Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
"Azzy77":3pq76h0w wrote:Thats a valid question Chris and I would like to know?
I have to stick my hand up and say perhaps I am not as unbiased as I would like to think I am…..
[/quote:3pq76h0w]I wasn’t trying to imply bias so much as I was wondering whether it was blatant enough for even Stampede supporters to have noticed it.
[quote:269gxhuu]I think they were concerned more with the Stampede getting away with similar things and not taking penalties.[/quote:269gxhuu]
Was that the general impression of those who saw the game, or just those on the thunder side?
Poll is here[/url:3k03duw2]
The first game, I’m going to pick the Admirals taking the Thunder 4-3, but then for a Thunder comeback, winning 6-2 in the second game, 7-0 in the third and 5-0 in the fourth.
How’s that for specifics?
” title=”Cheesy” />I dunno about kids not caring about the score. From the kids I’ve met, it seems like ALL they care about is the score!
If you’re thrashing someone and you let them have it easy to “even things up”, all that does is rob the other team of any pride in their achievements during the game, whatever they may be.
I’ve been on the receiving end of a couple of monster thrashings, and it made me feel good when I managed to stop that player who’d gotten past me every other time, or get that puck out of our zone.
If those teams had let us have it easy I would’ve found it somewhat disrespectful and definitely unsatisfying.
I think when you are up by that much, it is definitely a good time to work on other aspects of your play. I’ve never really been one for going to practices, and I learnt most of what little hockey I know out on the ice. If I were up 10=0 at the end of the first, I would probably start taking some more risks, pushing myself to do things which I’d seen better players do but had never attempted myself, that sort of thing.
I guess it is harder for the peewees because they are much better hockey players than I will ever be, and so therefore their room for improvement is not so obvious as mine.
For a player like me though, playing against a team where you are dominating would really give me a chance to try stuff that I would never do in a more competitive game.
"Ryan":2c7bit22 wrote:Apparently spelling is not part of the Queenstown school curriculum.[/quote:2c7bit22]
Nor is your mum.
It didn’t make any sense, but I made the call all the same. That’s commitment.
[quote:3rsgqqyx]Just because some of your handy work has traced the origins of the IP address back to queenstown, it doesnt necessarily mean it is someone from queenstown making comments[/quote:3rsgqqyx]
Yes, because IP addresses are the [b:3rsgqqyx]only[/b:3rsgqqyx] way to trace people online
” title=”Wink” />Kyle, with respect, you do seem to be completely lost here.
Yes, you get a lot of other benefits for being a club member, but Aaron hit the nail on the head with his response: If those benefits are something you want, then you become a club member. If they aren’t then you don’t.
It’s reasonable-ish to say, “well if you want to play SIHL or go to practices or whatever then you need to be a club member”. That’s great. But a lot of people don;t want that. They just want to turn up once a week for some organised hockey. If they have to pay a little more per game than club members to play then so be it.
How many people are in this category? Answer: all the people who haven’t signed up because the price is too high.
If you have a league full of members and you’re turning people away that the door, then what you want is fine. But you’re not. The last few seasons the DIHL has barely scraped off the ground.
If you want to grow the sport, you don’t make the barriers to entry high, you make them low. Now, you can charge members a reasonably high fee to get access to the subsidised club nights, the SIHL, the practices etc because at that level of involvement the benefits of membership are worth it. But for someone who just wants to play DIHL, which is a lot of people, it’s not worth it.
I know this because they have told Kara that they’re not signing up for that reason.
So, here’s the two scenarios:
I denote the number of players who only want to play DIHL by N, and those who want all the other stuff as well by M.Scenario A: Membership required.
Total number of DIHL players: M
Total expenses for DIHL: c (constant – above a threshold M>x marginal cost is zero)
Total profit from DIHL: aM – c (where a is the profit per person)
Total potential additional memberships generated: 0
Overall benefit to DIHA: aM – cScenario B: Membership not required, ‘casual’ players charged more
Total number of players: M+N
Total expenses for DIHL: c
Total profit from DIHL: aM + bN – c
Total potential additional memberships generated: N
Overall benefit to DIHA: aM +N(b + p f) – c
Where p is the percentage conversion of potential memberships to actual memberships and f is the membership fee (currently $100)Scenario B – Scenario A: aM +N(b + p f) – c -(aM – c) = N(b + p f)
Since all these variables are positive, the net benefit to the club of allowing ‘casual’ players is always greater than zero.
