I agree that hitting them where it hurts, in the pocket is a good idea.
I only see one problem with it. An example from baseball may suffice :
 
Ask yourself who sufferes the most during the baseball strike?
 
My answer (along with a great article in the NYT a while ago) is simple:
 
The owners don't suffer
The players don't suffer
The fans don't suffer
 
The people who work in ballparks suffer.
 
The owners and players can bitch all they want. The fans can just sit and
wonder why they can't agree. However, every maintenence worker, ticket taker,
roundsworker and even the concession seller has got to wonder if they will
have a job again in the spring. They were effectively shut out of a job once
the strike happened. The owner has got money. The player has money. The fan
has money. The workers do not. They have lost their income. They suffer when
they can no longer afford to pay their bills. They are the ones truly hurt
by the strike.
 
Now, if you boycot concessions in a hockey arena, when the manager of the
concessions sees the money not coming in, he or she will start to lay off
workers and then eventually close down altogether. So the boycott hurts the
employees who have no recourse.
 
Unfortunately, the only way to convince the owners that we care about what
is happening is to simply not show up at games. Again the worker in the arena
gets hurt, but so do the owners and the players. If you show up and not buy
food or drink or merchandise, once you are in the gate, once you pay for
the ticket, the owner has made his money.
 
Maybe we should do what several baseball fans did (and was suggested here).
We should go support the small local team, the college team, and so on. Show
the NHL that the fan support IS there for hockey, but until the NHL gets
its act together, we are not going to patronize the NHL.
 
Hopefully, they will settle their differences real soon.
 
Nazman
<[log in to unmask]>
.\