HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

fix the game, fix the CBA

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-03-2004, 11:26 PM
  #1
KingPurpleDinosaur
Bandwagon Kings Fan
 
KingPurpleDinosaur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: irvine, ca
Posts: 2,879
vCash: 500
fix the game, fix the CBA

so i'm wondering, what if the NHL implemented these changes to fix the game and CBA at the same time.

1) Change game to 4 on 4
Pro: So the NHLPA has to make concessions in order to better the game and by cutting down the roster, it kills two birds with one stone. One, the owners have a smaller team to deal with meaning less salary. Two, the game opens up, faster play and then more goals. I'm sure eventually more goals = more fans.

Con: I know this is a bit of a short term solution to the economic situation of the league, but it does make salary costs a bit smaller. It's up to the owners to play in cost efficiency. Also, I'm sure purists are against this, but didn't the NHL change from 6 on 6 to 5 on 5? Players are too big now, maybe it's time for another change.

2) Change ice from NHL to olympic size
Pro: More ice to move and I'm sure better hockey in general. Add the 4 on 4 to this and I'm willing ot bet we'll have amazing hockey. In the end, isn't this what it is all about? Owners will win in the long run as an ice with a larger perimeter means more glass seats in the future.

Con: Owners will lose money now. But as I said before, both NHLPA and owners need to make some sort of concessions to revitalize the game.



What do you think?

KingPurpleDinosaur is offline  
Old
06-03-2004, 11:59 PM
  #2
Prince Mercury
Registered User
 
Prince Mercury's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Fort McMurray
Country: Canada
Posts: 761
vCash: 500
The league never lost the rover, the rover was western rules and the entire league adopted the east, as opposed to flip-floping in the finals (man are you ever getting way back into hockey history).

I think the idea of olympic hockey ice might be feasible, but I'd rather keep the arenas the current size and just adopt automatic icing - especially with how icing is being abused these finals.

I think the rules are fine, the trap seems to be on the decline, which is good. What we really need is for the league to work.

Prince Mercury is offline  
Old
06-04-2004, 12:23 AM
  #3
Dolemite
The one...the only..
 
Dolemite's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Country: Netherlands
Posts: 37,639
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prince Mercury
The league never lost the rover, the rover was western rules and the entire league adopted the east, as opposed to flip-floping in the finals (man are you ever getting way back into hockey history).

I think the idea of olympic hockey ice might be feasible, but I'd rather keep the arenas the current size and just adopt automatic icing - especially with how icing is being abused these finals.

I think the rules are fine, the trap seems to be on the decline, which is good. What we really need is for the league to work.
Not only that but it would cost quite a few teams a considerable amount of money to remove seats and alter seats to make an Olympic sized rink. In addition, you have the potential to lose seats for teams that share arenas with other teams/events.

Dolemite is offline  
Old
06-04-2004, 12:15 PM
  #4
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,513
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingPurpleDinosaur
so i'm wondering, what if the NHL implemented these changes to fix the game and CBA at the same time.

1) Change game to 4 on 4
Pro: So the NHLPA has to make concessions in order to better the game and by cutting down the roster, it kills two birds with one stone. One, the owners have a smaller team to deal with meaning less salary. Two, the game opens up, faster play and then more goals. I'm sure eventually more goals = more fans.

Con: I know this is a bit of a short term solution to the economic situation of the league, but it does make salary costs a bit smaller. It's up to the owners to play in cost efficiency. Also, I'm sure purists are against this, but didn't the NHL change from 6 on 6 to 5 on 5? Players are too big now, maybe it's time for another change.

2) Change ice from NHL to olympic size
Pro: More ice to move and I'm sure better hockey in general. Add the 4 on 4 to this and I'm willing ot bet we'll have amazing hockey. In the end, isn't this what it is all about? Owners will win in the long run as an ice with a larger perimeter means more glass seats in the future.

Con: Owners will lose money now. But as I said before, both NHLPA and owners need to make some sort of concessions to revitalize the game.



What do you think?
The players would never accept to change the play to 4 on 4 (and lose jobs).

About the ice size, well it's olympic size in Europe and in some leagues it's even more defensive than in the NHL (like in the RSL). Oleg Tverdovsky commented that he disliked the olympic size ice and the no red line because it was forcing the teams to play more defensively.

