HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk Trade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.

Ilya Kovalchuk to the Devils UPDATE: NHL rejects contract (Part III)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-21-2010, 03:08 PM
  #101
DopeyFish
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,007
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkReign View Post
...and you would have continued to be wrong.

Doesnt matter if teams were warned or the league prefers that these contracts dont exist.

The contracts do exist and until the CBA is changed to disallow these types of deals, if and when the Devils resubmit a deal that is less than 15 years in length.
Incorrect, they investigated but found no true foul play. They warned teams about the contracts.

Here, they have foul play - so 42 years with just removing the last 2 years means it would still be an illegal contract as they are circumventing the cap and have previously been guilty of it (same 2 entities)* pending system arbitrators ruling

It's not like a lightswitch where 42 y/o is ok and 44 is bad.problem is you have 4 years still near or at league minimum which is still -far worse- than any other contract in the NHL. It would equate to $27.2 million unaccounted for on the cap if he retired at 38. That's ~6 million more than hossa if he retired at 38

Even still. If that was allowed - you're talking $1+ million more against the cap - if SA finds NJD guilty there might be anywhere from 1-5 million in cap penalty

If grievance is filed, and the Arbitrator rules in favor of the NHL (likely, considering the circumstances) he could choose to neutralize 2, 4 or all 6 cap circumventing years - devils would be bound to the cap hit of 6.7, 7.7 or 8.8 respectively and that decision is still outside of the systems arbitrator

So the devils, at worst, could have kovalchuk next year of the very cheap price of 13.8 million cap hit and at minimum 6.7 ( with salary rebalanced ) with a possible cap penalty but likely is 4 years being removed so 7.7

The NHL isn't court of law, precedence holds no weight when you're guilty of circumventing the cap (which will be decided soon)

DopeyFish is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 03:09 PM
  #102
Finlandia WOAT
Do U Like Quebec?
 
Finlandia WOAT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Raleigh NC
Country: United States
Posts: 9,456
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkReign View Post
Oh yes it does. The same theory behind playoff-bound teams being discouraged from scratching healthy players before the playoffs applies here as well.

Its competitive balance. Not allowing NJ to do this deal puts them at a disadvantage relative to other teams that were allowed (namely all the contenders, Detroit, Chicago, Vancouver, etc).

I would like to state that I dont particularly like these deals one way or the other, allowed, disallowed, I dont care.

But when the league starts arbitrarily handicapping one team in favor of another, youre looking at a winnable lawsuit.
Its called picking your own battles. This is a fight that the NHL does not want to lose.

Also, did it ever occur to you that at any given moment, the NHL can reject Hossa's and Luongo's contracts? Esp. if they win this case, then they have a precedence, and can go back and get rid of them.

Finlandia WOAT is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 03:09 PM
  #103
DarkReign
Registered User
 
DarkReign's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,584
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaded-Fan View Post
Why do people keep making this assumption? Why the hell not? The league can simply answer 'This deal is by far more eggregious. Also we made a mistake in approving those deals but can not go back now. We will be monitering them though and those cases are ongoing, and if those players do 'retire' early there can be consequences:

The NHL is allegedly "investigating" drastically-frontloaded contracts like Chris Pronger's, Roberto Luongo's, Marian Hossa's, Johan Franzen's and Henrik Zetterberg to see if there is any evidence of talk of retirement.

http://www.startribune.com/sports/wi...9cP3DieyckcUsI

The NHL can further say that the 'loophole' that everyone recognizes took time to realize the potential ramifications of and to ignore it because of a few prior mistakes would be stupid. If you had a 'loophole' that some judge erroneously allowed a child rapist to get away with the crime, and the next judge interpreted the law correctly and did not let the next rapist to get away, could that criminal rely on the prior mistake to get off as well? In law and in fact this is not how precedent works.
Again, compeitive advantage. Chicago has it as does Detroit and Vancouver, but NJ cant? Even though their conference and division rival Philadelphia can?!

Thats completely and totally unfair. Not just for NJ, but all teams. Either all can do it or none can do it, until the next CBA specifically addresses the issue.

I would looooooove to represent the NHLPA on this issue if I were a lawyer. Total win.

DarkReign is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 03:09 PM
  #104
WinningIsntBoring
 
WinningIsntBoring's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 179
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by parabola View Post
The difference being Kovalchuk makes WAY less money in those later years than Luongo does.

