HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Fantasy Hockey Talk > HFNHL Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
HFNHL Talk HFNHL is a full-simulation fantasy league that uses the FHL simulator to determine the outcome of games over a full 82-game season.

Suggestion for next year

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-19-2010, 12:53 PM
  #1
islanders
Registered User
 
islanders's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,706
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to islanders
Suggestion for next year

We all know that minimum rating does not work with the new sim and with the way the new sim is generating revenue, I think it is time for us to bring in minimum cap rule for next season. I believe the minimum cap rule will increase the parity among the league and teams will not be unloading vetern players for young blood. I have done the projection for revenues and it looks like all teams will make more than minimum cap of $40.8M.

As for maximum cap, maybe we should turn on the luxury tax button on the sim and penalize team based on luxury cap used. For example, anyone exceeding $2M losses 4th rd pick and so on.

Any thoughts?

Team Revenue Per Game Estimated Yearly Revenue
1 Florida $1,186,248 $48,636,168
2 Detroit $1,185,468 $48,604,188
3 Columbus $1,180,535 $48,401,935
4 Toronto $1,174,990 $48,174,590
5 St Louis $1,174,139 $48,139,699
6 Calgary $1,168,782 $47,920,062
7 New York Rangers $1,162,342 $47,656,022
8 Chicago $1,157,971 $47,476,811
9 Anaheim $1,152,971 $47,271,811
10 Buffalo $1,146,507 $47,006,787
11 Dallas $1,143,060 $46,865,460
12 Ottawa $1,141,901 $46,817,941
13 Nashville $1,137,898 $46,653,818
14 Montreal $1,132,737 $46,442,217
15 Colorado $1,124,391 $46,100,031
16 New Jersey $1,123,566 $46,066,206
17 Tampa $1,121,090 $45,964,690
18 Boston $1,111,218 $45,559,938
19 Washington $1,105,304 $45,317,464
20 Philadelphia $1,103,286 $45,234,726
21 Vancouver $1,100,813 $45,133,333
22 Atlanta $1,099,060 $45,061,460
23 Minnesota $1,092,395 $44,788,195
24 Carolina $1,088,961 $44,647,401
25 San Jose $1,087,521 $44,588,361
26 Los Angeles $1,087,513 $44,588,033
27 Edmonton $1,083,760 $44,434,160
28 New York Islanders $1,070,912 $43,907,392
29 Pittsburg $1,065,446 $43,683,286
30 Phoenix $1,037,080 $42,520,280

islanders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2010, 01:14 PM
  #2
Dryden
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Toronto
Country: St Lucia
Posts: 1,795
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Dryden Send a message via Skype™ to Dryden
too high. there are enough teams out there that don't have enough money in the bank to cover the losses they will incur

nice idea though

Dryden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2010, 01:18 PM
  #3
islanders
Registered User
 
islanders's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,706
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to islanders
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dryden View Post
too high. there are enough teams out there that don't have enough money in the bank to cover the losses they will incur

nice idea though
Name me one that has a payroll below $40M and struggling financially.

islanders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2010, 01:19 PM
  #4
Dryden
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Toronto
Country: St Lucia
Posts: 1,795
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Dryden Send a message via Skype™ to Dryden
well i was until this year. Once i re-sign Green and Keith I will be. That's an added $10 mil a year which puts me around break even. Doesn't even put me at $40 mil

Dryden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2010, 01:30 PM
  #5
islanders
Registered User
 
islanders's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,706
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to islanders
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dryden View Post
well i was until this year. Once i re-sign Green and Keith I will be. That's an added $10 mil a year which puts me around break even. Doesn't even put me at $40 mil
Dryden, we all were struggling with old sim but with the new sim you are estimated to generate $47M of revenue not counting endorsement. So spending $42M will still keep you in positve territory.

islanders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2010, 01:41 PM
  #6
Canuck09
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,260
vCash: 500
I'm on pace to generate the 4th lowest revenue despite having 96.6% attendance (2nd best in the HFNHL) thanks to my tiny building. I've tracked my attendance and ticket prices in an Excel file for every game to try and maximize my income but working in a building with only 16,839 seats means I'll always have trouble. Even with those points, I think we should have a cap floor.

