HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

2012-2013 Lockout Discussion Thread (Part II)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-12-2012, 05:17 PM
  #276
Zil
Registered User
 
Zil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 4,304
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueblue9441 View Post
and what concession have the players made? making it a 5 year proposal? big whoop. the players have done nothing and need to stop being so stubborn. look at the industry and what other pa's have gotten. this is in the players hands
You mean other than the ones I listed?

Zil is offline  
Old
09-12-2012, 05:33 PM
  #277
RGY
(Jagr68NYR94Leetch)
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,370
vCash: 500
Regardless of who is right and who is wrong, or both....this is just dreadful to be going through this again. It is even worse this time around because like Nash pretty much said in his newest interview, there is a buzz around the city because there is a buzz around this team. So much promise. And not because we have signed these "marquee" names. We developed our own talent, still so very young, with so much skill and speed. I don't want to lose a single game though it seems inevitable. I see the threads about how a shortened season could benefit the rangers. I hate it. I'm not looking it at that way and refuse to. I want to see as many games of this group playing together as I can.

RGY is offline  
Old
09-12-2012, 06:00 PM
  #278
Inferno
HFB Partner
 
Inferno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 21,128
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zil View Post
You mean other than the ones I listed?
the players stance is basically to slow down growth rather than to take any losses now...meaning, they still want the cap to go up, and to keep going up, but at a slower rate. its ridiculous. the owners had farther to come, but theyve made steps..players havent.

Inferno is offline  
Old
09-12-2012, 06:01 PM
  #279
Zil
Registered User
 
Zil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 4,304
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRKING30 View Post
The players are beginning to look very foolish IMO. Fehr said the big markets need to step up and so far that hasn't happened yet. Is he really hoping that there is a split in union between the owners so the PA gets a better deal?
How are the players looking foolish? Bettman initially asked for them to go from 57% to 46% and now he's asking for them to go from 57% to 47%. And for all we know they still want to get rid of salary arbitration, add an extra three years to get UFA status, add two years to ELCs, and cap contracts at five years. Why should the players agree to that? Don't tell me all of that's necessary to prevent cap circumventing contracts. All they need to do to stop those is propose that for all future contracts the cap hit equals the actual salary in the given year.

Revenue is way up. You can't tell me that doesn't equate to profit because over that same period the players share went from an uncapped 75% to a capped 57%. Why should the players give up a ton more on top of what they already gave up in the last CBA, when that very system has allowed the big markets to rake in the profits?

I'll use the Rangers as an example. In 2000-01 the Rangers had a payroll of $56.8 million. When they sign Del Zotto, their 2012-13 payroll will wind up a little North of the $60 million. Ticket and merchandising prices have gone way, way up over that same time period (not to mention tv revenue). Markets like Philly, Boston, and others experienced similar windfalls thanks to the cap. It's only natural for the players to ask for the big markets to use some of those cap-fueled profits to help make the small markets viable. The money is there. It's just that the owners would prefer to make another big cash grab rather than agreeing to a system that would both help the small markets and create something resembling real labor peace.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Inferno View Post
the players stance is basically to slow down growth rather than to take any losses now...meaning, they still want the cap to go up, and to keep going up, but at a slower rate. its ridiculous. the owners had farther to come, but theyve made steps..players havent.
Why should the players agree to take cuts in legally binding contracts that the owners agreed to? That's absurd. A contract is a contract.

Zil is offline  
Old
09-12-2012, 06:07 PM
  #280
Inferno
HFB Partner
 
Inferno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 21,128
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zil View Post
How are the players looking foolish? Bettman initially asked for them to go from 57% to 46% and now he's asking for them to go from 57% to 47%. And for all we know they still want to get rid of salary arbitration, add an extra three years to get UFA status, add two years to ELCs, and cap contracts at five years. Why should the players agree to that? Don't tell me all of that's necessary to prevent cap circumventing contracts. All they need to do to stop those is propose that for all future contracts the cap hit equals the actual salary in the given year.

Revenue is way up. You can't tell me that doesn't equate to profit because over that same period the players share went from an uncapped 75% to a capped 57%. Why should the players give up a ton more on top of what they already gave up in the last CBA, when that very system has allowed the big markets to rake in the profits?