And goalies (at least ones of the calibre of Luongo/Brodeur etc...) tend to play a lot longer. Brodeur's contract lasts until he's 40.

Luongo's contract is obvious cap circumvention too, but it's far from a ridiculous contract. I can at least make a solid argument for why Luongo's contract could be allowed.
He's a butterfly goalie, it will be very difficult for him to play all of those years in that style.

WinningIsntBoring is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 03:09 PM
  #105
IceBjoern
Registered User
 
IceBjoern's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Stockholm
Country: Sweden
Posts: 840
vCash: 500
What are people here arguing about? Whether itís fair or not that Luongo and Hossa have shady contracts while Kovy canít? Two wrongs donít make a rightÖ 17 years is a joke, if you like him so much, sign him 10 years and then resign him if you still want him.

IceBjoern is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 03:11 PM
  #106
DarkReign
Registered User
 
DarkReign's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,584
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Juice Me Up Baby View Post
Also, did it ever occur to you that at any given moment, the NHL can reject Hossa's and Luongo's contracts? Esp. if they win this case, then they have a precedence, and can go back and get rid of them.
Really? You seriously think the league is going to retroactively cancel signed deals?

Please. Stop.

They'd be sued, dude. Sued into oblivion. Sued for the amount of the contracts plus legal expenses. It wouldnt be pretty and would pretty much kill the NHL as we all know it.

Incredibly horrible idea.

DarkReign is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 03:11 PM
  #107
Flour Child
Unleavened User
 
Flour Child's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Drury Lane
Posts: 21,845
vCash: 460
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenedictGomez View Post
Some people in this thread are being ridiculous.

Kovy and the Devils is getting done at either:

$102/15 at $6.8 Million

Or:

$100/15 at $6.67M


They cant balk at 42, when Hossa is 42 and Loluongo is 42. Just cut two years off the deal and bump the last few years up to $1M or $1.5M each. Done.

Wrist = Slapped.
yep

Flour Child is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 03:12 PM
  #108
Jaded-Fan
Registered User
 
Jaded-Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 33,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Juice Me Up Baby View Post
Its called picking your own battles. This is a fight that the NHL does not want to lose.

Also, did it ever occur to you that at any given moment, the NHL can reject Hossa's and Luongo's contracts? Esp. if they win this case, then they have a precedence, and can go back and get rid of them.
No, they can not. Once those contracts were approved, went into effect, and millions have begun to be paid out, there is an obligation that is enforcable absent language in the contracts enabling the league to do so at this late date. I doubt such language exists, but can not say for sure. The league however can discipline the teams involved if the contracts are found to violate the relevant CBA clauses with all penalties availabe which appear to include fines, loss of cap space and/or draft picks amoung other penalties. And the league made a point of pointing out that these cases are not closed to that extent and are being monitered. However the contracts themselves I doubt are voidable at this point.

Jaded-Fan is online now  
Old
07-21-2010, 03:13 PM
  #109
DarkReign
Registered User
 
DarkReign's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,584
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DopeyFish View Post
The NHL isn't court of law, precedence holds no weight when you're guilty of circumventing the cap (which will be decided soon)
Only if they go to arbitration and since that sint happening...

You forget who holds the arbitration rights here....it isnt the league.

DarkReign is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 03:13 PM
  #110
zz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,685
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkReign View Post
The league cannot arbitrarily allow one team to sign a premier player to a sweetheart deal and not another, IMO.
I honestly don't know if the arbitrator would care much about those precedents. I mean, how can they be 'precedents' if there was no arbitration around those deals? Without a case, there is no precedent, right?

The arbitrator might say that those other instances are outside the scope of the case, and those should be dealt with in a separate trial focusing on preferential treatment among NHL teams?

I don't know, I'm no lawyer, but after following the Coyotes' bankruptcy case, it seems to be that judges are pretty good at weeding out anything they consider out of scope and focus only on the case in front of them, which here would be whether or not the Kovalchuk deal violates the CBA, and not the league giving equal treatment to its franchises.

zz is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 03:14 PM
  #111
Finlandia WOAT
Do U Like Quebec?
 
Finlandia WOAT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Raleigh NC
Country: United States
Posts: 9,456
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkReign View Post
Really? You seriously think the league is going to retroactively cancel signed deals?

Please. Stop.

They'd be sued, dude. Sued into oblivion. Sued for the amount of the contracts plus legal expenses. It wouldnt be pretty and would pretty much kill the NHL as we all know it.

