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.

Phoenix CXXIX: I buy you out, you don't buy me out

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-28-2017, 01:54 PM
  #26
Llama19
Registered User
 
Llama19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Outside GZ
Country: United States
Posts: 5,413
vCash: 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcwpg View Post
Was thinking about the Suns, the Coyotes, Sarver, Bettman, and Silver.

I just keep thinking that for all the potential talks and potential discussions, etc. of having a shared facility and sharing revenues and maybe even getting a gov't or two to "donate" money to build a new arena somewhere..... IMO it all boils down to one question...

From Sarver.. " What's in it for me? "

And I just don't see any scenario where he signs up for this arrangement, because that's the question... what benefit is there for the Suns? Getting a hearty thank-you from Bettman and a pat on the back for being a good corporate citizen probably isn't going to be enough.
It seems unlikely that Sarver gains any real benefit or even wants to consider a shared arena...

From June 2017...Coyotes' ownership change could clear way to Phoenix arena

To quote:

"Phoenix insiders say Suns owner Robert Sarver wants nothing to do with the Coyotes. LeBlanc's departure might change that [speculation from the reporter]. The team's been mum on a multipurpose arena. Then again, the Suns are in no hurry.

The Suns could get out of their lease at the Phoenix-owned Talking Stick Resort Arena in 2022."

Source: http://www.12news.com/sports/coyotes...rena/448061143

From April 2016 and the reliable source, Craig Morgan...

To quote:

"The answer is simple. Sarver doesn’t want to partner with the Coyotes — not on equal footing. He doesn’t want to split the revenue from a new arena, and he is banking on the belief that he can manipulate this situation in his favor."

Source: https://arizonasports.com/story/6374...clude-coyotes/

If the NHL and NBA Commissioners are talking in the woods...can anyone really hear them...

Llama19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2017, 02:18 PM
  #27
madhi19
Just the tip!
 
madhi19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Cold and Dark place!
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,069
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Feckless Puck View Post
I came up with it two threads ago. Can't go wrong with a Godfather reference, and we all know what happened to Moe Greene...
Poor Moe Greene he did not even get a statue...

madhi19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2017, 02:28 PM
  #28
_Del_
Registered User
 
_Del_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: SkullcrusherMountain
Posts: 8,046
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcwpg View Post
IMO it all boils down to one question...

From Sarver.. " What's in it for me? "

And I just don't see any scenario where he signs up for this arrangement, because that's the question... what benefit is there for the Suns? Getting a hearty thank-you from Bettman and a pat on the back for being a good corporate citizen probably isn't going to be enough.
It does come down to that for a joint arena, but an answer might be that the NBA wants nothing to do with an arena on sovereign tribal land and doesn't want to deal with relocation.
Both leagues are obviously trying to slow the movement away from arenas purchased with the public purse. They might both see that subsidization as inevitably shrinking, and half of a slice of pie and a new building is better than nothing.

I mean don't count me down for anything other than extremely skeptical that you can make the math work favorably for the Coyotes or that Sarver would be anything but reluctant, but if you assume Sarver doesn't have carte blanche to relocate and that neither league is interested in the tribal experiment, then a forced marriage in which they both still get a new arena and share revenue might be the best of bad options. Far easier in the political climate to get a new building built with half or less costs absorbed by the city and an extremely generous management deal shared by the teams than it is to show $400M direct public money to construction AND special tax district repurposing, tax breaks or tax expenditures on top.
An investment of 33% (say $150M) in the arena construction from each party (CoP, Suns, Coyotes), broader revitalization of the downtown entertainment district, and a rather healthy management fee is a lot easier sell for the City of Phoenix than the latter, even if they end up giving away more tax dollars to their tenants/managers that way.
If the mgmt fee goes way up and Sarver's 50% isn't much less than it is now, it might be the best deal available to him.

_Del_ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2017, 03:00 PM
  #29
mesamonster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Scottsdale, AZ.
Country: United States
Posts: 1,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Del_ View Post
It does come down to that for a joint arena, but an answer might be that the NBA wants nothing to do with an arena on sovereign tribal land and doesn't want to deal with relocation.
Both leagues are obviously trying to slow the movement away from arenas purchased with the public purse. They might both see that subsidization as inevitably shrinking, and half of a slice of pie and a new building is better than nothing.

