HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

CBA question re: waivers and re-entry waivers

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-15-2006, 11:40 PM
  #1
colonel_korn
Luuuuuuuuuu....lay?
 
colonel_korn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: St John's, NL
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,362
vCash: 500
CBA question re: waivers and re-entry waivers

Some confusion has come up for me in looking at the Canucks' roster recently and I was wondering if someone could clear things up for me.

Rumor has it that the Canucks are about to sign Rory Fitzpatrick, which means (assuming Luc Bourdon stays with the team) that he and Yannick Tremblay are going to be vying for the #7 defenseman spot on the team. I was trying to figure out which was more likely to get the spot, and one thing I think is going to be important is waiver eligibility.

First question: Does it matter if someone is on a one-way contract or a two-way contract? My understanding is that this does not affect eligibility anymore. Last season it would have made a difference because of that rule about guys who were making over $75K in the AHL being subject to re-entry waivers - so a guy with only a one-way deal would be subject to them by virtue of making at least $450K in the AHL, while someone with a two-way deal for less than $75K in the AHL would not. However, I heard that this rule has been done away with, so I don't think a one-way or two-way deal has anything to do with waivers. Is this correct?

I was trying to figure out whether Tremblay and Fitzpatrick would have to pass through waivers if they were called up or sent down to Manitoba. Section 13.4 in the CBA (ref: http://www.nhl.com/cba/2005-CBA.pdf ) describes rules for waiver exemption, but both Fitzpatrick and Tremblay are over 25 so these don't apply.

I also found this in section 50.9 (g) of the CBA:

Quote:
The Re-Entry Waiver procedure will not, however, be applicable to
Veteran Minor League Players defined as follows: (i) for goaltenders, Players who
have: (A) played in 180 or more professional games in North America (NHL, AHL
and ECHL), and (B ) not spent more than 80 NHL games on NHL roster over the
prior two (2) seasons or more than 40 NHL games on NHL roster in the
immediately prior season; and (ii) for defensemen and forwards, Players who have:
(A) played in 320 or more professional games in North America (NHL, AHL and
ECHL), and (B ) not spent more than 80 NHL games on NHL roster over the prior
two (2) seasons or more than 40 NHL games on NHL roster in the immediately
prior season.
Tremblay has 378 games in the NHL, but has been over in Europe for the past 2 years so I think he meets these criteria. Fitzpatrick, on the other hand, does not because he's played more than the maximum number of games in the NHL over the past two seasons.

This initially led me to believe that Tremblay was waiver-exempt and Fitzpatrick wasn't, which would give Fitzpatrick a bit of an inside track for that #7 position since Tremblay could be called up and down without any problems. But then I got confused because:
a) This only refers to Re-entry waivers, not 'normal' waivers, and
b) This was right under the section describing that $75K rule that just got taken out, so I'm not sure if it's applicable anymore.

So this raised a few more questions for me. Does this mean Tremblay would be exempt from re-entry waivers, but not from 'normal' waivers? i.e. A team could claim him on the way down but not on the way up? Or are both these guys subject to waivers going up and going down?

Basically if someone could clarify for me what the situation with these two would be WRT both types of waivers, I'd appreciate it.

Yannick Tremblay: http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/p...id%5B%5D=21502
Rory Fitzpatrick: http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/p...php3?pid=10170

colonel_korn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2006, 11:45 PM
  #2
jumptheshark
Give the dog a bone
 
jumptheshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: hf retirement home
Country: United Nations
Posts: 52,292
vCash: 500
both would

Why?

Age and experience.

The contract a players has has very little to do with whether a player is in a waiver problem--it comes down to experience.

__________________
trying to fend off exwife number 2
45000/010113
GO SHARKS GO
jumptheshark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2006, 12:12 AM
  #3
colonel_korn
Luuuuuuuuuu....lay?
 
colonel_korn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: St John's, NL
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,362
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by graveyardshift View Post
both would

Why?

Age and experience.

