HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Julien Brisebois on his way out?Official joins Tampa's management

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-15-2010, 12:03 PM
  #26
Watsatheo
Error 503 Service
 
Watsatheo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,729
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrNasty View Post
but, but...the Habs management is a joke; that is what I am continual being told on here. Why on earth would another organization want anyone from the Habs leadership group?
We can't seem to keep the good ones around. Getting your employees poached isn't exactly good upper managing.

Watsatheo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2010, 12:13 PM
  #27
InglewoodJack
Registered User
 
InglewoodJack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Châteauguay
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,487
vCash: 500
So the Marlins take our front office, Lightning takes our young guns... well Trestman, have fun in Jacksonville.

InglewoodJack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2010, 12:24 PM
  #28
EXPOS123
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 111
vCash: 500
While I think Brisebois did a good job, many people here seem to be making him out to be the next Sam Pollock. Sure he won championships in Hamilton, but making up your squad mostly of veteran minor leaguers will help do that. Besides, other than Price and possibly Subban, who exactly has made a signifcant impact at the NHL level? Lastly, this whole bit about being a "capologist" is so overated. I mean come on, its not rocket science to understand that you can only spend so much on a individual players given a team limit. When they were signed/acquired, a lot of you here figured out that the contracts given to Gomez, Spacek and Hamrlik were terrible for the team because they would handcuff us from making future significant upgrades, which is exactly what happened this offseason. Again, I think is he a good soldier for the Canadiens, but I do think he was over rated by many. I hate to say it, but the fact that his last name was Brisebois and not McMann contributed to that.

EXPOS123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2010, 12:28 PM
  #29
Andy
Registered User
 
Andy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,596
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EXPOS123 View Post
While I think Brisebois did a good job, many people here seem to be making him out to be the next Sam Pollock. Sure he won championships in Hamilton, but making up your squad mostly of veteran minor leaguers will help do that. Besides, other than Price and possibly Subban, who exactly has made a signifcant impact at the NHL level? Lastly, this whole bit about being a "capologist" is so overated. I mean come on, its not rocket science to understand that you can only spend so much on a individual players given a team limit. When they were signed/acquired, a lot of you here figured out that the contracts given to Gomez, Spacek and Hamrlik were terrible for the team because they would handcuff us from making future significant upgrades, which is exactly what happened this offseason. Again, I think is he a good soldier for the Canadiens, but I do think he was over rated by many. I hate to say it, but the fact that his last name was Brisebois and not McMann contributed to that.
Ummm no. I don't that's it, I don't even think anyone is or has "overrated" him. Tampa wants him, that must be something significant right, after all they do have Boucher and Yzerman right? Unless they're overrated also.

Given that many of us don't actually know what decisions were made by J. Brisebois, it's pretty hard to evaluate him at his position(we don't know how the organizations work), it's not like he's been fired, he's just being poached by another team, what does that mean? Who knows.

You sound angry, but I don't know why, I don't think you know why, but it seems to fit in with the rest of your negativity, after all, you have 13 posts and every single one of them has been a complaint about some aspect of this team.

Andy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2010, 12:42 PM
  #30
JackieChan
Registered User
 
JackieChan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,574
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turboflex View Post
I think you are overrating how much that is worth.
Can't demonstrate that to you right now but the difference is very substantial.

JackieChan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2010, 01:21 PM
  #31
imindoors
 
imindoors's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Montreal, Qc, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 43
vCash: 500
It'll be sad to see him go, he did a lot of the organisation..

imindoors is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2010, 01:47 PM
  #32
CastroLeRobot
Hab-a-bouille
 
CastroLeRobot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 727
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turboflex View Post
I think you are overrating how much that is worth.
I don't agree. Compound interest is extremely important and wise players invest their money during their careers and spend it afterwards.

