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.

NHLPA fires Paul Kelly (UPD: player review of firing completed)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-30-2009, 08:31 PM
  #451
Crazy_Ike
Cookin' with fire.
 
Crazy_Ike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,081
vCash: 50
I think its more a question of how disfunctional the NHLPA is operating that Kelly felt he HAD to read those minutes.

Lots of people playing the political game in the background, I think. And a nice fertile field of 30 uneducated buffoons elected by people even less informed than they are running the show. Talk about easy money.

Crazy_Ike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-30-2009, 10:31 PM
  #452
hbk
Registered User
 
hbk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,665
vCash: 500
And it appears the NHLPA erred once again in this matter.....

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=293266

hbk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-30-2009, 10:43 PM
  #453
Major4Boarding
Global Moderator
R U quitting on me?
 
Major4Boarding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South of Heaven
Country: Scotland
Posts: 2,979
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cleduc View Post
McMurtry has had a long and distinguished career even if I haven't always agreed with him or liked him. He's not going to get messed up in a silly little dirty affair at this late juncture in his career (and that's what this would be to him if there was anything sinister about it).
Well he is already retired, so I don't believe there's anything to truly be harmful or be sinister about that would jeopardize his career, so yes that's true. But you and I are in agreeance on one thing. He truly has had a long and distinguished career.

For the record, I take no serious issues with the Hon. Roy McMurtry personally. I understand it he has championed a great many causes in Canada. I'm actually weighing where I stand in regards to his involvement regarding Halpern vs. Canada. I want to exclude it from contemplation, but I'm having a hard time doing so. No impartiality (right or wrong) raises it's head again, involving the Hon. Roy McMurtry, for those who know the history behind this case. And to be clear, that's all I'm weighing. His alledged non-impartiality, not the cause or circumstance of the case.

I'll say this for the record here. Based on what has been brought forth in this article, if there was no connection (None, zero, nada) between the Hon. Roy McMurtry and Buzz Hargrove I would be preparing to order some Conspiracy Theory Crow, with a side order of Foot-in-Mouth, and some Humble pie for desert. Those portions being in my defense of Paul Kelly.

The allegations of non-impartiality brought against the Hon. Roy McMurtry in Halpern v. Canada... well, that alone shouldn't warrant me jumping up and down "He's not impartial! He's not impartial!" and solely base my opinion of him on that. But having ties to Buzz Hargrove does have me thinking second thoughts. And unfortunately having ties to Hargrove, and to some extent Halpern v. Canada (to further expand where lack of impartiality comes into play overall) is something I am going to find questionable. A seemingly biased interpretation of the events that unfolded involving Kelly that he weighed in on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cleduc View Post
Going to an acquaintance who has a good reputation to look into this is the way most people would go. A lot of business is done on the basis of who knows who.
Yes, I'm in agreeance with you here as well, to a point. It's natural, and sometimes as a last resort, the only recourse one has is to seek guidance from one that is close to you, whether it be an acquaintance, professionally, a relative, or all. Again though, a redirect to my closing statement in my last reply. If you wanted to keep "people like me", or the court of public and media opinion out of it, or have no reasonable basis to cry foul, pursue another avenue with someone who could or would supplement the Hon. Roy McMurtry's findings. Have them be the be-all, end-all. In other words.... C-Y-A.

Again, someone with no ties to the Association. So I'm with you that I see no harm in reaching out to him, where I take issue unfortunately is it stopped there. As in...

"See? See?... even a former Chief Justice agrees they were in the right".

"Wow...Really? I mean I should trust that he is a former Chief Justice right? Who is he?" ....

"Some acquaintance of Buzz's." ...........

"Oh......".

So to sum it up, it would have had me reconsidering my position had it gone beyond that. I can say that honestly.

When reading this, and believing what I believe (McMurtry), it made me revert immediately back to Anne Marie Turnbull. The ties with Hargrove and Ian Troop, as reported. Her going into the inter-office interviews, hand picked to do the job, with what someone like me can surmise as Mind made up, just need information to substantiate. If someone else independently, free and clear of ties to the Association, did the interviewing and came to those conclusions of Kelly's performance before the Chicago '09 meeting? I would most likely have a different opinion.

You see Cleduc? I know you don't agree with me, and you hunker me into the Conspiracy Theory realm. Which you, and anyone else, are certainly entitled to. But at the same time, their actions sure are making it easy for me to dance that dance of Conspiracy whether you'd like to admit that or not.

