Can the KHL survive mass defections to the NHL?

[DenisB8]

Well there is quite a difference between 3rd/4th line grinder and what would be called a top-9 forward what those guys I mentioned are most likely to be. To be more exact, the difference is between 1.5 - 2 mil per year and 3 - 4 mil per year which is quite substantial. Someone like Nik Kulemin was never really above that role but he also never seriously considered coming back to the KHL, seems to me, because are there really teams in the KHL who want him for 4 mils a year he's now getting?

It will show who they really are, make more money but play less, or get less money but play a bigger role in your team. I would be the second guy, but who knows maybe I would think different if I was a professional player. That doesn't mean I don't want the guys to be successful, because I hope they turn out to be better than what I think will happen, it will be great for russian hockey, but I wanna be realistic, not everybody will succeed.

 

[SoundAndFury]

It will show who they really are, make more money but play less, or get less money but play a bigger role in your team. I would be the second guy, but who knows maybe I would think different if I was a professional player.

Not that I disagree with you but it's not as cut and dried. For example if someone offered me to have a career of Sergei Mozyakin or Marcus Kruger I would pick Kruger's one every single time, for obvious reasons. Even though he plays 12 minutes per night while Mozyakin plays 25. Then again, as you said, everyone can think differently.

 

[Yakushev72]

As a business enterprise, the KHL has to survive on revenues. I have no idea what KHL overall annual revenues are, but for the NHL, annual revenue is $4 billion US per year. That's why Ryan O'Reilly, an excellent player but no superstar, can sign a 7-year, $52.5 million (US) contract last Friday. I am concerned by the trend of all comparatively successful KHL players immediately leaving to go to the NHL. I think fans pay for tickets to watch good players play, and if all the best leave as soon as possible, where does that leave the league?

Are there any players at all who the NHL wants who are resisting leaving to stay in the KHL? I can't think of any, and that is a problem for the KHL. Some rivalries will emerge, but those are just a few games on the schedule. Some interest could be generated by watching young prospects develop, but they are all leaving as quickly as they can get out as well. Dergachev, for example, a prospect who I really like, has apparently chosen to forego the chance to possibly get some ice time with SKA to play for an obscure junior team in the CHL. I have to wonder how KHL investors view this situation?

 

[metmag]

As a business enterprise, the KHL has to survive on revenues. I have no idea what KHL overall annual revenues are, but for the NHL, annual revenue is $4 billion US per year. That's why Ryan O'Reilly, an excellent player but no superstar, can sign a 7-year, $52.5 million (US) contract last Friday. I am concerned by the trend of all comparatively successful KHL players immediately leaving to go to the NHL. I think fans pay for tickets to watch good players play, and if all the best leave as soon as possible, where does that leave the league?

Are there any players at all who the NHL wants who are resisting leaving to stay in the KHL? I can't think of any, and that is a problem for the KHL. Some rivalries will emerge, but those are just a few games on the schedule. Some interest could be generated by watching young prospects develop, but they are all leaving as quickly as they can get out as well. Dergachev, for example, a prospect who I really like, has apparently chosen to forego the chance to possibly get some ice time with SKA to play for an obscure junior team in the CHL. I have to wonder how KHL investors view this situation?

I recognize your points, however I would like to voice a perspective that I find more pertinent. It may be disheartening to see successful players leave for the NHL, but I do not think it is a bad thing.

I vividly recall, on these boards, Swedes claiming that the fact that there are many Swedish NHLers is a testament to Swedish success and a demonstration of a superb developmental system. I happen to agree with such viewpoint.

It stands to reason then, that a high (and increasing) number of KHL/MHLers playing in North America underlines the success of that hockey system. Where 6 years ago people questioned the viability of the league and its ability to survive, we now see a system here to stay while pumping out NHL level talent more than ever before (in recent history).

Sure, it may be true that to a tuned in and well informed hockey fan like yourself, Dergachev leaving might be a big deal. But what about to the average Joe that wants to take his kids to watch hockey? I know plenty of people who watch games and have jerseys and couldn't name more than half of the roster.

To answer your question about what investors would like to see; Indeed I do not believe that a bidding war for star players to artificially inflate salaries, and compete with a strong dollar, is something that sensible investors are interested in. Especially from the point of view of the KHL where the bottom teams would not possibly compete with NHL salary floors.

