Split it 50/50 and call it a day. The more this lingers on the more apathetic I become towards hockey this season, and I consider myself a hardcore hockey fan. Especially if the season resumes and its going to be one of those 40 game schedules, I'd rather just miss the entire year than watch a half assed season of hockey, I'd probably follow as casually as possible for that season.
Also, hypothetically, if there is something like a 40 game season, what better timing is there than for fans to actually pull a legit boycott for that half a year? May as well, because everyone thinks this, no fans of teams who havent won the cup REALLY want their first cup win to be off a half season. It's really the only scenerio in my mind where I think a boycott could be pulled off, although I know still highly unlikely.
Last edited by CanadianHockey: 09-13-2012 at 03:13 PM.
Split it 50/50 and call it a day. The more this lingers on the more apathetic I become towards hockey this season, and I consider myself a hardcore hockey fan. Especially if the season resumes and its going to be one of those 40 game schedules, I'd rather just miss the entire year than watch a half assed season of hockey, I'd probably follow as casually as possible for that season.
Also, hypothetically, if there is something like a 40 game season, what better timing is there than for fans to actually pull a legit boycott for that half a year? May as well, because everyone thinks this, no fans of teams who havent won the cup REALLY want their first cup win to be off a half season. It's really the only scenerio in my mind where I think a boycott could be pulled off, although I know still highly unlikely.
I sleep on Sens bed sheets, I don't think i would last a week trying to boycott.
Split it 50/50 and call it a day. The more this lingers on the more apathetic I become towards hockey this season, and I consider myself a hardcore hockey fan. Especially if the season resumes and its going to be one of those 40 game schedules, I'd rather just miss the entire year than watch a half assed season of hockey, I'd probably follow as casually as possible for that season.
Also, hypothetically, if there is something like a 40 game season, what better timing is there than for fans to actually pull a legit boycott for that half a year? May as well, because everyone thinks this, no fans of teams who havent won the cup REALLY want their first cup win to be off a half season. It's really the only scenerio in my mind where I think a boycott could be pulled off, although I know still highly unlikely.
Unfortunately it's not that simple.
I won' get into specifics here, but if you're looking for information I'd refer you to the Business of Hockey board: it's very informative.
I sleep on Sens bed sheets, I don't think i would last a week trying to boycott.
I'm just apathetic about watching some half assed season thrown together I guess, if that indeed does happen. The only interest I would have is watching Alfie's perhaps final games of his career.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian Guy
Unfortunately it's not that simple.
I won' get into specifics here, but if you're looking for information I'd refer you to the Business of Hockey board: it's very informative.
I've read some there, and to me it is very simple in the fact the thought that these two sides can't come together to divide up $ fairly is disgusting to me, but I'm not a labour negotiator. 3 lockouts since I've been a fan seems pretty unacceptable in my mind.
Does anyone know why they can't simply agree to extend the current CBA by a year, so that they can prevent a lock-out, and continue negotiations throughout the year?
I'm sure there is some reason why the owners wouldn't consider this, but people's jobs are on the line here!
I know for a fact that O'Connor's Irish Pub in Kanata almost lost nearly a million dollars in revenue during the last lockout. I imagine bars/pubs all around north america suffered similar fates...
Does anyone know why they can't simply agree to extend the current CBA by a year, so that they can prevent a lock-out, and continue negotiations throughout the year?
I'm sure there is some reason why the owners wouldn't consider this, but people's jobs are on the line here!
I know for a fact that O'Connor's Irish Pub in Kanata almost lost nearly a million dollars in revenue during the last lockout. I imagine bars/pubs all around north america suffered similar fates...
The NHLPA said they would do it but the NHL said no way.
Does anyone know why they can't simply agree to extend the current CBA by a year, so that they can prevent a lock-out, and continue negotiations throughout the year?
I'm sure there is some reason why the owners wouldn't consider this, but people's jobs are on the line here!
I know for a fact that O'Connor's Irish Pub in Kanata almost lost nearly a million dollars in revenue during the last lockout. I imagine bars/pubs all around north america suffered similar fates...
