You know what, I just think you use the same sauce for the goose as the gander.
I agree completely, unfortunately you do not practice what you preach....
It's ridiculous to point fingers at the players and say how greedy when they are pure amateurs when it comes to the unbridled greed of the owners.
I suppose your pointing to the fact that I think the owners are more greedy and better at it than the players as me not being balanced about this whole thing. ...Perhaps I am. Its probably natural to argue ones own position more strongly than positions opposed ... That probably makes me about as bad as nearly everyone else on this thread.
However, it doesn't change the fact that opinions on this thread have skewered the players for actions no worse than the owners and that's if you believe that the owners intentions are purely honourable.
Obviously I don't believe owners are being honorable, I think they would be as happy to have the players as low paid as possible and not have to supply any resources for the players beyond what gets them on the ice on game night.
An example of what I think the NHL would be like without an organised players union is the WWE which has no union and the performers in that business live and die with drug addiction and physical pain at a staggeringly higher rate than other similar businesses (400% higher by some sources)
The parent company and owners of that corporation have made their wealth driving those men into the ground. The list is of wrestlers who have dies from steroids, heart attacks, and drug overdoses is obscene by comparison to the NHL and although there are contributing factors not present in hockey the business part of the equation is essentially the same.
Moreover it's highly debatable that the presence of the Canucks contribute that much to the economy anyway. It's deposable income that's being spent on game nights and that money will be spent somewhere. other businesses and other pursuits will benefit from the absense of the NHL during this lockout so how much public welfare do we really need to provide?
If you take away the Canucks it is highly unlikely that I would spend the same money on other local events as I don't have the same type of interest. I would either put it in my pocket, or go on a trip, or something else.
I dont think I am unique on this either.
NHL hockey just has far more appeal then the other stuff going on in the city.
It's even worse in a shit hole like Edmonton.
yes but you would likely spend it on something and unless you take your money out of the city and province, your money is still grist for the mill.
I'm just not completely sold on the notion that the Canucks as an example, really brings back enough to justify any public money...I know that the Canucks are a poor example since Rogers was built with private money....
Topper wrote:That said I don't think NHL teams in Canada should get public money, that is just silly given how profitable they currently are.
we agree there and I think it would be a great thing for all North American society if every jurisdiction could agree so that leagues can't hold anyone hostage.