Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* * - - - 3 votes

*Official* CBA Negotiations and Lockout Thread


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
6226 replies to this topic

#1591 Kassian's Face

Kassian's Face

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 682 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 11

Posted 18 October 2012 - 03:50 PM

I thought the players were being greedy. Then I heard their proposals. Then I heard the owners rejected them. I have pulled a 180 and now fully support the players. To say no to that 3rd proposal is just shameful on the owners.
  • 1

#1592 Brick Tamland

Brick Tamland

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,045 posts
  • Joined: 26-September 06

Posted 18 October 2012 - 03:52 PM

That is right... it reduces slowly over the course of the agreement. It is not an immediate claw-back on existing contracts as the NHL wants.

I don't know many businesses where the owners can lookan employee in the eye, shake hands, and sign contracts.... and then turnaround the next hour getting on a conference call with the league demanding that they negotiate a way not to honour it.

That is exactly what has been happening over the past few months since July 1st.


They can ask for it back because the current agreement expired, meaning there is no agreement. You want contracts grandfathered?
  • 0
I Love Lamp...

#1593 EvoLu7ioN

EvoLu7ioN

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,816 posts
  • Joined: 30-June 10

Posted 18 October 2012 - 03:52 PM

Really? Pretty tough to side with a business owner who loses millions per year?
Weird.


This. What are the players risking? NOTHING, they are guaranteed to take home most of their paycheque. What are the owners risking? Losing money, in fact 3/4 teams already are. Obviously something needs to change.
  • 0
Posted Image

#1594 boxiebrown

boxiebrown

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 629 posts
  • Joined: 06-May 08

Posted 18 October 2012 - 03:53 PM

Actually its because if Steroids and a well known home run race.

Before that MLB was struggling to get ppl into seats. I'm old enough to remember it all.


LOL. "The only reason baseball is popular is because they have a product that people like!!"

Good argument.
  • 0

#1595 EvoLu7ioN

EvoLu7ioN

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,816 posts
  • Joined: 30-June 10

Posted 18 October 2012 - 03:54 PM

"Zach Parise, who signed a front loaded deal and cashed a $10M signing bonus cheque in August wants to "fight for what's right". "

Hahaha.
  • 1
Posted Image

#1596 Gumballthechewy

Gumballthechewy

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,905 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 11

Posted 18 October 2012 - 03:54 PM

Glad to see someone else using my Fan Lockout graphic!

Not paying you though. :lol:


I support the cause 100%.

I'll let it slide for you. ;)
  • 0

Don't take anything I say seriously! EVER!


#1597 theminister

theminister

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,157 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 03

Posted 18 October 2012 - 03:54 PM

Really? Pretty tough to side with a business owner who loses millions per year?
Weird.

THE business, the NHL, is not.This is why increased revenue sharing comes in. Shared sacrifice? A little from the players, a little from the rich owners and BAM! you have a solution. The issue is that the League is not taking responsibility for their contracts. Really that's all the PA wants. They aren't asking for an increase in anything and are willing to give up.
  • 1

small.pngNEW YORK ISLANDERS ROSTER - CDC GM LEAGUEsmall.png


2013 CDCGML CUP CHAMPIONS


#1598 boxiebrown

boxiebrown

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 629 posts
  • Joined: 06-May 08

Posted 18 October 2012 - 03:55 PM

This. What are the players risking? NOTHING, they are guaranteed to take home most of their paycheque. What are the owners risking? Losing money, in fact 3/4 teams already are. Obviously something needs to change.


Actually, they're risking their livelihood every time they step on the ice. Not to mention the inherent risk in devoting your life to training for such a select and competitive career.

Meanwhile, the owners have literally zero risk. An annual operating loss of ten million means absolutely nothing to these guys, and they make the money back when they sell the franchise, anyways.

The players have 1000x more risk than the owners.
  • 0

#1599 theminister

theminister

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,157 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 03

Posted 18 October 2012 - 03:56 PM

I thought the players were being greedy. Then I heard their proposals. Then I heard the owners rejected them. I have pulled a 180 and now fully support the players. To say no to that 3rd proposal is just shameful on the owners.

