HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Toronto Maple Leafs (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=17)
-   -   Confirmed with Link: Lockout continues Part V - Hockey cancelled till January 14th (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1304213)

The Blue Devil 12-07-2012 10:11 AM

Lockout continues Part V - Hockey cancelled till January 14th
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by WeWantACup (Post 56334915)
Everything I said about Crosby, in this episode I take back. Watching those players stand behind Fehr last night as he purposely tried to mislead the hockey world and the fans. He knowingly played with our emotions as some of our sons and daughters heroes stood there and okayed him to do it. I personally am now at a point where I am truly disgusted with how our game is being treated and those that represent it. IMO that speech last night by Fehr was one if not the darkest moments in NHL history.

What did Fehr say?

Sorry, I've just been staying away from sportcentre and what not because there's really nothing to watch with no NHL hockey.

hotpaws 12-07-2012 11:06 AM

Lockout continues Part V
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by calcal798 (Post 56338093)
Considering all of Bettmans offers have been take it or leave it, we both know that isnt the case.

PA was being realistic when they went public, a deal should be imminent, if the sides have this as the difference another couple 12 hour days of negotiaiting would have convinced one another what they both really want and we would have gotten a deal settled (Fehr said the PA wants a shorter CBA so new players can vote, which is fair, owners want short contracts, which is also fair,). Instead Bettman said what he did to try and get players to crack and fans to turn on the PA.

Its just stupidity now.

Yesterdays offer wasn't take it or leave it . Bettman siad he wanted a yes or no answer on some of the key points and that's why they offered the extra 100 mil to try to get this contract resovled .

The owners have played this wrong imo . They should have realized long ago Fehr wouldn't get serious about signing a deal until the season was almost lost and should have played along with his stall game without offering anything new until crunch time in late Dec or early Jan .

Fehr wants a shorter deal because combined with the make whole the players will be getting much more than a 50/50 split under this contract and with the shorter term they can look for more concessions on the next deal . Fehr couldn't give a **** about new players voting since he won't present them with an offer to vote on until it's one he approves .

Mess 12-07-2012 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hotpaws (Post 56338845)
Yesterdays offer wasn't take it or leave it . Bettman siad he wanted a yes or no answer on some of the key points and that's why they offered the extra 100 mil to try to get this contract resovled .

The owners have played this wrong imo . They should have realized long ago Fehr wouldn't get serious about signing a deal until the season was almost lost and should have played along with his stall game without offering anything new until crunch time in late Dec or early Jan .

Fehr wants a shorter deal because combined with the make whole the players will be getting much more than a 50/50 split under this contract and with the shorter term they can look for more concessions on the next deal . Fehr couldn't give a **** about new players voting since he won't present them with an offer to vote on until it's one he approves .

I'm not so sure that Fehr and the players themselves wouldn't want a longer term CBA to avoid unrest in the future.. After all its really in their best interest that Bettman can't pull this lockout nonsense in 5 years again and try to squeeze the PA further from things that have been accomplished in this current CBA.. Every CBA is always predicated on a NHL clawback and NHLPA giveback principle, only how much is the answer that needs to be determined.

The problem is that the current NHL offer is acceptable on $$, but it isn't on players individual contracting rights (yet !!!).

I believe a logical assumption would be when the PA get an acceptable offer on their personal player rights that they're willing to accept they will bend on CBA term and lock in for a longer time meeting the NHL's demands in that regard.

Point blank bottom line, I believe the PA want to trade contracts > 5 years in length & 5% variance to increase, and their give to get that is to accept the Owners CBA 10 year with an opt out after 8 option. As in most normal give and take negotiations in order for one side give-in on an issue and in turn expect to get benefit in another area they deem important to them.

The NHL now know the PA will accept $300 mil on make whole previous contracts and 50/50 HRR split, so we're really down to a few issues separating a successfully competed CBA if compromise on both sides is made from here on in. Fehr and Union appear to be there, but the NHL wants an all or nothing take it or leave it approach, and appear willing to toss away a season.