Incredibly horrible idea.
I don't think its a good idea, but how can they be sued? The CBA offers no time tables between when you open up an investigation into cap circumventing, and actually accusing it.
Also, why do you keep saying its not going to arbitration?? The people who hold that power are currently looking into it, and we have no idea what they will conclude, and how they act on that conclusion?

Finlandia WOAT is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 03:14 PM
  #112
Harry Kakalovich
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 882
vCash: 500
It's about time the NHL puts a stop to these cap cheating contracts. I hope all such contracts are rejected from now on.

Harry Kakalovich is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 03:15 PM
  #113
DopeyFish
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,007
vCash: 500
While the NHL can void those contracts, they absolutely will not. Lawsuit lawsuit lawsuit. They'd lose before hitting the court.

Cases of internal investigation might still be open (probably in case the players retire early so they issue a fine to the team when they do) but the 5 day cancellation window has long passed

DopeyFish is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 03:15 PM
  #114
Pacem
Registered User
 
Pacem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Langley
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,327
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eklunds source View Post
Hossa's contract expires at age 41 (not 42). Luongo's expires at 41.7 (not 43). Kovalchuk's expires at 43.7 - a full two years longer than anyone else's contracts.

mod:delete

from behindthenethockey:

PlayerEnd AgeYearsValue
Lecavalier38.71185
Hossa41.01262.8
Keith38.51372
Zetterberg39.21273
Luongo41.71371
Franzen39.01143.5
Pronger41.2734.45
Ohlund38.3725.25
Savard38.5728.05
Kovalchuk43.717102

Maybe they are all cap circumvention of some kind or another, but whereas most of those deals were "somewhat" shady, Kovalchuk's blows them out of the water. A full 2 years past the oldest athlete under contract. A full $17 million dollars more than anyone else, for total value. A full 4 years longer than any of those de-escalating contracts.

edit: another table from that page showing the Average Annual Value (cap hit) and the AAV with the low-price years removed:
PlayerAAVMain AAV'Discount'
Lecavalier7.79.82.1
Hossa5.27.92.7
Keith5.56.91.4
Zetterberg6.17.51.4
Luongo5.5 7.11.6
Franzen4.05.11.2
Pronger4.97.42.4
Ohlund3.6 4.50.8
Savard4.06.42.4
Kovalchuk6.09.53.5
mod:delete

Luongo
D.O.B. April 4th 1979
Expiration of current Contract June 30th 2022
http://capgeek.com/players/display.php?id=683

Hossa
D.O.B. Jan 12th 1979
Expiration of current contract June 30th 2021
http://capgeek.com/players/display.php?id=291

Kovalchuk
D.O.B. April 15th 1983
Expiration of Proposed Contract June 30th 2027
http://capgeek.com/players/display.php?id=339

Please explain to me how Luongo isn't 43 when his contract expires and how Hossa isn't 42 when his contract expires.

Kovalchuk is 4 years and 11 days younger then Luongo. His contract ends 5 years later. His contract isn't a full 2 years longer as you suggest. Its 1 year.

mod:delete


Last edited by mouser: 07-21-2010 at 04:40 PM. Reason: ...
Pacem is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 03:16 PM
  #115
Jaded-Fan
Registered User
 
Jaded-Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 33,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkReign View Post
Again, compeitive advantage. Chicago has it as does Detroit and Vancouver, but NJ cant? Even though their conference and division rival Philadelphia can?!

Thats completely and totally unfair. Not just for NJ, but all teams. Either all can do it or none can do it, until the next CBA specifically addresses the issue.

I would looooooove to represent the NHLPA on this issue if I were a lawyer. Total win.
Heh. But Mr. arbitration man, it is UNFAIR!!! Yeah that works. A successful lawsuit is based first, second and third on the actual language of the contract, in this case the CBA. Unfair is a nice concept but has little legal relevance if the contractual language is not supporting you.

I had a case this morning where all the holidays except mother's day are at father's discretion for visitation. That was almost entirely because she showed up without an attorney and he showed up with me. It was entirely unfair to be honest but happens every day in court. I would rather have a good attorney on my side than righteous indignation any day of the week. In the end, in this case, with good attorneys on both sides, the actual CBA language is almost entirely what will matter. Unless something in the CBA says that prior contracts are relevant, they simply will not be.


