How likely is the departure of Dinamo Rīga from KHL in the next few years?
- Thread starter BalticWarrior
- Start date
hansomreiste
Registered User
Based on things I've heard from locals (like you guys in here) I'd say, unfortunately, very likely. People in Riga obviously love hockey a lot but what's the point when your team offers absolutely nothing? Just one "rich guy" is enough to make Dinamo a legit team but the problem lies in finding him. Personally, if I was a businessman, I would definitely love to invest in teams like Dinamo Riga or Amur Khabarovsk, teams with loyal fanbase that can do great things once they are backed financially.
Even if Atlant and Spartak left (yeah, I know they came back later), I see no reason why Riga wouldn't. It makes no sense to have Dinamo at the moment. Things have to change.
Even if Atlant and Spartak left (yeah, I know they came back later), I see no reason why Riga wouldn't. It makes no sense to have Dinamo at the moment. Things have to change.
Pyrophorus
Registered User
SoundAndFury
Registered User
- May 28, 2012
- 11,512
- 5,436
I think it's unlikely because KHL obviously doesn't want to lose team like that and Dinamo brass doesn't want to leave KHL. There is a mutual interest in one another.
What I think is very likely, however, is that the team will continue to operate on lowest costs possible with no ambitions at all in the foreseeable future.
You are comparing apples and oranges here. Team in Latvia isn't the same at all as the 3rd and 4th team in Moscow. It makes sense to have Riga because like I said, by folding Dinamo KHL loses one more team in EU with a risk of not getting it back (in case Latvians figure out a way to live without the KHL) and it once again brings huge uncertainty into Latvian hockey which now very much evolves around Dinamo. So neither side would benefit from ending the partnership for good.
And even in this terrible state it's not like Riga is that noncompetitive, it's just that people were used to much better.
What I think is very likely, however, is that the team will continue to operate on lowest costs possible with no ambitions at all in the foreseeable future.
You are comparing apples and oranges here. Team in Latvia isn't the same at all as the 3rd and 4th team in Moscow. It makes sense to have Riga because like I said, by folding Dinamo KHL loses one more team in EU with a risk of not getting it back (in case Latvians figure out a way to live without the KHL) and it once again brings huge uncertainty into Latvian hockey which now very much evolves around Dinamo. So neither side would benefit from ending the partnership for good.
And even in this terrible state it's not like Riga is that noncompetitive, it's just that people were used to much better.
Last edited:
BalticWarrior
Registered User
The thing is - since there is no hard salary cap on all of the teams in KHL there cant be any possible improvement for teams like Rīga and since the backers dont care - were screwed.
SoundAndFury
Registered User
- May 28, 2012
- 11,512
- 5,436
Kuznya operates under similar conditions from day 1 and they are still around. From competitive sense - you are screwed. But it doesn't mean you can't survive long enough for something to change.
Acallabeth
Post approved by Ovechkin
If your team struggles to get a budget to be competitive, a hard salary cap would impove nothing as wealthier teams would still be much better. If anything, Riga could benefit from a luxury tax for going over the cap, if the tax was shared with financially weaker clubs.
As SoundAndFury already has pointed out, Dynamo Riga isn't simply a hockey team in the KHL. An opportunity for the Latvian players to play in the more competitive league, an MHL team for youth, a European outpost for the KHL, and so on. I think they're likely to stay, and with their large arena and expensive tickets, if something changes for the better, they'll get a good financial boost.
So you dream won't come through.
Last edited:
Go Donbass
Registered User
Agree with everything you and S and F have said. I have been coming here for a couple of years now and have constantly heard that Slovan, Medvescak and Jokerit were leaving the league imminently. Well not only haven't they left, but they are signing extensions to stay with the league. Having a team in the KHL provides an invaluable resource for the second and third tier hockey nations to improve their national team programs (Yes I know Finland is not a second or third tier hockey nation). They will continue to do whatever they have to to remain in the league. Returning to 3rd tier domestic leagues does absolutely nothing to for them as hockey nations.
Medvescak and Jokerit are on the last years of their contract people weren't lobbying to leave prior to the end of the contract so that point isn't relevant as both could walk after this season.
I hear a lot of reasons why Latvian hockey needs the KHL but not a whole lot of reasons why the KHL needs Latvia. I don't think the KHL has any interest in furthering Latvian Hockey, but I do think they have interest in keeping the Latvian fanbase which is fairly vibrant. I've read a thing or two on it in Latvian news not everyone agrees but I think they'll just keep running at lowest possible cost for now. The problem is that with losing comes a fan price. I've definitely noticed the stadium grow less vibrant over the past few seasons as a general statement. If they lose every game on the season and fans are just dropping right and left I can only imagine that eventually the KHL will grow uninterested in keeping Riga but I can't imagine that being within an foreseeable timeframe.
