Does the drastic level of overpricing bother you?

[Chadd 916]

Skates are priced like every other product in the world, by what the market will bear. Could they be sold for less, sure, but why would anyone do that? Manufacturers do a lot of research to determine the point where the sweet spot is in regards to cost/sale price. Then, they do everything they can to produce the right number of skates at the right price points to maximize their profits. After all of that, most hockey companies still lose money. Selling stuff for less than they do now would likely do nothing more than result in more losses.

[ridindirty 11]

OP, I have no idea why you quoted me and then didn't pay attention to the point of my post. The juxtaposition of comparing an industry where hand crafted shoes carry a premium vs an industry where carbon composite boots, with the necessary R&D into the material, the performance, the manufacturing processes, etc, carry the brunt of the cost should be evident to anyone.

The two things couldn't be further apart, and are a horrible comparison.

[DarkStar50 679]

This isn't an issue if you use tried and true materials and designs. Do you really think a player couldn't be competitive today wearing e.g. CCM 652 Vacu Tacks or Micron Mega 10-90s?

If today's player was in 652 VT, Micron 10-90s or even 5000s, he would be at a competitive disadvantage. Today's skates are significantly lighter which reduces fatigue over the course of a game. Lighter IS faster. Today's Curv composite upper are so much stronger than ballistic nylon uppers and the Curv composite due to its stiffness provides an incredible energy transfer through the boot to the ice.

I addressed this in an earlier post ("All of those costs were considered automatically simply by using the $45 skates as an example ..."). Also, high end skates in the '80s and '90s didn't break down fast.

I have been selling skates at retail since 1979. Did you ever own a pair of Daoust 301 skates? These skates were #1 in the early to mid 80s. And NHLers and everyone else would kill them in no time. The leather interior and leather inner sole would dry out and crack from the salt in your sweat. Often Tuuk repairs became impossible because there was no leather sole left to hold a rivet. Bauer Supreme 100s? Great skates that started Bauer's rise to the top of the skate market. Skate life? Not so long. They were generally shot after one season. The next generation 1000 also still had a leather interior that eventually cracked and rotted. I sent a few pair of those to Zwicker's to get them relined with clarino back in the mid 80s. 1985 CCM Tacks with the L shaped interior heel lock pad? How many guys cut that L pad if it didn't rest up perfectly to your ankle? Quite a lot more than you can imagine. Once you cut the interior, the skate was rapidly falling apart. Skates in the early 90s were still going to an early death as the now plastic inner sole would crack and once again, nothing to sink a rivet into for a skate repair. All of today's skates last light years in time compared to those skates. I think that speaks to all the R D & D that goes into today's skates. One of those hidden costs that have to accounted for.

Bauer Supreme Composite which I bought new in the winter of '95/'96, the first year they came out. They are the ones that had the little raised section of sole by the heel that said "COMP" on them and they didn't have the number "5000" written on them anywhere, like so.

Just to clarify, you are skating on 15 year old technology and feel justified in commenting on today's high end skates that you have never used?

[bunnyman666 445]

I don't want to come across as insulting, but the OP has a very simplified view of costs versus R&D, versus materials, profit, advertising and the like. If the skates were direct to the consumer, you would cut out a small amount of the cost-adding factors, though not nearly as much as one would think. And let me tell you- there is a BUNCH of difference in the materials cost of the $800 boot versus the $89 boot. The $89 boot generally is constructed with cheaper materials, a lack of heat-mouldable foam, no composites, and cheaper footbeds, as well as older, proven and outdated construction techniques. Remember that R&D, advertising and marketing, NHL endorsements, warrantees, product insurance, and the like will contribute to the cost, as well. Multiple size options increase prices, as well. If everyone were a size 7.5 D, they would be a lot cheaper.

When buying at full nick (which is insane, IMO), the best value is the upper-mid level, as it was the top of the line at some point. The R&D was paid off LONG ago. You're not at the top of the heap, but you have something that is advanced as almost anyone (save for a professional) could possibly need.

When I was manufacturing bespoke composite bicycle parts, people had often wondered why the price was so seemingly exorbitant. I had one simple answer: I made it for YOU. I have to make an entirely new mould, make splashes from the mould, tweak as necessary, then test layups, weights, test the product to failure, then make the product that ends up in the customer's hands. With mass production, the cost does get reduced. But I guarantee those $800 boots could easily be doubled IF they were not mass-produced. I did make a few mass-produced items, and the prices were reflected in my ability to mould ten Campagnolo Delta brake covers at a time, and the product liability insurance was nearly nothing.

