KHL business aspects discussion

[Alessandro Seren Rosso]

one of the main keys to get a better league,is as the Nhl does,teams got the rights to local and farm players until 27 y/o.

Even with this,a prohibition of sale for money in this span,Just trade for the rights of
other players,but never for money.

Yes, this is also true. Buying and selling players should be prohibited. I understand that at this point many teams finance themselves this way so probably give it a full ban would be counter-productive, but some kind of limitation is necessary

 

[habsturies]

some kind of limitation is necessary

Absolutely.

If you can keep your best players (at last for a reasonable span of time) you can compite.
If you can compite,fans full the arenas and buy merchandise.

Be a perpetual seller just feed the owners pockets,IMO.

 

[Jussi]

Probably worthy of mentioning, SHL new tv deal will guarantee each team 4,7 million euros per year. Even the second tier Allsvenskan teams get 800K for their deal. The current Finnish league one guarantees each team about 900K-1 million euros per year, though that is expected to go down with a new deal since the rights holder is losing money on it.

 

[Yakushev72]

Some "special arrangements" may be necessary to allow a new league to acquire talent that interests the fans, but for the league to survive in an environment where the imbalances are so massive that the vast majority of teams have not a chance in the World to compete for a championship, certain provisions must be enacted:

1. Revenue sharing - all NA professional sports leagues have provisions where the rich share money with the poor, and revenue balances out, to permit every team to survive and potentially grow.

2. Hard and fast rules to regulate player acquisition - to prevent the SKA phenomenon where rich teams buy up talent, mostly from NHL sources, to immediately establish a competitive imbalance.

3. Ensure that player drafts permit the best prospects go to the worst teams (all successful professional sports leagues do it).

4. Stop expanding when the addition of a new team in a new location will only diminish, and not increase, the quality of league play.

5. Stop throwing a life jacket to players who made their own decision to abandon the ship - by this, I mean restricting the movement of players who typically leave for NA at an early age, when the KHL really needs their presence to build quality into junior and minor league programs, and then find out that the NHL won't even retain them to clean the toilets! At that point, they all feel secure that they can just come back to the KHL and sign a big contract. Restrict their return so that they realize that it is likely that they will have to lose their hockey career if they don't succeed in the NHL.

With the number of teams that are struggling financially, and with VHL teams dropping off, urgent measures may be in order.

 

[vorky]

1. KHL has revenue sharing, but it does not work like NHL´s. Clubs which are more succesfull on & outside of ice get more money in KHL. There is a reason behind it - there are differences between the rich and the poor in KHL if looking at TV product, the rich one invest into TV broadcasting but the poor dont. So there must be some rule/force to convince the poor to invest (you will invest, you will get more money). If the league just gives the money to the poor clubs, they would never invest into broadcasting.... that is about mentality or culture (comparing NA leagues & Russia). Plus it is fair for clubs which are attractive for broadcasters, those clubs get more money. The same about results on the ice (making playoffs, finals, championship).

2. Dont know if it is possible. European sport culture (soccer) says that rich clubs can buy players from poor clubs and paying them a transfer fee. This is a model which is in KHL too. It is easy for NA leagues to regulate player acquisition (draft) because players want to play in the league (MLB, NFL, NBA or NHL).

3. There are so called hidden loans in the KHL and fans have problem with it. KHL had draft and did not work. So I dont know how to solve the problem.

4. KHL will accept only clubs which can strenghten the league in the future. I am sure about it.

5. This is a big problem and I agree with you. Hope FHR/KHL will approve rules to restrict the movement to NA during summer.

 

[hansomreiste]

I believe this qualifies as business aspect, so will drop it here.

Pssst, KHL, are you watching how NHL handles the play-off scheduling? I hope you do. Since it began, it was possible to watch at least two games every day and even three on weekends. If an eastern game is to start at 19:00, then the western one goes to 22:00. If the eastern/central one is at 19:30 or 20:00, they do their best to have western one as late as possible, scheduling it for 22:30 rather than 22:00.

This is very simple to arrange. Seriously, please, if someone's reading here who has the "access" to top guns, tell them about this. I mean, they probably know this already but... It's so stupid. Why do they keep playing all games at the same time? It kills all the hype. There are eight pairs in total in first round, four west and four east. Why don't you just go two west-two east a day, with 3 hours between them? I just want to hear a logical explanation, if there's any. On a weekday in Novosibirsk, have a game played at 19:00. On that very day, have a team in Helsinki play at, again, 19:00. This way, both games can be watched; because time zone rocks. You have such a great geographical advantage. Why not use it?

