I have officially joined the land of sceptics (on this
topic, for most others I have held the presidency for years-- I usually try to
remain optimistic in this area) I am
pretty sure there will be another hockey lockout this year. I am a big hockey fan and the thought of no
Hockey Night in Canada
Could any good come out of a hockey lockout? Let's see.
Last time, instead of showing sports from around the world, we got Texas
No Limit Hold'em pretty much 24/7. A
little bit of this was okay. Granted it
started a whole new industry and a large number of cheap, easy to produce TV
shows. It made several gamblers quite famous. I don't begrudge that, but every time I turn
on the TV I see the same hand of poker being played. (You know, the one where the guy in the pink
shirt gets crushed by the pros)
Obviously someone is making money from this, but I am not sure who it
is.
I do like poker, and I admit it is TV friendly. I even have the World Series of Poker
software for my PSP. I just don't want
to see it as much as I had to during the last lockout. If it is so cheap to produce, I shouldn't
have to face multiple reruns.
Back to the point.
Could any good come out of a lockout?
Well, last time the players caved and we got a salary cap. Revenues are up and the cap is still taking
the same percentage as before. Sounds
like a recipe for financial stability.
Apparently not. Some teams are
still not making money. Some teams are
still in jeopardy of failing. I lost a
year of hockey, and nothing has changed. Go figure.
The sticking points seem to be revenue sharing and players'
salaries. I understand that. If my team were in a profitable market (mine
is) then why would I want to give money to a team that can't even fill the best
seats in the house at rock bottom prices?
As for players' salaries..... They took what they were offered. Can't blame them for negotiating well can
you. I certainly wouldn't like it if
someone came to my work and told me they thought I was overpaid (regardless of
how much money I was making).
Maybe there are too many teams in the NHL. Fewer teams would mean that there would be
fewer professional players (the players union certainly wouldn't like that) and
that would mean the overall quality of each team would rise. There would be glut of almost good enough
players, so their salaries would probably decrease.
On the down side, there would be fewer games on TV and there
would be fewer minutes spent discussing hockey.
I am not sure that would be a bad thing.
This year my team is scheduled to take part in "the
Winter Classic", but that could be shelved due to scheduling
conflicts. Irony is a bitter pill to
swallow.
Time will tell, but I expect a lockout. I expect owners who travel in Limousines and
eat at five star restaurants with supermodels to tell me that they are paying
players too much. I expect players who
drive exotic sports cars and eat at five star restaurants with supermodels or A
list actresses to tell me how much they miss playing. I expect both sides to say they just want to
do what is best for the game. I expect
the various sports channels to find something new for us to watch 24hours a
day--maybe darts, or competitive skeet shooting.
Hockey season hasn't started yet and already I miss it. Maybe I should take up jogging.
No comments:
Post a Comment