Discussion in 'International Tournaments' started by Jussi, May 16, 2018.
The bold part is your fantasy and you know it.
Pop quiz hot shot: who won the CHL in 2008-2009 season and who did they beat in the final?
Even Kalervo Kummola, on Finnish tv even, said back in the day the that Gazprom pulled out because Russian clubs weren't winning the tournament.
As said earlier, this conspiracy theory is nothing more than your fantasy.
I trust Kummola more than you.
Good for you.
Now back to the discussion. I will sum up my questions ...
Do you claim the CHL is popular in all involving countries?
Name countries where the CHL is successful.
Ok. That's interesting. Who was his source? Who in Gazprom management told him so? I mean there should be such source, because you wouldn't use his personal opinion as prove, would you?
CHL of 08 was bust that wasn't worth money spent. Plus that was the year KHL was started and there were better things to spend money on. Gazprom just cut of unnecessary expenses.
Do you think the bold part was a coincidence?
Btw, you guys blame Mountfield Hradec Kralove CEO for his statement on current CHL. As we know, Mountfield České Budějovice, played in the CHL 2008. I guess, there is a few guys in Mountfield company who remember prize money of the CHL 2008 and can compare with prize money of the current CHL.
CHL 2008 / gazprom CHL was not bust, it was very good and interesting, and the only succesfull CHL ever played. The Zurcich Lions won the Stanley Cup winner in Victoria cup game, it was epic, probably best thing that has ever happened and ever will again.
Now were stuck in dirt, because incapable idiots trying to make CHL wrong. Theyre climbing the tree with their ass first, everything is piss poor and ridiculous that they try to do, its not even funny anymore. They take the precious name "champions league" that soccer has built and **** it up in hockey peoples minds.
Probably. I mean as far as I know CHL wasn't Gazprom idea, it was created to celebrate 100 years of IIHF. From other side, it was stated by Medvedev that KHL was idea proposed by Putin. It's really hard for me to connect them together. But who knows. In any case, my point stands. It just didn't worth the cost.
Also we can easily see parallel with current CHL. Before first season KHL was part of the deal, they were ready to give 7 best clubs for representing Russia in CHL. I even remember some guy in Dynamo management have said something about CHL title could be more prestigious than KHL one. Of course he was laughed at by all who commented this news, but there were such opinions among hockey people here. After first season, which was unanimously considered as total failure in Russia, there are absolutely no desire to participate in CHL at all. So result is the same and you can't excuse it with "Russian clubs didn't win it" nonsense. It just so happens that product doesn't worth it yet.
They're actually doing things better than with IIHF running. This thing won't collapse if one sponsor leaves. You also failed to acknowledge that your facts about qualification are outdated. The schedule is probaly an issue but it's mostly because our clubs are too stubborn to do the smart thing that the Swedes did, ie. reduce the number of regular season games closer to 50 than 60. It would be easier to play during the season if Liiga clubs got their heads out of their asses and did the smart thing.
Agree, the CHL 2008 was the best thing ever happened to European club hockey. Why? Because only true champions participated, schedule was OK, fans liked it, prize money was really good.
We can have various theories why the CHL 2008 had only one season. People use to blame Russians or the IIHF. Nobody blame European leagues/clubs/hockey federations. Perhaps, all involved are to be blamed.
I remember Szemberg (the CHL executive at the time) how he complained in Russian media about not-participation of the KHL. That all sports have champions league & Russian teams are involved, only hockey is different. As Chernyshenko said when talking about Euros, "they come to our office, tell us how great team they have and are ready to join the KHL if Russians will finance it." The same here, Euros had no problem to participate in the CHL 2008, while Russian paid for it. Of course, Russians had their conditions, which Euros were not able to fullfil... so the CHL 2008 failed. The fairly-tales how Gazprom did not want to spend money on the CHL are good fairly-tales, but have nothing to do with reality. You know, 10 mil EUR is not a problem for Gazprom, but Russians are not stupid to finance the competition, but Euros will set the rules. That is not how it works. There needs to be a balance. Unfortunatelly, Euros are not ready to accept a compromise. Only losers are fans.
The KHL was never a part of the deal (current CHL). Of course, the KHL negotiated with Euros, that is normal. Per public sources, one reason for non-parcitipation was "no to Jokerit" as the KHL representative. Later, the KHL proposed some other model of co-operation, which was refused by the CHL.
You are wrong, Russians/KHL did not consider the CHL as total failure after innaugural season.
OK, could you give me one positive news about CHL in Russian media after first season? Because I really don't remember any of such kind.
It really did fall because Gazprom pulled out. Kalervo Kummola said this is as a fact on Finnish tv, probably during the 2009 Worlds. Main sponsor left, IIHF didn't have money to run it anymore after that. Edit: in 2010 when Kummola was still hoping the CHL would be resurrected, he said to MTV3 that it collapsed because Gazprom and Reebok pulled out as mainsponsors: Kummola paljastaa: CHL:n rahoitus kunnossa
Please list the conditions the Russians had.
If the CHL wants to have positive image in Russia, the league needs to make steps to make it happen. The same applies to other countries.
Nobody cares about your fairly-tales.
Russian oil money pulling out was definitely the key reason, but rather because of this than anything on ice:
Do you not believe @Jussi who said, the CHL 2008 failed because "Russian clubs lost to Swiss clubs"?
Ou, man. Two czech teams went to "red" budgetwise. Have to wonder if they got anywhere near to KHL Jokerit. Tass.ru tells us that Jokerit losses for past four year are 50 million euros. That's about 12,5 million euros per year. How much did those two czech club lose?
I hope you know the difference. The KHL has secured financing of Jokerit, on the other hand the CHL has not & teams can not promote their domestic sponsors during CHL games. In case you do not get it, the KHL gives money to clubs (directly or indirectly), the CHL does not and ask clubs to finance the CHL.
Yes, KHL has to put money to foreign teams, because otherwise those teams would not be viable. That's not the case with CHL. CHL teams does not need tens of million of euros every years just to survive. And what has those tens of million of euros done for Jokerit? Do they have graceful fans that adore their team? Sadly no. For example during the WCH in jatkoaika.com (finnish hockey forum) the fans of every other finnish club teams were following the national team. What did Jokerit fans do? They were fighting each other on their own section. And I'm sure that the fans of every other club teams in finland, after reading about those disputes, are just thinking "thank god it is not our team in KHL". CHL is competition that unite. KHL is not able to do that, atleast not in finland.
Same was said in Swiss news, I can't find a link in English but it has been mentioned many times that ZSC Lions where not the Winner Gazprom anticipated for the CHL. Of course this remains speculative, but one can easily imagine that it "helped" for Gazprom to pull out. Let's be honest, these few millions would have been easily affordable for Gazprom despite the financial crisis, they just didn't want to support CHL anymore. Probably due to various reasons.
Gazprom had net profits of 30 billion USD in 2008, but no money for ice hockey? We are talking about a few millions. Sure
Why doesn't the KHL participate?
Eh, it was a major crisis for them:
Separate names with a comma.