HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

An article from Pittsburgh on contraction issue

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-07-2004, 04:07 PM
  #26
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrKnowNothing
They offered contracts to Kovalev before he was dealt. Five years for 4 or 5 million a year. So no one really knows that when they have to resign Malone, Fleury etc they won't be able to pay them or not.
For sure they will have the money. Under the existing CBA, these guys will be cheap for years. In my opinion Fleury got really bad advice. He's stuck on a really bad contract under this CBA.

I expect Pittsburgh to be better next year, but I still expect them to be very bad. This means the team can make sure Fleury gets the proper seasoning in the AHL next year. Let's say he gets, oh, say, 24 NHL games and about 45 games in the AHL. It will probably make him a better goalie and save a last place team $3 million in bonuses. It blows any chance at a Calder bonus too. Does Allen Walsh - Fleury's agent - think Craig Patrick is an idiot?

Fleury's bonuses should have been difficult to make! Very difficult. If he was so good he made outrageously difficult bonuses he'd be too good to demote. If he didn't make outrageous bonuses, he'd have to settle for staying in the NHL at $1 million a year.

Instead Pittsburgh will bounce him up and down - probably the right strategy for his development anyway - so he doesn't achieve any bonuses at all and spends half each season on a minor league salary. After that he enjoys 10% raises for two years before he qualifies for arbitration.

In about three years, the Penguins will be ready to make some noise with one of the best young goalies in the game leading the way on a contract without any bonuses at all. The number one pick this year, maybe next year too in the lineup. All still very cheap. Even in Mellon arena revenues would skyrocket with that first real charge at a playoff spot. But by then they will have their new rink.

Shazzam. Instant rich team if they turn out really good.

I've defended Craig Patrick and the Penguins as soon as they decided to rip the team apart. Mario came back for the one last try, but come on. Jagr and Mario won more than ten years ago. There was no way to make them winners. It was time to start over. I said exactly the same thing about the Hasek Sabres. That team couldn't win. Time to move on.

The fact that this is the only choice for most teams - they absolutely can't afford to carry a winner's payroll with loser revenues - is not a big deal. It is a small market advantage. Teams are forced to do the right thing: Give up on a loser and rebuild. It is not only the only possible money decision is the right hockey decision.

Teams are forced to keep trying to produce that good young team that might grow into a great team in it's prime. If a team does find that young team, they turn rich.

The fact that the Rangers or the Capitals can throw money at a loser is not an advantage. It is a disadvantage. They lose gobs of cash and they still end up having to do it right. What's the matter with the existing CBA again? Oh yeah. Poor Pittsburgh. Watch that disappear over the next few years.

Poor Nashville. Poor David Poile was forced to build his team on a shoestring from the ground up. So he did. Heaven forbid Nashville starts filling their building and rolling in cash. Poor Ottawa. Poor Vancouver. Oh boo-hoo. Poor Canadian franchises with no margin for error. Poor Calgary stomping Colorado as I write this. Forced to build on a shoestring with young players, all of them. Doomed to be second rate. Who is that we see at the top of the league? Tampa? Oh, my.

What's the matter with the existing CBA again?

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
03-11-2004, 07:58 AM
  #27
iagreewithidiots
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,524
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
In about three years, the Penguins will be ready to make some noise with one of the best young goalies in the game leading the way on a contract without any bonuses at all. The number one pick this year, maybe next year too in the lineup. All still very cheap. Even in Mellon arena revenues would skyrocket with that first real charge at a playoff spot. But by then they will have their new rink.

Shazzam. Instant rich team if they turn out really good.
Shazzam. Its just that simple. Its so easy.

11 straight years in the playoffs. Mario came back. Conference finals berth. The team still couldnt afford to keep its talent.

Yep in 3 years the team, IF they are good, will be magically, instantly rich with the current CBA.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
I've defended Craig Patrick and the Penguins as soon as they decided to rip the team apart. Mario came back for the one last try, but come on. Jagr and Mario won more than ten years ago. There was no way to make them winners. It was time to start over. I said exactly the same thing about the Hasek Sabres. That team couldn't win. Time to move on.

The fact that this is the only choice for most teams - they absolutely can't afford to carry a winner's payroll with loser revenues - is not a big deal. It is a small market advantage. Teams are forced to do the right thing: Give up on a loser and rebuild. It is not only the only possible money decision is the right hockey decision.
Thats wrong Tom. That team could have taken one or two more runs. It wasnt a winning team on losing revenues. Attendance was up with Lemieux back. The team sold out every home game in the playoffs.