SuperUnknown is offline  
Old
06-04-2004, 10:47 PM
  #5
MacDaddy TLC*
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Leafin La Vida Loca
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,481
vCash: 500
CBA:

1 Salary cap in place, whatever that number may be--- 35 million is what I like
2 Entry draft age backed up to 20, with a clause that you are able to draft one 19 year old in the first round each year. No cap on Entry level contract, but it must be for 4 years that the player commits to the team before......

3 Unrestricted free agency at conclusion of entry level contract. This way players will go to the team that drafts them, to get to the freedom quicker. Player must sign 3-5 year deal in their second contract.

4 Restricted Free agency at conclusion of their second contract, with similar to current RFA rules, with teams have the right to make the player a qualifying offer or set them free.

5. Revenue sharing--- Home team gets 75% of the gate; visiting team gets 25%--- this way the owners will be less likely to help out floundering teams.

6. Schedule reuced to 64 games

7. Roster size reduced to 17 skaters and 2 goalies dressed per game and 22 man roster.


Changes to the game:

1. No Touch icing.

2. cut down on the hooking. I hate seeing a player break out with speed only to see someone hook onto them and coast. Call all Hooking penalties with extreme vigilance

3. Crosscheking calls. Frequently in a game you will se a player plant himself in front of the net and the immediate reaction of the defensemen is cross check, cross check cross check, often with no call. You can put your stick up against the opposing player and try to push him out of the way, using your strength against his desire to stay planted in front of the net, but as soon as you puoll the stick away and start laying the lumber, it's a penalty.

4. Cannot ice the puck when short handed.

5. No instigator rule. Let the players police themselves to cut down on the cheap shots. There was no instigator when the best offensive hockey was played in the game. The reason: Well one example--- you didn't **** with Gretzky because Semenko was there.

MacDaddy TLC* is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 08:19 AM
  #6
NJD Jester
Registered User
 
NJD Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 960
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to NJD Jester
Here's my take on 4-on-4:

If you're willing to go that far for the sake of goal-scoring and offensive chances, why not just play 3-on-3? What's the difference? Three-on-three actually accomplishes those goals better than 4-on-4: it would reduce rosters, open up the ice, and result in more goals per game.

But why don't we go 3-on-3? Same reason they shouldn't go 4-on-4 -- because it's not NHL hockey. It's an artificial gimmick that looks and smells like hockey, but in the end is just some stupid video-game influenced concession to "casual" fans that aren't going to watch the sport if you made it 2-on-2.

All that being said, 4-on-4 OTs in the regular season are preferrable to shootouts. In fact, I'd play 4-on-4 until there's a winner and kill the ties.

NJD Jester is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 08:46 AM
  #7
triggrman
HFBoards Sponsor
 
triggrman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Nashville
Country: United States
Posts: 16,938
vCash: 500
The changes I'd like have nothing to do with the CBA.

1) No touch icing.
2) A player serves the full penalty regardless of how many goals are scored.
3) Goalies can't play the puck behind the redline and interference called on someone slowing down forecheckers.
4) No limit to the curve on a stick.
5) Goalies pads cut back to a reasonable size.

triggrman is online now  
Old
06-07-2004, 10:05 AM
  #8
The Kitner Boy
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Raleigh, NC
Country: Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 441
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by triggrman
The changes I'd like have nothing to do with the CBA.

1) No touch icing.
2) A player serves the full penalty regardless of how many goals are scored.
3) Goalies can't play the puck behind the redline and interference called on someone slowing down forecheckers.
4) No limit to the curve on a stick.
5) Goalies pads cut back to a reasonable size.

What advantages can be gained by having a stick with curve? Sorry if this is a dumb question, but I have never played hockey.

The Kitner Boy is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 10:19 AM
  #9
triggrman
HFBoards Sponsor
 
triggrman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Nashville
Country: United States
Posts: 16,938
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MR. X
What advantages can be gained by having a stick with curve? Sorry if this is a dumb question, but I have never played hockey.
It makes it easier to get the puck up and makes the shoots harder. Although it does make backhands harder

triggrman is online now  
Old
06-07-2004, 10:44 AM
  #10
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,513
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by triggrman
2) A player serves the full penalty regardless of how many goals are scored.
What I fear of such a rule change is that teams would rely even more on the PP to score goals (and go in a defensive shell for the rest of the game). Add to this unsteady referees and the games will be decided over penalties.

SuperUnknown is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 12:08 PM
  #11
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
We have had a lot of debates about whether their should be a cap or not. I do believe there has to be some controls on what teams can spend. I also believe that revenues should be shared. I know that some of the ideas below are not going to be well recieved...