Attendance, both total and average, has been increasing year to year in the KHL. I imagine that to be attractive to investors. Maybe offering good accommodations and a hospitable environment for fans is something to look at. There are many ways to drive up demand(and thus the price) for tickets aside from just publicity star signings. Indeed developing a depth of players on a team should be important to mitigate the impact of a good player leaving for the NHL. Organic growth is the key here.

On a side note, as far as I recall NHL-KHL have a signed agreement of respecting contracts and to that end nobody is 'defecting' anywhere as the title might suggest.

 

[Yakushev72]

I recognize your points, however I would like to voice a perspective that I find more pertinent. It may be disheartening to see successful players leave for the NHL, but I do not think it is a bad thing.

I vividly recall, on these boards, Swedes claiming that the fact that there are many Swedish NHLers is a testament to Swedish success and a demonstration of a superb developmental system. I happen to agree with such viewpoint.

It stands to reason then, that a high (and increasing) number of KHL/MHLers playing in North America underlines the success of that hockey system. Where 6 years ago people questioned the viability of the league and its ability to survive, we now see a system here to stay while pumping out NHL level talent more than ever before (in recent history).

Sure, it may be true that to a tuned in and well informed hockey fan like yourself, Dergachev leaving might be a big deal. But what about to the average Joe that wants to take his kids to watch hockey? I know plenty of people who watch games and have jerseys and couldn't name more than half of the roster.

To answer your question about what investors would like to see; Indeed I do not believe that a bidding war for star players to artificially inflate salaries, and compete with a strong dollar, is something that sensible investors are interested in. Especially from the point of view of the KHL where the bottom teams would not possibly compete with NHL salary floors.

Attendance, both total and average, has been increasing year to year in the KHL. I imagine that to be attractive to investors. Maybe offering good accommodations and a hospitable environment for fans is something to look at. There are many ways to drive up demand(and thus the price) for tickets aside from just publicity star signings. Indeed developing a depth of players on a team should be important to mitigate the impact of a good player leaving for the NHL. Organic growth is the key here.

On a side note, as far as I recall NHL-KHL have a signed agreement of respecting contracts and to that end nobody is 'defecting' anywhere as the title might suggest.

KHL investors, I suspect, look at the situation totally differently than the Swedes and the Finns. There is no way that they can formulate the main goal of their enterprise as producing cheap labor for export - like Mexico does for US markets. There is no way they can pride themselves on being used by another league, who cherry picks the fruits of their labor and development efforts, takes the best of their products without any compensation at all, and rejects the losers as being suitable for the KHL. No business enterprise worth their salt could look with "pride" on surrendering their best products to another league that turns around and markets such products for hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue at no cost to itself, as is the case with Ovechkin, for example.

There is absolutely no worthwhile reason for world class hockey players to stay in Sweden or Finland, so of course, it is with great pride that they celebrate their players making it to the NHL. But the original goal of the KHL was clearly to create a top level international league in Russia and other European countries.. They may not talk about rivalry with the NHL, which is over 100 years old, but I would certainly imagine that they talk about creating a comparable business model for their fans in the dark recesses of their board rooms. If they're not talking about it, why not?

 

[metmag]

KHL investors, I suspect, look at the situation totally differently than the Swedes and the Finns. There is no way that they can formulate the main goal of their enterprise as producing cheap labor for export - like Mexico does for US markets. There is no way they can pride themselves on being used by another league, who cherry picks the fruits of their labor and development efforts, takes the best of their products without any compensation at all, and rejects the losers as being suitable for the KHL. No business enterprise worth their salt could look with "pride" on surrendering their best products to another league that turns around and markets such products for hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue at no cost to itself, as is the case with Ovechkin, for example.

There is absolutely no worthwhile reason for world class hockey players to stay in Sweden or Finland, so of course, it is with great pride that they celebrate their players making it to the NHL. But the original goal of the KHL was clearly to create a top level international league in Russia and other European countries.. They may not talk about rivalry with the NHL, which is over 100 years old, but I would certainly imagine that they talk about creating a comparable business model for their fans in the dark recesses of their board rooms. If they're not talking about it, why not?

