From: lli+@cs.cmu.edu (Lori Iannamico)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey
Subject: Re: So long, Stanley Cup playoffs
Date: 10 Apr 92 19:20:50 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <sdtNZmK00UhWA1bXRZ@andrew.cmu.edu> Anna Matyas <am2x+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>
>>It doesn't bother me that they were paid before they struck.  For the
>strike to
>>be effective, the players had to strike at the most vunerable time for the 
>>owners.  And that time is the playoffs.  Personally, I'd think it be better
>>damn stupid of them to strike at the beginning of the season.  That would
>>play right into the owners' hands.
>> 
>>The owners would feel even less pressure to negotiate if the players stuck
>>prior to the season.   They may lose money on concession sales, but they'd
>>save in player salaries.
>
>I still don't look at it this way.  A strike at the beginning of the
>season would have the potential of lasting all year.  No season.
>No playoffs.  I think the owners would have to seriously think about
>the deterioration of the fan base at that point; this is something they
>don't have to really worry about now because fans are thirsting for
>hockey.  We might not consider that to be such an issue in Pittsburgh now,
>but if you were around during the lean years you know how awful it was
>to hear talk day after day about how the Penguins were going to leave
>the city.  Hartford, for one, faces this now and there may be others.
>
>The only money they'd "save" on player salaries is the money they've
>already made.  There would be no gate receipts, very little souvenir
>sales, etc.   If you're talking about a season with replacement players,
>then your point is more valid.  If it comes to that we all need to
>think long and hard about what to do with our season ticket renewals.
>The possibility exists that we could lose out in the process.  If
>that doesn't bother you, fine.  It bothers me.  

If the Pens had struck at the beginning of the year (with Coffey and Recchi
still on the payroll), mgmt could have saved at least 7-8 million dollars by 
not paying Lemieux, Stevens, Coffey, Recchi, Ulf and Francis.  So what if it's 
money already made?  Sales in tickets and concessions may equal only half of 
that, and I'm being generous in that estimate.  In the regular season, the 
owners spend out more than they take in.

Mgmt would also be spared the task of paying Pgh's ridiculously high 
amusement tax.  This would apply to gate sales, and I'm sure it would
apply to refunded season ticket sales.

The owners make their money in the playoffs.  The players are paid in full,
and basically make minimal (to them, not us) bonus money.  The owners benefit
most.

A lot of fans know right now that with the current playoff system, the regular
season doesn't mean that much.  They'd gladly skip the regular season and
go straight to the playoffs.  The owners know that, too.   The owners know
they could sacrifice a regular season if they knew the playoffs would be 
played, because the fans would come back for that.

As for "black and white" issues, I have nothing against the owners making 
money.  I've already said that.  I would prefer that the league be run in
a better, more effective manner. And I would like to think that this strike
will cause a number of the "old boys" to wake up.

Lori
Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey