HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Other Leagues > The AHL
The AHL Discuss the American Hockey League; its players, teams, and games.

BOG Meeting

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-17-2006, 03:50 PM
  #51
Majik1987
I know kung fu...
 
Majik1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Northern Illinois
Country: United States
Posts: 4,186
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH
Why did the AHL meet w/ the Robinsons then if the Robinsons set the ticket limit
To assist them with finding an NHL affiliate. Who knows? How about some support for your position that the meeting was used to communicate a threshold to the Robinsons? Maybe a newspaper article that clearly states that the AHL imposed a ticket threshold? It would still beg the question why Worcester wouldn't be held to the same standard.

The rest of the post is gibberish.

Majik1987 is offline  
Old
05-17-2006, 04:16 PM
  #52
CHRDANHUTCH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Auburn, Maine
Country: United States
Posts: 14,463
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to CHRDANHUTCH Send a message via MSN to CHRDANHUTCH Send a message via Yahoo to CHRDANHUTCH
Quote:
Originally Posted by Majik1987
When will you get it that the AHL had nothing to do with the 2,000 season tickets sold threshold for re-entering the league? Worcester only sold 1,308 season tickets as of Christmas 2005 during their drive, and yet they are getting an AHL team next season. Stay with me now, this is the important part...Why would the AHL hold Cincinnati and Cleveland to a higher standard than Worcester? The answer is they wouldn't. The Robinsons had a self-imposed threshold of 2,000; and decided that anything less would mean no hockey.



In reality, there is no question at all. Dan Gilbert wants to bring hockey to Cleveland to fill dates the Q. He hasn't set a season ticket threshold because he doesn't care about pre-sold season tickets. He just doesn't want to have an empty building with no events, so he is bring back hockey to fill dates.


If this is the route you want to travel down, you could say that the AHL might fold and there is no hockey for anyone next season. Countless other minor leagues have folded, so why not the AHL? I'm certainly not syaing that it will, but by using this approach of "Anything can backfire at any given time" why should anyone count on the AHL being around next season. This isn't a personal attack, I'm just pointing out that you have to make a reasonable conclusion based on the circumstances at hand.


The Robinsons set a threshold for season tickets, they didn't meet that standard, so they decided not to pursue reviving the franchise. Robinson could have gone forward without meeting his target, just like Worcester, but he made a conscious business decision not to go forward. Calling this a backfire that could happen at any time really doesn't consider the facts and circumstances around the case.
The Difference Between why IS Worcester acquiring the Cleveland franchise, because they lost the Ice Cats, remember St. Louis, Majik, the 2 major reasons why is LA & Anaheim are the Sharks principle rivals, and the City of Worcester got involved in marketing the city to a prospective hockey franchise.

Worcester was sold behind the Fans' backs, the Blues sold the franchise, AND WHY were the Ice Cats transferred to Peoria during the season, Majik, & why was the Journal Star so gleeful that they could break the news to get AHL hockey at the expense of Worcester and how does that compute w/ the Robinsons' intention to restart the Cincinnati franchise, then, normally sales and transfers aren't announced until May, once everyone found out Worcester was sold, the city wasn't involved in the Ice Cats scenario until after the Ice Cats left. Dave Andrews himself stated there was going to be no hockey in Worcester in 2005-06 when asked.

Cincinnati wasn't sold, wasn't transferred, can you explain why, BECAUSE I'm comparing Cincinnati to Cleveland in these respects:

Cincinnati:

Robinsons own the Cincinnati Gardens, and dormant AHL Franchise.

Cleveland:

Gilbert owns the Utah franchise and the Arena, but that's not the real reason hockey is taking a year sabbatical---You're forgetting the concerts, trade shows and other activities that use Quicken Loans Arena to fill in the gaps.

It's like other buildings have had to modify their event schedules to accomodate hockey or other sporting events.

