HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Arizona Coyotes
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Ownership Cluster**** Thread: This is the last one, Really!

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-24-2012, 02:58 PM
  #776
Naurutger
#FreeMax
 
Naurutger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maricopa County
Country: United States
Posts: 5,163
vCash: 1329
Quote:
Originally Posted by doaner View Post
Any idea when we will know about the decision supposed to be handed down today?
Just guessing but before 4, people like to go home early on Fridays and they are probably taking a long lunch...I am but I am lazy.

Naurutger is offline  
Old
08-24-2012, 03:32 PM
  #777
KingSalamon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Country: Canada
Posts: 677
vCash: 500
And here I am feeling tortured by the CBA (lack of) negotiations... how selfish of me.

Keep fighting the good fight guys (and gals!)! I hope all things work out well for you in the end!

KingSalamon is offline  
Old
08-24-2012, 03:55 PM
  #778
Naurutger
#FreeMax
 
Naurutger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maricopa County
Country: United States
Posts: 5,163
vCash: 1329
Quote:
@LisaHalverstadt:
#AZ Appeals Court panel just ruled that #Glendale sales-tax initiative belongs back on the ballot. I'll have more details soon.
Oh goody, the sale will be delayed more as this will now get appealed. Horrible decision.
Quote:
The city booted the proposed measure from the ballot last month, saying it was misleading because initiatives are unable to reverse city actions. A Maricopa County Superior Court judge sided with the city after Save Glendale Now challenged the city's decision.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...#ixzz24V3guxlP


Last edited by Naurutger: 08-24-2012 at 04:06 PM.
Naurutger is offline  
Old
08-24-2012, 04:06 PM
  #779
TeamTippett
Formally TeamTurris
 
TeamTippett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Phx
Country: United States
Posts: 5,325
vCash: 500
The sales tax initiative has nothing to do with the Coyotes deal what so ever. We can debate where the revenue comes from to pay the arena management but these two dealings are not linked. the initiative really is just moving forward and shouldn't overturn the existing tax increase. See the difference between a referendum v initiative

TeamTippett is offline  
Old
08-24-2012, 04:11 PM
  #780
Naurutger
#FreeMax
 
Naurutger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maricopa County
Country: United States
Posts: 5,163
vCash: 1329
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeamTippett View Post
The sales tax initiative has nothing to do with the Coyotes deal what so ever. We can debate where the revenue comes from to pay the arena management but these two dealings are not linked. the initiative really is just moving forward and shouldn't overturn the existing tax increase. See the difference between a referendum v initiative
I agree with you of course but I have been a worry-body ever since this quote:

Quote:
If the tax were repealed, Interim City Manager Horatio Skeete said Glendale might have to consider whether it could pay Jamison.
http://www.azcentral.com/community/g...#ixzz24V53ImuO

But I have been reading other opinions and most people find it annoying but just a case of politics. Could affect the way Glendale issues taxes in the future though. Someone pointed out that if they wanted to drop the tax rate to say 2.4%, that it would require a vote since its above 2.2%...awesome job by the Destroy Glendale Now folks.


Last edited by Naurutger: 08-24-2012 at 04:29 PM. Reason: Had a change of heart
Naurutger is offline  
Old
08-24-2012, 04:41 PM
  #781
Naurutger
#FreeMax
 
Naurutger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maricopa County
Country: United States
Posts: 5,163
vCash: 1329
http://www.scribd.com/embeds/1038411...ehhvwtm0embzt6

Quote:
That the proposed initiative may, if approved,conflict with the Arizona Constitution or state law -- questions we express no opinion on -- does not mean the approval clause fails to characterize accurately the proposed initiative. Simply put, the City’s argument confuses accuracy of the approval clause with whether the proposed initiative, if passed, will pass constitutional or statutory muster. But, as our supreme court has long recognized, under the separation of powers doctrine embodied in Article 3 of the Arizona Constitution, Arizona citizens are not precluded “from legislating on any issue, even though the legislation might conflict with the Arizona Constitution or state law.
Ok, I see what they did there. They decided these poor lawyers need a future job. They are basically saying that votes can be held all they want but the results can still be illegal and conflict with the Constitution; meaning it would be an exercise in futility.

Naurutger is offline  
Old
08-24-2012, 04:53 PM
  #782
SniperHF
Global Moderator
Desert Ranger
 
SniperHF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Country: United States
Posts: 14,761
vCash: 500
news @ 11, we're still screwed.