I'll use the Rangers as an example. In 2000-01 the Rangers had a payroll of $56.8 million. When they sign Del Zotto, their 2012-13 payroll will wind up a little North of the $60 million. Ticket and merchandising prices have gone way, way up over that same time period (not to mention tv revenue). Markets like Philly, Boston, and others experienced similar windfalls thanks to the cap. It's only natural for the players to ask for the big markets to use some of those cap-fueled profits to help make the small markets viable. The money is there. It's just that the owners would prefer to make another big cash grab rather than agreeing to a system that would both help the small markets and create something resembling real labor peace.



Why should the players agree to take cuts in legally binding contracts that the owners agreed to? That's absurd. A contract is a contract.
oh they dont have to....i agree.

and they wont be playing hockey in 2013 and lose 1 year off of their careers....and then, if they still dont agree to it, they will lose the 2014 season...and beyond. we know..the owners will do what it has to do to get what they want. if they arent willing to accept a cut, they should get jobs elsewhere.

Inferno is offline  
Old
09-12-2012, 06:10 PM
  #281
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 5,167
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRKING30 View Post
The players are beginning to look very foolish IMO. Fehr said the big markets need to step up and so far that hasn't happened yet. Is he really hoping that there is a split in union between the owners so the PA gets a better deal?
The ultimate issue is that the cap floor is too high for the lower half of the league. The revenue split offers are made with that cap floor in mind. If revenue sharing is greater, the floor can stay higher. Simple as that for the PA.

The league stepped up today. My only concern is how do we get the cap ceiling to $60m. I'd like to see it phased at about 53-54% in year one, the worked down to that 47% organically. PA concedes the lion share but keep the current contracts without rollbacks. That's realistic and fair, too many people here are asking the players to eat a **** sandwich a smile through it.

Two important things for the union mindset: 1) they got most of the league's current demands by taking the cap last time, and 2) they got screwed in negotiations when any and every concession was taken by the league with nothing in return. They are negotiating cautiously now.

DutchShamrock is offline  
Old
09-12-2012, 06:40 PM
  #282
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 32,816
vCash: 500
Quote:
NHLPA offer today would reduce Player's Share of revenue in 2012-13 to 53.3% and go down from there year by year.
https://twitter.com/walsha/status/246026534442393600

The owners are at 49%. The players are 53.3%. There is no basis for compromise? The NBA players got 51.15% in 11-12. Splitting the difference is 51.15%. Same as the NBA. The players were at 54% in their last proposal. Management always wins labor battles. Even MLB has a salary cap in place at $189M starting in 2014.

Both sides proposed the players % of HRR decreasing as HRR increases. Same theory but different numbers. The numbers are not that far apart.

The NHL wants a 6 year deal. PA was at 3 years plus a player option. Now its 5 years. Is that 5 years or 4 years plus a players option? The NHL originally wanted a 5 year deal.

The NHL dropped their idea of redefining what makes up HRR.

Make a deal.

Quote:
Despite the positions and the posturing - the NHL's Baconator is off the menu come Saturday - there is a deal out there to be made.
https://es.twitter.com/MichaelFarber...12871476117504

Make a deal.

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
09-12-2012, 06:51 PM
  #283
iamitter
Thornton's Hen
 
iamitter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,497
vCash: 500
Honestly, it looks the players took a small step and management took a huge step.
The players should make a significant compromise in their next proposal, the NHL's today was pretty big.
Maybe start at ~53%, end at 50%? Goes down 1% per year, constant at 50% the last two or three.

Today's negotiations make me optimistic.

iamitter is offline  
Old
09-12-2012, 06:54 PM
  #284
NYRFAN218
Mac Truck
 
NYRFAN218's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 12,848
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
https://twitter.com/walsha/status/246026534442393600

The owners are at 49%. The players are 53.3%. There is no basis for compromise? The NBA players got 51.15% in 11-12. Splitting the difference is 51.15%. Same as the NBA. The players were at 54% in their last proposal. Management always wins labor battles. Even MLB has a salary cap in place at $189M starting in 2014.

Both sides proposed the players % of HRR decreasing as HRR increases. Same theory but different numbers. The numbers are not that far apart.

The NHL wants a 6 year deal. PA was at 3 years plus a player option. Now its 5 years. Is that 5 years or 4 years plus a players option? The NHL originally wanted a 5 year deal.

The NHL dropped their idea of redefining what makes up HRR.

Make a deal.



https://es.twitter.com/MichaelFarber...12871476117504

Make a deal.
Pretty much. Bettman said they're taking the offer off the table once the CBA expires but they're willing to negotiate. If they offered as much as 49% and are willing to negotiate I don't see why the NHL can't go as high as 52%.