Jagr was traded because he wanted it. Pittsurgh received prospects intead of proven players becasue they couldnt afford anything more.

The Pens rebuilt because it couldnt afford to take the one or two more runs it had left. Not because it was the right time.

iagreewithidiots is offline  
Old
03-11-2004, 08:01 AM
  #28
iagreewithidiots
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,524
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
What's the matter with the existing CBA again?
It allows teams to spend money on player salaries that is not generated by the team.

iagreewithidiots is offline  
Old
03-11-2004, 01:36 PM
  #29
Profet
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 631
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmy page
When's the last good plyer that came up through the Rangers organization?
I've been a huge hockey fan for over 20 years and I can honestly tell you that I can't remember.
Oh come on...

Some high points:
Brian Leetch
Mike Richter
Alexei Kovalev
Tony Amonte
Doug Weight

Decent players:
Mike York
Dan Cloutier
Kim Jonsson
Marc Savard

And thats just off the top of my head...im sure there are more...


Last edited by Profet: 03-11-2004 at 01:44 PM.
Profet is offline  
Old
03-11-2004, 02:04 PM
  #30
CH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 611
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
What's the matter with the existing CBA again?

Quote:
Originally Posted by iagreewithidiots
It allows teams to spend money on player salaries that is not generated by the team.
This is a problem why? In just about any business I can think of they have the option of spending money on salaries that is not generated by the business. Nothing wrong with that. Smart businessmen either do not spend this money if they cannot afford to or spend it if they figure it is beneficial to them to do so. Hockey owners are no different.

The existing CBA does nothing to force owners to spend money on player salaries that is not generated by the team. Why is this a problem?

If owners spend money on salaries that is not generated by the team, something not made clear by even the flawed Levitt report which claims player costs (which it should be made clear are not the same as salaries) are around 70% of revenues, then we must conclude that either owners think it is beneficial to them to spend money in this way or they are poor businessmen. Given the success they have had in business generating enough money to buy a hockey team, I find the poor businessmen argument pretty implausable. Hence, the most plausable conclusion is that *IF* owners spend money on salaries not generated by the team they do this because they want to and they want to because they think it is beneficial to them to do so. But you must first establish that they do spend this money. Next you must explain why that is a problem. Why cant an NHL owner spend money any way he sees fit?

CH is offline  
Old
03-11-2004, 02:44 PM
  #31
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by iagreewithidiots
Shazzam. Its just that simple. Its so easy.
No, it is very hard. If the team makes bad choices - say like Edmonton - they could be mediocre or worse for years. Only a few teams can be successful at any given time. If that is not the case, we may as well flip a coin for the Cup.

Quote:
11 straight years in the playoffs. Mario came back. Conference finals berth. The team still couldnt afford to keep its talent.
They made money that year because they went so far in the playoffs. If Patrick and Mario saw that team as a potential winner, they stay together and make more money. If you disagreed with Patrick and Mario, well, you agree with idiots.

Eleven years and two Cups was a great run. It's never supposed to end? If it does end, it is proof the NHL is going to hell in a handbasket? You thought the team had another run or two? I guess you figure that the Sabres would have won a Cup if they had kept Hasek and the Oilers were this far away from winning if only they could have kept Doug Weight, too. Fans can live on that kind of Fantasy Island, but hockey managers can't. At least this is a hockey disagreement. If you believe the Pittsburgh Penguin decision to rip apart that team cost them a Stanley Cup, a chance to win, I don't think you know anything about hockey.

If Pittsburgh lost by tearing things apart, who gained? The biggest irony in all this is the two teams that "gained" by plundering the Penguins are the Washington Capitals and the New York Rangers. Lucky them.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
03-13-2004, 04:26 AM
  #32
tom_servo
Registered User
 
tom_servo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 11,531
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. kØUkLØs
give us a new arena, and we will have one of the best teams garantied... and people like you will look like fools...
people forget that the Penguins' is the ONLY!!!! arena with no luxury boxes and thus don't get that extra 45% of revenue that ALLLLLL the other teams get. We're not talking about attendance here, we're talking about something that our old arena doesn't have...
Plain and simple.
The Penguins will be a contender if we get a new arena...
Not necessarily true. The Pirates got a new stadium and a form of revenue sharing, and they still suck.