1.) Soft cap up to $30M, 1:1 luxury tax from $30M to $35M (if your team payroll is $32M, you pay $2M in luxury tax), 1:3 luxury tax from $35M to $40M (if your payroll is $37M, you pay $5M + $6M = $11M in luxury tax), 1:10 luxury tax over $40M. This can be modified as needed, but if a team wants to spend the money, they can. Any money collected is shared evenly with the other 29 teams.

2.) Revenue sharing: 35% of ticket revenue goes to the visiting team.

3.) Automatic icing

4.) Goaltenders get no special priviledges outside the crease

5.) Mandatory suspensions for high sticking, kneeing, boarding, and other attempt to injure penalties, suspensions increase with each offence, carried over each year. If a player is constantly high sticking or otherwise trying to hurt other players, he will spend a lot of time watching from the press box and will eventually be banned from the game.

6.) Fines for interference penalties, whether they are called during the game or not. Money goes to youth hockey leagues or other options that promote the game. The players are the ones doing the hooking and holding that slows the game down, why shouldn't they be punished for it, even if the refs are afraid to slow down the games by calling too many penalties?

7.) One year contracts. Players become free agents after their 8th NHL season, or if they have not played in the NHL after their 4th year in the minors. EDIT: Free agents maybe could be signed to longer term contracts, but I like the idea of the team being able to negotiate salary based on the previous seasons results.

8.) Reasonably sized goaltender equipment. No more oversized chest protectors, gloves, blockers...

9.) I like the idea of larger ice surfaces, but that would only be able to be implemented as new areas are built, and since most are fairly new, it would take a long time to make a difference.

10.) Players must be at least 20 years old to be drafted


Last edited by djhn579: 06-07-2004 at 12:17 PM.
djhn579 is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 12:26 PM
  #12
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,513
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
1.) Soft cap up to $30M, 1:1 luxury tax from $30M to $35M (if your team payroll is $32M, you pay $2M in luxury tax), 1:3 luxury tax from $35M to $40M (if your payroll is $37M, you pay $5M + $6M = $11M in luxury tax), 1:10 luxury tax over $40M. This can be modified as needed, but if a team wants to spend the money, they can. Any money collected is shared evenly with the other 29 teams.

2.) Revenue sharing: 35% of ticket revenue goes to the visiting team.

6.) Fines for interference penalties, whether they are called during the game or not. Money goes to youth hockey leagues or other options that promote the game. The players are the ones doing the hooking and holding that slows the game down, why shouldn't they be punished for it, even if the refs are afraid to slow down the games by calling too many penalties?

9.) I like the idea of larger ice surfaces, but that would only be able to be implemented as new areas are built, and since most are fairly new, it would take a long time to make a difference.
Comments/questions

1.) If all team are at $40M payroll, then it's the equivalent of no one paying a luxury tax right? What about teams staying lower than $30M and using 2.) to make profits while not being competitive? Also, imo that may be a bit low. How about a soft cap that is a % of revenues?

2.) No incentive to fill our rink since you can "live of" other teams revenues. Also, this is to the advantage of certain teams who play higher revenues teams more often (you're happy to play Colorado 10 times, since it means high revenues for you, while the other team is highly unhappy to play them only at home).

6.) The NHLPA would never accept that, and it's not really lockout worthy.

9.) The problem with the extra ice surface is that it is created along the boards. This means there's more "useless" ice that results in no extra scoring chances. The good teams keep their defenses protecting the paying zone (like Tampa does already on the smaller ice surface) and waits for a turnover. A good example of that is the RSL, where scoring is loooow, despite being arguably the 2nd best league in the world and having no red line rules and bigger ice surface.

SuperUnknown is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 12:26 PM
  #13
degroat*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: http://nhl.degroat.n
Posts: 8,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
2.) Revenue sharing: 35% of ticket revenue goes to the visiting team.
I'm okay with this, but local TV deals also need to be shared. Some teams bring in less than $1M from their local TV deal while the Rangers bring in over $30M.

degroat* is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 12:40 PM
  #14
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smail
Comments/questions

1.) If all team are at $40M payroll, then it's the equivalent of no one paying a luxury tax right? What about teams staying lower than $30M and using 2.) to make profits while not being competitive? Also, imo that may be a bit low. How about a soft cap that is a % of revenues?

The actual numbers would need to be determined by others. I'm just using those levels as an example, but I don't think they are unreasonable...