The contract a players has has very little to do with whether a player is in a waiver problem--it comes down to experience.
Yeah, I have no doubt that Fitzpatrick has to go through them, the questionmark is Tremblay since he hasn't a single NHL game in the past two seasons.
I just asked about the contracts because there seems to be this really common conception that two-way contract = waiver exemption and I just wanted to be sure that they actually have absolutely nothing to do with one another.

colonel_korn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2006, 06:27 AM
  #4
missK
Registered User
 
missK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lightning country
Country: United States
Posts: 2,136
vCash: 500
First Question answer: The waiver rule regarding the AHL $75,000 salary has not been repealed. If you read the published CBA, this season the rule allows for a slightly higher salary. If the AHL salary is less than $95,000 than the player does not have to clear waivers just based on the salary rule.

missK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2006, 02:47 PM
  #5
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,358
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by missK View Post
First Question answer: The waiver rule regarding the AHL $75,000 salary has not been repealed. If you read the published CBA, this season the rule allows for a slightly higher salary. If the AHL salary is less than $95,000 than the player does not have to clear waivers just based on the salary rule.
Correct. The $75K limit went up to $95K.

2005-06: $75K
2006-07: $95K
2007-08: $100K
2008-09: $100K
2009-10: $105K
2010-11: $105K


There was a change made in the criteria for re-call waivers made during last season. Under threat of lawsuit from the PHPA (the AHL Players Association) claiming that the (then) $75K limit acted as a de facto salary cap for AHL players, forcing several vereran AHL players to take pay cuts, the NHL/NHLPA added the exception for AHL vets - the 320+ pro games, <80/40 NHL games in the last two seasons / season quoted above.

Going back to the original question - exemption from regular waivers is based on age when signing first NHL contract and exempts a player for a certain number of seasons (typically 3) or NHL games played (typically 80-160 for skaters), whichever comes first.

Both Tremblay and Fitzpatrick are well beyond their limits for professional experience and NHL games played - both would be subject to regular waivers if sent down.

Fitzpatrick would be subject to recall waivers, since he played > 40 NHL games last season (56) and > 80 NHL games (116) during the last two seasons. For the purposes of counting NHL games during the lockout (2004-05), players are credited with the same number of games as they played in 2003-04.

Trembley is exempt from recall waivers under the AHL veteran exemption. He has played >400 professional (NHL, AHL, and ECHL) games - 378 NHL games and 87 AHL games - and less then 40/80 NHL games the last season/two seasons. He played in England the last two seasons, but does get credit for 38 NHL games during the lockout, not enough to invalidate the exemption.

The reentry waiver status of a player is determined during the offseason, and does not change during the season, so Trembley could play >40 games and still be exempt from recall waivers for remainder of the season. He would still, of course, be subject to regular waivers when sent down.

kdb209 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2006, 03:58 PM
  #6
colonel_korn
Luuuuuuuuuu....lay?
 
colonel_korn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: St John's, NL
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,362
vCash: 500
Thanks for the replies!

I didn't realize that the rule was still mostly in effect and had just been amended.

One last question - if Fitzpatrick signs a two-way deal that pays him less than $95K in the AHL, is he also exempt from re-entry waivers?

colonel_korn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2006, 04:03 PM
  #7
Hedberg
MLD Glue Guy
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BC, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,140
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by colonel_korn View Post
One last question - if Fitzpatrick signs a two-way deal that pays him less than $95K in the AHL, is he also exempt from re-entry waivers?
No.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209 View Post
Fitzpatrick would be subject to recall waivers, since he played > 40 NHL games last season (56) and > 80 NHL games (116) during the last two seasons. For the purposes of counting NHL games during the lockout (2004-05), players are credited with the same number of games as they played in 2003-04.

Hedberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2006, 05:51 PM
  #8
colonel_korn
Luuuuuuuuuu....lay?
 
colonel_korn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: St John's, NL
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,362
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hedberg View Post
No.
I caught that part, but the wording of article 50.9 (g) seems to suggest that he might exempt from the recall waivers if he made less than $95K in the AHL - despite exceeding the maximum number of NHL games over the past two seasons. I'm not 100% sure that my understanding is correct though.

colonel_korn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2006, 06:08 PM
  #9
kmad
Riot Survivor
 
kmad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 31,729
vCash: 500
A flow chart is in order

kmad is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2006, 06:46 PM
  #10
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,358
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by colonel_korn View Post
I caught that part, but the wording of article 50.9 (g) seems to suggest that he might exempt from the recall waivers if he made less than $95K in the AHL - despite exceeding the maximum number of NHL games over the past two seasons. I'm not 100% sure that my understanding is correct though.
Actually, you were right the first time. If Fitzpatrick signed a two-way deal for less than $95K, he would not be subject to recall waivers.