John Shannon ‏@JSportsnet
For those scoring at home...in the NHL-NHLPA negotiations, every percentage point reflects about 33 million dollars of revenue.

They'd be giving up an extra $100 million to the NHLPA. I don't see how that's unreasonable. Issue here is the NHL and NHLPA are building off their own proposals and aren't working off of each others. If the PA acts on the latest proposal the NHL offered I don't see why this can't get done soon.

__________________
http://hfboards.com/image.php?u=53946&type=sigpic&dateline=1320361610
NYRFAN218 is online now  
Old
09-12-2012, 06:58 PM
  #285
NYRFAN218
Mac Truck
 
NYRFAN218's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 12,848
vCash: 500
Chris Botta ‏@ChrisBottaNHL
Text from player pal: "NHL offer is a f***ing joke. Sets PA back 20 years. I appreciate what I got, but wake the ******* up buddy."

Maybe I'm missing something but I didn't think the NHL offer was that bad. Acceptable? No but it was a step in the right direction.

NYRFAN218 is online now  
Old
09-12-2012, 07:34 PM
  #286
DM23BK30
Registered User
 
DM23BK30's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 17,445
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inferno View Post
Revenues do not equal profit.
7 straight years of record revenue. The NHL, and NHLPA has profited from that.

See.

DM23BK30 is offline  
Old
09-12-2012, 07:35 PM
  #287
HatTrick Swayze
Tomato Potato
 
HatTrick Swayze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 10,314
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRFAN218 View Post
Chris Botta ‏@ChrisBottaNHL
Text from player pal: "NHL offer is a f***ing joke. Sets PA back 20 years. I appreciate what I got, but wake the ******* up buddy."

Maybe I'm missing something but I didn't think the NHL offer was that bad. Acceptable? No but it was a step in the right direction.
I am not 100% sure, but do we know how the two offers differ in terms of how HRR is calculated? The percentages could mean wildly different things in terms of total dollars based on how big the pie being calculated is.

I know at one point the NHL was talking about using the past definition HRR minus related costs...so more like "hockey related gross income" than revenue. If that is still the case I could see how the PA would still be upset about 50% of a much smaller pie.

Any education is appreciated and I thank you in advance...

EDIT - My bad I should have read the thread better. I see the NHL went back to the previous HRR calculation. If so that 49% is a really fair starting point. From a PA point of view I get that this would not be a true "concession" however since it is already in place.

__________________
"Here we can see the agression of american people. They love fighting and guns. when they wont win they try to kill us all." -HalfOfFame
HatTrick Swayze is online now  
Old
09-12-2012, 07:38 PM
  #288
BrooklynRangersFan
Change is good.
 
BrooklynRangersFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brooklyn of course
Country: United States
Posts: 11,029
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HatTrick Swayze View Post
I am not 100% sure, but do we know how the two offers differ in terms of how HRR is calculated? The percentages could mean wildly different things in terms of total dollars based on how big the pie being calculated is.

I know at one point the NHL was talking about using the past definition HRR minus related costs...so more like "hockey related gross income" than revenue. If that is still the case I could see how the PA would still be upset about 50% of a much smaller pie.

Any education is appreciated and I thank you in advance...
Actually, one of the big gives in the most latest offer from the NHL was that they reverted to the old definition.

Which is why Fehr's blather about "the last offer took us to 46% and this latest one only goes to 47%" is complete and utter ********.

BrooklynRangersFan is online now  
Old
09-12-2012, 07:46 PM
  #289
DM23BK30
Registered User
 
DM23BK30's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 17,445
vCash: 500
Labor negotiations of any kind are cutthroat. It's like an arbitration hearing. Nobody walks out feeling like a million bucks (even if youre rewarded with that).

The players use the same excuse -- they use the "we owe it to our founding fathers " BS to sway public opinion in their favor. the owners use the "players are richer than ever before" to cement their stance.

Bottom line -- these lockouts are good for any entity. It stops people from living and operating in denial. We hear the sad stories about the arena workers and the concessionairs, but the truth is that they take that risk when they agree to take the job.

The NFL in 1987 used scabs, and people barely went to and watched games despite. Jim Crochicchia and Lionel Lovelady or whatever. The NFL had strikes in 1982 and 1987...they lost both times, in 1987 they played with an expired CBA. It wasnt rectified until years later.

