| 0 |
Subject: How can one claim that they love this game?
Posted by: The Left Wings
- [490272013] Tue, Jan 25, 2005, 12:13
The answer is easy:
You are willing to pay to play the game.
If you don't want to play because you aren't paid enough, you are simply "working" without passion, instead of "playing" the game you love.
Bring on the replacement players who actually love the game. I don't want to watch the workers anymore. |
| 1 | C.SuperFreaks
ID: 50035259
Tue, Jan 25, 2005, 13:45
|
You can tell that hockey is not popular judging by the lack of hockey threads at rotoguru.
This should speak volumes about the state of the game.
|
| 2 | Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 030792616
Tue, Jan 25, 2005, 13:48
|
I'm just shocked that TLW has finally posted something that is not a leftist post.
|
| 3 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 2824911
Tue, Jan 25, 2005, 14:02
|
When it comes to hockey issues, TLW is... well... something different from leftist. For example, TLW on Scott Bertuzzi
|
| 4 | R9
Leader
ID: 02624472
Tue, Jan 25, 2005, 14:18
|
Scott Bertuzzi, that evil accountant brother of Canucks forward Todd...
http://www.bertuzzi.com/
|
| 5 | blue hen
ID: 372102211
Tue, Jan 25, 2005, 14:24
|
Oh I love my job. But I would NOT pay to do it.
|
| 6 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 2824911
Tue, Jan 25, 2005, 14:30
|
I don't take any issue with what TLW says here. I think I get what he means and I don't think he intends it literally.
Obviously, I could love something, but love even more the idea of getting rich from it.
|
| 7 | Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 030792616
Tue, Jan 25, 2005, 14:38
|
And others might work to be quite good at it if they are paid well for it.
|
| 8 | Tree
ID: 76471215
Tue, Jan 25, 2005, 17:45
|
in the U.S. hockey is at best the fourth most popular team sport, and quite frankly, could very well be fifth, behind soccer.
there is a small, but rabid, fan base for hockey. but as evidenced by numbers coming back in various polls, most Americans don't care about hockey...
|
| 9 | Valkyrie
ID: 190152323
Tue, Jan 25, 2005, 20:58
|
Hockey might be sixth or even seventh behind NASCAR and arena league football by now LOL and that just counts professional or semiprofessional sports. They never could compete with NCAA basketball.
|
| 10 | walk
Leader
ID: 32928238
Wed, Jan 26, 2005, 11:22
|
I love hockey and miss it, and easily see this season as gone. I think the players think they made a huge concession offering a 24% pay cut, and the owners just chose the wrong sport in which to own a team -- it doesn't make enough $ (lack of TV revenues). It's a fast, exciting, rough and sometimes beautiful sport, and a shame that the powers that be cannot figure out a way to make it work so that they are actually doing what they were all trained to do - play.
I'm assuming the players are at the whim of the union leaders and lawyers who are no way going to accept a cap, but will the NHL actually survive without one? I dunno.
- walk
|
| 12 | walk
Leader
ID: 32928238
Wed, Jan 26, 2005, 11:26
|
Oh, and I realize tha TLW was referring to the players, not the fans. I don't understand after a while why the players don't just say: "the heck with it, let's give them the dumb cap and plaaaay." This is what leads me to suspect that they have little say, and it's their union-based lawyers who are representing their best interests who say: "no cap, we know what's best for you." I have no idea though, but the option of not playing and not making any money seems less preferable.
- walk
|
| 13 | R9
Leader
ID: 02624472
Wed, Jan 26, 2005, 14:22
|
Especially the players in their prime, who are throwing away one of their best years to make NOTHING. We've all seen what happens to any player who speaks out though; two days later he 'revises' his comments after meeting with the league. Not much better on the owner's side either. A real 'dialoge', eh? :(
|
| 14 | KrazyKoalaBears
ID: 7123216
Thu, Feb 03, 2005, 18:20
|
As long as they continue one more night so that I can see Jason Spezza tear it up against the Norfolk Admirals tomorrow! ;) Seriously though, the players need to wake up and realize that hockey does not pull in the millions that other sports do, therefore they're not going to get paid the millions that other athletes do if they want their league to survive. The 24% salary rollback was a good gesture, but it's funny that the players will offer it without allowing it to remain in place. In other words, they offered it knowing salaries would skyrocket again. I also like that the NHL is proposing a cap that requires team to spend a MINIMUM amount. So no team can field a $10M team. I actually think the NHL has a good idea. I just wish the players would realize it.