I'll get to Kelly, the transcript, what was stated in the Star article about Kelly, etc in the next post later.

-End Part I-

Major4Boarding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-30-2009, 11:33 PM
  #454
owa
Registered User
 
owa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: In a box
Country: Canada
Posts: 349
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hbk View Post
And it appears the NHLPA erred once again in this matter.....

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=293266
Good lord.

owa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-30-2009, 11:43 PM
  #455
ARS
Registered User
 
ARS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,548
vCash: 500
Looks like Major4Boarding was correct in being suspicious of McMurty.

I hope that the NHLPA will finally be cleansed of their filth once this is all said and done and Paul Kelly will be reinstated as the director. I really really hate Buzz Hargrove and it would be great to see that idiot out of a job.

ARS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-30-2009, 11:45 PM
  #456
Major4Boarding
Global Moderator
R U quitting on me?
 
Major4Boarding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South of Heaven
Country: Scotland
Posts: 2,979
vCash: 500
Part II

Quote:
The board instructed a group to look into morale and organizational issues while Ron Pink, chairman of the association's advisory committee, wrote Kelly about performance concerns.

McMurtry said Kelly was reminded via emails that it was improper for him to receive a transcript of the closed-door session.

"But in order to obtain a copy of the confidential transcript, he falsely claimed that he had been in discussions with the advisory board about the meeting and the transcript," McMurtry wrote.
If I'm reading that right, he (Kelly) falsely claimed that he had been in discussions with the advisory board about the meeting and the transcript, but would there not already be an open dialogue, a back-and-forth, or "Discussion" existing between he and the Advisory Board in that...

A. Ron Pink formally wrote Kelly about the performance concerns (Stemming from the meeting) and a response by Kelly

B. Kelly being reminded via emails that it was improper for him to receive the meetings transcripts. Was it not stated, prior to this article, that he requested the minutes but was denied? Is that not a discussion or a dialogue? Wasn't it the Advisory Board (Or Ron Pink specifically) that denied him initially? Is that not a open dialogue, back-and-forth, or "Discussion"?

BTW - Why is Ron Pink writing anything to Paul Kelly? I thought this was the job of the Ombudsman. I could be wrong. Not being sarcastic. I could be wrong.

Quote:
"It is this conduct that the NHLPA could identify as good reason for having lost confidence in the executive director's ability to faithfully discharge his duties," McMurtry said.

McMurtry added Kelly "implicitly acknowledges this deceit" during meetings in Chicago.
Isn't this statement a little cart-before-the-horse? By that I mean, this part suggests that Kelly's statements that he read only the extension part but then says he read the whole thing, is good reason (main reason) for having lost confidence in the executive director. I thought the meeting in Vegas was to discuss their concerns (already lost confidence) that nothing formally had begun regarding negotiations, gameplan, or agenda on the upcoming CBA expiration, lack of Revenue generation, and inter-office interaction i.e. morale (lack thereof). Which these issues pre-date the sole reason that last statement seems to premise as the overall good reason.

Although I did find this little blurb (actually it's really long and the format is terrible) where one can almost say, ALMOST, that maybe the Hon. Roy McMurtry has a little axe to grind using words like "Deceit".

Quote:
Camp was now concerned about party unity and winning the next election. Also working in the background was Roy McMurtry. A friend of Davis from their days at the University of Toronto, a back injury had kept McMurtry, a Toronto lawyer, hospitalized for much of the leadership contest. Both Camp and McMurtry were in a good position to bring the warring factions together.

Immediately after the convention McMurtry approached Hugh Macaulay. With Camp's assistance, he persuaded both Davis and Macaulay that a meeting between the two groups would be for everyone's benefit. Macaulay arranged a meeting between the two factions. Picking the neutral ground of Toronto's National Club in Toronto, the two sides met for dinner. As the evening progressed it became obvious that the divisions of the recent campaign could be mended. During an after-dinner conversation at the Sutton Place Hotel, Davis asked Atkins to manage the coming provincial election campaign for the Progressive Conservative Party.17