Winner, winner, chicken dinner!
  • 0

small.pngNEW YORK ISLANDERS ROSTER - CDC GM LEAGUEsmall.png


2013 CDCGML CUP CHAMPIONS


#1600 EvoLu7ioN

EvoLu7ioN

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,816 posts
  • Joined: 30-June 10

Posted 18 October 2012 - 03:58 PM

I thought the players were being greedy. Then I heard their proposals. Then I heard the owners rejected them. I have pulled a 180 and now fully support the players. To say no to that 3rd proposal is just shameful on the owners.


Owner's offered a 50-50 split deal which would have allowed players to retain their contracts, they just wanted other clauses ie. 5 year max, 28 year UFA etc.Players counter with 1st year 57-43, and then slowly moving towards but never reaching 50-50 in year 5.Hmmm. In the 94 lockout the players had all the fans and PR support, and still lost badly. This year dareisay the owners have more support, believe me the players are going to lose this one if they try to hardball their way around owners who are losing money.
  • 0
Posted Image

#1601 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,792 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 18 October 2012 - 04:01 PM

*
POPULAR

They can ask for it back because the current agreement expired, meaning there is no agreement. You want contracts grandfathered?


I don't think you understand labour relations, especially in this scenario. The contracts don't expire at the end of each collective bargaining agreement... that is why they are allowed to make contracts that go beyond the end dates of any particular CBA. Using your logic, everyone would be UFAs at the start of a new CBA.

You can ask to collectively bargain someone to drop their rights, but as I said... it is entirely disingenuous to do that at the exact same time (and even before) you sign forward looking contracts that break those rules that you are trying to negotiate.

Same issue with Minnesota signing guys to 12 year contracts, and be sitting on the bargaining committee from the owners side demanding that contracts be only 5 year long. It is WAY different than the DiPietro or Luongo contract for example... in this case, owners actually knew they didn't intend to honour the contracts WHILE THEY SIGNED THEM.

Tough to claim the high ground...

Edited by Provost, 18 October 2012 - 04:02 PM.

  • 5
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#1602 theminister

theminister

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,157 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 03

Posted 18 October 2012 - 04:03 PM

Owner's offered a 50-50 split deal which would have allowed players to retain their contracts, they just wanted other clauses ie. 5 year max, 28 year UFA etc.Players counter with 1st year 57-43, and then slowly moving towards but never reaching 50-50 in year 5.Hmmm. In the 94 lockout the players had all the fans and PR support, and still lost badly. This year dareisay the owners have more support, believe me the players are going to lose this one if they try to hardball their way around owners who are losing money.

Then you misunderstood the owners offer. They never did offer 50/50, they just said they did. The owners have not submitted a single proposal that ensured that they would pay the signed contracts. Their last offer ensured that the lower end players would sacrifice so that those contracts, signed only weeks ago, would be honoured. This was done solely to drive a wedge in the players between the stars and the yeoman.
  • 2

small.pngNEW YORK ISLANDERS ROSTER - CDC GM LEAGUEsmall.png


2013 CDCGML CUP CHAMPIONS


#1603 EvoLu7ioN

EvoLu7ioN

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,816 posts
  • Joined: 30-June 10

Posted 18 October 2012 - 04:04 PM

Actually, they're risking their livelihood every time they step on the ice.  Not to mention the inherent risk in devoting your life to training for such a select and competitive career.

Meanwhile, the owners have literally zero risk.  An annual operating loss of ten million means absolutely nothing to these guys, and they make the money back when they sell the franchise, anyways.

The players have 1000x more risk than the owners.


That's your opinion, I'm entitled to mine. A lot of different occupations risk their health every day for a lot less compensation. And it does mean something to the owners, most of them retain their franchise to make a profit, that's their business. If they're losing any money at all through income or failure to generate gains on their franchise their business is considered a failure for that year. Plus, consider the fact that a lot of these franchises are worth hundreds of millions of dollars. If that money was simply invested in another venture it could easily be generating 5-6% returns with very little risk, so on top of the 10 million dollar operating loss you also have a 20M opportuniy loss. Not as simple as is seems.

Edited by EvoLu7ioN, 18 October 2012 - 04:05 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image

#1604 SamJamIam

SamJamIam

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,694 posts
  • Joined: 27-November 11

Posted 18 October 2012 - 04:07 PM

Really? Pretty tough to side with a business owner who loses millions per year?
Weird.


