Quote:
Originally Posted by gscarpenter2002
What a hackneyed response. Full of original thought and perception.
Guess again. Fans don't "lose" when hockey is not on. Unless you have zip life, no one sits around with their thumb up their arse. Fans go on to other pursuits while there is a lockout.
Without a lockout, NHL hockey would have gone straight into the financial crapper. So you get a better league, in addition to having engaged in other pursuits while hockey was gone. Seems like the fans "won".
Gary said:
Unless you include the thousands of fans who make their living off the NHL...Merchandise, Sports Bars...etc. etc.
Well, they are not losing in their capacity as "fans". In fact, it is fair to assume that a lot of those people are not "fans" at all, but just make money working in a store that happens to be a sports bar, merchandise shop, etc. you go to any sports bar and ask a waitress at large whether they are a hockey fan.
I have heard only guesstimates about those "losses". THere is no evidence that people working in ancillary industries such as sports bars have not recouped that revenue elsewhere, even assuming there was a loss. If a waitress in a sports bar lost here job, who can say that she didn't go somewhere else and find another job - perhaps even a better one? There has been no real impact on unemployment rates, and the economy has still grown throughout the lockout. I don't see sports bars closing by the dozen in Canada. i don't see Foot Lockers or memorabilia shops closing in droves.
Any time sports people on TV start saying "oh dear, woe, woe, woe, what about all those little people?", they are just trying to sound a certain way. Tryig to be empathetic. They are simply looking for justification for their views, when they are REALLY all about "oh, woe is ME, I am a hockey guy, and I don't have anything to cover".