Recall waivers only apply to players earning >$95K. Any player earning less is not subject to recall waivers under any conditions. The 400+ pro games / <40/80 NHL games clause is an exception for players earning >$95K who would otherwise be exposed to recall waivers.

kdb209 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2006, 07:42 PM
  #11
Hedberg
MLD Glue Guy
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BC, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,140
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by colonel_korn View Post
I caught that part, but the wording of article 50.9 (g) seems to suggest that he might exempt from the recall waivers if he made less than $95K in the AHL - despite exceeding the maximum number of NHL games over the past two seasons. I'm not 100% sure that my understanding is correct though.
Sorry, your right

Hedberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-06-2007, 12:26 PM
  #12
sk84fun_dc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 16,368
vCash: 500
KDB and IB and others - a question about re-entry waivers

It was just reported that Ben Clymer, Washington Capitals, cleared re-entry waivers, but the team is keeping him assigned to Hershey (AHL).

If a player clears re-entry waivers and the team chooses to leave the player (on paper a recall and reassignment) assigned to the AHL team, is there a timeframe during which he could be recalled to the NHL team and not have to be put on re-entry waivers again?

Is it that until the player is on the NHL roster for 30 days (cumulative) or 10 NHL games, he would not have to clear re-entry waivers again? Or would he have to go through re-entry waivers again if the team had injury problems and wanted to recall the player at a later date?

thanks


Last edited by sk84fun_dc: 10-06-2007 at 12:47 PM.
sk84fun_dc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-06-2007, 01:54 PM
  #13
Sotnos
Registered User
 
Sotnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Not here
Posts: 10,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sk84fun_dc View Post
Is it that until the player is on the NHL roster for 30 days (cumulative) or 10 NHL games, he would not have to clear re-entry waivers again?
I think you are correct, but one of the gurus should probably verify. I know once a guy has cleared waivers both ways you get a bit of a window where you can promote or demote him without dealing with waivers again.

This is a bit OT, but I find it interesting that a few years ago someone would have probably taken a flyer on some of these guys, but nowadays a lot of marginal players aren't being picked up, even at half the cost. Always someone who can do the same thing for cheaper, I guess. Best of luck to Clymer, he's a good guy.

__________________
Boltprospects: Your online source for Tampa Bay Lightning Prospect News
Sotnos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-06-2007, 04:41 PM
  #14
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,358
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sk84fun_dc View Post
KDB and IB and others - a question about re-entry waivers

It was just reported that Ben Clymer, Washington Capitals, cleared re-entry waivers, but the team is keeping him assigned to Hershey (AHL).

If a player clears re-entry waivers and the team chooses to leave the player (on paper a recall and reassignment) assigned to the AHL team, is there a timeframe during which he could be recalled to the NHL team and not have to be put on re-entry waivers again?

Is it that until the player is on the NHL roster for 30 days (cumulative) or 10 NHL games, he would not have to clear re-entry waivers again? Or would he have to go through re-entry waivers again if the team had injury problems and wanted to recall the player at a later date?

thanks
Interesting question - I haven't given that situation much thought before..

The 10 NHL games / 30 days on an NHL roster does NOT seem to apply in any way to Re-Entry Waivers - it is explictly for Regular waivers when loaning a player to another league.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CBA Article 13.2
13.2 The "Playing Season Waiver Period" shall begin on the twelfth (12th) day prior to
the start of the Regular Season and end on the day following the last day of a Club's
Playing Season. Subject to the provisions of this Article, the rights to the services of a
Player may be Loaned to a club of another league, upon fulfillment of the following
conditions, except when elsewhere expressly prohibited:
(a) Regular Waivers were requested and cleared during the Playing Season
Waiver Period; and

(b) the Player has not played in ten (10) or more NHL Games cumulative
since Regular Waivers on him were last cleared, and more than thirty (30) days
cumulative on an NHL roster have not passed since Regular Waivers on him were last
cleared.
Re-Entry Waivers are defined in Article 50.9(g).