|
| 15 | WiddleAvi
ID: 91361410
Mon, Feb 14, 2005, 11:39
|
What are the chances of the fans forming a union ?? The owners and players are sitting there fighting over millions & millions of dollars and meanwhile it's the fans who get screwed. All that money they are fighting over is OUR money. It's time we say that owners & players need to get less money and lower ticket prices. Otherwise we go on strike :-)
|
| 16 | J
Leader
ID: 049346417
Tue, Feb 15, 2005, 11:14
|
seems to me like the first signs of progress in this mess comes 24 hours before the announcement of the cancellation of the season????
NHL players agree to salary cap
Progress made on key issue but amount remains a stumbling block
New York — With the National Hockey League still making plans to cancel the remainder of the season, the two sides moved toward each other on the key issue of the salary cap, although not close enough to make a deal.
The Players Association said early today that the league offered a proposal "that included a significant move in the players' direction" and that the players made a counter-proposal "that featured an unprecedented move of their own."
The particulars, according to the union:
• The league altered its salary cap proposal so that the cap would be a fixed amount - $40 million - rather than linked to a percentage of league-wide revenues.
• And the union responded by agreeing for the first time to accept a cap as long as it was at a much higher figure - $52 million. The union also proposed what it called "more aggressive tax thresholds and tax rates" that would curtail spending before the hard cap was reached.
The league rejected the union proposal, presumably because the $52 million cap figure is so high. The league was seeking a cap of around $31 million when these negotiations began.
"It is indeed unfortunate that with the major steps taken by both sides we were unable to build enough momentum to reach an agreement," Players Association senior director Ted Saskin said in a statement early this morning.
There was no word on whether the two sides would meet again today.
But the argument, for the first time, has become more about numbers than philosophy.
Until this latest turn of events, all of the league's proposals linked a salary cap to a percentage of revenues, meaning the cap would rise or fall along with the league's revenues. And all of the union's prior proposals and statements had rejected any sort of cap under any conditions.
Clearly, the imminent threat of cancellation of the season has caused movement, although not yet enough to get a deal done.
The league was less forthcoming than the union about the latest round of talks, saying only that, in the end, "no progress was made." The league declined further comment.
On Monday, the league held a conference call with its 30 teams' public relations and marketing officials about procedures in the event of cancellation, and commissioner Gary Bettman scheduled a 1 p.m. Wednesday news conference at the same Times Square hotel where he announced the start of the lockout exactly five months ago today.
Bettman, who earlier vowed to cancel the season if a new labor deal were not in place by the end of last weekend, is expected to make good on that threat at Wednesday's news conference - unless a deal is in the works before then.
And as of Monday, the league and its players' union had not abandoned that remote possibility.
NHL executive vice president Bill Daly and the Players' Association's Saskin, the No. 2 officials on each side, met well into the night in Niagara Falls, Ontario, trying to prevent the NHL from becoming the first major North American sports league to lose an entire season to a labor dispute. If the season is cancelled, the Stanley Cup will go unclaimed for the first year since 1919, when a flu epidemic stopped the finals.
"My emotions go from strong frustration to huge disappointment" about the prospect of cancellation, Atlanta Thrashers general manager Don Waddell said Monday.
"Obviously, time is running out for us. There are concerns that time is going to expire and a deal is not going to get done. I'm disappointed for us as a team and for our fans."
The league did not tell its teams' owners and executives Monday that the season will be canceled, advising them only that plans need to be made. Teams were advised, for example, to schedule their own news conferences after Bettman's on Wednesday.
The owners previously gave Bettman sole authority to cancel the season.
The league's preparation for cancellation Monday included reinstating a ban against owners and team officials discussing the labor situation with their players.
It also reinstated strict rules regarding what owners and team officials are allowed to say to the media about the situation.
Bettman had relaxed both of those restrictions on Friday, resulting in many owner-player or GM-player conversations and many rumors of possible alternative approaches to a deal.