Because the league still has enough guaranteed revenue (eg from TV deals) that they can afford to stick it to the players for a year.
__________________ CanadianHockey________ __ __________Sens, Oilers, and Team Canada
Does anyone know why they can't simply agree to extend the current CBA by a year, so that they can prevent a lock-out, and continue negotiations throughout the year?
I'm sure there is some reason why the owners wouldn't consider this, but people's jobs are on the line here!
I know for a fact that O'Connor's Irish Pub in Kanata almost lost nearly a million dollars in revenue during the last lockout. I imagine bars/pubs all around north america suffered similar fates...
There is also the fact that if the league doesn't lock the players out and they extend the deal then the players could strike during the season. Only way they could've pulled it off was if both teams signed a contract stating no lockouts/strikes.
The players gave in for the last CBA, I don't think they will this time. It's Bettman's turn IMO.
Thats not happening... The owners voted for a lockout... They Owners arent going to continue to play under the current system.... I dont see the players coming out on top here... They cant afford to not play... Owners can
It seems like the owners are banking on the "well the fans came back in droves last time so they'll do it again" line of thinking. Personally, I don't think it'll turn out that way.
After 04/05, you had two generational talents enter, and tear up, the league (Crosby & Ovechkin), and the NHL was able to focus all of their marketing efforts around them. Plus, you had all sorts of rule changes that opened the game up after the dead puck era.
If you look at it this year, none of that is on the horizon. Baseball didn't recover until the home run race with Sosa and McGwire, and that was what, 4 years after their strike?
Crosby/Ovechkin were hockey's Sosa and McGwire the first time... we may have to wait a while until that happens again.
I'd also say that there were more fans back then who felt that a lockout was a necessary evil, primarily to get small market teams like Ottawa, Edmonton, etc on a level playing field. I don't get that sense this time.
Split it 50/50 and call it a day. The more this lingers on the more apathetic I become towards hockey this season, and I consider myself a hardcore hockey fan. Especially if the season resumes and its going to be one of those 40 game schedules, I'd rather just miss the entire year than watch a half assed season of hockey, I'd probably follow as casually as possible for that season.
Also, hypothetically, if there is something like a 40 game season, what better timing is there than for fans to actually pull a legit boycott for that half a year? May as well, because everyone thinks this, no fans of teams who havent won the cup REALLY want their first cup win to be off a half season. It's really the only scenerio in my mind where I think a boycott could be pulled off, although I know still highly unlikely.
I would still watch it on TV but 100% sure I wouldn't buy tickets
No. It's a lockout. You can't lockout employees who are willing to work (players are not striking; this is important) and replace them that way. Against labour laws in most jurisdictions.
No. It's a lockout. You can't lockout employees who are willing to work (players are not striking; this is important) and replace them that way. Against labour laws in most jurisdictions.
Serious question...
Whats the deal with the NFL refs then?? Are "scabs" not replacing employees who are willing to work without a CBA?
I don't think the idea of a boycott will catch on enough to truly make any real difference. I would like to see the NHL forced to open the season as scheduled and both sides negotiate as the season progresses. Do they have the right to take away a season from the huge amount of people who enjoy hockey?
I don't think the idea of a boycott will catch on enough to truly make any real difference. I would like to see the NHL forced to open the season as scheduled and both sides negotiate as the season progresses. Do they have the right to take away a season from the huge amount of people who enjoy hockey?
If fans in Ottawa boycotted the team then pretty soon we would have no team.
Good point. I'm not sure what the deal is there. I might be misunderstanding the relevant labour laws.
I didn't think the Refs were locked out, they were striking. So they can be replaced. If the players boycott the season I believe the owners could replace them, but not vice versa. Labor laws change to a lot in different provinces/states so not 100%.
Anyone who doesn't follow the Sens because of a lockout or whatever is not a hardcore fan.
I actually hope all the casual fans stop going to games/buying merch, a 2nd lockout in 8 years is beyond ridiculous. Not supporting the league financially will hit them where it hurts.
There is absolutely no reason to lock out again, move Phoenix somewhere profitable and make the HRR 50/50 or close to it, like every other league in North America and keep watching the profits soar