With an election expected anytime, Allan Eagleson, as party president demanded that the Conservative association play a major role in the campaign. He was, however, unable to persuade Atkins and Macaulay to let the membership have any significant role in the election. While there had been an attempt at reconciling the Davis and Lawrence factions within the party, the Davis supporters had not yet forgiven Arthur Harnett, Eagleson's friend and executive director of the provincial Conservative Association, for the debacle over voting machines at the leadership convention. As a result, the party headquarters staff found themselves with little to do in the election.18
http://www.sfu.ca/igs/Keith.html

Although it is extremely loose fitting in this publication there was, by extension, a tie to Eagleson here as well. Depending how much further the relationship goes beyond what's stated above, you have to wonder that with Kelly's dethronement of Eagleson that maybe there's just a hint of "grrrrr" regarding the Hon. Roy McMurtry.

Major4Boarding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-30-2009, 11:52 PM
  #457
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by hbk View Post
And it appears the NHLPA erred once again in this matter.....
Un-freakin'-believable.

  Reply With Quote
Old
09-30-2009, 11:55 PM
  #458
Major4Boarding
Global Moderator
R U quitting on me?
 
Major4Boarding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South of Heaven
Country: Scotland
Posts: 2,979
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ARS View Post
Looks like Major4Boarding was correct in being suspicious of McMurty.

I hope that the NHLPA will finally be cleansed of their filth once this is all said and done and Paul Kelly will be reinstated as the director. I really really hate Buzz Hargrove and it would be great to see that idiot out of a job.
Gees, I almost wish I would have posted my last post first

Major4Boarding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-01-2009, 01:22 AM
  #459
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,870
vCash: 500
Elliotte Friedman's take on this:
Quote:
But the NHLPA should never have hired McMurtry to investigate Kelly.

And McMurtry should never have accepted.

He is a close friend of disgraced former executive director Alan Eagleson.

In Game Misconduct, Russ Conway's seminal work about abuses within the NHLPA, there are a couple of references about their relationship.

For example, Eagleson billed the NHLPA $1,000 US for Wimbledon tickets in 1987, and two of them were given to McMurtry.

And McMurtry received a $5,000 campaign contribution from an Eagleson company during his time as an Ontario Conservative politician.

In a previous life, Kelly served as the assistant U.S. attorney who prosecuted Eagleson for mail fraud in the United States.

It is a blatant conflict of interest.
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/blogs/2009/...taints_nh.html

Eagleson was protected for years by his friends in the political and legal community in Canada. Action was only taken against Eagleson once the US Department of Justice and the FBI were involved and it could not be ignored any longer.

The story notes Kelly's lawyer, H. James Hartley, also released a statement:

"Paul Kelly's rights should be decided by a court or an arbitrator, not by a document leaked to the media. The people who ousted Paul seem not to understand basic notions of due process.With due respect to former Justice McMurtry, he never spoke to me or to my client and does not know Paul Kelly's side of the story."

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-01-2009, 07:37 AM
  #460
Bluefan75
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,180
vCash: 500
My very rudimentary understanding of the legal system includes hearing once that the appearance of a conflict of interest is just as bad as an actual conflict of interest. Given that judges and lawyers have recused themselves from, or outright refused, cases for less than the affiliations McMurtry has with various parties involved, I can't see his opinion being allowed to enter in as evidence.

Given how easy M4B was able to dig this up, I can't imagine any lawyer worth his salt would even dare to try to consider this admissable evidence. This is a PR tactic is what it is.

Bluefan75 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-01-2009, 07:40 AM
  #461
hbk
Registered User
 
hbk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,665
vCash: 500
what scares me about all of this is an understanding of the dynamics behind negotiating a CBA extension.

The last go round, right or wrong, Goodenow took a good two full years to properly build a strategy on how the NHLPA will negotiate a new CBA. This included, demands - and lines in the sand he knew his players wouldn't cross, roles for people involved in the negotiation, etc.

Without anyone performing this due diligence the NHLPA is going to "wing it" or walk into meetings with NHL not fully prepared. Not fully prepared means they will be disjointed and will essentially not agree to anything. Not knowing what you want means you will just say no to everything and negotiations will be long, tedious, and confrontational. Not that we were expecting a love in.

Not the way that it had to be given the partnership and ties to revenue between the two sides.