CHRDANHUTCH is online now  
Old
05-17-2006, 05:01 PM
  #53
CHRDANHUTCH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Auburn, Maine
Country: United States
Posts: 14,463
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to CHRDANHUTCH Send a message via MSN to CHRDANHUTCH Send a message via Yahoo to CHRDANHUTCH
Barons website

discontinued

CHRDANHUTCH is online now  
Old
05-17-2006, 09:43 PM
  #54
Timl2009
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Canton, Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 87
vCash: 500
Dont even know why I'm responding but,
Dan Gilbert could easily have just decided to play next year, He just made a prudent decision not to..If You actually ever read around about Gilbert he never does anything half hearted..He built a business from the ground up, sold it and reacquired it at a huge profit..Not to mention what he's done with the Cavaliers (LeBron notwithstanding) Why would he go to the expense of acquiring an AHL team if he didnt intend to do things right. BTW to correct an assumption, Gilbert only manages Quicken Loans Arena. He does not own it..Why would the AHL sell a franchise to Gilbert only to make him jump through hoops to operate it..They know Gilbert has money and they can see he has learned how to operate a sports franchise..And has the best chance of operating a team in Cleveland and making it a success..

Timl2009 is offline  
Old
05-17-2006, 09:50 PM
  #55
Majik1987
I know kung fu...
 
Majik1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Northern Illinois
Country: United States
Posts: 4,186
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH
The Difference Between why IS Worcester acquiring the Cleveland franchise, because they lost the Ice Cats, remember St. Louis, Majik, the 2 major reasons why is LA & Anaheim are the Sharks principle rivals, and the City of Worcester got involved in marketing the city to a prospective hockey franchise.
So what you're saying is that Worcester, despite having fewer than 2,000 season ticket holders, the magic number that you purport the AHL set for Cincinnati, still got a franchise because

a) The Ice Cats went to Peoria,
b) the LA and Anahiem affiliates are near by, and
c) the City got involved in the process.

I just want to make sure I have those correct because basically, your saying that had the Cincinnati franchise actually left rather than go dormant, they would have a better chance of getting another franchise?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH
Worcester was sold behind the Fans' backs, the Blues sold the franchise, AND WHY were the Ice Cats transferred to Peoria during the season, Majik, & why was the Journal Star so gleeful that they could break the news to get AHL hockey at the expense of Worcester
So what? Lots of cities have lost a franchises, that doesn't automatically mean they get another one. By this logic, I can't see why you would purport that the Cleveland franchise isn't a done deal. According to this paragraph, Worcester got another franchise because the deal was announced before the end of the season. Well, so was the Cleveland franchise move. Seems that they should be a lock to get another franchise based on this thought process.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH
and how does that compute w/ the Robinsons' intention to restart the Cincinnati franchise, then, normally sales and transfers aren't announced until May, once everyone found out Worcester was sold, the city wasn't involved in the Ice Cats scenario until after the Ice Cats left. Dave Andrews himself stated there was going to be no hockey in Worcester in 2005-06 when asked.
Again, seems like with this logic, Cleveland is a lock for 2006-07. They will wait a year just like Worcester. Why do you keep preaching to Cleveland fans not to get their hopes up? Using your thought process, they should never have worried about getting another team. It was a done deal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH
Cincinnati wasn't sold, wasn't transferred, can you explain why,
Yeah, because Robinson still hoped to have a team there. Proved that with the season ticket drive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH
BECAUSE I'm comparing Cincinnati to Cleveland in these respects:

Cincinnati:

Robinsons own the Cincinnati Gardens, and dormant AHL Franchise.

Cleveland:

Gilbert owns the Utah franchise and the Arena, but that's not the real reason hockey is taking a year sabbatical---
No, you've said that...
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH
the AHL will set down guidelines for Gilbert to follow
Most likely, some sort of season ticket number, just like Cinicinnati, according to you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH
[Hutch changes topic]You're forgetting the concerts, trade shows and other activities that use Quicken Loans Arena to fill in the gaps.

