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
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Phoenix bankruptcy/ownership Part XVIII: Is that a pale horse in the distance?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-10-2009, 11:54 PM
  #51
nye
Registered User
 
nye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Siberia
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,887
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazy_Ike View Post
Of course there's another reason - the NHL bid (or any local bid) doesn't have to satisfy (or at least address) COG as a creditor, while any relocation bid does.

All this time, you never understood why the local bids can be competitive with Balsillie's bid while being far lower?

Btw the league will get every penny it spends on this back when it sells the franchise. There's no real risk to the league in that regard.

In this business climate?

How much do you figure they will lose in the 09-10 season, with no TV, zero drive for ticket sales, zero drive for sponsors, etc?

Add it up and they could easily see $180 to $200MM cost before a buyer is found.

Is there a Glenadale buyer for that amount? KC?

Then what are the possible risks with this nebulous commitment to Glendale? I smell a lawsuit on a hair-trigger if Glendale is reasonable and accommodating, yet the league does not sign. What if Glendale caves totally? Would someone pay $200MM for a franchise in Glendale?

I am smelling losses for the league, no matter how this turns out.

nye is offline  
Old
09-10-2009, 11:54 PM
  #52
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,927
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSC2k2 View Post
One thing that we discussed about fifteen threads ago, but which has become obscured by the passage of time, is the fact that JB's offer of $212.5 million (let's dispense with the fictional $242.5 million bid, since the City has rejected the offer at this time) is in fact not worth $212.5 million at all.

Accordingly, the JB offer has always been $187.5 million, not $212.5 million.
It would be interesting to see the "tape of the tape" of the two offers, with what each party gets dollar wise in each offer.

KevFu is offline  
Old
09-10-2009, 11:54 PM
  #53
Call of the loonie
Registered User
 
Call of the loonie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 1,952
vCash: 500
Plenty of good and knowledgeable posters in here and I appreciate all the answers to my questions.

My only real point of interest in this case is/was the Ice Edge bid to feature 5 (or so) games in Canada while keeping the team in Glendale.

Is it wrong of me to think that this type of scenario might become a trend in the NHL with some teams trying hard to break even?

Call of the loonie is offline  
Old
09-10-2009, 11:56 PM
  #54
Crazy_Ike
Cookin' with fire.
 
Crazy_Ike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,542
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaym3000 View Post
Of course they will get all of their money back and this will have no effect on fans anywhere and the NHL is healthy in alll markets. To you and GC the NHL does no wrong - to many others we don't follow so blindly. All I said is that this could go away if the NHL ups its bid - this isn't the time to be cheap is it? Up it 80M and its over and like you said they get their money back right? But they aren't doing that are they?
The league will not sell the Coyotes for 220m to a local bid. You are mistaken.

You seem to be asking them to pay far more than the team is worth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nye View Post
In this business climate?

How much do you figure they will lose in the 09-10 season, with no TV, zero drive for ticket sales, zero drive for sponsors, etc?

Add it up and they could easily see $180 to $200MM cost before a buyer is found.

Is there a Glenadale buyer for that amount? KC?

Then what are the possible risks with this nebulous commitment to Glendale? I smell a lawsuit on a hair-trigger if Glendale is reasonable and accommodating, yet the league does not sign. What if Glendale caves totally? Would someone pay $200MM for a franchise in Glendale?

I am smelling losses for the league, no matter how this turns out.
Yes, this is true, I meant simply that they would get their bid back when it is resold. My bad, was unclear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Call of the loonie View Post
My only real point of interest in this case is/was the Ice Edge bid to feature 5 (or so) games in Canada while keeping the team in Glendale.

Is it wrong of me to think that this type of scenario might become a trend in the NHL with some teams trying hard to break even?
It won't become a trend. The bid was actually at least in part killed because it violated the CBA due to that whole five games thing. Or at least so the NHLPA was contending, but they are probably right and I think the league agreed with the NHLPA. In any event that scheme was never approved.

Crazy_Ike is offline  
Old
09-11-2009, 12:00 AM
  #55
bbud
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,669
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
I meant no disrespect to WIN, HAR, QUE, (or MIN, NASH, PIT, etc)...

what I meant was:
The level of which the NHL is fighting, and the justification of it is a relatively separate issue. The classic argument of how hard the NHL has fought for various teams is more of a "Bettman the Anti-Christ" thread topic (and I'm not arguing for or against that).