ULF_55 12-07-2012 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hotpaws (Post 56338845)
Yesterdays offer wasn't take it or leave it . Bettman siad he wanted a yes or no answer on some of the key points and that's why they offered the extra 100 mil to try to get this contract resovled .

The owners have played this wrong imo . They should have realized long ago Fehr wouldn't get serious about signing a deal until the season was almost lost and should have played along with his stall game without offering anything new until crunch time in late Dec or early Jan .

Fehr wants a shorter deal because combined with the make whole the players will be getting much more than a 50/50 split under this contract and with the shorter term they can look for more concessions on the next deal . Fehr couldn't give a **** about new players voting since he won't present them with an offer to vote on until it's one he approves .

Not what I heard ... but we know we can hear what we want ... Bettman did not even go to the meeting because he said they were just looking for a yes or no reply to the offer. And he was clear the yes or no was for the entire package and he reiterated that when he said it was to be taken as one connected offer and all tied together.

Morguee 12-07-2012 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by indigobuffalo (Post 56338817)
There's more to this than that. It's also about creating a lasting agreement.

The NHL clearly won the last CBA. They got exactly what they wanted. Yet here they come again, next CBA, demanding even more. They have clearly shown their position. They'll take, take, take and take some more. If the NHLPA caves here, with the noblest of intentions being to preserve a season and to accept the NHL's offer in-good-faith, the NHL will just come around again the next time and demand even more.

This is not just some arbitrary display of showmanship. The NHL has to be shown that the rights of players will not be infringed upon with impunity.

The NHL is trying to make the fans think that the NHLPA's stance is confrontational and unfriendly, yet it is the opposite that is true.

A lasting agreement just as long as it is not over 8 years with their option to terminate after 6? If you want a lasting agreement you jump at 10 years.

If the NHL "clearly won" the last CBA then the NHLPA must have clearly lost - sign me up for 58% wage increase in a losing cause where the rest of the world is taking cutbacks. The systematic change(salary cap) has benefited many players especially with its cap floor. You are right the NHL probably will ask for more next time IF the system is still not working. The system didn't work as well as hoped but it was a step in the right direction.

MLB has not locked players out because everyone is making money and by locking them out they lose said money. For a large percentage of the NHL teams are not losing money when they are dark, that is why they still need to keep working on the system.

If the NHL had been America's game for the last 75 years and been in many markets for just as long and been played in the summer with little to no other sporting competition and had massive TV contracts there would be no lock out. Donald Fehr did not fix MLB, TV revenue did.

If you do not call what Fehr did last night showmanship the nwhat is it?

hotpaws 12-07-2012 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by indigobuffalo (Post 56338817)
There's more to this than that. It's also about creating a lasting agreement.

The NHL clearly won the last CBA. They got exactly what they wanted. Yet here they come again, next CBA, demanding even more. They have clearly shown their position. They'll take, take, take and take some more. If the NHLPA caves here, with the noblest of intentions being to preserve a season and to accept the NHL's offer in-good-faith, the NHL will just come around again the next time and demand even more.

This is not just some arbitrary display of showmanship. The NHL has to be shown that the rights of players will not be infringed upon with impunity.

The NHL is trying to make the fans think that the NHLPA's stance is confrontational and unfriendly, yet it is the opposite that is true.

You're really stretching reality to try to prove your point .

The owners didn't get everything they wanted in the last CBA and in the real world when the biusiness model you're using is flawed you try to repair it .

For many years it was the players who were getting concessions from the owners every new CBA and it created a system where a large number of teams arn't profitable . It's time now to try to balence the scales a little and that's why the owners are looking for concessions . The NHL has been up front in these negotiations while the players keep saying they're giving back but in reality have given little to nothing .

Also outside of the 50/50 split what other monetary concessions are they really looking at that .

Length of contract and varience from year to year doesn't affect the overall players share of revenues . All this does is protect the owners from signing bad contracts and shift the money from a player who doesn't deserve it to one who does .

daveleaf 12-07-2012 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hotpaws (Post 56338845)
Yesterdays offer wasn't take it or leave it . Bettman siad he wanted a yes or no answer on some of the key points and that's why they offered the extra 100 mil to try to get this contract resovled .