I can't wait for Healy to comment on this during the Satellite Hot Stove on Saturday.

hbk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-01-2009, 07:43 AM
  #462
Bluefan75
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,180
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hbk View Post
I can't wait for Healy to comment on this during the Satellite Hot Stove on Saturday.
Actually, I wouldn't hold your breath. Not that Healy wouldn't have a lot to say, I think he can't given that he will likely be a significant witness in any unfair dismissal suit brought forward.

Bluefan75 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-01-2009, 10:23 AM
  #463
Devs
Registered User
 
Devs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NJ/DC
Country: United States
Posts: 1,348
vCash: 500
New ESPN article here.

Notably, it reveals which teams had no representation at the meeting (CAR, OTT, SJ) and which players voted nay on dismissing Kelly. Those players are Anaheim's George Parros, Blue Jackets's Manny Malhotra, Detroit's very own Chris Chelios, Edmonton's Shawn Horcoff, and Chicago's Adam Burish.

Is there a list of the other team representatives? The only one I know off the top of my head is David Clarkson of the Devils. I wonder how much credence there is with Chelios claiming that a majority of the reps were younger guys with no experience?

Devs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-01-2009, 10:35 AM
  #464
Major4Boarding
Global Moderator
R U quitting on me?
 
Major4Boarding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South of Heaven
Country: Scotland
Posts: 2,979
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devs View Post
New ESPN article here.

Notably, it reveals which teams had no representation at the meeting (CAR, OTT, SJ) and which players voted nay on dismissing Kelly. Those players are Anaheim's George Parros, Blue Jackets's Manny Malhotra, Detroit's very own Chris Chelios, Edmonton's Shawn Horcoff, and Chicago's Adam Burish.

Is there a list of the other team representatives? The only one I know off the top of my head is David Clarkson of the Devils. I wonder how much credence there is with Chelios claiming that a majority of the reps were younger guys with no experience?
I think Shanny was involved there in Chicago as well as Clarkson...

See Posts #284, #290 in this thread. They are as close to who was possibly there as anyone can get at this time.

Major4Boarding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-01-2009, 10:38 AM
  #465
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devs View Post
Is there a list of the other team representatives?
I believe the Canucks rep at the meeting was Willie Mitchell, who was acting in an interim capacity (he volunteered specifically for this meeting, bet he'll never do that again! )

  Reply With Quote
Old
10-01-2009, 10:48 AM
  #466
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,870
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefan75 View Post
My very rudimentary understanding of the legal system includes hearing once that the appearance of a conflict of interest is just as bad as an actual conflict of interest. Given that judges and lawyers have recused themselves from, or outright refused, cases for less than the affiliations McMurtry has with various parties involved, I can't see his opinion being allowed to enter in as evidence. I cannot imagine the NHLPA rying to tender the opinion in any event.

Given how easy M4B was able to dig this up, I can't imagine any lawyer worth his salt would even dare to try to consider this admissable evidence. This is a PR tactic is what it is.
The NHLPA could tender McMurty's opinion and it could go in as an expert opinion, it just would not in all likelihood be given much if any weight, due to the conflict of interest.

As McMurtry is not as counsel or judge there is no need for recusal.

Nevertheless an incredibly botched PR attempt and it could attract significant punitive damages in a claim for wrongful dismissal.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-01-2009, 12:43 PM
  #467
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 64,793
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devs View Post
New ESPN article here.

Notably, it reveals which teams had no representation at the meeting (CAR, OTT, SJ) and which players voted nay on dismissing Kelly.
I chatted with the Sharks players around the time of the meeting and learned that Douglas Murray was on a conference call (some of the time) for the meeting. So while there was no representative *at* the meeting, there was some involvement.

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-01-2009, 01:47 PM
  #468
Bluefan75
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,180
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
The NHLPA could tender McMurty's opinion and it could go in as an expert opinion, it just would not in all likelihood be given much if any weight, due to the conflict of interest.

As McMurtry is not as counsel or judge there is no need for recusal.

Nevertheless an incredibly botched PR attempt and it could attract significant punitive damages in a claim for wrongful dismissal.
I guess what I find really odd, is that this isn't forensic evidence, or psychiatric evaluation. Wouldn't the court that is hearing the case be the one whose opinion matters? Even assuming there was no question of McMurtry's impartiality, why would the court even care what *anyone* has to say about the case, given that *that* is exactly what they are deciding? This just seems to be the kind of thing the court doesn't need an "expert opinion" on, since that is their domain.