Last edited by Jaded-Fan: 07-21-2010 at 03:21 PM.
Jaded-Fan is online now  
Old
07-21-2010, 03:17 PM
  #116
njdevil1229
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 27
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IceBjoern View Post
What are people here arguing about? Whether itís fair or not that Luongo and Hossa have shady contracts while Kovy canít? Two wrongs donít make a rightÖ 17 years is a joke, if you like him so much, sign him 10 years and then resign him if you still want him.
17 years a joke? If a player wants to commit to a team for his career so be it. Yes it is long, but it is a commitment from both the player to the organization and vice versa. Magic Johnson signed a 25 year deal with the Lakers in 81 that would have expired when he was 47 yrs old. He committed to the Lakers for life.

Kovy has a family and does not want to relocate. He wants his kids to grow up and stay in the same school system. His family is obviously very important to him. He talks to his mother everyday. Why would he want to sign one year contracts with different teams if he still wants to play in his 40s and either be away from his family or constantly relocating.

njdevil1229 is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 03:18 PM
  #117
DarkReign
Registered User
 
DarkReign's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,584
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Juice Me Up Baby View Post
Could you please quote where in the CBA it says that, in this situation, teams can quickly restructure the deal? I ask this because I have recently read the Article 11, and it states that until proven by an arbiter (if the NHLPA files a grievance) then the contract is NOT null and void.
Its been cited about 12x alone in this thread (or should I say Part2 of this thread).

I dont want to search through 38+ pages for CBA language.

Here is how it goes, as I understand it:

Once the deal was rejected, the Devils have 5 days of exclusive negotiating rights to Kovalchuk to rework the deal.

After those 5 days, Kovalchuk is once again a UFA, free to negotiate with any team, which includes the Devils.

DarkReign is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 03:19 PM
  #118
CloutierForVezina
Registered User
 
CloutierForVezina's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,484
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jersey Fresh View Post
That's retarded. Either you're cheating or you're not. For the NHL to arbitrarily decide different degrees of cheating is completely asinine (in line with the NHL as a whole).

As far as the situation goes, I think the deal will be structured in a way that is more in line the previous cheaters. To force the Devils to do anything south of that is clear preferential treatment that just could not be stood for. Even now I'm of the opinion that the NHL deciding to challenge this is stupid, but now that they've done it, the most the should expect from NJ is to bring the cap hit up a bit and length down. Otherwise they're just playing stupid, irrational games. To sit here and pretend like NJ is the first to use these contracts to circumvent the cap is so far off the mark I don't even know where to start.
That's not retarded. That happens all the time in the real world. Cops supposedly don't pull anyone over unless they're speeding some arbitrary point above the speed limit. This is usually ~10 km above the posted limit.

By your logic, cops should pull over and ticket every single person they see going 61 in a 60 zone. After all, you're either speeding or you're not, right?

The NHL HAD to draw a line somewhere. They let this slide and they'll be getting even more ridiculous contracts next year. Would you stop Chara signing for 70 million for the next 25 years? If the answer is "yes", then you're drawing a line just as arbitrary as the NHL's.

They had to put their foot down somewhere and decided that this contract was the one that went too far over the line. That's not retarded and that's not asinine.

CloutierForVezina is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 03:20 PM
  #119
Jersey Fresh
Video Et Taceo
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: T.A.
Country: Israel
Posts: 7,453
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaded-Fan View Post
More than a year ago, the league warned GMs that it was unhappy with the number of long-term deals whose cap hit was made more manageable by heavily front-loading the contract and tacking on years at the end. These deals worked for players because they made most of the money early in the contract; the deals worked for GMs who were looking to keep the average cap hit as low as possible, giving them more financial flexibility.


........


Clearly, though, the league believed its warning to cease and desist these kinds of deals was falling on deaf ears; and when it saw the whopper deal Kovalchuk, his agent Jay Grossman, and New Jersey president and GM Lou Lamoriello came up with, the league said "enough."


http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/column...ott&id=5397260

The league has warned teams that if they continued to construct contracts like this, there would be consequences. This is a clear message by the NHL

http://www.startribune.com/sports/wi...9cP3DieyckcUsI

Do a google search you can find a hundred other references.
Stand corrected. Still doesn't jive with me If they were so unhappy about throwing you're hands up and saying you're not happy with it while simultaneously doing nothing about it is absurd. Either they circumvent the cap or they don't. To force the Devils into a clearly disadvantaged position while allowing these other deals to stand is not okay. They should have forced those deals to be restructured as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Isles_Guy View Post
you must be clueless. last year they investigated the Hossa signing
with 3 relatively add on years......That was your warning. the Devils went with 6 relatively add on years. where does it stop?

hell if thats ok why dont the Devils make it an 80 year deal and make it a 1M dollar cap hit...... Devils fans arent stupid, they know why this was done......if it were the rangers who did this they'd be up in arms screaming for action......

show some honesty guys
Thanks for the input. You must be the first one to bring up the idea of an 80 year contract and million dollar cap it. Genius. Clearly, you're the beacon of impartiality and inside league knowledge. We should have come to you from the beginning, wise one.