Everything in this league is geared towards realism, more so than any league I've been in, yet we don't have this one major component. Even the existing cap calculation check points where we can go above the cap seems wrong, as does a luxury penalty IMO. The cap should be the cap, there is simply no going above/below it.

What we really need is to add more seats to Rexall Place! Do I need to get on the phone to my NHL counterparts and ask them to build a new arena just so I can make some more money?

Canuck09 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2010, 01:49 PM
  #7
islanders
Registered User
 
islanders's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,706
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to islanders
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canuck09 View Post
I'm on pace to generate the 4th lowest revenue despite having 96.6% attendance (2nd best in the HFNHL) thanks to my tiny building. I've tracked my attendance and ticket prices in an Excel file for every game to try and maximize my income but working in a building with only 16,839 seats means I'll always have trouble. Even with those points, I think we should have a cap floor.

Everything in this league is geared towards realism, more so than any league I've been in, yet we don't have this one major component. Even the existing cap calculation check points where we can go above the cap seems wrong, as does a luxury penalty IMO. The cap should be the cap, there is simply no going above/below it.

What we really need is to add more seats to Rexall Place! Do I need to get on the phone to my NHL counterparts and ask them to build a new arena just so I can make some more money?
Well at least you will qualify for attendance endorsements Don't feel bad as I have the smallest building

islanders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2010, 03:40 PM
  #8
Dr.Sens(e)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 6,454
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canuck09 View Post
I'm on pace to generate the 4th lowest revenue despite having 96.6% attendance (2nd best in the HFNHL) thanks to my tiny building. I've tracked my attendance and ticket prices in an Excel file for every game to try and maximize my income but working in a building with only 16,839 seats means I'll always have trouble. Even with those points, I think we should have a cap floor.

Everything in this league is geared towards realism, more so than any league I've been in, yet we don't have this one major component. Even the existing cap calculation check points where we can go above the cap seems wrong, as does a luxury penalty IMO. The cap should be the cap, there is simply no going above/below it.

What we really need is to add more seats to Rexall Place! Do I need to get on the phone to my NHL counterparts and ask them to build a new arena just so I can make some more money?
If you're attendance is really high as a %, and your revenue low, this is a clear sign that you are undercharging for your tickets. Another way to look at it is, with every sell-out you have, you have left a bunch of people willing to pay that couldn't get in. Charge more - make more, this is the edict of the smaller building crew.

Dr.Sens(e) is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2010, 04:41 PM
  #9
Canuck09
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,260
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Sens(e) View Post
If you're attendance is really high as a %, and your revenue low, this is a clear sign that you are undercharging for your tickets. Another way to look at it is, with every sell-out you have, you have left a bunch of people willing to pay that couldn't get in. Charge more - make more, this is the edict of the smaller building crew.
Like I said, I've tracked my prices for every game in Excel. I've tried different prices to see whether I would be better off being close to capacity at low prices or over charging and being 85-90% full and from the results I've gathered I'm getting the most I can right now. I'm pretty sure I've only had 1 sellout all season and my home record has been terrible so it's tough enough getting the people I do.

One other thing relating to revenue is that ticket revenue never equals what's listed as your Ticket Income . If you add up the totals from your ticket sales at Level 1/2/3 etc it will not be the same amount as your Ticket Income. It appears we've got the extra income turned off/down as other STHS leagues I'm in has a seperate line item for "Other Income" that we don't have so I'm not sure what this bonus income consists of.

As an example...

Finance
Level 1 -- Attendance: 5613 (100.00%) -- Ticket Income $510,783.00
Level 2 -- Attendance: 4677 (100.00%) -- Ticket Income $280,620.00
Level 3 -- Attendance: 1871 (100.00%) -- Ticket Income $65,485.00
Level 4 -- Attendance: 3737 (99.87%) -- Ticket Income $74,740.00
Luxury Box -- Attendance: 920 (98.29%) -- Ticket Income $175,720.00
Total Gate Income: $1,107,348
Game was played at the Rexall Place
Total Attendance: 16818 (99.88%)
Total Ticket Income: $1,208,524.00
Total Income: $1,208,524.00

I added the bold line just to save anyone interested in looking from having to do the math. In the end we make more in the Total Income field it's just strange to see it not add up when it's claimed to be a Ticket Income amount. So far this season the variance has been anywhere from $4,084 to $101,176.