WHL Rocks, I literally have no idea where you're coming from. You seem to pick and choose your observations in a way that even the NHL owners can't. They put forth proposals knowing that they can compromise comfortably. But when you see that same proposal (even back in August), you go "This is a totally fair deal!" It's one thing to act like your semi-serious proposal is serious, that's part of negotiations, and they have a vested interest in doing so.

I can only assume that you have a vested interest in parroting what they say, and I give you credit enough to not believe all of what you say because you're smart enough to post your talking points then are nowhere to be seen when those points are disputed. So what's your angle?
  • 2

#1605 vancouverdepression

vancouverdepression

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 815 posts
  • Joined: 29-January 09

Posted 18 October 2012 - 04:09 PM

What a Fu***ng joke this chump league is, both sides should be ashamed of themselves. Millionairs and Billionairs squabbling over our hard earned money then trying to convince us whos right and whos wrong! F U to anyone in the NHL.
  • 0



#1606 EvoLu7ioN

EvoLu7ioN

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,816 posts
  • Joined: 30-June 10

Posted 18 October 2012 - 04:10 PM

Then you misunderstood the owners offer. They never did offer 50/50, they just said they did. The owners have not submitted a single proposal that ensured that they would pay the signed contracts. Their last offer ensured that the lower end players would sacrifice so that those contracts, signed only weeks ago, would be honoured. This was done solely to drive a wedge in the players between the stars and the yeoman.


Perhaps, I haven't actually read the thing. I'm just going off of analysis from guys like Bob Mckenzie and Darren Dreger who both mentioned they thought this deal was something the NHLPA could counter as players would retain most of what was agreed upon in their contracts.
  • 0
Posted Image

#1607 chisoxin12

chisoxin12

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,610 posts
  • Joined: 28-July 09

Posted 18 October 2012 - 04:17 PM

That's your opinion, I'm entitled to mine. A lot of different occupations risk their health every day for a lot less compensation. And it does mean something to the owners, most of them retain their franchise to make a profit, that's their business. If they're losing any money at all through income or failure to generate gains on their franchise their business is considered a failure for that year. Plus, consider the fact that a lot of these franchises are worth hundreds of millions of dollars. If that money was simply invested in another venture it could easily be generating 5-6% returns with very little risk, so on top of the 10 million dollar operating loss you also have a 20M opportuniy loss. Not as simple as is seems.


This all comes down to how well Bettman and the league vetted these so-called business men. Makes you wonder what kind of a bs story Bettman gave them when they were invited to this little band of merrymen. These owners like the limelight as much or more than the players, and if they don't want to take the risk, get out. If the franchises are worth millions like you say, they won't have too much trouble unloading them, right? I've got a franchise you could buy at any time if you like. 50/50 wasn't really anything close to that.

Edited by chisoxin12, 18 October 2012 - 04:19 PM.

  • 0

#1608 Scoobydooby

Scoobydooby

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,388 posts
  • Joined: 17-January 08

Posted 18 October 2012 - 04:17 PM

What a Fu***ng joke this chump league is, both sides should be ashamed of themselves. Millionairs and Billionairs squabbling over our hard earned money then trying to convince us whos right and whos wrong! F U to anyone in the NHL.


Initially I felt this league was bush after seeing how bad officiating has gotten
Then it was all the headshots and lak of respect among players.. then it was the pathetic attempts at punishment of players who took liberties and doled out reckless an illegal hits
nevermind the various injustices with league officials and asshats like colin campbell and his son..

then comes all this bull$hit with the lockout.. years gone by and its never addressed until now when they are at risk of losing their season..

what a frigging joke this league is.. i honestly dont even know what to think of it all. its embarassing.
  • 0

Posted Image


#1609 theminister

theminister

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,157 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 03

Posted 18 October 2012 - 04:18 PM

Perhaps, I haven't actually read the thing. I'm just going off of analysis from guys like Bob Mckenzie and Darren Dreger who both mentioned they thought this deal was something the NHLPA could counter as players would retain most of what was agreed upon in their contracts.