QED
P.S.
[quote:q8nvpwni]I was responding to Aaron’s point that people feel they pay for the referees. Referees don’t magically appear out of no where, we train them.[/quote:q8nvpwni][quote:277z6383]It’s very important to the club. We are a club of members. To do anything for non-members would have to have some positive purpose for members – ie money. We’re not an association about providing ordinary commercial ice hockey, that’s a business, which we’re not.[/quote:277z6383]
You’re selling a product. You may not think of it that way, but people are paying money for services you provide. That’s selling a product. When a product is priced higher than it is worth, people don’t buy it and, in common vernacular, the product sucks.
The DIHA’s product sucks. Hence, I, and many others like me, are not buying it.
[quote:277z6383]We could also provide commercially-based ice hockey for non-members. But it would be significantly more expensive. Your ice time costs would go up by 33%, so ~$60 becomes ~$80. We’d pay the scorebox and referees, so that’d be another $20/player, and we’d pay the person organising it, another $10/player. It’d work out at ~$110, plus any profit the club chose to make on it.[/quote:277z6383]
Current prices:
One season: $70 DIHL + $100 registration = $170
Two Seasons: $140 DIHL + $100 registration = $240 = $120 per seasonYou are aware that $110 is less than both $120 and $170, right?
i.e. The DIHA is actually lowering the marginal utility of its members. Sounds like an awesome deal to me….
[quote:ceyp0595]
There’s nothing left wing about the increase in registration. More a right-wing monopoly system. Like Telecom increasing its home line rentals.[/quote:ceyp0595]A government established monopoly is a distinctly left wing construct. Competition is the core of properly liberal economic philosophy.
[quote:ceyp0595]The reason you have to be a member to play in the DIHL is that’s a DIHA run competition, using DIHA resources, played using special DIHA members only ice rates.[/quote:ceyp0595]
That’s a rule the DIHA has made, that’s not a reason for the rule. As I said, charge me a little more for the competition to reflect those extra costs. They will not be equal to $100 for 7 games.
Give me a reason, not a rule.
There is absolutely no reason why you should have to be a member of the DIHA to play in the DIHL (hence the argument about a one-time $15 pseudo-registration fee being a loss leader is irrelevant).
I buy a lotto ticket. This does no require me to be a member of the lotteries commission.
The reality is this, plain and simple: Increase in price creates a decrease in the quantity consumed. Here’s your decrease.
Charge me $85 for the DIHL instead of $70. I’ll pay it. I’m not paying $170 for 7 weeks of hockey. That way the DIHL definitely makes a profit for the club without incurring the negative effects of the registration ‘tax’ (which, in the case of the casual DIHL player, the registration fee most certainly is).
Without being disrespectful, this is what lefties just don’t get. “We need more money, therefore raise taxes.” Wrong, wrong, a thousand times wrong.
I will not be playing DIHL because 7 games of hockey is not worth $170 to me. It is worth $85 to me. Charging $85 would pay for the dihl with a profit margin (the original $70) plus the $15 extra, giving a secure margin. Charging $170 gets you…. nothing at all. Since the marginal cost of having another player on the ice is zero, there is no reason not to allow casuals to play DIHL.
You can drag out the old “but you get all these extra benefits for registration…” argument. It’s the same argument people roll out while trying to prove that compulsary student union membership is a good thing. Well, here’s a message for all you union types: If I want the extra benefits, I’ll buy them. What you do, as a club, is you offer a price for casual players and a price for DIHA members for everything. That way, people who play enough hockey and want your socialised benefits will buy them, and if people don’t want them, they won’t buy them.
And after all, if people won’t buy them, then maybe what you’re offering isn’t worth having.