 

[Alessandro Seren Rosso]

2. Hard and fast rules to regulate player acquisition - to prevent the SKA phenomenon where rich teams buy up talent, mostly from NHL sources, to immediately establish a competitive imbalance.

I wish it was as easy to say "let's abolish buy and sell players!"
You know that CSKA bought Shalunov, Shumakov and Okulov for 410 million roubles. It sucks. And big time. But on the other hand, what will happen if you remove these 410 million roubles to Sibir?

 

[Alessandro Seren Rosso]

I believe this qualifies as business aspect, so will drop it here.

Pssst, KHL, are you watching how NHL handles the play-off scheduling? I hope you do. Since it began, it was possible to watch at least two games every day and even three on weekends. If an eastern game is to start at 19:00, then the western one goes to 22:00. If the eastern/central one is at 19:30 or 20:00, they do their best to have western one as late as possible, scheduling it for 22:30 rather than 22:00.

This is very simple to arrange. Seriously, please, if someone's reading here who has the "access" to top guns, tell them about this. I mean, they probably know this already but... It's so stupid. Why do they keep playing all games at the same time? It kills all the hype. There are eight pairs in total in first round, four west and four east. Why don't you just go two west-two east a day, with 3 hours between them? I just want to hear a logical explanation, if there's any. On a weekday in Novosibirsk, have a game played at 19:00. On that very day, have a team in Helsinki play at, again, 19:00. This way, both games can be watched; because time zone rocks. You have such a great geographical advantage. Why not use it?

This thing was already suggested many times on the Russian runet actually. I think that the problem is that things should be agreed before (I think the playoff calendar must be released with the regular season one), therefore, for example, Kazan is on the Moscow time zone, and Vladivostok is not, so it's hard to guess what exactly pairs (and thus times) we'll have before hand.

 

[vorky]

I wish it was as easy to say "let's abolish buy and sell players!"
You know that CSKA bought Shalunov, Shumakov and Okulov for 410 million roubles. It sucks. And big time. But on the other hand, what will happen if you remove these 410 million roubles to Sibir?

That is how European sport works and I am fine with it. If your team is able to develop better player, your team will get more money for him. I know you know it, but, look, if all three go to NHL, Sibir would get zero dollars. If KHL agreed with NHL Transfer agreement (like other Europeans) and all 3 guys went to NHL, Sibir would get less than 1 million USD. Just to remind, 410 million rubles is approximately 7 million USD.

The problem is that some fans/journalists think that there should be only player for player exchange in KHL, because the same model is in NHL. And NHL´s enviroment is the best! Of course it is not, btw NHL had used money in transfers in past.

To reply to salary cap (other thread). KHL has salary cap at 950 million rubles (next season should be 900 million rubles) plus 20% luxury tax. Pro-hard salary cap journalists claim KHL should decrease salary cap to 700 million rubles and of course no luxury tax. So, difference is 200 million rubles (btw according to some journalists withtin one season) and this sum is a salary of very good player (from NHL). KHL is in stage like NHL was before hard salary cap, when you could spent as much money as you wanted. Yes, NHL changed it, because the players from whole globe wanted to play here and NHL teams got them for "thank you." It is not a case in KHL, it is very difficult to get elite player and not every club can afford it. So lowering of salary cap would decrease the level of the league. KHL abolished salary floor under Chernyshenko, because it was a burden for poor clubs (they overpaid average or under average players), who had to spend around 200-250 million rubles even if the players had not have such value.

I agree that something has to be done to have more parity in the league. One option is to exclude teams who are not able to reach (now non-existent) salary floor and replaced them by new, more wealthier clubs. It seems the league want to go this direction, but we will see. Another option is a NHL revenue sharing model where "rich clubs sending money to poor one." KHL has revenue sharing, but it works in another principles than NHL´s - "rich clubs getting more rich" in KHL. Nowadays, when KHL has 9 years, this model is correct. Why? When KHL was established all RSL clubs joined the new league. Of course, not all of them has been able to reach the level of the new league and progress in the future. But they are in KHL... so the league has to agree on some criteria which will select the current clubs and only teams with growing potential will stay. KHL revenue sharing model is a mechanism which gives the league exact numbers/data - the league knows what demand for SKA or Novokuznetsk or Sibir games is, so what clubs are more valuable for the league. Sibir and Novokuznetsk belong to poor clubs, Sibir is a lit better but still. When you look at TV ratings - Sibir is one of best in the league, what can not be said about Novokuznetsk. When you look at social media - Sibir is one of best in the league, Novokuznetsk one of worst. That is only two examples.. the league has more data. So, Sibir is more valuable for the league than Novokuznetsk. We can go club by club.

