HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Phoenix Coyotes
Notices

The 2012-2013 NHL Lockout Discussion Thread

View Poll Results: Will there be any NHL games before 8/15/13?
Heck yeah! 11 44.00%
Only on my Playstation 14 56.00%
Voters: 25. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-26-2012, 09:58 AM
  #326
awfulwaffle
Registered User
 
awfulwaffle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Country: United States
Posts: 6,093
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinurgy View Post
I'm willing to be you're not in the top 600 at your job either. My point is you likely don't possess a skill that is rare yet coveted much less be amongst the top %1 in the world at that skill. Not meaning to be offensive here, hell I don't either, I'm just saying there is a pretty easy case to be made for these players making the money they do.
Not an easy case at all. Look at those running bad businesses, that continue to get large bonuses while their company goes through bankruptcy. Were they really that good to be in their position, only to run the company into the ground, and laugh while they cash a million dollar bonus?

There are players out there that deserve a crazy salary, sure, that's just how it goes. But the fact that these *******s are arguing over millions, and crying about making less money than they already are, while there are 10% of this country out of a job, fighting to keep food on the table, is absurd to me, when this is entertainment to others. I have 0 sympathy for the players at this point. If they would have sat down and tried negotiating a lot sooner, my tone might be a bit different, but they are screwing the fans over, the base that pays their salaries.

awfulwaffle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 10:36 AM
  #327
rt
Usually Incorrect
 
rt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Rarely Sober
Country: United States
Posts: 40,043
vCash: 500
Here's my primary gripe about the players is that they just keep moving the goal posts. All along theyve said 50/50 is acceptable as long as existing contracts are honored, which would provide them with a soft landing to 50/50. The NHL's last proposal does a really, really effective job at meeting those terms. The "make whole" provision is almost exactly what the players were saying was needed to make 50/50 an acceptable split. Theyve got that now. It's done. The money split should be all wrapped up.

So whats left to fight about? UFA eligibility, arbitration rights, and term and variance limits on contracts. The last two of those four issues impacts less than five percent of union membership. Want to die on that hill NHLPA? Really? Want to nuke a season of earnings, decertify, file anti trust lawsuits, get this mess tied up in the courts for the next five years, have at least a fifty percent chance of seeing all of those efforts fail, and risk losing yet another season, and never ever getting another offer as sweet as the nhls last? For issues impacting less than five percent of you? Absurd. Arbitration is another one that will impact a ridiculously low percentage of current union members in their life time.

That leaves UFA eligibility. The fact that the NHL backed off of ELC changes tells me they'll back off UFA changes, too. Those were meant to work together to make pretty large changes to what second contracts look like. Without the ELC changes, I think the nhl could eventually concede on UFA changes once the player association wakes the **** up.

What's left? Revenue sharing? The NHL has already come a long way up on that and haven't really been harping on those big time concessions. Makes me believe they'll come up a little more. Honestly they probably shouldn't come up a whole lot more because there will be way too many welfare teams unwilling to give competition a shot. I don't think players want that either.

In my mind, if the NHL drops the ufa changes, and adds another ten percent to their revenue sharing offer, than it really does look to me like the vast majority of NHLPA membership will have got the offer they've said they were looking for.

Too bad they don't actually know what it is they want.

__________________
This poster should not be taken seriously under any circumstances.
rt is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 11:39 AM
  #328
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 10,740
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nab77 View Post
As of now decertification is only a negoating tactic. If the players decided to go through with it the NHL as we know it would be done with.
No cap, no draft, everybody's UFA etc.
Actually it is possible for the league to have a cap without a union, although there would be a lot of legal fighting over it. The legal argument would be whether the league's [reasonable] goal of promoting competitive parity amongst the teams through the implementation of a cap is outweighed by possible negative impact on the player labor market.

mouser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 11:45 AM
  #329
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 10,740
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rt View Post
Here's my primary gripe about the players is that they just keep moving the goal posts. All along theyve said 50/50 is acceptable as long as existing contracts are honored, which would provide them with a soft landing to 50/50. The NHL's last proposal does a really, really effective job at meeting those terms. The "make whole" provision is almost exactly what the players were saying was needed to make 50/50 an acceptable split. Theyve got that now. It's done. The money split should be all wrapped up.
I take the simpler view that the PA has been saying 50/50 isn't okay, at least averaged over the term of the next CBA. All of their proposals have been some variation of 50/50 + X or we'll be 50/50 someday, but until then we get 50% + X. It all comes down to how big X is.

