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.

Seattle III: All Along the Watchtower (UPD: Rumored expansion 2014-15 Post#829)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-31-2013, 01:59 PM
  #951
AdmiralsFan24
Registered User
 
AdmiralsFan24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Country: United States
Posts: 4,888
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to AdmiralsFan24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wingsfan2965 View Post
Seattle is comparable to Buffalo, IMO.
Not even close. I think the Twin Cities comparison is spot on.

AdmiralsFan24 is offline  
Old
07-31-2013, 01:59 PM
  #952
superdeluxe
Seattle SuperSonics
 
superdeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sodo, Wa
Country: South Korea
Posts: 2,311
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wingsfan2965 View Post
Seattle is comparable to Buffalo, IMO.

Much bigger, which will help, but also going to benefit a lot from being so close to Canada.
Buffalo? Maybe its proximity to Canada.

Seattle has 4-5 million living within 60-70 miles of it and several large Fortune 500 companies near and around Seattle.

superdeluxe is offline  
Old
07-31-2013, 02:12 PM
  #953
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,190
vCash: 500
Non-Seattle person here coming in peace, with a question:

What $$ input is a new NHL owner in Seattle going to have to put into an Arena? If I remember correctly, Hansen was offering a big chunk of his own change to get the arena built in the beginning, right? I would assume in this case, that Hansen would still offer some, because he still hopes to pull an NBA team, and if the Arena is built, and NBA team could come at any time, correct?

And, then, if the rumor is right, 275M for the franchise.

That is a HUGE investment, isn't it?

You fans would love this. I just wonder if anyone thinks that, just to guess, maybe 400M to get the team there (team + arena input) seems like a really, really big number to you guys....

And, then, the team would have to play 2 seasons in the Key, right?

Again, I am not arguing the point here, just trying to get the pieces straight in my own mind.
Thanks.

MNNumbers is online now  
Old
07-31-2013, 02:16 PM
  #954
superdeluxe
Seattle SuperSonics
 
superdeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sodo, Wa
Country: South Korea
Posts: 2,311
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNNumbers View Post
Non-Seattle person here coming in peace, with a question:

What $$ input is a new NHL owner in Seattle going to have to put into an Arena? .
No body has the answer to that I believe.

superdeluxe is offline  
Old
07-31-2013, 02:26 PM
  #955
DowntownBooster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 131
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
1991, the League had 22 teams, 13 of which were ETZ, but in 1992 it expanded with 2 more ETZ teams

In 1993, the League added yet another ETZ team plus a PTZ team.

In 1995, the west gained 1 by the relocation of the Nordiques to Colorado...but still: 15-ETZ, 11-rest of the League.

By 1998, the rest/west gained one, but only to have the ETZ gain another in 1999.

Finally again, in 2000, the rest/west gets one but so does the ETZ.

In addition to all of that, during that period of time there had been a couple of failed bids made by Houston.

So, with all of that, I don't see a history of the League trying to establish some balance between the number of ETZ teams and non-ETZ teams.
And there's no guarantee that Portland, Houston, Kansas City or whichever is going to put forward a reasonable bid to get an expansion team.
All good points. However, the one issue that stands out now is the number of teams in each conference. In order to balance them out without moving teams from one conference to the other would be to simply expand to cities in the western and/or central U.S. A team in Houston or Kansas City would fit it with the Central Division and another in Seattle or Portland would fit into the Pacific Division. This would bring the total number of teams to 32, balance out the conferences and cause the least disruption with the current alignment.

DowntownBooster is offline  
Old
07-31-2013, 02:31 PM
  #956
Shrimper
Trick or ruddy treat
 
Shrimper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Essex
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 67,853
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Could the League be planning a Florida-style expansion?
1992 - Tampa
1993 - Florida
So as not to have two fresh expansion teams in the same Division in the same Season?

Although, I'd think that if the League is thinking to take that route, it would still do it a little less drastically, with perhaps a 2-year gap.
2015 - Seattle
2017 - Portland

Whatever they try, I still say 33 is better: Seattle, Quebec City, and Portland.
They won't go for an odd number of teams. If Quebec wants a team after Seattle and Portland it'd be relocation.