 

[Alessandro Seren Rosso]

The problem is that some fans/journalists think that there should be only player for player exchange in KHL, because the same model is in NHL.

Well, I think that trades player-by-player are the best way, but the NHL has no place here in my reasoning. Just that I find it hardly good from a league point of view that SKA and CSKA just get players from the rest of the league signing a cheque. This kills parity. Surely Metallurg has as much money as CSKA or SKA have, but somewhat, they also have Salavat, Ak Bars, East has more parity in general, and to be frank I found their teams to be working better (generally speaking).

So lowering of salary cap would decrease the level of the league.

I agree 100% and people who screams left and right about salary cap I think that do it without turning the brains on first.

So, Sibir is more valuable for the league than Novokuznetsk.

How many players in the league are now playing for other teams, or for the national team, coming out of Novokuznetsk? How many from Sibir?
This is a dangerous speech. I think that the best interest for the league would be helping Novokuznetsk in finding more sponsors/ways to get money, rather than exclude them.

 

[vorky]

Trades player-by-player are allowed in the KHL, but dont work. Look, why are Shalunov or Shumanov leaving Sibir? Because Sibir can not afford them anymore. If Sibir wanted to trade them (or one of them) to CSKA for lets say Nichushkin or Petrov or Telegin or even Svetlakov, the problem for Sibir would stay the same - Sibir can not afford to pay Nichushkin and co. Therefore it is better to ask financial compensation for Shalunov, Shumakov. If we were speaking about average player, then ok, trade player-by-player is reasonable.

I used only two examples how the league can value the clubs. Of course there is more conditions/criteria for clubs. For example following:

- City population
- Arena and facilities (including plans to build a new arena)
- TV ratings and demand
- Social media (fans as a whole)
- Management (if the club wants to develop or not)
- Budget (and potential for growing) and ownership
- Marketing and attendance
- Results on ice
- Quality and tradition of hockey school
- Strategic issue (Amur & Admiral stay because they are on Far East, Sochi stays because there is one of best Russian arenas and nice city for players to live here)

You have to take into consideration all criteria, not only one - for example - attendance and make conclusion that CSKA is on par with Novokuznetsk or Yugra (that is famous example of Russian journalists). Or hockey school where Novokuznetsk prevails over Sibir. When comparing Novokuznetsk and Sibir, then Novokuznetsk prevails only in hockey school, so Sibir has more value for the league. And we can go club by club.

 

[Alessandro Seren Rosso]

Trades player-by-player are allowed in the KHL, but dont work. Look, why are Shalunov or Shumanov leaving Sibir? Because Sibir can not afford them anymore. If Sibir wanted to trade them (or one of them) to CSKA for lets say Nichushkin or Petrov or Telegin or even Svetlakov, the problem for Sibir would stay the same - Sibir can not afford to pay Nichushkin and co. Therefore it is better to ask financial compensation for Shalunov, Shumakov. If we were speaking about average player, then ok, trade player-by-player is reasonable.

I used only two examples how the league can value the clubs. Of course there is more conditions/criteria for clubs. For example following:

- City population
- Arena and facilities (including plans to build a new arena)
- TV ratings and demand
- Social media (fans as a whole)
- Management (if the club wants to develop or not)
- Budget (and potential for growing) and ownership
- Marketing and attendance
- Results on ice
- Quality and tradition of hockey school
- Strategic issue (Amur & Admiral stay because they are on Far East, Sochi stays because there is one of best Russian arenas and nice city for players to live here)

You have to take into consideration all criteria, not only one - for example - attendance and make conclusion that CSKA is on par with Novokuznetsk or Yugra (that is famous example of Russian journalists). Or hockey school where Novokuznetsk prevails over Sibir. When comparing Novokuznetsk and Sibir, then Novokuznetsk prevails only in hockey school, so Sibir has more value for the league. And we can go club by club.