mouser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 12:58 PM
  #330
rt
Usually Incorrect
 
rt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Rarely Sober
Country: United States
Posts: 40,043
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
I take the simpler view that the PA has been saying 50/50 isn't okay, at least averaged over the term of the next CBA. All of their proposals have been some variation of 50/50 + X or we'll be 50/50 someday, but until then we get 50% + X. It all comes down to how big X is.
I suppose for the NHLPA X appears to be every penny of money that would've been owed in the last CBA. The NHL seems only willing to pay out a very large chunk of X.

Does anyone have any idea what percentage of X the NHL's "Make Whole" offer represents? I know it's hard to calculate due to the season's inevitable prorated or lost wages for this season, and the inevitable tremendously reduced HRR due to fan backlash over the work stoppage.

Let's say they could cram 75% of a season in if they came to an agreement today. Let's say HRR growth is 5% by some miracle straight from the heavens.

Anyone have a clue what percentage the "Make Whole" amount would be?

rt is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 01:01 PM
  #331
rt
Usually Incorrect
 
rt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Rarely Sober
Country: United States
Posts: 40,043
vCash: 500
Either way, I would expect that at least 90% of union membership would've been better off if the PA had accepted the NHL's last offer the very moment "make whole was clarified" (with plenty of time for 82 games worth of pay) than they would be even if the NHL accepts the PA's last offer today with the qualification that only 75% of games can be played and salaries for this season must be prorated.

rt is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 02:53 PM
  #332
Nab77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 312
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
Actually it is possible for the league to have a cap without a union, although there would be a lot of legal fighting over it. The legal argument would be whether the league's [reasonable] goal of promoting competitive parity amongst the teams through the implementation of a cap is outweighed by possible negative impact on the player labor market.
Propably is, but is it worth it to fight against better odds. IMO, if the players try to decertify, the league will fight them in courts over that and if they lose try to make a deal asap.

Nab77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 02:59 PM
  #333
Rebranded Fan
naurutger's hero
 
Rebranded Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maricopa County
Country: United States
Posts: 4,902
vCash: 1329
Federal mediation time for NHL, NHLPA; will this end the lockout?
Quote:
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service Director George H. Cohen issued the following statement today on the ongoing labor negotiations between the National Hockey League and the National Hockey League Players' Association:

"I have had separate, informal discussions with the key representatives of the National Hockey League and the National Hockey League Players' Association during the course of their negotiations for a successor collective bargaining agreement. At the invitation of the FMCS, and with the agreement of both parties, the ongoing negotiations will now be conducted under our auspices. I have assigned Deputy Director Scot L. Beckenbaugh, Director of Mediation Services John Sweeney, and Commissioner Guy Serota to serve as the mediators."
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-pu...4489--nhl.html

Rebranded Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 03:46 PM
  #334
Colt45Blast
Torres FTW
 
Colt45Blast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: Mexico
Posts: 24,224
vCash: 500
If this does go to mediation, doesn this mean the NHL has to open up the books for the public to see?

If that is a yes, then the talk surrounding the ownership mess will get very interesting as well.

Colt45Blast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 06:43 PM
  #335
Matzel
Registered User
 
Matzel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Eastern Canada
Country: Germany
Posts: 1,246
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Matzel
Quote:
Originally Posted by rt View Post
I dont think it's an easy case, at all. Players should take 57% of revenue, while contributing zero percent in expenses and risk? I think that is absurd. Especially in what equates to a niche sport that gives these guys top of the line accommodations and benefits. They get NFL treatment, NBA paychecks, and play in a glorified arena football league (at least in 70% of their markets).
Well put! It's a bit wordy but could make an excellent bumper sticker.