Shrimper is offline  
Old
07-31-2013, 02:34 PM
  #957
Holden Caulfield
Moderator
Perennial Skeptic
 
Holden Caulfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,658
vCash: 500
Wow. This is exciting news. I am a huge proponant of expansion to Seattle. Still kinda wish Winnipeg had gotten an expansion team (with Seattle) rather than getting the Thrashers. Alas, it's all good. Seattle will be a solid hockey market in the NHL. Really hope this happens.

However I am not sure Portland would be the right city to pair with it.

__________________


Holden Caulfield is online now  
Old
07-31-2013, 02:36 PM
  #958
Grudy0
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 1,081
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
so the NHL's model of growth is to hope that anchor clubs are run soo poorly that teams that ARE being run poorly don't look so bad in comparison ? how long is that sustainable ? What's the alternative, more and more RS schemes that increasingly punish well run teams with no possibility of ever recouping this investment ?
No putting words in my mouth...

All I'm saying is that by expanding to a market that becomes high-revenue, it impacts all the bottom teams. Therefore, when the "pro-relocation" crowd gets going and says to move the Coyotes, Panthers or Islanders, that once they move, there will still be four new teams at the bottom, and then those teams become the next target for the "pro-relocation" crowd.

Truthfully, I'd think that by placing a team in both GTA (my preference Hamilton) and Quebec City would diminish the Leafs and Canadiens revenue growth just enough to actually stabilize revenue growth for all teams. Imagine if the Rangers had the New York market all to themselves...
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
An a lot of this " But quebec wont make new fans" argument seems to conveniently ignore the fact that the NHL is still ( and will likely be in the near future) predominantly a gate driven league. Are there currently NHL fans in QC ? sure, but except for a few road trips to long island I dont see them spending anywhere near what they would in the new collissee ( or whatever it is going to be called).
You'll get no complaint from me, other than to say I don't think the NHL is predominately a gate-driven League anymore.

If we assume Forbes' numbers are correct, the Leafs took in $200 million in revenue in 2012. However, if we assume a $2.2 million average game day revenue, that's an awful lot short of $200 million; it's even short of halfway, $100 million. At this point I have to assume TV and Sponsorships are a large part of the equation.

At this point, game-day tickets may be the largest revenue generator, but I don't think it is at 50 percent of revenues anymore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
Based on sheer population a self supporting team in Seattle could bring in a lot of new fans, but I am not convinced if they will bring in more revenue in the near to mid future. Winnipeg has already demonstrated that small markets can do well. And as nice as the idea is, the current NHL has shown a completely inability to penetrate many of these non traditional markets.
But it isn't the NHL's problem to penetrate these markets. The NHL awards a franchise, the franchise is then responsible for the growth, unless the team ends up back in the hands of the NHL: see four years of Coyotes ownership, two years of Stars bankruptcy, backstopping St. Louis while finding an owner, forwarding money to Devils to help them pay down their debt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
This "pro-growth" approach, if left unfettered, has the real possibility to eventually alienate established markets and the notion that people in QC will always support the nhl even as they see less "deserving" cities as a real possibility.
You know my feeling on the matter. Quebec deserves a team. I'm just tired of the argument that a self-sustaining anchor franchise is what's needed.

Upon trying to realign in 2011, the Flyers adamantly opposed losing either Pittsburgh or the Rangers. Upon realigning in 1997, Ken Dryden somehow convinced the Board of Governors that the Maple Leafs moved from the Western to the Eastern Conference, where the Leafs saw their value skyrocket as they started playing at ACC and having a very Eastern Time Zone heavy schedule, great for television. It appears to me that the anchor teams are the anchor teams because they put themselves in a position to generate their revenue at a higher rate of growth than others in the League.

Grudy0 is offline  
Old
07-31-2013, 02:39 PM
  #959
AdmiralsFan24
Registered User
 
AdmiralsFan24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Country: United States
Posts: 4,888
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to AdmiralsFan24
Why don't you think Portland is good to pair with Seattle? I think that's the best possible pairing with Seattle.

AdmiralsFan24 is offline  
Old
07-31-2013, 02:43 PM
  #960
superdeluxe
Seattle SuperSonics
 
superdeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sodo, Wa
Country: South Korea
Posts: 2,311
vCash: 500
Can someone listen to this and report back?

