Boycott: Make a Statement

[Hallplante]

Boycott first period of Blues' first home game. #NHLFansUnite

[philco_3]

[cprice12]

That would be awesome if nobody were in the stands for the 1st period.

[F Keenan]

[cprice12]

:roll:

You no like?
I think it would be an amazingly hilarious statement if arenas around the NHL were empty for the entire first period of each team's first game. It would probably hit home more with the players than the owners, as the owners are still going to get their money from the tickets, but the players actually playing in front of nobody for a whole period? That would be a strong statement.

I get the impression that players take an awful lot for granted. Maybe they need a reminder of who pays their salaries and who they are pissing off. It would surely embarrass them to not be playing in front of anyone. It might make them think that if they pissed off enough fans, that maybe things would always be like this if another long lockout happens again in the near future.

The message? Don't bite the hand that feeds you or you might not get fed anymore.

There will probably be a lot of empty seats anyway...well, not the opening games, but the games after. A lot of fans aren't going to be there that would have been ordinarily. But some sort of organized effort that actually works would be awesome. Too bad it won't happen.

[glen a richter]

In theory it's a great idea. I'd even go a step further and say all fans should boycott the first period of every game including playoffs. But in reality, that's something that just won't happen. Not nearly enough people will pay full price for a ticket to see 2/3rds of a game. It's like when they have those gas boycotts that they send e-mails around to not buy gas on the first Wednesday of odd numbered months. A few people may do it, but not nearly enough to make an impact. The NHL won't care one bit if a few thousand fans around the league boycott one period a game because there's a few more thousand fans who won't. If you must go to the games, make a statement with strongly worded signs. If you choose not to go to the games, that's making a statement enough. On the overall, make a statement by not buying any merchandise bearing the team logo. By all means, buy food at the concession supporting the little man who got screwed by the lockout and tip the kid who serves you the food and rings you up. If you can get away with it, bring your own cup so you're not buying one with a logo on it, and tip the usher even if you know where your seats are. They're the ones who, along with us, got screwed these past few months.

[cardsfan04]

I get the anger and desire to stick it to em. But, I'm not boycotting. It's been hellish waiting for hockey to start. So, I'm not going to punish myself for their sins.

The first period thing sounds pretty cool though.

[thedoc]

A good and noble idea, but not going to happen. But I agree that it would be a powerful message.

[kodos]

A more powerful message would be if no one was in the stands for the whole game.

[thedoc]

Well I do know this. I canceled my half season plan. 1. With the shortened season I can't go to 2 or 3 games a week and 2. I know that the price that I paid for them I can buy my same seats for .50 to .60 cents on the dollar once the season starts. So they have already lost $1500.00

[theohall]

I will not boycott the Blues. St Louis had 3 player actually at the negotiations trying to end the lockout. Stillman certainly did not want to buy a team and immediately have the league go into a doggone lockout. Heck, little he could do being the most junior owner in the league. Boycotting the Blues for the actions of the other idiot owners when the Blues players actually worked on trying to end this thing sooner seems silly.

Want to boycott Minnesota, Washington, Boston, and the other ass-hat owners who were trying to get out of the massive contracts they offered, go right ahead. Just realize St Louis was NOT part of the problem as to why the lockout occurred and should not be held accountable for the actions of the other morons.

[STLADOGG]

I will not boycott the Blues. St Louis had 3 player actually at the negotiations trying to end the lockout. Stillman certainly did not want to buy a team and immediately have the league go into a doggone lockout. Heck, little he could do being the most junior owner in the league. Boycotting the Blues for the actions of the other idiot owners when the Blues players actually worked on trying to end this thing sooner seems silly.

Want to boycott Minnesota, Washington, Boston, and the other ass-hat owners who were trying to get out of the massive contracts they offered, go right ahead. Just realize St Louis was NOT part of the problem as to why the lockout occurred and should not be held accountable for the actions of the other morons.

You certainly make some good points.

[Oaklandblue]

Oh yeah, with our ticket sellers, vendors, hotel staffers, restaurant employees and everyone else that benefits from a Hockey game in town, let's boycott the first game.

Bloody IDIOTS. That changes nothing and is in line with the brand of stupidity we just witnessed.

You want REAL change, FIRE BETTMAN and his entire staff.

The Blues ownership had NOTHING to do with this, it's the SAME PEOPLE who have been pulling this BS since the Second Six Expansion, trying to weigh in the league to benefit THEM.

You want to pick a team to Boycott, how about the Rangers, the Red Wings, the Blackhawks...those who voted AGAINST profit sharing among the league and other common sense things that would help the NHL, but would take money out of their pockets, money that they've gotten from a system that allowed them to hoard it, so they did.

Boycott if the result is real change. Don't boycott cause you're mad, all it does is more damage to what you're trying to save.

[dmiles2186]

I will not boycott the Blues. St Louis had 3 player actually at the negotiations trying to end the lockout. Stillman certainly did not want to buy a team and immediately have the league go into a doggone lockout. Heck, little he could do being the most junior owner in the league. Boycotting the Blues for the actions of the other idiot owners when the Blues players actually worked on trying to end this thing sooner seems silly.

Want to boycott Minnesota, Washington, Boston, and the other ass-hat owners who were trying to get out of the massive contracts they offered, go right ahead. Just realize St Louis was NOT part of the problem as to why the lockout occurred and should not be held accountable for the actions of the other morons.

This pretty much sums up how I feel too. I was pretty upset and I think we all had a right to be. But the Blues weren't part of the problem. I heard Barrett Jackman admit on a STL Radio show (ITD Morning After) that it really was a waste of time and they probably could have agreed to the same deal months ago. But that's over now and hockey is back.

I mentioned in another thread, I could about guarantee you that Stillman in no way wanted this lockout. The Blues were one of the few smart franchises not tossing around ridiculous 10 year deals. They were giving out 2 year 'prove yourself' deals, and then awarding players with 4-5 year deals after that. Smart business. As the games get closer, I get more fired up that Blues hockey is back.

[Hallplante]

I concur that the Blues owners were probably not among the hard liners. It's mostly speculation because none of us were privy to the owners' meetings.

Is there a reliable list of the 30 owners that indicate whether each franchise should be punished or rewarded for its position during the labor dispute?

[cardsfan04]

I concur that the Blues owners were probably not among the hard liners. It's mostly speculation because none of us were privy to the owners' meetings.

Is there a reliable list of the 30 owners that indicate whether each franchise should be punished or rewarded for its position during the labor dispute?

I haven't seen an actual list. But, from the things I've heard, the big market, prominent teams were the issue. The small market teams were not.

[WaukeeBlues]

See, my anger and frustration has now been replaced by excitement so I don't know how well I'll do with all these ideas haha

[theohall]

I concur that the Blues owners were probably not among the hard liners. It's mostly speculation because none of us were privy to the owners' meetings.

Is there a reliable list of the 30 owners that indicate whether each franchise should be punished or rewarded for its position during the labor dispute?

I haven't seen an actual list. But, from the things I've heard, the big market, prominent teams were the issue. The small market teams were not.

This is incorrect. Minnesota is a small market team and Leopold, the owner, was one of the four in all of the early negotiations not budging on the contract thing which would have allowed him to get out of the 13 year deals he made with Parise and Suter. Like I said, hypocrisy in action.