[Chadd 916]

When buying at full nick (which is insane, IMO), the best value is the upper-mid level, as it was the top of the line at some point. The R&D was paid off LONG ago. You're not at the top of the heap, but you have something that is advanced as almost anyone (save for a professional) could possibly need.

One step down is usually that sweet spot, but even those prices have more than doubled in the last decade.

[bunnyman666 445]

One step down is usually that sweet spot, but even those prices have more than doubled in the last decade.

Yeah- it varies with each industry, but you're right, those prices have gone up considerably.

[ridindirty 11]

Another thing of note: Goodyear welted shoes range from ~250 to 1400, if not more.

Again, while I understand the OP 's question, his logic and analogies leave a lot unanswered.

[Souldriver 64]

One step down is usually that sweet spot, but even those prices have more than doubled in the last decade.

Unfortunately, never thought I would happily pay $400 for a roller skate but I did this past summer. Big sales or buying last years closeout is the key.

[MaximRecoil 7]

Yeah high end skates cost a hole bunch now but no one asked you to buy them.

And of course, no one suggested that anyone asked me to buy them. In fact, I wouldn't wear any of them even if given to me for free, as I mentioned in my OP.

Also comparing things to 70s and 80s prices are a bit bunk bc back in the 70s $180 was worth a ton more and that's just economics not hockey.

In the '70s, top of the line skates were about $70. $70 in 1975 translates to $303.10 in 2013, not $850 or $900. $180 in 1989 translates to $338.16.

There is also more than materials and labor going into it.

I've already addressed that more than once now.

Look at it this way, just 10 years ago the top of the line video card for computers was about $180. Now the top of the line can cost you a full grand. You get an immense card for that but most people won't or can't take advantage of that. And for much less you can get the next closest card which in the end is still overkill for most and may only but out about 10 fps less. the computer market has a word for people who like the best and that's "enthusiast." Most people won't need or get the enthusiast card but people buy it still and the r&d for that product trickles down.

Video cards have specific parameters, and their performance can be directly measured by benchmark tests, and the differences in performance between cheap cards and expensive ones are huge. Name an aspect of skating that one can automatically drastically improve simply by spending an extra $600 on skates. Any performance improvements people get from different skates tend to be a result of finding a model that fits better, and/or a different blade/holder geometry, which means not everyone will experience performance benefits, the performance benefits won't always some from the more expensive skates (they may come from a cheaper skate), and they are also relatively minor.

nike and reebok are both great examples.... as in both of those companies are or will be out of the skate business, and hockey business entirely. if the markup is indeed as much as you believe it is, this wouldnt be the case, they would have kept pumpin them out.

Not necessarily. A successful business strategy involves more than just "higher prices = higher profits". You also have to sell a lot of them. Also, you can't unring a bell. You have an entire generation now that is conditioned to believe that the most awesome skates on the market should cost eight or nine hundred dollars, so let's say they try to now sell them at a much more reasonable $300. $300 skates? Those can't possibly be the best, right?

If its so profitable with multiple times over profit margins, how come Warrior, with new balance backing, hasnt entered the skate market yet?

See above.

Ive tried skating in lower end 79 dollar model skates, its not fun, i notice a huge difference in performance in the 350 range which i usually stick to, otherwise as an intelligent consumer id just go with the cheapest skates i could, instead of the cheapest skates that do what i need them too. If i had the money to splurge on a higher end skate, i would. I also have noticed a difference at events where I try on higher end skates, I just dont need the 850 model for beer leagues, but I can see where someone might think they would.

I never said that the more expensive skates don't use better materials and methods of construction, just not ~$800 worth of better materials and methods of construction, nor anywhere close. I'd also like to see hard numbers supporting the better performance claim, that is, timed laps around the rink or weaving through cones or whatever, with the $79 skates and the $350 skates (and the $850 skates for that matter), making sure everything is as equal as possible in terms of fit and blade/holder geometry. As far as anecdotes go, I've already provided one, i.e., bottom end "American Cougars" or top end Micron Mega 10-90s didn't make a bit of difference in terms of performance to Doug.

and yes, those companies do create the material, but there are costs associated with creating those materials which are passed onto the company which purchase them, and you still need RD staff to work out what materials work best with your product and what ratios. Higher end skates were made in Canada for a while, which would have higher labor costs involved, however this may not be the case anymore.

