HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The Golden Rule

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-26-2011, 10:34 PM
  #1
oceanchild
Registered User
 
oceanchild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,265
vCash: 500
The Golden Rule

The golden rule: he who has the gold rules.

The Vancouver Canucks are a franchise with significant revenues and the ability to absord large costs above the salary cap to improve the team. This includes paying salaries like Luongo's in 2010 when the actual payout was 10 million for a cap hit of 5.333. Or paying players large salaries to play in the minors or overseas.

With this in mind can have the Canucks done a good enough job of leveraging this advantage to aquire players.

A couple of examples of the possible advantages :

1) Trade with a team like the New York Islanders for a albatros salary. In this case Rick DiPietro who has 9 years and a very real 45 million remaining on his contract. The Islanders are a money lossing franchise that has not made the playoffs for a number of years and the opportunity to ride themselves of this cost would be attractive. This franchise also has a History of owner interference and im sure Charles Wong would enjoy saving that kind of cash. In this case you throw in a player like Raymond or Samuelsson and ask for Tavares or Okposo in return and maybe a decent prospect/pick. While I do think it is unlikley you would get Tavares I think you could pluck a very solid player using this technique.

Before you go well what about the cap hit on DiPietro you tell him its the minors or Europe his choice you will pay his salary but he won't be playing in Vancouver. Worst case - you pay out 40 million best case he rediscovers his career and you trade him.

2) Offer Sheet. I have proposed this before in a free agent thread but you take a player like Weber (yes I know he is going to arbitration this is only and example) and you front load his contract to 12 million a year for a few years (with say a 6.5 million cap hit) because even thought Nashville can afford the cap hit they cannot afford the spending 12 million a year for say 4 years on 1 player. You basically take advantage of there poor cashflow as a business and take a top 10 dman for 4 late first round picks.

3) Sign a vetern player for say a a 4 year contract the first at 9 million then 4.5 then 2.25 then 1.25 or 17 million for 4 years or 4.25 per year. You could then trade this player in year 3 or 4 to a team that needs to get to the Salary Cap floor and would benifit from the reduced expense. This could be attractive to the players due to the time value of money. I am not sure players sign a contract like this knowing its set up for them to be traded but it is a possibility and its the dog days of summer.


Well I am interested in input.

oceanchild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2011, 10:44 PM
  #2
mstad101
Registered User
 
mstad101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,703
vCash: 500
I'm not sure I get it.
Are you just saying we can do this? Or should?

The flaws of this are serious, signing or trading for high salary players will only account to more costs to fans of Vancouver trying to acquire home game tickets. Furthermore, limiting the summer spending, since during the non buy-out portions the Canucks would have to be limited to the 10% overage of the salary cap in the summer.

Not to mention the likelyhood of said teams actually willing to pay the Canucks demands to take on such a contract.

And Offersheets are a nice way to keep us interested in the non-UFA part of Free Agency. They happen so often we've seen 3 in what 3 years? 2 were connected to Vancouver. Its nice to think we can just magically get these guys to sign these contracts. But the reality of the fact is, these players need to wanna play here, to sign those contracts.

mstad101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2011, 10:52 PM
  #3
oceanchild
Registered User
 
oceanchild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,265
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstad101 View Post
I'm not sure I get it.
Are you just saying we can do this? Or should?

The flaws of this are serious, signing or trading for high salary players will only account to more costs to fans of Vancouver trying to acquire home game tickets. Furthermore, limiting the summer spending, since during the non buy-out portions the Canucks would have to be limited to the 10% overage of the salary cap in the summer.

Not to mention the likelyhood of said teams actually willing to pay the Canucks demands to take on such a contract.

And Offersheets are a nice way to keep us interested in the non-UFA part of Free Agency. They happen so often we've seen 3 in what 3 years? 2 were connected to Vancouver. Its nice to think we can just magically get these guys to sign these contracts. But the reality of the fact is, these players need to wanna play here, to sign those contracts.
I am saying we can and if the right opportunity is there we should. The rangers as far as I know are not limited by the Redden contract this off season but I could be incorrect. I also think the cost of tickets will remain as high as the market will bear regardless of actual expenses.


Last edited by oceanchild: 07-26-2011 at 10:55 PM. Reason: Cap Geek doesnt show Reddens contract on the Rangers cost sheet.
oceanchild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2011, 10:52 PM
  #4
Hyack57
Registered User
 
Hyack57's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Airdrie, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,529
vCash: 500
I thought the Golden Rule was something about it not being gay if it's in a threeway?

