HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, expansion and relocation, and NHL revenues.

Can someone explain this to me please?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-21-2004, 02:54 PM
  #1
porknbeans
Registered User
 
porknbeans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,776
vCash: 500
Can someone explain this to me please?

Logically, if possible.


Why is it in the best interest of fans everywhere to go from a system that punishes bad management to a system that punishes good management? This idiotic belief among pro-owners still does not make sense to me.

The old system (94-04) basically rewarded well managed teams and punished poorly managed ones. The way that the poorly managed teams (or poor teams because of lots of young players) improved was by improving their coaching, players, maangement drafting and the like.

Under a hard cap system the NHL seems to think it will get, its plan is to punish the teams that excel in these domains and reward the poorly managed ones with subsidized players coming from the cities that produce them.

Some one explain to me:

a) Why this is logical
b) Why as a fan would I ever want this
c) Why is this necessary


Thanks and have a good night.

porknbeans is online now  
Old
12-21-2004, 03:56 PM
  #2
mackdogs*
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Van, left coast
Country: Canada
Posts: 907
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by scaredsensfan
Logically, if possible.


Why is it in the best interest of fans everywhere to go from a system that punishes bad management to a system that punishes good management? This idiotic belief among pro-owners still does not make sense to me.

The old system (94-04) basically rewarded well managed teams and punished poorly managed ones. The way that the poorly managed teams (or poor teams because of lots of young players) improved was by improving their coaching, players, maangement drafting and the like.

Under a hard cap system the NHL seems to think it will get, its plan is to punish the teams that excel in these domains and reward the poorly managed ones with subsidized players coming from the cities that produce them.

Some one explain to me:

a) Why this is logical
b) Why as a fan would I ever want this
c) Why is this necessary


Thanks and have a good night.
You'll have to explain your premise first since I don't understand how the old system 'punishes bad management'. The old system punished markets with either low revenues or tightwad owners, as big market teams could buy their stars.

How would the new system 'punish good management'? In a hard cap system the best 'managed' team will always come out better than a poorly managed team. What I mean by this is that good drafting, trading, and player development (my definition of team management) is a necessity as you can no longer cover up mistakes with $$$. Especially if they adopt the 'franchise player' model. Please explain what you mean and I'll try to be logical.

mackdogs* is offline  
Old
12-21-2004, 04:05 PM
  #3
Beukeboom Fan
Registered User
 
Beukeboom Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 12,043
vCash: 500
Not all small market teams are poorly managed. You seem to define teams that spend big money as "well managed" which is not the case. Perfect example to me is the St. Louis Blues. Their hockey market isn't any better than many other small market teams, but the ownership was willing to absorb the financial losses that ensued so they signed some CRAZY contracts. Some of these contracts (specifically the Pronger contract) set the bar that other teams had to meet, which is why the Kings traded Rob Blake to COL.

You have some organizations who have to make it to the Stanley Cup finals to break even financially. Is that a well run organization?

If the Sens weren't purchased by Melnyk, and had to sell off players like Alfredsson because they couldn't afford to pay him what the Rangers or Leafs were willing to, would you have the same opinion?

I will agree that under a hard cap, certain teams are going to make a TON of money. They aren't going to lower ticket prices, because the Teacher Union (or MSG) in Ontario is looking for the best return on their investment they can get. I think what a hard cap will accomplish is that every organization will have a chance compete financially on a relatively even playing field. As it currently stands, many of the small budget teams can't (or won't) afford to compete against the big market teams.

Look at teams like the Wings or the Av's. The Wings 3rd line (Maltby, Draper, McCarty) this year would make approx $6.5M. The Av's can afford to sign Selanne for $5.8M and then play him on the third line. Look at the Leafs for the last 8 years - we need a goaltender, let's go find a guy that a small market team can't afford to pay and give him $8M.

I would like to say that I don't blame those teams. They were making economic decisions based on what their owners allowed them to spend. They had a significant advantage over much of the league, and they used it (as I would have as well).

Beukeboom Fan is offline  
Old
12-21-2004, 04:11 PM
  #4
Lanny MacDonald*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tuvalu
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by scaredsensfan
Logically, if possible.


Why is it in the best interest of fans everywhere to go from a system that punishes bad management to a system that punishes good management? This idiotic belief among pro-owners still does not make sense to me.

The old system (94-04) basically rewarded well managed teams and punished poorly managed ones. The way that the poorly managed teams (or poor teams because of lots of young players) improved was by improving their coaching, players, maangement drafting and the like.