It's like other buildings have had to modify their event schedules to accomodate hockey or other sporting events.[/Hutch changes topic]
This was not what you said earlier. In your post earlier, you said...

Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH
What will they say if the AHL ALL of a sudden reverses and revokes the Cleveland franchise, because of what happened w/ the Robinsons, has Gilbert promised anything to ensure that indeed pro hockey will be in Cleveland, not the promises.....
Quite clearly, you aren't talking about scheduling here. You are talking about the revocation of the franchise because "of what happened w/ the Robinsons" so I guess you mean that Glbert won't get enough season tickets sold. What does that have to do with scheduling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH
the AHL will set down guidelines for Gilbert to follow, the ? BECOMES can he follow through, nothing is a guarantee
The AHL has nothing to do with scheduling "concerts, trade shows and other activities" so there shouldn't be any problems there. Again, you weren't referring to scehduling, so why do you bring it up now? I'll tell you; because this is the classic Hutch duck and weave. When he is proven wrong, he obscures the matter by throwing in all kinds of other details. Nice try.

Majik1987 is offline  
Old
05-17-2006, 11:47 PM
  #56
CHRDANHUTCH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Auburn, Maine
Country: United States
Posts: 14,463
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to CHRDANHUTCH Send a message via MSN to CHRDANHUTCH Send a message via Yahoo to CHRDANHUTCH
Quote:
Originally Posted by Majik1987
So what you're saying is that Worcester, despite having fewer than 2,000 season ticket holders, the magic number that you purport the AHL set for Cincinnati, still got a franchise because

a) The Ice Cats went to Peoria,
b) the LA and Anahiem affiliates are near by, and
c) the City got involved in the process.

I just want to make sure I have those correct because basically, your saying that had the Cincinnati franchise actually left rather than go dormant, they would have a better chance of getting another franchise?


So what? Lots of cities have lost a franchises, that doesn't automatically mean they get another one. By this logic, I can't see why you would purport that the Cleveland franchise isn't a done deal. According to this paragraph, Worcester got another franchise because the deal was announced before the end of the season. Well, so was the Cleveland franchise move. Seems that they should be a lock to get another franchise based on this thought process.



Again, seems like with this logic, Cleveland is a lock for 2006-07. They will wait a year just like Worcester. Why do you keep preaching to Cleveland fans not to get their hopes up? Using your thought process, they should never have worried about getting another team. It was a done deal.


Yeah, because Robinson still hoped to have a team there. Proved that with the season ticket drive.



No, you've said that...

Most likely, some sort of season ticket number, just like Cinicinnati, according to you.


This was not what you said earlier. In your post earlier, you said...


Quite clearly, you aren't talking about scheduling here. You are talking about the revocation of the franchise because "of what happened w/ the Robinsons" so I guess you mean that Glbert won't get enough season tickets sold. What does that have to do with scheduling.


The AHL has nothing to do with scheduling "concerts, trade shows and other activities" so there shouldn't be any problems there. Again, you weren't referring to scehduling, so why do you bring it up now? I'll tell you; because this is the classic Hutch duck and weave. When he is proven wrong, he obscures the matter by throwing in all kinds of other details. Nice try.

You are bringing up the Robinsons in regards to Worcester, Majik, which is an incorrect comparison, the Worcester deal was already done before the Robinsons lost Anaheim as part of of the franchise shuffle, ask 210, Majik, why Worcester did not have a franchise this season & When Cincinnati lost Anaheim, under by-laws, the Robinsons had no choice but they had no option but to suspend which in your logic of your post, are u now telling those fans in Worcester the Sharks shouldn't be
in Worcester because of a failed ticket drive, & Worcester doesn't deserve a second chance because the Ice Cats were sold and transferred, who made you the arbiter and President of the AHL, Majik.

The city of Worcester was requested to get involved in the negotiations to bring hockey back once it was determined the Sharks couldn't extend the lease w/ Gilbert in Cleveland, that move dictated the announcement several months ago where the Sharks were heading toward....

