Strike may not harm attendence as much as in other sports

[Jaded-Fan]

Or so an article from today claims. From SBN (Sports Business News), some interesting points made, that I have heard echoed on these boards now and then.


Headline Central
February 4, 2005

When all is said and done, those who are hockey fans are passionate

The National Hockey League's biggest weakness during labor peace could be its greatest strength once a new collective bargaining agreement is reached. This report was written by Darren Rovell and appeared at ESPN.com
Often characterized -- and criticized -- as a niche sport with largely regional appeal, the NHL is less likely to suffer at the box office after the lockout because of its higher ratio of hard-core fans to casual fans than other major professional sports.

After the last lockout shortened the 1994-95 NHL season to 48 games, the league averaged 14,798 fans per game when it resumed play, an increase of 50 fans per game over the 1993-94 season. Attendance continued to rise the next two years.

"Because of the makeup of the NHL fan base, the league is less volatile than others when work stoppages occur," said Paul Swangard, managing director of the University of Oregon's Warsaw Sports Marketing Center, which recently studied NHL attendance data before and after its last work stoppage. "Baseball lives and breathes off the casual fan that hockey just doesn't have."

http://www.sportsbusinessnews.com/index.asp?story_id=43699

Click to read more...

 

[Jobu]

Or so an article from today claims. From SBN (Sports Business News), some interesting points made, that I have heard echoed on these boards now and then.


Headline Central
February 4, 2005

When all is said and done, those who are hockey fans are passionate

The National Hockey League's biggest weakness during labor peace could be its greatest strength once a new collective bargaining agreement is reached. This report was written by Darren Rovell and appeared at ESPN.com
Often characterized -- and criticized -- as a niche sport with largely regional appeal, the NHL is less likely to suffer at the box office after the lockout because of its higher ratio of hard-core fans to casual fans than other major professional sports.

After the last lockout shortened the 1994-95 NHL season to 48 games, the league averaged 14,798 fans per game when it resumed play, an increase of 50 fans per game over the 1993-94 season. Attendance continued to rise the next two years.

"Because of the makeup of the NHL fan base, the league is less volatile than others when work stoppages occur," said Paul Swangard, managing director of the University of Oregon's Warsaw Sports Marketing Center, which recently studied NHL attendance data before and after its last work stoppage. "Baseball lives and breathes off the casual fan that hockey just doesn't have."

http://www.sportsbusinessnews.com/index.asp?story_id=43699

What strike?

 

[MarkZackKarl]

There's a strike?

 

[Jobu]

There's a strike?

It's amazing that someone with 3,900 posts can be so ignorant.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Thank you all for adding to the conversation with wordgames.

Just and refuses to change it, as it has nothing at all to do with the article or this thread to be honest. You want to play games rather than address articles, stroke your egos or stroke anything you want. I could care less.

I was merely linking an article that might be of interest.

 

[WrightOn]

I agree that attendance will not suffer much from this mess. As much as some may say they will boycott the NHL, they are quite the minority, IMO.

 

[ACC1224]

Thank you all for adding to the conversation with wordgames.

So when the lockout is over the players should go on strike to boost attendance?

 

[Jobu]

Thank you all for adding to the conversation with wordgames.

I don't mean to be petty, but it's not a small oversight. Not knowing the difference between a "strike" and a "lockout" is symptomatic of not understanding the labour dispute as a whole and necessarily leads to misguided opinions. I would venture to guess that simply by mischaracterizing the work stoppage as a "strike" that you are pro-management. I could be wrong, but that tends to be the case -- and is the reason why the majority support for the owners can and ought to be taken with a grain of salt; it's simply not credible.

 

[mooseOAK*]

I don't mean to be petty, but it's not a small oversight. Not knowing the difference between a "strike" and a "lockout" is symptomatic of not understanding the labour dispute as a whole and necessarily leads to misguided opinions. I would venture to guess that simply by mischaracterizing the work stoppage as a "strike" that you are pro-management. I could be wrong, but that tends to be the case -- and is the reason why the majority support for the owners can and ought to be taken with a grain of salt; it's simply not credible.

Right, because one person calls it a strike instead of a lockout then no one who thinks that the owners have a right to tie salaries to revenue isn't credible.