I think that professional hockey players that are being paid millions can be more likened to skilled professionals taking up contracts where they please than to fleeing migrant workers. Many are millionaires and have the free will to decide where they want to go in the same way that a teenager might want to spend a few years abroad. No investor has the right to restrict such movement. That's the same way a record number of Canadians have been playing in the KHL in recent times - they feel like they can do better there, and whether or not that is true is not up to a boardroom of managers to decide. People get to decide what's best for them, and how/where they want to earn their money including if they are a hockey player in high demand.

I don't agree with the notion that Nordic investors look at things differently; investors invest to get a return, in other words profit. That is indiscriminate of nationality or even market. KHL's long term goal is also to be profitable and self sustaining as the top level officials there mention. The league actually is profitable but individual teams are not.

I cannot speculate what the investors would pride and celebrate, however, personally if I was an investor I would prefer an average of 13,000 attendance and strong media presence irregardless of who is on the ice- compared to Ovechkin playing in a run down 4,500 seater any day. Just to build a contrast. A league with 10,000 + average attendance and strong financial solvency would be able to attract- or retain stars.

I will show an example. I think Ak-Bars illustrates my point crystal clear. They have had many super star signings in the past and had abysmal and frankly embarrassing attendance. When I raised the point on these boards a local of Kazan said that it was circumstantial. It had to do with transportation, bus routing, and other things that are non hockey related (indeed the team was playing well). He proved to be 100% correct. Ak-Bars attendance has sky rocketed on the IIHF list and all that was with a less than spectacular roster with no amazingly outstanding players like they had in the past.

That is exactly my point. There is so much work to be done that can drive up the popularity and financial viability of the league that has nothing to do with player personnel. Investors would be dumb to overlook that. Cozy accommodations for paying customers and beer sales are part of the NHL business model also.

 

[Jussi]

I think that professional hockey players that are being paid millions can be more likened to skilled professionals taking up contracts where they please than to fleeing migrant workers. Many are millionaires and have the free will to decide where they want to go in the same way that a teenager might want to spend a few years abroad. No investor has the right to restrict such movement. That's the same way a record number of Canadians have been playing in the KHL in recent times - they feel like they can do better there, and whether or not that is true is not up to a boardroom of managers to decide. People get to decide what's best for them, and how/where they want to earn their money including if they are a hockey player in high demand.

I don't agree with the notion that Nordic investors look at things differently; investors invest to get a return, in other words profit. That is indiscriminate of nationality or even market. KHL's long term goal is also to be profitable and self sustaining as the top level officials there mention. The league actually is profitable but individual teams are not.

I cannot speculate what the investors would pride and celebrate, however, personally if I was an investor I would prefer an average of 13,000 attendance and strong media presence irregardless of who is on the ice- compared to Ovechkin playing in a run down 4,500 seater any day. Just to build a contrast. A league with 10,000 + average attendance and strong financial solvency would be able to attract- or retain stars.

I will show an example. I think Ak-Bars illustrates my point crystal clear. They have had many super star signings in the past and had abysmal and frankly embarrassing attendance. When I raised the point on these boards a local of Kazan said that it was circumstantial. It had to do with transportation, bus routing, and other things that are non hockey related (indeed the team was playing well). He proved to be 100% correct. Ak-Bars attendance has sky rocketed on the IIHF list and all that was with a less than spectacular roster with no amazingly outstanding players like they had in the past.

That is exactly my point. There is so much work to be done that can drive up the popularity and financial viability of the league that has nothing to do with player personnel. Investors would be dumb to overlook that. Cozy accommodations for paying customers and beer sales are part of the NHL business model also.

Hasn't it already been explained by several Russian posters already that no Russian "investor" in KHL is looking for profit and is just looking for wins from the team? The ticket prices in Russia make it impossible for teams to make profit compared to player salaries?

 

[metmag]

Hasn't it already been explained by several Russian posters already that no Russian "investor" in KHL is looking for profit and is just looking for wins from the team? The ticket prices in Russia make it impossible for teams to make profit compared to player salaries?

Yeah, I'm talking long term here. Total league-wide attendance had increased by over 1,000,000 since inauguration, and who knows where that number will be in the next few years or decade. I don't think anybody is anticipating a decrease for this upcoming season. Cheap ticket prices play more to my point that it could even be good riddance of the expensive salaries. If salaries decrease and attendance increases the league comes closer to profitability.