Quote:
Originally Posted by CBA Article 50.9(g)(ii)
(ii) To the extent the Player does require Waivers to be Loaned to a
minor league affiliate, he cannot be Loaned or recalled without
first clearing regular Waivers, and then cannot be Recalled to the
NHL parent Club during the same League Year without also
clearing a new Re-Entry Waiver procedure
, pursuant to which the
Player can be claimed by another NHL Club for fifty (50) percent
of the contract's remaining amounts to be paid, with the balance to
be paid by and charged to the waiving NHL Club (both amounts to
be counted against each Club's Upper Limit, Actual Club Salary
and Averaged Club Salary, and counted against the Players'
Share); and
There is not any explicit time limit relating to Re-Entry Waivers, so it becomes a question of procedure. Does the wording "cannot be Recalled to the NHL parent Club during the same League Year without also clearing a new Re-Entry Waiver procedure" imply that Re-Entry Waivers are part of the recall process (ie is the player officially recalled from loan).

If it is, then the player would have to be loaned again and re-assigned to the AHL in order to keep playing in the AHL after Re-Entry Waivers - note that Regular Waivers would not need to be cleared again, since the player was not on the NHL roster for 10 games / 30 days. In that case, since he was loaned again, he would be subject to Re-Entry waivers if he is recalled a second time.

If it isn't (ie if Re-Entry Waivers can be asked without recalling the player), then it could be read that future Re-Entry waivers would not need to be cleared, since the player would already have cleared once , satisfying the "clearing a new Re-Entry Waiver procedure" requirement.

My best guess is the former - that Re-Entry waivers is part of the recall proces and that Clymer would need to be exposed to Re-Entry Waivers again to be recalled to the Caps.

edit: Then again, in the former case (ie he is recalled, clears Re-Entry Waivers, and is immediately re-loaned to the AHL), since he was exempt from waivers (under 13.2(b)) when re-loaned, the "To the extent the Player does require Waivers to be Loaned to a minor league affiliate" may not apply - in that case Clymer would NOT be subject to Re-Entry waivers again until he was recalled an exposed to Regular Waivers again - making the 10 game /30 days a de facto requirement.


Last edited by kdb209: 10-06-2007 at 04:51 PM.
kdb209 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-06-2007, 05:46 PM
  #15
Irish Blues
____________________
 
Irish Blues's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country: St Helena
Posts: 21,804
vCash: 91
Re-Entry waivers is required for each attempt to bring a player [who is subject to Re-Entry Waivers] from the AHL to the NHL. [See: John LeClair, 2006-07 with Pittsburgh] When Clymer cleared on the way back up, the Caps simply re-assigned him back to Hershey ... but Clymer is allowed to collect his NHL Salary for today.

__________________
No promises this time.
Irish Blues is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2007, 12:42 AM
  #16
sk84fun_dc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 16,368
vCash: 500
KDB - thanks, I wrote the question succinctly, but your discussion is exactly the debate I had in reviewing all the rules and what did or did not apply and whether the 30/10 became a de facto requirement or not.

IB - I understand about the paper transaction and the player briefly being back on the NHL roster after clearing re-entry and then re-assigning him (the Caps made temp. room to recall him.) And I know LeClair cleared waivers, then re-entry waivers and then was reassigned to the AHL (similar to Clymer although LeClair wasn't required to report), but are you saying LeClair's situation provides the answer to the question? How?

You wrote "Re-Entry waivers is required for each attempt to bring a player [who is subject to Re-Entry Waivers] from the AHL to the NHL."

That was my first reaction, it would be required each time, but for the reasons KDB describes above I was wondering if the 30/10 became a de facto requirement. Is this part about re-entry is required each time in the CBA?

Thanks again


Last edited by sk84fun_dc: 10-07-2007 at 01:04 AM.
sk84fun_dc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2007, 01:15 PM
  #17
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,358
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sk84fun_dc View Post
KDB - thanks, I wrote the question succinctly, but your discussion is exactly the debate I had in reviewing all the rules and what did or did not apply and whether the 30/10 became a de facto requirement or not.

IB - I understand about the paper transaction and the player briefly being back on the NHL roster after clearing re-entry and then re-assigning him (the Caps made temp. room to recall him.) And I know LeClair cleared waivers, then re-entry waivers and then was reassigned to the AHL (similar to Clymer although LeClair wasn't required to report), but are you saying LeClair's situation provides the answer to the question? How?

You wrote "Re-Entry waivers is required for each attempt to bring a player [who is subject to Re-Entry Waivers] from the AHL to the NHL."

That was my first reaction, it would be required each time, but for the reasons KDB describes above I was wondering if the 30/10 became a de facto requirement. Is this part about re-entry is required each time in the CBA?