Let's focus on the team surviving before calling them the '80s Oilers.

tom_servo is offline  
Old
03-13-2004, 10:42 PM
  #33
Big McLargehuge
Global Moderator
Bitter Buffalo
 
Big McLargehuge's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Country: Iceland
Posts: 57,917
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom_servo
Not necessarily true. The Pirates got a new stadium and a form of revenue sharing, and they still suck.
That's because of incompetence on the behalf of...well...the entire Pirates organization.

They spent all the extra revenue from PNC Park on keeping their players around...for twice market value. We sold off Brian Giles and Aramis Ramirez already, Benson is soon to go, and Kendall has one of the worst contracts in sports.

At least the higher ups in the Penguins organization can tell the difference between a hockey puck and an octopus.

Big McLargehuge is offline  
Old
03-13-2004, 11:33 PM
  #34
DJ Spinoza
Registered User
 
DJ Spinoza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: Netherlands
Posts: 13,008
vCash: 500
I have to agree with what Tom is saying here. Actually, I'd go as far as to say that the Penguins have set themselves backwards a little bit by waiting so long to rebuild. They weren't able to get top value for most of their stars because I think they held on to them for a little bit too long, instead of trading them when they could have gotten peak value.

Regardless, things look pretty good for the future, if some key things happen with the arena especially. But the Penguins are doing good right now in what they didn't have when they competed in the playoffs late in the nineties, and that is getting defense and goaltending as your foundation, versus offensive minded stars.

They lost to New Jersey for a reason in the ECF, and I hope CP realized that. Drafting guys like Fleury, Orpik, Whitney, and Welch over the past few years is a solid start to rebuilding. They weren't able to get much for their stars, yes, but oh well. It's over and done with now.

Hopefully the philosophy of the team has been corrected and they realize that solid defense and goaltending is the best way to build a team.

DJ Spinoza is offline  
Old
03-16-2004, 11:02 AM
  #35
iagreewithidiots
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,524
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
No, it is very hard. If the team makes bad choices - say like Edmonton - they could be mediocre or worse for years. Only a few teams can be successful at any given time. If that is not the case, we may as well flip a coin for the Cup.
I find it so interesting you always seem to bring up Edmonton. Yet you love your dynasties. Even if they are dead.

If everyone loved dynasties. If everyone needed dynasties. If everyone was a real fan. Why is Edmonton the first to go?

I would have to think the last team to have a dynasty would have a tremendous following. If everyone loved dynasties so much where are all of the Edmonton fans?

I know a little about dynasties and their followings. The Steelers had a dynasty in the 70's. People in Pittsburgh are still living off that. They still have a great following based on that. Wheres the love for Edmonton.

Dynasties are dead. They dont matter in hockey. Screw the "real fans" put in a salary cap and bring in the casual fans.

Why does the NHL need Tom Benjamin?

iagreewithidiots is offline  
Old
03-16-2004, 11:09 AM
  #36
iagreewithidiots
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,524
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CH
This is a problem why? In just about any business I can think of they have the option of spending money on salaries that is not generated by the business. Nothing wrong with that. Smart businessmen either do not spend this money if they cannot afford to or spend it if they figure it is beneficial to them to do so. Hockey owners are no different.

The existing CBA does nothing to force owners to spend money on player salaries that is not generated by the team. Why is this a problem?
The NHL is a business. The teams are franchises. The best thing for the NHL is to make money for everyone. If the teams go around putting each other out of business that is bad.


Last edited by iagreewithidiots: 03-16-2004 at 11:29 AM.
iagreewithidiots is offline  
Old
03-16-2004, 11:14 AM
  #37
Zhackpot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 540
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rooselk
Good article. In no way do I want to see NHL contraction. Rather, what I want to see is fiscal sanity which probably should include some sort of revenue sharing along he lines of the NFL. The NHL is the only major league sport with a significant presence in both the U.S. and Canada. I want it to remain that way. Sports like NASCAR realize the importance of transforming themselves from being a regional sport to having a national presence. The NHL is no different.

NASCAR isn't a sport.

Zhackpot is offline  
Old
03-16-2004, 11:28 AM
  #38
iagreewithidiots
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,524
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhackpot
NASCAR isn't a sport.
It isnt a sport but it knows how to sell a product. It knows how to sell stars and characters.