The NHL claims league-wide losses of $1.8 billion over the past decade and almost $500 million over the past two seasons.
|
| 17 | Silentz
ID: 479231410
Tue, Feb 15, 2005, 11:43
|
The worst part is that they ended up with an offer that EVERYONE knew would be the final outcome anyway.... The players gave in to the cap and the owners gave up the revenue linkage.
|
| 18 | wolfer
ID: 58546215
Tue, Feb 15, 2005, 12:40
|
Here is the ironic part in all this:
1918 - Red Sox win the World Series
1919 - flu epidemic wipes out Stanley Cup
2004 - Red Sox win the World Series
2005 - Lockout wipes out the Stanley Cup?
|
| 19 | Tree
ID: 76471215
Tue, Feb 15, 2005, 13:50
|
at one point in my life, i was a hockey fan. for the nearly-decade i lived in massachusetts, i was a Bruins fan. became pretty hardcore about it pretty fast.
but let's face it - the powers that be have killed hockey, and it was dying before this labor issue put it on life support.
in a league where tradition should be everything, tradition meant nothing.
expansion happened WAY too fast, conferences with cool names like Patrick and Norris were jettisoned in favor of "southeast" and "north", and the ownership of many teams were a joke - a joke surpassed only by the joke of a commissioner.
perhaps something good will come out of this - maybe a 16-20 team league, with 8 to 10 teams making the playoffs instead of nearly everyone.
the NHL, as it stood last season, sucked.
|
| 20 | Motley Crue
Leader
ID: 439372011
Tue, Feb 15, 2005, 13:57
|
Stupid Hockey.
|
| 21 | KrazyKoalaBears
Leader
ID: 517553018
Wed, Feb 16, 2005, 08:42
|
Silentz: No lie! Both sides basically wasted almost 5 months of negotiations bickering about things they both knew they would have to give into. So now where do we stand? $6.5 million apart with just over 2 hours until the deadline. To think that they could have been $6.5 million apart 5 months ago is just ridiculous.
|
| 23 | KrazyKoalaBears
Leader
ID: 517553018
Wed, Feb 16, 2005, 13:07
|
It's official: No season.
|
| 24 | Motley Crue
ID: 421571610
Wed, Feb 16, 2005, 13:30
|
It's official: Spring Training starts next week.
Good riddance to hockey. I hardly knew ye.
|
| 25 | tommyd
ID: 46928248
Wed, Feb 16, 2005, 13:40
|
Sad, I don't know how this helps the players. The league's popularity was at an all-time low and this definitely doesn't help. By the time the league starts again (if it ever does as the NHL)some teams will be eliminated therefore eliminating jobs. I'm a big hockey fan and honestly I couldn't care if it came back on the TV. The worst thing is players like Steve Yzerman might not get a chance to have a proper retirement.
|
| 26 | The Beezer
Leader
ID: 191202817
Wed, Feb 16, 2005, 17:49
|
"Bettman announces more legroom in all seats for next 20 years"
I think it's safe to say that hockey in most of the south is dead for quite awhile. So, which franchises will make it? It's hard to see much past the original 6, Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Philly, StL, NYI, NJ, Colorado, with maybe Minny, LA, Tampa (at least for a bit), Buffalo and Pittsburgh (if finances can be fixed) added in.
Of course, if another season gets affected, we might get just the original 6 back after all.
|
| 27 | Toral
ID: 22731114
Wed, Feb 16, 2005, 17:51
|
TSN's team-by-team summary of where they stand.
|
| 28 | The Left Wings
ID: 6142019
Wed, Feb 16, 2005, 19:33
|
*legs up on the ottoman, with iced tea in hand*
I'm enjoying my first break from fantasy sports in 7 years. I guess it's time to brush up on my offseason baseball news.
As much as I love the game of hockey, I just can't bring myself to pay to watch those who claim to love the game but in fact only play it for the money. I don't care about the Brodeurs of the NHL anymore. I'll only pay to watch those who aren't playing for the money, those who regard their paychecks as one of the perks that comes with achieving their life-long dreams of making the NHL (as opposed to the life-long dreams of playing hockey just to make money).
Bottomline: you don't need to earn $5M a year (minus tax) to live a comfortable life.
The players have no case whatsoever. They should be happy just because there was a 10-year window in which they squeezed some of the owners dry. Now they are just taking the routine-squeezing for granted.
