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.

Phoenix LXXII: Send in the Clowns

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-11-2013, 10:05 PM
  #851
aqib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckschmuck View Post
Very positive news for Seattle, IMO.
thats a bold move for Seattle to do before the NBA Board of Governors gives an indication which way they are leaning. It could backfire like Balsillie with the Predators.

aqib is offline  
Old
03-11-2013, 10:14 PM
  #852
Puckschmuck*
Doan Shall Be Boo'ed
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,937
vCash: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by aqib View Post
thats a bold move for Seattle to do before the NBA Board of Governors gives an indication which way they are leaning. It could backfire like Balsillie with the Predators.
Except these guys aren't trying to sneak behind anyone's back to bring a team back up to Canada. They are playing by the rules, they are American and want to keep the team in America. A recipe that our American commissioner would likely be very fond of.

Puckschmuck* is offline  
Old
03-11-2013, 11:10 PM
  #853
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 28,988
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by aqib View Post
When comparing offers made before or during the bankruptcy with offers made now you have to factor in the debt the pre/during bankruptcy bidders were assuming as part of the deal. So if Reinsdorf was offering to put up $70 million and was assuming the loan from Michael Dell's company of $80 million he was valuing the Coyotes at $150 million.

You are confusing ENTERPRISE value with EQUITY value.

Enterprise value = Equity value + assumed debt

So since the debt was wiped out in the bankruptcy whoever buys the Coyotes now has to pay the entire enterprise value, since there is no debt to assume.

I believe I was arguing market viability under differing scenarios, which was built on a question of what was considered "business viability".

There are scenarios that make the market viable. The current scenario isn't one of them.



On a different note, the NHL seems to want to remain whole despite making the 'purchase' in bankruptcy for reasons above and beyond the price that the market would bear.

Fugu is online now  
Old
03-12-2013, 05:05 AM
  #854
jimmycrackcorn
HFBoards Sponsor
 
jimmycrackcorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,304
vCash: 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post

There are scenarios that make the market viable. The current scenario isn't one of them.
And in Breaking News - there hasn't been a "scenario" in the last 17 years that has made this market viable.

jimmycrackcorn is offline  
Old
03-12-2013, 07:29 AM
  #855
JimAnchower
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Country: Isle of Man
Posts: 405
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawker14 View Post
I think the "Seattle" issue will be determined next month, if they are able to purchase the NBA's Kings (which seems likely considering recent statements by Stern of the local Sacramento bid being too low). This should allow the Sodo arena process to move forward (notwithstanding some local legal challenges), and by acquiring an NHL team, the city of Seattle will contribute an additional $80m towards the arena's construction cost. That's a pretty good incentive, imo.
There is one existing issue and one potenial issue with Seattle.

The existing issue is that Hansen has thus far shown little willingness to share the spoils of his arena with an NHL team. Without the sharing of arena revenue, a NHL team is going to struggle to survive. Until this happens, I think Seattle is an unlikely landing spot.

The potential issue is that while Hansen would get an additional $80 million if an NHL team is a co-tenant, he could easily save that same amount if he were to make the arena a primarily basketball facility, like Phoenix, Brooklyn, San Antonio, etc. By having a much smaller building, the will save quite a bit in construction costs and materials. Until final designs are released, we don't know exactly what the arena will look like.

JimAnchower is offline  
Old
03-12-2013, 07:55 AM
  #856
GuelphStormer
Registered User
 
GuelphStormer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Guelph, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,706
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckschmuck View Post
Except these guys aren't trying to sneak behind anyone's back to bring a team back up to Canada. They are playing by the rules, they are American and want to keep the team in America. A recipe that our American commissioner would likely be very fond of.
neither was balsillie. it was plainly obvious to everyone involved that his end goal was to place that team in hamilton. it has been clear from the start that his interest in every team he has set his sights on would result in it being placed into copps.

that he took deposits on seasons tickets was an aggressive move, but it was little more than a public relations ploy that certain members of the BoG - already predisposed against him - decided they would use as (more) evidence against his membership in their little club. others perceived it very differently ... as a go-getter move that clearly demonstrated the immediate viability of the hamilton market.

balsillie did not sneak behind anyone's back prior to phoenix and i would suggest he didn't sneak behind anyone's back in phoenix either. he stood up to the insanity of shutting out hamilton and directly challenged it in court. nobody was caught off guard. they didnt like it, but they weren't surprised.