The owners have played this wrong imo . They should have realized long ago Fehr wouldn't get serious about signing a deal until the season was almost lost and should have played along with his stall game without offering anything new until crunch time in late Dec or early Jan .

Fehr wants a shorter deal because combined with the make whole the players will be getting much more than a 50/50 split under this contract and with the shorter term they can look for more concessions on the next deal . Fehr couldn't give a **** about new players voting since he won't present them with an offer to vote on until it's one he approves .

I think they should just go back and do nothing. Cancel the season because a 40-50 game is just ridiculous.

calcal798 12-07-2012 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ULF_55 (Post 56339191)
Not what I heard ... but we know we can hear what we want ... Bettman did not even go to the meeting because he said they were just looking for a yes or no reply to the offer. And he was clear the yes or no was for the entire package and he reiterated that when he said it was to be taken as one connected offer and all tied together.

I thought that was what I hear to. If it was Yes or No on some of the key points then there should be no reason not to plan negotiations in the future. The PA did agree on some of the points.

hotpaws 12-07-2012 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by calcal798 (Post 56339367)
I thought that was what I hear to. If it was Yes or No on some of the key points then there should be no reason not to plan negotiations in the future. The PA did agree on some of the points.

It was the key points as a pkg not on an individual basis . They gave an extra 100 mil to get an agrement on 3 issues , length of CBA , contract term limits and complience issues . The rest of the contract was still open for negotiations .

Mess 12-07-2012 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morguee (Post 56339193)
A lasting agreement just as long as it is not over 8 years with their option to terminate after 6? If you want a lasting agreement you jump at 10 years.

If the NHL "clearly won" the last CBA then the NHLPA must have clearly lost - sign me up for 58% wage increase in a losing cause where the rest of the world is taking cutbacks. The systematic change(salary cap) has benefited many players especially with its cap floor. You are right the NHL probably will ask for more next time IF the system is still not working. The system didn't work as well as hoped but it was a step in the right direction.

MLB has not locked players out because everyone is making money and by locking them out they lose said money. For a large percentage of the NHL teams are not losing money when they are dark, that is why they still need to keep working on the system.

If the NHL had been America's game for the last 75 years and been in many markets for just as long and been played in the summer with little to no other sporting competition and had massive TV contracts there would be no lock out. Donald Fehr did not fix MLB, TV revenue did.

If you do not call what Fehr did last night showmanship the nwhat is it?

Last CBA the Owners claimed PA salaries were at 75% expenses and they needed a hard cap tied to league revenues and cost certainty to run profitable businesses.

They got that as 57% ceiling for the PA is lower than < 75% and no cost certainty.

Now the Owners claim that they still can't make a profit at that level of player costs.. However who's fault is it if building remain 1/2 empty or are located in non traditional hockey markets that are proving difficult to support NHL teams even with cost certainty..

How does moving the NHLPA share to 50% and only allowing any NHL player to sign a 5 year max deal fill a 1/2 empty stadium with fans or get increased viewership and thus bring in more revenue to effect Owner profitability levels in non hockey markets.

Location, location, location the #1 rule in operating a successful business is not addressed by cutting expenses, when increasing revenue is the real objective to profitably here. Fill the buildings around the league and player costs even at 57% at present is a non issue to profit levels. Making Shane Doan take a 12% paycut (by NHLPA going from 57% to 50% of HRR) is not doing a single thing to guarantee more fans and sponsors and investors will show up for Coyote home games in the future.

Its misdirected blame for losing money on investment for Owners to be blaming the players unilaterally across the board for how they run their businesses and in the markets their located.

diceman934 12-07-2012 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Missing Piece (Post 56337847)
1. No proof at all Fehr has been stalling. No explanation at all why this would be advantageous to his bargaining position. Not in anyones interest to do so especially not the players who he works for.

2. Your support for this point is the demeanour of Crosby and Richards in the background. Maybe they just got out of hours long negotiations over a 3 day period which extended past midnight the night before? But I don't need to defend their demeanour because it is irrelevant to your assertion. Couldn't sell the games biggest players. What? Was there an auction after the press conference that I missed?

