Hockey in North America

Who else is happy that we don't have a brand new hockey arena now? The Pens Arena was a campaign issue four years ago for some. We engaged in that fight then. The Pens Arena surfaces as an issue from time to time. A few of us voice opposition as we can.

The stadium issue, perhaps because it was in a county wide vote and on the polls, was an opportunity to build a team and set a sustained conversation among those who didn't want to provide the corporate welfare. The civic arena and hockey is now a below the radar discussion on most fronts.

Some of the play of the discussion is beholden to the new concepts that the news must cover. If one has a bunch of charts and blueprints, a vision of sorts, then that gets lots of air-time and ink. But, if one just has an empty building, a paid-for building, an asset that isn't being leveraged to its potential -- then it is hard to capture the element of the NEW within its presentation.

But what is worse is the fact that the elements of the new must come from the old, the established, the power-brokers. I don't mind the fact that when they have something new to say it gets covered. But I do mind when others come to the conclusion that they have a monopoly on NEW CONCEPTS and NEWS.

This expression is very much alive in our local news coverage: "It is not what you say that matters, it is who you are when you say it."

Think again.

With hockey, it was strange hearing how there were meetings in Canada a couple of weeks ago. Mario, because he was both a player and an owner, sat out of the meetings. He didn't go. He was in the same city and worked the back channels, perhaps. Strange indeed to me. Some would say he had a conflict of interest and should be excluded, being in both roles. I say, rather, he had a great deal of interest and should be included.

But more importantly, anyone with a good idea should be able to include that idea. The person can be divorced from the idea, at times. But the idea needs to win the day and get the light it deserves.

Hockey's sticking point is the players' cap. Should it be $35-million per team, as the owners seemingly want. Or, can the cap be at $45-50-55-million per team, as desired by the players?

The cap should be not only on the players and the team pay -- but also on the owners and the league.

The players should only make a certain amount -- and live with a cap. But the owners should also live with a cap. Then the windfall should not go to the LEAGUE, (that's controlled by the owners), but to the fans, the sport, the community.

The season is gone. This is time to put on the thinking caps -- and not the helmets.