How much could NHL team pay for a European player?

[Mayuu]

There are some who think that when the player turns pro the system that developed him should get payment from the pro league. I just don't get that, and maybe you don't either.

Otherwise, if we're dealing with contract rights its a different story: there's a lot more room for interpretation.

Thinking about if for a few days the deal atm is probably better for the SHL as a league compared to individual transfer fee's depending on talent of player.

If I understood correctly when a euro player signs an ELC the NHL team pays SIHF $240k and then SIHF distributes that money to respective teams. Which will mean that it doesn't matter if it's a 1st rounder or 5th rounder that gets signed. Which is good in some cases.
If I interpreted this correct it doesn't take into regard if the player has a current contract or not as well.

This is good for when you are developing a lot of talent but horrendous when you sign a player that's just about to be drafted or has just been drafted.
Fe. Lias Andersson signed a 2 year deal with Frolunda but might not even get to play out his contract since his NHL contract trumps the SHL one (almost all SHL contracts has NHL out clauses apparently). In this case since Lias spent his 3 previous years in HV71 there will be no monetary compensation to Frolunda.

So the system is built up to develop as many players as possible and get them an ELC and get paid, when a talent like Rasmus Dahlin comes around you just have to accept that he's will net you the same amount as Tom Nilsson.

 

[vorky]

Thinking about if for a few days the deal atm is probably better for the SHL as a league compared to individual transfer fee's depending on talent of player.

If I understood correctly when a euro player signs an ELC the NHL team pays SIHF $240k and then SIHF distributes that money to respective teams. Which will mean that it doesn't matter if it's a 1st rounder or 5th rounder that gets signed. Which is good in some cases.
If I interpreted this correct it doesn't take into regard if the player has a current contract or not as well.

This is good for when you are developing a lot of talent but horrendous when you sign a player that's just about to be drafted or has just been drafted.
Fe. Lias Andersson signed a 2 year deal with Frolunda but might not even get to play out his contract since his NHL contract trumps the SHL one (almost all SHL contracts has NHL out clauses apparently). In this case since Lias spent his 3 previous years in HV71 there will be no monetary compensation to Frolunda.

So the system is built up to develop as many players as possible and get them an ELC and get paid, when a talent like Rasmus Dahlin comes around you just have to accept that he's will net you the same amount as Tom Nilsson.

Of course you can have your own opinion.

The question is - do you (your league/federation) want to be nothing more than developing league for NHL? Or do you (your league/federation) want to have your own strong league (as strong as possible)?

Swedish federation wants their domestic league to be a developing league for NHL apparently. And what is a counter value for Swedish federation from NHL? NHL blocked their players from participating at Olympics, NHL clubs does not allow their players to play IIHF WC while in playoffs. Is it fair? I do not think so.

Russian federation & KHL chose another path. They do not want to be a development league for NHL. They want to develop their league (KHL). Yes, players are moving to NHL, no problem. But can you imagine what would happen if KHL signed the same NHL transfer agreement as Swedes/Europe? How many Russian players would be in NHL or AHL? How it would/is be good for development of KHL (or SHL, Liiga) as a league? What about development of players in AHL? Many regressing.

Hockey as a sport deserves to be more developped worldwide. It is not good for the sport if there is a league with a monopol. It is good for NHL, not for sport. Hockey players have no options for their carreers, NHL salaries are peanuts compared to other major NA sport leagues, or even soccer in Europe. That is not good for players. There must be a competition between leagues, which means more good paid jobs for players. This competition will never be here if your domestic league/federation´s only goal is to be a NHL feeder league. The NHL has done great job to prevent other (Europeans) leagues to rival them. Transfer rules are one of tools how to achieve it. Can not speak for Swedish or Finnish leagues, but Soviet & Czech-slovak leagues had high quality back in time. But then all stars moved to NHL. Yes, Iron Curtain thing happened, so players were free to move. That is not a problem, the problem is behaviour of NHL at the time (and still). As you can see, some NHL teams negotiated a transfer fee with Dynamo Moscow to release their players to NHL. No problem. But why not negotiate with all European clubs? Yeah, because NHL did not want, was too strong, did not want to pay. IIHF failed here, that must be said. And that is a start of the problem we have now. If there was no problem to negotiate a transfer fee with Dynamo Msc over 25 years ago, why it is a problem now? Rhetorical question. Think about it for a few days.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Internal

I think you are confusing KHL and SHL, they are two separate entities.
I've forgotten why we started discussing rookie contracts when any first or second rounder in SHL most likely be in a pro contract worth way more then a rookie contract.