Under a hard cap system the NHL seems to think it will get, its plan is to punish the teams that excel in these domains and reward the poorly managed ones with subsidized players coming from the cities that produce them.

Some one explain to me:

a) Why this is logical
b) Why as a fan would I ever want this
c) Why is this necessary


Thanks and have a good night.
Punishes good management? You're going to have to define what "good management" is before that question can be answered. Good management is goign to be two different things to two different people. For me good management is identifying a plan to build a contender and sticking to it.

What is unfortunate is that the NHL has allowed a system where that is next to impossible for most teams. They draft players and spend a lot of time and money to develop these assetsand then watch as they are bought by clubs with irresponsible spending habits. Part of that "good management" is identifying a fair and reasonable salary structure and sticking with it, not allowing your players to dictate to you what to spend.

I would like to know which teams you consider have managed to practice "good management" and what makes a good management decision? What makes a good team and what decisions go into that. Answer that and I'll happily hand you your head.


Lanny MacDonald* is offline  
Old
12-21-2004, 04:27 PM
  #5
no13matssundin
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,262
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by scaredsensfan
Logically, if possible.


Why is it in the best interest of fans everywhere to go from a system that punishes bad management to a system that punishes good management? This idiotic belief among pro-owners still does not make sense to me.

The old system (94-04) basically rewarded well managed teams and punished poorly managed ones. The way that the poorly managed teams (or poor teams because of lots of young players) improved was by improving their coaching, players, maangement drafting and the like.

Under a hard cap system the NHL seems to think it will get, its plan is to punish the teams that excel in these domains and reward the poorly managed ones with subsidized players coming from the cities that produce them.

Some one explain to me:

a) Why this is logical
b) Why as a fan would I ever want this
c) Why is this necessary


Thanks and have a good night.
This one is easy:

a) The Ottawa Senators will never beat the Toronto Maple Leafs in the Playoffs
b) No Senator will ever hoist the Stanley Cup ever
c) The Leafs own the Sens and will continue to own the Sens until the end of time.

Thank You and Good Night.

no13matssundin is offline  
Old
12-21-2004, 04:37 PM
  #6
MrMackey
Registered User
 
MrMackey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: cgy
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,061
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by scaredsensfan
The old system (94-04) basically rewarded well managed teams and punished poorly managed ones.
I'd like this premise explained as well.

Logically, if possible.

MrMackey is offline  
Old
12-21-2004, 04:58 PM
  #7
vanlady
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 810
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMackey
I'd like this premise explained as well.

Logically, if possible.
For a Vancouver fan who in the last 6 years has watched our franchise go from the basement of the league to a financially successful team under the old CBA, let me ask you this

I spend over 10,000 a year for season tickets. Dave Cobb (not Brian Burke) developed huge new revenue generation streams for our team, including licencing of lottery revenue, pay per view and large varied merchandising offering, he also expanded out corporate sponsorship and advertising. So as Vancouver fans we spend huge amounts of money to support our team. So under a new cap system we would be expencted to spend at the same level to watch an inferior product. How is that fair to fans who dole out a huge chunk of change every year? So much for the "get what you pay for" theory.

vanlady is offline  
Old
12-21-2004, 05:02 PM
  #8
txomisc
Registered User
 
txomisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 8,627
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanlady
For a Vancouver fan who in the last 6 years has watched our franchise go from the basement of the league to a financially successful team under the old CBA, let me ask you this

I spend over 10,000 a year for season tickets. Dave Cobb (not Brian Burke) developed huge new revenue generation streams for our team, including licencing of lottery revenue, pay per view and large varied merchandising offering, he also expanded out corporate sponsorship and advertising. So as Vancouver fans we spend huge amounts of money to support our team. So under a new cap system we would be expencted to spend at the same level to watch an inferior product. How is that fair to fans who dole out a huge chunk of change every year? So much for the "get what you pay for" theory.
how are you jumping to the conclusion that you will somehow now be watching an inferior product?

txomisc is offline  
Old
12-21-2004, 05:15 PM
  #9
vanlady
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 810
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by txomisc
how are you jumping to the conclusion that you will somehow now be watching an inferior product?
Even with a 24% roll back, our team will still be over the cap by 5 million, to bleed off that payroll we would have to get rid of Markus Naslund and Ed Jovanovski, or we could trade let see Todd Bertuzzi and the twins. That is what I call an inferior product. I pay to see exciting hockey, not clutch and grab trapping hockey. I get that exciting hockey with my current team, I am not willing to pay about 20K a year between tickets, parking and meals, to watch crap hockey.