Matzel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 07:37 PM
  #336
Sinurgy
Embrace Passion
 
Sinurgy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Tempe, AZ
Posts: 7,122
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by awfulwaffle View Post
Not an easy case at all. Look at those running bad businesses, that continue to get large bonuses while their company goes through bankruptcy. Were they really that good to be in their position, only to run the company into the ground, and laugh while they cash a million dollar bonus?
You totally lost me here. I get that you're just frustrated in general but I don't see the connection between poor CEO performance and NHL salaries.

Quote:
There are players out there that deserve a crazy salary, sure, that's just how it goes. But the fact that these *******s are arguing over millions, and crying about making less money than they already are, while there are 10% of this country out of a job, fighting to keep food on the table, is absurd to me, when this is entertainment to others. I have 0 sympathy for the players at this point. If they would have sat down and tried negotiating a lot sooner, my tone might be a bit different, but they are screwing the fans over, the base that pays their salaries.
I agree with your general sentiment, watching millionaires and billionaires squabble over money is disturbing. That said, of the two parties, I don't understand why your ire is directed more towards the millionaires than those who could literally misplace a million and not even notice. Reminds me of that Chris Rock sketch were he talks about rich vs wealthy. Yeah Shaq is rich but the guy who signs Shaq's checks is wealthy. "Ah, here you go, Shaq. Go buy yourself a bouncing car. Bling, bling!"

Sinurgy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 08:18 PM
  #337
awfulwaffle
Registered User
 
awfulwaffle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Country: United States
Posts: 6,093
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinurgy View Post
You totally lost me here. I get that you're just frustrated in general but I don't see the connection between poor CEO performance and NHL salaries.


I agree with your general sentiment, watching millionaires and billionaires squabble over money is disturbing. That said, of the two parties, I don't understand why your ire is directed more towards the millionaires than those who could literally misplace a million and not even notice. Reminds me of that Chris Rock sketch were he talks about rich vs wealthy. Yeah Shaq is rich but the guy who signs Shaq's checks is wealthy. "Ah, here you go, Shaq. Go buy yourself a bouncing car. Bling, bling!"
You brought up how these players are a special breed, are the CEO's of big companies that fail really the best at what they do to be in that position, and get those bonuses they get? I understand, there are only a certain amount of people that can play hockey in the NHL on this planet, but are they any better than those CEOs that ran failed companies, etc. Mainly saying, people get paid more than they deserve. I wish teachers and public service members(police, fire, medics) got paid more than they do, but it just doesn't work that way.

My ire is directed towards the players because they took so long to start negotiating. It might have been a tactic that might help them, sure, but they still waited so long to get back to the negotiation table, knowing no hockey was a very high probability.


Last edited by awfulwaffle: 11-26-2012 at 08:27 PM.
awfulwaffle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 08:20 PM
  #338
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 10,740
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AP View Post
If this does go to mediation, doesn this mean the NHL has to open up the books for the public to see?

If that is a yes, then the talk surrounding the ownership mess will get very interesting as well.
No. Mediation would be a privately conducted exercise involving the two sides. Nothing from the sessions has to be made public.

The PA already has most, if not all of the details of the team finances. They were able to audit teams under the past CBA. It was also reported the league turned over 18,000 pages of club financial information earlier in the negotiation process at the PA's request.

mouser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 08:32 PM
  #339
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 10,740
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rt View Post
I suppose for the NHLPA X appears to be every penny of money that would've been owed in the last CBA. The NHL seems only willing to pay out a very large chunk of X.

Does anyone have any idea what percentage of X the NHL's "Make Whole" offer represents? I know it's hard to calculate due to the season's inevitable prorated or lost wages for this season, and the inevitable tremendously reduced HRR due to fan backlash over the work stoppage.

Let's say they could cram 75% of a season in if they came to an agreement today. Let's say HRR growth is 5% by some miracle straight from the heavens.