It's still peanuts in comparison to NHL though.

No confusion, we are after all discussing European players and contracts.

That it may be viewed as peanuts in context of the NHL is not a justification for the NHL to overpay for an unproven player.

 

[Mayuu]

Of course you can have your own opinion.

The question is - do you (your league/federation) want to be nothing more than developing league for NHL? Or do you (your league/federation) want to have your own strong league (as strong as possible)?

Swedish federation wants their domestic league to be a developing league for NHL apparently. And what is a counter value for Swedish federation from NHL? NHL blocked their players from participating at Olympics, NHL clubs does not allow their players to play IIHF WC while in playoffs. Is it fair? I do not think so.

Russian federation & KHL chose another path. They do not want to be a development league for NHL. They want to develop their league (KHL). Yes, players are moving to NHL, no problem. But can you imagine what would happen if KHL signed the same NHL transfer agreement as Swedes/Europe? How many Russian players would be in NHL or AHL? How it would/is be good for development of KHL (or SHL, Liiga) as a league? What about development of players in AHL? Many regressing.

Hockey as a sport deserves to be more developped worldwide. It is not good for the sport if there is a league with a monopol. It is good for NHL, not for sport. Hockey players have no options for their carreers, NHL salaries are peanuts compared to other major NA sport leagues, or even soccer in Europe. That is not good for players. There must be a competition between leagues, which means more good paid jobs for players. This competition will never be here if your domestic league/federation´s only goal is to be a NHL feeder league. The NHL has done great job to prevent other (Europeans) leagues to rival them. Transfer rules are one of tools how to achieve it. Can not speak for Swedish or Finnish leagues, but Soviet & Czech-slovak leagues had high quality back in time. But then all stars moved to NHL. Yes, Iron Curtain thing happened, so players were free to move. That is not a problem, the problem is behaviour of NHL at the time (and still). As you can see, some NHL teams negotiated a transfer fee with Dynamo Moscow to release their players to NHL. No problem. But why not negotiate with all European clubs? Yeah, because NHL did not want, was too strong, did not want to pay. IIHF failed here, that must be said. And that is a start of the problem we have now. If there was no problem to negotiate a transfer fee with Dynamo Msc over 25 years ago, why it is a problem now? Rhetorical question. Think about it for a few days.

I can understand the stance from KHL's point of view, it's a strong league, and it's easy to argue that it's the second best in the world, their only real competitor is NHL and every year we see KHL holding on to some assets and also taking some assets from NHL, KHL is doing fine for now.

Now if we consider SHL it's a whole different ball game. SHL is a domestic league in a relatively small country, it could be argued that it's the third best league in the world. It still can't compete with the NLA or KHL for players (see how many of the non-nhl players in Tre Kroner is from SHL compared to other leagues). Swedish tax laws SUCKS for hockey players, and the salaries are better in KHL and NLA so players go there since they wanna make cash in their relatively short careers.
There's always some exceptions with players staying in SHL for long time even tough they could play in a better paying league but it's not the norm.

So SHL is in the spot where all young players aspire to go to NHL and try their luck, if that fails they can always look at KHL or NLA since they are paying better, so the chance of top 3 player returning to SHL is quite limited.

So SHL deals with this by trying to get as much as possible for every single prospect sent to the promised land, regardless of skill. Which in turn helps them finance the players in the top 6.