vanlady is offline  
Old
12-21-2004, 05:19 PM
  #10
Lanny MacDonald*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tuvalu
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanlady
For a Vancouver fan who in the last 6 years has watched our franchise go from the basement of the league to a financially successful team under the old CBA, let me ask you this
Interesting. Vancouver is one of the teams where the system ACTUALLY worked for a smaller market team. The Canucks were forced to dump both Mogilny and Bure because of salary constraints and were able to find teams willing to give up players that could contribute almost immediately (Burke did a brilliant job here btw). The Canucks were exceptionally fortunate in getting their two best players (Naslund and Bertuzzi) in trades where very little was given up to make a deal. As well, the players managed to play ball and sign team friendly contracts. All in all, Vancouver has been the one example of the system actually working the way the players like to talk about it working. Canucks fans can thank Bure and Mogilny for their selfishness and high priced contracts. Without them the Canucks never would have turned out to be the team they are today.

Now, while we're talking to Canucks fans, how about you talk about Messier, Bure and Mogilny? Lets talk about the other side of the coin to the system that has proven just how restrictive it can be in getting rid of over-priced-under-performing assets. That's an interesting tale as well. Care to comment on that?

Lanny MacDonald* is offline  
Old
12-21-2004, 05:23 PM
  #11
Lanny MacDonald*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tuvalu
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanlady
I am not willing to pay about 20K a year between tickets, parking and meals, to watch crap hockey.
You should not have to pay that in any event. This is the best indication I have seen that the game is broken. $20,000 of disposable income to watch hockey? That's a brand new car every year. That's crazy. Everyone has choices I guess.

Lanny MacDonald* is offline  
Old
12-21-2004, 05:25 PM
  #12
Hockey_Nut99
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by scaredsensfan
Logically, if possible.


Why is it in the best interest of fans everywhere to go from a system that punishes bad management to a system that punishes good management? This idiotic belief among pro-owners still does not make sense to me.

The old system (94-04) basically rewarded well managed teams and punished poorly managed ones. The way that the poorly managed teams (or poor teams because of lots of young players) improved was by improving their coaching, players, maangement drafting and the like.

Under a hard cap system the NHL seems to think it will get, its plan is to punish the teams that excel in these domains and reward the poorly managed ones with subsidized players coming from the cities that produce them.

Some one explain to me:

a) Why this is logical
b) Why as a fan would I ever want this
c) Why is this necessary


Thanks and have a good night.
If the current CBA stayed the same for the next 10 years I bet you wouldn't be singing the same tune then. You would lose so many star players to bigger clubs. It's easy for you to say " good management teams suffer with a cap" and all that now. You wouldn't also be saying "Clubs go through cycles" after either. Face it. Your team has done things perfectly in the drafting, trade department but none of it will be there with a current cba. You won't like it one bit then. Every team doesn't go through cycles. Some teams can fix their mistakes with a little something called cash.

 
Old
12-21-2004, 05:27 PM
  #13
txomisc
Registered User
 
txomisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 8,627
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanlady
Even with a 24% roll back, our team will still be over the cap by 5 million, to bleed off that payroll we would have to get rid of Markus Naslund and Ed Jovanovski, or we could trade let see Todd Bertuzzi and the twins. That is what I call an inferior product. I pay to see exciting hockey, not clutch and grab trapping hockey. I get that exciting hockey with my current team, I am not willing to pay about 20K a year between tickets, parking and meals, to watch crap hockey.
and you think youd wouldnt end up losing one of those guys now? as it stands you cant expect to keep Naslund under the current cba

txomisc is offline  
Old
12-21-2004, 05:28 PM
  #14
Hockey_Nut99
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Iconoclast
Interesting. Vancouver is one of the teams where the system ACTUALLY worked for a smaller market team. The Canucks were forced to dump both Mogilny and Bure because of salary constraints and were able to find teams willing to give up players that could contribute almost immediately (Burke did a brilliant job here btw). The Canucks were exceptionally fortunate in getting their two best players (Naslund and Bertuzzi) in trades where very little was given up to make a deal. As well, the players managed to play ball and sign team friendly contracts. All in all, Vancouver has been the one example of the system actually working the way the players like to talk about it working. Canucks fans can thank Bure and Mogilny for their selfishness and high priced contracts. Without them the Canucks never would have turned out to be the team they are today.

