One more time, lets discuss important things like 1)politics/diplomacy, 2) economy, 3) sport aspects not irrelevant things like attandance of last season or results of pre-season games. Feel free to discuss.
If we want to talk about euro competitions, we need to talk about (at least):
1) politics/diplomacy
2) economy
3) sport
1) Try to persuade me that ET has more power within euro/world hockey than KHL. I would welcome your arguments.
I remember pre-Barcelona summit era and the summit as well. Idea of Champions League had a support of euro clubs. KHL had another vision. Now, after a few years, Jokerit Helsinki (big supporter of euro competition for decade) moving to KHL.
Now, after a few years, Rene Fasel talking: "I will not be against of KHL´s expansion to Europe" He said this before Jokerit announced joining KHL.
2) Is ET more attractive for sponsors? Who is a sponsor of ET? I found only Actavis, #1291 in Forbes ranking.
Lets look at KHL
PepsiCo, #88 in Forbes ranking
MegaFon, #696
Chevrolet as brand of General Motors, #70
BP, #18
Nikon, #862
I am not talking about russian oil/gas companies which are among the biggest world companies.
Sure, Europe, including Sweden, pays them... so we can say that Europe supports KHL.
3) If you have more money, you can afford better players. Just look at transfers SMLiiga-KHL for last 2-3 offseasons for evidence.
Attendance is hardly irrelevant. Along with being a significant revenue stream for plenty of professional leagues around the world it is also a pretty good indicator of general interest in a team/league/sport.
I agreed that talking about results from pre-season/exhibition games is pretty pointless but that didn't stop you from using it to try to prove a point early in the thread.
But since you want to talk about things like 'politics/dimplomacy', 'economy' (which apparently paid attendance has nothing to do with) and 'sport' I will try to oblige.
And the NHL is more powerful than any Euro league, the ET or the KHL. The existance of the NHL within 'world hockey' hasn't prevented any of those entities from growing in recent years so I am not sure how the existance of the KHL means nothing else will be able to grow or thrive.
Why should Jokerit pull out of ET? Does not make sense.Do we know if Jokerit will be pulling out of the ET? I don't see many clubs jumping off of the ET bandwagon. Hasn't the number of teams entering it grown?
My point is that Fasel was "pro Champions League" and "anti-KHL" a few years back, but something changed... now he is "pro-KHL", supports KHL´s expansion.Those involved in the KHL have poured millions (billions? ) into the sport. If I was Fasel I wouldn't be against the KHL expanding either. Did he also go on to say that he believes it is in the best interest of the sport if all leagues, clubs and national federations submit to the wishes of the KHL? If not I am not sure what your point is because as far as I know Fasel still wants to see a 'Champions League' type tournament. It is possible to want both competitions to thrive.
here“Jokerit’s move from the Finnish SM-liiga to the KHL is a part of international development of hockey. The Finnish association has no reason to be against it,” said the association’s chairman Kalervo Kummola, who is also an IIHF Vice President and a former owner of Jokerit.
And with those companies on board how much closer is the KHL to being a break even enterprise? At this point the KHL 'economy' is built around finding someone/thing willing to sink millions into a club. I don't think in most cases a club that jumps to the KHL is going to see a significant (any?) increase in gate revenue, sponsorship and TV rights. Basically a Swedish, German, Swiss, etc club can have a budget of $10 million/year, continue to lose their best players to the NHL or wealthy KHL clubs, but contend for a championship every year in their domestic league or spend $10 million/year, continue to lose their best players to the NHL or wealthy KHL clubs and be midpack or worse in the KHL every year.
Irrelevant. I have a feeling, you did not get idea.Huh? GM isn't sponsoring the KHL in hopes of increasing Chevy sales in Sweden. That's like saying someone in Brazil who buys a Honda is supporting the NHL.
This was your 'sport' point? Sounds like this should be under economy. The SM-Liiga really isn't that much more of a feeder to the KHL than Dinamo Riga is. At the risk of repeating myself if a club outside of the KHL can't afford to financially compete with SKA, Ak Bars, Omsk, CSKA, Ufa, etc moving to the KHL isn't going to fix the issue on its own. Unless the club can find a way to double, triple, quadruple their budget, they are still going to be losing their best players.
“Jokerit’s move from the Finnish SM-liiga to the KHL is a part of international development of hockey. The Finnish association has no reason to be against it,†said the association’s chairman Kalervo Kummola, who is also an IIHF Vice President and a former owner of Jokerit.
here
If he were against KHL, he would say something like "KHL is bad move for Jokerit and finnish, interantional hockey".
If you want to talk about attendance and if you claim there is "no interest of fans", explain me this.
Total KHL attendance RS
08/09 - 2 986 934
09/10 - 3 528 188
10/11 - 3 400 273
11/12 - 3 276 394
12/13 - 3 921 832
Difference cca 1M within 5 yrs, not bad
NHL´s main market is not Europe. ET is not threat for NHL. KHL can be a threat, but NHL does not have power to do something with it. Russians have money, so NHL can not do anymothing just to follow and cooperate.