The fact is: The NHL IS fighting and will continue to do so.
Previous potential relocation fights do not serve as "precedent" like law, but as "learning opportunities" for the league to see how to better fight in the future.

Each battle the league enters is probably going to be its most intense to date. Each will use the lessons from before, and each designed to:
A - retain local ownership / preserve the existing markets
B - put them in the most financially favorable position possible with regard to a new arena/lease (as in, "hey city, build them an arena!").
C - protect their right to decide the markets.

Each previous fight had different issues, but virtually all were fought from those three tenets.
The NHL did not make a big effort at all in Winnipeg or Quebec and Hartford it was a GB led cake walk out of town quebec was out and out sold off for a cash grab not a whimper from the NHL , winnipeg well you know we tried but hey too bad , now once they were the teams Jb might move if the chance came the fights start and thats true , Edmonton was about become the Houston Oilers at one point but soem good fans with money stepped up and bought the team but GB was about to let them go too.

bbud is offline  
Old
09-11-2009, 12:00 AM
  #56
Artyukhin*
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,831
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSC2k2 View Post
One thing that we discussed about fifteen threads ago, but which has become obscured by the passage of time, is the fact that JB's offer of $212.5 million (let's dispense with the fictional $242.5 million bid, since the City has rejected the offer at this time) is in fact not worth $212.5 million at all.

http://docs.bmcgroup.com/phoenixcoyo...9488_809_5.pdf

http://docs.bmcgroup.com/phoenixcoyo...9488_809_6.pdf

If you will read section 3.1 of the PSE Asset Purchase Agreement, you will note that the consideration is reduced by "the amount, if any, by which the NHL Accounts (a defined term in the APA) are offset or otherwise not collectible up to a maximum reduction of $25,000,000".

As is well known and as is documented (and not disputed by anyone) in the court filings, the NHL advanced monies to the Coyotes from November to February in respect of their revenue sharing, TV distributions and other league-shared monies. Those are the "NHL Accounts" monies (described in schedule 2.2 in the second pdf document above). After that, the league then loaned a further $12-13 million up to the bankruptcy filings (and has loaned a bunch more as the DIP financing party).

In laymen's terms, Moyes used up all of his advances on next year's revenue sharing distributions, before he started borrowing from the NHL. JB's offer has always taken that into account (and properly so, since they would normally get that money due next year)

Accordingly, the JB offer has always been $187.5 million, not $212.5 million.

Courtesy of the latest filing which reminded me of that old long-forgotten point.

http://docs.bmcgroup.com/phoenixcoyo...9488_955_0.pdf
the funny thing?

the judge said today

1 he doesnt understand the nhl bid

2. he doesnt think it looks after all creditors.

3. Nhl cant pick and choose ,not the way bankruptcy court works.




now what was the NHL saying about the Basillie bid?

Artyukhin* is offline  
Old
09-11-2009, 12:00 AM
  #57
Jaym3000
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 400
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
I meant no disrespect to WIN, HAR, QUE, (or MIN, NASH, PIT, etc)...

what I meant was:
The level of which the NHL is fighting, and the justification of it is a relatively separate issue. The classic argument of how hard the NHL has fought for various teams is more of a "Bettman the Anti-Christ" thread topic (and I'm not arguing for or against that).

The fact is: The NHL IS fighting and will continue to do so.
Previous potential relocation fights do not serve as "precedent" like law, but as "learning opportunities" for the league to see how to better fight in the future.

Each battle the league enters is probably going to be its most intense to date. Each will use the lessons from before, and each designed to:
A - retain local ownership / preserve the existing markets
B - put them in the most financially favorable position possible with regard to a new arena/lease (as in, "hey city, build them an arena!").
C - protect their right to decide the markets.

Each previous fight had different issues, but virtually all were fought from those three tenets.
Kev no disrespect but I think you are one of those outside of S Ontario who don't really have a clue as to what is going on here. I listened to all of the testimony today - especially where one NHL expert after another went on about how Hamilton would be a great market - the 5th most valuable right away, but the NHL wasn't looking to expand here ever. You can all say that this is about the NHL preserving it's relocation rights, but sit back and look at this thing and see if it stinks and if you think about it long enough you will figure out that it does not make any sense. It is bizarro business practice, that is unless there is something holding them back - and it is clearly MLSE - all else is a total smokescreen.