Last edited by Canuck09: 02-19-2010 at 05:05 PM. Reason: added info
Canuck09 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2010, 10:21 AM
  #10
Ohio Jones
The other Dexter
 
Ohio Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Great White North
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,626
vCash: 500
In the past, the reason we've avoided a salary floor is the feeling that it encourages weaker teams to over-pay for questionable free agents just to get their salaries up to the floor. The salary cap is enough of a magnet for contracts, we felt, and a more expensive team is not necessarily a better team. Since the ultimate objective is parity, we wanted to focus on measures that contributed more directly to competitiveness (hence the OV calculation).

However, with our contracts now being pegged to the NHL's, an we do indeed pride ourselves on our verisimilitude (!), we might as well introduce a floor. Next year's cap (this year's NHL cap) is $56.8 million. Cap floors were originally supposed to be 55% of the ceiling, bt that has since been changed so that the floor is $16 million below the ceiling. So the floor for the NHL - and for us, presumably - would be $40.8 million, as in Hasnain's calculations. I'd be ok with that.

As for introducing an NBA-like "soft" cap, I am strictly against it. To be honest, I don't even think we should do the cap calculation points in the season, as they allow a team to use averages to skew themselves over the cap for part of the year. I agree with Jeff above that the cap should be a hard cap, and should be assessed against any player moves the team wants to make in the season.

I recognize that adds to the workload of the DoPP and the Swingstein's, so I propose it should be up to the GMs in submitting mid-season contracts and trades to demonstrate that the proposed move is in compliance with their cap situation.

For example, in a trade submission, it should say:

"Columbus agrees to the following trade:

To Team B:
Player X
Player Y

To CBJ:
Player Z
1st round pick
$1 million

CBJ Top 21 OV salaries before trade: $53.4 million
CBJ Top 21 OV salaries after trade: $52.25 million"

If a trade or signing puts the team over the cap, it would not (I propose) be approved, but could be approved "pending cap space", so that the team has 48 hours to make room either by completing another trade, or by waiving or buying out another player. Note that waiving a player only works if someone picks the player up. If the player is on the AHL roster but they are among the team's Top 21 OV players, then their full salary still counts against the team's cap.

Ohio Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2010, 11:15 AM
  #11
Hossa
Registered User
 
Hossa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Abroad
Posts: 9,239
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio Jones View Post
I recognize that adds to the workload of the DoPP and the Swingstein's, so I propose it should be up to the GMs in submitting mid-season contracts and trades to demonstrate that the proposed move is in compliance with their cap situation.
.
Speaking as half of the DoPP office, I would have to say this is basically necessary if we go down this route. The challenge of the DoPP office is not necessarily workload as much as it is expediency. Trades need to be turned around in a timely fashion, and even a couple of days draws a complaint from some GMs. It's understandable too, you want to get that new player in to your line-up as soon as possible, for better or for worse.

With a two-man team, we try to give trades as much discussion and analysis as possible, but the system would easily get bogged down if we had to crunch the numbers for every trade. This would make the trade deadline logistically impossible as well. Moreover, when we do delay, it is usually because of lopsided deals or trades involving vulnerable franchises, and that alone requires a fair bit of (usually subjective) analysis, but the final OV crunching still falls to the GMs.

It's actually an important point to stress as well. I don't think the DoPP office should be put in a position where a team going over the cap or under the minimum OV can blame anybody but themselves. Even if we did crunch the numbers every time, I don't think it is or should be our responsibility to monitor these things. We would be setting ourselves up for disaster I think.

Hossa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2010, 12:09 PM
  #12
Canuck09
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,260
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio Jones View Post
If a trade or signing puts the team over the cap, it would not (I propose) be approved, but could be approved "pending cap space", so that the team has 48 hours to make room either by completing another trade, or by waiving or buying out another player. Note that waiving a player only works if someone picks the player up. If the player is on the AHL roster but they are among the team's Top 21 OV players, then their full salary still counts against the team's cap.
What would the reason be to keep using the top 21 OV player thing for calculating the cap going forward? Especially if we set a hard cap ceiling/floor and stop doing calculation checkpoints throughout the season.

Canuck09 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2010, 12:34 PM
  #13
Ohio Jones
The other Dexter
 
Ohio Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Great White North
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,626
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canuck09 View Post
What would the reason be to keep using the top 21 OV player thing for calculating the cap going forward? Especially if we set a hard cap ceiling/floor and stop doing calculation checkpoints throughout the season.
First, I'm not suggesting we do calculation checkpoints, I'm suggesting the cap always be in place, for any moves.