Now, while we're talking to Canucks fans, how about you talk about Messier, Bure and Mogilny? Lets talk about the other side of the coin to the system that has proven just how restrictive it can be in getting rid of over-priced-under-performing assets. That's an interesting tale as well. Care to comment on that?
The Canucks got very very lucky that Bertuzzi and Naslund panned out. And btw, Burke didn't make any of those trades. Keenan made the Bertuzzi one. Burke made the Jovo trade and got Morrison as well. I believe he brought Linden back too. Burke was lucky to get there and have everyone play up to their ability at the perfect time. That's why he gets more credit than he deserves. He has made so many bonehead moves. Lost Umberger, gave Klatt away, and a host of others.

 
Old
12-21-2004, 05:29 PM
  #15
vanlady
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 810
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Iconoclast
You should not have to pay that in any event. This is the best indication I have seen that the game is broken. $20,000 of disposable income to watch hockey? That's a brand new car every year. That's crazy. Everyone has choices I guess.
You wanna know why I have to pay that? Because in the seat section we sit in, there are virtually no seats sold to non corporate entities. As a matter of fact 80% of the lower bowl of GM place are sold to businesses, not the average hockey fan.

Until you get corporations to stop buying hockey tickets as business perks, ticket prices will never go down, as a matter of fact, they are more likely to go up.

vanlady is offline  
Old
12-21-2004, 05:30 PM
  #16
Hockey_Nut99
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Scaredsensfan seems to be thinking more about the "NOW" rather than the future. His/her teams doing so well that he/she would rather them just keep the old CBA, play now, and then have Ottawa be dismantled in a few years. You got to think of the bigger picture here.

Vancouver is maxed out now. Under the current system, Markus Naslund is a unrestricted free agent. He doesn't even have to sign with Vancouver. By giving Bertuzzi so much money, the Canucks would have to pay Naslund more than Bertuzzi. Jovo is overpayed. Don't you think Ohlund is going to want more money than him when he is a free agent? Under the current system Vancouver will lose people too.

 
Old
12-21-2004, 05:37 PM
  #17
vanlady
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 810
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by txomisc
and you think youd wouldnt end up losing one of those guys now? as it stands you cant expect to keep Naslund under the current cba
Actually Naslund has made it very clear, he plays in Vancouver or he goes home to Sweden. Our team has a good history of negotiating deals that are team freindly. Our players also have a good history recently of wanting to stay where they are because of the treatment they recieve from management, also many of our players have been here so long that they have gone from being single to married to having kids. Many of them talk about not wanting to displace there kids.

vanlady is offline  
Old
12-21-2004, 05:45 PM
  #18
vanlady
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 810
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey_Nut99
Scaredsensfan seems to be thinking more about the "NOW" rather than the future. His/her teams doing so well that he/she would rather them just keep the old CBA, play now, and then have Ottawa be dismantled in a few years. You got to think of the bigger picture here.

Vancouver is maxed out now. Under the current system, Markus Naslund is a unrestricted free agent. He doesn't even have to sign with Vancouver. By giving Bertuzzi so much money, the Canucks would have to pay Naslund more than Bertuzzi. Jovo is overpayed. Don't you think Ohlund is going to want more money than him when he is a free agent? Under the current system Vancouver will lose people too.
How is Vancouver maxed out? Our team has had escalating profits over the last 3 years? John McCaw has already recovered his costs of purchasing the team, by selling just half his share in the franchise. He will recover the money lost during the disaterous Keenan years, and then some, by selling the other half of the team. So why is he not reinvensting the profits he is getting from me the fan, into players and making the product better?

vanlady is offline  
Old
12-21-2004, 05:50 PM
  #19
A Good Flying Bird*
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,359
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mackdogs
You'll have to explain your premise first since I don't understand how the old system 'punishes bad management'. The old system punished markets with either low revenues or tightwad owners, as big market teams could buy their stars.

How would the new system 'punish good management'? In a hard cap system the best 'managed' team will always come out better than a poorly managed team. What I mean by this is that good drafting, trading, and player development (my definition of team management) is a necessity as you can no longer cover up mistakes with $$$. Especially if they adopt the 'franchise player' model. Please explain what you mean and I'll try to be logical.
You are right about some of this. Yes, big market teams could buy stars.
But teams that were strictly buyers (Rangers) tended to fail.
Teams that supplemented their own core (Red Wings, Avalanche) with older stars and salary dumps did pretty well.

