (note: this is revenue, not net profit)
- $10.2m from Related Organizations (note: this is not all pure cash, some of it is equipment, services, or other non-cash goods)
- $3.6m other gifts/grants/contributions
- Total Revenue $43m

Notable Expense Items:
- $2.8m grants to other hockey organizations (e.g. local hockey programs)
- $1.0m compensation for officers/directors/trustees
- $6.8m other salaries and wages (note: only about 1/3rd of this is key central office employees)
- $2.2m other employee benefits/payroll taxes
- $0.6m Advertising and promotion
- $0.8m Office expenses
- $1.7m other service fees
- $9.2m Travel and Occupancy (I presume the majority of this is travel for national teams)
- $6.1m Insurance (note: this is mainly insurance for amateur hockey players that are members of USA Hockey)
- $0.9m Uniforms
- Total Expenses $41.4m

mouser is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2017, 02:08 PM
  #113
Tom ServoMST3K
Eff the DH
 
Tom ServoMST3K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Just off 75
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,185
vCash: 949
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
USA Hockey's 2014 financial report:

Revenue:
- $25.2m from membership fees
- $3.9m from tournaments & exhibitions (note: this is revenue, not net profit)
- $10.2m from Related Organizations (note: this is not all pure cash, some of it is equipment, services, or other non-cash goods)
- $3.6m other gifts/grants/contributions
- Total Revenue $43m

Notable Expense Items:
- $2.8m grants to other hockey organizations (e.g. local hockey programs)
- $1.0m compensation for officers/directors/trustees
- $6.8m other salaries and wages (note: only about 1/3rd of this is key central office employees)
- $2.2m other employee benefits/payroll taxes
- $0.6m Advertising and promotion
- $0.8m Office expenses
- $1.7m other service fees
- $9.2m Travel and Occupancy (I presume the majority of this is travel for national teams)
- $6.1m Insurance (note: this is mainly insurance for amateur hockey players that are members of USA Hockey)
- $0.9m Uniforms
- Total Expenses $41.4m
Nice find.

Tom ServoMST3K is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2017, 02:12 PM
  #114
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 52,831
vCash: 1020
25% of their expenses going toward employee compensation is really not a good look.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2017, 02:15 PM
  #115
dechire
Janmark Enthusiast
 
dechire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: inconnu
Posts: 13,521
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
25% of their expenses going toward employee compensation is really not a good look.
And spending about 1.5% on marketing seems like something that could easily improve.

dechire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2017, 02:25 PM
  #116
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 18,392
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
25% of their expenses going toward employee compensation is really not a good look.
It depends on what those employees are doing. $6.2m of that money is categorized as "Program Service Expenses". Which should mean salaries directly related to providing the services for which the non-profit organization exists. I would guess things like salaries for the NTDP coaches and support employees are among the items included there.

Keep in mind, this isn't a charity that raises funds and has administration or fundraising costs, before distributing the net proceeds. Part of USA Hockey's mission includes providing services.

mouser is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2017, 02:32 PM
  #117
JKG33
Leafs & Kings
 
JKG33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 787
vCash: 500
Heres my take on this:

I've spent the last few years playing Junior A hockey, even had a season playing for one of the best teams in the country. Yet as a mens goalie my absolute ceiling is probably a backup in NCAA D3 (maybe a starter by my junior season if I'm lucky). In the offseasons I trained with a somewhat large group of both men and women, ages typically range from 16-24. We did both on ice and off ice together. The men are all Jr A calibre players where the absolute best of the group had a cup of coffee in the USHL. A few of the older men are in D3. As for the women of the group, every single one of them is NCAA D1 calibre. They're all currently playing D1 or are still in high school and will be headed to a D1 school in the near future. Both the men and women train the same (with the women using lighter weights off ice, obviously). On the ice its clear that the men are the better players. Yet when it comes to schooling, the women all have complete full ride scholarships. At best a few of the men get preference for partial-ride academic scholarships. One guy has a full ride, but thats from playing a different sport for the school in addition to D3 hockey.

Now theres another group that trains opposite us. When we're on the ice they're doing workouts, and vice versa. This group is made up of all men. They play BCHL, USHL, WHL, CIS, NCAA D1, AHL, European Pro, with the absolute best being fringe NHLers. None of these guys pay to play. At worst they're playing for free, at best they're getting scholarships or actually getting paid.

Where am I going with this? The women aren't even the best players in my group, where the low end men (like myself) were in junior A pay to play. Yet despite their skill level they want to be treated like the opposite group, the professionals. I don't think they realize how good they really have it. Only a few hundred people on this earth are good enough to play high level professional hockey. I've dedicated my whole life until I was 22 to playing hockey, and the best offers I got was to play not quite scholarship worthy D3. Any woman that puts in the same amount of effort I did is almost certainly guaranteed a D1 scholarship.