Remember, this is not your usual labour dispute, in which the labour actually needs to make more money in order to keep up their living standards to normal (often times just over the poverty level).
Go Bettman. The players are so ungrateful.
|
| 29 | Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 030792616
Wed, Feb 16, 2005, 19:43
|
I just can't bring myself to pay to watch those who claim to love the game but in fact only play it for the money.
Luckily, all the owners are in the game for the same reason and give their money away to charity.
|
| 30 | The Beezer
Leader
ID: 191202817
Wed, Feb 16, 2005, 23:06
|
Thanks for the link Toral. I think they're a bit too optimistic, but frankly right now I'll take all the optimism I can get. I think the Hurricanes will be gone in 5 years tops - likely relocated but they may just fold.
|
| 31 | KrazyKoalaBears
Leader
ID: 517553018
Thu, Feb 17, 2005, 13:11
|
I just can't bring myself to pay to watch those who claim to love the game but in fact only play it for the money. In that case, you should definitely give up baseball and consider giving up football, basketball, soccer, and many other sports where ticket prices have gotten way out of hand because the players and owners all want to make more money than they really need to.
|
| 32 | The Left Wings
ID: 6142019
Fri, Feb 18, 2005, 07:27
|
No, there's a difference.
During the NHL lockout, the players keep claiming that they want to play on TV, but they are the ones who refuse to play. Sure, it is the owners who locked them out, but whether to play or not is really in the players' hands.
The players keep talking about "fair market value". Well, the "fair market value" is way less than what they are making.
The proposed 24% rollback is bogus. The players' salaries have risen way more than 24% since the last CBA. The 24% did not show the willingness of the players to negotiate, but it showed that the players are being overpaid so much that they can accept a 24% paycut in the snap of fingers. Bettman is absolutely correct that the salary rollback does not solve the problem. It merely elongates the problem for about a decade, and it'll resurface again.
We may lose a season or two, but at least that would guarantee that we won't miss any more seasons decades down the road.
On the other hand, it's kinda interesting to see Gretzky and Lemieux on the other side of the labour dispute. Will they be considered sellouts by the players?
|
| 33 | wolfer
Sustainer
ID: 18639422
Fri, Feb 18, 2005, 07:52
|
If you want a good laugh (or cry).
During it interview, Goodenow claimed that the owners were NOT LOSING as much as the owners are claiming by not playing this season.
|
| 34 | wolfer
ID: 58546215
Fri, Feb 18, 2005, 09:39
|
Re 33
What I meant to say was that Goodenow was disputing the fact that the owners were losing less by not playing.
|
| 35 | Dec
ID: 318412312
Fri, Feb 18, 2005, 18:24
|
The owners are the ones to blame here. They put themselves in the mess and now they don't honor their signature on contracts they signed.
The players give them 24% back (kind of reopen contracts) and it's was not enought.
The solution is easy, stop giving multi-year contracts and pay what you can afford and if the players are not happy, they can always go in Europe.
|
| 36 | Tree
Sustainer
ID: 599393013
Fri, Feb 18, 2005, 19:04
|
The owners and their shill, the david stern wannabe named Bettman, are as much as fault as the players - to find fault with the players only is ludicrious.
sure, you don't need 5 million bucks a year to be comfortable. but, welcome to major league sports, where all players want their fair share.
ultimately, i blame Bettman.
why?
because revenue and expansion are tied into television - which, in a nutshell, sucks, when it comes to the NHL.
the players need to realize that with no TV, there are no high salaries - but, more importantly, the insane expansion of the NHL while lacking in any real television exposure was mismanagement at its finest.
|
| 37 | Toral
ID: 22731114
Fri, Feb 18, 2005, 19:08
|
Maybe not over?
WGR 550 in Buffalo is reporting as a fact that a group of hockey players and owners is attending a meeting in New York City this weekend and have already reached tentative understandings that will lead to an agreement and an "uncancelling" of the season.
Interesting: their radio reporters are looking to a blog run by Pelle Eklund, a former NHL player who, radio hosts in search of a great story say, maintains good contacts with both players and owners and has anticipated many moves in the dispute.
Blog here. Interesting reading, even if speculation.