Here is an example of 2 contracts, same total amounts, one is front loaded:

For argument and simplicity's sake, lets assume 100% of the money is invested and interest rate is 10% :

Scenario 1
20 millions 5 years --> 4 millions per year
Year 1 : 4 Millions in bank
Year 2 : 4 + 4 + 10%*4 = 8.4 Millions in bank
Year 3 : 4 + 8.4 + 10%*8.4 = 13.24 Millions in bank
Year 4 : 4 + 13.24 + 10%*13.24 = 18.564 Millions in bank
Year 5 : 4 + 18.564 + 10%*18.564 = 24.4204 Millions
Which gives the player a total of 4.4204 Millions in interest during his contract

Scenario 2: 20 Millions 5 years : 6-5-4-3-2
Year 1: 6 Millions in bank
Year 2: 5 + 6 + 10%*6 = 11.6 Millions in bank
Year 3: 4 + 11.6 + 10%*11.6 = 16.76
Year 4: 3 + 16.76 + 10%*16.76 = 21.436
Year 5 : 2 + 21.436 + 10%*21.436 = 25.5796
Which gives the player a total of 5.5796 Millions in interest...1.1 millions more than the regular contract.

In regards to the total value of the contract (20 Millions), the difference is more than 5% more money with the front loaded contract. Not bad, in 5 years doing nothing more than watching the money grow.

Take that and push it even more. At 10% interest, it takes 7 years to double your initial investment. For guys like Ovechkin with huge and long contracts, front loading can give many millions in extra interest.

CastroLeRobot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2010, 02:06 PM
  #33
goman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 861
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CastroLeRobot View Post
I don't agree. Compound interest is extremely important and wise players invest their money during their careers and spend it afterwards.

Here is an example of 2 contracts, same total amounts, one is front loaded:

For argument and simplicity's sake, lets assume 100% of the money is invested and interest rate is 10% :

Scenario 1
20 millions 5 years --> 4 millions per year
Year 1 : 4 Millions in bank
Year 2 : 4 + 4 + 10%*4 = 8.4 Millions in bank
Year 3 : 4 + 8.4 + 10%*8.4 = 13.24 Millions in bank
Year 4 : 4 + 13.24 + 10%*13.24 = 18.564 Millions in bank
Year 5 : 4 + 18.564 + 10%*18.564 = 24.4204 Millions
Which gives the player a total of 4.4204 Millions in interest during his contract

Scenario 2: 20 Millions 5 years : 6-5-4-3-2
Year 1: 6 Millions in bank
Year 2: 5 + 6 + 10%*6 = 11.6 Millions in bank
Year 3: 4 + 11.6 + 10%*11.6 = 16.76
Year 4: 3 + 16.76 + 10%*16.76 = 21.436
Year 5 : 2 + 21.436 + 10%*21.436 = 25.5796
Which gives the player a total of 5.5796 Millions in interest...1.1 millions more than the regular contract.

In regards to the total value of the contract (20 Millions), the difference is more than 5% more money with the front loaded contract. Not bad, in 5 years doing nothing more than watching the money grow.

Take that and push it even more. At 10% interest, it takes 7 years to double your initial investment. For guys like Ovechkin with huge and long contracts, front loading can give many millions in extra interest.
A couple of problems with the logic here.

1. You assume that a player's salary can be deposited in full into investments, not taking into account taxes, living expenses, luxury expenses, etc, plus the fact that most people like to have some money in the bank but not tied to investments. Not to mention escrow, unions, CPP or equivalent etc.
2. You assume that the player receives all of his money on day 1 of his contract and can thus reap the rewards of 12 months of interest when players are paid out during the year like salaried employees (which is what they are).
3. You assume a 10% ROI which is obviously possible but not at all probable. Show how 10% ROI can be guaranteed year after year. Something like 5-6% is more realistic as far as I'm aware.

However, even if a player did not have to pay taxes, expenses, etc and could invest all of his yearly salary on day 1 of his contract every year and find a way to guarantee himself a 10% ROI...he's still only making an additional $1 Million over 5 years. I see why a player would rather make the same total money but have it front loaded but the argument is it's better for the team because the player would be more likely to take less money if the contract was front loaded.

But in this best case (see: unrealistic) scenario he can make back $200,000 a year...how much salary do you expect to give up for that opportunity? I would hope no more than $200,000 as any more than that wouldn't make sense given your justification. That just means you've reduced your cap hit by $200,000/yr, not a great savings. Also, let's not forget it wouldn't even be that much as the logic and math in your example are flawed. In fact, accounting for taxes alone you can pretty much cut that ROI in 1/2.

goman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2010, 02:11 PM
  #34
DirtyJeeves
Registered User
 
DirtyJeeves's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Anderson, SC
Country: United States
Posts: 732
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to DirtyJeeves
What would be the tax implications in Quebec on a front-loaded contract? Does the player have anything to gain or lose in terms of taxes by spreading it even compared to front-loading?