Also one thing to note is that a SHL team HAS to generate revenue and has to have a set amount of own assets to be allowed to play in SHL and it's very rare to have an owner injecting cash into a club in the same sense as in the KHL or NHL.

 

[vorky]

Sure they are. But seeing how the NHLPA has agreed to allowing the NHL to limit those rights... it doesn't mean much.

European courts have said many times that a soccer (of course other sports as well) club has a right to sell a player under contract to another club. So no problem for EU club to sell hockey prospect to NHL club.

I recommend you to look at FIFA transfer rules. I will quote them.

On registering as a professional for the fi rst time, the club with which
the player is registered is responsible for paying training compensation
within 30 days of registration to every club with which the player
has previously been registered (in accordance with the players’ career
history as provided in the player passport) and that has contributed
to his training starting from the season of his 12th birthday.

That is exactly what is present in hockey. NHL pays training compensation (development fee) to Euro clubs, not transfer fee. So EU hockey clubs still have right for transfer fee (in accordance with EU courts decisions).

 

[vorky]

I can understand the stance from KHL's point of view, it's a strong league, and it's easy to argue that it's the second best in the world, their only real competitor is NHL and every year we see KHL holding on to some assets and also taking some assets from NHL, KHL is doing fine for now.

Now if we consider SHL it's a whole different ball game. SHL is a domestic league in a relatively small country, it could be argued that it's the third best league in the world. It still can't compete with the NLA or KHL for players (see how many of the non-nhl players in Tre Kroner is from SHL compared to other leagues). Swedish tax laws SUCKS for hockey players, and the salaries are better in KHL and NLA so players go there since they wanna make cash in their relatively short careers.
There's always some exceptions with players staying in SHL for long time even tough they could play in a better paying league but it's not the norm.

So SHL is in the spot where all young players aspire to go to NHL and try their luck, if that fails they can always look at KHL or NLA since they are paying better, so the chance of top 3 player returning to SHL is quite limited.

So SHL deals with this by trying to get as much as possible for every single prospect sent to the promised land, regardless of skill. Which in turn helps them finance the players in the top 6.

Also one thing to note is that a SHL team HAS to generate revenue and has to have a set amount of own assets to be allowed to play in SHL and it's very rare to have an owner injecting cash into a club in the same sense as in the KHL or NHL.

That is exactly what I said - SHL as a feeder league for NHL.

 

[Mayuu]

That is exactly what I said - SHL as a feeder league for NHL.

Not just the NHL, it's feeding NLA and KHL as well.
The best Swedish players play in leagues in order 1. NHL 2. KHL 3. NLA 4. SHL

 

[Canadiens1958]

Domestic?

I can understand the stance from KHL's point of view, it's a strong league, and it's easy to argue that it's the second best in the world, their only real competitor is NHL and every year we see KHL holding on to some assets and also taking some assets from NHL, KHL is doing fine for now.

Now if we consider SHL it's a whole different ball game. SHL is a domestic league in a relatively small country, it could be argued that it's the third best league in the world. It still can't compete with the NLA or KHL for players (see how many of the non-nhl players in Tre Kroner is from SHL compared to other leagues). Swedish tax laws SUCKS for hockey players, and the salaries are better in KHL and NLA so players go there since they wanna make cash in their relatively short careers.
There's always some exceptions with players staying in SHL for long time even tough they could play in a better paying league but it's not the norm.

So SHL is in the spot where all young players aspire to go to NHL and try their luck, if that fails they can always look at KHL or NLA since they are paying better, so the chance of top 3 player returning to SHL is quite limited.

So SHL deals with this by trying to get as much as possible for every single prospect sent to the promised land, regardless of skill. Which in turn helps them finance the players in the top 6.

Also one thing to note is that a SHL team HAS to generate revenue and has to have a set amount of own assets to be allowed to play in SHL and it's very rare to have an owner injecting cash into a club in the same sense as in the KHL or NHL.

A domestic league that imports players from Finland, Canada and other countries is hardly a domestic league.

Canada compared to the USA has very unfavourable tax situations for athletes and entertainers.