GuelphStormer is offline  
Old
03-12-2013, 08:28 AM
  #857
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 31,488
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuelphStormer View Post
balsillie did not sneak behind anyone's back prior to phoenix
What would you call his attempt to spark a showdown between the Predators and the City of Nashville in hopes of getting them thrown out of their arena? What would you call his repeated insistence that he intended to keep the Pens in Pittsburgh?

Balsillie's entire m.o. was to do things behind the backs of the NHL and its host cities.

tarheelhockey is online now  
Old
03-12-2013, 10:14 AM
  #858
Major4Boarding
Global Moderator
Private Equity
 
Major4Boarding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South of Heaven
Country: Scotland
Posts: 1,764
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimAnchower View Post
There is one existing issue and one potenial issue with Seattle.

The existing issue is that Hansen has thus far shown little willingness to share the spoils of his arena with an NHL team. Without the sharing of arena revenue, a NHL team is going to struggle to survive. Until this happens, I think Seattle is an unlikely landing spot.
JA - The only thing that I've seen or heard is Hansen's unwillingness to be a Hockey Franchise owner. IIRC, even a minority owner. The Seattle folks can chime in with more detail, I'm sure, on that second part if I'm mistaken.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimAnchower View Post
The potential issue is that while Hansen would get an additional $80 million if an NHL team is a co-tenant, he could easily save that same amount if he were to make the arena a primarily basketball facility, like Phoenix, Brooklyn, San Antonio, etc. By having a much smaller building, the will save quite a bit in construction costs and materials. Until final designs are released, we don't know exactly what the arena will look like.
True that he could make it a NBA-centric arena only. The Arena Agreement has both a NBA/NHL and NBA only clause. The thing is though, the City has expressed it's interest in having a NHL team co-occupy the Arena, hence the $80M kicker.

The outlay of the Hockey configuration can be found on page 55 of the following presentation

http://www.scribd.com/doc/113525886/...-early-designs

A week ago, it was announced that the SDD Review board gave it's prelim blessing of the architectural design plans, with the next step now going to Permitting and one more design meeting in the next few months.

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...&postcount=420

Major4Boarding is offline  
Old
03-12-2013, 10:53 AM
  #859
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 28,988
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmycrackcorn View Post
And in Breaking News - there hasn't been a "scenario" in the last 17 years that has made this market viable.

If you say so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Major4Boarding View Post
JA - The only thing that I've seen or heard is Hansen's unwillingness to be a Hockey Franchise owner. IIRC, even a minority owner. The Seattle folks can chime in with more detail, I'm sure, on that second part if I'm mistaken.



True that he could make it a NBA-centric arena only. The Arena Agreement has both a NBA/NHL and NBA only clause. The thing is though, the City has expressed it's interest in having a NHL team co-occupy the Arena, hence the $80M kicker.

The outlay of the Hockey configuration can be found on page 55 of the following presentation

http://www.scribd.com/doc/113525886/...-early-designs

A week ago, it was announced that the SDD Review board gave it's prelim blessing of the architectural design plans, with the next step now going to Permitting and one more design meeting in the next few months.

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...&postcount=420

My understanding as well. Hansen had indicated, iirc, that the best outcome for the arena in terms of finance/operational issues would be to have both and NHL and NBA team. I always envisioned it as being shared in some way, along the lines of the Dallas and Chicago arena models.

Fugu is online now  
Old
03-12-2013, 11:02 AM
  #860
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,029
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Major4Boarding View Post
JA - The only thing that I've seen or heard is Hansen's unwillingness to be a Hockey Franchise owner. IIRC, even a minority owner....
I certainly havent read, heard or seen anything directly from Hansen himself that suggests he is, as in interested in being even a minority partner in an NHL franchise. Levin was working an entirely alternate track altogether in Bellevue. Said he'd be "open" to discussing it but insofar as he knew, all guns were trained on securing an NBA franchise. Without ownership equity in an NHL franchise from the principals involved, $80M or not, simply not feasible. What kind of a lease could an NHL team expect from Hansen? Im guessing one similar to what Colangelo provided to Burke & Gluckstern in 96 in Phoenix. Return to Forever. Why not? Same mistakes over & over & over, history repeating itself.... some mornings I find it impossible to keep up with my cynicism Im afraid.