BalticWarrior
Registered User
I cannot agree with that. Latvian hockey wouldnt actually lose ALL that much by leaving KHL, the players who are good enough would still play in KHL, just not in Riga. As for MHL and losing HK riga might actually hurt us waay more than losing a khl team. Hockey interest will be there with or without a club in KHL.
We havent been in the league long enough to gauge the impact of KHL on Latvian hockey, it might become worse or it might stay the same, we dont know yet.
SoundAndFury
Registered User
- May 28, 2012
- 11,512
- 5,436
At the same time you can say that junior players that are good enough would find a decent junior league/would stay in the MHL. Why the double standard? Also stop kidding yourself with "hockey interest would still be there". You know nobody would give damn about a team in Belorussian league, it would average 1k viewers, at best.
P.S. Who are the players that would still play in the KHL? Seems to me there is no one. Just like there was nobody playing in the RSL when Dinamo was formed.
P.S. Who are the players that would still play in the KHL? Seems to me there is no one. Just like there was nobody playing in the RSL when Dinamo was formed.
BalticWarrior
Registered User
Well..yes. Infact thats already the case as our best and brightest prospects choose to play in North America or Switzerland/Sweden. What im talking about here is that its more beneficial for us to have a team in MHL rather not have one at all, i didnt mention players at all.
When i say hockey interest i mean World Chmapionships and Olympics aswell as increasing numbers of junior participation(which we have been expieriencing for the last five years or so), Hockey is not a niche market in Latvia like it is in a country like Croatia for example.
Well players like Kulda,Daugaviņš,Bartulis,Masaļskis would be in KHL no matter if Rīga is in KHL or not.
SoundAndFury
Registered User
- May 28, 2012
- 11,512
- 5,436
So you are saying "its more beneficial for us to have a team in MHL rather not have one at all" but don't see that the very same logic applies to having a KHL team too? Your best senior players are playing abroad as well you still benefit immensely from other being exposed, so to say, to a high level hockey. Also it gives so much better job security for the Latvian players.
Without a decent team in a decent league hockey would become a niche sport soon enough. Even now Porzingis mania was as big as anything Latvian hockey aspired. Do you really think Latvians would keep being interested in hockey just because?
I meant players that play for Dinamo currently. If it wasn't for Dinamo there wouldn't be 30 Latvians in the KHL, there would be 5. And a few would manage to get a job in a comparable league. Others would be playing in ECHL, Kazakhstan or Slovakia. People like Masalskis, Sprukts, Redlihs, Darzins, Galvins, Sotnieks only got their chance to make big bucks because they played for Dinamo.
BalticWarrior
Registered User
Latvian hockey didnt perish before Dinamo nor would it perish after Dinamo infact interest in youth hockey is the highest its ever been and is only increasing ,that will inevitably lead to even better prospects for the future.As for Porzingis mania- its just a fad and as such it will fade once bandwagon fans find something else. Also to say that "as big as anything Latvian hockey aspired" is ridiculous, case in point - Sochi olympics - half the frickin country watched the game against Canada. Latvians wont continue being interested in hockey just "because" they will be interested in hockey because it has strong roots and history in this country and its not going anywhere.
Last edited:
Acallabeth
Post approved by Ovechkin
I hope you understand that the youth hockey movement growing can very easily be traced to Dinamo participating in the 2nd best league in the world? Same for the interest in hockey overall, that history has definitely grown stronger than if Riga continued to play in the Latvian championship.
Nobody says that hockey would perish. But it would take damage, and why would anyone want that? Even if you hate Russia, staying in the KHL is obviously beneficial.
BalticWarrior
Registered User
Look, i dont want Dinamo out of KHL(eventhough i may not be a fan anymore) i obviously understand the implication of the damage to our hockey if such an event would happen. Its just a little annoying to say our whole hockey revovles around Dinamo.
Interesting topic!
I've seen many times that Riga would move to the Swedish league... however that seems impossible and is probably just a total rumour.
The problem with Riga and the KHL is that.. Dinamo is a very, very traditional team from back in the Soviet days, so the league won't want to let them go anywhere! Riga have discussed building their own arena to keep costs down and make more from their ticket income ect. This was a few years ago and I've seen nothing since. "Arena Riga doesn't need Dinamo but Dinamo needs it" is what was being thrown around.
Riga is also one of the few teams who can turn a profit, obviously because they spend less and less. Last year their income was something like €12m from sponsors and they made like 400k profit on it all, however a terrible season. Their player budget is tiny compared to 99% of the KHL!
