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, and NHL revenues.

Suter Calls Out Leipold re: Contract Roll Backs

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-27-2012, 03:15 PM
  #101
Sydor25
LA Kings
 
Sydor25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 21,849
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Sydor25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
There's nothing wrong with the escalator. Use it or not, the NHLPA was still only going to get 54-57%. No. Matter. What.

What the escalator does do is expand the pool of money for the cap going in, but that just rearranges how the players share the money.
I don't believe that is how escrow works. Escrow and the 57% is worked off the cap median not the cap limit. If every team spent to the cap ceiling, the players would actually make less than 57% of HRR because the escrow payments would get them back to the cap middle where 57% is based. 57% doesn't create the cap limit, it creates the middle. When more teams spend less than the cap middle, the players actually get more than 57% of HRR.

That is why the players have actually received less than 100% even though revenues have grown by more than 5% the last few years.

Maybe I'm wrong on this and someone can correct me if I am.

Sydor25 is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 03:16 PM
  #102
MtlPenFan
Registered User
 
MtlPenFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 11,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedBaronIndian View Post
Most other players are millionaires as well. How many of them have called out their teams' owner/s?
Because they're probably the ones who either have half a brain, or realize that life in the NHL is actually pretty good.

MtlPenFan is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 03:17 PM
  #103
Sydor25
LA Kings
 
Sydor25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 21,849
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Sydor25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Sorry, but perhaps you weren't paying attention. As soon as the NFL and NBA (who also use the Proskauer Rose firm) got their 50/50, you knew this was coming.

On the other matters, Gary has been quoted so it was pretty clear what he was going to target beyond the share rate. He tried to get the non-NHL playing contracts in the last CBA, but let that one go.

(Noting also that re-entry waivers is on their proposed list this time, not really sure what to make of why the owners want that...another point to limit player movement?)
There isn't any need for that since you can't bury bad contracts in the AHL anymore. Re-entry waivers was a way to try and get other teams to pick up an underperforming player for 50% of the price. Mainly in case one team doesn't need Wade Reddon at $6.5 in the NHL, but another team might want to use him at $3.25. At least it keeps him in the NHL instead of the AHL.

If the Rangers are stuck with his cap hit, why send him to the AHL? It doesn't help them sign someone else to replace him.

Sydor25 is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 03:20 PM
  #104
Sydor25
LA Kings
 
Sydor25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 21,849
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Sydor25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Sorry, but perhaps you weren't paying attention. As soon as the NFL and NBA (who also use the Proskauer Rose firm) got their 50/50, you knew this was coming.

On the other matters, Gary has been quoted so it was pretty clear what he was going to target beyond the share rate. He tried to get the non-NHL playing contracts in the last CBA, but let that one go.

(Noting also that re-entry waivers is on their proposed list this time, not really sure what to make of why the owners want that...another point to limit player movement?)
Sure, most everyone knew that 50/50 was the goal, but once de-linkage was introduced, then the season was a possible casaulty.

Do you think the owners would have risked an entire season if the NHLPA eventually propsed a linked HRR of 53-52-51-50-50-50? I don't think they would have, but I don't see any owner accepting a de-linked proposal.

Sydor25 is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 03:21 PM
  #105
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 30,295
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holden Caulfield View Post
There was a gross miscalculation on the owner's part of where the revenue growth would come from. I think everyone has recognized that, a huge mistake by the owners.
My exception with the NHL is that they still refuse to address said revenue disparity, which only amplified the growth miscalculation.

It should not have been so grossly miscalculated because it was evident in 2004 as well. A calculator and review of weighing contribution when proposing a system that counts everyone revenues as the basis for a cap would have prevented the mess.

They forced this on the PA. Proskauer Rose may be good litigators, but they probably skipped their math classes.

What they propose to remedy it is to let the massive growth become a windfall to the rich teams, and push the PA share down further so the weak have a bit of relief. There are people who can run growth models for them and contrast that with their expenses.