3. Then after making a completely illogical argument you allude to someone else being confused. Finally, you say Fehr is a mistake to hockey. How can one person be a mistake to hockey? Did hockey make a mistake?

The Credibility of your post is NIL.

Thanks ....could not have said it better myself.

I am a person who does not take everything a person states at face value unless they make a promise etc.

The telling part of this whole ordeal....is the fact that the owners stated to the players that they did not want him in the room....and that if he was all bets where off.....now I m injecting my opinion in here: was this the point that Jacobs wanted to leave?

Why if they were interested in negotiation without Fehr in the room did this turn into a take it or leave it issue? If you can answer this you can understand what really happened.

calcal798 12-07-2012 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hotpaws (Post 56339583)
It was the key points as a pkg not on an individual basis . They gave an extra 100 mil to get an agrement on 3 issues , length of CBA , contract term limits and complience issues . The rest of the contract was still open for negotiations .

Im gonna guess they agreed on compliance issues (the way I read it, I don't see how it affects players). So now the difference between the two sides is 3 year length on contract (im sure the only players worried about this are stars) and the CBA length.

Sounds like Fehr was being pretty serious about getting a deal done when that is the difference between the two.

daveleaf 12-07-2012 11:47 AM

Lockout continues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mess (Post 56339801)
Last CBA the Owners claimed PA salaries were at 75% expenses and they needed a hard cap tied to league revenues and cost certainty to run profitable businesses.

They got that as 57% ceiling for the PA is lower than < 75% and no cost certainty.

Now the Owners claim that they still can't make a profit at that level of player costs.. However who's fault is it if building remain 1/2 empty or are located in non traditional hockey markets that are proving difficult to support NHL teams even with cost certainty..

How does moving the NHLPA share to 50% and only allowing any NHL player to sign a 5 year max deal fill a 1/2 empty stadium with fans or get increased viewership and thus bring in more revenue to effect Owner profitability levels in non hockey markets.

Location, location, location the #1 rule in operating a successful business is not addressed by cutting expenses, when increasing revenue is the real objective to profitably here. Fill the buildings around the league and player costs even at 57% at present is a non issue to profit levels. Making Shane Doan take a 12% paycut (by NHLPA going from 57% to 50% of HRR) is not doing a single thing to guarantee more fans and sponsors and investors will show up for Coyote home games in the future.

Its misdirected blame for losing money on investment for Owners to be blaming the players unilaterally across the board for how they run their businesses and in the markets their located.

They want this, once they get 50-50 and contract length and have a 10 year cba then you start to relocate franchises to more profitable locations. If revenue increases, players will make more at 50-50.

4evaBlue 12-07-2012 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by p.l.f. (Post 56337057)
so the only problem now is a 10yr vs 8yr deal ?
ok then make it 9 yrs :damnpc:

Who does shorter CBA length benefit and why? I don't understand why the players are so eager to be facing the same farce they're going through a year or two sooner. Is the PA thinking that a shorter term will allow them to rebel against the oppression sooner, in case they feel that they got screwed by the CBA?

WRT to the 5 year contract length. Who does it affect? Superstars, mostly. Do 3rd/4th liners actually get 5+ year contracts? Do most 2nd liners? The majority of the league would not be affected, only the superstars. Same goes for the whole make-whole debacle.

So essentially, the NHLPA ignores the interest of the majority of its members in favor of what benefits the 90 or so players, and trying to make the rich even richer.

4evaBlue 12-07-2012 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Missing Piece (Post 56337847)
1. No proof at all Fehr has been stalling. No explanation at all why this would be advantageous to his bargaining position. Not in anyones interest to do so especially not the players who he works for.

Both sides are stalling, waiting for who blinks first. As much as the owners would like to see hockey this season, their financial welfare will not really be affected by a cancelled season. The same can not be said about a lot of the players (who didn't manage their minimum salary properly).