Andrews, was asked last year about this timeframe, stated there would be no hockey in DCU Center or in Worcester nor would another league be interested in Worcester, no one knew then that San Jose was going to select Worcester beginning this October until the Sharks announced it.

the move by St. Louis is the one that frosts me and still does because it basically stated that Worcester isn't a great city, but why the Blues went there from Peoria in 1994, only to take the franchise back from a fanbase that did support it and reject potential owners in Worcester just because of their predisposition w/ Peoria because of a business decision which dropped the Rivermen to another league.

The lease was up in Cleveland, I don't think Worcester got that chance before renewal, I may be wrong, but that's not the issue...

I equate and feel for those fans in Worcester, because as several other cities know, ask Binghamton fans sometime did they like their franchise transferred to Hartford in 1996, because the Rangers wanted to move there and they waited 5 years before Ottawa gave them a team back, Why does Portland play Providence so much since Washington moved from Baltimore, in 1993 because Providence bolted while Portland waited to bring a team here (sound familiar just like Gilbert's acquisition was approved yesterday) Did we deserve that fate?

The reason I'm warning Cleveland fans to be cautious---is we all thought Cincinnati would be back this October, no one blames the Robinsons, most of the time once a franchise files for suspension, I don't think we'll ever truly know the actual reasons and we're not exactly sure that the Robinsons have given up except they haven't declared ther intention to sell their franchise, look at the Cyclones franchise, Majik, how many times has that franchise failed over the years, and all of a sudden after 2 years of no hockey, they happen to come storming out of hibernation.

CHRDANHUTCH is online now  
Old
05-18-2006, 12:28 AM
  #57
Timl2009
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Canton, Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 87
vCash: 500
Minor Hockey teams move all the time..anyone who follows the Minors for any length of time knows that...That said, I am absolutely certain Dan Gilbert will have a team on Quicken Loans Arena Ice in 2007-08..

Timl2009 is offline  
Old
05-18-2006, 06:17 AM
  #58
Dougmustgo*
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 490
vCash: 500
TSN Cleveland Article

Tsn talks about the new Cleveland team.....

http://www.tsn.ca/ahl/news_story/?ID=166124&hubname=ahl

Dougmustgo* is offline  
Old
05-18-2006, 11:34 AM
  #59
Majik1987
I know kung fu...
 
Majik1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Northern Illinois
Country: United States
Posts: 4,186
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH
You are bringing up the Robinsons in regards to Worcester, Majik, which is an incorrect comparison,
Why is it incorrect? I would think that there has to be a consistent logic for teams to be granted or denied a franchise if the AHL set the 2,000 season ticket bar. Worcester didn't meet it; gets a franchise. Cincinnati didn't meet it but had more tickets sold, doesn't get a franchise. Are you saying the AHL front office is playing favorites?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH
the Worcester deal
Which Worcester deal? Them gaining or losing the franchise?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH
was already done before the Robinsons lost Anaheim as part of of the franchise shuffle,
Yes, the Worcester IceCats franchise left before Cincinnati. No, the new Sharks franchise was not set to go to Worcester until AFTER Anaheim parted ways with Cincinnati.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH
ask 210,
Little help, 210? Do you know what he is referring? Hutch can't do his own research.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH
Majik, why Worcester did not have a franchise this season
Because it left.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH
& When Cincinnati lost Anaheim, under by-laws, the Robinsons had no choice but they had no option but to suspend
OK. But Robinson has said he has conversations with NHL teams that could lead to an affiation. I can't find the quote right now, but during one of the Love-fest articles, he said things were brewing, they only needed to reach the 2,000 season ticket holder mark, which was set by himself (Robinson).

Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH
which in your logic of your post, are u now telling those fans in Worcester the Sharks shouldn't be in Worcester because of a failed ticket drive,
I'm not the one saying that the AHL set the threshold; you are. Please keep your position straight. I have said that it was NOT the AHL that set the threshold, but the Robinsons. To prove this point, I have asked why there would be a different standard for Worcester and Cincinnati. If the AHL set the standard, then neither should have a franchise because neither one made it 2,000 season tickets. However, as the Robinsons set the threshold, then it doesn't matter how many season ticket holder Worcester had because Cincinnati had a SELF IMPOSED threshold. The only way you reconcile your position is to say the AHL head office, Board of Governors, and Dave Andrews are playing favorites. They imposed some limit on Cincinnati, but not on Worcester. Is this what you are saying?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH
& Worcester doesn't deserve a second chance because the Ice Cats were sold and transferred,
Didn't say that. I'm only trying to get you to answer why, according to you, Cincinnati had a 2,000 season ticket holder requirement, and Worcester did not. Along with that, in YOUR comparison of Cincinnati and Cleveland, you are inferring that Dan Gibert will have a similar season ticket threshold, so if that is not met, there will be no hockey in Cleveland. Again, if Worcester didn't have an AHL imposed threshold, why would Cleveland?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH
who made you the arbiter and President of the AHL, Majik.
No one. Don't claim to be. I get all my info from newspapers and provides quotes and links to support any positions I hold. Why do you make up stuff, try to pass it off as authentic knowledge, and then try to obscure the subject when you are asked to support it with a source?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH
The city of Worcester was requested to get involved in the negotiations to bring hockey back once it was determined the Sharks couldn't extend the lease w/ Gilbert in Cleveland,
By whom? How about a newspaper article or website to support this supposition?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH
that move dictated the announcement several months ago where the Sharks were heading toward....
OK, and...what? They didn't get 2,000 season ticket holders. Why did they get a franchise if this is an AHL guideline, as you have purported?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH
Andrews, was asked last year about this timeframe, stated there would be no hockey in DCU Center or in Worcester nor would another league be interested in Worcester,
Link? Source? Newspaper article to support this? How would he know? And why is this relevant?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH
no one knew then that San Jose was going to select Worcester beginning this October until the Sharks announced it.
OK, so what? The Robinsons already had their drive going in October, so again, if, as you claim, the 2,000 season ticket holders are an AHL guideline, then why wasn't Worcester held to the same standard? Worcester had a drive and failed to reach 2,000 season ticket holders. Why did they still get a franchise? The AHL could have said no to the move.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH
the move by St. Louis is the one that frosts me and still does
Who cares? What does it have to do with the 2,000 threshold?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH
because it basically stated that Worcester isn't a great city,
No, it said that Worcester couldn't support an AHL hockey team. Only getting 1,308 season ticket deposits seems to confirm that position.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH
but why the Blues went there from Peoria in 1994, only to take the franchise back from a fanbase that did support it
Yeah, supported it to the tune of 4,391 fans per game (04-05); 4,832 fans per game (03-04); 4,678 fans per game (02-03) in the last three year. Always in the bottom half of the league. And an overall decreasing trend to boot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH
and reject potential owners in Worcester just because of their predisposition w/ Peoria because of a business decision which dropped the Rivermen to another league.
Maybe it was the declining attendance that made them move? A very reasonable business decision.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH
The lease was up in Cleveland, I don't think Worcester got that chance before renewal, I may be wrong, but that's not the issue...
Nope, its not. Neither is YOUR little "history" lesson above, but why let that stop you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH
I equate and feel for those fans in Worcester, because as several other cities know, ask Binghamton fans sometime did they like their franchise transferred to Hartford in 1996, because the Rangers wanted to move there and they waited 5 years before Ottawa gave them a team back, Why does Portland play Providence so much since Washington moved from Baltimore, in 1993 because Providence bolted while Portland waited to bring a team here (sound familiar just like Gilbert's acquisition was approved yesterday) Did we deserve that fate?
Great. Note to all the readers out there. This is Hutch's way of working other teams in there so he can ignore the direct question asked to him and bring in other teams. It is also a way for him "show how knowledgeable he is." Just don't ask him to support it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH
The reason I'm warning Cleveland fans to be cautious---is we all thought Cincinnati would be back this October, no one blames the Robinsons, most of the time once a franchise files for suspension,
Irrelevant drivel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH
I don't think we'll ever truly know the actual reasons and
Uhhh, yeah we do. They didn't meet the SELF IMPOSED quota of 2,000 season ticket holders, so they packed it in. Heck, even if we take YOU POSITION, they didn't meet the AHL guideline of 2,000 season ticket holders, so they couldn't come back (according to you, of course). I think we do know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH
we're not exactly sure that the Robinsons have given up except they haven't declared ther intention to sell their franchise,
OK, true. They put the franchise back into the mothballs. Could try again, but I don't think this is likely. The Cincinnati Business Courier noted, "Robinson said in an interview last winter with the Courier he would likely sell the franchise if the RailRaiders' effort failed."

Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH
look at the Cyclones franchise, Majik, how many times has that franchise failed over the years, and all of a sudden after 2 years of no hockey, they happen to come storming out of hibernation.
Irrelevant, but I guess it does give you the future opportunity to duck my questions by explaining the Cyclones history to us.

Bottom line, Hutch. Answer this question: If, as you claim, the AHL imposed a 2,000 season ticket threshold on Cincinnati, why didn't they impose the same threshold on Worcester?

Thank you, I'll wait for my response.

Majik1987 is offline  
Old
05-18-2006, 12:29 PM
  #60
pelts35.com
Registered User
 
pelts35.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 11,612
vCash: 500
Majik,

Why do you even bother wasting your time? It's not as if Hutchy is going to admit he was wrong or anything. He's always right and when he isn't, he just doesn't own up to it as if it doesn't exist. Kind of like an ostrich when it buries its head.

pelts35.com is offline  
Old
05-18-2006, 01:37 PM
  #61
Serena587
Registered User
 
Serena587's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: No Man's Land
Country: United States
Posts: 2,507
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH
The city of Worcester was requested to get involved in the negotiations to bring hockey back once it was determined the Sharks couldn't extend the lease w/ Gilbert in Cleveland, that move dictated the announcement several months ago where the Sharks were heading toward....

Andrews, was asked last year about this timeframe, stated there would be no hockey in DCU Center or in Worcester nor would another league be interested in Worcester, no one knew then that San Jose was going to select Worcester beginning this October until the Sharks announced it.

The lease was up in Cleveland, I don't think Worcester got that chance before renewal, I may be wrong, but that's not the issue...
The bolded lines are entirely incorrect. The Sharks never tried to extend their lease at the Gund/Q. That became evident with the Quad City deal that nearly took place before the 2004-05 season. It was made perfectly crystal clear to us in Cleveland that the Barons would not be here past 2005-06, and the Worcester rumors were flying for quite some time before the announcement was made. It was never an issue of "would Gilbert extend the Barons lease"....

For all intensive purposes, once Gund sold his share of Sharks Minor Holdings to SVSE, SVSE set out to make the Barons fail in Cleveland, and wanted to get them out of here ASAP.

Serena587 is offline  
Old
05-18-2006, 01:41 PM
  #62
ALF AmericanLionsFan
Registered User
 
ALF AmericanLionsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Cleveland, Ohio USA
Country: United States
Posts: 7,569
vCash: 500
Oh my guys. Let's move on. This argument will never end because no one will ever admit anything.

ALF AmericanLionsFan is offline  
Old
05-18-2006, 01:48 PM
  #63
Serena587
Registered User
 
Serena587's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: No Man's Land
Country: United States
Posts: 2,507
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Galvin
Oh my guys. Let's move on. This argument will never end because no one will ever admit anything.
You know what? You're absolutely right.

Closed.

Serena587 is offline  
Closed Thread

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 01:30 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.