Killion is offline  
Old
03-12-2013, 11:13 AM
  #861
cbcwpg
Registered User
 
cbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Between the Pipes
Country: United Nations
Posts: 5,691
vCash: 350
Phoenix Coyotes Operating Income ( Forbes )

Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization

1999 - $5M-
2000 - $6M-
2001 - $14M-
2002 - $10M-
2003 - $21M-
2004 - $8M-
2005
2006 - $6M-
2007 - $11M-
2008 - $10M-
2009 - $19M-
2010 - $20M-
2011 - $24M-
2012 - $20M-

Now my definition of "viable" might be different than others ( and I know this is from Forbes ) , but if these numbers are even close to accurate, it does bring up the question as to if the patient can ever be saved regardless as to how many financial bandages get put on..

cbcwpg is offline  
Old
03-12-2013, 11:20 AM
  #862
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 28,988
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcwpg View Post
Phoenix Coyotes Operating Income ( Forbes )

Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization

1999 - $5M-
2000 - $6M-
2001 - $14M-
2002 - $10M-
2003 - $21M-
2004 - $8M-
2005
2006 - $6M-
2007 - $11M-
2008 - $10M-
2009 - $19M-
2010 - $20M-
2011 - $24M-
2012 - $20M-

Now my definition of "viable" might be different than others ( and I know this is from Forbes ) , but if these numbers are even close to accurate, it does bring up the question as to if the patient can ever be saved regardless as to how many financial bandages get put on..

Directed at me?


I am talking about market viability. The mistakes made with the Coyotes have been regurgitated ad nauseam, so I won't join in, but a particular set of conditions in the greater Phoenix market could have led to a better situation. As a Winnipeg fan, you certainly should know the importance of a good arena situation/size and existence.

The other point I've been trying to make, which apparently gets ignored, is that the cap range system is so top heavy driven that it makes it that much harder to get a scenario where viability is possible for a handful of teams. The NHL itself created that situation in an attempt to actually ameliorate the effects of the revenue gap.

Fugu is online now  
Old
03-12-2013, 11:21 AM
  #863
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmycrackcorn View Post
And in Breaking News - there hasn't been a "scenario" in the last 17 years that has made this market viable.
Still waiting on a meaningful definition of "viable".

QC, as an example, can't make it happen without taxpayers gifting an arena that's going to cost north of a half billion dollars, when all is said and done. This amounts to a net subsidy of similar scale to CoGs.

Does that mean QC is also not "market viable"?

 
Old
03-12-2013, 11:36 AM
  #864
QcBlizzard
Regis-tered fan
 
QcBlizzard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Saguenay, Qc
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,793
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
Still waiting on a meaningful definition of "viable".

QC, as an example, can't make it happen without taxpayers gifting an arena that's going to cost north of a half billion dollars, when all is said and done. This amounts to a net subsidy of similar scale to CoGs.

Does that mean QC is also not "market viable"?
Dado,

How much rent Jamison was supposed to pay for Joboom?

How much rent Quebecor media will pay for the Qc new arena?

QcBlizzard is offline  
Old
03-12-2013, 11:37 AM
  #865
GuelphStormer
Registered User
 
GuelphStormer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Guelph, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,706
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
Still waiting on a meaningful definition of "viable".

QC, as an example, can't make it happen without taxpayers gifting an arena that's going to cost north of a half billion dollars, when all is said and done. This amounts to a net subsidy of similar scale to CoGs.

Does that mean QC is also not "market viable"?
yes, that's what it means. QC is not viable. Neither is Montreal, Toronto or the NYR because all of them have at some point along the way received some sort of public money whether it was infrastructure capital on nearby subways and bridges or an arena itself; or tax concessions during and after development; or even had the streets plowed outside during the winter.

you love this slippery slope here, dado. nothing seems to be able to convince you that there is a huge qualitative difference between the direct public subsidy of operation costs in phoenix versus indirect support via public investment in public infrastructure ... as we see in virtually every professional sporting venue in the world.