I mean don't count me down for anything other than extremely skeptical that you can make the math work favorably for the Coyotes or that Sarver would be anything but reluctant, but if you assume Sarver doesn't have carte blanche to relocate and that neither league is interested in the tribal experiment, then a forced marriage in which they both still get a new arena and share revenue might be the best of bad options. Far easier in the political climate to get a new building built with half or less costs absorbed by the city and an extremely generous management deal shared by the teams than it is to show $400M direct public money to construction AND special tax district repurposing, tax breaks or tax expenditures on top.
An investment of 33% (say $150M) in the arena construction from each party (CoP, Suns, Coyotes), broader revitalization of the downtown entertainment district, and a rather healthy management fee is a lot easier sell for the City of Phoenix than the latter, even if they end up giving away more tax dollars to their tenants/managers that way.
If the mgmt fee goes way up and Sarver's 50% isn't much less than it is now, it might be the best deal available to him.
Under perfect circumstances you may have a point. However, the circumstances under which the Coyotes are operating financially a $150MM commitment from AB is highly unlikely. I think the only hope Barroway has is a miraculous offer from the Tribe to build him a new arena. Taking the Tribes money will come with a collar so tight I doubt he will be able to breathe. Careful what you wish for!

mesamonster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2017, 03:03 PM
  #30
Fairview
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 870
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Del_ View Post
It does come down to that for a joint arena, but an answer might be that the NBA wants nothing to do with an arena on sovereign tribal land and doesn't want to deal with relocation.
Both leagues are obviously trying to slow the movement away from arenas purchased with the public purse. They might both see that subsidization as inevitably shrinking, and half of a slice of pie and a new building is better than nothing.

I mean don't count me down for anything other than extremely skeptical that you can make the math work favorably for the Coyotes or that Sarver would be anything but reluctant, but if you assume Sarver doesn't have carte blanche to relocate and that neither league is interested in the tribal experiment, then a forced marriage in which they both still get a new arena and share revenue might be the best of bad options. Far easier in the political climate to get a new building built with half or less costs absorbed by the city and an extremely generous management deal shared by the teams than it is to show $400M direct public money to construction AND special tax district repurposing, tax breaks or tax expenditures on top.
An investment of 33% (say $150M) in the arena construction from each party (CoP, Suns, Coyotes), broader revitalization of the downtown entertainment district, and a rather healthy management fee is a lot easier sell for the City of Phoenix than the latter, even if they end up giving away more tax dollars to their tenants/managers that way.
If the mgmt fee goes way up and Sarver's 50% isn't much less than it is now, it might be the best deal available to him.
There are alot of "ifs" in that theory. But the question is "Why would the Suns do anything at this time?" The timeline is way off for them and the bottom line is it would be in the better financial interest of the Suns for the Coyotes to leave. Plus they would have even more leverage with the market if a team has already left Arizona.

Fairview is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2017, 03:15 PM
  #31
_Del_
Registered User
 
_Del_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: SkullcrusherMountain
Posts: 8,046
vCash: 50
I don't think the tribal factor will even play except as leverage against Phoenix. Lots of unknowns there. Barroway also doesn't have any outstanding balance on the league LoC.
So if the only hurdle to Uncle Gary throwing up his middle fingers to the media and f=124 gloriously declaring victory in Phoenix with a joint arena at a press conference with his beaming troll smile, simutaneously allowing Carolina options, AND saving Seattle and/or QC as expansion options is access to $150M on the league's LoC and a slow repayment guaranteed by a small portion of a new healthy management agreement payments, then I have zero doubt what Bettman would choose.

Again, I'm not optimistic on the chances of survival (though I lack your unmitigated glee for the demise), but it's not exactly tinfoil hat territory to see Silver and Bettman both recognizing their chance for a successful new arena in this political climate relies on working together to hammer something out with the one partner who has been outspoken about wanting to make it happen.

_Del_ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2017, 03:32 PM
  #32
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,026
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Del_ View Post
I don't think the tribal factor will even play except as leverage against Phoenix. Lots of unknowns there. Barroway also doesn't have any outstanding balance on the league LoC.
So if the only hurdle to Uncle Gary throwing up his middle fingers to the media and f=124 gloriously declaring victory in Phoenix with a joint arena at a press conference with his beaming troll smile, simutaneously allowing Carolina options, AND saving Seattle and/or QC as expansion options is access to $150M on the league's LoC and a slow repayment guaranteed by a small portion of a new healthy management agreement payments, then I have zero doubt what Bettman would choose.