So the situation in Sweden is not exactly as you describe.

 

[vorky]

Not just the NHL, it's feeding NLA and KHL as well.
The best Swedish players play in leagues in order 1. NHL 2. KHL 3. NLA 4. SHL

Of course, not only NHL, but the point is as follows.

When SHL player under contract wants to sign with NHL club, his SHL club can do nothing, his SHL contract is terminated per se. Yes, his SHL team gets % from those 200k.

When SHL player under contract wants to sign with KHL or NLA club, both clubs have to agree on transfer fee. If they do not agree, the player staying in SHL (see the difference to SHL-NHL?). Or he has free out clause, what is another bad thing for transfer market. Can you imagine that really good soccer player (because Swedish hockey players are good) has free out clause? I can not. If you remember, KHL clubs paid a lot of money to SHL clubs for players under contract.

Look at FIFA rules & compare it to hockey. While FIFA protects interests of small clubs/leagues, IIHF rules protect interests of NHL (& CHL).

 

[Mayuu]

A domestic league that imports players from Finland, Canada and other countries is hardly a domestic league.

Canada compared to the USA has very unfavourable tax situations for athletes and entertainers.

So the situation in Sweden is not exactly as you describe.

It imports some players, true. Note taken.

We're getting a bit OT but I'll bite.
I'm not sure how big the difference is between USA and Canada so you would have to explain that to me.
I'll quote a Swedish journalist to explain how it actually works when a player moves from KHL to SHL and why it's not possible most of the time

Player X plays in Russia and has a contract that gives him four million kronor per season where income tax in Russia is 13%.
The contract runs monthly and, in total, approximately 2 million SEK is paid out between August and December, while the remaining two million will be paid between January and April. .
By 2017, Player X has paid 13% in tax of two million kronor, which is 260,000 kr.
When he then chooses to move home to Sweden again, provided he has not worked abroad for more than 183 days, he must report his income and how much he has paid in tax, which means that the money he earned in Russia has to be taxed even in Sweden To a percentage of up to 58- 59%.
Since player X already paid 13% tax in Russia, he needs to pay another 45% (45 + 13 = 58) in Sweden.
That's another 900,000 SEK he will pay to the tax office if he chooses to move home to Sweden provided he has not been abroad for at least 183 days.

Is it also the case that the player is bought out of his contract (before the KHL season starts, it is 25% otherwise it is 50% of the contract value), so that sum must be reported.
With an estimated salary of four million kronor per season, Player X receives 25% of the contract value at the time of purchase. Thus, one million kronor on which he pays 13% tax (130,000 kr).
The addition of an additional 45% (to reach the Swedish income tax of approximately 58%) causes the player to pay an additional approximately 450,000 kr.
This means that a player who, in this case the game at KHL at least one season, and gets fired from his club, has to pay an additional tax of approximately $ 1,350,000 to play in Sweden and SHL.

Now Swedish player getting fired from KHL clubs are relatively common but they almost always end up in NLA or some other euro league.

But this is way of topic.

 

[Mayuu]

Of course, not only NHL, but the point is as follows.

When SHL player under contract wants to sign with NHL club, his SHL club can do nothing, his SHL contract is terminated per se. Yes, his SHL team gets % from those 200k.

When SHL player under contract wants to sign with KHL or NLA club, both clubs have to agree on transfer fee. If they do not agree, the player staying in SHL (see the difference to SHL-NHL?). Or he has free out clause, what is another bad thing for transfer market. Can you imagine that really good soccer player (because Swedish hockey players are good) has free out clause? I can not. If you remember, KHL clubs paid a lot of money to SHL clubs for players under contract.

Look at FIFA rules & compare it to hockey. While FIFA protects interests of small clubs/leagues, IIHF rules protect interests of NHL (& CHL).

I've not heard of any players getting bought out in the recent years, unfortunately most players have KHL out-clauses.
I would love if the players leaving Frolunda genrated more income since we usualy look at around 8-14 players leaving each season, but the net income of the transfer agreement between SHL and NHL makes sense at the moment since it's not common to have a first round talent each year.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Players Association

Of course, not only NHL, but the point is as follows.