This is NOT my main argument, but you started with this point of view.
I said many times, there is a scenario that KHL is no.1 and ET no.2. Did you read my posts??
KHL has no problem with ET until ET wants to replace KHL as best league of Europe.
Why should Jokerit pull out of ET? Does not make sense.
My point is that Fasel was "pro Champions League" and "anti-KHL" a few years back, but something changed... now he is "pro-KHL", supports KHL´s expansion.
KHL as enterprise has profit. If you want to talk about clubs, lets start with Phoenix or football clubs.
Irrelevant. I have a feeling, you did not get idea.
It was not only sport point. We can talk about growing hockey in non-hockey regions etc.
We can talk about more money involved in hockey as sport (and compare it to ET), supporting junior hockey. It is endless.
SML would be better league if no player moved to KHL this off season. Unfortunatelly for SML, finnish clubs can not afford these players. I ask why,
if someone claims here that "KHL is not much better than SHL, SML etc". Does not make sense to move abroad if I have similar league at home, in my city. Or is it all about money??
KHL club (you said about Dinamo Riga) gets paid for losing young (RFA) player to lets say Omsk. SMLiiga club, according to Jussi, gets nothing if a player has free KHL out clause. I dont know man, but if I were a owner of club, I would choose KHL over euro league
Not sure I am following but... I would say it is mostly about money. Europeans would have never started going to the NHL in large numbers if it wasn't for the money. I would say the same applies to the KHL.
I agree with you, but I meant something else.
You see domestic league as entities which develop young players. You see euro leagues, SHL/SML/DEL/NLA etc, to be feeder leagues like AHL/ECHL.
I see domestic leagues as TOP PRO leagues of Europe, where players want to spend their careers, earn money. That was reality in past. Country, which had best developing programme had the best senior league. That is not reality anymore, players have moved to KHL, only NLA keeps status quo + a few players of SHL. Look at SMLiiga and the exodus.
Yes, domestic leagues are and will be important in future. Their aim is (will be) to develop players, not to attract best senior players playing in Europe. Nothing bad with developing players, someone has to do it! On the other hand, some fans/clubs want to be top in region (Europe) at pro level. Jokerit decided to be one of top euro clubs, to play a league which attracts best euros. It does not mean that SML will disappear. It only means that Finland will have one big club and the rest will produce players for this club (and clubs of the league which Jokerit plays). Model of CAN/US, look at Toronto Maple Leafs playing NHL, but it does not mean that there is no hockey in Ontario besides Leafs.
Interesting point. Swedish and Finnish team would not have the budget to ever really launch a serious challenge for the KHL title.
So our teams would be like the trophies, that are just there to make up the numbers as the oligarch backed teams rack up championships..
Do you really think the KHL clubs would blowout the european teams? Really? Budget is not everything. Sure Russia has money, but Sweden is a much more attractive country for foreigners, so is Germany, Switzerland, Finland and rest of Europe. All in all, my point is that in Sweden we dont need as much money as the russians club to be able to compete. Top teams in Sweden would certainly be able to compete with every team in KHL. So would teams in Finland, Switzerland, Germany, Czech Republic and even Austria.
I could not resist, I thought this was kind of funny.Yeah, i agree.
The quality of the players who couldn't make the NHL are basically the same, they don't magically become better because they receive more money. The russian NHL-calibre guys are to few to make a real kind of difference.
Holloway, Joakim Lindtström, Oscar Möller, Pierre-Edouard Bellemare, Jimmie Ericsson + and bunch av hardworking talented youngsters. To say that this team is much worse then SKA is stupid. They could beat them any day of the week.
I think there are many players in the KHL that could play in the NHL, absolutely. Replace the bottom 100 players in the NHL, mostly North Americans, with the 100 top players in the KHL and I am very positive the NHL would have better players. Disagree?
I could not resist, I thought this was kind of funny.
Why is that funny? They're two different people with different opinions or am I missing something?
Why is that funny? They're two different people with different opinions or am I missing something?
I think there are many players in the KHL that could play in the NHL, absolutely. Replace the bottom 100 players in the NHL, mostly North Americans, with the 100 top players in the KHL and I am very positive the NHL would have better players. Disagree?
Very VERY false. Define better. Perhaps in the area of more talented SOME, but the others, do they bring what the grinders and fourth line pugilists bring. No, they would be thrown away by fans in Montreal, Boston and Philly and most of the NHL where tough in your face, work your ass off Hockey is the name of the game. Most of the top scorers in the KHL all require an opportunity to play in the top 6 and they bring nothing to the depth position. Your kidding yourself if you think 100 players in the KHL are NHL worthy, don't underestimate the competition level. Just breezing through the top 50 scorers and from my recollection of seeing the majority of these guys play, your incredibly lucky if you can count 2 dozens who can even label themselves as top players that can perform if given a chance in a top 6 role.