Still CSKA is terrible in many things you wrote...
When I wrote CSKA out, of course, it was just a provocation.
Btw Larionov, whose speeches I usually find outrageous, said a good thing: where do money from luxury tax go? Why they don't put this money on a pool to be shared with the poorest clubs? It is rumored that SKA paid 250-300 million rubles in luxury tax, this is big money and it should be used to finance Metallurg Nk/Yugra, etc to improve the league's parity.
I have enough of seeing C/SKA buying all good players summer after summer, but at the same time I recognize that making every team equally poor would be bad for the league.
I frankly can't see what advantages we can achieve in a league without Metallurg Novokuznetsk. I think that the league can benefit with a richer Metallurg and a richer Yugra. Yugra made huge steps in their hockey school in the latest couple of years, and look at the progress Russia did at least at the junior level, it's obvious that having a rather good number of Russian KHL clubs is driving to more good quality players produced.

 

[vorky]

Ad CSKA - I was not refering to you, but to Russian journalists, you to understand me.

Pool for poor clubs - in ideal world I agree, the NHL works like that, nothing bad with it. But we are in Russia, there are clubs which management simply dont care about development of the club. Why should someone (the league) give them money for free? Would their management change the attitude if the league sends them money? No, they would not. That is a problem. I dont know where money from luxury tax goes, but as I know Medvedev (better said KHL leadership in his era) used money from reserve fund of the league (and there is one more fund which name I dont know) to run the league (because the league did not make money). Chernyshenko had to send money to these funds, maybe they are still doing it. I dont know.

I have nothing against Yugra or Novokuznetsk, they do fine with developing young players. But from financial point of view, they are a problem for the league. They bring almost nothing to TV revenues for example. I can compare their work on social media. So, lets look at it. I will compare these two clubs with Sibir (another club reporting to leave the league for financial issues)

Facebook RUS
Yugra 1266 (mid July 2016), 1350 (end of March 2017)
Nk 2203 (July), 2285 (March)
Sibir 4395 (July), 4663 (March)

As we can see, the increase is small for every team. Btw, FB is not so famous in Russia.

VKontakte
Yugra 3968 (July), 7624 (March)
Nk 12788 (July), 14953 (March)
Sibir 80265 (July), 101117 (March)

As we can see, Yugra is cca +3500, Nk +2000 and Sibir +20000. Sibir is with 101k VK fans second in the league.

Twitter RUS
Yugra 6839 (July), 9892 (March)
Nk 14 200 (July), 26468 (March)
Sibir 67500 (July), 146168 (March)

So, Yugra is + 3000, Nk + 12000 and Sibir +80000. Again, Sibir is 3rd in the league.

 

[ybnvs]

KHL is a joke.

Owner of Admiral, Ziyavudin Magomedov, estimated net worth $3Billion, can't even pay his players on time.

A little bird tells me Admiral is 4 months behind payment to their players, and their team altered the players contracts where instead of normal July-April 30th length they extended it illegally to 11 months; so every paycheck received during the season has been less than what is agreed upon per player contract. Player X for Admiral (who shall not be named) hasn't been paid since January 15th. Is this okay? It continues to happen. How many other players on Admiral/across the league are not being paid on time and in full?

The Summa Group investment company, the sponsor for Admiral (owned mostly by Ziyavudin Magomedov), is not paying. Is. Not. Paying.

I've also heard that Sibir is 4 months behind, and Slogan and Minsk are 2-3 months behind. This is acceptable?

I understand a few of the aforementioned teams are not the big money makers for the league, but does this make it okay for players to not earn their income?

Riddle me this: Why do players in the KHL have to pay 250,000 ($4,500 USD) rubles per year to the KHL Players Union when the league doesn't even bother to help the players who play for teams which are behind on paychecks? It's an inside scam job, helping buddies line their pockets a bit more.

KHL Agents charge 6% for nothing. As a KHL agent, the KHL sets a rule you have to be KHL certified to be an agent, as thus, then charge 6% fees. This money comes straight out of the players' pockets, which is just another scam job. Do you know what the NHL fee is? 1-4%. Why is it so high? Why are they taking more money out of players' pockets than a league which generates exponentially more revenue (the NHL)? The saying, "The rich get richer, the poor get poorer" resonate with anyone else? Where is our Robin Hood of the KHL?

Is there any compensation for loss or held wages?

 

[ozo]

KHL is a joke.

Owner of Admiral, Ziyavudin Magomedov, estimated net worth $3Billion, can't even pay his players on time.

A little bird tells me Admiral is 4 months behind payment to their players, and their team altered the players contracts where instead of normal July-April 30th length they extended it illegally to 11 months; so every paycheck received during the season has been less than what is agreed upon per player contract. Player X for Admiral (who shall not be named) hasn't been paid since January 15th. Is this okay? It continues to happen. How many other players on Admiral/across the league are not being paid on time and in full?