When SHL player under contract wants to sign with NHL club, his SHL club can do nothing, his SHL contract is terminated per se. Yes, his SHL team gets % from those 200k.

When SHL player under contract wants to sign with KHL or NLA club, both clubs have to agree on transfer fee. If they do not agree, the player staying in SHL (see the difference to SHL-NHL?). Or he has free out clause, what is another bad thing for transfer market. Can you imagine that really good soccer player (because Swedish hockey players are good) has free out clause? I can not. If you remember, KHL clubs paid a lot of money to SHL clubs for players under contract.

Look at FIFA rules & compare it to hockey. While FIFA protects interests of small clubs/leagues, IIHF rules protect interests of NHL (& CHL).

Do European Leagues have stong player associations like the NHLPA, where contracts have to be paid on time and respected? No arbitrary firings?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Income Tax

It imports some players, true. Note taken.

We're getting a bit OT but I'll bite.
I'm not sure how big the difference is between USA and Canada so you would have to explain that to me.
I'll quote a Swedish journalist to explain how it actually works when a player moves from KHL to SHL and why it's not possible most of the time

Here is a single player, Steve Stamkos overview:

http://nationalpost.com/sports/hock...rder/wcm/4446ccb7-d32e-48cd-9dbc-af44a97b5d5b

Then compare to the 13% income tax in Russia that you posted as a reference.

 

[Jussi]

Thinking about if for a few days the deal atm is probably better for the SHL as a league compared to individual transfer fee's depending on talent of player.

If I understood correctly when a euro player signs an ELC the NHL team pays SIHF $240k and then SIHF distributes that money to respective teams. Which will mean that it doesn't matter if it's a 1st rounder or 5th rounder that gets signed. Which is good in some cases.
If I interpreted this correct it doesn't take into regard if the player has a current contract or not as well.

This is good for when you are developing a lot of talent but horrendous when you sign a player that's just about to be drafted or has just been drafted.
Fe. Lias Andersson signed a 2 year deal with Frolunda but might not even get to play out his contract since his NHL contract trumps the SHL one (almost all SHL contracts has NHL out clauses apparently). In this case since Lias spent his 3 previous years in HV71 there will be no monetary compensation to Frolunda.

So the system is built up to develop as many players as possible and get them an ELC and get paid, when a talent like Rasmus Dahlin comes around you just have to accept that he's will net you the same amount as Tom Nilsson.

Since they have a transfer agrement, the NHL clause is automatic for all contracts.

 

[Mayuu]

Since they have a transfer agrement, the NHL clause is automatic for all contracts.

I see, that makes sense. But does that include older players as well or only when the player signs a ELC?

 

[Jussi]

When SHL player under contract wants to sign with NHL club, his SHL club can do nothing, his SHL contract is terminated per se. Yes, his SHL team gets % from those 200k.

If the player played all previous 3-4 seasons with the club, they get all the money. If he played say the first season of that time period with another club, they get a percentage of the amount.

 

[Jussi]

I see, that makes sense. But does that include older players as well or only when the player signs a ELC?

All players.

 

[Jussi]

Do European Leagues have stong player associations like the NHLPA, where contracts have to be paid on time and respected? No arbitrary firings?

I know the Finnish is very strong. Former player Juha Rantasila, who became a litigator after his playing career ended, was one of the founders of it and they are legally so well backed that the Finnish league would not dare go into battle with them. I hear the Swedish one is strong as well. If the leagues tried to stop players from goign to NHL or restrict their movement abraod, they would be in legal hell soon. Not the same in KHL. Several palyers have commented weak or useless the KHL PA is. Several teams have had salary payment issues in past few years and they've been fairly useless. As one Finnish player put it, "the only thing I got from them was a PA hat".

 

[holyprime]

Look at FIFA rules & compare it to hockey. While FIFA protects interests of small clubs/leagues, IIHF rules protect interests of NHL (& CHL).