Hyack57 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2011, 10:54 PM
  #5
Tim Calhoun
Jim Benning Fan
 
Tim Calhoun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Country: Mexico
Posts: 8,987
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyack57 View Post
I thought the Golden Rule was something about it not being gay if it's in a threeway?
It is when the third member is Lady Gaga.

By far the worst song of the trilogy.

Tim Calhoun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2011, 10:55 PM
  #6
Hyack57
Registered User
 
Hyack57's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Airdrie, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,529
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstad101 View Post
I'm not sure I get it.
Are you just saying we can do this? Or should?

The flaws of this are serious, signing or trading for high salary players will only account to more costs to fans of Vancouver trying to acquire home game tickets. Furthermore, limiting the summer spending, since during the non buy-out portions the Canucks would have to be limited to the 10% overage of the salary cap in the summer.

Not to mention the likelyhood of said teams actually willing to pay the Canucks demands to take on such a contract.

And Offersheets are a nice way to keep us interested in the non-UFA part of Free Agency. They happen so often we've seen 3 in what 3 years? 2 were connected to Vancouver. Its nice to think we can just magically get these guys to sign these contracts. But the reality of the fact is, these players need to wanna play here, to sign those contracts.
Did Kesler REALLY want to play for Bobby Clarke in Philly or was it more a leverage play on his part? I think the latter.

Hyack57 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2011, 10:57 PM
  #7
Reign Nateo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,811
vCash: 500
Got through 1) and it was one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. For both teams. Didn't go further, but hope it gets better. And should probably be in the "Armchair GM" thread...

Reign Nateo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2011, 10:59 PM
  #8
oceanchild
Registered User
 
oceanchild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,265
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reign Nateo View Post
Got through 1) and it was one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. For both teams. Didn't go further, but hope it gets better. And should probably be in the "Armchair GM" thread...
]]

great contribution. this is not a trade proposal but a premise of a managment style that uses an advantage we happen to have to secure quality players.

oceanchild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2011, 11:21 PM
  #9
m9
HFBoards Sponsor
 
m9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,968
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Calhoun View Post
It is when the third member is Lady Gaga.

By far the worst song of the trilogy.
Agreed, by far the worst. Oddly Lada Gaga actually looked decent as a trashy retro chick though, and she usually looks terrible.

As for the original post, my favorite part is the DiPietro "worst case scenario we lose $40 million dollars". Yeah, because you can just slip that into a meeting with your owner with no problems.

m9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2011, 11:21 PM
  #10
Bim Jenning
Registered User
 
Bim Jenning's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Pyongyang
Country: North Korea
Posts: 8,975
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by oceanchild View Post
A couple of examples of the possible advantages :

1) Trade with a team like the New York Islanders for a albatros salary. In this case Rick DiPietro who has 9 years and a very real 45 million remaining on his contract. The Islanders are a money lossing franchise that has not made the playoffs for a number of years and the opportunity to ride themselves of this cost would be attractive. This franchise also has a History of owner interference and im sure Charles Wong would enjoy saving that kind of cash. In this case you throw in a player like Raymond or Samuelsson and ask for Tavares or Okposo in return and maybe a decent prospect/pick. While I do think it is unlikley you would get Tavares I think you could pluck a very solid player using this technique.

Before you go well what about the cap hit on DiPietro you tell him its the minors or Europe his choice you will pay his salary but he won't be playing in Vancouver. Worst case - you pay out 40 million best case he rediscovers his career and you trade him.

2) Offer Sheet. I have proposed this before in a free agent thread but you take a player like Weber (yes I know he is going to arbitration this is only and example) and you front load his contract to 12 million a year for a few years (with say a 6.5 million cap hit) because even thought Nashville can afford the cap hit they cannot afford the spending 12 million a year for say 4 years on 1 player. You basically take advantage of there poor cashflow as a business and take a top 10 dman for 4 late first round picks.

3) Sign a vetern player for say a a 4 year contract the first at 9 million then 4.5 then 2.25 then 1.25 or 17 million for 4 years or 4.25 per year. You could then trade this player in year 3 or 4 to a team that needs to get to the Salary Cap floor and would benifit from the reduced expense. This could be attractive to the players due to the time value of money. I am not sure players sign a contract like this knowing its set up for them to be traded but it is a possibility and its the dog days of summer.


