The Canucks go wild

As noted in a couple of previous articles, I am no longer a serious NHL fan for reasons explained in writing. However, my friend Chucky won two free Canucks tickets and so I went with another friend to the game on Sunday which saw the Vancouver Canucks defeat the Minnesota Wild 4-3 (3-2 shootout). The game was as interesting as the games I viewed in the 1990s and 1980s. However, the overall night was overpriced.

The tickets were free, but the listed price was almost $70 each.
The parking ranged from a ridiculous $20 to $25 in price.

So, around $160 in cost for the evening, if we would have had to buy the tickets for 3 hours of entertainment, not including the price of food and gasoline. A similarly priced Rush concert is every 2-5 years, while there are 40 plus Canucks home games a year. That is one reason why I think a Rush concert is a better deal for similar money. I think that a good movie for $11 is equivalent entertainment to a Canucks game, although my friend disagrees. Once I am a professor, God willing, I may occasionally be willing to pay over $100 to see a show on stage, but that would be a rare event, or possibly a once in a lifetime event and so I would likely rate that as better value than a Canucks game. Besides the fact the Canucks game is overpriced, it irritated me to hear recently on the local radio sports channel 1040 that the Canucks, Leafs, Rangers, and Red Wings and other well supported NHL teams are using their revenues to subsidize the non-hockey market teams in the USA that are losing money. Even though the Canucks game was good entertainment I would not pay to see a game because the event is overpriced and the money would partially be going to subsidize teams that I do not think belong in the League.

My friend and I did have a good night of entertainment and more importantly discussion. The theological point was made that $160 would likely be better spent by middle class persons on feeding the poor somewhere in the world as opposed to on NHL hockey tickets and parking. If someone is wealthy and they can do both perhaps that is fine, but for many persons perhaps priorities need to be reexamined. I am not making any kind of solid judgment here. I am just pondering on the issue of where money should be spent.

Russ:)