Coming from a small country with a terrible football league (ironically called super league), i have to say no, on the contrary. The current business model of the UEFA pretty much cemented the hierarchy of the clubs (trough the CL money), unless some super rich person comes along (like PSG atm). It's just that winter transfer window that gives club's a chance to gain transfer fees for a player that would leave for nothing during the off-season.

Maybe a development compensation like in football would be better than the current situation, but i doubt the $ figures would be much higher than those today. European clubs just don't have any leverage against the NHL

Do European Leagues have stong player associations like the NHLPA, where contracts have to be paid on time and respected? No arbitrary firings?

I don't know for other countries, but i believe it's mostly the same: In Switzerland they are under normal labour laws.

 

[vorky]

Coming from a small country with a terrible football league (ironically called super league), i have to say no, on the contrary. The current business model of the UEFA pretty much cemented the hierarchy of the clubs (trough the CL money), unless some super rich person comes along (like PSG atm). It's just that winter transfer window that gives club's a chance to gain transfer fees for a player that would leave for nothing during the off-season.

Maybe a development compensation like in football would be better than the current situation, but i doubt the $ figures would be much higher than those today. European clubs just don't have any leverage against the NHL


I don't know for other countries, but i believe it's mostly the same: In Switzerland they are under normal labour laws.

I guess you are from Switzerland. I googled for one minute to find out the following.

Embolo, 19, has signed a five-year contract with Schalke, who finished fifth in the Bundesliga last season. Swiss champions Basel said the fee will not be disclosed, though it is reportedly €25m (£20m).

source

 

[Jussi]

Transfer money is not the same thing as development compensation. Also, relevance?

 

[syc]

Do you expect 15 year old's to move halfway across the world to chase a hockey career, I can't speak for the kids but it seems unlikely at that age.

My guess would be that Europe hasn't adapted to the NCAA model since there's no need for it, it's perfectly fine to play pro-hockey as a 16 year old here, there's no college hockey (not as official as NCAA) and there's no scholarships in great schools with high tuition fees that will vow you to come to their college for prestige.

There's hockey in school (if you get apply for it and are selected) until you are 18 and that's paid by government/SHL teams.
Most of these kids doesn't go to the NA after that, they end up chasing other carers or start in lower level Swedish leagues and might end up in Allsvenskan or SHL some day.

So the SHL teams pays for the coaching staff and 3 years of education and hockey practice for a whole team in each age category (U16/U18/U20) and the payoff is getting some players to the level that they break in to the pro-roster.

Now if the players end up leaving for NA I would think it would only be fair if there was some compensation for all these investments (currently the agreement between SIHF and NHL is 240k split between the clubs the players represented the last three years), and even more so if the said player is projected to actually carry a franchise and bring in lots of money to that franchise, don't you?

A person that was educated in Sweden takes a job at Apple in California.Should Apple have to pay the Swedish government because of the costs to educate that person? The players come to North America, get paid millions, retire at 40ish and bring millions back to Sweden. Canada has the same problem with American companies hiring all our great minds educated by government funded college. It sucks but you can't pick and choose when you want a free market or when you want protectionism.

The NHL can do the right thing or they can be greedy but you can't force them to share. You will not ban players from coming to the NHL and the NHL understands this.

 

[Riptide]

Of course you can have your own opinion.

The question is - do you (your league/federation) want to be nothing more than developing league for NHL? Or do you (your league/federation) want to have your own strong league (as strong as possible)?

You're implying that A) they have a choice and B) that not signing the transfer agreements would make a difference. Reality has already shown that neither of these are true.

Swedish federation wants their domestic league to be a developing league for NHL apparently. And what is a counter value for Swedish federation from NHL? NHL blocked their players from participating at Olympics, NHL clubs does not allow their players to play IIHF WC while in playoffs. Is it fair? I do not think so.

LOL. You want teams to allow players to leave in the middle of their playoffs for a yearly tournament? You can't be serious. I don't even think the players would want to leave for that **** tournament.