Anyone have a clue what percentage the "Make Whole" amount would be?
I'm not sure we know for certain what X is in all the discussions. Reportedly the league's offer was 50/50 for all years, with a total make whole amount of $211m that might have financial conditions that could adjust it downward. The PA [Fehr] has claimed their proposal represents only $182m more, leading a lot of articles to report the PA is asking for $393m in make whole, but it's not clear if the PA is using the same framework that the NHL is using. Bill Daly of the NHL has said the gap is larger than $182m, which if true would lead one to believe the PA's make whole proposal is unlinked or has other conditions that could lead to it being larger than $182m.

mouser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 09:21 PM
  #340
Sinurgy
Embrace Passion
 
Sinurgy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Tempe, AZ
Posts: 7,122
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by awfulwaffle View Post
You brought up how these players are a special breed, are the CEO's of big companies that fail really the best at what they do to be in that position, and get those bonuses they get? I understand, there are only a certain amount of people that can play hockey in the NHL on this planet, but are they any better than those CEOs that ran failed companies, etc.
Yeah a CEO who fails obviously wasn't worth the money but they weren't hired by people who figured they'd fail, the people who hired them figured they would succeed and then of course be worth the money. Hindsight is 20/20. That said, I still don't understand the connection between CEO's who fail and NHL salaries so I'm just going to move on.

Quote:
Mainly saying, people get paid more than they deserve. I wish teachers and public service members(police, fire, medics) got paid more than they do, but it just doesn't work that way.
As a blanket statement, I don't agree at all. For example, why should public service people be paid more? In the grand scheme of things, a large portion of the population are capable of being a police officers, medics, etc. The same goes for teachers, it's just doesn't take that unique of a skill set to be a teacher. NOW THAT BEING SAID, if the roles of those positions mentioned were altered in a way where they were held to a much higher standard and the barriers of entry were greater, then all bets are off. I definitely believe if you're a kick ass police officer or teacher, then yeah, you should be paid accordingly.

Quote:
My ire is directed towards the players because they took so long to start negotiating. It might have been a tactic that might help them, sure, but they still waited so long to get back to the negotiation table, knowing no hockey was a very high probability.
Totally agree!

Sinurgy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 09:22 PM
  #341
rt
Usually Incorrect
 
rt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Rarely Sober
Country: United States
Posts: 40,043
vCash: 500
I have no doubt that the NHLPA's "make whole" amount actually represents a rather substantial raise in salaries. I expect the NHL definitely stretched the definition of "whole" but I'd bet a pretty penny it is a lot closer to reality than whatever Fehr cooked up.

rt is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 09:56 PM
  #342
awfulwaffle
Registered User
 
awfulwaffle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Country: United States
Posts: 6,093
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinurgy View Post
Yeah a CEO who fails obviously wasn't worth the money but they weren't hired by people who figured they'd fail, the people who hired them figured they would succeed and then of course be worth the money. Hindsight is 20/20. That said, I still don't understand the connection between CEO's who fail and NHL salaries so I'm just going to move on.


As a blanket statement, I don't agree at all. For example, why should public service people be paid more? In the grand scheme of things, a large portion of the population are capable of being a police officers, medics, etc. The same goes for teachers, it's just doesn't take that unique of a skill set to be a teacher. NOW THAT BEING SAID, if the roles of those positions mentioned were altered in a way where they were held to a much higher standard and the barriers of entry were greater, then all bets are off. I definitely believe if you're a kick ass police officer or teacher, then yeah, you should be paid accordingly.


Totally agree!
Same with an NHL contract. You sign someone thinking they are going to provide a certain amount of points, or a certain amount of protection in net to warrant the contract they signed, but that doesn't always happen, same with a CEO.

I don't know if I'm trying to make a connection, but you brought up how I'm not in the top 600 of my field. That's fair to say, but CEO's obviously got to where they are because they are in the top of where they are, even if they don't belong there. They make a substantial amount of money, because there are plenty of people that might not be able to be in that position. Same goes with your theory on these NHL players being able to do what they do. They should make more because it's a talent that not everyone has. Sure, but should they get paid what they do? I honestly feel professional sports players are overpaid, but that's me.

awfulwaffle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 10:22 PM
  #343
rt
Usually Incorrect
 
rt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Rarely Sober
Country: United States
Posts: 40,043
vCash: 500
Not NFL players. That's a big bucks industry. The NHL on the other hand...

rt is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 10:28 PM
  #344
awfulwaffle
Registered User
 
awfulwaffle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Country: United States
Posts: 6,093
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rt View Post
Not NFL players. That's a big bucks industry. The NHL on the other hand...
I think NFL players are overpaid.

awfulwaffle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 11:59 PM
  #345
zz
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,594
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by awfulwaffle View Post
I think NFL players are overpaid.
What does that even mean? NFL owners are underpaid? Revenue has to go in someone's pockets.