DirtyJeeves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2010, 02:41 PM
  #35
Nidema
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,557
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by goman View Post
A couple of problems with the logic here.

1. You assume that a player's salary can be deposited in full into investments, not taking into account taxes, living expenses, luxury expenses, etc, plus the fact that most people like to have some money in the bank but not tied to investments. Not to mention escrow, unions, CPP or equivalent etc.
2. You assume that the player receives all of his money on day 1 of his contract and can thus reap the rewards of 12 months of interest when players are paid out during the year like salaried employees (which is what they are).
3. You assume a 10% ROI which is obviously possible but not at all probable. Show how 10% ROI can be guaranteed year after year. Something like 5-6% is more realistic as far as I'm aware.

However, even if a player did not have to pay taxes, expenses, etc and could invest all of his yearly salary on day 1 of his contract every year and find a way to guarantee himself a 10% ROI...he's still only making an additional $1 Million over 5 years. I see why a player would rather make the same total money but have it front loaded but the argument is it's better for the team because the player would be more likely to take less money if the contract was front loaded.

But in this best case (see: unrealistic) scenario he can make back $200,000 a year...how much salary do you expect to give up for that opportunity? I would hope no more than $200,000 as any more than that wouldn't make sense given your justification. That just means you've reduced your cap hit by $200,000/yr, not a great savings. Also, let's not forget it wouldn't even be that much as the logic and math in your example are flawed. In fact, accounting for taxes alone you can pretty much cut that ROI in 1/2.
It depends completely on what investment vehicle they choose to use. I would even be skeptical of 5 to 6% right now as a consistent ROI. Considering interest rate in Canada is .5% and soon to be .75% while the states is at 0.25% (IIRC), what you can get in the bond market will be around 3 to 4% yield in the short term and MAYBE 4.5% in the long term if you invest upwards of 10 years. At that rate, you will lose a quarter to half the value of your investment due to inflation over that period of time.

However, his general idea is correct. The point is not that players prefer front loaded contracts due to the return they can get from compound interest. The idea is that the time value of money compels players to usually front load their contract because the amount of money they receive in the longterm is devalued by inflation and interest.

I am sure some of you know about the concept of net present value. If you perform that exercise on Cammy's contract assuming a discount rate of 1.9 (0.5% interest, 1.4% inflation), you will find that the actual value of his contract after taking into account time value of money will be at around 28.8 mil. Now his contract value looks like this, 5,5,6,7,7. If he had gotten a front loaded contract like 7,7,6,5,5 mil, the present value of his contract would be at around 29.1 mil. Is this that significant? Probably not. But the value of his contract is less because he back loaded it. In addition, larger and longer term contracts will be subjected to this concept in greater degree. Of course, I didn't take into account taxes because i don't know how they work in quebec lol.

Nidema is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2010, 02:47 PM
  #36
Turboflex*
 
Turboflex*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,152
vCash: 500
Look I know how compounding interest works and how it is extra money in the player's pocket, I work at ScotiaMcLeod.

I still don't think this is a major issue for players, we signed 2 of the best UFA's last summer without needing to do this (Cammelleri & Gionta, hell squid's contract is backloaded! Sure didn't seem to matter to him).

Like goman said there's a lot of factors that diminish the mathematics of it. And to get that 10% ROI you're going to have to go out into (soon to be upended) income trust land or RBS/NBG ADRs on the USD side of things, which I prolly wouldn't do if I were one of these guys (lets stick to GICs and safer prefs).

Turboflex* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2010, 02:52 PM
  #37
Nidema
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,557
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turboflex View Post
Look I know how compounding interest works and how it is extra money in the player's pocket, I work at ScotiaMcLeod.

I still don't think this is a major issue for players, we signed 2 of the best UFA's last summer without needing to do this (Cammelleri & Gionta, hell squid's contract is backloaded! Sure didn't seem to matter to him).

