Thread: The Lockout Begins

Originally Posted by Cangooner

Couldn't agree more: those profits they are fighting over are there because the market has produced them. It just as a whiff of South Sea bubble to me.

I don't quite get the "South Sea bubble" reference. Would you be so good to explain?

I'm new to hockey, only 3 years as a fan. I don't follow any other pro sports. I can't even ice skate, but fell in love with hockey after attending the first game. Sold some items that I had to become season ticket holder on the second game. Have only missed 1 game in 3 seasons, my son was real sick that night. I have to pay $298.00 every month, year round ,automatically deducted. That is to hold 2 seats for my son & I. We have 2 seats on the blue line, but we are a bit up the arena; there is a family of pigeons 8 rows behind us.

I don't think that somebody at the top of the hockey echelon really thinks about what $298.00 will do for my family. That's dinner out with my family each week and a couple of hones a month.

I hope I don't miss any games.

Originally Posted by Birnando

I live in a country where we actually take pride in our social structure, and wealth is politically distributed throughout the population so I do not have problems seeing your points

Not to side track the conversation, but you also have the population of the state of Colorado, or 2% of our total population if we round up.

Originally Posted by Hirlau

I'm new to hockey, only 3 years as a fan. I don't follow any other pro sports. I can't even ice skate, but fell in love with hockey after attending the first game. Sold some items that I had to become season ticket holder on the second game. Have only missed 1 game in 3 seasons, my son was real sick that night. I have to pay $298.00 every month, year round ,automatically deducted. That is to hold 2 seats for my son & I. We have 2 seats on the blue line, but we are a bit up the arena; there is a family of pigeons 8 rows behind us.
I don't think that somebody at the top of the hockey echelon really thinks about what $298.00 will do for my family. That's dinner out with my family each week and a couple of hones a month.

I hope I don't miss any games.

Hirlau --
I sincerely hope you don't miss any games, either.

Originally Posted by mapleleafalumnus

I don't quite get the "South Sea bubble" reference. Would you be so good to explain?

It was an early example of a stock crash that came about because of the massive over-valuation of the company compared to its actual value. These guys explain it much better than I can:

Market Crashes: The South Sea Bubble | Investopedia

I thought of it because the value of the NHL is rooted in what people *think* it is worth, not in tangible assets. As long as people think it is worth their time and money to go to games, buy jerseys and hats, etc., get the cable subscription, and all that, it will continue to be profitable. But if that belief fades, the whole thing could come crashing down awful quickly.

Originally Posted by Hirlau

I'm new to hockey, only 3 years as a fan. I don't follow any other pro sports. I can't even ice skate, but fell in love with hockey after attending the first game. Sold some items that I had to become season ticket holder on the second game. Have only missed 1 game in 3 seasons, my son was real sick that night. I have to pay $298.00 every month, year round ,automatically deducted. That is to hold 2 seats for my son & I. We have 2 seats on the blue line, but we are a bit up the arena; there is a family of pigeons 8 rows behind us.

I don't think that somebody at the top of the hockey echelon really thinks about what $298.00 will do for my family. That's dinner out with my family each week and a couple of hones a month.

I hope I don't miss any games.

ADMIT IT! These are the reasons you became a fan!
Lightning Girls - Lightning Girls

Originally Posted by DFriedl

Not to side track the conversation, but you also have the population of the state of Colorado, or 2% of our total population if we round up.

Be that as it may, I suspect that Norway's approach to wealth distribution is not a simple factor of population, but rather the result of a set of values and beliefs particular to Norwegian society.

As with any labour dispute ultimately there are no winners. I also appreciate that playing hockey professionally is a tough physical grind with short career spans relative to the general public. We have come a long way from the abuse players suffered at the hands of the owners pre 1970s.

I did a quick check and found that the 2010-2011 salaries for NHL players ranged from $500,000 to $900,000. I don't think that includes bonuses/profit sharing schemes. If the salary figures are correct, then a short 3 year career at today's lowest salary rate will gross about what I made in a 35 year working career as an "over paid" unionized worker. Just saying put that in your pipe and smoke it. Remember too that the owners are likely even better off. Somewhere in the pinball machine of life "Tilt" must be flashing.

The income gap between what the average fan makes, who sustains the business, and that of the players and owners is mind boggling. It is hard for me to have sympathy for either side. No, I am not saying either side should make what the average fan does but isn't the remuneration rich enough for both sides in the dispute already?

Bob

Originally Posted by Cangooner

It was an early example of a stock crash that came about because of the massive over-valuation of the company compared to its actual value. These guys explain it much better than I can:

Market Crashes: The South Sea Bubble | Investopedia

I thought of it because the value of the NHL is rooted in what people *think* it is worth, not in tangible assets. As long as people think it is worth their time and money to go to games, buy jerseys and hats, etc., get the cable subscription, and all that, it will continue to be profitable. But if that belief fades, the whole thing could come crashing down awful quickly.

Yes, pro sports are a "service-based" industry, not a "goods-based" one. Thanks for the clarification, Cangooner!

Originally Posted by BobH

As with any labour dispute ultimately there are no winners. I also appreciate that playing hockey professionally is a tough physical grind with short career spans relative to the general public. We have come a long way from the abuse players suffered at the hands of the owners pre 1970s.

I did a quick check and found that the 2010-2011 salaries for NHL players ranged from $500,000 to $900,000. I don't think that includes bonuses/profit sharing schemes. If the salary figures are correct, then a short 3 year career at today's lowest salary rate will gross about what I made in a 35 year working career as an "over paid" unionized worker. Just saying put that in your pipe and smoke it. Remember too that the owners are likely even better off. Somewhere in the pinball machine of life "Tilt" must be flashing.

The income gap between what the average fan makes, who sustains the business, and that of the players and owners is mind boggling. It is hard for me to have sympathy for either side. No, I am not saying either side should make what the average fan does but isn't the remuneration rich enough for both sides in the dispute already?

Bob

During the 1991-92 season the average player salary was $200,000 USD.