 

[Yakushev72]

Hasn't it already been explained by several Russian posters already that no Russian "investor" in KHL is looking for profit and is just looking for wins from the team? The ticket prices in Russia make it impossible for teams to make profit compared to player salaries?

If what you are saying is true, then why would it have been necessary to form a new league in 2009? All the rich franchises were already in place in 2009, and all paying relatively high salaries. You are repeating your thesis that the KHL is just a front organization for the Russian Hockey Federation, and its goal of dominating world hockey. If that was the case, wouldn't it have been easier to re-establish a Soviet-style national team, and pay all of the coaches and players $100 million per year tax-free to win Olympic Gold and World Championships?

In reality, the most plausible explanation is more benign than that. The KHL investors, based on the convergence of two trends: (1) the increasing popularity of football among Russian fans, with the speculation that hockey could provoke similar fan interest, and (2) increasing prosperity in Russia that created more disposable income to be spent on distractions like hockey, probably thought that they could be in position to make a lot of money down the road if they invested money up front and took a loss for several years. They would never "get there" if the salary structure in the league was comparable to the AHL or other domestic leagues in Europe. Whether it will last remains to be seen, but that was the reason the KHL came into being.

 

[Yakushev72]

Yeah, I'm talking long term here. Total league-wide attendance had increased by over 1,000,000 since inauguration, and who knows where that number will be in the next few years or decade. I don't think anybody is anticipating a decrease for this upcoming season. Cheap ticket prices play more to my point that it could even be good riddance of the expensive salaries. If salaries decrease and attendance increases the league comes closer to profitability.

Decreasing salaries would only serve to make it impossible to retain and/or attract top level hockey players. The RSL was perfectly adequate as a domestic league - the purpose of the KHL was to attract top players internationally, including Russians, to play in its league and entertain its fans, instead of going overseas. Without that goal, no real purpose exists for the KHL.

 

[Jussi]

If what you are saying is true, then why would it have been necessary to form a new league in 2009? All the rich franchises were already in place in 2009, and all paying relatively high salaries. You are repeating your thesis that the KHL is just a front organization for the Russian Hockey Federation, and its goal of dominating world hockey. If that was the case, wouldn't it have been easier to re-establish a Soviet-style national team, and pay all of the coaches and players $100 million per year tax-free to win Olympic Gold and World Championships?

In reality, the most plausible explanation is more benign than that. The KHL investors, based on the convergence of two trends: (1) the increasing popularity of football among Russian fans, with the speculation that hockey could provoke similar fan interest, and (2) increasing prosperity in Russia that created more disposable income to be spent on distractions like hockey, probably thought that they could be in position to make a lot of money down the road if they invested money up front and took a loss for several years. They would never "get there" if the salary structure in the league was comparable to the AHL or other domestic leagues in Europe. Whether it will last remains to be seen, but that was the reason the KHL came into being.

Because Putin wanted it?

 

[metmag]

Decreasing salaries would only serve to make it impossible to retain and/or attract top level hockey players. The RSL was perfectly adequate as a domestic league - the purpose of the KHL was to attract top players internationally, including Russians, to play in its league and entertain its fans, instead of going overseas. Without that goal, no real purpose exists for the KHL.

I don't know your vision of 'perfectly adequate', but Russian hockey was literally dying out under the RSL. Even the first KHL season (which I followed) with Khimik et al. was hilarious. The RUS-2 system was a joke, etc etc. The league has gotten better but it was not because of fun publicity stunt signings like the Radulov case. The fact that the MHL has a website, for example, where one can look up the standings and stats of junior teams/players has done much more for Russian Junior hockey than signing Kovalchuk. I could go on but there's no point.

Simply put, I disagree with you. But at least let me understand you correctly since you created the thread with such a title.

So what you mean to say is that since the league has been so successful, and pumped out so much new talent, it is now facing an existential threat if the KHL investors don't go into all out bidding wars against NHL clubs?

"Can the KHL survive mass defections to the NHL?"

In other words what you are suggesting is that the KHL may not survive if teams can't offer Tikhonov $10,000,000 to stay put?

 

[Yakushev72]

I don't know your vision of 'perfectly adequate', but Russian hockey was literally dying out under the RSL. Even the first KHL season (which I followed) with Khimik et al. was hilarious. The RUS-2 system was a joke, etc etc. The league has gotten better but it was not because of fun publicity stunt signings like the Radulov case. The fact that the MHL has a website, for example, where one can look up the standings and stats of junior teams/players has done much more for Russian Junior hockey than signing Kovalchuk. I could go on but there's no point.

Simply put, I disagree with you. But at least let me understand you correctly since you created the thread with such a title.

So what you mean to say is that since the league has been so successful, and pumped out so much new talent, it is now facing an existential threat if the KHL investors don't go into all out bidding wars against NHL clubs?

"Can the KHL survive mass defections to the NHL?"

In other words what you are suggesting is that the KHL may not survive if teams can't offer Tikhonov $10,000,000 to stay put?

I think you're a little late in coming to the table to discuss the decline of Russian hockey. There are a number of reasons why the massive decline took place after 1992, but suffice it to say that the RSL was definitely not one of them. The RSL produced players like Ovechkin and Malkin who are among the top 5 forwards in the World. It was always considered to be the best league in Europe, not even close!

If Russian hockey is improving, then there is no question that the KHL is a major catalyst. The KHL created the MHL, which was the first real junior league that Russia ever had. If you're going to ridicule my argument, try to be a little more clever and original than the bit about offering Tikhonov $10 million. Did the NHL offer him $10 million. I seriously doubt that. I never said higher salaries are the answer, because in fact salaries are already very high in comparison to the real value of the player. But the league would be sabotaging itself by lowering salaries to settle into a niche of profitability, as long as the prospect of increased revenues remains a possibility down the road. In the Russian market, the KHL won't become revenue sufficient based on ticket prices for a long time. They will need names and attractions to gather profitable Euro TV contracts and merchandising revenues. Lowering salaries precludes attracting the names needed to create TV and merchandising revenue.

 

[metmag]

Now you're going off in a different direction

how so?

It's the same points I've been making.

1- KHL is not in a threat of survival. It doesn't matter if the top few players want to go.

2- It can improve and increase viability in ways not related to player signings as it has been doing ( I brought another example about the MHL website)

 

[Yakushev72]

how so?

It's the same points I've been making.

1- KHL is not in a threat of survival. It doesn't matter if the top few players want to go.

2- It can improve and increase viability in ways not related to player signings as it has been doing ( I brought another example about the MHL website)

How did the MHL website benefit the development of junior hockey?

 

[metmag]

How did the MHL website benefit the development of junior hockey?

It's a nominal example. But anyways, it allowed people (like me) to follow juniors, where it was not possible before. As well as gave them some exposure to mainstream. I would never have known who Avtsin was if not for it - again im not making a point by that, just saying it is exposure and can hype up interest by players and parents. I remember some MHL playoff games were sold out! How does that not benefit junior hockey?These kids have interviews, are broadcast and the level and interest has increased. The development of the VHL-MHL pyramid by the KHL has done a tremendous amount for Russian hockey development. Again alot of that has nothing to do with star player personnel, I'm not sure how to make that any more clear.

What are you suggesting? Go all out and pay Malkin $30 mil(player and price is nominal- insert anything) to come back and play in Magnitogorsk so as to stimulate kids into being excited and develop junior hockey that way? Or help the league 'survive'? I don't see it.

 

[metmag]

I think you're a little late in coming to the table to discuss the decline of Russian hockey. There are a number of reasons why the massive decline took place after 1992, but suffice it to say that the RSL was definitely not one of them. The RSL produced players like Ovechkin and Malkin who are among the top 5 forwards in the World. It was always considered to be the best league in Europe, not even close!

If Russian hockey is improving, then there is no question that the KHL is a major catalyst. The KHL created the MHL, which was the first real junior league that Russia ever had. If you're going to ridicule my argument, try to be a little more clever and original than the bit about offering Tikhonov $10 million. Did the NHL offer him $10 million. I seriously doubt that. I never said higher salaries are the answer, because in fact salaries are already very high in comparison to the real value of the player. But the league would be sabotaging itself by lowering salaries to settle into a niche of profitability, as long as the prospect of increased revenues remains a possibility down the road. In the Russian market, the KHL won't become revenue sufficient based on ticket prices for a long time. They will need names and attractions to gather profitable Euro TV contracts and merchandising revenues. Lowering salaries precludes attracting the names needed to create TV and merchandising revenue.