Yes, some materials are more expensive than others, but we aren't talking about the difference between gold and lead here. The difference is not astronomical.

and besides, if the difference in performance is so negligable, why are you angered by the overpricing in the first place? just get the lower end models and use those.

I find overpricing to be annoying in general, and in this particular case, I'm annoyed that hype, "all man-made materials", and over-the-top pricing has completely displaced the basic high quality skates you used to be able to get for reasonable prices, such as the old CCM 251 Sport Tacks for $120 in the late 1980s and early 1990s; constructed of the same real leather, mesh, lining, footbed, tongue, blades/holders as their more expensive 451s, and even identical to their top of the line 651s with the exception of the ankle padding material (the 651s were available as "Custom Fit" and "Vacu Tacks", rather than having conventional padding). Starting in the mid 1990s, the lower end Tacks (a name which had always meant quality before, no matter which version you bought), such as the 252, and even worse, a new level of low with the 152, started being made overseas out of fake leather, and still carrying the same price tags. This was the beginning of the end as far as I'm concerned.

[MaximRecoil 7]

Another thing of note: Goodyear welted shoes range from ~250 to 1400, if not more.

Or $35.27. There is nothing special about Goodyear welt construction, that is, if there are some that are as expensive as you say, it is not because of Goodyear welt construction.

Again, while I understand the OP 's question, his logic and analogies leave a lot unanswered.

What analogies, and what is unanswered?

[Buzz_LightBeer 974]

I don't quite equate "overpriced," with "expensive" the way you do. For something to be "overpriced" one would think the benefits of the product don't match the cost in terms of technology, durability, and performance.

Manufacturers will have several models between the top of the line, and the beginner, that will fit most all needs and budgets. To think an NHLer could go out in entry level skates and produce the same results is just asinine. Perhaps for one session, but certainly not for a season, or a career.

You've made it clear that you've never tried current skates, nor have any intention to. So just say "things are expensive, and I don't like them," and move on.

[MaximRecoil 7]

OP, I have no idea why you quoted me and then didn't pay attention to the point of my post. The juxtaposition of comparing an industry where hand crafted shoes carry a premium vs an industry where carbon composite boots, with the necessary R&D into the material, the performance, the manufacturing processes, etc, carry the brunt of the cost should be evident to anyone.

The two things couldn't be further apart, and are a horrible comparison.

The comparison is that there is less labor involved in making modern hockey skates than in making traditional shoes/boots. The upper is roughly the same process, but the sole is much easier. The R&D for the properties of the "high tech" materials has already been done by the manufacturers of said materials, and the manufacturing process for the upper consists of cutting shapes, stitching them together, and forming them around a last.

If today's player was in 652 VT, Micron 10-90s or even 5000s, he would be at a competitive disadvantage. Today's skates are significantly lighter which reduces fatigue over the course of a game. Lighter IS faster. Today's Curv composite upper are so much stronger than ballistic nylon uppers and the Curv composite due to its stiffness provides an incredible energy transfer through the boot to the ice.

Lighter is only necessarily faster when all else is equal, all else being equal effectively never happens in the real world. And we are talking about small weight savings, and large other variables. I'll repeat:

For anyone who thinks these "high tech" skates have improved performance, take a look at figure skaters. Their skates look and are made about the same as they have been for many decades, and they do maneuvers that hockey players couldn't do if their lives depended on it. Or, look at the fastest skater competitions ("NHL All-Star Game SuperSkills Competition"). For example:

1993 — Mike Gartner 13.510 seconds

1996 — Mike Gartner 13.386 seconds

Those times both beat all times up to and including 2007 too (2007 — Andy McDonald 14.03 seconds), which is the last year that the results are directly comparable due to the event being revised in 2008. Gartner generally wore early 1990s CCM 652 Tacks, which are traditional real leather and mesh skates.

I have been selling skates at retail since 1979.

Do you make a larger profit on the higher end skates than the lower end skates?

Did you ever own a pair of Daoust 301 skates? These skates were #1 in the early to mid 80s. And NHLers and everyone else would kill them in no time. The leather interior and leather inner sole would dry out and crack from the salt in your sweat. Often Tuuk repairs became impossible because there was no leather sole left to hold a rivet.