Jeff Sammut ‏@JeffSammut590 13m

On-air, 7:30pm, after the Jays/A's, on @FAN590! Guests include @bnicholsonsmith & @ArdenZwelling on the Jays, @jonhumbert on NHL-to-Seattle?

superdeluxe is offline  
Old
07-31-2013, 02:45 PM
  #961
Holden Caulfield
Moderator
Perennial Skeptic
 
Holden Caulfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,658
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdmiralsFan24 View Post
Why don't you think Portland is good to pair with Seattle? I think that's the best possible pairing with Seattle.
I just don't know the situation in Portland.

Is there a rink ready or possible? All the rumours I have heard depend on Paul Allen, is/would he be on board, heard he was interested a while back but nothing in past decade. How far is it from Seattle (have only been to the Pacific Northwest 3-4 times for hockey). I thought it was only 1-2 hours away? Is there an ownership group ready? Will that put too much of a strain on the Pacific Northwest with 2 new major league teams to go along with Trailblazers, Sounders, Seahawks, Mariners?

Basically, would the financials work in Seattle and Portland, particularly introducing them at the exact same time?

Holden Caulfield is online now  
Old
07-31-2013, 02:53 PM
  #962
AdmiralsFan24
Registered User
 
AdmiralsFan24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Country: United States
Posts: 4,888
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to AdmiralsFan24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holden Caulfield View Post
I just don't know the situation in Portland.

Is there a rink ready or possible? How far is it from Seattle (have only been to the Pacific Northwest 3-4 times for hockey). I thought it was only 1-2 hours away? Is there an ownership group ready? Will that put too much of a strain on the Pacific Northwest with 2 new major league teams to go along with Trailblazers, Sounders, Seahawks, Mariners?

Basically, would the financials work in Seattle and Portland, particularly introducing them at the exact same time?
The Rose Garden seats 18,000 for hockey, it's closer to 3 hours away from Seattle, Paul Allen would obviously have to be the owner but if he's interested the NHL would approve him in a second. Portland has almost 3 million in its metro and it's growing fast. They already do a good job supporting the Winterhawks. Natural rivals with Seattle and Vancouver, balances out conferences. It just makes a ton of sense if Allen is interested.

AdmiralsFan24 is offline  
Old
07-31-2013, 03:00 PM
  #963
Holden Caulfield
Moderator
Perennial Skeptic
 
Holden Caulfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,658
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdmiralsFan24 View Post
The Rose Garden seats 18,000 for hockey, it's closer to 3 hours away from Seattle, Paul Allen would obviously have to be the owner but if he's interested the NHL would approve him in a second. Portland has almost 3 million in its metro and it's growing fast. They already do a good job supporting the Winterhawks. Natural rivals with Seattle and Vancouver, balances out conferences. It just makes a ton of sense if Allen is interested.
3 hours is further than I thought, that makes sense (it's like Calgary and Edmonton who have 0 overlap).

Is Rose Garden a suitable rink (seating isn't everything). I do know nothing of the place, I am honestly asking.

No doubt Winterhawks are supported, I have absolute NO doubt about the interest of hockey in all of the Pacific Northwest.

Balancing out conferences is nothing to me, re-alignment is not the biggest deal, IMO.

I do agree, I think Paul Allen is the key. Since he owns the Trail Blazers (and the rink?) he really controls things.

Houston, Las Vegas will both even out conferences as well. Houston has had interest in NHL as recently as Portland (again that depends on Les Alexander, however Houston did have a group put an expansion put on a presentation in 2007). Could be another option. Vegas has a new rink being built right on the strip.

So all in all, I agree Portland could work, but right now I am just not sure whether Paul Allen is interested right now.

Holden Caulfield is online now  
Old
07-31-2013, 03:00 PM
  #964
Tinalera
Registered User
 
Tinalera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Known Universe
Posts: 6,010
vCash: 500
Just caught up with this thread about Seattle-interesting.

I'm a little surprised that they are talking next season (after this one), usually haven't there been like a 2-3 years between announcement and opening night?

Right now it's all rumours-I wonder if we get more substance after the closing of the Yotes deal in early Aug-and if that's related in any way.