I'm not here to discuss the decline of Russian hockey, but I'm also not here to discuss how adequate the RSL was. You're nitpicking names and prices, and that's not the point. It is obvious that the KHL will have to seriously overpay if Panarin is taking an entry level contract over top SKA minutes and contract offers. We dont need to get into a discussion about who offered what and to whom to know the trend.

Our disagreement is a little more clear now. I sincerely don't believe that the players leaving will drive the KHL into any sort of niche that you are alluding to. Indeed as you mentioned with the RSL, the KHL is the premier league of Europe and its going to stay that way- with Tikhonov(insert any player, if you're gonna nitpick) or without him. Let it be advertised as such irregardless of who leaves.

I see your point about merchandising and attraction. My answer to that is that there is still going to be a top scorer next season, and top players on respective teams. Step up the marketing department and advertise that's how merchandising works. Plenty of no-name and practice jerseys sold either way.You should see some of the OHL ads going around. Signing ex-NHLers to sell merchandise is what sounds niche to me.

 

[Yakushev72]

It's a nominal example. But anyways, it allowed people (like me) to follow juniors, where it was not possible before. As well as gave them some exposure to mainstream. I would never have known who Avtsin was if not for it - again im not making a point by that, just saying it is exposure and can hype up interest by players and parents. I remember some MHL playoff games were sold out! How does that not benefit junior hockey?These kids have interviews, are broadcast and the level and interest has increased. The development of the VHL-MHL pyramid by the KHL has done a tremendous amount for Russian hockey development. Again alot of that has nothing to do with star player personnel, I'm not sure how to make that any more clear.

What are you suggesting? Go all out and pay Malkin $30 mil(player and price is nominal- insert anything) to come back and play in Magnitogorsk so as to stimulate kids into being excited and develop junior hockey that way? Or help the league 'survive'? I don't see it.

First, Avtsin. You likely never learned anything about Avtsin on the MHL website, because Avtsin never played in the MHL. He left to go to NA before the league was formed. I haven't heard his name mentioned in 4 years, and I am going to take it from your mention that he must still be alive! Glad to hear it! But Avtsin is a perfect example of what you hear so many of us Russian fans complaining about. There was a guy who showed tremendous physical skill and talent while he was in Russia, but like the overwhelming majority of promising Russian kids that go to NA, he failed to make the difficult adjustments, and if he is still playing hockey, he is doing so in complete obscurity.

When you talk about "hyping up interest," I assume you mean in Canada and the US. Again, you are looking at it from the standpoint of the NHL and CHL, and that is, Russian players as a foreign export crop to be cherry-picked by foreign business interests, with not a penny going back to the source of development in Russia. I understand why Canadians like yourself are happy with the status quo, but can't imagine why you would think that Russian fans would rather have them playing across the ocean rather than in arenas in their home town.

Would I pay Malkin $30 million per year to play in the KHL? No, I would pay him $50 million tax-free over 10 years, to start catching everyone's attention. I would try to cherry-pick to pay outsized contracts to every premier Russian star to get them back home. Nothing would boost the league as much as that.

 

[Yakushev72]

I'm not here to discuss the decline of Russian hockey, but I'm also not here to discuss how adequate the RSL was. You're nitpicking names and prices, and that's not the point. It is obvious that the KHL will have to seriously overpay if Panarin is taking an entry level contract over top SKA minutes and contract offers. We dont need to get into a discussion about who offered what and to whom to know the trend.

Our disagreement is a little more clear now. I sincerely don't believe that the players leaving will drive the KHL into any sort of niche that you are alluding to. Indeed as you mentioned with the RSL, the KHL is the premier league of Europe and its going to stay that way- with Tikhonov(insert any player, if you're gonna nitpick) or without him. Let it be advertised as such irregardless of who leaves.

I see your point about merchandising and attraction. My answer to that is that there is still going to be a top scorer next season, and top players on respective teams. Step up the marketing department and advertise that's how merchandising works. Plenty of no-name and practice jerseys sold either way.You should see some of the OHL ads going around. Signing ex-NHLers to sell merchandise is what sounds niche to me.