This is something that varies from person to person. I've been wearing leather footwear, both for sports (e.g. tennis) and everyday wear all my life, and I've never had a leather-rotting problem. My feet don't sweat much, and my footwear never even has an odor. My leather work boots are now 21 years old (I bought them in 1993 when I turned 18), and they still have a lot of life left in them. With that said, I don't know about using leather as a sole for skates, as I've never had leather-soled skates. Most hockey skates have had plastic soles since the '70s. If I could have someone custom make a pair of skates, I'd try leather soles though. They would conform to the bottom of your foot as they broke in, which should be quite comfortable. Leather can be treated to prevent or greatly reduce rot, by the way (treated at the tannery itself).

And by the way, there are modern skates that quickly fall apart; I've seen plenty of posts about it on this forum alone.

Just to clarify, you are skating on 15 year old technology and feel justified in commenting on today's high end skates that you have never used?

No, I'm skating on 18-year-old "technology", and hopefully soon-to-be even older

"technology" (I have a pair of like-new Micron Mega 10-90s on the way; I just hope they fit). And, given that none of my comments are in any way contingent upon me having skated in newer skates; yes, I am justified in commenting (how I "feel" is irrelevant).

I don't want to come across as insulting, but the OP has a very simplified view of costs versus R&D, versus materials, profit, advertising and the like. If the skates were direct to the consumer, you would cut out a small amount of the cost-adding factors, though not nearly as much as one would think. And let me tell you- there is a BUNCH of difference in the materials cost of the $800 boot versus the $89 boot. The $89 boot generally is constructed with cheaper materials, a lack of heat-mouldable foam, no composites, and cheaper footbeds, as well as older, proven and outdated construction techniques. Remember that R&D, advertising and marketing, NHL endorsements, warrantees, product insurance, and the like will contribute to the cost, as well. Multiple size options increase prices, as well. If everyone were a size 7.5 D, they would be a lot cheaper.

With regard to the sentence I bolded: no, I don't, and the rest of your paragraph did not establish your claim. Additionally, I've already addressed the gist of your paragraph, more than once.

When buying at full nick (which is insane, IMO), the best value is the upper-mid level, as it was the top of the line at some point. The R&D was paid off LONG ago. You're not at the top of the heap, but you have something that is advanced as almost anyone (save for a professional) could possibly need.

Most "upper-mid level" skates were never top of the line, but rather, they were created as an "upper-mid level" skate to begin with. By the way, today's top of the line skate prices have far surpassed the rate of inflation, by about 300%. I'd also like to see some evidence that the "high tech" materials they use today are more expensive in bulk form than high quality leather; specifically I'd like to see evidence that they are 300% more expensive.

When I was manufacturing bespoke composite bicycle parts, people had often wondered why the price was so seemingly exorbitant. I had one simple answer: I made it for YOU. I have to make an entirely new mould, make splashes from the mould, tweak as necessary, then test layups, weights, test the product to failure, then make the product that ends up in the customer's hands. With mass production, the cost does get reduced. But I guarantee those $800 boots could easily be doubled IF they were not mass-produced. I did make a few mass-produced items, and the prices were reflected in my ability to mould ten Campagnolo Delta brake covers at a time, and the product liability insurance was nearly nothing.

Actually, the $850 or $900 price is more in line with what a cobbler might charge to make them, than what would be expected from mass production. For example:

James Leddy Boots

1602 N. Treadaway Boulevard

915-677-7811

The nephew of boot king M. L. Leddy is now royalty himself, and he runs a real family business: He does the cutting, his wife and daughter do the stitching, his son-in-law does bottoms, and his former daughter-in-law creates the prettiest inlays anywhere. Specializes in: Flowery tops, old-fashioned crimped vamps, zipper tops, sharp pointed toes. Prices start at: $625. Turnaround time: Three to four months. Has made boots for: Country singers Buck Owens, George Jones, and Johnny Bush; U.S. representative Charles Stenholm.

Again, skates are easier to make than traditional shoes or boots, because you don't have all the work associated with the sole and heel. The only significant difference with the upper is that with skates you need padding and ankle support reinforcement, neither of which are particularly difficult to incorporate.

[ridindirty 11]

The comparison is that there is less labor involved in making modern hockey skates than in making traditional shoes/boots. The upper is roughly the same process, but the sole is much easier. The R&D for the properties of the "high tech" materials has already been done by the manufacturers of said materials, and the manufacturing process for the upper consists of cutting shapes, stitching them together, and forming them around a last.