The company that pays all the bills is Itera, which is a sister company of Gazprom I believe but the league says it wants team to be more sustainable and Riga isn't without the backing, as we all know.
The main reason why I think Riga will never leave the league is because the owner is close friends with Putin and he won't want a team like Riga to leave the league or we'd have left already I'm sure
I've seen many times that Riga would move to the Swedish league... however that seems impossible and is probably just a total rumour.
The problem with Riga and the KHL is that.. Dinamo is a very, very traditional team from back in the Soviet days, so the league won't want to let them go anywhere! Riga have discussed building their own arena to keep costs down and make more from their ticket income ect. This was a few years ago and I've seen nothing since. "Arena Riga doesn't need Dinamo but Dinamo needs it" is what was being thrown around.
Riga is also one of the few teams who can turn a profit, obviously because they spend less and less. Last year their income was something like €12m from sponsors and they made like 400k profit on it all, however a terrible season. Their player budget is tiny compared to 99% of the KHL!
The company that pays all the bills is Itera, which is a sister company of Gazprom I believe but the league says it wants team to be more sustainable and Riga isn't without the backing, as we all know.
The main reason why I think Riga will never leave the league is because the owner is close friends with Putin and he won't want a team like Riga to leave the league or we'd have left already I'm sure
Jussi
Registered User
The only way they've made profit was because they didn't spend all their sponsor money.
Last edited:
Milos Krasic
Best Serbian Footballer (2009) / Serie A Winner
- Jul 1, 2008
- 1,827
- 43
GX
Registered User
- Dec 28, 2011
- 938
- 281
Well, since then they pretty much purchased Arena Riga, so the plans for their own arena are scrapped for good, I guess.
BalticWarrior
Registered User
GX
Registered User
- Dec 28, 2011
- 938
- 281
Just to add some sense to 'how crucial is Dinamo for the national team programme':
Number of players in top European and NA teams (KHL, SWE, FIN, GER, SUI, CZE, NHL, AHL), without Dinamo:
06/07: 23 (16 - Europe+RSL, 7 - NHL/AHL)
07/08: 25 (16 - Europe+RSL, 9 - NHL/AHL)
14/15: 21 (17 - Europe+KHL, 4 - NHL/AHL + 17 - Dinamo)
15/16: 21 (15 - Europe+KHL, 6 - NHL/AHL + 18 - Dinamo)
16/17 contracted: 18 (14 - Europe+KHL, 4 - NHL/AHL + 20 - Dinamo)
Yes, the sheer number of Latvians playing in top leagues has increased. Yes, around a half of Latvians in Dinamo couldn't find a spot in other top team, however the other half could and would.
Moreover, with regards to the half that couldn't find a spot anywhere but a 2nd tier league. I have seen no evidence of how a fringe 4th line role in the KHL (that would be an equivalent of playing as an import in a 2nd tier league) has benefited any Latvian to grow better, once he is 21 or older. The road to elite leagues might be longer without Dinamo for some junior players, that's true, but the national programme wouldn't hurt much.
Number of players in top European and NA teams (KHL, SWE, FIN, GER, SUI, CZE, NHL, AHL), without Dinamo:
06/07: 23 (16 - Europe+RSL, 7 - NHL/AHL)
07/08: 25 (16 - Europe+RSL, 9 - NHL/AHL)
14/15: 21 (17 - Europe+KHL, 4 - NHL/AHL + 17 - Dinamo)
15/16: 21 (15 - Europe+KHL, 6 - NHL/AHL + 18 - Dinamo)
16/17 contracted: 18 (14 - Europe+KHL, 4 - NHL/AHL + 20 - Dinamo)
Yes, the sheer number of Latvians playing in top leagues has increased. Yes, around a half of Latvians in Dinamo couldn't find a spot in other top team, however the other half could and would.
Moreover, with regards to the half that couldn't find a spot anywhere but a 2nd tier league. I have seen no evidence of how a fringe 4th line role in the KHL (that would be an equivalent of playing as an import in a 2nd tier league) has benefited any Latvian to grow better, once he is 21 or older. The road to elite leagues might be longer without Dinamo for some junior players, that's true, but the national programme wouldn't hurt much.
Players need a place to develop at a certain age. Most players aren't elite pro ready right out of juniors, a good example is Lauris Darzins. He was cut from a Liiga team for doing terribly, cut from an Extraliga team for doing just as bad, came back to Riga and improved until he was almost PPG. The Belarus league is where talent goes to die, you don't want to go back there.
Ad
Upcoming events
-
Game 3 Boston Celtics @ Cleveland Cavaliers - Series tied 1-1Wagers: 2Staked: $2,200.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Game 3 Dallas Stars @ Colorado Avalanche - Series tied 1-1Wagers: 9Staked: $5,000.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
-