Tikhonov has excellent puck handling and goal scoring skills, but I agree that there is nothing special about him that anyone would really miss. But it was the departure of Panarin and his linemates (Shipachyov has to work out contract issues, and I don't think Dadonov is generating much interest) that prompted this thread. They created a lot of excitement, mainly because of Panarin's skills, and they effectively put people in the seats, so to speak. So when they have a measure of success, and are suddenly gone to fame and fortune in NA, what message does that send to the fans and to comparable prospects?

Assuming that the NHL will continue to exist well into the future as the richest and most powerful hockey league, how does the KHL ever turn the corner to realize their obvious goals in forming the league? At what point do they give up on trying to become the KHL and slip back into the role that the RSL filled? Couple that with the mass exodus of 16- and 17-year olds to the CHL, and the whole model of the KHL and MHL is in jeopardy. I presume that some kind of action will be taken to protect their interests before the KHL considers changing its model.

 

[metmag]

First, Avtsin. You likely never learned anything about Avtsin on the MHL website, because Avtsin never played in the MHL. He left to go to NA before the league was formed. I haven't heard his name mentioned in 4 years, and I am going to take it from your mention that he must still be alive! Glad to hear it! But Avtsin is a perfect example of what you hear so many of us Russian fans complaining about. There was a guy who showed tremendous physical skill and talent while he was in Russia, but like the overwhelming majority of promising Russian kids that go to NA, he failed to make the difficult adjustments, and if he is still playing hockey, he is doing so in complete obscurity.

When you talk about "hyping up interest," I assume you mean in Canada and the US. Again, you are looking at it from the standpoint of the NHL and CHL, and that is, Russian players as a foreign export crop to be cherry-picked by foreign business interests, with not a penny going back to the source of development in Russia. I understand why Canadians like yourself are happy with the status quo, but can't imagine why you would think that Russian fans would rather have them playing across the ocean rather than in arenas in their home town.

Would I pay Malkin $30 million per year to play in the KHL? No, I would pay him $50 million tax-free over 10 years, to start catching everyone's attention. I would try to cherry-pick to pay outsized contracts to every premier Russian star to get them back home. Nothing would boost the league as much as that.

Thank you for the discussion, I am done here.

I specifically pointed out that my examples were nominal when you tried to engage about Tikhonov after which I proceeded to tell you that the name and price is irrelevant - each time in brackets to make it explicit. To make it extra clear I put in brackets that I am just using the names to make a point(which you dont seem to wanna talk about too much). The Malkin analogy was to make a point that bringing back stars doesn't bring kids to hockey as much as a good working pyramid system would. And yet, you spend 2/3 of your response talking about an irrelevant player, and an outlandish pricing scheme(pipedream) w.r.t. Malkin which frankly is even more irrelevant.

Post #139 was as clear as it gets, except you didn't address the points and decided to nitpick a random example which you continued even further with a paragraph on Avtsin. With all due respect, I think it is you who is going off in a different direction.

Ok so clerical services and databases, advertising etc (including the website)..... all nonesense and irrelevant to grow hockey... Just for North Americans to take advantage.... Russians don't need those...

It was not the lines and the players(for the last time, I dont care who) that put spectators in the seats, but SKA's superb NHL like management and aggressive advertisement. Which I was talking about the whole time, not related to players. CSKA was #1 in the regular season with some pretty damn exhilarating players... abysmal attendance not even in the Euro top 20. Oh, it wouldn't be because of an abysmal arena and crappy advertising would it? Because according to how you speak the arena should be packed because of the marquee players? Please dont tell me you're gonna nitpick why the players weren't star enough. It is not hockey related.

First, Avtsin. You likely never learned anything about Avtsin on the MHL website, because Avtsin never played in the MHL. He left to go to NA before the league was formed.

Not that I wanted to spend any(more) time talking about this... but I'm surprised you make yourself sound so confident. Anyways you are straight up incorrect and ill informed. So I have to set the record straight:

Avtsin was front page on the MHL website when it was created. He was the poster boy of the MHL. It was actually him and Marchenko in the picture, and it was a nice big ad. They played the first, inaugural game of the MHL. CSKA(red army), and MHK Dynamo did. I watched that game and he played the season I'm sure some old timers on this board will remember that.

Good day to you, sir.

 

[Yakushev72]

Thank you for the discussion, I am done here.