Jaym3000 is offline  
Old
09-11-2009, 12:04 AM
  #58
guyincognito
Registered User
 
guyincognito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 31,300
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbud View Post
The NHL did not make a big effort at all in Winnipeg or Quebec and Hartford it was a GB led cake walk out of town quebec was out and out sold off for a cash grab not a whimper from the NHL , winnipeg well you know we tried but hey too bad , now once they were the teams Jb might move if the chance came the fights start and thats true , Edmonton was about become the Houston Oilers at one point but soem good fans with money stepped up and bought the team but GB was about to let them go too.
lol, this again.

more revisionism, and always throwing in the Whalers, who drew 10K a night, played in a mall, and their owner wanted to relocate them. their owner.

Winnipeg was a ****show that had no realistic local option, and Quebec was Quebec.
did they 100% have to go then? no. but they were going anyway, eventually.

Phoenix has nothing in common with Hartford and Winnipeg. they've historically outdrew them.

guyincognito is offline  
Old
09-11-2009, 12:05 AM
  #59
Crazy_Ike
Cookin' with fire.
 
Crazy_Ike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,542
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaym3000 View Post
Kev no disrespect but I think you are one of those outside of S Ontario who don't really have a clue as to what is going on here. I listened to all of the testimony today - especially where one NHL expert after another went on about how Hamilton would be a great market - the 5th most valuable right away, but the NHL wasn't looking to expand here ever. You can all say that this is about the NHL preserving it's relocation rights, but sit back and look at this thing and see if it stinks and if you think about it long enough you will figure out that it does not make any sense. It is bizarro business practice, that is unless there is something holding them back - and it is clearly MLSE - all else is a total smokescreen.
Kansas City has an empty arena run by the guy in charge of the NHL's expansion committee. And yet, they haven't expanded there either.

Blaming that on the Leafs too?

Or perhaps the league just doesn't feel that right now is the right time to expand? If they can get so much right now for Hamilton, how much can they get when we're not in the middle of a global economic meltdown?

And how many people - how many of YOU, even - have claimed in the past that the league has over-expanded, that there is a "dilution of talent"? You're willing to throw that argument away if the expansion is to where you like? I don't personally believe that argument, but I readily acknowledge that there's plenty of people out there that do, and their argument isn't wholly without water.

It's not a smokescreen. The league's motives are exactly what they say they are - the right to control who owns a team and where the team plays. Anything else and they would not be getting briefs in support of their position from MLB, NFL, and NBA.

Crazy_Ike is offline  
Old
09-11-2009, 12:09 AM
  #61
nye
Registered User
 
nye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Siberia
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,887
vCash: 500
FWIT, kdb, Terminator: Judgement Day should have been it.

nye is offline  
Old
09-11-2009, 12:10 AM
  #62
Crazy_Ike
Cookin' with fire.
 
Crazy_Ike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,542
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSC2k2 View Post
See my post above (post #24) regarding the elemental aspects of bidding strategy. They may raise their bid, or they may not, but it is amateurish to increase one's bid before the auction starts, when the court cannot decide anything before ruling on the motions that are currently before the court.
I don't see it quite that way. I think PSE recognizes that the potential main problem with their bid is the damages COG will demand or get. The new bid was an attempt to bribe COG out of the NHL's camp or at least to neutrality, somewhat like the NHL did to SOF to remove them from PSE's corner. COG is a big part of the NHL's backbone in this fight. So I don't think it was really an attempt to "raise their bid" any further than that, especially since it doesn't really raise anything (in fact lowering the payments to other unsecured creditors).

COG smells blood, though, if PSE wins. They've put their money on BIG damages. Time MAY tell if their lawyers were right to do so.

Crazy_Ike is offline  
Old
09-11-2009, 12:12 AM
  #63
Crazy_Ike
Cookin' with fire.
 
Crazy_Ike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,542
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209 View Post
Hey - I was thinking movies/TV references.

Updating a post I made (many threads) earlier:
TBH, we may get the next thread tomorrow, and a new title then.

I wonder if they'll have to reinforce the board, too...

Crazy_Ike is offline  
Old
09-11-2009, 12:13 AM
  #64
nye
Registered User
 
nye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Siberia
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,887
vCash: 500
GSC, what are the legal rights of the secureds and Glendale to force the judge to make a sale?