GuelphStormer is offline  
Old
03-12-2013, 12:15 PM
  #866
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,183
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Directed at me?


I am talking about market viability. The mistakes made with the Coyotes have been regurgitated ad nauseam, so I won't join in, but a particular set of conditions in the greater Phoenix market could have led to a better situation. As a Winnipeg fan, you certainly should know the importance of a good arena situation/size and existence.

The other point I've been trying to make, which apparently gets ignored, is that the cap range system is so top heavy driven that it makes it that much harder to get a scenario where viability is possible for a handful of teams. The NHL itself created that situation in an attempt to actually ameliorate the effects of the revenue gap.
Fugu -

This is what I have said as well. It's really strange. The League creates the cap, for the sake of the lower revenue teams, and 'competitive equity.' Then, they create the floor, so "the lower equity teams have to spend enough to field a decent team." (Never mind that it is to their advantage to do so, because in those markets, years of losing teams = no fans). Then, they link the floor to the revenue brought in my the higher revenue teams, which is essentially inflation. However, the lower revenue teams, whom the system is supposed to support, can't make enough to keep up, so they get left with losses.

Then, the league decides "Something must be done. We are paying the players too much." So, there is a lockout. And, the league puts the same system right back in place. It guarantees there will be another work stoppage, because the same thing will happen again.

And, long term, it means that there will likely never be expansion. No future possible market except Toronto2, and perhaps Quebec, could ever jump into this game and make it.

It's just amazing to me.

Like I say, I can't stop watching the train wreck...

MNNumbers is online now  
Old
03-12-2013, 12:30 PM
  #867
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 7,665
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
Still waiting on a meaningful definition of "viable".

QC, as an example, can't make it happen without taxpayers gifting an arena that's going to cost north of a half billion dollars, when all is said and done. This amounts to a net subsidy of similar scale to CoGs.

Does that mean QC is also not "market viable"?
I suppose you can play with definitions, but the reality is that a market will not be "viable" if nobody wants to own and operate a franchise there. It is hard to imagine higher levels of subsidy than Glendale has offered to potential Coyotes owners, and they have not found a buyer in more than 3 years. One can speculate as to why this is the case, and whether the market might perk up with a great owner, but it's a moot point if nobody is willing to invest.

Whileee is online now  
Old
03-12-2013, 12:35 PM
  #868
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,029
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawker14 View Post
...On a side note, Seattle announced today that they’re launching a Priority Ticket Waitlist for future Sonics tickets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aqib View Post
thats a bold move for Seattle to do before the NBA Board of Governors gives an indication which way they are leaning. It could backfire like Balsillie with the Predators.
Yes on the surface it does appear to be a bit presumptuous. However as you know both the NBA & NHL do have pre-set guidlines & conditions pursuant to the relocation and or awarding of expansion franchises whereby minimum seasons ticket sales, reservations made in advance are required. Often times waived or disregarded depending on the circumstances & situation. Balsillie ill advisedly jumping the gun on that little doozy taking Hamilton Predator reservations through Ticketmaster; 12,000 of them, combined with something like 80 corporate bookings for suites & blocks of seats.

Interesting & strange situation. Leipold wanted to cash-out of Nashville, no question about that, and he had a clause in his Lease at the Sommet that without minimum STH's & sales, he could split. However, he didnt want to be painted as the guy who moved the team, sold it for relo, dancing around the issue, lying, privately according to Balsillie representing the Preds' as being "portable". When the NHL finally got involved, Craig Leipold pulled a 180, denying that he ever suggested the Predators could or even should be moved, that he at no time represented the asset as such. Enter the new local buyers, including of course Boots' Del Biaggio, who according to reports included in his prospectus a move of the Predators to Kansas City. Just a riotous mess of duplicity, deceit. Fortunately for Nashville, dealt with & fixed, cleaned up.