Toral
|
| 38 | KrazyKoalaBears
Leader
ID: 517553018
Fri, Feb 18, 2005, 19:32
|
TLW, "fair market value" is whatever someone will pay you to do what you do. Whether you think they're worth it or not isn't the point. If we, or enough people to keep hockey alive, are willing to pay $35/ticket to watch the game, then that's "fair market value." If we're willing to pay $50, then that's "fair market value." Some people think $1600 is too much for tickets to the Super Bowl, others don't. No matter what, you said, "I just can't bring myself to pay to watch those who claim to love the game but in fact only play it for the money." and you have that in every sport being played. Dec, The players give them 24% back (kind of reopen contracts) and it's was not enought. It's not enough because it would only take a year or two for the richer clubs to push salaries that high again. It's not a long-term solution. The solution is easy, stop giving multi-year contracts and pay what you can afford and if the players are not happy, they can always go in Europe. You say that as if every club were overspending. The problem the NHL has is the same that MLB has. You have a select few clubs paying as much money as they want for whomever they want. That artificially increases the value of players such that the less rich teams are bankrupt if they want to have just one or two stars, which they'll need to put fans in the seats because who want's to watch a loser, right? Both sides are to blame. No doubt about it. The players are unrealistic to think that an open market is the best solution. One can look at the disparity in MLB to see that. Compare it to the salary capped NFL where (most) every fan can think their team has a shot before the season starts. Further, the NHL wanted to put a MINIMUM cap in place, preventing owners from just rolling over and playing dead with their teams. The owners are willing to spend money, just not TOO much money. But, there are owners who put themselves in this position and, to be fair, the owners could have certainly pushed the cap a bit higher than what they were offering without breaking the bank. They said they wanted "economic certainty" but they wanted more than that. No matter what, a salary cap will be in place eventually and it will benefit hockey long-term.
|
| 39 | Toral
ID: 22731114
Fri, Feb 18, 2005, 21:49
|
Further to 37, TSN Story.
|
| 40 | The Dienasty
ID: 37105817
Sat, Feb 19, 2005, 00:56
|
We'll be playing by March 5th.
|
| 41 | Tree
Sustainer
ID: 599393013
Sat, Feb 19, 2005, 07:21
|
We'll be playing by March 5th.
more stupidity on the part of the NHL.
Baseball's spring training games start a couple days prior.
the start of the NHL season will be a blip on the radar, then will again disappear from the U.S. sports scene.
Hockey needs to do something to get people excited, or it needs to accept that, like soccer, the professional game in this country will always be a niche sport, while the international game will generate more excitement.
this season is lost, so might as well take the snowglobe and jiggle it around.
run a mega-tournament based on last year's standings...best of seven in each round...to ensure that everyone keeps playing, make sure there's a loser's bracket...
|
| 42 | KrazyKoalaBears
Leader
ID: 517553018
Sat, Feb 19, 2005, 20:08
|
The season is dead... again.
|
| 43 | Dec
ID: 318412312
Mon, Feb 21, 2005, 15:44
|
LW - 28 (you don't need to earn $5M a year (minus tax) to live a comfortable life... blahblahblah)
If as a player you bring 2000 extra fans at 100$ for 41 home game, you worth +8M/year for your team and 16M for the league. Just check Pittburgh attendance with and without Lemieux
KKB 38-
Bettman plan's was CAP= (Total Revenu * 52% or whatever % number) / Number of teams. If you can't agree with Total revenu, you have a problem calculating the CAP.
You can't compare NFL with any others sports, their national TV contract share by every teams is enought to operate any teams without any local revenu.
In the NHL, they wan't to introduce a cap without any revenue sharing, those two go together. Since they don't have anything global to share (about 5M/team), there is too much disparity between rich and poor teams.
The Cap will only help rich teams to have a "economic certainty" to make bigger profit. For the poor team, it won't change anything cause they will be in the red no matter what the CAP is.
If you want to translate to MLB, I have no problem with the Yankees having a 200M payroll with 2 or 3 teams over 100M and the average around 50M. I just have a problem with a Mickey Mouse luxury tax starting at 100M. Start the tax at 50M (or whatever the average payroll should be) and pay the tax $1 for $1 for anything extra. Now the rich teams will think twice before adding to their payroll.
Rich teams will (or should) always have bigger payroll than poor teams, if not they better win cause as a fan I will, and I have the right to question their motivations.