I know McMurtry didn't need to remove himself from anything. I was just making the point that if belonging to the same country club as the defendant's in-laws is enough to have someone remove from a case, the questions about McMurtry are very solid in terms of possible conflict of interest.

Can you expand on your last paragraph? I really don't know how, but how could this attract punitive damages? As an attempt to influence, or extort or something?

Bluefan75 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-01-2009, 02:30 PM
  #469
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,525
vCash: 500
All those who voted for Kelly are from western conference teams. Probably a coincidence however.

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-01-2009, 02:57 PM
  #470
copperandblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,719
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
All those who voted for Kelly are from western conference teams. Probably a coincidence however.
I don't know about the others but Horcoff is no surprise considering he was on the search committee that recomended Kelly in the first place.

copperandblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-01-2009, 03:57 PM
  #471
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 64,793
vCash: 500
http://thestar.blogs.com/thespin/200...the-nhlpa.html
Damien Cox blog on "Keystone Kops" @ NHLPA


http://www.thestar.com/article/703688
More on conflict of interest WRT legal opinion on Kelly being fired for cause


http://www.cbc.ca/sports/blogs/2009/...taints_nh.html
CBC on conflict of interest

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-01-2009, 05:13 PM
  #472
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,870
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefan75 View Post
I guess what I find really odd, is that this isn't forensic evidence, or psychiatric evaluation. Wouldn't the court that is hearing the case be the one whose opinion matters? Even assuming there was no question of McMurtry's impartiality, why would the court even care what *anyone* has to say about the case, given that *that* is exactly what they are deciding? This just seems to be the kind of thing the court doesn't need an "expert opinion" on, since that is their domain.

I know McMurtry didn't need to remove himself from anything. I was just making the point that if belonging to the same country club as the defendant's in-laws is enough to have someone remove from a case, the questions about McMurtry are very solid in terms of possible conflict of interest.

Can you expand on your last paragraph? I really don't know how, but how could this attract punitive damages? As an attempt to influence, or extort or something?
Yes and that may be why the courts might be little concerned about this sort of opinion evidence as it seems an attempt to usurp the role of the courts and I assume that Kelly would argue was nothing more than an attempt to smear or unduly influence the court. I could not see the NHLPA seeking to introduce it as evidence.

Punitive damages are available to punish conduct. In this case commissioning the opinion and then emailing it out to various media outlets could be seem as an egregious attack on Kelly's character. As a general rule punitive are not available except in limited circumstances in a wrongful dismissal claim. This could be one of those cases.

The Supreme Court of Canada has said that these sorts of damages are available if the employer engages in conduct during the course of dismissal that is “unfair or is in bad faith by being, for example, untruthful, misleading or unduly insensitive”.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-02-2009, 12:12 PM
  #473
cleduc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,845
vCash: 500
I don't think the concern about a conflict of interest with McMurtry is significant whatsoever. The NHLPA asked his opinion and they go it. They may or may not be able to use it in court but how much do they really care about that ?

If McMurtry apparently found emails directing Kelly not to do something, emails written by Kelly indicating he did it anyway and evidence that Kelly lied/deceived to obtain the transcript and about what he read in the transcript. To me, if the reported evidence is accurate, Kelly has a big problem even if Bozo the Clown, the Unibomber or Ted Saskin's best buddy reviews the file.

If I'm a player, why do I want someone around running my union who didn't do as the players asked, deceived and lied to the players? I would think most wouldn't whether they have to pay him 1% or 100% severance. The players are used to guaranteed contracts so whether they have to pay out or not isn't as big a deal as the bigger issue over the integrity of their Executive Director.

To me, those emails McMurtry talks about all but seal the deal on that key issue. I suspect we'll hear much less grumbling from the players about this decision with that exposed - no matter who exposed it.

cleduc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-02-2009, 12:16 PM
  #474
Section337
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 4,593
vCash: 500
I think this entire affair would be perfect for the end of a Benny Hill show.

Section337 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-02-2009, 12:32 PM
  #475
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,870
vCash: 500
Darren Dreger says that purge may be necessary to clear out the current NHLPA leadership.
Quote:
Sources suggest there is a growing feeling among players that a full purge may be necessary, with a complete tear-down as the only means of properly rebuilding the association.
http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/darren_dreger/?id=293433

Wetcoaster 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 01:47 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2016 All Rights Reserved.