Last edited by nye: 09-11-2009 at 12:24 AM.
nye is offline  
Old
09-11-2009, 12:19 AM
  #65
Call of the loonie
Registered User
 
Call of the loonie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 1,952
vCash: 500
Is there any way that the judge will be held accountable for some of the decisions he has made (ie Allowing PSE to bid on something that isn't for sale)?

Call of the loonie is offline  
Old
09-11-2009, 12:20 AM
  #66
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,910
vCash: 500
The NHL's documents reveal that they forecast Hamilton to be in the top five in revenues in the league when these previously confidential NHL documents were tendered in court today.
http://www.thestar.com/sports/article/693658

Bettman was questioned by reporters about putting a franchise in Hamilton if these figures were accurate. Bettman clearly set out the NHL reasons as follows:

"It's not a question that we haven't considered, wouldn't consider," said Bettman. "It hasn't been ripe."



Allow me to translate the double negative lawyer speak -

"The last thing we want to do is tick off MLSE and let another team invade southern Ontario and run the risk of MLSE publicly using the veto that is sitting there like the elephant in the room."

Of course I could be wrong and there may well be valid business reasons why you would pour hundreds of millions of dollars down the drain in Phoenix rather than move into a top five revenue generating market. However for the life of me I cannot think of one that trumps the MLSE veto.

YMMV.

Wetcoaster is offline  
Old
09-11-2009, 12:21 AM
  #67
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Call of the loonie View Post
Is there any way that the judge will be held accountable for some of the decisions he has made (ie Allowing PSE to bid on something that isn't for sale)?
It is called an appeal - trial judges and even appellate judges are accountable up to the top court in the land.

Wetcoaster is offline  
Old
09-11-2009, 12:22 AM
  #68
GSC2k2*
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazy_Ike View Post
I don't see it quite that way. I think PSE recognizes that the potential main problem with their bid is the damages COG will demand or get. The new bid was an attempt to bribe COG out of the NHL's camp or at least to neutrality, somewhat like the NHL did to SOF to remove them from PSE's corner. COG is a big part of the NHL's backbone in this fight. So I don't think it was really an attempt to "raise their bid" any further than that, especially since it doesn't really raise anything (in fact lowering the payments to other unsecured creditors).

COG smells blood, though, if PSE wins. They've put their money on BIG damages. Time MAY tell if their lawyers were right to do so.
Indeed, everything you say is correct, Ike. That was what they tried to address, and clearly so. My point is with respect to the timing. They made it at a time when they have given Glendale plenty of time to string them along even further, even if only for $20-30 million more. As I said, if you are making a bid too early (as they did), you are squandering your leverage and throwing away money. They need to bribe Glendale, but they needed to do it at a point in time when it puts maximum pressure on Glendale. Days before the auction starts is not the time. Not even close

Quote:
Originally Posted by nye View Post
GSC, what are the legal rights of the securdes and Glendale to force the judge to make a sale?
I don't know. I really don't think that it is a likely scenario. The NHL will explain the bid tomorrow (as will PSE for their bid). One would think they will point out to the judge that their bid effectively extends the auction while providing a floor price.

GSC2k2* is offline  
Old
09-11-2009, 12:24 AM
  #69
bbud
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,669
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by guyincognito View Post
lol, this again.

more revisionism, and always throwing in the Whalers, who drew 10K a night, played in a mall, and their owner wanted to relocate them. their owner.

Winnipeg was a ****show that had no realistic local option, and Quebec was Quebec.
did they 100% have to go then? no. but they were going anyway, eventually.

Phoenix has nothing in common with Hartford and Winnipeg. they've historically outdrew them.
Ill throw a few more points in there im not judging those moves just the lack of real work by NHL at the time when posters think the NHL was taking the same approach then as now
they did not , and in truth some of those moves made sense why cant that logic apply today?

bbud is offline  
Old
09-11-2009, 12:26 AM
  #70
Call of the loonie
Registered User
 
Call of the loonie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 1,952
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
It is called an appeal - trial judges and even appellate judges are accountable up to the top court in the land.
I'm not talking about his decisions being made to measure, I'm talking about the man himself.
He should have told PSE months ago that a team in Hamilton is not up for auction, instead he allowed this thing to drag on. Maybe he plans to write a book.