Thanks again
Both the LeClair and Clymer situations also beg the question of "must ask Re-Entry Waivers" vs "can ask Re-Entry Waivers".

For Regular Waivers, there seem to have been situations where a team asked waivers when they did not have to. Case in point, Todd Marchant - he was waived by Columbus, cleared waivers, but was not sent down, while Doug MacLean desparately tried to work out a trade. MacLean was unsuccessful and finally waived Marchant again, and Todd was claimed by Anaheim. Since Marchant had cleared once (and not met the 10 game 30 day limits again) the second set of waivers would not have been necessary - but Columbus who was looking to dump Marchant and wanting him to be claimed asked Waivers again.

So (absent definitive backup of IB's interpretation) - could a team that is hoping for a player to be claimed on Re-Entry Waivers (save half of the salary dollars and not care about the cap hit) ask Re-Entry waivers again, even if not required (a la Marchant, going the other way)?

kdb209 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2007, 01:41 PM
  #18
Irish Blues
____________________
 
Irish Blues's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country: St Helena
Posts: 21,804
vCash: 91
Re: Marchant - Article 13 says that Regular Waivers is not required for the prescribed time period after the player clears. That's to assign him to the minors. Nothing in Article 13 says that the Club can't offer the player on Regular Waivers a second time after he clears, even if it's within the 10 games / 30 days time period. That's what happened with Columbus - they wanted Marchant to go to Anaheim, but Todd refused to waive his NTC ... which left sending him back out on waivers as the only option to get him there.

Re: LeClair - nothing in Article 13 mentions an exemption period for Recall Waivers. In fact, in 50.9(g) it states [emphasis in bold]:
Quote:
(ii) To the extent the Player does require Waivers to be Loaned to a minor league affiliate, he cannot be Loaned or recalled without first clearing regular Waivers, and then cannot be Recalled to the NHL parent Club during the same League Year without also clearing a new Re-Entry Waiver procedure, pursuant to which the Player can be claimed by another NHL Club for fifty (50) percent of the contract's remaining amounts to be paid, with the balance to be paid by and charged to the waiving NHL Club (both amounts to be counted against each Club's Upper Limit, Actual Club Salary and Averaged Club Salary, and counted against the Players' Share);
Again ... this paragraph gives no exemption period for Recall Waivers. Thus, a player brought up on Recall Waivers on Monday, clears on Tuesday and is immediately sent back down [having cleared Regular Waivers within 10 games / 30 days] would require Recall Waivers on Wednesday or at any other point during the League Year [while Article 13 applies].

-- On a side note, I'd agree with kdb from a different thread about how a 2nd recall waiver situation is handled ... but that's for a different thread.

Irish Blues is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2007, 07:02 PM
  #19
sk84fun_dc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 16,368
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irish Blues View Post
...

Again ... this paragraph gives no exemption period for Recall Waivers. Thus, a player brought up on Recall Waivers on Monday, clears on Tuesday and is immediately sent back down [having cleared Regular Waivers within 10 games / 30 days] would require Recall Waivers on Wednesday or at any other point during the League Year [while Article 13 applies].

-- On a side note, I'd agree with kdb from a different thread about how a 2nd recall waiver situation is handled ... but that's for a different thread.
You lost me with your sidenote

To the question, my first reaction to this situation and reading the rules was that the player would have to go through re-entry again (not just by choice as KDB suggests could be possible if it was not required); my issue in reading the portion you cited is while I agree there is no exemption time period noted, the waiver de facto argument is logical, too, since it simply says a player has to clear re-entry. Anyway, I'll go with your interpretation on this one, but it would be so much clearer if it said every time.

thanks

sk84fun_dc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2007, 09:35 PM
  #20
Irish Blues
____________________
 
Irish Blues's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country: St Helena
Posts: 21,804
vCash: 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by sk84fun_dc View Post
Anyway, I'll go with your interpretation on this one, but it would be so much clearer if it said every time.
Remember ... lawyers wrote the CBA. When in doubt, blame them.

Irish Blues is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2007, 09:56 PM
  #21
sk84fun_dc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 16,368
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irish Blues View Post
Remember ... lawyers wrote the CBA. When in doubt, blame them.
ha

Always interesting having these convos when new issues arise.

sk84fun_dc 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 07:29 PM.

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.