Like goman said there's a lot of factors that diminish the mathematics of it. And to get that 10% ROI you're going to have to go out into (soon to be upended) income trust land or RBS/NBG ADRs on the USD side of things, which I prolly wouldn't do if I were one of these guys (lets stick to GICs and safer prefs).
Screw compound interest, you're assuming so many things in that scenario that it's pointless to analyze. I agree with you that we probably overexaggerate the importance of front loaded contracts but I think that it is still a big factor to contract negotiations. Sure, some players will want different things and obviously we're oversimplifying the analysis here. Location can also be another factor. But given two contracts of similar value from similar market sized teams, if one was front loaded and the other was not, you would take the front loaded one no?

Which is why I love the contract that Cammy signed. How many players will take a back loaded contract to play in Montreal when they could have chosen from many other teams?

Nidema is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2010, 02:59 PM
  #38
CastroLeRobot
Hab-a-bouille
 
CastroLeRobot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 727
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by goman View Post
A couple of problems with the logic here.

1. You assume that a player's salary can be deposited in full into investments, not taking into account taxes, living expenses, luxury expenses, etc, plus the fact that most people like to have some money in the bank but not tied to investments. Not to mention escrow, unions, CPP or equivalent etc.
2. You assume that the player receives all of his money on day 1 of his contract and can thus reap the rewards of 12 months of interest when players are paid out during the year like salaried employees (which is what they are).
3. You assume a 10% ROI which is obviously possible but not at all probable. Show how 10% ROI can be guaranteed year after year. Something like 5-6% is more realistic as far as I'm aware.

However, even if a player did not have to pay taxes, expenses, etc and could invest all of his yearly salary on day 1 of his contract every year and find a way to guarantee himself a 10% ROI...he's still only making an additional $1 Million over 5 years. I see why a player would rather make the same total money but have it front loaded but the argument is it's better for the team because the player would be more likely to take less money if the contract was front loaded.

But in this best case (see: unrealistic) scenario he can make back $200,000 a year...how much salary do you expect to give up for that opportunity? I would hope no more than $200,000 as any more than that wouldn't make sense given your justification. That just means you've reduced your cap hit by $200,000/yr, not a great savings. Also, let's not forget it wouldn't even be that much as the logic and math in your example are flawed. In fact, accounting for taxes alone you can pretty much cut that ROI in 1/2.
I don't see how "simplifying" a problem by stating in the first place that it is simplified is a logic flaw. As for the math, you're retarded if you think I made a math error.

Of course the players pay taxes and of course, they are paid weekly salaries, not yearly. The idea here is to demonstrate that investing earlier brings more money in the end, hence the front loading.

10% investment was ONLY to simplify the math. Most people get less ROI, some people get more. It's all about experience, wisdom and luck.

200k may not look like a lot when we talk millions, but it is for most people, including hockey players. 100% of Hockey players would rather make 200k more than not. That's a no brainer.

CastroLeRobot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2010, 03:14 PM
  #39
goman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 861
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CastroLeRobot View Post
I don't see how "simplifying" a problem by stating in the first place that it is simplified is a logic flaw. As for the math, you're retarded if you think I made a math error.

Of course the players pay taxes and of course, they are paid weekly salaries, not yearly. The idea here is to demonstrate that investing earlier brings more money in the end, hence the front loading.

10% investment was ONLY to simplify the math. Most people get less ROI, some people get more. It's all about experience, wisdom and luck.

200k may not look like a lot when we talk millions, but it is for most people, including hockey players. 100% of Hockey players would rather make 200k more than not. That's a no brainer.
Ok, so let's just forget the details and say front loaded contracts are better for players because they get more money up front and they can do what they want with it.

What's I was trying to establish was the benefit for teams. It sounds like the argument is because it's better for the players, they'll be more likely to take less money.

The question is how much less total money would they take? It's only beneficial to the team if there's a reduced cap hit (or if it means getting the player or not getting him). So what I was trying to establish is what is the realistic savings a team could expect by front loading? ie Why is everyone upset about the Habs not front loading? Did we miss out on players we could have had because we refused to front load? Did we spend unnecessary cap space because it was a scenario that was never presented? I don't get why this is a hot button issue with so many posters.

goman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2010, 03:59 PM
  #40
McNuts
Registered User
 
McNuts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,825
vCash: 500
**** Steve Yzerman.