Fair enough. It's complicated stuff. What the owners did was say 50/50 of an as yet undefined HRR. Then they included clauses to have certain previous exemptions, like AHL buried contracts and retirements, included in the players share. This effect lively would leave the players with less than 50% in line with their previous proposals. It's all accounting slight of hand and the PA knows it. It's too bad the average fan can't see it but that's the PA'S fault for not playing the media game on the same level as the League.
  • 0

small.pngNEW YORK ISLANDERS ROSTER - CDC GM LEAGUEsmall.png


2013 CDCGML CUP CHAMPIONS


#1610 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,469 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 18 October 2012 - 04:20 PM

Daly just flat out denied the NHLPA's 3rd offer as being 50-50 from the start, "more like 57% in year 1 then going down.

That sounds vaguely similar to the players saying the NHL offering 50/50 with a restructuring of HRR is more like 55-45 for the NHL.

They can ask for it back because the current agreement expired, meaning there is no agreement. You want contracts grandfathered?

Based on that argument, how could any of the owners even sign a player to a contract longer than the current CBA?

It's incorrect to think of it like that, where a contract signed under whatever agreement was in place at the time is still valid if the agreement ends. Both parties could agree to restructure deals from the old agreement as a part of negotiating a new one, but only then could the previous contracts be modified.

Owner's offered a 50-50 split deal which would have allowed players to retain their contracts, they just wanted other clauses ie. 5 year max, 28 year UFA etc.Players counter with 1st year 57-43, and then slowly moving towards but never reaching 50-50 in year 5.Hmmm. In the 94 lockout the players had all the fans and PR support, and still lost badly. This year dareisay the owners have more support, believe me the players are going to lose this one if they try to hardball their way around owners who are losing money.

That's incorrect. The 'contract protection' (making them whole was one way it was referred to) allowed money lost in the first two years to be paid out of the players' share of HRR from the years following. That actually reduced their 50/50 deal in those years, right along with whatever restructuring of HRR definitions the NHL wanted, among other things.

...I haven't actually read the thing...

Wait, that explains why you're arguing what you are.

Edited by elvis15, 18 October 2012 - 04:29 PM.

  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#1611 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 18 October 2012 - 04:20 PM

LOL. "The only reason baseball is popular is because they have a product that people like!!"

Good argument.

Lol are u old enough to remember the MLB player strike? Do u remember the low attendance levels and TV ratings before the steroid induced HR race? I don't think so.
  • 0

#1612 Canucks_fo_life

Canucks_fo_life

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,568 posts
  • Joined: 07-September 06

Posted 18 October 2012 - 04:22 PM

Baseball is crap, not even a real sport, they hardly break a sweat cause theres so much standing around

Signed, a real Canadian
  • 1
I rather lose with the Canucks, than win with any other team

This is OUR year

GO CANUCKS GOOOOOO!!!!!!!

#1613 RonMexico

RonMexico

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,132 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 12

Posted 18 October 2012 - 04:26 PM

Really? Pretty tough to side with a business owner who loses millions per year?
Weird.


It's also tough to sympathize with the business owner who locked the door on it's employees. They are making no money due to their choice. This isn't a strike. The employees did not walk off the job. The NHL and NHLPA may have had an opportunity to bargain in good faith and still have a season but the owners drew the line in the sand and now they can shoulder all the 'economic hardship' they are in. The players are free to work other jobs too so it's not like they are incapable of replacing their lost paychecks.
  • 0

#1614 boxiebrown

boxiebrown

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 629 posts
  • Joined: 06-May 08

Posted 18 October 2012 - 04:33 PM

That's your opinion, I'm entitled to mine. A lot of different occupations risk their health every day for a lot less compensation. And it does mean something to the owners, most of them retain their franchise to make a profit, that's their business. If they're losing any money at all through income or failure to generate gains on their franchise their business is considered a failure for that year. Plus, consider the fact that a lot of these franchises are worth hundreds of millions of dollars. If that money was simply invested in another venture it could easily be generating 5-6% returns with very little risk, so on top of the 10 million dollar operating loss you also have a 20M opportuniy loss. Not as simple as is seems.


LOL. Yes, you are entitled to yours. It's still wrong though.