SniperHF is offline  
Old
08-24-2012, 05:06 PM
  #783
TeamTippett
Formally TeamTurris
 
TeamTippett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Phx
Country: United States
Posts: 5,325
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by naurutger View Post
http://www.scribd.com/embeds/1038411...ehhvwtm0embzt6



Ok, I see what they did there. They decided these poor lawyers need a future job. They are basically saying that votes can be held all they want but the results can still be illegal and conflict with the Constitution; meaning it would be an exercise in futility.
Meanwhile save Glendale now is going to save the City a whole bunch of money by holding an unconstitutional election.

TeamTippett is offline  
Old
08-24-2012, 06:55 PM
  #784
fishbert
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 199
vCash: 500
City officials are meeting Monday (if memory serves) to discuss where to go from here. The city almost has to appeal the decision, if for nothing else but to stand up for City rights. I doubt they'll win, but they might.

If the 4 council members all still stand in support of the team and the draft lease agreement, interim City Manager Skeete will execute the deal with Jamison if/when he closes with the NHL. I've been impressed with Skeete's conduct in the role so far, and Mayor Skruggs recently complemented him on being mindful of his role and letting the Council decide policy directions (an odd complement to make, but maybe this was an issue with previous city managers?).

Additionally, if this tax measure does end up going to ballot (seems likely), it's very possible Glendale residents may vote it down in the face of more layoffs and deep budget cuts to city services (police, fire, *gasp* libraries, etc).

fishbert is offline  
Old
08-24-2012, 09:14 PM
  #785
fishbert
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 199
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by naurutger View Post
But I have been reading other opinions and most people find it annoying but just a case of politics. Could affect the way Glendale issues taxes in the future though. Someone pointed out that if they wanted to drop the tax rate to say 2.4%, that it would require a vote since its above 2.2%...awesome job by the Destroy Glendale Now folks.
I put forth that 'vote to lower tax rate' idea based on my reading of the text of the initiative. The initiative text puts limits on the City Council's authority to levy taxes. My understanding was that the sales tax increase was levied at the time of its implementation (August 1st), so the initiative text would affect future attempts to levy taxes (i.e., future actions of the Council to "make levies") and not lower the sales tax rates that were just implemented.

The Court of Appeals expressly stated that the initiative text would have the effect of lowering the sales tax rates, so it appears my understanding of "levy" was incorrect. My revised understanding (learn something new every day, eh?) is that once the Council "makes levies", the levy is an on-going action at the time of collection. So, in short, I trust what the Appeals Court said over what my understanding was.

However... the City of Glendale made an interesting point in their case to the Court of Appeals. The initiative (if implemented) would require the City Council to submit certain measures to a vote of the electors in order to alter the tax code above certain levels. This is a problem because the Constitution of the State of Arizona does not grant cities the power to voluntarily submit such measures to a vote of the electors. Absent the explicit granting of this authority, cities do not have this authority.

Back in 1965, the City of Tempe decided to increase sales taxes without sending the measure to a vote of the people, despite the City Charter requiring them to do so In 1971, the same Court of Appeals that decided today on the Glendale's initiative ruled that the City of Tempe did not have to submit a sales tax increase to a vote of the people because that was an action outside the city's authority.

The Court of Appeals wrote:
Quote:
In the case of City of Scottsdale v. Superior Court, 103 Ariz. 204, 439 P.2d 290 (1968), the Arizona Supreme Court held that under the provisions of the Arizona Constitution and the general laws of this state, the voluntary submission of an ordinance by the legislative body of a municipality to a special vote of the people, in the absence of a referendum petition therefor, is wholly dehors [outside of] the authority and delegated powers of such body.

Since no referendum petition was filed, submission of Ordinance No. 439 [the Tempe sales tax increase] to the electorate in accordance with the statutorily prescribed procedure was not required.
But it seems there's still something of an open question as to whether the alterations to a city charter proposed by an initiative would have the power to grant a city the authority to submit additional measures to a public vote. In other words, can a city (by way of its electorate) grant itself additional authorities not grated to it as a municipal corporation by the State of Arizona? (maybe)

fishbert is offline  
Old
08-24-2012, 10:37 PM
  #786
Naurutger
#FreeMax
 
Naurutger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maricopa County
Country: United States
Posts: 5,163
vCash: 1329
I have read over the ruling a few times. I think this court took the stance that hey, we cant stop the people from voting. They bent to the request by the AG that it go to ballot. It seems quite clear that they were saying they are not ruling on the legality of such a vote; just that it can occur. Similar to the ruling by the other judge when GWI was trying to prevent the lease with Jamison vote.