Well I am interested in input.
The Islanders will not move a franchise center to dump DP Nice try though. When has any team ever moved anything decent for that matter to get rid of a bad contract? Only on HF do people think this is reasonable.

Front loading an offer sheet would be smart imo but GMs seem scared to be the rebel. They seem to be colluding to stop this to keep the price down. "You don't offer sheet our guys and we won't offer sheet yours"

Bim Jenning is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2011, 11:49 PM
  #11
Winroba
Keep Calm, Kassi On
 
Winroba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,518
vCash: 500
You can only go over the cap by 10% in the off-season so having big contracts in the minors/Europe is a huge burden and if you have enough of them, you won't be able to spend to the cap altogether.

Winroba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2011, 02:14 AM
  #12
Javaman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstad101 View Post
I'm not sure I get it.
Are you just saying we can do this? Or should?

The flaws of this are serious, signing or trading for high salary players will only account to more costs to fans of Vancouver trying to acquire home game tickets. Furthermore, limiting the summer spending, since during the non buy-out portions the Canucks would have to be limited to the 10% overage of the salary cap in the summer.

Not to mention the likelyhood of said teams actually willing to pay the Canucks demands to take on such a contract.

And Offersheets are a nice way to keep us interested in the non-UFA part of Free Agency. They happen so often we've seen 3 in what 3 years? 2 were connected to Vancouver. Its nice to think we can just magically get these guys to sign these contracts. But the reality of the fact is, these players need to wanna play here, to sign those contracts.
I generally agree with you that the OP's ideas are not particularly great. I just disagree with your claim that higher player salaries result in higher ticket prices. In the end, it is demand for tickets that drives up the price, not player salaries. If the Canucks were to shed salary (i.e. dump Luongo and go with Schneider/Lack), it's unlikely ticket prices would drop since the demand for them is so high. It's the high demand for tickets that helps generate the revenues that allow the Canucks the luxury of spending outside of the salary cap to improve the team.

Javaman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2011, 03:51 AM
  #13
mstad101
Registered User
 
mstad101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,703
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Javaman View Post
I generally agree with you that the OP's ideas are not particularly great. I just disagree with your claim that higher player salaries result in higher ticket prices. In the end, it is demand for tickets that drives up the price, not player salaries. If the Canucks were to shed salary (i.e. dump Luongo and go with Schneider/Lack), it's unlikely ticket prices would drop since the demand for them is so high. It's the high demand for tickets that helps generate the revenues that allow the Canucks the luxury of spending outside of the salary cap to improve the team.
Those high salary season's vancouver has had, have also been the most successful on the ice. Bringing more ticket revenue due to longer post season play, and a better product on the ice than back in the dark ages, when we weren't so good.
We've been blessed for moderately successful teams for about 5 to 7 years now, leading to the sell out record we're making. Which in turn has allowed us to keep high salary seasons on the ice. Which in turn does affect the prices. Just more in a global way, rather than totally direct.

If Vancouver were to go into rebuilding mode, we would lose a major part of the casual fans. In turn, ticket prices would drop, so would salary, and than my point still stands true.


Personally, I don't like the idea of taking on 6.5 million dollar salaries to play in Chicago. It doesn't sound like something that would benefit the now of the Canucks, but I do agree, that if acquiring a decent piece to take on something like a high salary, maybe. But my limit would be 2 years of salary to acquire said nice piece.

So far Gillis has only acquired 1 year salary dump plays. I trust his judgement on these moves over my own, this move I would not be into.

mstad101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2011, 04:47 AM
  #14
Javaman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstad101 View Post
Those high salary season's vancouver has had, have also been the most successful on the ice. Bringing more ticket revenue due to longer post season play, and a better product on the ice than back in the dark ages, when we weren't so good.
We've been blessed for moderately successful teams for about 5 to 7 years now, leading to the sell out record we're making. Which in turn has allowed us to keep high salary seasons on the ice. Which in turn does affect the prices. Just more in a global way, rather than totally direct.

If Vancouver were to go into rebuilding mode, we would lose a major part of the casual fans. In turn, ticket prices would drop, so would salary, and than my point still stands true.
It's just a different way of looking at it. I take the position that demand determines ticket prices. I agree there are lots of variables though. Vancouver is probably more dependent on quality performance than say, Toronto, to maintain high demand for tickets. Since the lockout, average ticket prices for the Leafs have been higher than the Canucks, despite a pretty striking difference in regular and post season success.

