notes on government, sports and popular culture
I've thought about hockey probably twice this winter. I haven't missed it. Still, I realize a lot of people wouldn't think much of a summer without baseball, while I would be severly depressed. But this N.Y. Times article
on the bid to buy all 30 NHL franchises caught my eye.
On the face of it, such a transaction would be next to impossible to pull off. Many acknowledged this, among them an investment banker who described the bid as "creative, bold and aggressive," but still had "so many hurdles to overcome."
Bruins owner Jeremy Jacobs simply said his team wasn't for sale.
But Hurricanes owner Peter Karmanos expressed "passing interest and morbid curiosity."
As for leverage in negotiating with the players' union, "even under the unlikely prospect of wholesale new ownership, the NHL would not be able to disregard the union or impose a new collective bargaining agreement with the same difficulty current ownership faces."
But what does the whole thing mean, given the situation in which the NHL finds itself? Was the league listening because it hoped more than a few owners would express serious interest? How many owners in warm-weather climates (such as North Carolina) want to get out while they can possibly can?