The NHL may be a worse run league then MLB. They can change the business side of that soon. But will they ever realize stars and goals sell?

iagreewithidiots is offline  
Old
03-16-2004, 11:30 AM
  #39
CH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 611
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by iagreewithidiots
The fact that you asked the question (why is it a problem if teams are allowed to spend money that they do not make in revenue if they wish to) leads me to believe you wont understand even after I explain.

The NHL is a business. The teams are franchises. The best thing for the NHL is to make money for everyone. If the teams go around putting each other out of business that is bad.

Why don't you actually read what people write to you?

The NHL is a business run by smart businessmen. There is little (no?) evidence that they spend money on salaries that they do not make in revenue. The NHL claims that the DO NOT in the Levitt report (~70% of revenue to player costs).

But if an owner saw fit to spend more money on salaries then he makes in revenue why should that not be allowed? Its his choice isn't it? Thats how it works in a free market. You can spend your money however you wish.

Instead you think that the NHL has to fundamentally change its bargaining agreement to prevent something from occurring that isn't occurring. Why?

Which NHL team is putting other teams out of business as you claim? When was the last team any NHL team went out of business?

CH is offline  
Old
03-16-2004, 11:32 AM
  #40
Zhackpot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 540
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. kØUkLØs
give us a new arena, and we will have one of the best teams garantied... and people like you will look like fools...
people forget that the Penguins' is the ONLY!!!! arena with no luxury boxes and thus don't get that extra 45% of revenue that ALLLLLL the other teams get. We're not talking about attendance here, we're talking about something that our old arena doesn't have...
Plain and simple.
The Penguins will be a contender if we get a new arena...
If the Pens can't sell tickets to the masses how the hell will they sell pricey luxury suites? People have to want to see the product and that isn't the case in Pittsburgh as attendance has fallen each of the past 4 seasons. It's also obvious Pens fans aren't willing to pay NHL prices for a team that has been nothing more than an AHL squad for most of the season.

Zhackpot is offline  
Old
03-16-2004, 11:50 AM
  #41
iagreewithidiots
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,524
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CH
Why don't you actually read what people write to you?
There is little (no) evidence to support that statement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CH
Thats how it works in a free market.
Thats all well and good. One problem. The NHL is not a free market.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CH
Which NHL team is putting other teams out of business as you claim? When was the last team any NHL team went out of business?
Like many others on this board you have no ability to see the future.

I assure you if the NHL continues down its current path a fair number of team will be out of business.

3 teams in bankruptcy over the past few years makes me worry. All these smart, smart business men must be doing something wrong.

iagreewithidiots is offline  
Old
03-16-2004, 12:02 PM
  #42
CH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 611
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by iagreewithidiots

Like many others on this board you have no ability to see the future.
Fact is everyone cannot see the future. We all can guess at what might occur. Some guesses may be better than others. Here is your chance, convince me that your guess is better than mine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iagreewithidiots
I assure you if the NHL continues down its current path a fair number of team will be out of business.

3 teams in bankruptcy over the past few years makes me worry. All these smart, smart business men must be doing something wrong.

The recent bankruptices of NHL teams have very little to do with hockey. That has been shown to you several times in these business of hockey threads. They were caused by (for example) Adelphia having problems ... and since Adelphia owned the Buffalo Sabres...

The NHL owners have been assuring fans that if the NHL continues down its current path a fair number of teams will be out of business from the beginning of its existance. They were right in the 30's and never again. They were wrong in thye 40's when they claimed that. They were wrong in the 50's when they claimed that. They were wrong in the 60's when thyey claimed that. They were wrong in the 70's when they claimed that. They were wrong in the 80's when they claimed that. They were wrong in the 90's when they claimed that. We are almost halfway through the first decade of the 2000's and so far they have been wrong.

I'm going to need something stronger then the assurance of a guy on a hockey board who is repeatedly proven wrong to think that it might be the case.

Here is your chance to dazzle me with the facts about how poorly the NHL is doing and how teams are all about to fold. You better do a far better job than you have so far...

CH is offline  
Old
03-16-2004, 12:13 PM
  #43
iagreewithidiots
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,524
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CH
Fact is everyone cannot see the future.
Youve convinced me of your inablilty.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CH
The recent bankruptices of NHL teams
Youre right it has to do with those oh so smart business people you told me about.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CH
Here is your chance to dazzle me with the facts about how poorly the NHL is doing and how teams are all about to fold. You better do a far better job than you have so far...
I have no need to dazzle some guy on a hockey board who is repeatedly proven wrong.