I think it was a cop-out. It should be appealed by Glendale on Monday if for no other reason than to avoid the costs of putting this to a vote. I think a great argument has been made here that Glendale was within their rights but for some reason, this particular court ruled that a City Clerk did not have the right to rule on the legality of the vote. And this court did not rule on the legality of the vote...so it was a waste of time to make their buddies happy. The question is if this will affect the Coyotes sale at all. I think it wont but could it change a buyer's mind? Its something to be concerned about but what do I know?

If anything, its a group of businesses trying to control all aspects of the tax rates set by Glendale and granted to the Council by the City's Charter. At first I didn't understand why the hotels wanted a tax but then I realized the additional funds would be used for marketing. I almost wonder if we could see a response from that group since they had a say when their rates were increased.

In sort I am shocked at this ruling; so many reason I didnt think this would be a big deal, others have pointed to examples about why the courts should have ruled in Glendale's favor.

Naurutger is offline  
Old
08-25-2012, 12:16 AM
  #787
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,453
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whileee View Post
A team's financial success will depend not only on how many fans they can bring in, but on how much revenue they can get from each fan (through tickets, parking, etc.). San Jose's average ticket prices are reported to be about 50% or less than teams at the top end (e.g. Toronto, Winnipeg, Montreal) (http://www.fancostexperience.com/pag...fci_pdfs/6.pdf).

So, those top price teams could have half-empty arenas all year and still pull in as much ticket revenue as the Sharks.

(note: I am not vouching for the accuracy of the report, but use the reference to illustrate that there are very large differences in pricing).
The Team Marketing Report avg ticket price numbers are grossly inaccurate for many teams, including the Sharks, due to a methodological flaw - they exclude "premium seating", leaving it up to each teams marketing departments to choose what to include/exclude.

They have always grossly understated the Sharks avg price - by basically excluding Club Seats, over half of the Lower Bowl. The $49 number is demonstrably false by looking at the corresponding Sharks seating chart and ticket prices. If you look at the discounted '10-'11 STH prices, less than 20% of the seats in the arena are priced below the stated $49 avg price and the Lower Bowl (~50% of the total seats) is priced $71-$160, half of them being $105-$160 Club Seats.

Sorry that I have to pollute another board with this disclaimer, but:

Warning. TMR Alert. Warning.
Warning. TMR Alert. Warning.



Warning. TMR Alert. Warning.
Warning. TMR Alert. Warning.


You know the drill ...

[Standard TMR Disclaimer]
Those numbers are from Team Marketing Report - which has been debunked numerous times here as being wildly inaccurate for many teams due to methodological flaws.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJD8 View Post
Wait, you're basing this on the "leaked" Globe & Mail report, right?
Yes - and simple analysis done of actual Colorado (ColoradoHockeyFan) and San Jose (myself) ticket prices.

This post by CHF shows the flaw in TMRs methodology after they changed it in 2001 to arbitrarily exclude "premium" seats.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ColoradoHockeyFan View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209
No. That is a BAD place to find pricing info.

The bogus numbers on the Team Marketing Report site have been debunked numerous times on the BoH board.

Probably the best (and possibly the only) numbers you are going to find for avg ticket prices were the numbers leaked last year in the Globe & Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/v5/co...pdf/NHLweb.pdf
Thank you. (And thanks to Fugu too.)

Continue to spread the message about the worthlessness of Team Marketing Report, and we will eventually triumph over misinformation! Can I get a hallelujah!

And to further the cause, here is the sorted version of the accurate numbers from that Globe and Mail link:

PHP Code:
Average ticket prices by team
Team                   2006
-07  2005-06
Toronto Maple Leafs    80.33    78.98
Colorado Avalanche     71.04    65.55
New York Rangers       63.53    54.19
Dallas Stars           61.43    58.37
Edmonton Oilers        61.14    50.20
Montreal Canadiens     60.82    58.74
Boston Bruins          59.71    56.61
Vancouver Canucks      58.74    56.24
Detroit Red Wings      56.95    56.72
Columbus Blue Jackets  56.07    53.77
Philadelphia Flyers    54.59    51.94
Minnesota Wild         54.54    51.18
Anaheim Ducks          52.25    49.79
San Jose Sharks        50.95    49.05
Calgary Flames         50.70    46.97
Ottawa Senators        50.38    45.30
New Jersey Devils      49.91    48.97
Los Angeles Kings      46.75    44.17
New York Islanders     45.04    46.30
Carolina Hurricanes    44.91    38.81
Tampa Bay Lightning    44.50    42.38
Phoenix Coyotes        43.60    45.66
Chicago Blackhawks     40.79    39.74
Nashville Predators    40.33    34.74
Florida Panthers       39.75    44.59
Washington Capitals    39.57    36.16
St
Louis Blues        39.50    35.23
Pittsburgh Penguins    38.62    38.05
Atlanta Thrashers      37.27    32.70
Buffalo Sabres         36.67    36.37
League average         52.13    49.31 
Edit: An additional note on one of the reasons that Team Marketing Report's numbers are bogus. Sometime around the 2000-2001 season, they inexplicably decided to stop including anything termed "premium seating" in their average ticket prices. This immediately invalidates their numbers because of the way in which they collect their data--from marketing reps of the respective teams. Each team is allowed to label as "premium seating" any portion of their arena. So a team like Colorado, for example, can simply say that the entire lower bowl is "premium," and exclude it from the average, which is how you wind up with their laughable (made-up) "average" ticket price of under $40!