Again, I'm not optimistic on the chances of survival (though I lack your unmitigated glee for the demise), but it's not exactly tinfoil hat territory to see Silver and Bettman both recognizing their chance for a successful new arena in this political climate relies on working together to hammer something out with the one partner who has been outspoken about wanting to make it happen.
I have quite a bit less enthusiasm.

NHL side.... You are exactly right as far as Bettman is concerned. However, there is the slight problem of Barroway's debt. Bettman would put in the 150M, probably. But, AB has a huge debt load from his purchase, and it will be 30M more by the time your scenario has papers signed. And, 120M more before the arena opens. And, then, your scenario depends on Phoenix paying the subsidy.

NBA side.... Crickets. As stated elsewhere, Sarver doesn't have to do anything. He can sell the team in 4 years of he wants to because there is no arena on the horizon. In the mean time, he gets 4 more years as owner. Want a real tin foil? Sarver sells to Seattle interests in 4 years. In any case, Silver has said nothing.

So, I'm highly skeptical.

MNNumbers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2017, 03:44 PM
  #33
_Del_
Registered User
 
_Del_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: SkullcrusherMountain
Posts: 8,046
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNNumbers View Post

So, I'm highly skeptical.
Oh, I'm highly skeptical they'll get anything done, but it's not exactly rocket science when two teams want a new building and one third party really wants to build them one and can "rennovate" without a referendum or sell a shady subsidy more easily than an obvious tax break or investment -- discussions are taking place.

_Del_ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2017, 03:56 PM
  #34
aqib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,530
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimAnchower View Post
So LeBlanc is Fredo, Barroway is Michael, Chayka is Tom Hagen, Bettman is Vito. Who is Sonny then?
Sonny was a hot head who everyone had to try to muzzle. Clearly that's Darryl Jones.

aqib is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2017, 04:57 PM
  #35
Fairview
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 870
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Del_ View Post
Oh, I'm highly skeptical they'll get anything done, but it's not exactly rocket science when two teams want a new building and one third party really wants to build them one and can "rennovate" without a referendum or sell a shady subsidy more easily than an obvious tax break or investment -- discussions are taking place.
That is the thing..though. The Coyotes want a new building, the Suns , on the other hand, have a pretty good thing going in their current situation and I have not heard Sarver say anything about needing a new building before his current agreement ends. There is nothing in it for the Suns to give up what they currently have and throw in with the Coyotes. If their current agreement was expiring right now, then, I could see the slight possibility of a joint effort to get a dual use facility going...but even then, it would be a last resort for the Suns. In the dual use building they would be in a worse situation than their current agreement. They would be a co-tenant and no longer in complete control of their building.

All of this supposes that if the Coyotes leave..that the market would also be willing to let the Suns leave the market as well, and that is why the Suns need to give in now. I believe that the opposite is true, and that if they lose 1 team, there would be a greater likelihood of the market playing ball with the Suns..for fear of losing a second team.

What discussions are taking place?

Fairview is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2017, 05:25 PM
  #36
madhi19
Just the tip!
 
madhi19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Cold and Dark place!
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,069
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fairview View Post
That is the thing..though. The Coyotes want a new building, the Suns , on the other hand, have a pretty good thing going in their current situation and I have not heard Sarver say anything about needing a new building before his current agreement ends. There is nothing in it for the Suns to give up what they currently have and throw in with the Coyotes. If their current agreement was expiring right now, then, I could see the slight possibility of a joint effort to get a dual use facility going...but even then, it would be a last resort for the Suns. In the dual use building they would be in a worse situation than their current agreement. They would be a co-tenant and no longer in complete control of their building.

All of this supposes that if the Coyotes leave..that the market would also be willing to let the Suns leave the market as well, and that is why the Suns need to give in now. I believe that the opposite is true, and that if they lose 1 team, there would be a greater likelihood of the market playing ball with the Suns..for fear of losing a second team.

What discussions are taking place?