 

[Jobu]

Right, because one person calls it a strike instead of a lockout then no one who thinks that the owners have a right to tie salaries to revenue isn't credible.

I don't think that's what I said. Sorry.

 

[txomisc]

I don't mean to be petty, but it's not a small oversight. Not knowing the difference between a "strike" and a "lockout" is symptomatic of not understanding the labour dispute as a whole and necessarily leads to misguided opinions. I would venture to guess that simply by mischaracterizing the work stoppage as a "strike" that you are pro-management. I could be wrong, but that tends to be the case -- and is the reason why the majority support for the owners can and ought to be taken with a grain of salt; it's simply not credible.

First of all, calling it a strike does not mean the poster doesnt know the difference between a lockout and a strike. Have you ever mispoken? Instead of addressing an interesting issue you choose to harp on a stupid word. We all know that the owners locked the doors. Get over it. Is that the only reason you support the players?

 

[futurcorerock]

I completely believe the fanbase will be partially unharmed, all these people saying they protest the NHL probably weren't diehards anyways. Screw 'em. The fanbase of the NHL has been noted as being one of the most passionate by more than one account. I attest, and I think the NHL will be fine. Cancel if you must, we'll be back

 

[Drake1588]

The difference between a strike and a lockout is substantial. It is the difference, for example, between justifiably going to look for work in Europe and unjust hypocrisy. It's not just a typo or a spelling error.

If an employer is locking out the players, the players are justified in looking for work elsewhere. If the players go on strike and then seek work elsewhere, it's hypocrisy.

It has to do with who is prepared to play and who is refusing to go on with play under existing status quo conditions. That is hardly a minor difference.

 

[Jobu]

First of all, calling it a strike does not mean the poster doesnt know the difference between a lockout and a strike. Have you ever mispoken? Instead of addressing an interesting issue you choose to harp on a stupid word. We all know that the owners locked the doors. Get over it. Is that the only reason you support the players?

Calling a "strike" a "lockout" is like calling a banana an apple. It necessarily connotes a misunderstanding; it's hardly "misspeak."

 

[txomisc]

Or so an article from today claims. From SBN (Sports Business News), some interesting points made, that I have heard echoed on these boards now and then.


Headline Central
February 4, 2005

When all is said and done, those who are hockey fans are passionate

The National Hockey League's biggest weakness during labor peace could be its greatest strength once a new collective bargaining agreement is reached. This report was written by Darren Rovell and appeared at ESPN.com
Often characterized -- and criticized -- as a niche sport with largely regional appeal, the NHL is less likely to suffer at the box office after the lockout because of its higher ratio of hard-core fans to casual fans than other major professional sports.

After the last lockout shortened the 1994-95 NHL season to 48 games, the league averaged 14,798 fans per game when it resumed play, an increase of 50 fans per game over the 1993-94 season. Attendance continued to rise the next two years.

"Because of the makeup of the NHL fan base, the league is less volatile than others when work stoppages occur," said Paul Swangard, managing director of the University of Oregon's Warsaw Sports Marketing Center, which recently studied NHL attendance data before and after its last work stoppage. "Baseball lives and breathes off the casual fan that hockey just doesn't have."

http://www.sportsbusinessnews.com/index.asp?story_id=43699

We are sort of like the select few. They will probably struggle to fill luxury boxes, but those arent always filled with 'real' fans. I imagine attendance will recover very quickly.

 

[Jobu]

The difference between a strike and a lockout is substantial. It is the difference, for example, between justifiably going to look for work in Europe and unjust hypocrisy. It's not just a typo or a spelling error.

If an employer is locking out the players, the players are justified in looking for work elsewhere. If the players go on strike and then seek work elsewhere, it's hypocrisy.

It has to do with who is prepared to play and who is refusing to go on with play under existing status quo conditions. That is hardly a minor difference.

Precisely. My point exactly.

 

[SENSible1*]

I don't think that's what I said. Sorry.

Actually, that is roughly what your original statement implied.

I could be wrong, but that tends to be the case -- and is the reason why the majority support for the owners can and ought to be taken with a grain of salt; it's simply not credible.

 

[dawgbone]

I don't mean to be petty, but it's not a small oversight. Not knowing the difference between a "strike" and a "lockout" is symptomatic of not understanding the labour dispute as a whole and necessarily leads to misguided opinions. I would venture to guess that simply by mischaracterizing the work stoppage as a "strike" that you are pro-management. I could be wrong, but that tends to be the case -- and is the reason why the majority support for the owners can and ought to be taken with a grain of salt; it's simply not credible.