Franchises are toys and status symbols for owners. That's it. No owner buys a team unless they have money from other businesses.
  • 0

#1615 boxiebrown

boxiebrown

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 629 posts
  • Joined: 06-May 08

Posted 18 October 2012 - 04:34 PM

Lol are u old enough to remember the MLB player strike? Do u remember the low attendance levels and TV ratings before the steroid induced HR race? I don't think so.


Very much so!

It's also completely irrelevant to the argument.
  • 0

#1616 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 18 October 2012 - 04:35 PM

WHL Rocks, I literally have no idea where you're coming from. You seem to pick and choose your observations in a way that even the NHL owners can't. They put forth proposals knowing that they can compromise comfortably. But when you see that same proposal (even back in August), you go "This is a totally fair deal!" It's one thing to act like your semi-serious proposal is serious, that's part of negotiations, and they have a vested interest in doing so.

I can only assume that you have a vested interest in parroting what they say, and I give you credit enough to not believe all of what you say because you're smart enough to post your talking points then are nowhere to be seen when those points are disputed. So what's your angle?


I do have a vested interest. Ive been a fan of NHL for decades. I'm a die hard Hokey fan. It's in my interest to continue to enjoy a successful league.

My issue is why do we feel we are entitled to someone else paying for our entertainment?

Im curious to know how many people on our online community would be willing to pay for your vacation to Maui? I bet not to many if any at all

Why should we expect NHL owners to lose millions so we can watch hockey. It's a well known fact 2/3 of the teams are losing money.
  • 0

#1617 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 18 October 2012 - 04:37 PM

It's also tough to sympathize with the business owner who locked the door on it's employees. They are making no money due to their choice. This isn't a strike. The employees did not walk off the job. The NHL and NHLPA may have had an opportunity to bargain in good faith and still have a season but the owners drew the line in the sand and now they can shoulder all the 'economic hardship' they are in. The players are free to work other jobs too so it's not like they are incapable of replacing their lost paychecks.

Breaking News.

Most teams lost money last season.
  • 0

#1618 Raoul Duke

Raoul Duke

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,017 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 04

Posted 18 October 2012 - 04:39 PM

Baseball is crap, not even a real sport, they hardly break a sweat cause theres so much standing around

Signed, a real Canadian


What an ignorant thing to say. Oh, you're so "Canadian".

Also, I have to agree with the Scoobydooby and vancouverdepression. Eff the NHL. The greed is absolutely ridiculous. I couldn't care less anymore.

Thankfully, I'm a huge fan of the NFL, MLB, NBA, and MMA.
  • 1

Kershaw_zps0cb5a848.jpg


#1619 Garrison

Garrison

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 851 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 12

Posted 18 October 2012 - 04:46 PM

SCREW everyone. I'm sick of this crap. I just want a bloody season.
  • 0

#1620 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,461 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 18 October 2012 - 04:49 PM

That's your opinion, I'm entitled to mine. A lot of different occupations risk their health every day for a lot less compensation. And it does mean something to the owners, most of them retain their franchise to make a profit, that's their business. If they're losing any money at all through income or failure to generate gains on their franchise their business is considered a failure for that year. Plus, consider the fact that a lot of these franchises are worth hundreds of millions of dollars. If that money was simply invested in another venture it could easily be generating 5-6% returns with very little risk, so on top of the 10 million dollar operating loss you also have a 20M opportuniy loss. Not as simple as is seems.


Some franchises that recorded losses actually were profitable thanks to additional revenue streams and league revenue sharing.

ONLY two teams reported an operating lose of $10 million or more in 2010 - Florida and Phoenix. All other teams reported loses much lower than that. So, you're using the two worst case scenarios with your 10 million loss comment. Adding a mythical 20 million loss on top of that because the business owners CHOOSE to buy an NHL franchise instead of investing in any other business is silly.

If owners bought a business that's losing money instead of investing in another venture, who's fault is that?

If owners are making bad business decisions (like huge contracts with players who don't deserve them) that cause them to lose money despite operating in a closed economic system stacked in their favor, who's fault is that?

If franchises are losing millions every year, why are they all evaluated at being worth hundreds of millions? Does that really make economic sense to you?
  • 1
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.