October 7, 2012

Season-ticket holders frustrated with Bruins' options

By Jesse Connolly

In the final week of the NHL’s now-expired CBA, teams throughout the league reached out to season-ticket holders and presented their contingency plans in the event of a work stoppage. The options the Bruins offered went as follows: 

Bruins fans watch the action during Game 6 of the Cup finals last June. (Getty Images)

Option 1, deemed the “loyalty program,” offered a 3 percent APR credit on ticket money for games missed, but that credit and the payments had to stay on the account, as the option required fans to renew their season tickets for 2013-14 — though at the same price that was paid for 2012-13.

Option 2 offered a 1 percent APR credit. That credit also would have to stay on the account, but a monthly refund would be given for ticket money spent on games missed.

New England Hockey Journal reached out to a number of season-ticket holders for their thoughts on the options, and none of them were thrilled, especially one who realized that eight October games at $50 apiece — a sum of $400 — would net her a condolence prize of a single, solitary dollar with Option 1.

“It’s great we get to lock in our current price for season tickets, but making it mandatory in order to participate in Option 1 feels like we have a gun to our head,” Alison Foley said. “They’ve made it clear in the language that they want everyone to pick Option 1 and that Option 2 is only there because they have to give us another option.”

Dave Lenker, who has a pair of seats in the balcony, also is none too pleased with the options he’s been presented.

“This is basically the thanks I get for having season tickets for the past five seasons?” Lenker said. “A 3 percent APR credit and I still have to make monthly payments and keep my already-rising tickets locked in at a number where they’re ridiculously high? It’s a joke.”

Making matters worse is the fact that season-ticket holders won’t have the opportunity to voice their concerns with those who they believe should have to hear their thoughts.

“It is very frustrating that the Bruins scheduled their ‘State of the Bruins’ after the CBA expired. Whether that was a calculated move or not, it was very convenient for the organization’s higher-ups not to hear the concerns of their season-ticket holders,” said season-ticket holder Jaci Donahe. “I feel a lot of the backlash and confusion that I have read on message boards and Twitter could have been avoided if the ‘State of the Bruins’ was scheduled before Sept. 15. A lot of questions might have been answered then, but I don’t think the Bruins had any intention of ever having the event.

“I feel bad for the season-ticket holder reps that play the middlemen. It’s not fair for them to answer questions that (owners) Jeremy Jacobs or Charlie Jacobs should have had to answer themselves.”

This article originally appeared in the October 2012 issue of New England Hockey Journal.

Jesse Connolly is the Bruins beat writer for New England Hockey Journal and is the editor of hockeyjournal.com

Twitter: @JesseNEHJ
Email: jconnolly@hockeyjournal.com