2.) No incentive to fill our rink since you can "live of" other teams revenues. Also, this is to the advantage of certain teams who play higher revenues teams more often (you're happy to play Colorado 10 times, since it means high revenues for you, while the other team is highly unhappy to play them only at home).

As an owner, you always want to see your rink filled, and as the opposing team coming in, you also want the home teams arena filled. Even if you are sharing the revenue, you need to sell more seats to increase your profits. Also, if your at the bottom of the league, you go to someones arena and they sell out because they know (or are failry certain) that their team is going to win, why shouldn't the visiting team recieve some return from that. Also, a team from the top of the league comes in, so many fans that don't normally go to the game buy tickets to see the visiting teams superstars, again, the visiting team should recieve some benefit for that.

6.) The NHLPA would never accept that, and it's not really lockout worthy.

Maybe, but it would eliminate the interference that slows down the game and could increase the popularity of the sport, but it's just an idea...


9.) The problem with the extra ice surface is that it is created along the boards. This means there's more "useless" ice that results in no extra scoring chances. The good teams keep their defenses protecting the paying zone (like Tampa does already on the smaller ice surface) and waits for a turnover. A good example of that is the RSL, where scoring is loooow, despite being arguably the 2nd best league in the world and having no red line rules and bigger ice surface.

djhn579 is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 12:55 PM
  #15
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,513
vCash: 500
Once more about sharing home revenues... Let's say that your rink can bring in $30M in revenues annually. A new rink that cost $250M would bring in $50M in revenues. In order to see if the good move is to build a new rink, you need to evaluate the increase in revenues for you. If you don't share, you get an additional $20M (let's say a constant $20M in today's money to simplify the example). In this case, if the rink is good for 20 years, then over those 20 years you will have made $150M on your initial $250M investment. On the other hand, if you share your revenues, on the additional $20M, you'll only get $13M (at 35% sharing). Over the 20 years, that means you will only make a profit of $10M on your $250M investment. To you, it's not worth it, so you'll stick with your old rink that draws less revenues. You'll bank on other teams increasing their revenues with their investments. This is a hands down example to show how it can hurt the overall NHL.

You could also use the marketing costs of increasing the attendance as a valid example. You can invest $3M in marketing to increase your attendance revenues by $4M (and add another $1M in profit). If there is revenue sharing, you no longer increase your own profits, since after the sharing revenues distributed you actually make a loss on the investment. In that case, you're better off not maximizing the revenues.

Lastly, if a team finds out that no matter what pitiful team they can ice, they'll still get $20M in revenues from hockey fans, then you can reduce your payroll to the minimum and use the "shared revenues" to make a profit, regardless of your effort to compete. (Btw, some teams in shared revenues leagues are doing this)

SuperUnknown is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 12:56 PM
  #16
Biggest Canuck Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Kelowna, BC
Posts: 10,448
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Biggest Canuck Fan
CBA:

1). No Salary Cap. The players will never go for this. Therefore I believe the league and players will go for league wide revenue sharing. All the profits pooled into a pot and distributed evenly. This forces teams with $70 million payrolls to trim down. The only funds not put into the pot will be concessions. These belong to the indiviual teams, and of course playoff revenue. Aside from those two options, the full season revenue is split between the 30 teams.

2). Rookie salary cap is still instituted but only $1 million in bonuses over the length of the contract. Only players drafted in the first round of their draft year are eligible for the maximum. After 3 years the player is then free to negotiate any contract he wishes.

3). UFA age is lowered to 28. Teams may not like it, but it gives some back to the players who are making some concessions to the new CBA. With league wide revenue sharing, the player may not be offered the awesome contract, and will go where he feels he will be comfortable, happy... it is not just about the money.

League:

1). They absolutely have to call everything from day one through the playoffs. If there is one thing the last few SCF's have shown, is that the players will continue to stretch the rules. It is the officials responsibility to maintain those standards. If anyone complains that the refs are not allowing any flow, blame the players for breaking the rules. All they have to do is skate instead of water ski.

2). No touch Icing. No brainer.

3). Shrink not just the goalies leg pads, but the shouleder pads and trapper. It is an abomination. The pads should be made relative to the goalie. This way a player like Turek is not penalized for being 6' 4".

4). Bring back the goal line to where it was, 10 ft away from the side boards instead of the current 13 ft.

5). Lastly, get rid of the OTL point rule. A loss is a loss. You lose, you don't get the single point. This forces teams to play the third period for the win instead of waiting to get to OT. Also keep the 4 on 4 in OT. More likely a chance of a winner then.