All of this crap should have been resolved long before the season was scheduled to start. How many times did they meet during the offseason?

hotpaws 12-07-2012 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daveleaf (Post 56339291)
I think they should just go back and do nothing. Cancel the season because a 40-50 game is just ridiculous.

I agree a 40/50 game season is ridiculous . After all these months of failed negotiations i'd submit an offer and tell the players it's a real take it leave it offer . **** these phoney concessions the players think they've given and actually get real concessions .

I'd offer a

50/50 split of HRR and a roll back of salaries after this year to be able to get to the 50/50 split

honour all contracts after the roll back is taken into account and no penalties on any previous deal

5 year term limits on all contracts and 1 extra year for a player who resigns with they're team

10 year contract with an opt out clause after 8 years

free agency and arbitration can stay the same

zero make whole money

if they don't like this deal they can go to Europe and play for peanuts outside of a few that can go to the K

in the real world i'm very much pro labour because i don't see the benifts of off shoring our jobs to 3rd world countries but this isn't the real world and the players will do quite well regardless of what they agree to

anyway i'm just ranting because i'm quite frustrated over this strike , at least during the last one i had my son playing to occupy my time but with him off to university i'm getting bored and the ****ing Raps are getting unbearable to watch

Mess 12-07-2012 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daveleaf (Post 56339969)
They want this, once they get 50-50 and contract length and have a 10 year cba then you start to relocate franchises to more profitable locations. If revenue increases, players will make more at 50-50.

You could move Phoenix to Southern Ontario tomorrow and they could make a profit instantly and you could leave the CBA as is now.

Toronto is reported to make $80-90 mil profit in the market with player salaries at 57% and unlimited contract years.

If what you're suggesting is correct than Fehr should be negotiating based on lowering the PA % only based on relocation certainty, much like the NHL demands cost certainty. However Bettman fights awfully long and hard to keep Phoenix in Phoenix if he really intends to relocate them shortly after this new CBA is signed.

Morguee 12-07-2012 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mess (Post 56339801)
Last CBA the Owners claimed PA salaries were at 75% expenses and they needed a hard cap tied to league revenues and cost certainty to run profitable businesses.

They got that as 57% ceiling for the PA is lower than < 75% and no cost certainty.

Now the Owners claim that they still can't make a profit at that level of player costs.. However who's fault is it if building remain 1/2 empty or are located in non traditional hockey markets that are proving difficult to support NHL teams even with cost certainty..

How does moving the NHLPA share to 50% and only allowing any NHL player to sign a 5 year max deal fill a 1/2 empty stadium with fans or get increased viewership and thus bring in more revenue to effect Owner profitability levels in non hockey markets.

Location, location, location the #1 rule in operating a successful business is not addressed by cutting expenses, when increasing revenue is the real objective to profitably here. Fill the buildings around the league and player costs even at 57% at present is a non issue to profit levels. Making Shane Doan take a 12% paycut (by NHLPA going from 57% to 50% of HRR) is not doing a single thing to guarantee more fans and sponsors and investors will show up for Coyote home games in the future.

Its misdirected blame for losing money on investment for Owners to be blaming the players unilaterally across the board for how they run their businesses and in the markets their located.

It is an ongoing process, they cut to 57% and that was still not enough. I suppose they can also look at cutting hotel costs, flight costs, meal costs, trainer costs, doctor costs etc as well to help balance the bottom line and promote a better bottom line, good suggestion.

Atleast 10 teams are not making money so we need to move them. So Hamilton, Quebec City, Seattle, Brampton, Victoria... I wonder what happens when the Canadian dollar goes for a crap again. We can always move Winnipeg, Quebec... Part of leaving these money losing franchises in the States is the TV CONTRACT. No Canadian TV contract will ever be able to match the American dollars.

It takes time to build a market you just can't pull up stakes and move every 5 years. I believe Gary Bettman and the NHL sees the endgame in TV revenues and more particularly American TV. To get a truly national TV contract you have to have a National sport. Regional TV deals will not make this product the money ALL parties involved hope for.

Watch a ballgame in the summer sometime and see how empty some of those stadiums are. They are still making money because of the TV contracts, attendance is great but a National TV contract is the pot of gold.