Frankly I don't see any benefit for the Suns. A new building is not going to generate double the revenue that their current building does. Let be generous and say it 25% more, but it probably a lot less the Suns still have to split both their existing revenue and the bump.

This mean you cut your existing revenue by half and cut the bump by half. So for the pleasure of playing in a new building you're now earning 62.5% of what you used to earn... If there was any discussions taking place this is the point when Bob Sarver laughed Garry Bettman and Andrew Barroway out of the room.

madhi19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2017, 05:27 PM
  #37
cobra427
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,371
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fairview View Post
There are alot of "ifs" in that theory. But the question is "Why would the Suns do anything at this time?" The timeline is way off for them and the bottom line is it would be in the better financial interest of the Suns for the Coyotes to leave. Plus they would have even more leverage with the market if a team has already left Arizona.
The Coyotes are staying in AZ. Sarver waiting them out won't work. Phoenix isn't building a stadium for the Suns alone, but they will for both teams. The NHL and the NBA would much rather have a location downtown then on the reservation. Sarver has had a free ride for a long time mostly because of Jerry Colangelo and the original terms of the agreement with the city. Those days are over for sarver and he needs a new arena.

cobra427 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2017, 05:36 PM
  #38
madhi19
Just the tip!
 
madhi19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Cold and Dark place!
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,069
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cobra427 View Post
The Coyotes are staying in AZ. Sarver waiting them out won't work. Phoenix isn't building a stadium for the Suns alone, but they will for both teams. The NHL and the NBA would much rather have a location downtown then on the reservation. Sarver has had a free ride for a long time mostly because of Jerry Colangelo and the original terms of the agreement with the city. Those days are over for sarver and he needs a new arena.
The guy does not need to wait anybody out he already got four more years on his lease. He just need to relocate or threaten to relocate by the end of it. So I put this to you if it a choice between one of the two team who will the city of Phoenix pick?

madhi19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2017, 05:36 PM
  #39
Fairview
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 870
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by madhi19 View Post
Frankly I don't see any benefit for the Suns. A new building is not going to generate double the revenue that their current building does. Let be generous and say it 25% more, but it probably a lot less the Suns still have to split both their existing revenue and the bump.

This mean you cut your existing revenue by half and cut the bump by half. So for the pleasure of playing in a new building you're now earning 62.5% of what you used to earn... If there was any discussions taking place this is the point when Bob Sarver laughed Garry Bettman and Andrew Barroway out of the room.

Yes, I am seeing the same issues as you see. The dual use arena would be a last resort for both the Suns and the Coyotes. This narrative is coming from the Coyotes side for a reason. For them, after condemning GRA and being kicked to the curb by ASU..this really is a last resort.
The only way forward in Arizona is in Glendale. If Bettman/Borrowaway really want to stay in Arizona then that will be the angle they will have to play. I can't wait for the grovelling to begin..It will look good on GB

Fairview is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2017, 05:37 PM
  #40
georgevanlynn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Country:
Posts: 2,559
vCash: 500
Doesn't the Suns current agreement end in 2022? It's not that far off. It will probably take close to that to get the new arena ready anyway.

georgevanlynn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2017, 05:42 PM
  #41
Fairview
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 870
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cobra427 View Post
The Coyotes are staying in AZ. Sarver waiting them out won't work. Phoenix isn't building a stadium for the Suns alone, but they will for both teams. The NHL and the NBA would much rather have a location downtown then on the reservation. Sarver has had a free ride for a long time mostly because of Jerry Colangelo and the original terms of the agreement with the city. Those days are over for sarver and he needs a new arena.
After the Coyotes leave, the market will be far more likely to build for the Suns..rather than risk losing them too. The Suns have a valid binding agreement that they can keep in place. Meanwhile..it is Glendale or bust for the Coyotes...and both Bettman and the new owner have said it won't be Glendale.

Fairview is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2017, 06:00 PM
  #42
GuelphStormer
Registered User
 
GuelphStormer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Guelph, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,265
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Del_ View Post
I don't think the tribal factor will even play except as leverage against Phoenix. Lots of unknowns there. Barroway also doesn't have any outstanding balance on the league LoC.

<snip>
how do you know that?

i've never known if that LoC was supposed to be used for operations or for loan payments but if it's the former, i'd have expected it to have been close to maxed out these past few years. if it's the latter, well ... i guess only a creative accountant could figure that out.