Quote:
Yet the NHLPA's offers have barely included more revenue sharing than the NHL's offers, from what I have seen. They like to use this as a talking point, but it doesn't seem their actions have reflected that. Unless I am misinformed, it seems like both sides have proposed increased revenue sharing, and the PA has been just a bit higher, not major differences there.
The reality is that the PA shouldn't even be forcing the RS issue at all. If the NHL was interested in following all industry trends, not just the player share, they'd realize they need to share gate and even more local media, but that only hits the rich teams, and hard. It's either that or realistically consider how you can prop up teams with very low revenue/market potential. Nashville can win 5 Cups in a row and still not get anywhere near the revenues of the bigger teams. Their media market and population is just too small.

Fugu is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 03:22 PM
  #106
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 30,295
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydor25 View Post
Sure, most everyone knew that 50/50 was the goal, but once de-linkage was introduced, then the season was a possible casaulty.

Do you think the owners would have risked an entire season if the NHLPA eventually propsed a linked HRR of 53-52-51-50-50-50? I don't think they would have, but I don't see any owner accepting a de-linked proposal.

This always comes up. I don't believe they will accept de-linking. I do believe they should consider it. See my post to Holden above.

Fugu is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 03:22 PM
  #107
AHockeyGameBrokeOut*
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Colorado
Country: United States
Posts: 625
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
How do you feel about Leipold?
Leipold is one of the smartest owners in the NHL. He's no slouch. The idea that he lied to Suter or did anything unethical is a farce.

AHockeyGameBrokeOut* is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 03:24 PM
  #108
Devils Nick30
Registered User
 
Devils Nick30's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 6,767
vCash: 500
Didn't Suter get most of his money already? If he trusted him so much, why did he take $25M of his contact without ever having to play a game? He'll be fine

Devils Nick30 is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 03:25 PM
  #109
Seanahue
Registered User
 
Seanahue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Posts: 2,896
vCash: 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by rt View Post
Was Ryan Suter unaware that the collective bargaining agreement that he negotiated his contract under the parameters of was set to expire? Sounds like he should be upset with his agent, not his owner.

What a ****ing moron.
BINGO!

Every....single...player...that signed a contract before this knew that the CBA was going to run out. Either they are morons, manipulative crybabies, or both.

Seanahue is online now  
Old
10-27-2012, 03:27 PM
  #110
Sydor25
LA Kings
 
Sydor25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 21,849
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Sydor25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
This always comes up. I don't believe they will accept de-linking. I do believe they should consider it. See my post to Holden above.
I think everyone knows now that a hard, de-linked cap would have been better 7 years ago. But it is very easy to look backward and see what the mistakes were. And, who knows, the NHLPA could be the ones asking for linkage this time around.

The owners want linkage and the NHLPA should know this, whether it makes sense for the owners is irrelevant if both sides know it is a non-starter.

If you are trying to sign a UFA and he tells you that the contract must have a NMC in it and you keep offering a contract that doesn't have one, should you be surprised that he rejects your offer in less than 15 minutes? Even if you offer it 5 times? Even if your monetary terms are better without the NMC, if the player wants one he will sign the contract with the NMC.

Sydor25 is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 03:29 PM
  #111
AHockeyGameBrokeOut*
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Colorado
Country: United States
Posts: 625
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydor25 View Post

If you are trying to sign a UFA and he tells you that the contract must have a NMC in it and you keep offering a contract that doesn't have one, should you be surprised that he rejects your offer in less than 15 minutes? Even if you offer it 5 times? Even if your monetary terms are better without the NMC, if the player wants one he will sign the contract with the NMC.
Depends on the player.

AHockeyGameBrokeOut* is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 03:29 PM
  #112
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 30,295
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydor25 View Post
I don't believe that is how escrow works. Escrow and the 57% is worked off the cap median not the cap limit. If every team spent to the cap ceiling, the players would actually make less than 57% of HRR because the escrow payments would get them back to the cap middle where 57% is based. 57% doesn't create the cap limit, it creates the middle. When more teams spend less than the cap middle, the players actually get more than 57% of HRR.

That is why the players have actually received less than 100% even though revenues have grown by more than 5% the last few years.

Maybe I'm wrong on this and someone can correct me if I am.
No, that's not how it works.