These NHL'ers think they can just crap off a season every so often, go to Europe once every five years, make six figures and see the sights. I dont think the owners will lose this one like they did in 2004.

DM23BK30 is offline  
Old
09-12-2012, 07:59 PM
  #290
Joe11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 115
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GWOW View Post
Labor negotiations of any kind are cutthroat. It's like an arbitration hearing. Nobody walks out feeling like a million bucks (even if youre rewarded with that).

The players use the same excuse -- they use the "we owe it to our founding fathers " BS to sway public opinion in their favor. the owners use the "players are richer than ever before" to cement their stance.

Bottom line -- these lockouts are good for any entity. It stops people from living and operating in denial. We hear the sad stories about the arena workers and the concessionairs, but the truth is that they take that risk when they agree to take the job.

The NFL in 1987 used scabs, and people barely went to and watched games despite. Jim Crochicchia and Lionel Lovelady or whatever. The NFL had strikes in 1982 and 1987...they lost both times, in 1987 they played with an expired CBA. It wasnt rectified until years later.

These NHL'ers think they can just crap off a season every so often, go to Europe once every five years, make six figures and see the sights. I dont think the owners will lose this one like they did in 2004.
The Owners lost in 2004? You are kidding right?

Joe11 is offline  
Old
09-12-2012, 08:02 PM
  #291
DM23BK30
Registered User
 
DM23BK30's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 17,445
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe11 View Post
The Owners lost in 2004? You are kidding right?
When you impose a salary cap, the owners win.

DM23BK30 is offline  
Old
09-12-2012, 08:13 PM
  #292
Lundsanity30
Registered User
 
Lundsanity30's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 11,954
vCash: 500
so what's the latest on thse "negotiatons"? I really don't care whose fault it may or may not be, 3 lockouts in Bettman's tenure proves one thing, they need a new commssioner

Lundsanity30 is offline  
Old
09-12-2012, 08:16 PM
  #293
haveandare
Registered User
 
haveandare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 8,732
vCash: 500
I wish the owners would just let the season start and work it out as it goes along. I get that letting hockey start is "losing leverage" in a sense, but come on, you can't just yank your product away from the market every few years. It's pathetic.

haveandare is offline  
Old
09-12-2012, 08:58 PM
  #294
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 5,167
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamitter View Post
Honestly, it looks the players took a small step and management took a huge step.
The players should make a significant compromise in their next proposal, the NHL's today was pretty big.
Maybe start at ~53%, end at 50%? Goes down 1% per year, constant at 50% the last two or three.

Today's negotiations make me optimistic.
The league had to take a huge step. Their first offer was outrageously bad. And it's pretty much agreed that the first PA proposal was lopsided, but not crazy.

I still think the players are trying to phase the 50/50 split to avoid rollbacks and double digit escrow. The union will get to 48% if the owners will lock the cap at $64-70m until the ceiling overtakes that figure. Then they can work on AAV calculations and lengths on rookie and ufa contracts.

Does anyone have the math for the projected revenue at 53.3%? What's the cap ceiling?

DutchShamrock is offline  
Old
09-12-2012, 09:51 PM
  #295
Rangers79
Registered User
 
Rangers79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 159
vCash: 500
Are there any big plans for a protest at the offices or nhl store on the 15th? I'm interested in attending one.

Rangers79 is offline  
Old
09-12-2012, 10:06 PM
  #296
iamitter
Thornton's Hen
 
iamitter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,497
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchShamrock View Post
The league had to take a huge step. Their first offer was outrageously bad. And it's pretty much agreed that the first PA proposal was lopsided, but not crazy.

I still think the players are trying to phase the 50/50 split to avoid rollbacks and double digit escrow. The union will get to 48% if the owners will lock the cap at $64-70m until the ceiling overtakes that figure. Then they can work on AAV calculations and lengths on rookie and ufa contracts.

Does anyone have the math for the projected revenue at 53.3%? What's the cap ceiling?
About 65.6 mil.

64.3 mil would be about 52.2%.

iamitter is offline  
Old
09-12-2012, 10:13 PM
  #297
Jabroni
The People's Champ
 
Jabroni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 7,096
vCash: 500
So, will the NHL and NHLPA be meeting again?

I know there is a BOG meeting tomorrow.