Tinalera is offline  
Old
07-31-2013, 03:03 PM
  #965
superdeluxe
Seattle SuperSonics
 
superdeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sodo, Wa
Country: South Korea
Posts: 2,311
vCash: 500
I wouldn't say its 3 hours, I would say its 2 hours. Sure it shows 2 hours 48 minutes, but that is if you do the speed limit. I would say 2:15 or 2:30 is closer to the time frame.

superdeluxe is offline  
Old
07-31-2013, 03:04 PM
  #966
superdeluxe
Seattle SuperSonics
 
superdeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sodo, Wa
Country: South Korea
Posts: 2,311
vCash: 500
So Ian Furness show has been plugging new info about the NHL, I'm guessing he will wait till the last 10 minutes of the show. zzzzzzzzzz

superdeluxe is offline  
Old
07-31-2013, 03:05 PM
  #967
AdmiralsFan24
Registered User
 
AdmiralsFan24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Country: United States
Posts: 4,888
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to AdmiralsFan24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holden Caulfield View Post
Is Rose Garden a suitable rink (seating isn't everything). I do know nothing of the place, I am honestly asking.
70 suites and around 2,400 club seats iirc. Real nice building, would be great for the NHL.

AdmiralsFan24 is offline  
Old
07-31-2013, 03:06 PM
  #968
AdmiralsFan24
Registered User
 
AdmiralsFan24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Country: United States
Posts: 4,888
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to AdmiralsFan24
Quote:
Originally Posted by superdeluxe View Post
I wouldn't say its 3 hours, I would say its 2 hours. Sure it shows 2 hours 48 minutes, but that is if you do the speed limit. I would say 2:15 or 2:30 is closer to the time frame.
Yeah, could be. It's been about 15 years since I visited my uncle in Portland and we drove to Seattle for a Mariners game and I didn't really pay attention to how long it took.

AdmiralsFan24 is offline  
Old
07-31-2013, 03:15 PM
  #969
Henrik Maneuver
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country:
Posts: 1,618
vCash: 500
Hi, I'm not fully knowledgeable in these things but I don't think Seattle is comparable to either Buffalo or St. Paul because of the weather and college hockey. Weather is what keeps Vancouver from putting out so disproportionately few players compared to other Canadian cities, no opportunities to play outside, and the college hockey scene in the Pacific Northwest is nothing like that in the midwest or upstate NY.

Maybe you could say more like St. Louis if not for the fact that they've already had a team there for 40 years.

Henrik Maneuver is offline  
Old
07-31-2013, 03:24 PM
  #970
Holden Caulfield
Moderator
Perennial Skeptic
 
Holden Caulfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,658
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henrik Maneuver View Post
Hi, I'm not fully knowledgeable in these things but I don't think Seattle is comparable to either Buffalo or St. Paul because of the weather and college hockey. Weather is what keeps Vancouver from putting out so disproportionately few players compared to other Canadian cities, no opportunities to play outside, and the college hockey scene in the Pacific Northwest is nothing like that in the midwest or upstate NY.

Maybe you could say more like St. Louis if not for the fact that they've already had a team there for 40 years.
Your forgetting that the Pacific Northwest has GREAT junior hockey support. Instead of college they have junior hockey which they support in huge numbers. Portland, Seattle and Tri-Cities are 3 of the absolute strongest markets in the WHL, generating huge revenues.

Dallas or Los Angeles for example don't produce a lot of players, but they have really solid hockey support. Don't need to produce players en masse to be solid hockey markets.

Holden Caulfield is online now  
Old
07-31-2013, 03:47 PM
  #971
OilersFan1978
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 206
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holden Caulfield View Post
3 hours is further than I thought, that makes sense (it's like Calgary and Edmonton who have 0 overlap).

Is Rose Garden a suitable rink (seating isn't everything). I do know nothing of the place, I am honestly asking.

No doubt Winterhawks are supported, I have absolute NO doubt about the interest of hockey in all of the Pacific Northwest.

Balancing out conferences is nothing to me, re-alignment is not the biggest deal, IMO.

I do agree, I think Paul Allen is the key. Since he owns the Trail Blazers (and the rink?) he really controls things.

Houston, Las Vegas will both even out conferences as well. Houston has had interest in NHL as recently as Portland (again that depends on Les Alexander, however Houston did have a group put an expansion put on a presentation in 2007). Could be another option. Vegas has a new rink being built right on the strip.

So all in all, I agree Portland could work, but right now I am just not sure whether Paul Allen is interested right now.
Stories have been written about this in recent weeks, and the indications seem to have been that Allen, while not necessarily an NHL guy, is interested in having another tenant fill the Rose Garden just because it makes good business sense. Plus, with a completely ready arena, experience staffing it and preparing for events with the Winterhawks and Trail Blazers, there would be no need to "get them up to speed" so to speak, or give them the couple years' time to get everything going like some have suggested Seattle would need while a new arena is being built. Portland would be ready to run this team tomorrow if they were awarded a franchise today, so I guess it's all a matter of how interested Allen is, what the price is, and if a new or current team is truly available. Seattle and Portland would be the perfect combination to bring into the league, whether at the same time or a year or two apart.