I concede the point that it's not good for when teams can't afford to hold on to their franchise players.
That's why a strict luxury tax would do the trick.

But seems like their are too many people way to angry about their own meager existence, so they take it out on the hotshot NHLers (conveniently ignoring the hotshot owners on the other side)

I keep seeing letters about how hockey players should play for the "love of the game."
Anyone who believes this nonsense is beyond reason.
Let them go to work every day for the "love of their occupation" instead of the paycheck.

Let's see what happens when their boss comes in and announces a new plan to cut salaries by 30 percent and tie them forever to revenue streams.

A Good Flying Bird* is offline  
Old
12-21-2004, 05:51 PM
  #20
Hockey_Nut99
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanlady
How is Vancouver maxed out? Our team has had escalating profits over the last 3 years? John McCaw has already recovered his costs of purchasing the team, by selling just half his share in the franchise. He will recover the money lost during the disaterous Keenan years, and then some, by selling the other half of the team. So why is he not reinvensting the profits he is getting from me the fan, into players and making the product better?
How do you know that they will want to keep reinvesting it all into the team? Your payroll would balloon up to the high 50 millions if they keep dishing it out. Well I'm not Vancouvers owner so I shouldn't talk about what they will do with their money.

Someone said Vancouver has a good way of negotiating with it's players? What about Klatt? He was a good part of that team and he wanted to stay in Vancouver. Burke told him he would drive him to the airport himself. lol

 
Old
12-21-2004, 06:47 PM
  #21
Trottier
Very Random
 
Trottier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 28,881
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by scaredsensfan
Logically, if possible.


Why is it in the best interest of fans everywhere to go from a system that punishes bad management to a system that punishes good management?
Because if "good management" is punished, their teams will be degraded to the level of mine! (An average team) Which gives my team a better chance of winning! And this means that come every October I can believe that my team has a chance to parade around the hard-cap bastardized Stanley Cup each June! As can every fan of each of the other 29 water-downed NHL teams!

Happy, happy, feel good. Everybody equally...mediocre!

Parity, NHL style.

Trottier is offline  
Old
12-21-2004, 06:50 PM
  #22
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trottier
Because if "good management" is punished, their teams will be degraded to the level of mine! (An average team) Which gives my team a better chance of winning! And this means that come every October I can believe that my team has a chance to parade around the hard-cap bastardized Stanley Cup each June! As can every fan of each of the other 29 water-downed NHL teams!

Happy, happy, feel good. Everybody equally...mediocre!

Parity, NHL style.
What a load of crap.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
12-21-2004, 07:22 PM
  #23
I in the Eye
Registered User
 
I in the Eye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country:
Posts: 4,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey_Nut99
Someone said Vancouver has a good way of negotiating with it's players? What about Klatt? He was a good part of that team and he wanted to stay in Vancouver. Burke told him he would drive him to the airport himself. lol
The only problem was, Klatt wanted more money than what Burke was prepared to pay... and Klatt (nor Burke) would budge... So in EDM (and small market team) fashion, Klatt was let go...

Is this good management or a flaw in the CBA?

Matter of opinion, really...

If Vancouver was able to win a few more rounds in the playoffs, maybe we would have been able to spend a bit more money to keep Klatt at the price Trent wanted (or negotiate somewhere in the middle)... But since we weren't able to have much playoff success (other than a round or two), maybe we didn't deserve the luxury of being able to retain every player that we wanted to...

I in the Eye is offline  
Old
12-21-2004, 07:59 PM
  #24
Marconius
Registered User
 
Marconius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanlady
Even with a 24% roll back, our team will still be over the cap by 5 million, to bleed off that payroll we would have to get rid of Markus Naslund and Ed Jovanovski, or we could trade let see Todd Bertuzzi and the twins. That is what I call an inferior product. I pay to see exciting hockey, not clutch and grab trapping hockey.
What does clutch & grab hockey have to do with selling off your players?

Marconius is offline  
Old
12-21-2004, 08:20 PM
  #25
quat
winsome, loathsome
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Victoria BC
Posts: 9,740
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to quat
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
What a load of crap.
Yeah... I agree. It doesn't sound any smarter through repitition either.

quat 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 09:01 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.