Russian federation & KHL chose another path. They do not want to be a development league for NHL. They want to develop their league (KHL). Yes, players are moving to NHL, no problem. But can you imagine what would happen if KHL signed the same NHL transfer agreement as Swedes/Europe? How many Russian players would be in NHL or AHL? How it would/is be good for development of KHL (or SHL, Liiga) as a league? What about development of players in AHL? Many regressing.

Basically the same amount. In the 2 years prior to the KHL not signing the transfer agreement there were 54 Russians who played a game in the NHL. In the last two years, there were 48 Russians who played a game in the NHL.

Hockey as a sport deserves to be more developped worldwide. It is not good for the sport if there is a league with a monopol. It is good for NHL, not for sport. Hockey players have no options for their carreers, NHL salaries are peanuts compared to other major NA sport leagues, or even soccer in Europe. That is not good for players.

Well seeing how these guys are hockey players and not basketball players (or whatever), I'm not sure why they'd be upset that they're not getting paid like basketball players. If they wanted to be paid like them, they should have played that sport instead. Besides, you're arguing they should stay at home... where they'd earn a fraction of what they'd earn in the NHL. You really need to get your arguments straight.

There must be a competition between leagues, which means more good paid jobs for players. This competition will never be here if your domestic league/federation´s only goal is to be a NHL feeder league.

Wrong again. That competition will never be there if those leagues can't afford to compete with the NHL financially. That is what it will take for change to happen. However that will never happen. Not because of a lack of talent or whatever other made up slight you want to blame on the NHL, but because the demand and the infrastructure just isn't there to support the prices those teams would have to charge to level the financial playing field.

You want Russians to stay in the KHL? They need to be able to offer the same conditions and the same pay the NHL does. The same goes for the other European leagues. Except that will never happen. But that's not the NHL's fault, but the economics of those leagues and the reality of their situations.

The NHL has done great job to prevent other (Europeans) leagues to rival them. Transfer rules are one of tools how to achieve it. Can not speak for Swedish or Finnish leagues, but Soviet & Czech-slovak leagues had high quality back in time. But then all stars moved to NHL. Yes, Iron Curtain thing happened, so players were free to move. That is not a problem, the problem is behaviour of NHL at the time (and still). As you can see, some NHL teams negotiated a transfer fee with Dynamo Moscow to release their players to NHL. No problem. But why not negotiate with all European clubs? Yeah, because NHL did not want, was too strong, did not want to pay. IIHF failed here, that must be said. And that is a start of the problem we have now. If there was no problem to negotiate a transfer fee with Dynamo Msc over 25 years ago, why it is a problem now? Rhetorical question. Think about it for a few days.

Yes... because that is where the money is. This is basic economics. Why perform your job in country A for $100,000 a year when you can do the same job with better conditions for $1,000,000 a year?

The basic problem Vorky is that you're still failing to grasp the reality of the situation. You want to paint the NHL as the bad guy here and blaming them for everything, and that's just plain wrong. Are they giving the European clubs a good deal with regards to acquiring players? No, not really. And that's fine if you want to blame them for not paying a fair price. But you have to recognize that the NHL doesn't need to pay a fair price, because even you know the players will come to the NHL all on their own. You're also failing to recognize that none of the European leagues (including the KHL) can match the working conditions or financial compensation that the NHL does. Until this happens, the players will leave - and that's not the NHL's fault, but the players fault for wanting to be compensated at rates the European clubs can't match. Is it the players fault that the SEL and the KHL cannot and never will be able to afford an average salary that matches the NHL (almost 4m USD today) under the same working conditions? If you want to start assigning blame, maybe look at the players who are leaving, like Radulov and Panarin and others.

 

[Riptide]

European courts have said many times that a soccer (of course other sports as well) club has a right to sell a player under contract to another club. So no problem for EU club to sell hockey prospect to NHL club.

And you still missed the point. The post of mine that you quoted was *****ing about "NHL draft is limiting prospects labour rights, not saying about max salary on ELC.".