A woman comes out of it as a 22 or 23 year old with a degree fully paid for. I came out of it a 22 year old freshman, one that isn't playing hockey anymore. However like anything else, men are typically more boom or bust, while women are the safer medium. Had the cards fell a bit different maybe I'm coming out ahead playing pro hockey. Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining. I had a great few years of juniors. But I would've loved nothing more than to hang 'em up after having a university degree fully paid for.

tl;dr: If you want to get paid like the men, try being competitive with the men who get paid. But why should the women get anything when they routinely lose to teams of high school boys?


Last edited by JKG33: 03-16-2017 at 02:58 PM.
JKG33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2017, 02:42 PM
  #118
kabidjan18
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Country: United States
Posts: 2,164
vCash: 500
2015-16 Annual Report
http://assets.ngin.com/attachments/d...eport_1516.pdf
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/15/s...pionships.html
62% of revenue comes from membership dues. 542,583 total members, New York Times reports that 73,000 of these members are women as of the 2016-17 cycle, so if we take for simple math 75k out of 550k (reflecting the growth model) women make up roughly 13.6% of membership. Then there's corporate sponsorship, then international tournaments.

kabidjan18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2017, 02:51 PM
  #119
dechire
Janmark Enthusiast
 
dechire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: inconnu
Posts: 13,521
vCash: 50
It's hard to believe the arguments in this thread that women should receive less support because they don't provide as much tournament income when their membership fees provide more revenue for USAH than all tournaments combined do.

dechire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2017, 02:57 PM
  #120
Mightygoose
Registered User
 
Mightygoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Ajax, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,598
vCash: 500
USA Hockey has set a deadline for 5pm today (an hour from now) to revoke (or decide) the boycott

http://www.tsn.ca/deadline-set-for-u...ycott-1.697033

Then what, they get locked out?...scab players?

Something tells me, this 'deadline' is not so firm

Mightygoose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2017, 02:59 PM
  #121
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 52,831
vCash: 1020
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
Keep in mind, this isn't a charity that raises funds and has administration or fundraising costs, before distributing the net proceeds. Part of USA Hockey's mission includes providing services.
That's a good point. My mind went straight to the charity model, not taking services into consideration.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightygoose View Post
USA Hockey has set a deadline for 5pm today (an hour from now) to revoke the boycott

http://www.tsn.ca/deadline-set-for-u...ycott-1.697033

Then what, they get locked out?...scab players?

Something tells me, this 'deadline' is not so firm
With this sort of thing, you either have a deadline or you don't. If they draw a line and don't hold it, they lose.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2017, 03:04 PM
  #122
kabidjan18
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Country: United States
Posts: 2,164
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kabidjan18 View Post
2015-16 Annual Report
http://assets.ngin.com/attachments/d...eport_1516.pdf
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/15/s...pionships.html
62% of revenue comes from membership dues. 542,583 total members, New York Times reports that 73,000 of these members are women as of the 2016-17 cycle, so if we take for simple math 75k out of 550k (reflecting the growth model) women make up roughly 13.6% of membership. Then there's corporate sponsorship, then international tournaments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechire View Post
It's hard to believe the arguments in this thread that women should receive less support because they don't provide as much tournament income when their membership fees provide more revenue for USAH than all tournaments combined do.
What? Citation needed...

kabidjan18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2017, 03:04 PM
  #123
dechire
Janmark Enthusiast
 
dechire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: inconnu
Posts: 13,521
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightygoose View Post
USA Hockey has set a deadline for 5pm today (an hour from now) to revoke (or decide) the boycott

http://www.tsn.ca/deadline-set-for-u...ycott-1.697033

Then what, they get locked out?...scab players?

Something tells me, this 'deadline' is not so firm
Would it be possible to get replacement players at this point ? Two weeks before the tournament and they'll need to secure insurance, make travel arrangements and also find enough players on this short notice.

dechire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2017, 03:08 PM
  #124
dechire
Janmark Enthusiast
 
dechire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: inconnu
Posts: 13,521
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by kabidjan18 View Post
What? Citation needed...
3.6m(approximate membership fees) vs 2.4m(tournament revenue[not profit]). The source is their annual report.

dechire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2017, 03:08 PM
  #125
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 52,831
vCash: 1020
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechire View Post
Would it be possible to get replacement players at this point ? Two weeks before the tournament and they'll need to secure insurance, make travel arrangements and also find enough players on this short notice.
Not to mention it would be a complete joke to have a team of scabs in an international tournament. I'm not sure if it would be worse than not having a team at all, but it would be bad.

tarheelhockey 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 04:32 PM.

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.