McNuts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2010, 04:02 PM
  #41
Andy
Registered User
 
Andy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,596
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by goman View Post
Ok, so let's just forget the details and say front loaded contracts are better for players because they get more money up front and they can do what they want with it.

What's I was trying to establish was the benefit for teams. It sounds like the argument is because it's better for the players, they'll be more likely to take less money.

The question is how much less total money would they take? It's only beneficial to the team if there's a reduced cap hit (or if it means getting the player or not getting him). So what I was trying to establish is what is the realistic savings a team could expect by front loading? ie Why is everyone upset about the Habs not front loading? Did we miss out on players we could have had because we refused to front load? Did we spend unnecessary cap space because it was a scenario that was never presented? I don't get why this is a hot button issue with so many posters.
People just like to complain even if they know or do not possess adequate knowledge to complain about something.

Andy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2010, 04:07 PM
  #42
Player 61
#Winning
 
Player 61's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: West Island
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,167
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Player 61
He's just a capologist, maybe we should nominate mathman for the position.

Player 61 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2010, 04:11 PM
  #43
CastroLeRobot
Hab-a-bouille
 
CastroLeRobot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 727
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by goman View Post
Ok, so let's just forget the details and say front loaded contracts are better for players because they get more money up front and they can do what they want with it.

What's I was trying to establish was the benefit for teams. It sounds like the argument is because it's better for the players, they'll be more likely to take less money.

The question is how much less total money would they take? It's only beneficial to the team if there's a reduced cap hit (or if it means getting the player or not getting him). So what I was trying to establish is what is the realistic savings a team could expect by front loading? ie Why is everyone upset about the Habs not front loading? Did we miss out on players we could have had because we refused to front load? Did we spend unnecessary cap space because it was a scenario that was never presented? I don't get why this is a hot button issue with so many posters.
Yours is a valid question. To be consistent, if its financially advantageous for players to have front loaded contracts (more money in their pocket earlier to do whatever), the corollary of that for the team is less money in their pocket earlier to do whatever. That being said, a team can decide to front load because it has a lot of liquidity or access to low interest cash now.

IMO, players will always choose front loaded over any other type of contract, if possible. You never know what tomorrow brings and a bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush.

CastroLeRobot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2010, 11:03 PM
  #44
NHLfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 203
vCash: 500
Lightning taking upper management prospects from the Habs

Tampa Bay should give us some compensation for getting Boucher and now Brisebois.

NHLfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2010, 11:51 PM
  #45
SeriousFan09
Registered User
 
SeriousFan09's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Mississauga, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,164
vCash: 500
Stevie, isn't there some other NHL organization you can plunder for their up-and-coming management personnel?

SeriousFan09 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2010, 12:40 AM
  #46
Bieber fever
Registered User
 
Bieber fever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Westmount
Posts: 5,237
vCash: 500
my theorie is that PKP have already a verbal pact with Bettman to buy TBL....he's now loading the team with francophoe ; boucher , lecavalier, st-louis, brisebois and soon Gagné....after thaht ,he we will move the team to Qc city.






Bieber fever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2010, 01:13 AM
  #47
TheBuriedHab
Registered User
 
TheBuriedHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 5,181
vCash: 500
God can Tampa Screw off. The habs are bringing up people through the buisness only to get them taken by tampa bay when they are seen to be good. Unless you are taking Hamrlik Tampa can GTFO!

TheBuriedHab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2010, 04:37 AM
  #48
Kimota
Nation of Poutine
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 22,131
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McNuts View Post
**** Steve Yzerman.


In reality I don't mind if our young guys from management are going to other organisations to get experience. Because managing the Habs you can't be a green guy. If in 5 years from now the Habs are looking for a GM, then Brisebois would be ready. Same thing with Boucher.

Kimota is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2010, 01:40 PM
  #49
Agalloch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Lachute, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,795
vCash: 500
http://www.rds.ca/hockey/chroniques/302601.html

So who is Kevin Gilmore ? Is he good ?

Agalloch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2010, 01:55 PM
  #50
Kebekoi
Registered User
 
Kebekoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Matane, QC
Country: Martinique
Posts: 1,468
vCash: 500
Brisebois to Tampa. Confirmed

http://www.rds.ca/hockey/chroniques/302601.html

Gainey

Kebekoi 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 11:23 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.