So just put a real luxury (1 for 1) tax starting at the average salary minus 24% (and the players union's have nothing to say against it) and we will see if the salary will go up.
|
| 44 | KrazyKoalaBears
Leader
ID: 517553018
Mon, Feb 21, 2005, 18:23
|
Bettman plan's was CAP= (Total Revenu * 52% or whatever % number) / Number of teams. If you can't agree with Total revenu, you have a problem calculating the CAP. Originially, yes. But when the players agreed to accept a cap WITHOUT a tie to revenues, the owners agreed to accept that. So, the only thing to agree on is a cap amount. You can't compare NFL with any others sports, their national TV contract share by every teams is enought to operate any teams without any local revenu. You say that as if it was always the case. It wasn't. The fans will move to whatever excites them. Look at NASCAR's rise, both on the track and on TV. People talk as if the NHL as it is now is how it will always be. It doesn't have to be that way. If you want to translate to MLB, I have no problem with the Yankees having a 200M payroll with 2 or 3 teams over 100M and the average around 50M. Well, I suppose, at heart, this is where we disagree. So be it. I prefer to see a league full of teams that all have a legitimate shot at winning the championship.
|
| 45 | The Left Wings
ID: 6142019
Sat, Feb 26, 2005, 11:01
|
Well then, let's bring down the "fair market value" then. All it takes is a little mutual understanding among all the GMs. It's not collusion if things are understood and nothing is verbally communicated, right? Just stop offerring those ridiculous contracts (Fedorov, Holik, McCarty, etc.) and we'll be a lot better already.
Say, Jagr wants $10M for his next contract, but no team offers him more than $5M. He can sit out for the rest of his career if he wants to.
|
| 46 | Dr. Doom
ID: 7113048
Sat, Feb 26, 2005, 12:47
|
The NHLPA is a walking talking contradiction when it comes to collusion. There whole existence in the past few years is based on the premise "Martin Lapointe" you can't sign for less than this because everyone behind you who's looking for a contract can base their salary on the ridiculour amount that you will get.
You can insert any name you want in place of the one I used. Every ridiculous contract begets several more equally inane signings.
If the owners want to spend less, that should be their prerogative. If the players don't like it, there is a little thing called retraining they could look into. Perhaps filling grocery bags, or filling my car with gas is something they might like better. Losers!
|
| 47 | Motley Crue
Leader
ID: 439372011
Mon, Mar 14, 2005, 11:05
|
Did I mention that the world is better off without pro hockey? It gives people more time to pay attention to soccer. The World Cup is just around the corner.
|
| 48 | The Left Wings
ID: 6142019
Wed, Mar 16, 2005, 02:47
|
Vancouver Canucks tickets: $38/$50/insane
Vancouver Giants tickets: $17/$19
Intensity? Comparable.
I really have a problem with those people who think that the owners should pay the players as much as the players demand because they are "the best players in the world". Who cares about the players being "the best" when they have no passion in hockey.
|
| 49 | WiddleAvi
ID: 24081811
Wed, Mar 16, 2005, 08:36
|
TLW - It's not like if the players agree to less money that ticket prices would get lowered. All it would mean is the owners would make more money.
That were the fans need to stand up and make a statement that the players need to make less money, the owners need to make less money and ticket prices need to be lowered.
|
| 50 | KyleTierney
ID: 33444511
Thu, May 05, 2005, 12:49
|
Here it is, Hockey is a sport that cant be denied. The only sport like it with few cheap knock off sports surrounding it and if your a true hockey fan then you are. Playing would be a plus but its your love for the game. ~Kyle~
|
| 51 | The Left Wings
ID: 6142019
Sat, May 21, 2005, 19:25
|
Sure, Widdle, but you can't deny that often the ticket prices are raised so that the team can keep up with its expenditures, of which most went to the players. If the players get less money, then the teams could afford to raise the prices less often, or they may even lower the prices to attract more people to go watch.
|
| 52 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 25337239
Sat, May 21, 2005, 22:49
|
Please. Ticket prices will continue to increase as the fans show that they are willing to absorb the costs. Just like any other business, the objective is always to maximize profits. Generally, I think, if attendance is down, ticket and concession prices freeze. If attendance still falls, prices might even go down. When attendance goes up, the prices will go up as soon after.
|
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|