Spending lots on player salaries is not necessarily a clear path to success, but it certainly helps. I just think there are a certain few markets where on-ice success is not terribly relevant to overall team revenues. I think Burke's true legacy in Vancouver is that he may have helped elevate the Canucks to the same status as the Leafs: a team that can even generate a profit even if they are not all that good. But we'll have to wait until the Canucks downswing to see if I'm right or wrong.

I still maintain that players salaries are not the primary reason that ticket prices go up.

Javaman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2011, 10:09 AM
  #15
Reign Nateo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,811
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by oceanchild View Post
]]

great contribution. this is not a trade proposal but a premise of a managment style that uses an advantage we happen to have to secure quality players.
Sorry, but you were looking for input, I didn't think you wanted it all ripped to shreds. I'll expand my "contribution" to the thread:

1) Terrible business management. No need for a developing number one centre. We have centres and are trying to win now. DiPietro has no knees and has been passed on the NYI depth chart by Al Montoya at this point. Remember him? He'd be 5th on our depth chart likely and even teams in Europe now he has no knees. Basically you'd be buying him out, stuck with what amounts to a 1.5 cap hit until 2030. And we'd still have to give up more than Raymond to get Tavares. All that for a player we don't need? No thanks. Terrible business, especially considering we're a contending team. And what do the Isles get? Out from under a contract when they're the lowest spending team in the league at present? Kind of pointless no? Especially when they have to give up their franchise player to do it. I understand you're just using that situation as an idea, but a well-managed cap is what we're after, not taking other peoples mistakes and paying them to rot.

2) Stamkos and Doughty were/are RFAs this year. No one made an offer. You don't see them much because they come back to bite you in the ass (see: Bernier, Steve). Will happen less and less and rarely happens already. Unless you want your own RFAs targeted (think long-term), then you don't start making offers to them. (see: Every GM in the league).

3) Did Florida teach us nothing about how teams get to the cap floor? Did they take on any wasted contracts? Redden in Florida? No. They signed their own players and let other people pay for their own mistakes. Even Campbell, he's a quality player and they gave up only one of their worst contracts to get him. Same as every other team that needs to get to the cap floor. Only in the mind's of fans does it make sense to take on a dead contract to reach the cap floor. Even if they're not paying as much "real money" it's just terrible management, and that's not what any team wants to do.

I understand where you're coming from, we have money, nice to use it to our advantage, but things like this can dig holes you won't get out of. This is not New York. Success, a well-managed cap, and the ability to deal with our own contractual liabilities is the way to succeed. Buying out players, sending them to the minors/Europe, cap-circumventing deals etc. does not create the kind of atmosphere and reputation a solid team is built upon. Players want to come to Vancouver because of the way the team is managed. Let's not change that. These ideas are basically the antithesis of what Gillis and co's mantra has always been.

Reign Nateo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2011, 02:34 PM
  #16
Danrik
It is what it is.
 
Danrik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Super Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,925
vCash: 500
Why would the islanders want to dump Dipietro? They're still way below the floor even with his contract.

Danrik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2011, 04:27 PM
  #17
oceanchild
Registered User
 
oceanchild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,265
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reign Nateo View Post
Sorry, but you were looking for input, I didn't think you wanted it all ripped to shreds. I'll expand my "contribution" to the thread:

1) Terrible business management. No need for a developing number one centre. We have centres and are trying to win now. DiPietro has no knees and has been passed on the NYI depth chart by Al Montoya at this point. Remember him? He'd be 5th on our depth chart likely and even teams in Europe now he has no knees. Basically you'd be buying him out, stuck with what amounts to a 1.5 cap hit until 2030. And we'd still have to give up more than Raymond to get Tavares. All that for a player we don't need? No thanks. Terrible business, especially considering we're a contending team. And what do the Isles get? Out from under a contract when they're the lowest spending team in the league at present? Kind of pointless no? Especially when they have to give up their franchise player to do it. I understand you're just using that situation as an idea, but a well-managed cap is what we're after, not taking other peoples mistakes and paying them to rot.