The upper is not roughly the same process. You framed the argument around "900 dollar" skates, which are carbon composite. Bauer had to build a new machine for the production process IIRC.

And you also said if the shoes supposedly cost as much as I posted? For someone claiming to know so much about the labor process of shoes, you know very little about the market. I'd like to see the supposed high quality leather uppers, with full Goodyear welted construction for 75 - 125 dollars you produce.

Example of the high end of the non-MTM shoe market: http://www.brooksbrothers.com/Edward-Green-Captoe-Bals/MH00057,default,pd.html

Since I usually post from my phone, I had no idea you joined yesterday to make this thread. Good job trollin' OP. :handclap:

[Scurvy 3]

The Mike Gartner argument is flawed because he did his lap when the nets were moved up. This results in a significantly shorter turn and thus, faster time.

[bunnyman666 445]

The upper is not roughly the same process. You framed the argument around "900 dollar" skates, which are carbon composite. Bauer had to build a new machine for the production process IIRC.

And you also said if the shoes supposedly cost as much as I posted? For someone claiming to know so much about the labor process of shoes, you know very little about the market. I'd like to see the supposed high quality leather uppers, with full Goodyear welted construction for 75 - 125 dollars you produce.

New machines bring up the prices by a fair bit. Over the years, the retail price will become more static; but you have to pay off R&D and new machinery...

[wrangler 157]

In the '70s, top of the line skates were about $70. $70 in 1975 translates to $303.10 in 2013, not $850 or $900. $180 in 1989 translates to $338.16.

This is incorrect.

I don't think you allow for all business costs in your speculation. And I don't think it matters how much you argue your ideas, if they don't fit with the actual bottom line we see from hockey companies, and the lack of a long line of buyers waving lots of cash at hockey companies for sale.

[MaximRecoil 7]

The upper is not roughly the same process. You framed the argument around "900 dollar" skates, which are carbon composite. Bauer had to build a new machine for the production process IIRC.

All the current major hockey skate manufacturers have skates in the $800 to $900 price range. Also, in the case of skate uppers that aren't stitched, the process becomes even easier in terms of labor, because the only alternative is molding, like glorified Bauer Turbos.

And you also said if the shoes supposedly cost as much as I posted? For someone claiming to know so much about the labor process of shoes, you know very little about the market.

Say what? I posted a link to boots from Wal-Mart with Goodyear welt construction, for $35. The point is, the nameless highly expensive shoes/boots you mentioned are not expensive because of Goodyear welt construction.

I'd like to see the supposed high quality leather uppers, with full Goodyear welted construction for 75 - 125 dollars you produce.

I worked for Dexter Shoe in the early '00s, and they made certain shoes and boots with Goodyear welt construction. This was just prior to them packing up and leaving for China, so I don't know what the quality of their footwear is like now, but back then they made excellent quality footwear. When I was 18 in 1993 I bought a pair of Dexter Shoe workboots at the local factory outlet for $70, ROF leather uppers, leather-lined, Goodyear welt construction, steel shank, and Armortred soles. I've worn them all year round except for on the hottest summer days (here in Maine there aren't many of those), in the slush, snow, mud, at work, whatever, for 21 years:

When I started working at Dexter Shoe in 2000, they were still making that same model of boot, on the line I worked on no less, and I got 2 more brand new pairs just like them for free (due to being an employee), which are still brand new because I haven't had to wear them yet. The price tag on those is $90, which was in 2002:

I also worked for SAS (San Antonio Shoe) during the mid 1990s. They only made shoes at that factory, both traditional leather-soled shoes (that was the line I worked on) and shoes with a preformed rubber sole (like "nurse's shoes"). Nothing we made there was Goodyear welt construction, though the soles were Goodyear stitched to the midsoles, and the midsoles were Littleway stitched to the upper.

Since I usually post from my phone, I had no idea you joined yesterday to make this thread. Good job trollin' OP. :handclap:

Not only is your "conclusion" here a logical fallacy, but you also don't get to redefine the word "troll" to mean someone who merely disagrees with you and others.

[ambro 0]

OP: Not to beat a dead horse here, but it seems to me you don't really have much of a concept about what is involved in creating, mass producing, transporting, and selling top-end hockey skates. The concept extends to all equipment, it is not exclusive to skates.