Edit: For a clear illustration of the effect of the above artificial calculation of average ticket price, observe the historical prices reported by TMR documented here:

http://andrewsstarspage.com/NHL-Busi...ket-prices.htm

Note the average ticket prices reported for Colorado during the 2000-01 season and the 2001-02 season. According to TMR, the average ticket price dropped that year from $63.11 in 2000-01 to $37.36 in 2001-02. In other words, TMR would have you believe that the Avs, coming off of a Stanley Cup winning season, with one of the best single seasons ever put together by an NHL team, not only decided to drop their ticket prices (laughable enough), but decided to drop them by an unheard of 41%! (clearly more laughable). As a season ticket-holder for the past 12 years, I can assure you that no such thing happened (not that I needed to tell you this). There was no drop, obviously. There was an increase (also obviously). The artificial numbers reported by TMR that year (and every year thereafter) are simply the result of the seat classification flaw mentioned above in this post.
[/Standard TMR Disclaimer]


Last edited by kdb209: 08-25-2012 at 12:57 AM.
kdb209 is online now  
Old
08-25-2012, 12:27 AM
  #788
Naurutger
#FreeMax
 
Naurutger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maricopa County
Country: United States
Posts: 5,163
vCash: 1329
I know its frowned upon in these boards but a team's average ticket price is more of a marketing thing than anything else. Dbacks advertise one of the lowest average prices...but half the stadium is in the upper deck for ten bucks. Skews the average a bit like having the same price level for the upper and lower levels in Glendale

Naurutger is offline  
Old
08-25-2012, 12:29 AM
  #789
SniperHF
Global Moderator
Desert Ranger
 
SniperHF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Country: United States
Posts: 14,761
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by naurutger View Post
I know its frowned upon in these boards but a team's average ticket price is more of a marketing thing than anything else. Dbacks advertise one of the lowest average prices...but half the stadium is in the upper deck for ten bucks. Skews the average a bit like having the same price level for the upper and lower levels in Glendale
I dunno, lower level stuff for the Diamondbacks is very reasonable. I have a ticket in my hand straight from ticketmaster. Sec 134 row 5 seat 5. $18 + 2.50 fee. It's not a premier game but 5th row lower level for less than $25? That's very cheap.

SniperHF is offline  
Old
08-25-2012, 01:12 AM
  #790
Naurutger
#FreeMax
 
Naurutger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maricopa County
Country: United States
Posts: 5,163
vCash: 1329
Quote:
Originally Posted by SniperHF View Post
I dunno, lower level stuff for the Diamondbacks is very reasonable. I have a ticket in my hand straight from ticketmaster. Sec 134 row 5 seat 5. $18 + 2.50 fee. It's not a premier game but 5th row lower level for less than $25? That's very cheap.
That is a discounted price because its the season ticket price plus fees which you can get if you go to employeenetwork.com if any lurkers need cheap tickets. I am not saying some of their tickets are the lowest in the league, I am saying they advertise their average prices as the lowest in the league. Of course they also have one of the largest stadiums in the league so its no wonder they want to reduce capacity to increase prices.

Naurutger is offline  
Old
08-25-2012, 12:05 PM
  #791
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,557
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209 View Post
The Team Marketing Report avg ticket price numbers are grossly inaccurate for many teams, including the Sharks, due to a methodological flaw - they exclude "premium seating", leaving it up to each teams marketing departments to choose what to include/exclude.

