Strike may not harm attendence as much as in other sports

[Jobu]

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.

 

[mooseOAK*]

How were you right?

That answer means that obviously, I am.

 

[Jobu]

That answer means that obviously, I am.

Ditto.

But to humour you...

You need some comprehension lessons. 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 like 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]

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.

The majority of proowner people are not lauching attacks against the players. The majority of proowner people don't hate the players. Jobu has consistently been petty and insulting. Just as there have been some crazies on the pronhl side, Jobu has shown himself/herself? (who cares) to be an NHLPA crazy.

 

[mooseOAK*]

Ditto.

But to humour you...

You need some comprehension lessons. 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 like 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.

I don't think that it is a strike.

We all know what the work stoppage is about, owners want salaries tied to revenues and the players don't so there is no misunderstanding. Find me a person on either side of the issue that isn't aware of that fact because it has been repeated ad nauseum for months.

By the time this is over both sides will have made concessions.

 

[txomisc]

Ditto.

But to humour you...

You need some comprehension lessons. 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 like 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.

Well if you want to get technical about it, the players are asking for more. They are asking for more than the owners are offereing. There are those of us who think (know) that meeting halfway is not good enough. The players, despite concessions, are still demanding more than their fair share.

 

[PecaFan]

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.

"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."[/I]

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

I've been telling everybody this for months.

The NHL will be just fine, even if the season is cancelled. NHL fans, *especially* US fan, are devoted. They won't disappear.

 

[Winger98]

some other quotes

However, attendance can't be analyzed in a vacuum. After the 1994-95 NHL season, the financially troubled Quebec Nordiques moved to Denver, where they won the Stanley Cup. Their immediate success heavily contributed to the rise in NHL attendance.

Just as teams in new locations help galvanize attendance, so do new venues. Eight new NHL arenas opened between 1994 and 1996, compared to three Major League Baseball parks over the same time period. Five arenas opened in the NBA surrounding their work stoppage (1998-2000).

Does anyone see a similar concurrence of events to galvanize attendance after this labor stoppage?

Fans won't return en masse to watch replacement players in their team's sweaters, said Jim Fisher, associate dean and professor of strategic management at the University of Toronto. But if the league and the union do work out a collective bargaining agreement in time for next season, Fisher believes the hot hockey markets will have instant sellouts.

"In some markets, they'll be breaking down the doors," Fisher said. "In those markets, they are going to be able to come back and make a profit. But in Nashville and Carolina, they're really going to have a terrible time."

So in other words, teams that were doing well before could expect to continue doing relatively well, while the ones who were in trouble stand a good chance of being in more trouble. Fantastic.

Just trying to provide some balance, as the article was not nearly as pro-owner as the initial quote made it appear. To me, it looked like the gist of the article was that the traditional markets should be able to hold up pretty well, while the non-traditional markets could be sent up a creek without a paddle.

 

[Larry Melnyk]

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.

I agree with this 100%, especially in the US...This frustration with the horrible, diluted on-ice product that Bettman and the BOG have overseen has already lead to fans, some passionate, throwing up their arms with the game and heading to alternatives which are plentiful in the US...All around the league you hear of sell outs, but many places (even like NY), the buildings are barely 3/4's full and the "passinoate" corporate suits leave by the 2nd period.....

Now you throw in a play stoppage of what looks like, at a minimum, a year and a half and you are going to lose a hell of alot more fans, both passionate and casual...Out of sight, out of mind and people will adapt and focus on other sports, activities and entertainment and not give Hockey a second thought ever again....Of course, I don't think this is true for canadian fans, but sure as hell do for US fans--and that's where the majority of the paying (tickets, merchandise, concession, etc..) fans are...Personally, I thinbk the nHL will die in the US (a slow death) with a year and a half layoff..

 

[misterjaggers]

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

Hockey fans are the most hardcore fans on the planet. Once you're hooked, it's a lifelong addiction.

As long as the NHL offers the penultimate hockey experience, it will draw hardcore hockey fans wherever they exist in droves.

 

[Larry Melnyk]

Hockey fans are the most hardcore fans on the planet. Once you're hooked, it's a lifelong addiction.

As long as the NHL offers the penultimate hockey experience, it will draw hardcore hockey fans wherever they exist in droves.

That wasn't even happening before the lockout---in many locations...But I do agree that hockey fans are the most hardcore of them all, but there's a point of no return...Maybe alot has to with age..If you have a family with kids and things you should be doing with them, the void left by hockey is quicky filled up and, if it goes on long enough and you are bitter enough already (at the owners, players or the ugly PRO game itself), why the hell go back to it? OTOH, the stoppage goes on long enough, the NHL will lose a chance og gaining two years worth of new fans who could become passionate, but have gone elsewhere to things like poker, jarts and tiddlywinks...The NHL (and the PA) is playing with fire in the US...