The Summa Group investment company, the sponsor for Admiral (owned mostly by Ziyavudin Magomedov), is not paying. Is. Not. Paying.

I've also heard that Sibir is 4 months behind, and Slogan and Minsk are 2-3 months behind. This is acceptable?

I understand a few of the aforementioned teams are not the big money makers for the league, but does this make it okay for players to not earn their income?

Riddle me this: Why do players in the KHL have to pay 250,000 ($4,500 USD) rubles per year to the KHL Players Union when the league doesn't even bother to help the players who play for teams which are behind on paychecks? It's an inside scam job, helping buddies line their pockets a bit more.

KHL Agents charge 6% for nothing. As a KHL agent, the KHL sets a rule you have to be KHL certified to be an agent, as thus, then charge 6% fees. This money comes straight out of the players' pockets, which is just another scam job. Do you know what the NHL fee is? 1-4%. Why is it so high? Why are they taking more money out of players' pockets than a league which generates exponentially more revenue (the NHL)? The saying, "The rich get richer, the poor get poorer" resonate with anyone else? Where is our Robin Hood of the KHL?

Is there any compensation for loss or held wages?

This all true, but why the hell then Blum keeps resigning with Admiral? Just pack your bags and leave after first season when the troubles were already evident.

 

[Alessandro Seren Rosso]

This all true, but why the hell then Blum keeps resigning with Admiral? Just pack your bags and leave after first season when the troubles were already evident.

Yes probably we'll never know all the truth...
If it was REALLY like that, these teams wouldn't sign a single player... let alone foreigners with past NHL experience

 

[ozo]

Yes probably we'll never know all the truth...
If it was REALLY like that, these teams wouldn't sign a single player... let alone foreigners with past NHL experience

My guess is that even half the salary in KHL easily trumps whatever they can get in full season anywhere else outside the NHL.

 

[Jussi]

My guess is that even half the salary in KHL easily trumps whatever they can get in full season anywhere else outside the NHL.

Plus there's been comments by players (even Finnish) over the years who commented anonymously that some bonuses, if not even salaries, are paid in cash in "bags" under the table.

 

[ybnvs]

This all true, but why the hell then Blum keeps resigning with Admiral? Just pack your bags and leave after first season when the troubles were already evident.

I'm not sure. I can't speak for him in that regard. Money and opportunity? In his first year in the KHL he was named an All Star and was one of the league's best defensemen. He signed a 2 year deal after that first season, for a good dollar amount. This past season, he has been hit with a couple bad injuries (broken jaw, and broken elbow - two separate injuries). Still 1 more year on his contract. Will he move to a better marketed team? Maybe.

Yes probably we'll never know all the truth...
If it was REALLY like that, these teams wouldn't sign a single player... let alone foreigners with past NHL experience

It really is like that. It's okay for you to not believe me, though.

The KHL is run by dirty money. Are you aware of what business primarily funds the KHL? Oil. Are you familiar with foreign affairs, particularly the Russian Oil Sanctions? There's a lot more driving the wheel, here, than meets the eye. I agree.

With Trump and Putin 'seemingly' being 'friendly' or at least in somewhat amicable relations, and discussion and attempted motion in the removal of the sanctions on Russia, there is possibly room to discuss, theorize, presume, assume, plan for, whatever, that the KHL will thrive more under these conditions once Russia is able to profit more readily on fossil fuels. Who knows? Scary times.

Disclaimer: The above paragraph is 100% speculation.

My guess is that even half the salary in KHL easily trumps whatever they can get in full season anywhere else outside the NHL.

For some players, yes. Also, do not forget players have ambitions. Some guys want to be in a top pair role, have PP1 time, PK time, etc, and will look for teams which will land them that opportunity, as that might potentially land them a gig elsewhere in a bigger role or for a bigger paycheck. We also have plenty of history of players who have played for a bargain price and whom later were paid a nice contract after they are past their prime for being underpaid at their peak performance. There are X amount of variables at play here which we cannot even begin to assign value or labels to.

Lets not forget the KHL is a more skilled game than the AHL, which can and quite often does turn into a slugfest or goonfest on a whim, however you wish to put it. Career AHLers are cut from a different rug. Being "closer to home" might not be a viable argument in some cases.

Plus there's been comments by players (even Finnish) over the years who commented anonymously that some bonuses, if not even salaries, are paid in cash in "bags" under the table.