Jabroni is offline  
Old
09-13-2012, 02:52 AM
  #298
BBKers
Registered User
 
BBKers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Bialystok, Poland
Country: Iceland
Posts: 6,289
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to BBKers
Year NHLPA % NHL % Final Deal % Projected Revenue NHL NHLPA Share Cap medium Overage/underage Cap roof Cap bottom
2012/2013 53,30% 49% 51,2% 3.510.000.000 1.795.365.000 59.845.500 12,0% 67.026.960 52.664.040
2013/2014 52,50% 48,5% 50,5% 3.760.263.000 1.898.932.815 63.297.761 10,0% 69.627.537 56.967.984
2014/2015 52% 48% 50,0% 4.021.037.239 2.010.518.620 67.017.287 9,5% 73.383.930 60.650.645
2015/2016 52,30% 47,5% 49,9% 4.300.499.327 2.145.949.164 71.531.639 9,0% 77.969.486 65.093.791
2016/2017 52,3% 47% 49,7% 4.600.201.125 2.283.999.859 76.133.329 9,0% 82.985.328 69.281.329

Would not a compromise -something like this idea above - be an option to solve this big pile of Sasquatch manure?

BBKers is offline  
Old
09-13-2012, 04:03 AM
  #299
BBKers
Registered User
 
BBKers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Bialystok, Poland
Country: Iceland
Posts: 6,289
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to BBKers
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBKers View Post
Year NHLPA % NHL % Final Deal % Projected Revenue NHL NHLPA Share Cap medium Overage/underage Cap roof Cap bottom
2012/2013 53,30% 49% 51,2% 3.510.000.000 1.795.365.000 59.845.500 10,0% 65.830.050 53.860.950
2013/2014 52,50% 48,5% 50,5% 3.760.263.000 1.898.932.815 63.297.761 10,0% 69.627.537 56.967.984
2014/2015 52% 48% 50,0% 4.021.037.239 2.010.518.620 67.017.287 9,5% 73.383.930 60.650.645
2015/2016 52,30% 47,5% 49,9% 4.300.499.327 2.145.949.164 71.531.639 9,0% 77.969.486 65.093.791
2016/2017 52,3% 47% 49,7% 4.600.201.125 2.283.999.859 76.133.329 9,0% 82.985.328 69.281.329
Changed it just a little
Total growth is expected to be around 31% over 5 years
Owners get an annual raise their gross income of about 8% (total of 35% over 5 years)
Players get around 6,3% of the growth (27% over 5 years)
Escrow will determine where the final amounts to the players are in real money. But the HRR factor is the same.
Other issues are also compromised to an amicable solution include that salary arbitration rights continue in some form in the new system and that there are but minor changes to the age/experience qualifications for unrestricted free agency and restricted free agency (give the owners something here), participation by the NHL in the next 2 Olympic games is approved by the league, there are restrictions put into UFA contracts over length and bonuses, bonus cushion reinstalled, one contract per team is eligible for a compliance buyout within 6 weeks of CBA signing, players can still be demoted to minors, raise the minimum $$ of 2 way contracts substantially, close the college loophole a little by extending the signing deadline until a player officially should graduate from school...

But will this stop the bleeding for the poorer clubs- even with $220 M alloted in revenue sharing? Methinx not - need some replacements of host cities imo to stop bleeding and maximize returns in better hockey areas
Maybe move Phoenix => Las Vegas
One of NJD/NYI moves to => Kansas City, Portland, Halifax or Seattle
New Canadian teams put in Quebec City and Hamilton area. Face it, the market is there. Not in the desert...
32 teams (by 2016)
16 teams per conference - 8 teams per Division (6 inter division games per annum =42, 3 inter conference games =24, 16 games against other conference teams = 16, TOTAL 82 games). Realignment of course takes place succesively
Bettman is a goner - especially as the current makeshift of the league is his pet peave baby


Last edited by BBKers: 09-13-2012 at 06:27 AM.
BBKers is offline  
Old
09-13-2012, 05:33 AM
  #300
GAGLine
HFBoards Sponsor
 
GAGLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,062
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GWOW View Post
7 straight years of record revenue. The NHL, and NHLPA has profited from that.

See.
Except it isn't that simple. This assumes that every team in the league is sharing in that revenue equally, and that just isn't the case. The growth of the small market teams can't keep up with the growth of the league as a whole. Without more significant revenue sharing, or a different way of calculating revenue, the same problem is going to continue to occur.

GAGLine 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 10:24 PM.

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.