They have always grossly understated the Sharks avg price - by basically excluding Club Seats, over half of the Lower Bowl. The $49 number is demonstrably false by looking at the corresponding Sharks seating chart and ticket prices. If you look at the discounted '10-'11 STH prices, less than 20% of the seats in the arena are priced below the stated $49 avg price and the Lower Bowl (~50% of the total seats) is priced $71-$160, half of them being $105-$160 Club Seats.

Sorry that I have to pollute another board with this disclaimer, but:

Warning. TMR Alert. Warning.
Warning. TMR Alert. Warning.



Warning. TMR Alert. Warning.
Warning. TMR Alert. Warning.


You know the drill ...

[Standard TMR Disclaimer]
Those numbers are from Team Marketing Report - which has been debunked numerous times here as being wildly inaccurate for many teams due to methodological flaws.


[/Standard TMR Disclaimer]
KDB, point well taken. My point was that just because a team "sells out" all season long and still struggles financially generally means that the revenue per fan is inadequate. The shortfall could be in average ticket price, or other fan-related revenue, or it could be substantial shortfalls in other revenue sources. Average attendance is not a very good barometer of financial success for that reason.

Whileee is offline  
Old
08-27-2012, 05:51 PM
  #792
Naurutger
#FreeMax
 
Naurutger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maricopa County
Country: United States
Posts: 5,163
vCash: 1329
Glendale voters may get a say on the city sales-tax increase

Quote:
At a Monday closed-door session, a Glendale City Council majority directed staff to ask the state Supreme Court to take up the case. The court is likely to decide whether to hear the case in about a week.

Should the high court take the case, the hearing schedule would likely come quickly as it involves election matters.

The appeals court panel chose not to weigh in on whether the initiative is capable of reversing Glendale's tax hike, saying the constitutionality of the measure could be tested after it's approved by voters.
http://www.azcentral.com/community/g...#ixzz24n1NtGqs


Naurutger is offline  
Old
08-27-2012, 06:05 PM
  #793
Colt45Blast
is in your head
 
Colt45Blast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: everytime
Country: Mexico
Posts: 25,450
vCash: 500
Gotta love how corrupt the courts have become over the years.

Colt45Blast is offline  
Old
08-27-2012, 06:43 PM
  #794
Naurutger
#FreeMax
 
Naurutger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maricopa County
Country: United States
Posts: 5,163
vCash: 1329
Glendale, NHL extend Phoenix Coyotes arena agreement for fourth time

http://www.azcentral.com/community/g...agreement.html

Naurutger is offline  
Old
08-27-2012, 08:08 PM
  #795
fishbert
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 199
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by naurutger View Post
Quote:
The appeals court panel chose not to weigh in on whether the initiative is capable of reversing Glendale's tax hike, saying the constitutionality of the measure could be tested after it's approved by voters.
http://www.azcentral.com/community/g...#ixzz24n1NtGqs

The court couldn't weigh in on it.

Previous case law (don't recall which one off the top of my head right now) prevents the court from ruling on legislation that has only been proposed and not yet approved.

fishbert is offline  
Old
08-27-2012, 08:32 PM
  #796
Naurutger
#FreeMax
 
Naurutger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maricopa County
Country: United States
Posts: 5,163
vCash: 1329
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbert View Post
The court couldn't weigh in on it.

Previous case law (don't recall which one off the top of my head right now) prevents the court from ruling on legislation that has only been proposed and not yet approved.
Your right, it is jogging my memory. Similar to the ruling on if the council could vote on the lease.

Naurutger is offline  
Old
08-29-2012, 07:22 PM
  #797
AZcoyotes33
Registered User
 
AZcoyotes33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Country: United States
Posts: 491
vCash: 500
@judefox10

Quote:
Greg Jamison on the status of the Coyotes sale as of today @ 6:20 pm on FOX-10

AZcoyotes33 is offline  
Old
08-29-2012, 07:36 PM
  #798
drgregg
Registered User
 
drgregg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 664
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZcoyotes33 View Post
@judefox10
I had heard that it promises to be interesting. Please someone share for us nonlocals. Thanks in advance.

drgregg is offline  
Old
08-29-2012, 07:37 PM
  #799
Naurutger
#FreeMax
 
Naurutger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maricopa County
Country: United States
Posts: 5,163
vCash: 1329
Dont fail me Jude!

Naurutger is offline  
Old
08-29-2012, 07:39 PM
  #800
TheLegend
Megathread Refugee
 
TheLegend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: The Anxiety Closet
Country: United States
Posts: 3,456
vCash: 500
Fox 10's live stream feed....

http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/category/234795/live-video1

TheLegend is online now  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:55 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.