Haha.

They love giving cash. Manilla envelopes full of cash. How professional.
Manilla envelopes with JUST under $10,000 in cash. I've seen them.

WuTang Clan - C.R.E.A.M.

 

[Alessandro Seren Rosso]

Plus there's been comments by players (even Finnish) over the years who commented anonymously that some bonuses, if not even salaries, are paid in cash in "bags" under the table.

"Under-the-table" payments may not be the best thing in the world, we can agree of course, but it's much, much different from "no payment"

 

[Alessandro Seren Rosso]

Plus there's been comments by players (even Finnish) over the years who commented anonymously that some bonuses, if not even salaries, are paid in cash in "bags" under the table.

Btw, your country-mate Kemppainen must be really desperate to have signed AGAIN in the KHL
And Metsola! How could he survive in Khabarovsk till now

 

[Rigafan]

KHL is a joke.

Owner of Admiral, Ziyavudin Magomedov, estimated net worth $3Billion, can't even pay his players on time.

A little bird tells me Admiral is 4 months behind payment to their players, and their team altered the players contracts where instead of normal July-April 30th length they extended it illegally to 11 months; so every paycheck received during the season has been less than what is agreed upon per player contract. Player X for Admiral (who shall not be named) hasn't been paid since January 15th. Is this okay? It continues to happen. How many other players on Admiral/across the league are not being paid on time and in full?

The Summa Group investment company, the sponsor for Admiral (owned mostly by Ziyavudin Magomedov), is not paying. Is. Not. Paying.

I've also heard that Sibir is 4 months behind, and Slogan and Minsk are 2-3 months behind. This is acceptable?

I understand a few of the aforementioned teams are not the big money makers for the league, but does this make it okay for players to not earn their income?

Riddle me this: Why do players in the KHL have to pay 250,000 ($4,500 USD) rubles per year to the KHL Players Union when the league doesn't even bother to help the players who play for teams which are behind on paychecks? It's an inside scam job, helping buddies line their pockets a bit more.

KHL Agents charge 6% for nothing. As a KHL agent, the KHL sets a rule you have to be KHL certified to be an agent, as thus, then charge 6% fees. This money comes straight out of the players' pockets, which is just another scam job. Do you know what the NHL fee is? 1-4%. Why is it so high? Why are they taking more money out of players' pockets than a league which generates exponentially more revenue (the NHL)? The saying, "The rich get richer, the poor get poorer" resonate with anyone else? Where is our Robin Hood of the KHL?

Is there any compensation for loss or held wages?

There is a book written by some Austrian goalie who went to play in the KHL for a few seasons, openly admitted he did it to 'cash in' as the pay was much more than in Europe...

I don't like him but is book is a nice insight to some of these things we don't usually find out about the KHL. He also was usually paid late, very late and sometimes he had to go to a building, guarded by armed guys and was paid with bags of cash!.. Sure it sounds crazy but these guys go chasing the money and seem happy wether its cash or bank transfer!

If they were so bothered they wouldn't sign for another season would they? I believe the KHL has a lot of work to do, sure and plenty of money is probably dirty money but these players keep chasing it!

 

[Alessandro Seren Rosso]

If they were so bothered they wouldn't sign for another season would they?

Doesn't matter, the important thing is to scream that the KHL (Russia) sucks for whatever reason.

 

[Rigafan]

Doesn't matter, the important thing is to scream that the KHL (Russia) sucks for whatever reason.

It seems to be the case

We also usually see comments like the above about the Admiral owner being a billionaire but not paying his players.. sure HE'S a billionaire but ADMIRAL are the ones who the players are contracted to. It'd be the same in the NHL or any league. If Toronto Maple Leafs went bankrupt you wouldn't see their owners paying players out of their pocket, no way.

 

[Ronjames]

There is a book written by some Austrian goalie who went to play in the KHL for a few seasons, openly admitted he did it to 'cash in' as the pay was much more than in Europe...

I don't like him but is book is a nice insight to some of these things we don't usually find out about the KHL. He also was usually paid late, very late and sometimes he had to go to a building, guarded by armed guys and was paid with bags of cash!.. Sure it sounds crazy but these guys go chasing the money and seem happy wether its cash or bank transfer!

If they were so bothered they wouldn't sign for another season would they? I believe the KHL has a lot of work to do, sure and plenty of money is probably dirty money but these players keep chasing it!

Bernd Brukler. I actually really liked that book! Burned through it in a few days