Second, the "Top 21 OV" consideration has two functions: the first, which has nothing to do with contracts, is to encourage parity by requiring that teams boast at least a minimum level of talent. The second is all about contracts, specifically, it determines who does and does not count against a team's cap.

Teams can have as many as 50 players under contract; not all of those players count against the cap. We use the measurement that only the top 21 OV players count (technically it's the top 3 C, LW, RW, top 5 D, top 2 goalies, and the highest 5 remaining OV players on your roster). This was to keep teams from burying large contracts on the AHL roster to free up cap space - essentially to discourage excessive FA spending. Plus rosters go up and down over the course of the season with injuries and suspensions, so we didn't want to be penalizing teams who've run into a bad stretch with players not being available.

Ohio Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2010, 01:03 PM
  #14
Canuck09
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,260
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio Jones View Post
First, I'm not suggesting we do calculation checkpoints, I'm suggesting the cap always be in place, for any moves.
I know, didn't think I insinuated that you did as I mentioned if we had stopped doing the checkpoints.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio Jones View Post
Second, the "Top 21 OV" consideration has two functions: the first, which has nothing to do with contracts, is to encourage parity by requiring that teams boast at least a minimum level of talent. The second is all about contracts, specifically, it determines who does and does not count against a team's cap.

Teams can have as many as 50 players under contract; not all of those players count against the cap. We use the measurement that only the top 21 OV players count (technically it's the top 3 C, LW, RW, top 5 D, top 2 goalies, and the highest 5 remaining OV players on your roster). This was to keep teams from burying large contracts on the AHL roster to free up cap space - essentially to discourage excessive FA spending. Plus rosters go up and down over the course of the season with injuries and suspensions, so we didn't want to be penalizing teams who've run into a bad stretch with players not being available.
With a setup like this there still has to be checkpoints of some sort doesn't there? What if I carry 23/24 players on my pro team? I can technically be over the ceiling because my top 21 might end up being below $56.8M? Why can't $56.8M apply to everyone on my pro team and that's the end of it, the sim does all the monitoring with the built in cap tracking?

If we're worried about hiding contracts the sim has a setting that won't let players making $x ($1M, $2M...whatever is decided) be sent to the farm. Or if we're worried about people signing 4th liners to $5M+ type deals have the cap floor gradually climb over the next 1-3 years to ease some of the teams with $20-30M payrolls from having to jump too quickly.

Canuck09 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2010, 04:34 PM
  #15
Ohio Jones
The other Dexter
 
Ohio Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Great White North
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,626
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canuck09 View Post
I know, didn't think I insinuated that you did as I mentioned if we had stopped doing the checkpoints.
My bad, misread your comment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canuck09 View Post
With a setup like this there still has to be checkpoints of some sort doesn't there? What if I carry 23/24 players on my pro team? I can technically be over the ceiling because my top 21 might end up being below $56.8M? Why can't $56.8M apply to everyone on my pro team and that's the end of it, the sim does all the monitoring with the built in cap tracking?
Because of what I was talking about earlier: injuries and suspensions. You may sometimes need 24, 25 players on your pro roster to ice a full team. They shouldn't all count against your cap (at least, not at full value), or teams could never spend to the cap -- they'd always have to leave a few million available to cover their injury callups.

By having the cap only count against your top 21 players, it makes it a level playing field for all teams.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canuck09 View Post
If we're worried about hiding contracts the sim has a setting that won't let players making $x ($1M, $2M...whatever is decided) be sent to the farm. Or if we're worried about people signing 4th liners to $5M+ type deals have the cap floor gradually climb over the next 1-3 years to ease some of the teams with $20-30M payrolls from having to jump too quickly.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying we shouldn't impose a cap floor, just explaining the reasons why we haven't had one in the past. With player contracts now so often geared to NHL levels, those reasons are less relevant.