But great job being a condescending *****.

Jersey Fresh is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 03:21 PM
  #120
Finlandia WOAT
Do U Like Quebec?
 
Finlandia WOAT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Raleigh NC
Country: United States
Posts: 9,456
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkReign View Post
Its been cited about 12x alone in this thread (or should I say Part2 of this thread).

I dont want to search through 38+ pages for CBA language.

Here is how it goes, as I understand it:

Once the deal was rejected, the Devils have 5 days of exclusive negotiating rights to Kovalchuk to rework the deal.

After those 5 days, Kovalchuk is once again a UFA, free to negotiate with any team, which includes the Devils.
OK.
From the way i understand it, the NHLPA has 5 days to file a grievance with the rejection. If it does, and arbiter must make a ruling 48 hours after the grievance is filed. If they do not file a grievance, then Kovalshuk immediately becomes a UFA again.
Its detailed in Article 11 of the CBA.

Finlandia WOAT is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 03:22 PM
  #121
KingPurpleDinosaur
Bandwagon Kings Fan
 
KingPurpleDinosaur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: irvine, ca
Posts: 2,888
vCash: 500
if in the next CBA a clause was included that forced teams to uphold the cap hit on a contract's full duration, won't that fix the problem? make the cap hit a non-tradeable asset, then boom, any team who did this will be forced to serve that cap hit.

KingPurpleDinosaur is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 03:24 PM
  #122
DarkReign
Registered User
 
DarkReign's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,584
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Juice Me Up Baby View Post
Also, why do you keep saying its not going to arbitration?? The people who hold that power are currently looking into it, and we have no idea what they will conclude, and how they act on that conclusion?
Because the league does not have arbitration rights in this case. The only party with arbitration rights after the Devils submitted the contract is the NHLPA (Kovalchuk).

The NHLPA (Kovalchuk) have already stated theyre not going to excercise their arbitration rights.

Ergo, no arbitration hearing.

IMO, whats happening right now is that Kovie and the Devils are restructuring the deal to be something less than 15 years.

Upon agreement (if they reach and agreement, no guarantee about that), they will submit that new deal to the league.

The league will then accept or reject it.

If the contract submitted matches terms and conditions of similar, valid deals in existence, I am quite sure they will excercise their arbitration rights and this issue will be settled once and for all (at least until the end of this CBA, anyway).

Then and only then, is where opinion is in play. At that point, its a "This is what I think will happen" situation for HF to clamor over.

IMO, the NHLPA will win based on the precendent of multiple valid contracts being allowed. But its just an opinion, a strong one, but an opinion.

DarkReign is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 03:24 PM
  #123
Vitto79
Registered User
 
Vitto79's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sarnia
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,634
vCash: 500
this is the thread that never ends.........it goes on and on ,,,,,,,,,:

Vitto79 is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 03:24 PM
  #124
HockeyCritter
Registered User
 
HockeyCritter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 5,656
vCash: 500
Quote:
Again, compeitive advantage. Chicago has it as does Detroit and Vancouver, but NJ cant? Even though their conference and division rival Philadelphia can?!
How does Philly have a competitive advantage?

The Flyers are on the hook for all of Pronger's contract and subsequent cap hit whether or not Pronger plays out the duration of his contract.

HockeyCritter is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 03:25 PM
  #125
Dave33
Still smiling
 
Dave33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,364
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Juice Me Up Baby View Post
OK.
From the way i understand it, the NHLPA has 5 days to file a grievance with the rejection. If it does, and arbiter must make a ruling 48 hours after the grievance is filed. If they do not file a grievance, then Kovalshuk immediately becomes a UFA again.
Its detailed in Article 11 of the CBA.
Correct. Regarding the SPC though, it is currently null and void. Check Daly's statement. There are two sections for rejection and based on Daly's statement, they are rejecting under the first which kills the SPC unless the NHLPA files a grievance and wins.

Dave33 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 02:52 PM.

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.