I specifically pointed out that my examples were nominal when you tried to engage about Tikhonov after which I proceeded to tell you that the name and price is irrelevant - each time in brackets to make it explicit. To make it extra clear I put in brackets that I am just using the names to make a point(which you dont seem to wanna talk about too much). The Malkin analogy was to make a point that bringing back stars doesn't bring kids to hockey as much as a good working pyramid system would. And yet, you spend 2/3 of your response talking about an irrelevant player, and an outlandish pricing scheme(pipedream) w.r.t. Malkin which frankly is even more irrelevant.

Post #139 was as clear as it gets, except you didn't address the points and decided to nitpick a random example which you continued even further with a paragraph on Avtsin. With all due respect, I think it is you who is going off in a different direction.

Ok so clerical services and databases, advertising etc (including the website)..... all nonesense and irrelevant to grow hockey... Just for North Americans to take advantage.... Russians don't need those...

It was not the lines and the players(for the last time, I dont care who) that put spectators in the seats, but SKA's superb NHL like management and aggressive advertisement. Which I was talking about the whole time, not related to players. CSKA was #1 in the regular season with some pretty damn exhilarating players... abysmal attendance not even in the Euro top 20. Oh, it wouldn't be because of an abysmal arena and crappy advertising would it? Because according to how you speak the arena should be packed because of the marquee players? Please dont tell me you're gonna nitpick why the players weren't star enough. It is not hockey related.



Not that I wanted to spend any(more) time talking about this... but I'm surprised you make yourself sound so confident. Anyways you are straight up incorrect and ill informed. So I have to set the record straight:

Avtsin was front page on the MHL website when it was created. He was the poster boy of the MHL. It was actually him and Marchenko in the picture, and it was a nice big ad. They played the first, inaugural game of the MHL. CSKA(red army), and MHK Dynamo did. I watched that game and he played the season I'm sure some old timers on this board will remember that.

Good day to you, sir.

My apologies if I am wrong about Avtsin playing in the MHL. I sincerely thought he left the year before, but if I am wrong, then I sincerely apologize.

As for the rest of the discussion, I am only suggesting that the KHL is within its rights to protect its interests, and should do so in order to remain viable. I'm not alone, even the great Slava Fetisov suggests the same. I am ready to abandon this discussion as well, but hope to chat with you on other subjects where we might be closer to each other's point of view. I have a feeling that we are not that far away!

 

[Alessandro Seren Rosso]

Yakushev, you know that I always respect you and your points and your posts are always meaningful, but this time I'm on the "enemy" side

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

Tikhonov has excellent puck handling and goal scoring skills, but I agree that there is nothing special about him that anyone would really miss. But it was the departure of Panarin and his linemates (Shipachyov has to work out contract issues, and I don't think Dadonov is generating much interest) that prompted this thread. They created a lot of excitement, mainly because of Panarin's skills, and they effectively put people in the seats, so to speak. So when they have a measure of success, and are suddenly gone to fame and fortune in NA, what message does that send to the fans and to comparable prospects?

Assuming that the NHL will continue to exist well into the future as the richest and most powerful hockey league, how does the KHL ever turn the corner to realize their obvious goals in forming the league? At what point do they give up on trying to become the KHL and slip back into the role that the RSL filled? Couple that with the mass exodus of 16- and 17-year olds to the CHL, and the whole model of the KHL and MHL is in jeopardy. I presume that some kind of action will be taken to protect their interests before the KHL considers changing its model.

So if I'm understanding your argument the main difference you see between the KHL and the RSL is that the KHL is trying to expand out to be more than just a Russian domestic league. It seems to me that the part of the KHL that is much more likely not to survive are the teams outside of Russia. How then does retaining more Russian talent help those teams? If anything it would likely make the Russian KHL teams even stronger and thus the foreign teams less competitive and less likely to survive. I haven't read all your posts in this thread, but it seems as though your logic is not well thought out.
Also, are you suggesting that Russia should go back to a system where people are prevented from leaving the country? As best I can tell you are a Russian hockey fan, but not actually Russian, and I think your opinion is completely self serving as a hockey fan and utterly out of touch with what most Russian people actually want.

 

[metmag]

Yakushev, you know that I always respect you and your points and your posts are always meaningful, but this time I'm on the "enemy" side

We're all one hockey community, no matter how fragmented we might seem