The cap is indeed set to the midpoint, and teams are allowed to have cap hits of $8 MM above (the ceiling), and must spend at least $8 MM below the midpoint (the floor). [leaving out LTIR and bonus stuff for now...]

Once all the teams have spent all their 'player money', which includes payroll and other player expenses, they count up all the spending and they count up all their ACTUAL revenues. The revenues are audited. If teams spend more than 57% of audited revenue on players, they get that portion of money back. Let's say they ended up spending 59% on players. The will get 2 % of HRR back. If they spend less than that, then they have to give the players, as a group, the difference so they're up to 57%.

The escrow fund is the NHL's way of holding back some of the pay that would normally go to players in case team spending exceeds the share amount. They make projections during the year (quarterly, iirc) to determine how spending is pacing actual revenues up to that point. They adjust the amount withheld to try to get as close as possible.

Fugu is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 03:32 PM
  #113
Sydor25
LA Kings
 
Sydor25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 21,849
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Sydor25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
The reality is that the PA shouldn't even be forcing the RS issue at all. If the NHL was interested in following all industry trends, not just the player share, they'd realize they need to share gate and even more local media, but that only hits the rich teams, and hard. It's either that or realistically consider how you can prop up teams with very low revenue/market potential. Nashville can win 5 Cups in a row and still not get anywhere near the revenues of the bigger teams. Their media market and population is just too small.
The NHL doesn't have the monster national TV contract to use as "revenue" sharing that the other spots do. The NHL is in a unique spot and it is the primary reason for the lockouts. It's easy to "share" your revenue when most of the money being shared is from a national deal.

Fugu, what was the total net profit of the NHL last year? How much revenue sharing must be done to get everyone in the black? How much of that money must come from the top 5 revenue earners? Who are the top 5 earners?

Sydor25 is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 03:32 PM
  #114
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,691
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydor25 View Post
I don't believe that is how escrow works. Escrow and the 57% is worked off the cap median not the cap limit. If every team spent to the cap ceiling, the players would actually make less than 57% of HRR because the escrow payments would get them back to the cap middle where 57% is based. 57% doesn't create the cap limit, it creates the middle. When more teams spend less than the cap middle, the players actually get more than 57% of HRR.

That is why the players have actually received less than 100% even though revenues have grown by more than 5% the last few years.

Maybe I'm wrong on this and someone can correct me if I am.
No. Escrow assures that the players receivd 57% exactly 57% - no more, no less (*).

At the end of the year, if the total of all player salary exceeds 57% the League/teams keep that excess from escrow, if it is less than 57% the teams make add'l payments to make up the shortfall.

Exercising the escalator for an upcoming season bumps up the midpoint by 5% - increasing the cap, increasing the aggregate of salary paid that year, and increasing the amount the players would give back through escrow.

(*) ignoring the issue of players buried in the AHL and still being paid their NHL salaries and not counting against the cap or Players Share.

kdb209 is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 03:37 PM
  #115
Ice-Tray
Registered User
 
Ice-Tray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,398
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
My exception with the NHL is that they still refuse to address said revenue disparity, which only amplified the growth miscalculation.

It should not have been so grossly miscalculated because it was evident in 2004 as well. A calculator and review of weighing contribution when proposing a system that counts everyone revenues as the basis for a cap would have prevented the mess.

They forced this on the PA. Proskauer Rose may be good litigators, but they probably skipped their math classes.

What they propose to remedy it is to let the massive growth become a windfall to the rich teams, and push the PA share down further so the weak have a bit of relief. There are people who can run growth models for them and contrast that with their expenses.




The reality is that the PA shouldn't even be forcing the RS issue at all. If the NHL was interested in following all industry trends, not just the player share, they'd realize they need to share gate and even more local media, but that only hits the rich teams, and hard. It's either that or realistically consider how you can prop up teams with very low revenue/market potential. Nashville can win 5 Cups in a row and still not get anywhere near the revenues of the bigger teams. Their media market and population is just too small.

I'm sorry but you seem to use arguments and discard them to suit your needs without any apparent objectivity. This is another example...