Last edited by Killion: 03-12-2013 at 12:42 PM.
Killion is offline  
Old
03-12-2013, 12:50 PM
  #869
barneyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,202
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by QcBlizzard View Post
Dado,
How much rent Jamison was supposed to pay for Joboom?
How much rent Quebecor media will pay for the Qc new arena?
I'm sure you understand Dado's point by now. The subsidy handed out to Quebecor will be lower than the one that would have been handed out to Jamison (and, since it failed, one could argue that an even higher subsidy would be needed to profitably keep the team in Glendale). But there is still a subsidy as Quebecor will enjoy the full benefits of an arena without supporting the full costs.

barneyg is offline  
Old
03-12-2013, 12:54 PM
  #870
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 28,988
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whileee View Post
I suppose you can play with definitions, but the reality is that a market will not be "viable" if nobody wants to own and operate a franchise there. It is hard to imagine higher levels of subsidy than Glendale has offered to potential Coyotes owners, and they have not found a buyer in more than 3 years. One can speculate as to why this is the case, and whether the market might perk up with a great owner, but it's a moot point if nobody is willing to invest.

Is it insignificant in your evaluation that the NHL needs someone to give them $170 MM as a starting point?

Noting that that figure has nothing to do with the market value of that team in that market.

Fugu is online now  
Old
03-12-2013, 12:55 PM
  #871
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,029
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNNumbers View Post
... Like I say, I can't stop watching the train wreck...
Yes it certainly is that MNN, a train wreck waiting to happen, artificial. Assuming the Coyotes were to move to lets say Hamilton or the GTA, you'd be adding yet another financial powerhouse, a money making machine that would further exacerbate the disparities between the have's & have nots'. The cap ceiling rising as a result, bringing the floor or basement up along with it. So the NHL has to basically fix & rig the race, handicapping some, providing welfare for others, all in the name of parity, a one size fits all approach rather than free-market competition as it exists in the real world of business & commerce. Its like an ongoing experiment that they just cant seem to get right.

Killion is offline  
Old
03-12-2013, 01:09 PM
  #872
jimmycrackcorn
HFBoards Sponsor
 
jimmycrackcorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,304
vCash: 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
If you say so.
With all due respect Fugu - I highly doubt that I'm the only one who has reached the conclusion that NHL "ice hockey" has not and never will be viable in the desert.

jimmycrackcorn is offline  
Old
03-12-2013, 01:15 PM
  #873
QcBlizzard
Regis-tered fan
 
QcBlizzard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Saguenay, Qc
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,793
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by barneyg View Post
I'm sure you understand Dado's point by now. The subsidy handed out to Quebecor will be lower than the one that would have been handed out to Jamison (and, since it failed, one could argue that an even higher subsidy would be needed to profitably keep the team in Glendale). But there is still a subsidy as Quebecor will enjoy the full benefits of an arena without supporting the full costs.
That is wrong.

Not only Quebecor media will have to pay rent, other payments based on the building's revenues are provided and Quebec city have a certain amount of free use of the building.

So, I am sorry to say "Dado est dans l'erreur" and this is not new.

Still waiting for Dado's answer...

What was the rent Jamison was to pay to Glendale?

Another one: who are Quebecor media shareholders?


Last edited by QcBlizzard: 03-12-2013 at 01:23 PM.
QcBlizzard is offline  
Old
03-12-2013, 01:18 PM
  #874
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,201
vCash: 500
Regarding seattle hansen wants a hockey guy to be owner of the team. for example Levin.

gstommylee is offline  
Old
03-12-2013, 01:20 PM
  #875
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,183
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Yes it certainly is that MNN, a train wreck waiting to happen, artificial. Assuming the Coyotes were to move to lets say Hamilton or the GTA, you'd be adding yet another financial powerhouse, a money making machine that would further exacerbate the disparities between the have's & have nots'. The cap ceiling rising as a result, bringing the floor or basement up along with it. So the NHL has to basically fix & rig the race, handicapping some, providing welfare for others, all in the name of parity, a one size fits all approach rather than free-market competition as it exists in the real world of business & commerce. Its like an ongoing experiment that they just cant seem to get right.
K -

The really strange thing is that there is a better 'tie' between the cap and floor available, and the League ignored it. Just make it a %. I know the PA suggested that, and that is most likely the reason the League didn't go for it "They won't tell us how to run our business....."

Just stubbornly foolish.

They should call in some independent financial consultants, who could help them get it right. But, they won't. Too much pride, greed, selfishness, etc.

Fun to watch, though.

MNNumbers 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 01:49 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.