Biggest Canuck Fan is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 02:30 PM
  #17
Pure Rock Fury*
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ellicott City, MD
Country: Philippine
Posts: 14,118
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Pure Rock Fury*
I'm surprised no Calgary fans have come here to complain about a "game" being "fixed."

Pure Rock Fury* is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 03:01 PM
  #18
degroat*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: http://nhl.degroat.n
Posts: 8,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank the Tank
I'm surprised no Calgary fans have come here to complain about a "game" being "fixed."
If this was 1997 or 1998 or 1999 or 2000 or 2001 or 2002 or 2003 you'd see plenty of them in here.

degroat* is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 03:33 PM
  #19
Guest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,249
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by triggrman
The changes I'd like have nothing to do with the CBA.

1) No touch icing.
2) A player serves the full penalty regardless of how many goals are scored.
3) Goalies can't play the puck behind the redline and interference called on someone slowing down forecheckers.
4) No limit to the curve on a stick.
5) Goalies pads cut back to a reasonable size.
I agree with your points with the exception of #3, limiting the goalie movement and puck play. The goalies that can fly all over the ice and play the puck well are skilled, and why would you want to take more of the skill out of the game and in the process also slowing the game down as the puck movement would be delayed. It's never a good idea to discourage skill, even if it's something that changes the game as the skating/puck handling goalies of today are doing.

I never really understood the limit on the curvature of the stick, maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like they could de-regulate this and you never know what could happen. There needs to be some stick regulation, but I'd say that should stay with size issues.

The goalie pads can be substracted, that coming from a former goaltender. The goalies are the best athletes in the game today, and the skill and talent will still show if they are wearing smaller pads. The goalies that relied on the pads will be exposed.

I also agree that the goalies should have no special privledges outside the crease as a neutralization of the goalies who have gotten a little too adventureous. They should be able to play the puck to help the flow of the game, but not set a pick for their teammate picking up the puck. It happens more than it's called.

Not sure how many injuries occur from icing situations, but I do know it happens, and it's not always direct. I believe it'd speed up the game to have no touch icing. To discourage the defensive mindset in hockey today, throw out the rule for shorthanded icing, call the play on that too, make the players skate the puck and result in a turnover.

The full penalties being served is something I support, but can go wrong very quickly because of the officiating. If it limits the players from causing more infractions then it is a good thing, but already some officials nearly control games when not needed with inconsistent calls. It's a hinge issue.

I've also supported the idea of 4 on 4 hockey, but I suspect the hockey public (fans) are not ready for such a liberal idea. It'd limit the jobs, helping out the owners considerably as well as all the people who say they should contract teams due to a shallow talent pool. Four on four hockey is something that people don't generally complain about now, and I've heard good ideas about powerplays being played 5 on 4 instead of 4 on 3 in such situations. There are things that could be worked around to make the idea solid. Far too many people are set in their ways, and generally most people don't like the announcement of change even if it is for the good, so that will limit the support for such a game change.

Revenue sharing would be covered under the CBA, but it's something the NHLPA wouldn't be worried about and would easily pass on their side I'm sure. I'd love to see it happen as I've said countless times in exhaustion that the teams in the league make the money because of the health of the league. If the health of the league is ill, that directly relates to the profits of even the most profitable teams. However there are many teams that will make money regardless of the situation, but things can deteriorate to the point where they won't have a league to make money off of.

Rink size changes would never happen unless the league stated that all new arenas entering the league had to be a certain size, and there would be no retro changes to the ice rink size. It's a novel idea, and it'd probably make a difference as the NHL has become more Euro, the type of rink those players are most familiar with. It's not economically feasible for so many teams in the red ink to lose the premium seats as well as pay for re-construction costs.

All the talk of the cap is off topic, so I won't discuss.


Last edited by Guest: 06-07-2004 at 03:39 PM.
Guest is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 08:27 PM
  #20
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 17,654
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggest Canuck Fan
5). Lastly, get rid of the OTL point rule. A loss is a loss. You lose, you don't get the single point. This forces teams to play the third period for the win instead of waiting to get to OT. Also keep the 4 on 4 in OT. More likely a chance of a winner then.

4 on 4 hockey needs the OTL point to be credible. You play 60 mins of REAL 5-on-5 hockey and then get no points because you lose a bastardised Mickey Mouse game of 4-on-4 hockey? Unacceptable.

If there is no OTL (and that is fair) it should be 5 on 5.

me2 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 10:18 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.