The reason why the NHL is including revenue sharing in the CBA is because Bettman and Daly have league-wide financial health going forward as their goal.

The NHLPA was arguing for the first while that the league wanted them to fix all of the league problems by taking a pay cut. The league responded by saying that it wouldn't be just players, it would be both groups of 'haves'; the player salaries, and the profitable owners profits. The players percentage would drop to 50% and revenue sharing would increase to an agreed upon amount that would be acceptable to both parties. The reason why it's in the CBA is to show that players that it's a shared burden.

Does this not make sense to you? Does this not appear to be an attempt at a shared burden for the greater good?

Ice-Tray is online now  
Old
10-27-2012, 03:37 PM
  #116
RedBaronIndian
Rest in Peace
 
RedBaronIndian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,688
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MtlPenFan View Post
Because they're probably the ones who either have half a brain, or realize that life in the NHL is actually pretty good.
Oh come on. There has been no dearth of complaints from player's side including your team's Crosby or my team's Toews. But both of them have avoided questions about Lemeiux or Wirtz; as have other players while conveniently taking shots at Bettman or owners as a group. Thats why I commend Suter for speaking his mind about Leipold.


Last edited by RedBaronIndian: 10-27-2012 at 03:57 PM. Reason: grammar
RedBaronIndian is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 03:38 PM
  #117
TMI
Mod Supervisor
 
TMI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
Posts: 45,460
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AHockeyGameBrokeOut View Post
Leipold is one of the smartest owners in the NHL. He's no slouch. The idea that he lied to Suter or did anything unethical is a farce.
I disagree. He may be running Minnesota well (I have no idea), but he was an absolute goof in Nashville. I don't think the market can be blamed, either, considering how the current ownership has been able to continue building the team here. Well... you know... it has been able to. We'll see what the lockout does to that

TMI is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 03:38 PM
  #118
Sydor25
LA Kings
 
Sydor25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 21,849
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Sydor25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
No, that's not how it works.

The cap is indeed set to the midpoint, and teams are allowed to have cap hits of $8 MM above (the ceiling), and must spend at least $8 MM below the midpoint (the floor). [leaving out LTIR and bonus stuff for now...]

Once all the teams have spent all their 'player money', which includes payroll and other player expenses, they count up all the spending and they count up all their ACTUAL revenues. The revenues are audited. If teams spend more than 57% of audited revenue on players, they get that portion of money back. Let's say they ended up spending 59% on players. The will get 2 % of HRR back. If they spend less than that, then they have to give the players, as a group, the difference so they're up to 57%.

The escrow fund is the NHL's way of holding back some of the pay that would normally go to players in case team spending exceeds the share amount. They make projections during the year (quarterly, iirc) to determine how spending is pacing actual revenues up to that point. They adjust the amount withheld to try to get as close as possible.
Isn't the mid-point set at 57% of the previous seasons HRR? Which means that every team that spends over the cap mid-point hurts the NHLPA and every team that spends less, helps the NHLPA? Especially if they have lots of salaries that are more than their cap hit.

This is why the 5% escalator hurts the overall group, at least as far as escrow and not getting 100% of your contract.

The NHLPA will be hit really hard when these back-diving contract players start retiring "early". Right now, all of the players are losing more to escrow while the top players are making more salary than their cap hit and when the opposite is true, players will start retiring and the rest the NHLPA will not get the benefit of having players making less than there cap hit.

Sydor25 is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 03:39 PM
  #119
UsernameWasTaken
Let's Go Blue Jays!
 
UsernameWasTaken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,180
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MtlPenFan View Post
Uh huh, and if the owner's didn't make an offer (including the "garbage" one) when would the PA have made theirs?

Fehr refusing to negotiate until after July 1st was pretty much the same "garbage" offer by omission.
The timing of the negotiations is not why they are in the state they are today. In fact, if this nonsense had been going on while the players were playing it would have been an even bigger fiasco

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydor25 View Post
Sure, most everyone knew that 50/50 was the goal, but once de-linkage was introduced, then the season was a possible casaulty.