Does it matter if it's a strike or a lockout? I mean, aside to those who support the PA and have to be petty about it... "The owners are locking out the players", "This is the owners lockout", etc...

There is no labour agreement in place... and neither side is negotiating. Who the hell cares what it is, or what it is called? Whether it's a strike, or a lockout... it doesn't matter. It's an expired agreement with very little negotiations happening.

It's not like they were in the middle of the agreement and the owners shut the doors, or the players walked out... then I could understand people getting pissy about the terminology.

Who cares what people call it? Grow up.

 

[krandor]

I'm worried that both sides in this dispute may be overestimating the fans that will come back. Yes, much NHL fans are passionate about the sport, but they are also getting very frustrated. There are some who are going to get fed up the longer this goes on and especially if they cancel the season.

I'm afraid both sides don't really think there be be much dropoff of attendance even if the season is cancelled and I think they are going to be sadly mistaken. They have to get a deal done before the season is toast.

 

[txomisc]

Calling a "strike" a "lockout" is like calling a banana an apple. It necessarily connotes a misunderstanding; it's hardly "misspeak."

Maybe to you, it's not. Other people don't spend all day thinking 'lockout lockout lockout' like you apparently do. Furthermore, I am sure many times a banana has been called an apple when the person saying it knows damn well that it is a banana. Im sure millions of times in fact. Red has been called blue by people who knew it was red. People make mistakes, things slip. You seem to think every mistake, and basically every disagreement with you, implies ignorance. Get over yourself. You are not exactly some sort of second coming.

 

[Jobu]

Actually, that is roughly what your original statement implied.

Well, you need some comprehension lessons then. The point is, if you think this is a "strike," you assume the players walked out and are thus demanding something more. In reality, they have been locked out and have offered concessions - just not to the degree the owners want.

People liek Jacques Rogge and the OP are so obviously ill-informed by failing to grasp this basic concept that their opinions can't matter at all. And it is my feeling that a great number of fans on the owners' side are there due to their basic misunderstanding of this work stoppage.

Clearly, informed people can have opinions on both sides of the fence here. That's not at all what I was disputing.

 

[txomisc]

Does it matter if it's a strike or a lockout? I mean, aside to those who support the PA and have to be petty about it... "The owners are locking out the players", "This is the owners lockout", etc...

There is no labour agreement in place... and neither side is negotiating. Who the hell cares what it is, or what it is called? Whether it's a strike, or a lockout... it doesn't matter. It's an expired agreement with very little negotiations happening.

It's not like they were in the middle of the agreement and the owners shut the doors, or the players walked out... then I could understand people getting pissy about the terminology.

Who cares what people call it? Grow up.

Exactly.

 

[mooseOAK*]

I don't think that's what I said. Sorry.

How was I wrong?

 

[Jobu]

How was I wrong?

How were you right?

 

[bling]

Maybe to you, it's not. Other people don't spend all day thinking 'lockout lockout lockout' like you apparently do. Furthermore, I am sure many times a banana has been called an apple when the person saying it knows damn well that it is a banana. Im sure millions of times in fact. Red has been called blue by people who knew it was red. People make mistakes, things slip. You seem to think every mistake, and basically every disagreement with you, implies ignorance. Get over yourself. You are not exactly some sort of second coming.

Although it certainly could have been an honest mistake on the part of Jaded I think it is at least a subconcious reflection of how many pro-owner types view this issue. The vitriolic attacks on the players and the portrayal of them as greedy demanding jerks comes directly from that thought process.

The players are looked upon as fueling this labour war because they are assumed to be "holding out" for more money when in truth the Owners are refusing to allow them to play if they do not agree to huge reductions in pay and an artificial cap on any future increases. How this is translated into player greed is the crux of my difficulty with this whole "support the Owners" contingent.

However the focus of the article posted under such a mistaken header is one that I do agree with. The fans of hockey are going to be fans after this is over and will likely flock to the arena to watch their team play...If it is really their team playing. If we have scabs dressed up as NHLer's, as so many of you owner supporters wish, I think we will see a significant drop in attendance.