There is another option as well. Just fold these 10 franchises, lay of 230 players + staff + supporting employees and have just a northwestern/Canadian regional sport.

hotpaws 12-07-2012 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by calcal798 (Post 56339871)
Im gonna guess they agreed on compliance issues (the way I read it, I don't see how it affects players). So now the difference between the two sides is 3 year length on contract (im sure the only players worried about this are stars) and the CBA length.

Sounds like Fehr was being pretty serious about getting a deal done when that is the difference between the two.

The extra money for the make whole was tied to the other issues . Since the players didn't agree to the other issues the extra money is off the table .

The owners offer had a number of issues tied together and it wasn't for the players to pick and choose the ones they wanted and keep negotiating on the ones they didn't .

Regardless of which side a persons on the fact is Bettman/owners have been upfont with the public in these negotiations . They've never hid the fact they're looking for concessions . On the other hand Fehr has done nothing but stall and spin his offers in the media .

4evaBlue 12-07-2012 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mess (Post 56339801)
Now the Owners claim that they still can't make a profit at that level of player costs.. However who's fault is it if building remain 1/2 empty or are located in non traditional hockey markets that are proving difficult to support NHL teams even with cost certainty..

Agreed 100%. Bettman is trying to grow the game's popularity throughout North America, and even in Europe, but I think he's not going about it the right way. I don't know what the right way would be, but it's not by moving teams into the middle of the desert, where noone cares about the game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mess (Post 56339801)
How does moving the NHLPA share to 50% and only allowing any NHL player to sign a 5 year max deal fill a 1/2 empty stadium with fans or get increased viewership and thus bring in more revenue to effect Owner profitability levels in non hockey markets.

It increases parity across the league, where small market teams don't have to contend against retarded cap circumventing retirement deals in order to obtain/retain elite talent. Look no further than the Weber offersheet match.

Leo Trollmarov 12-07-2012 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mess (Post 56339149)
I'm not so sure that Fehr and the players themselves wouldn't want a longer term CBA to avoid unrest in the future..

Fehr stated that they do not want 10 years beacuse players who come in years from now will have no part of the CBA process, which is part of their right.

Do I think he is being honest, I doubt it, but thats what he sad.

DirtyDion03 12-07-2012 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kessly Snipes (Post 56341737)
Fehr stated that they do not want 10 years beacuse players who come in years from now will have no part of the CBA process, which is part of their right.

Do I think he is being honest, I doubt it, but thats what he sad.

In 2 years there will be players who come in that have no part of the CBA process. Doesn't mean we should do short deals.. It's something to get use to. The CBA process isn't for everyone and matter of fact, players really shouldn't be that involved in it anyways. What happened to getting drafted and your ELC being good enough?

nsleaf 12-07-2012 12:51 PM

Both sides should be embarrassed. Whole world of hockey is laughing at them.

Leo Trollmarov 12-07-2012 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DirtyDion03 (Post 56341843)
In 2 years there will be players who come in that have no part of the CBA process. Doesn't mean we should do short deals.. It's something to get use to. The CBA process isn't for everyone and matter of fact, players really shouldn't be that involved in it anyways. What happened to getting drafted and your ELC being good enough?

I agree, just telling you what Fehr said.

daveleaf 12-07-2012 01:12 PM

There is philosophically nothing wrong with 50-50. Players share 50% of revenue. They have their endorsement deals, they charge people money for the autographs, they make money on all kinds of things.

This whole idea of players giving more and more is really ridiculous. All their proposals before were based on models that assumed a certain amount of growth in the league. They were using quite healthy numbers and now they say they can't go 10 years out because they can't predict that far out but seemed to have a good handle where it was in five years.

They ended up at 50-50 in year 5 of a five year deal. Interesting. Glad they have bent so much.

You guys can go on with Bettman all you like but in this case watching Fehr's antics is spectacular to say the least. Watching players show up to meetings in their suits and ball caps and toques made my day.

Shut it down because the product we will see for four months will be a watered down schedule and not a true test of a league champion anyway.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:38 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.