Do you think the owners would have risked an entire season if the NHLPA eventually propsed a linked HRR of 53-52-51-50-50-50? I don't think they would have, but I don't see any owner accepting a de-linked proposal.
The season was a possible casualty the second the owners made the initial offer they did...and it continues to be given the fact the owners will not consider any other scenario except an immediate drop in HRR split (and an immediate scale back in salary). If the owners offered something that offered a soft landing or gradual scale back in HRR split the maybe the players would get off the de-linkage.

UsernameWasTaken is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 03:41 PM
  #120
Ice-Tray
Registered User
 
Ice-Tray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,398
vCash: 500
It's interesting to note as well that linkage has been great for the players, and while a firm cap could have worked out better for the owner's last time around, their not looking for that, they want to share an equal portion of HRR with the players going forward. Greedy Buggers!

Ice-Tray is online now  
Old
10-27-2012, 03:41 PM
  #121
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 30,295
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydor25 View Post
The NHL doesn't have the monster national TV contract to use as "revenue" sharing that the other spots do. The NHL is in a unique spot and it is the primary reason for the lockouts. It's easy to "share" your revenue when most of the money being shared is from a national deal.

Fugu, what was the total net profit of the NHL last year? How much revenue sharing must be done to get everyone in the black? How much of that money must come from the top 5 revenue earners? Who are the top 5 earners?

Why would ask about total net profit though?

The right question is to break it down team by team. Most of that profit might come from 3 teams or 9 teams...

In other words, the league has us looking at revenues (and thus profits) from a global basis. When you have 30 independently managed and taxed entities, this doesn't really point in the right direction.

*What are central revenue contributions (the NHL national monies)
*What is each team's revenue
*What are their operating costs

The variance between teams would quickly highlight the core economic issues and challenges. You'd also get a clearer picture of franchise valuations, some in decline while others are appreciating.

Fugu is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 03:41 PM
  #122
Sydor25
LA Kings
 
Sydor25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 21,849
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Sydor25
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209 View Post
No. Escrow assures that the players receivd 57% exactly 57% - no more, no less (*).

At the end of the year, if the total of all player salary exceeds 57% the League/teams keep that excess from escrow, if it is less than 57% the teams make add'l payments to make up the shortfall.

Exercising the escalator for an upcoming season bumps up the midpoint by 5% - increasing the cap, increasing the aggregate of salary paid that year, and increasing the amount the players would give back through escrow.
(*) ignoring the issue of players buried in the AHL and still being paid their NHL salaries and not counting against the cap or Players Share.

But aren't there more have not franchises than haves? The escalator helps the top end owners and players, but hurts the overall groups. If everyone was making money and spending to the cap, then the escalator makes sense.

Sydor25 is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 03:42 PM
  #123
AHockeyGameBrokeOut*
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Colorado
Country: United States
Posts: 625
vCash: 500
Speculation: The NHLPA is conducting the Players' interviews on their behalf and telling them what to say.

AHockeyGameBrokeOut* is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 03:43 PM
  #124
spudnick
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 328
vCash: 500
Personally I think it's great watching teams like minni an Nash paying these signing bonuses with no form of revenue coming in. I think it would be Great to see the season cancelled and watching Nashville pay 26 million in 1 year without any revenue. How long before Nashville can't afford it and files for bankruptcy?

spudnick is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 03:45 PM
  #125
Sydor25
LA Kings
 
Sydor25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 21,849
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Sydor25
Quote:
Originally Posted by UsernameWasTaken View Post
The season was a possible casualty the second the owners made the initial offer they did...and it continues to be given the fact the owners will not consider any other scenario except an immediate drop in HRR split (and an immediate scale back in salary). If the owners offered something that offered a soft landing or gradual scale back in HRR split the maybe the players would get off the de-linkage.
Not true. Nobody accepts the first offer during a multi-billion dollar negotiation. The problems arise when both side won't talk the "same language". There isn't anywhere for either side to go as long as one asks for linkage and the other doesn't.

Now that 82 games is impossible, the NHLPA's proposals make zero sense. How can you negotiate with the NHLPA without linkage now?


Last edited by Sydor25: 10-27-2012 at 03:55 PM.
Sydor25 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 08:56 AM.

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.