You offer some good suggestions, Jeff. I'm not sure I agree with putting a restriction on sending players down to the AHL - it happens in the NHL, after all. The Cap is about parity -- but teams struggling with profitability still need options to help them manage their bank balance. A decently-rated $4 million player in the minors still counts against the cap, but the team doesn't hemorrhage cash as quickly, since the player in the minors earns at a reduced rate. (although it would be interesting to know if the sim allowed for one- and two-way deals...). The waiver system plays a role in keeping talent available, and we have more generous buyout options than the NHL (for ease of administration, mostly), so teams have options to deal with unwieldy contracts. I'm just saying the best way to avoid having to find creative solutions to those contracts is not to sign them in the first place.

(I should talk, though, having been among the league's most aggressive in free agency, from giving fat signing bonuses to Brisebois and Carney in 2002 - back when we could still offer signing bonuses - to St Louis' $8 million two years ago to Blake's $6 million last summer!)

You're right, though - we definitely want to avoid increasing the average salaries paid to mediocre players wherever possible. A gradual introduction of a floor makes sense, but I wouldn't want to drag it out too long -- maybe $35 million for 2010/11, and full value ($40.8 million or the equivalent) for 2011/12 and onwards.

Ohio Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2010, 08:49 PM
  #16
islanders
Registered User
 
islanders's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,706
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to islanders
I believe the minimum salary will work better for all teams because rebuilding teams can move some salary to current season and will not be under pressure to acquire a player for the sake of minimum OV.

So lets take an example of Chicago, they are under the minimum cap floor but they have couple of key players such as D. Keith whose contract is up for renewal, rather than picking up high OV player from another team, they can sign D. Keith to a new contract and move some salary to this year. This way, they will save some cap room for the future and the team will meet the minimum salary requirements.

islanders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2010, 08:55 PM
  #17
islanders
Registered User
 
islanders's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,706
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to islanders
According to Mike of HFNHL LA, the SIM is capable of counting replacement players salary and instead of injured players...so hard cap can work with the new SIM.

islanders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2010, 09:43 PM
  #18
MatthewFlames
Registered User
 
MatthewFlames's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: America
Posts: 3,326
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to MatthewFlames Send a message via MSN to MatthewFlames Send a message via Yahoo to MatthewFlames Send a message via Skype™ to MatthewFlames
Quote:
Originally Posted by islanders View Post
According to Mike of HFNHL LA, the SIM is capable of counting replacement players salary and instead of injured players...so hard cap can work with the new SIM.
If that's the case in v2 then I think the problem we'd have by having a hard cap this season would be solved and I'd vote in favour of using the hard cap.

MatthewFlames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2010, 10:52 PM
  #19
Canuck09
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,260
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by islanders View Post
According to Mike of HFNHL LA, the SIM is capable of counting replacement players salary and instead of injured players...so hard cap can work with the new SIM.
I thought I had heard of that being an option in the new sim. Even still, in the NHL unless a player is injured long term they still count against the cap, why would we be any different? Players who are suspended or who have nagging injuries have to be dealt with all the time.

I'm not sure what exactly the new sim has, or how we could do it, but we could create a LTIR system of sorts for teams who have a player hurt below a certain CON rating.

Canuck09 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2010, 11:27 PM
  #20
Ohio Jones
The other Dexter
 
Ohio Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Great White North
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,626
vCash: 500
I'd have to see it working, but if the tool is valid, then I'd be fine with that.

Ohio Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2010, 11:39 PM
  #21
islanders
Registered User
 
islanders's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,706
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to islanders
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canuck09 View Post
I thought I had heard of that being an option in the new sim. Even still, in the NHL unless a player is injured long term they still count against the cap, why would we be any different? Players who are suspended or who have nagging injuries have to be dealt with all the time.

I'm not sure what exactly the new sim has, or how we could do it, but we could create a LTIR system of sorts for teams who have a player hurt below a certain CON rating.
For a very simple reason, NHL counts your cap daily while we don't have the resources to do that task.

islanders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2010, 12:35 AM
  #22
Canuck09
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,260
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by islanders View Post
For a very simple reason, NHL counts your cap daily while we don't have the resources to do that task.
Again, I don't know the inner workings of the current sim, but the Finances page shows each players remaining salary for the season. The number decreases each game you play, so perhaps the sim is tracking true cap hits daily somewhere in there? Is this something that's expanded on in v2 maybe?

Canuck09 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2010, 07:54 PM
  #23
Lord Stanley
El Patrón
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brampton
Posts: 464
vCash: 500
Somebody should hire me to be AGM of there club.

Lord Stanley 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 08:29 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.