Call of the loonie is offline  
Old
09-11-2009, 12:27 AM
  #71
GSC2k2*
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,384
vCash: 500
One thing that I had noticed in the twitters that seemed to be missed around here:

The much-mocked Cynamon/Sokolowski duo (the TO Argonaut owners, for non-SO locals) were actually investors in the Ice Edge bid.

Did no one have thoughts on that?


Last edited by LadyStanley: 09-11-2009 at 01:20 AM. Reason: qdp
GSC2k2* is offline  
Old
09-11-2009, 12:27 AM
  #72
Macke*
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Vancouver, B.C
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,756
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naych_PHX View Post
It won't end tomorrow. Don't be shocked when this is still going on by the time the season starts.
All i Care about is Ballsille's bid really.

That should get settled once and for all tomorrow.. not expecting any appeals to work.

Macke* is offline  
Old
09-11-2009, 12:27 AM
  #73
nye
Registered User
 
nye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Siberia
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,887
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
The NHL's documents reveal that they forecast Hamilton to be in the top five in revenues in the league when these previously confidential NHL documents were tendered in court today.
http://www.thestar.com/sports/article/693658

Bettman was questioned by reporters about putting a franchise in Hamilton if these figures were accurate. Bettman clearly set out the NHL reasons as follows:

"It's not a question that we haven't considered, wouldn't consider," said Bettman. "It hasn't been ripe."



Allow me to translate the double negative lawyer speak -

"The last thing we want to do is tick off MLSE and let another team invade southern Ontario and run the risk of MLSE publicly using the veto that is sitting there like the elephant in the room."

Of course I could be wrong and there may well be valid business reasons why you would pour hundreds of millions of dollars down the drain in Phoenix rather than move into a top five revenue generating market. However for the life of me I cannot think of one that trumps the MLSE veto.

YMMV.

Maybe it's been a lack of bidders willing to pay the value of the market and adhere to the rules for bidding (like putting up the cost up front and not spread over seven years). Is that possible?

nye is offline  
Old
09-11-2009, 12:27 AM
  #74
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nye View Post
FWIT, kdb, Terminator: Judgement Day should have been it.
Actually it seems to be wandering around more like the TV series:

"Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles"

Bad scripts, bad acting, improbable story lines, etc.

About all that would put it in the Hollywood blockbuster movie category would be the budget for this piece of theatre.

Wetcoaster is offline  
Old
09-11-2009, 12:28 AM
  #75
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,927
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaym3000 View Post
Kev no disrespect but I think you are one of those outside of S Ontario who don't really have a clue as to what is going on here. I listened to all of the testimony today - especially where one NHL expert after another went on about how Hamilton would be a great market - the 5th most valuable right away, but the NHL wasn't looking to expand here ever. You can all say that this is about the NHL preserving it's relocation rights, but sit back and look at this thing and see if it stinks and if you think about it long enough you will figure out that it does not make any sense. It is bizarro business practice, that is unless there is something holding them back - and it is clearly MLSE - all else is a total smokescreen.
Let me start with: I understand completely why you and others feel that way. And I'm NOT backing the NHL keeping a team in Phoenix over moving it to Hamilton.

The point I'm making is simply: Re-hashing the who fought for who argument yet again is a waste of time. The NHL is fighting and won't stop. Whether that's right, wrong, fair or unfair is totally irrelevant. I'm saying that the league fights for those three points I laid out above. They just do. And they will.


The NHL's lack of interest in Hamilton (and the wrongness of it) is only semi-related to this case. The NHL is not fighting AGAINST HAMILTON. Yes, it definitely appears that way, and YES there is strong indications that they ARE anti-Hamilton. But you have to realize there is much more than just Hamilton vs Phoenix going on here.

Let me state now that I am relatively pro-Hamilton; Pro-Canada and Pro-Northern Markets (to me, go back to 1991, add Denver (Smythe), Ottawa (Adams) and Hamilton (Norris) for a 24-team league and we're perfect.

But I recognize we can't have that for some reasons (like the fact that its a business and rich people are greedy. Remember that the owners which sold Canadian teams to be moved may have been Canadian themselves and not all fault lies with Bettman; in both relocation and expansion).

Like I said, I'm pro-Northern teams, and if I was commish of that 24-team league (or 28 if future expansion) and ANY owner deliberately bankrupted his team to try and circumvent NHL rules, I'd fight like hell to stop them from shredding our constitution... even if the team was moving to Rochester, NY (my hometown) or New Orleans (my current residence).

KevFu 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 02:04 AM.

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.