OilersFan1978 is offline  
Old
07-31-2013, 03:57 PM
  #972
maruk14
Registered User
 
maruk14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,916
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdmiralsFan24 View Post
The Rose Garden seats 18,000 for hockey, it's closer to 3 hours away from Seattle, Paul Allen would obviously have to be the owner but if he's interested the NHL would approve him in a second. Portland has almost 3 million in its metro and it's growing fast. They already do a good job supporting the Winterhawks. Natural rivals with Seattle and Vancouver, balances out conferences. It just makes a ton of sense if Allen is interested.
Washington and Oregon are already natural rivals as well. Makes a ton of sense if the league wants more of a presence in the west to put teams in both Seattle and Portland.

maruk14 is offline  
Old
07-31-2013, 04:05 PM
  #973
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,425
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grudy0 View Post
You'll get no complaint from me, other than to say I don't think the NHL is predominately a gate-driven League anymore.

If we assume Forbes' numbers are correct, the Leafs took in $200 million in revenue in 2012. However, if we assume a $2.2 million average game day revenue, that's an awful lot short of $200 million; it's even short of halfway, $100 million. At this point I have to assume TV and Sponsorships are a large part of the equation.

At this point, game-day tickets may be the largest revenue generator, but I don't think it is at 50 percent of revenues anymore.
I think it depends on the club. You choose Toronto... What about a team like LA, or Carolina? The gate likely covers at least 60% of most teams income.

Quote:
Upon trying to realign in 2011, the Flyers adamantly opposed losing either Pittsburgh or the Rangers. <snip> It appears to me that the anchor teams are the anchor teams because they put themselves in a position to generate their revenue at a higher rate of growth than others in the League.
That's because Philly has a massive rivalry with both of those teams. As a Pens fan, my ideal trip to make for a hockey game would be a home and home in Philly and Pittsburgh to watch a pair of games. Or games 2 & 3 (or 4 & 5) in the playoffs. Neither teams want to lose those games, and as a fan, I want to see those games. Same goes for Edmonton and Calgary and countless others. Yes new rivalries will be born... but there's no reason to lose the ones you already have.

Those anchor teams, also have a long standing history, and a very solid group of hockey following and supporting fans. They also have success on the ice. What would happen if Columbus could put forth a competitive team and make the playoffs for 10 straight years while occasionally going deep? Their fan support and thus their revenue and value would see a marketable improvement.

Some teams will undoubtedly have issues. If you can't fill the building, and sell tickets at a decent price, then perhaps this isn't the league/location for you. But most teams have the chance to be successful... as long as things go right for them.

__________________
"Itís not as if Donald Fehr was lying to us, several players said. Rather, itís as if he has been economical with information, these players believe, not sharing facts these players consider to be vital."
Riptide is offline  
Old
07-31-2013, 04:12 PM
  #974
Screw You Rick Nash
🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨
 
Screw You Rick Nash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Brooklyn, New NY
Country: United States
Posts: 27,279
vCash: 3000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrimper View Post
They won't go for an odd number of teams. If Quebec wants a team after Seattle and Portland it'd be relocation.
Why does an odd number of teams matter in the NHL?

They've had an odd number of teams at least two times.

Also, unlike the MLB, an odd number of teams wouldn't make a difference schedule-wise, since they don't play games every day.

Is there something I'm forgetting?

__________________
++++++++++[>+++++++>++++++++++>+++>+<<<<
-]>++++++.>+.+++++++++++++++.>+++++++++.<-.
>-------.<<-----.>----.>.<<+++++++++++.>-------------
-.+++++++++++++.-------.--.+++++++++++++.+.>+.>.

New and improved Hockey Standings
"A jimmie for a jimmie makes the whole world rustled." ó -31-
Screw You Rick Nash is offline  
Old
07-31-2013, 04:13 PM
  #975
Buckst3r
Registered User
 
Buckst3r's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Dallas, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 41
vCash: 500
Man I hope this happens.

Buckst3r 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 09:09 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.