You mention something along the lines of the science that goes into designing new materials is strictly the responsibility of the material manufacturers, i.e. 3M, DuPont, etc. Of course, there is R&D by the material manufacturers that goes into creating and producing superior materials than what currently exists. This R&D has to be compensated for in the higher cost of the better materials used in top-end skates. To your credit, you have identified this as a factor in why top-end skates cost more than the lower end products in the same line. Unfortunately, this is the only factor you've identified. You're completely ignoring everything else involved on equipment manufacturer's end, which deals with taking these newer, better materials, figuring out how to take them from their raw state and combine them with other materials in such a way as to innovate and create new, better products. What you have to understand (which many people have pointed out, yet you so conveniently ignore) is that there are hundreds, thousands of engineering hours that go into designing, prototyping, testing equipment to create products which can allow even the slightest edge over what the competition might offer. Why? Because believe it or not, there are people willing to pay a premium for the slightest little edge over their own competition. Hence, the existence of top-end products.

More than the cost of the materials and labor that goes into producing it, you're paying a premium for the time and resources that went into researching, designing, prototyping, and testing when you buy top-end equipment. It really is up to the individual buying the product to determine whether this premium is worth it or not. You've clearly told everyone that to you, it is not. Why not just state your opinion and leave it at that?

[DarkStar50 679]

If you were born in 1975, how do you claim to know that hockey skates have been made with plastic inner soles since the 70s? The plastic inner sole was introduced to skates in the 80s. Leather inner soles and leather interiors failed because they rotted out.

[Justin 1933 134]

I am just laughing at this thread. It is so far off, it is not even funny. Nobody in hockey is getting rich, and I can say margins are much lower in hockey than almost any other sport.

[CommodoreColt 19]

Why is this thread so mad at the makers and sellers of overpriced equipment when it should be mad at clueless parents and gullible consumers who over-represent what the market considers a fair price for your skates, gloves and sticks?

[Souldriver 64]

you guys realize this guys first post here was that huge first post and has only added to this thread. when i first saw it i ignored it thinking it was some type of bot post and would get deleted or locked. this guy has proven that he knows very little about todays hockey skate construction and what makes a market price what it is. furthermore he is inclining that leather everything is better and lasted longer than anything which is just an ignorant statement. on top of that trying to bring in samples from the show work to compare when they are apples and oranges. i will be ignoring this for now on

[MaximRecoil 7]

The Mike Gartner argument is flawed because he did his lap when the nets were moved up. This results in a significantly shorter turn and thus, faster time.

According to what I've read, the event was revised in 2008. Do you have any evidence that Gartner's event was different than the events of following years through 2007?

This is incorrect.

In a hockey book that I used to read at the library when I was a kid, which was written in the early-to-mid 1970s, in a section about skate selection, it said, "A beginner doesn't need a $70 pair of professional skates". However, if you have evidence that you couldn't get a top of the line pair of skates during that time for about $70, I'd be interested in seeing it.

I don't think you allow for all business costs in your speculation. And I don't think it matters how much you argue your ideas, if they don't fit with the actual bottom line we see from hockey companies, and the lack of a long line of buyers waving lots of cash at hockey companies for sale.

We know that with all business costs included, there are models of skates that can sell at a full retail price of $70, and go on sale for $45. So the cost of $800 to $900 skates can't be explained by business costs.

[jimmy 194]

I don't know about manufacturing costs, but I do know a few people that work retail who get skates for cost + 10%. Those guys tell me that they can get that $900 Bauer skate for significantly less than 50% of retail. Anecdotal I know, but take from that what you will.

This is wrong. There is no skate with a wholesale price that is 50% less than retail.

[raganblink 82]

I am just laughing at this thread. It is so far off, it is not even funny. Nobody in hockey is getting rich, and I can say margins are much lower in hockey than almost any other sport.

Hey! Finally someone with some hard numbers on production end! Let me know when we start getting rich selling hockey gear - My car payment is still happening!

If you want to make a store owner happy, buy a lot of accessories and clothes. And those pair of gloves that are 7 years old that they have for 25% off original price.

Jimmy - thank you. Was surprised that wasn't said yet. I laugh when people try to talk me down to $500 for top-end skates. I'm not going to take a hit selling you brand new apx2s just because Hockeymonkey has apx on sale for that. And they only have them that cheap when they want to get rid of them in the weird sizes, and they're only that cheap because Bauer cut them a deal to purchase their remaining stock.