Unless you're saying all pro sports revenue should go down? Ticket prices, TV ads, jerseys etc... should be cut for the good of the community? And since this would be opposite to free market economics, how can this be enforced? Government regulation?

I don't follow your logic at all.

zz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 12:31 AM
  #346
Sinurgy
Embrace Passion
 
Sinurgy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Tempe, AZ
Posts: 7,122
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by awfulwaffle View Post
Same with an NHL contract. You sign someone thinking they are going to provide a certain amount of points, or a certain amount of protection in net to warrant the contract they signed, but that doesn't always happen, same with a CEO.
Yep and unfortunately that's just the risky nature of contracts period, regardless of the profession.

Quote:
I don't know if I'm trying to make a connection, but you brought up how I'm not in the top 600 of my field. That's fair to say, but CEO's obviously got to where they are because they are in the top of where they are, even if they don't belong there. They make a substantial amount of money, because there are plenty of people that might not be able to be in that position. Same goes with your theory on these NHL players being able to do what they do. They should make more because it's a talent that not everyone has. Sure, but should they get paid what they do? I honestly feel professional sports players are overpaid, but that's me.
Well I would agree that they're overpaid, grossly overpaid even but like it or not that's what the market is for their services. I think Apple products are hideously overpriced but again, a lot of people are willing to pay it so they can price them accordingly. It's just the way the market works. I feel your frustration but I think it's more society and it's priorities that you have issue with than professional sports players. If there wasn't a huge market for these players, they wouldn't be making all that money. To go a step further, I'm willing to bet a lot of NHL players and sports players in general would actually agree with that sentiment. They know they're way overpaid but there is no reason for them to be accepting of salary reduction because in most cases the money they give up will just line the pockets of billionaires anyway.


Last edited by Sinurgy: 11-27-2012 at 12:36 AM.
Sinurgy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 01:38 PM
  #347
Guest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,239
vCash: 500
Highly talented labor is always going to be more than commonly talented labor, it's a simple supply and demand situation. That why CEO's make so much money (among other reasons) because the competition to acquire that talent is so difficult that incentives have to be provided.

The thing I'm having a hard time justify is when any labor workforce should have the right to claim a portion of a companies revenue. Sure, they have the right to ask for it, but I am not sure that linkage is truly fair.

Others have mentioned how the owners put up the capital and take all of the risk so the players get a great deal by collecting the leftovers after that risk has been taken. The NHL got tricked into tying players salaries to their revenue and now it's hard to back out. Even worse is that teams are having to pay based on the average revenue generated and not the median revenue generated.

Guest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2012, 04:18 PM
  #348
Rebranded Fan
naurutger's hero
 
Rebranded Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maricopa County
Country: United States
Posts: 4,902
vCash: 1329
NHL Lockout 2012: Mediation ends with no progress

Quote:
There's no reason why mediators could not intervene in the process again, but for now the sides will go back to regular collective bargaining talks. The next step could be the NHLPA decertifying or disclaiming interest, which could put pressure on owners with antitrust lawsuits.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/...s-no-progress/

Rebranded Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2012, 04:55 PM
  #349
GiveAFlyingPuck
Gary Bettman Rocks!
 
GiveAFlyingPuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Cloud 9
Country: United States
Posts: 1,493
vCash: 269
Guess I'd give up a season for an owner.

GiveAFlyingPuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2012, 05:07 PM
  #350
OOEEL
Registered User
 
OOEEL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Arizona
Country: United States
Posts: 385
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZflyingPuck View Post
Guess I'd give up a season for an owner.
+1

And besides, I think the year might help us fill out our roster more.

Players like Brown, Gormley, Stone, and maybe even Rundblad can use this year to develop and fight for a spot on the 2013-14 Arizona Coyotes roster.

I mean let's admit there were some question marks in the bottom six, I think if we can start next year with a middle of the round or higher draft pick, a free agency period with an owner, and some of our own kids to plug into the roster next year we'd be better off than rushing into an abbreviated season.

Also, did anyone else go to the scrimmage at the ice den today?

OOEEL is offline   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 11:32 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.