DiPitros contract would not be on our books after this year the same as Redden is not a part of the New York Cap calculations this year. It would be a one time presease burden and then it would be gone. No need to buy his out. It would cost the team 40 million but thats the point are they using the money they make to the best of there abilities. There are teams that cannot afford to let players rot in the minors when they are no longer NHL worthy or they need capspace. Perhaps Tavares was a bad example because people have become fixated on the player and missing the idea. 2)

Stamkos and Doughty were/are RFAs this year. No one made an offer. You don't see them much because they come back to bite you in the ass (see: Bernier, Steve). Will happen less and less and rarely happens already. Unless you want your own RFAs targeted (think long-term), then you don't start making offers to them. (see: Every GM in the league).

You are making assumptions here. Would 4 late first round draft picks not be worth I a franchise D to this team. Your last paragraph was about how we are win now and this one you worry about the future. regardless both those teams have the cap space and resources to match. this is not always true and there is potential in some situations to use this cash flow advantages but it does not apply to all situations. Clearly the rangers or leafs have the cash flow to match any offer.

3) Did Florida teach us nothing about how teams get to the cap floor? Did they take on any wasted contracts? Redden in Florida? No. They signed their own players and let other people pay for their own mistakes. Even Campbell, he's a quality player and they gave up only one of their worst contracts to get him. Same as every other team that needs to get to the cap floor. Only in the mind's of fans does it make sense to take on a dead contract to reach the cap floor. Even if they're not paying as much "real money" it's just terrible management, and that's not what any team wants to do.

why are you using Flordia and Tallon as an example of how to best manage your salary cap when you have room. The guy is horrible at managing salary cap and the contracts her gave out where terrible. He in my mind is a tool for not taking redden on if he had the chance while grabing a good draft pick or prospect while doing it. Wait for a couple years and lets see what a gem Jovo's salary is. the problem with using the Rangers as your example is they have tons of money and no need to get ride of contracts to stop the bleeding. I understand where you're coming from, we have money, nice to use it to our advantage, but things like this can dig holes you won't get out of. This is not New York. Success, a well-managed cap, and the ability to deal with our own contractual liabilities is the way to succeed. Buying out players, sending them to the minors/Europe, cap-circumventing deals etc. does not create the kind of atmosphere and reputation a solid team is built upon. Players want to come to Vancouver because of the way the team is managed. Let's not change that. These ideas are basically the antithesis of what Gillis and co's mantra has always been.

Players love to win, they love to be treated well and they love living in a nice city. Didnt brad richards just sign in NY after they buried Redden? your stating assumptions that dont reflect reality. Do you think Mogilny called up Kovelchuck and said hey dont sign with the devils they buried me in albany?

oceanchild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2011, 05:16 PM
  #18
Reign Nateo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,811
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by oceanchild View Post

Players love to win, they love to be treated well and they love living in a nice city. Didnt brad richards just sign in NY after they buried Redden? your stating assumptions that dont reflect reality. Do you think Mogilny called up Kovelchuck and said hey dont sign with the devils they buried me in albany?
I also said "we're not New York." I'm not talking about assumptions here or individual cases, I'm talking about a well run franchise being the key to success. Have the Rangers had a lot of success dumping guys in the minors and buying guys out? Can they sign a guy without backing the Brinks truck up? Even though it's freakin New York City? The answers are "no."

Again, I get where you're coming from and appreciate your post, but this kind of thing is just unrealistic and leads to headaches down the road. I'll take President's Trophies and game 7s with a well managed cap personally.

Reign Nateo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2011, 07:30 PM
  #19
eklunds source
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Ed Snider's basement
Posts: 8,325
vCash: 500
Even a franchise as financially successful as the Canucks cannot afford to take on $45m of a contract they won't find useful; literally, the Canucks are one of a handful of teams who have literally ZERO use for DiPietro, with a goaltender signed equally as long AND a young prospect with potential riding shotgun.

Even if Aquillini DID want to piss away $45,000,000 to acquire a young prospect like Tavares, the Islanders would not trade him. I won't say they're quite happy to ride out RiDiPi's contract, but if the cost to unload it is Tavares, they'll ride that contract into the future. They have to spend $$ anyway; there's a cap floor and the Islanders are $9m BELOW the floor right now.

eklunds source is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2011, 08:24 PM
  #20
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by oceanchild View Post
With this in mind can have the Canucks done a good enough job of leveraging this advantage to aquire players.
They had the most expensive payroll in hockey. We can argue about the specific spending choices, but it's clear ownership is willing to (out)spend to win.

And it almost worked last year....oh so close...!

  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 02:00 AM.

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.