Bring in a salary cap. Sell hockey to the masses. Screw the real fans. Its time to make some money. You want to yak about a free market. When I talk about what would make the NHL its greatest profits you get up in arms.


Last edited by iagreewithidiots: 03-16-2004 at 12:17 PM.
iagreewithidiots is offline  
Old
03-16-2004, 12:28 PM
  #44
CH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 611
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by iagreewithidiots
Screw the real fans. Its time to make some money. You want to yak about a free market. When I talk about what would make the NHL its greatest profits you get up in arms.
And this is the problem with your position.

You put making money ahead of hockey and you will pillage and plunder anything of value and be left with nothing. It would be a case of killing the cow in order to squeeze more milk out of it.

If you set up a system to screw the real fans don't be suprised if there are no real fans left. That is when the league is totally screwed.

CH is offline  
Old
03-16-2004, 12:34 PM
  #45
iagreewithidiots
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,524
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CH
And this is the problem with your position.

You put making money ahead of hockey and you will pillage and plunder anything of value and be left with nothing. It would be a case of killing the cow in order to squeeze more milk out of it.

If you set up a system to screw the real fans don't be suprised if there are no real fans left. That is when the league is totally screwed.
Thats the beauty part. You can put making money ahead of real fans.

If you set up a system to bring in casual fans the real fans will be right there still thumping their chest about what a real fan they are.

There is no cow killing going on here. The NHL is already an old dried up cow put out to pasture. Im trying to bring in a new cow.

iagreewithidiots is offline  
Old
03-16-2004, 12:39 PM
  #46
CH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 611
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by iagreewithidiots
Thats the beauty part. You can put making money ahead of real fans.

If you set up a system to bring in casual fans the real fans will be right there still thumping their chest about what a real fan they are.

There is no cow killing going on here. The NHL is already an old dried up cow put out to pasture. Im trying to bring in a new cow.

So your solution is to turn the NHL into NASCAR or something?

CH is offline  
Old
03-16-2004, 12:41 PM
  #47
copperandblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CH

The NHL owners have been assuring fans that if the NHL continues down its current path a fair number of teams will be out of business from the beginning of its existance. They were right in the 30's and never again. They were wrong in thye 40's when they claimed that. They were wrong in the 50's when they claimed that. They were wrong in the 60's when thyey claimed that. They were wrong in the 70's when they claimed that. They were wrong in the 80's when they claimed that. They were wrong in the 90's when they claimed that. We are almost halfway through the first decade of the 2000's and so far they have been wrong.
The NHL has had 55 different franchises since 1927.

That means atleast 25 franchises have met the fate that you feel will never happen. (actually when you factor in relocation the number of teams that have disappeared is actually higher)

That includes 5 in the 70's, 2 in the 80's and 3 in the 90's

Also, without getting too deep into your debate, I am wondering why it is OK to argue that there is nothing wrong for owners to spend money that they don't generate through their franchise if they choose to but at the same time if their club is in finacial trouble as a result of their other businesses experiencing trouble then they must be kept exclusive?

copperandblue is offline  
Old
03-16-2004, 12:45 PM
  #48
CH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 611
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by copperandblue
The NHL has had 55 different franchises since 1927.

That means atleast 25 franchises have met the fate that you feel will never happen. (actually when you factor in relocation the number of teams that have disappeared is actually higher)

That includes 5 in the 70's, 2 in the 80's and 3 in the 90's

Only one franchise has gone out of business since the very early 40's. That was the Cleveland Barons. They merged with the Minnesota North Stars in 1978.

Other franchises moved to greener pastures where they could make even more money.

CH is offline  
Old
03-16-2004, 12:45 PM
  #49
iagreewithidiots
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,524
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CH
So your solution is to turn the NHL into NASCAR or something?
Nope. Just put in a salary cap. If fans feel their team has a chance to compete or build a winner in a short period of time it will increase interest and sales.

You can say thats bad for the game, the fans a stupid, its lowering quality. Say whatever youd like. Im coming from the whats best for business side.

iagreewithidiots is offline  
Old
03-16-2004, 12:49 PM
  #50
iagreewithidiots
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,524
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CH
Other franchises moved to greener pastures where they could make even more money.
Thats fine as long as there is somewhere to move. How much longer can failing teams move?

When you say "even more money" you make it sound like teams move because they want to make more money. Thats not the case. Most teams move because they cant make money where they are at.

iagreewithidiots 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 07:38 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.