GuelphStormer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2017, 06:56 PM
  #43
Llama19
Registered User
 
Llama19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Outside GZ
Country: United States
Posts: 5,413
vCash: 91
With all this back and forth...will the Coyotes team up with the Suns...or not...
are the two league commissioners talking about a joint arena...or not...
is Mayor Stanton talking with anyone...or no one...

This local sports reporter seems to condense it down to this...

Llama19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2017, 07:09 PM
  #44
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ϶(o)ϵ
Posts: 36,745
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuelphStormer View Post
how do you know that?

i've never known if that LoC was supposed to be used for operations or for loan payments but if it's the former, i'd have expected it to have been close to maxed out these past few years. if it's the latter, well ... i guess only a creative accountant could figure that out.

Someone mentioned that the NHL portion had been paid back -- Freckles perhaps?

I'm not sure, tbh.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2017, 07:12 PM
  #45
TheLegend
Moderator
Megathread Gadfly
 
TheLegend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Orbiting BoH
Country: United States
Posts: 8,590
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Someone mentioned that the NHL portion had been paid back -- Freckles perhaps?

I'm not sure, tbh.
It was posted in the last thread. Think it was in the Forbes article.

TheLegend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2017, 08:30 PM
  #46
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 32,656
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Someone mentioned that the NHL portion had been paid back -- Freckles perhaps?

I'm not sure, tbh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLegend View Post
It was posted in the last thread. Think it was in the Forbes article.
Herres the link to the Forbes article.....
https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeoza.../#1fc0b685178b

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2017, 08:52 PM
  #47
madhi19
Just the tip!
 
madhi19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Cold and Dark place!
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,069
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Herres the link to the Forbes article.....
https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeoza.../#1fc0b685178b
Did somebody ever explain why Barroway choose to move the financing outside the rather generous LOC? This move rang a lot of alarm bells in head.

madhi19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2017, 09:14 PM
  #48
cbcwpg
Registered User
 
cbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Between the Pipes
Country: United Nations
Posts: 10,025
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by georgevanlynn View Post
Doesn't the Suns current agreement end in 2022? It's not that far off. It will probably take close to that to get the new arena ready anyway.
2022 is correct. That's 5 years and yes it could actually take that long to plan out and build a multiuse arena, but then the big question becomes... what does Barroway do for 5 years?

The only practical thing would be to keep playing in Glendale on the year-by-year lease. But that comes with fairly substantial losses in the pocketbook, which is their whole reasoning for wanting a new arena somewhere else. Over 5 years that could add another $100MM or more of debt to the debt the team already has. The only way I see Barroway waiting 5 years and taking that extra debt on would be an ironclad assumption that once the new building is finished, the Coyotes become profitable, all the while sharing revenues with the Suns. How likely is that?

cbcwpg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2017, 09:16 PM
  #49
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 32,656
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by madhi19 View Post
Did somebody ever explain why Barroway choose to move the financing outside the rather generous LOC? This move rang a lot of alarm bells in head.
Just a lot of conjecture, speculation.... no ones talking and the main players havent explained themselves so.... and yes.... major alarm bells....

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2017, 09:31 PM
  #50
Llama19
Registered User
 
Llama19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Outside GZ
Country: United States
Posts: 5,413
vCash: 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcwpg View Post
2022 is correct. That's 5 years and yes it could actually take that long to plan out and build a multiuse arena, but then the big question becomes... what does Barroway do for 5 years?
Take it like a champ...


Quote:
The only practical thing would be to keep playing in Glendale on the year-by-year lease. But that comes with fairly substantial losses in the pocketbook, which is their whole reasoning for wanting a new arena somewhere else. Over 5 years that could add another $100MM or more of debt to the debt the team already has. The only way I see Barroway waiting 5 years and taking that extra debt on would be an ironclad assumption that once the new building is finished, the Coyotes become profitable, all the while sharing revenues with the Suns. How likely is that?
Very, very unlikely as the interest payments, based on the amount(s) he is borrowing...
and without enough revenue coming from staying (for FIVE YEARS! ) at Gila River Arena...
the franchise is not profitable...
the only real profit is what Barroway has already done...
hedging on a resale...

Llama19 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 03:59 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.